Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1865-1869, 1866-01-22

cases of Messrs. Tyler and Coleman knew posi-
lively who had fired the first shot The proof
before the House now was strong that Mr. Coleman
had fired the first shot. Mr. Pollards pistol had on
ly been fired three times and five or six shots had
been fired. lie believed that Mr.. Coleman fired the
first shot and that had caused the encounter. The
House had not punished Mr.. Coleman and they could
not justly punish Mr. Pollard severely.
Mr.. GIBBONEY hoped that the House would vote
down Mr.. Woodsons substitute, and argued to that
end.
Mr.. WORD said that in consequence of Mr.. GRAT-
TANS remarks he felt it necessary to define his
position. On the morning of the occurrence lie had
nteriered, and was the chief cause OF stopping the
affair. Thought that the House were not acting de-
bcrately in not discharging Mr.. Pollard when they
had discharged Mr.. Coleman.
Mr. ENGLISH thought that because Mr.. Coleman
was disc harged was not sufficient cause for the
discharge of Mr.. Pollard. If the House had found
out that Mr.. Coleman ought to have been punished
they were responsible for his discharge. Called the
previous question. No second.
Nr JOYNES felt it necessary 10 define his position
from the remarks of Mr.. Grattan. lie had only
known that the occurrence was to take place
Il moment before the firing commenced. He had
expressed himself in very strong terms of reprehen
sion of the affair. He agreed with Mr. Grattan, that
the House had laid down Il rule in Mr. COleman's
case from which they could not with justice deviatc
in the case of Mr.. Pollard. He had moved that Mr.
POllards affidavit be placed on the Journal. From
llal INC
he wOuld vote for the discharge. No jury would de-
eide from the evidence that Mr. Pollard had fired the
first shot. Mr.. Coleman might have taken alarm at
the accidental shot of Mr.. Pollard, hut he had no
reason TO believe that the attack had been made on
him. If Mr.. Coleman had been discharged who
had nruded himself in the matter without real pro-
vocation he did not think that the House could in
Justice punish Mr. Pollard, who really was not the
aggIessOr.
Mr.. BAYLOR cited the law that where a crime laid
between two persons, and no positive proof could he
brought against either, both should he acquitted
This might apply 10 the case in question; but if
they went back tO the first OF the offence, he
did not think they ought to discharge Mr. Pollard.
The fact of Mr.. Pollard's coming to the hall with an
intention to seek Mr. Tyler with the purpose of as
SAINT, had given rise to the whole affair.
Mr.. LEE defined his position. When he had
heard that the affair was TO take place, he had taken
steps TO prevent it. But he was member of the
House, and not police officer TO prevent street
quarrels
Mr.. GRATTAN did not think that he would get in.
to such hornets nest when he made his remarks
He thought he had spoken from law, when he said
that members who knew that the ARRAY was TO take
place near the House, and took no steps to prevent
it, were guilty Of breach Of privileges.
MR.. WoODSoN called the previous question:
Agreed to-
Mr.. WOODSON's substitute was defeated.
Mr.. LEES proposition was agreed to.
The SPEAKER then called Mr.. Pollard before the
stand and said that the House had dcvolved upon
him the duty of reprimandng him. Asno indication
of the terms of disapwoval had been expressed to
him, he felt at loss rs TO what he should say. He
could risk nothing in saying that there was feeling
of strong disapprohatiOn of his conduct and of the
manner IN which the editors of Richmond are, and
have been, writing. The discussions that 90 on are
conducted with personality which was very imprO
per. For this, as well rs the breach of privilege
which had been committed he thought proper to in
dictate the strong d'sapprOval of the House. Mr.
Pollard was then discharged
On motion of Mr.. DIcKENSoN, the House al.
Ouned e.