Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1858-02-20
CONGRESS-.

FRIDAY, Feb. 10.
SENATE.
The Senate was engaged on the private
calendar some time.
The Army bill was taken up
Mr.. 1verson of Georgia said that Mr.. Da-
Wis wished to reply to others before the vote
was taken. he moved a postponemens which
Tuesday.
Mr.. Hoard of New York, as a question of
privilege sent up to the Speakers desk let
ter from MI. Burns, member of the House
from Ohio, addressed to him, and to the fol-
lowing effect:
You took occasion on Friday to read
from the New York Tribune false and foul
SANDER against me. from the tenor of which
you know that the charge set forth, if true.
would disqualify me from holding a seat in
this House. You repeated the SANDER with
out provocation pronounce the paragraph
a falsehood Of the foulest kind. If YOU sup
posed me guilty of the crime, 1 ask you to
examine into its truth or falsehood. If l am
innocent you shall set me right"
Mr.. Hoard desired to respond to the letter,
but objections were made. He insisted on
his right to be heard Mr.. Burns letter was
threatening and calculated to ntimdate. He
did not propose to discuss the question of We
racity with any member of the House.
Mr.. Hatch Of New York rose to a personal
explanation. He said that during his alb
sence yesterday, Mr.. Zollicoffer of Tennessee
made personal allusion to him. He had a
right as a member of the House to discuss
any matter of public interest. No power on
earth could deter him from a faithful and
fearless discharge of that duty. The other
day he spoke of a certain party and their
oaths, which, of course could only be known
to members of that party. He did not pro-
pose to discuss the question of vsracitv with
any member of the House. AS to the exist
eDce OF these oaths, or as to their reasonable
ness and unconstitutionality, he sought to
bring before the House a creditable authority
for their existence, viz journal in New
YORK. He did not vouch for the genuneness
of these oaths. The gentleman branded this
allegation as false. If Mr. Zolicoffer were
right, then he was at issue with authority.
When he made personal issue with anv
gentleman in or outside of the House, he
was responsible. But he could not be
diverted from meeting a question involving
the constitutional rights of his fellow citizens,
by gentleman's giving it personal or q To-
cal application. Such oaths may not exist in
tennessee. He dill not allege that Mr.. Zoli-
coi1er, or any other gentleman, had taken such
obligations. He had merely expressed the
belief that men taking such oaths acted in d.
rect violation of the Constitution.
Mr.. Zollicoffer said that possibly he misap
pretended the spirit actuating Mr.. Hatch.
The obligations which the latter had read as
those of the American party, were not either
In letter or spirit, those administered in Ten
nessee' Being member of that party, he
thought it his duty TO throw off the impu.a-
ton that the obligations were reasonable.
Mr.. Gilmer of North Carolina, interfering.
said that be would have preferred that Mr..
Zollicoffer had not replied, as Mr.. Hatch &C.
knowledged that he was elected by foreign
votes. Confusion, and cries of "Order or
der"1
Mr.. zellicoffer said he did not wish to make
personal issue. II he had misapprehended
Mr.. Hatch, he had nothing more to say.
Mr.. Hoard of New York, made a personal
explanation.
Mr.. Burnett of Kentucky, objected to any
gentleman's bringing a personal difficulty in
to the House, under the guise of a privileged
question.
Pending the question, the Houpe adjourned
till Tuesday,