Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-03-21
0blo Stateslllarl,
A "I4oyaI" Committee Of Congress
Whitewashing ~ "LOyaI" Mem
her. Charged with Crime.

her Charged with Crime.
The Washington correspondent Of The
Cincinnati Enquirer, in writing Of the closing
scenes and incidents of the late Congress,
says: it
1t will be recollected that charges of cor
ruption and malfeasance in Office were pre-
| ferred against Lucian Anderson, member of
| Congress from the First District of Ken
| lucky, and that the House, some weeks ago,
appointed committee to investigate these
charges. One of this committee was Hon.
Green Clay Smith.
On Friday night last, near. midnight, the
Committee, through Mr.. Smith, made re-
port, in which they acquit Mr.. Anderson of
| the charges preferred against him, and say
that there was no ground whatever for the
accusation. Mr.. Smith, in order to cut off
| discussion, called the "previous question"
| Mr.. Mallory, of Kentucky, asked that the
report and testimony be read The House
refused. Mr.. Mallory inquired of Mr.. Smith
whether the committee had had before
them either the oral testimony or deposi-
tion of Col. j. NJ. Brown. Mr.. Smith,
with evident excitement and feeling, re-
| fused to answer. Hereupon Mr.. Mallory
charged that the committee had refused to
receive the testimony of Col. Brown, and
|
officer be read to the House. Objection was
made by Mr.. Smith, and simultaneous cries
came from twenty voices on the Republican
side: object object-let us have vote on
the adoption of the report" &c. Some of
the more justand fair minded of the Repub-
licans demanded the reading of Col. Browns
statement, but they were overruled, and
the Speaker called for the vote. Mr.. NAL
lory demanded q division, and then tellers.
The Speaker appointed as tellers Messrs.
Mallory and Smith. Mr.. Mallory declined
to act as teller. To which Mr.. Smith-evi-
dently OH account of the discourteous con-
duct of his colleague-with excitement re-
piled: "Since my colleague declines, too
decline to act as teller" Excitement and
confusion prevailed, in the midst of which
new tellers were appointed, and by, almost,
strict party vote, the report of the COM
mittee was agreed to, anu Col. BroWns
statement was not read.
1t is proper to say here that the affidavit
of Hon. Lucian Anderson, upon which de-
pendence was had to show his corruption,
was in the possession of the Provost Mar
shal General in Washington, during the
session of the committee. The committee
Tor the chairman-Mr. Smith) was request
ed to call for the affidavit, and informed
that, if not called for, it would be sent to
the Court now acting Oh charges against
Gen. Paine at Cairo. ...i
The committee failed to call for itin time,
and it was sent to that Court. Col. Brown,
learning that the committee had not pro-
cured the affidavit of Lucian Anderson, came
to Washington and demanded to be exam
| ined by the committee. He was refused, as
| before mentioned. This is his statement:
',John Mason Brown, of Frankfort, Ken
| lucky, being first duly sworn, deposes
as follows: | have been, until recently,
an officer in the United States army
Il was Colonel of the 45th Kentucky
mounted infantry, and commanded the I'd
brigade, 9th division, 23d army corps. /
was mustered out of service, my term of
enlistment having expired, on the 9th of
December, 1864. ..--
"In September, 1864, Brigadier General
Speed S. Fry and myself were appointed by
Brevet Major General S. q. Burbrldge, a
commission to investigate and report upon
alleged abuses committed by Brigadier Gen.
eral Il. A. Paine and others in Southwestern
Kentucky, and more especially in and about
Paducah, Ky. In the performance OF the
duty so imposed, General Fry and myself
examined great number of witnesses-L
as Junior officer, acted as recorder. Among
the witnesses so examined by us was Hon.
Lucian Anderson, member of Congress
from the First District of Kentucky.
sMr. Anderson testified that he undertook
to procure for Messrs. Ashbrook, Ryan &
Co., wholesale grocers, removal of restric-
tions levied on their trade by Gen. Paine.
He considered himself, so he stated, as their
attorney, and agreed toprosecute their case
to Washington, if unsuccessful in Paducah.
"Mr. Anderson testified that he procured
permission for Messrs. Ashbrook, Ryan &
~ 10 kl,n,,, l,,cs npH iNaH
as his fee, from VIM. L. Norton, one of the
firm, check for fifteen hundred dollars,
($l500) the proceeds of which check were
equally divided by himself between him
(Anderson) and Major Henry Bartling, Sth
U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery, Provost
Marshal at Paducah, Ky.
"AndeTson also testified that on his return
from Washington City, lin August, 1864, L
believe,) Major Henry Bartling, Sth u. S.
Coored Heavy Artillery, Provost Marshal
at Paducah, Kentucky, exhibited four hun
dred dollars ($400), which he had received
from the firm of Prince & Dodds, Paducah,
Kentucky, as fee for permission to carry
on their business; and that this sum was
divided equally between them (Anderson
and Bartling) by Bartling. Mr.. Anderson
deposed that he had not been retained
as attorney by Prince & Dodds.
"The testimony of Anderson was dictated
by him to me as Recorder of the Commits
sion. He then read it over and signed it,
and l swore him to its truth. Mr.. Ander-
son said that he testified cheerfully, and no
compulsion was used OR threatened"
Here, then, is proof that Mr.. Anderson re-
ceived fee for representing claim against
the Government, contrary to the act of
Congress, which makes such conduct pun
ishable. yfnac. tg-4 ...a.