Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1858-02-26

HOUSE.

HOUSE.
Mr.. Quitman, from the Committee on Mill
tary Affairs, reported bill, authorizing the
organization of a regiment of mounted vol.
unteers for the defence of the frontiers of
Texas. Also, authorizing the President to
call out gas occasion may require, four addi-
tional regiments. Mr.. Quitman expressed his
opinion that this bill was more indicative of
public sentiment, than any yet presented.
Action thereupon was postponed ill Wednes-
day.
The Matteson expulsion case was called UP.
Mr.. Harris of Illinois, expressed his firm
belief that the House had power, and that il
was It's duty to pass the resolution, and to do
1t at once. All the points in the case were in
the form of dispositions, with which members
were no doubt familiar.
Mr.. Keitt Of South Carolina, said that on
former occasion he had moved as an act Of JUS
tice, postponement Of the case, having been
informed that Mrs. Matteson was sick, He
had since then learned that the statement was
fabricated. Some accounts say that she was
sick. and Others that she was enjoying better
health than ever. He read statement from
the family physician, to the effect that Mrs.
Matteson had not seen well day for six
months past, and during the last few weeks
had suffered more than ever.
Mr. Seward Of Georgia, said that more
important question could not be presented.
He voted for the expulsion of Mr.. Matteson.
because he thought it just, but would defend
his constitutional rights in the House. The
last Congress had exhausted its constitutional
power on the subject. Where is the law or
clause in the Constitution prohibiting the peo-
pie from electing any man they may choose
Mr.. Stanton of Ohio contended that the
House must keep within the spirit of consti-
tutonal rules and the rules of common law,
viz: that no man shall be punished twice for
the same offence. Mr.. Matteson has already
been tried, convicted, and punished.
Mr.. Taylor of Louisiana believed that Mat
teson was guilty, and that his conduct was
disgraccful as an American citizen, but con-
tended that the Constitution gave Congress
no power to expel a member except for disor-
derby conduct. The House should adopt rules
which should be the ground of expulsion
He anticipated no good results from deciding
this case in absence Of such rules. Mr.. Mat
teson's commitments, doubtless, next Novem-
Der, would seal with condem nation his
conduct. Each constituency should have the
right to decide for itself the character of its
own Representatives.
Mr.. Giddings of Ohio said that the people
of Mr.. Matteson's congressional district had
right to be represented on the floor of this
House. Mr.. Matteson's absence shows con-
cluslvely that he ought not to be here. Ne-
Their the sickness of wife, nor the death of a
father, nor the illness OF friends, should de-
tain member from his post. He reioiced
that the work OF publication had commenced
by the Republican party, aud invoked the
House to establish precedent by an imme-
date decision.
Mr. Hughes Of Indiana was opposed to
hasty action, and therefore moved a reprieve
to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr.. Smith of Virginia contended that it
was the right and duty of the House to expel
member for improper conduct. lie thought
Its action should be controlled by good and
sufficient reason. 1t was due to Mr.. Matte
sons constituents that the House should act
in order to give them an opportunity to pass
themselves upon his conduct. He favored
the reference to a select or other committee.
MIR. Nichols would refer the matter to the
Committee on the Judiciary. He doubted
whether the House had the power to expel
Mr.. Matteson again. He believed Mr. Matte
sons trial was fair one, and punishment fol-
lowed it, and yet Mr.. Smith would punish
him again for the same offence He protest.
ed, in the name Of justice, against such pro
ceedmgs. He wanted the power of the House
united by Legislation as to the particular man
ner oil dealing with such question of priyi.
lege.
Mr.. JonFs of Tennessee, said that he would
expel Mr.. Matteson, not only as punish
ment, but for the paci6cation of the House.
lie would favor his expulsion as long as he
(Jones) should be member Of the House. II
Mr.. Matteson's constituents should re-elect
him, he considered him morally disqualified
for member Of the American Congress.
Mr.. Curtis of Iowa, considered Mr.. Matte
son unworthy Of association with members.
and their self respect required his expulsion
Mr.. Harris Of Illinois, defended the resolu-
ton. He said that gross outrage had been
committed on the House, and the expulsion
Of Mr.. Matteson had removed loathsome ex-
crescence. They were not furnishing him
there for tho same offence, but only vindicai-
ing the character Of tho House. lie would
not DO compelled to BIT with feons aud seoun.