The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-04-04

convention and the formation vi their constitution What
has II to do now with the action Of this House deter
mining the question whether that constitution shall be
accepted or rcjccedi frankly confess, sir, that
conceive of earthly oonnexion that IL could have with
the constitution nor Of any influence that il could exert
on tic nlE of inenbes this floor, Of any inlu
encc that 1t ought ~ exert ally question which
are now called TO act The resolution containing this Ia
strdction being Withdrawn, and resolution adopted
which did not contain it, satisfied my mind that the
House did not intend that should make such in
quiry
That was one OF tho resolutions proposed and that
resolution voted down fof the have stated
and think properly voted down, by my vote Ia part
Well let us look little further into the matter Here
~ another proposition made ia this committee
Rersd That chairman requested nunfe fr and pro
cure The siaJmcnt u John Calhoun the e-s, Of
~ certain counties Of the Territory Of Kansas where
art cpnvahi aud 10 which uaor GEhS report
February IL, 1855"
That resolution offered by the gentleman from Yer
mont Mr. MORRILL,, and was adopted by the commit
tee At subsequent meeting when the statement of
Mr. Calhoun was laid before the committee what the
next thing done Why, the very next thing done
that the gentleman from New York who has alluded to
this matter MIR BENNETT submitted this resolution
Resolved That the John Calhoun fc BY
a s' % considered evidence mo ''''' ''r'"
If It not evidence Of the facts therein stated why
was II called for For what purpose was 1t waited by
the committee Why the resolution adopted which
declared its Importance, and which the means of
bringing 1t to the consideration Of that committee Was
II not intended to be used for purpose But tho
statement is no sooner brought in than the gentleman
from New York proposes to declare that that statement of
John Calhoun called for by the committee ii not to be
regarded as evidence Of any fact which may be stated
in it,
Can you understand what light that statement would
throw upon the matter then before the committee Still
they got the benefit OF il they had asked for IL and
is not novelty, in the action of committees adopt
resolution calling for particular paper, and when the
paper called for is brought III answer 10 the demand
then for the committee to adopt resolution which, in
my view, discrcdits that paper and then presents 1t
the House part and parcel Of the proceedings of the
committee Yet all this done and that those
who called for it have dscrcdited the testimony by
oution soemnly adopted in that body they into
the House and intimate that the majority of the commit
toe have been athcss to their trust and suppressed
investigation which would have established frauds that
have been charged but not sufficiently proved to be
gardcd as settled
Now, let me ask, in this conncxon If the statement
then called for not to be regarded evidence why
it not to be regarded Can il have been ON any
other ground than the fact that the gentlemen who called
for it, and who opposed TO Mr. Calhoun, regarded him
interested partisan in this matter thought that his
feelings controlled by the position which he had
pied in that Territory in the pst and by the position which
he expected to occupy in the future that therefore,
his declarations not entitled to weight But, sir
strange than oil this after this resolution was
adopted one OF the gentlemen proposed that Mr.. Cal
houn should be brought before the committee for cxami
nation as witness put this question to them then :
"You disregard his statement which you called for ;
would you believe word he would swear to r. Two
gentlemen answered promptly and distinctly that they
would not and the others sat silent and thus ac,Iuesccd
! in these declarations.
Mr.. WINSLOW. If my colleague will allow me. While
he was upon that point will suggest to him that he
will recOec that when that resolution under discus
sion 1t distinctly stated by Of colleagues
they did not consider when voting for the resolution,
that they dscrcditcd Couns statement at ALL but only
meant to say that the evidence not conclusive and
Ist,o dn,lvp f,rxv haiti ~,
Mr.. LEICHER. am very glad TO be corrected by my
friend from North Carolina in this particular II they
would not believe him. why did they want to examine
him?
Mr. LOvEJOY. To make him show that he did not
tell the truth.
Mr.. LEFCIIER. To make him show that he did not
tell tue truth Here is man who, in the estimation OF
the individuals calling him. is Of notorious character
and so little to BIC relied upon that those calling him
in advance that they would not believe him oath and
yet the gentleman from Illinois Mr. LovEJoYl says that
perhaps they wished TO examine him TO show that
he did not tell the truth who in their estimation
would swear falsely Is not that most remarkable posi-
/ tionf
Well, let say further is It not palpable to any
that in the present state Of feeling in the House. with
the prdiccs aroused if the committee had gone into
investigation and spread the testimony Of witnesses on
the record you would have had each party dscrcdting
and dsbelcvng the testimony Of the other? Ii it not
here now! Do not each side discrcditng the
statements made by the other throughout this entire
debate!
Then it seems to me that there nothing else
to be done than what have done. If we were
to 60 into such an investigation as was proposed in
the resolutions presented TO the committee, should
have been engaged in it for perhaps six twelve months
to We should have had either to go to Kansas
to send there and bring here such witnesses either
these parties desired And where the necessity for
it.? Did you not send out committee there the
before last, with authority to this entire
Territory and gahcrup whatever they could get with refer
to frauds murders and Atrocities Of all sorts And
lis not the report that committee in volume of