New-York tribune., 1868-05-16

Whereas, letter has been published purportng to be
addressed by members OF this House To "a senator from
the State Of Missouri with view of Influencing his vote
upon the articles Of Impeachment preferred by the House
against the President Of the United States. and
pending the Senate Of the United States sitting
Court of Impeachment which letter. as published, is as
follows:
TIE Hon. JoHS B HENDERSON, .. s Seaob
SIR: On consultation Of the Republican members Of the House Of
Representatives from Missouri in view Of position the mpeach
Which yoa cannot vote smsyey This request Is made because we
ssys the @ Of q The Gy people Of 5 the M ns & sSf, demands The The
GEoRGK W. ANDERSON, WILLIAM A. PILE
SEAsMS \ HETCGI6 loan J9fRP JoaH vi ERsJGaS MGaGSse
JOSEPH J. GRAyBLY.
And phereas, such a communication IL addressed TO
Senator sitting in judgment upon President Of the
United States is gross breach OF the privileges OF the
Senate, calculated TO degrade the House OF Representa-
tives and to obsIuct the course of public lnsee Be ~
therefore, reSOred that select Committee OF SeVtn De
appointed TO inquire the above communication mas De
received addressed by the members Of the House 70 @
Hon John r. Henderson, ana II u mas, % w1at u 70 @ @ " tba
character of the ofense, and what penalty II any 'ne
House ought, in vindcaon OF ts own als 70 nr yeSt ~ M
well TO what provisions OF law are necessary ~
a recurrence of the wrongs, Win power 90 senu
for persons and papers, and TO report o Dill Vi o'er
Mr. GARFIELD Repp ohIo)-I object to the reception
T6e fsPEXKER-The Chair about to decide the ques
ton as 10 whether the resolution is or not question
of privilege In the opinion Of the Chair II is not ques
non Of Dvlege The wording of the resolution here eX
nressly shows that not The charge Is that the mat
Ter alleged is infringement OF the privilege OF the sen
ste n has not vet occurred in the recollection OF the
Chair that the House Of Representatives has been recOg
its privileges II the privilege OF te eeIatG VI @
that body is competent to protect It's own prlyeSe HoI
would the House consent that the senate OF the united
states should assume 10 Ilottct uo The
House. The Chair therefore, does not thlnk laI tne
resolution in its language presents question Oh P'F
Mr. ELDRIDGE Dem. wIs)-Is there not another
allegation in the resolution which does present question
Tbe sPEAKER-If the gentleman from Wisconsin ap-
peals from the decision of the Chair the Chair VIII put
'N Mr. TTDRiDGF-I do not appeal but wish to call
tbo Oft he
other clause in the resolution which does present 9e
on of privilege and that the resolution can be modified
by striking that part OF it referring 10 the privileges
The sPEAKER-The Chair rules that this is qucs
Mr. GRRFiELD-I demand the regular order OF busi-
ness. That is the only way 10 stop n.
Mr. WOODWARD consent TO the modification OF the
resolution by striking out that part in reference TO the
privilege of the Senate 1t not at all essential # that
be the only reason why the resolution is not question OF
privilege fNni Strike out that part Of it.
siT GARFIELP-I- Id asaaql9l. y! all. t4e regular order OF
Mr. LOAN Rep., MoJ-f desire to say that all the
communication had by the members OF this House from
the State Of Missouri with the Senators from that state
Lad at his special instance and request ana that
that paper was signed at his instance and request.
Mr. ELDRIDGE-SO much the wOrse-ten times the
The sPEAKER-The question is not debatable. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania has modified hls resolution
by striking that part referring 70 the infringement OF
the privileges of the senate The Chair OF the opinion
still that II is question OF privilege The nearest
point TO it that he can see is found ON page 1855 OF the
Digcst-that of alleged corrupt combination IL does not
appear the resolution that any corrupt combination
charged upon members Of the House as to intercourse
between them and their colleagues III the semitic Inc
Chair cannot that in order to make 1t question
Mr., W0ODwARD-Then I ask the unanimous consent
of the House 20 offer the resolution.
