Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1871-11-01

| MuscoVy duck found himself in the midst
of drove of horses, when he looked i'm
Pioringly into the horses faces and said
" Let us be particular and not tramp on
| each others feet" MoraJ-The duck was
the only one whose feet were in danger OF
being hurt.
APPLICATION.
| The people of Tennessee have been
greatly wronged by official plunderers, and
among others by the State Printers. Not
long since, L published an exposition of
their frauds on the Treasury, whereupon
they complained to the Legislature and
requested to be :" investigated Accord
| ingly, an Investigation was ordered,
The committee charged with this duty re-
quested me to attend and prove my allega-
lions. To this request / promptly re-
sponded, and offered to examine the
accused parties themselves. But,
10! Colonel Burch, one of
the, accused, for himself and as counsel
for his partners in plumber, objected to the
proposition, argued the question at length,
and insisted that under the Constitution
an accused party could not be made TO give
evidence against or to criminate himself
This objection, coming under the circum-
stances and from the parties it did, from men
who had requested the investigation. was
unexpected and 'little peculiar the
meaning of which is, "Let us not tramp
on each others feet,n
But the objection was overFuled. The
Committee held that the principle con-
tended for by Col. Burch was priCitcge
personal to the t0jtReSs, and stated that if
any question was asked, the answer to
which would, in the judgment of the wit
ness, tend TO "criminate' him, or furnish
a link in a chain of testimony tending to
his conviction of a criminal Oflense, he,
the witness, might claim his privilege and
decline TO answer. This was a sound expo
sition of Tie law, and under this ruling
Messrs Griffith, Jones d Purvis, three of
the firm of Jones, PurViS d Co., were
seveTsily introduced and examined. But
none of them knew any material fact
Neither of them could tell how much pa
per or how many ems or tokens were con-
tanned in the Journals or in any other
'job' done by them for the State, to which
their attention was called nor could they
tell, except In one single instance, from
whom they bought the paper what they
paid Tor 1t, or state its reasonable market
value at the time it was used. They were,
also, unable to explain or reconcile the
discrepancies which appeared on the face
of their accounts. Such utter obliviOus-
ness to facts which was supposed to be
within their personal knowledge &C., eX-
cited surprise and the same was published
for the information of the people. Where
upon hO,0y was raised that the publica-
ton of the testimony made was 'partialp
and "garbled.n 1t is not pretended that
the testimony published is not substantial
ly true as given by the Witnesses, but that
there were other facts deferred to by them
which would soften or mitigate the public
judgment towards them. Now, if this is
the only ground. of complaint, the injustice
might have been remedied by the publica-
ton of the whole of their testimony. The
accused parties own and control two news
papers and could have published all the
evidence, if they would. But, instead of
asking for permission to vindicate them
selves in this way, they have gone mouth
ing TO the committee and implored them
to prevent "a,s from treading on each 9TH
er's feet"
Messrs. Editors, my feet are not liable TO