Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1871-10-27
APPLICATION.

the only one whose feet were in danger OF
being hurt. -r -r-, p. rrs.--
r-.- r.--.-... APPLICATION. r. - ~r,s
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
ingiy, an Investigation was ordered.
The committee charged with this duty re-
qussted me to attend aAd prove my aHega-
tons. To this request l 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 plunder, 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 criminste himself.
This objection, coming under the ciPcaim-
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 feetn ha.4l2 .fq9g
But the objection was overruled. = The
Committee held that the principle con-
tended for by Col. Burch was a privilege
personal to the 1Uitness, 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
q link in chain of testimony tending to
his conviction of criminal ofense, he,
the witness, might claim his privilege and
decline to answer. This was q sound expo
sition Of the law, and under this ruling
Messrs. Griffith, Jones & Purvis, three of
81, ~ - T. arn
severally 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
lob" 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 for il, or state its reasonable market
value at the time it was used. They were,
also, unable TO explain or reconcile the
discr epancies 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 hot0I was raised that the publica-
tion of the testimony made was "partial"
and "Earbled.n It 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 us from treading on each 9TH
er's feet.n ..rr,,.-,o
Messrs. Editors, my feet are not liable to
be hurt. / am not only willing but anx-
ious to have all the evidence published.
But predict the accused parties will never
publish all of it-especially will they not
publish their own accounts on file with
the Comptroller. These are conclusive of
the frauds alleged and will never be ex-
posed to the public eye through the coll
umns of the Banner or Union and An,eri-
can. Let US be particular and not tramp
on each others feet" JNo. BAXTER.