New-York daily tribune., 1858-03-05
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.


The SPEAKER announced the first bueiness 10 b
Mr. Uosrds resolution asking for Select Committss
to examine into the charges that the action of nom.
bers had been influenced by the bestows or withhold
ing of Executive patronage, the question pending
being, Shall the resolution be entertained a. ques
"tion Of privileged"
Mr.. HOARD tN. Y.) proposed an amendment,
charging his own authority and common report the
the House on the LecomptOn Constitution by Execa-
Mr. HUMPHREY MARSHALL tKy) suggested
the postponement of the subject for one month.
Mr.. BURNETT (Ky.j objected TO the postpone
mept He said it was due to Mr.. Barns, the member
implicated, that he should have q bearing now. The
charge was baseless and contemplate, AID yas in
tended to injure the Democratic par as well Mr..
BluDs.
MIR. HOARD (N. " said he had twics disclsmsd
sby personal hostility toward Mr.. Burns.
Mr.. BURNS tOhio) sent up h. the Speaker a writ
ten statement, charging that Mr.. Hoard intended 70
saying that he should hereafter treat Mr. Hoard and
his slang with the contempt they merit in the estms
ton Of al honorable men. He further denied having
had any coluson With the President, his Cabinst.
TO his yOte asserting that nothing Of the kind has
occurred, directly or indirectly.
Mr.. HOARD again discleimed any party sprt or
intention to wound the feelings of any man. When
he introduced the proposition, he did not suppose tnefs
would be any opposition TO it. He conteLded thst u
Was legitimate subjec. of inqury-that common
fame vas a sufficient ground for an inyestigauon'
II ia CON mon rumor that the Executive B Low en-
deavorDg to control the action OF the House, a. %
has heretofore endeavored to do. y was cornnca
Tumor that led to an inve-tigaton1n Mr.. Naiootts
case. In moving for this inquiry he was not in paf'
suit CT victim, but the ofencer.
Mr. HOARD said that he was informed that MI
Morris of Illinois had twice eDdeayored 10 gs the
1oor Ia make some effrmeti0n OF the truth OF tho
ent which Mr.. Burns had denied relative 70 his
vote ON the reference .f the Iecomptos Message to
tho Conmttee on TeIritoree. Mr. Smith Of Illinois
s,d Mr. Morris Of Illinois had both Informed him
Heard that Mr.. Burns was previously relied On %
Anti-Lecompton. a.,
Dir. BLAIR MOI repeated cony ersation with uf.
Morris In corroboraticn OF Dir. Hoards statement.
Mr.. NICHOLS (Ohio) said that when common tsme
was preser ted as the Tound Of investigation il wss
beneath the dignity Of tie House TO entertain tho SUBJ
ject. The allegation against hi, colleague was fssee
He never expected, is charged the sppoutmeas !"
the Msrshalship Of Ohio Merssers all kuew witeoo'
investigation that power ard patronage sers
brought to bear il favor Of tie passage Of Admln~y
tcu measures. This had been the practice Of III Al
ninishations. .
Mr.. GlDDINGS (Ohio) asked Mr.. Nichols 20 mst'
an exception in favor Oi tho administraton ol Joan
Quincy Adsms, who once declaied on Us nVV,.
that white President Ne never but "a ofe occaesa
tsked ar appointment, and that vas OF Deps.
Po-tuster IN whose favor be wrose note TO JoIa'
Bic tLeea, VINO declared that the applicant rss e'A''
sad there The II after ended. ~.
l H.. NICHOLS upasd GA taeEo Ss'' Aso's''