Semi-weekly Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1871-1872, 1872-02-15
Personal EXPLANATION.

congressional Committee against
Lieutenant Governor Pinchback,
and that body adiourning before he
could avail himself of an opportuni-
ty to exculpate himself, embraced
the opportunity of the presence of
the Committee in the Senate cham
Der, on Saturday last, and calling
a Senator to the chair, the Lieuten-
ant Governor took the floor and
said:-
1 am again forced, Mr..
President, to claim the atten-
ton of the Senate for a few mo-
ments on a question of privilege. I
was not little surprised on yester-
day to see so many gentlemen rising
for the purpose Of making personal
explanations but I find it explain
ed in the fact that serious charges
have been made by certain witness
ses before the congressional investi-
eating committee against those gen.
tlemen as well as myself. This is
the first opportunity 1 have had
since 1 read the testimony of those
witnesses to make a personal ex-
planation. I see that one Mr.. S.
w. Scott testified that at one time
I was to be paid for some vote OF
action of mine on the floor of the
Senate. I have not before me the
paper containing the evidence of
that gentleman, and, therefore, can
not allude to it specifically. 1 de-
sire to say to the Senate and the
members Of the congressional COM
mittee who are present, that Mr..
Scott has stated that which he
knows to be untrue. I had no
knowledge Of the gentleman prior
to the time that we had before MS
the bill which empowered the Gov
ernor to sell the stock in the Jack
son railroad held by the State. I
saw him then upon the floor of the
Senate lobbying, as 1 understood,
in favor of that measure. He tes-
titles that large amount of money
was to be spent in its passage, and
that the votes of legislators were to
be paid for by the issue ofpaper by
a MIR. Kimball, indorsed by himself
(Mr. Scott. He says that 1, among
other gentlemen. received one of
those checks for $1,000, and I pre-
sumo he intended to have the COM
mittee infer that 1 received it in
consideration of my vote. will
state to the Senate and the
members of the committee that Mr.. |
Scott led the committee to imply |
that which was not true. I admit |
his correctness in stating that I
held one of those checks. 1t was
placed in my hands for collection,
and I presented it to him for pay
ment. l am commission merchant,
and sometimes have collected notes
for friends of mine. He was buy
ing paper of that kind, and says he
offered me $3.50, which declined
to take. I do not know that he Of
fered me that, but I suppose SO.
How that paper got on the market
be knows better than anybody else
in the community. 1t is in my hands
yet, as I was not empowered to take
ess for it than it's face called for,
which was the reason I could not
accept his proposition. So much
or that transaction. Mr.. Scott also
charges that Senator Beares and
myself opposed the new city charter
n consideration of a certain sum of
money. That charge is untrue, and
he gentleman can not produce any 1
evidence to substantiate it. The ,
1 opposed that bill is we'll
lnown to the Senator now presiding
Mr.. Barber) as well as to every 1
'ther colOred man in the Legisla- ,
ure, and many not in it. The ques- {
ion was, who was to fill the offices
o be created? A demand was made [
y me, at the request of the colored |
men OF this city, that the Governor 8
houla appoint a colored man to ,
he position of Administrator of ,
public Improvements. The Gov '
rnor would not comply with that g
equest, and we determined then I
o oppose the bill to the last. From /