The Washington union., 1858-02-13
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Speaker he had arrested John W. wolcott and was now
ready to produce him ut the bar of the House.
Mr. STANTON, of Ohio, offered the following resolu
ton which adopted under the operation of the pre-
yiois question GO 80
Resolved wocott arraacd the bar Of Tho
House. and tina, tho Speaker PROFOUND TO him the following nero
lst question you refusing the
question propouned 10 by the select committee Of this iu7e be
received of money from lawrence stone CO.. snno time
ID question Are you ready proper
questions ,ha, may be yrcoa"ded to you by the e"mmes
writing and under oath
Mr. Wolcott having appeared within the bar of the
House in custody of the Sergeant at Arms the Speaker
propounded to him the above questions
The witness in reply, assured the Speaker and the
House that he intended contempt in the answer which
he had given to the questions propounded by the com
mittec, and asked that further time until Monday be
given him to purge himself of the contempt of which he
stood charged under the advice of counsel.
Mr. STANTON then moved that the request of the wit
ness be granted and that in the time, he be
manded to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. JOHN COCHRANE, of New York, said they must
be remarkable circumstances to authorize any gentleman
to IN his place and intcrpose objection but under
we'll considered reflections upon the circumstances which
surrounded the case he could not remain quiet without
entering his protest The witness asked for further time
to answer because his senior counsel engaged In pro
essiona pursuits before the supreme tribunal of the Uni
ted States If he rccollectcd arght the witness stated
yesterday upon consultation and receiving advice from
two gentlemen learned in the profession of the law that
the question not pertinent to the inquiry, within
the scope Of the authority of the House If, then the
gentleman had taken that position he asked what reason
there for granting any further delay for consultation
with counsel
Mr.. CLEMENS, of Virginia. concurred in the remarks
of the gentleman from New York When the question
put to the witness whether he had received the
$50 00O he qualified his by stating that he had
not received it for such purpose that stated by the
committee That he did receive the money he confirmed
10y his answer, because he acknowledged that e had not
received it for the purposes alleged by the committee,
either directly or indirectly. Why should he have the
benefit of counsel in order to chatter about the phrase
ology of his answer 7 II he stood before the House
purged from all that might influence the legislation of
the House, why could he not say plainly distinctly
and honestly Why have time to deliberate upon a
matter in which the truth alone is involved The coun
try and the committee had right to know how he had
disposed of that moneyhow he had accounted for it to
Lawrence, Stone, & Co. ~
Mr. CLARK B. COCHRANE, of New York Thought
that there nothing unreasonable in the request Of
the witness for delay and hoped that il would be
granted ~
Mr. DAWES, of Massachusetts, also argued in favor of
granting the time asked for, saying that it i'm
lortant question, and he wanted time to consider it.
Mr. STANTON said if he had known that tho motion
would have led TO any discussion, he would have moved
the previous question when he made it, The claim
reasonable the witness upa constitutional right to
test the authority of the House. and he reason
why it should not be granted He therefore moved the
previous question.
The previous question was sustained and the motion
agreed to.
MARYLAND CONTESTED ELECTION.
Mr. BOYCE of South Carolina from the Committee of
Elections presented majority report IN the of MIR
Brooks contestin the scat of HENRY WINTER DAVIS the
sitting member from the fourth congressional district of
Maryland, accompanied by the following resolution:
Rorel That roxpcdicn grant prayer memorial
vt appoint committee TO take testimony
Mr. PHILLIPS Of Pennsylvania from the same com
mtec submitted minority report in the case ac
companied 10y the following resolution
Resolved power 10 send for
persons and papers and and evidence
the election Hon DAVIS
district Of Maryland
The reports ordered TO he printed and their fur
ther consideration postponed until Monday next
Mr.. FLORENCE, of Pennsylvania, then moved that
when the House adjourn to-day it adjourn to meet on
Monday next.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee, called for the yeas and nays
The yeas and nays were ordcrcd and being taken
sulted-yeas I0S, nays 81.
SO the motion was agreed to-
A QUESTION PRIVILEGE.
egc Various had been uoat of the interference
Of the government with the legislation of the House
These mos had taken shape in the correspondence
Of newspapers to which he desired to call the attention
Of the House II such interference had taken place il
right aud proper that the House should vindcatc its
dignity
Mr. FLORENCE of Pennsylvania objected TO the gen
tlcmans proceeding unless he stated his question OF priv
ilege.
Mr. FENTON stated that he wns just n, trnt
and sent up the following resolution
Resolved a appointed by the Speaker 10
Inquire and investigate whether attempts
made being made by persons
department this governments persons acting under
influence the action this House
members upon any questions or measures which the House
which has under consideration directly indirectly
any improper promise offer ntimaiion employ
withheld consideration
given withheld he withheld with power send Tor per
and papers, and with leave TO report by bill otherwise
Mr. WARREN, of Arkansas declared the resolution TO
be nothing less than an insult to the House
Mr.. STEPHENS, Of Georgia. did not understand the
resolution TO be received
Mr. WARREN understood tho gentleman from New
York as proposing that resolution matter of prvi
lere but il did not go far enough to make il such II
tho gentleman would put his finger upon the party 10
whom the proposition made, then IL would be n prop
ostion for which he would be willing to vote but he
was willing to sit in his seat and the whole House
nsulted
Mr. STEPHENS said there was no statement of fact in
regard 10 any officer of the House. There must ALWAYS
be statement of fact to constitute question of privi
cgc. without such statement 1t was simply resolution
Of inquiry.
Mr. KUNKEI, of Pennsy ylvania replied that the gen
ileman from New York was just about TO state the
facts.
Mr. STEPHENS If the gentleman has any statement
10 make, let him reduce ii to writing.
The SPEAKER The Chair will hear the gentleman
from New York proceed with his statement.
Mr.. HOUSTON, of Alabama, remarked that IL the
gentleman would state upon his responsibility that inn