Mr. UPSON rep Niich), ana other members, objected
UNUSUAL PROCEEDING N TIE HOUSE.
The House then proceeded, as the regular order OF
business the consideration Of the bill for the relief OF
VIM McGarrahan. After some minutes the proceedings
were jnterTlIpted bv Mr. WOODN ARD who was under
stood ask what the gentleman from Missouri tMr Plel
meant by making gestcuations and gTmaees IN an Of
feDgiVe
The sPEAKER intimated to Mr. Woodward that his
remark parliamentary. II the gentleman had
charge to make against member OF the House he would
have make it in the usual form The Chair did not
see what the gentleman complains OF.
Mr. PILE Rep., MOI who had walked TO another part
of the hail. intended no insult or grimace or anything
OF the kind TO the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
MIR WOODWARD-The gentleman stood here making
cabastic signs lLaughteT AS he belongs 10 party
claims to have all the moral sense OF decency IN the
country, inquire what he means by standing on tins
floor in presence Of the Speaker and making these grim
The sPEAKER-If the gentleman presents question
of privilege. the Chair will rule on it.
The Globe part ofthe transactions OF this Housei
syvania claiming TO have been Improperly treated
by the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from
PENNSYLVANIA used language the Chair thought that
was out OF order applied TO fellow member. IL he
has OF complaint he should submit the matter Tor
the action OF the House.
ENORMOUS CALIFORNIA LAND CLAIM.
No further notice taken OF the incident and the
resumed the consideration OF the bill for the ee
of VIM McGarrahan The bill confirms the title Oi Nc
Garrahan tract Of 1900 acres OF land In California
was explained and advocated by MI. WILSON tltep.
the committee there was but one dissenting voice
that OF MI Boutwell,.
Mr. BOUTWELL, Oiep Mass) stated the grounds
which he opposed the bill in the Committee, and ON
which he Thought should be defeated In the House.
MT WAsHBURNE CRep., III inquired whether tho
title of the property the United States 10 day.
Mr.. WILSON replied that II was.
Br. WASHBURNE then inquired what is the justice In
giving this property worth two three millions Of dol
lars to McGarrahan any other man, and why the law
allowing mineral lands TO be occupied and taken out OF
the Of the Government should not be repaedf
Mr. WILSON would answer these questions IN his argu-
Mr.. VAN wYCK Rep., N " opposed the BILL arguing
that the claim based fraud and forgery anu prOpped
MT. JOHNSON Dem., Cali expressed his belief that
Mr. McGarrahans claim Is just and said that he would
having the responsibility imposed upon him .,,.
tanning the claim Of Mr. McGarrahan and arguing against
the CLAIM the New Idra Mining Company adding that
il the bill not passed the quicksilver monopoly IN
California would control the produce and price OF quick
silver. ,,....
had found that the tleto the property IN the Govern
ment of the United States.
Mr.. WILSON admitted thatit Is.
Mr. HIGBY then asked why, IL the property so yalu-
able the Government should not keep the control OF IT,
MIR WILSON explained that under the Mining Act OF
1866 the several stockholders III the new ldra MINING
Company filed their claims covering 1000 feet OF the lode
and embracing 1900 acres oi and ds %ouc cr % @
whereas under the bill the Government would realze
5000 M e med thai the ee m hnd n no baeS
there its merits. BY this mode OF proceeding the
United States Government would observe tS uuty uhue
the treaty without attempting TO reverse the Judgment OF
the Supreme Court.
Mr. WARD Rep. N " suggested that, therefore, this
is a mode Of reviewing the decision Of the Supreme
Court.
Mr WILSON disclained that expressly
Mr.. HIGBY opposed the bill fraudulent, and declared
that Mexican claims had done incalculable injury TO the
people OF California.
Mr.. MARSHALL (Dem ILL., advocated the claim OF
Mr. McGarrahan that Of honest and meritori0us
citizen warning against combination of capitalists.
He said that the legal title had been decided against him
on technealities.
Mr.. BOUTWELL,, cOnceiy1ng that remark by Mr.
Marshall conveyed an nsnuation against members who
opposed the bill challenged IT, and remarked that he had
lnfrn he