Year: 1867

investigate charges made by the Wheel
ing Register against James n. Fergu-
son, member of the House from Cabell
county, was called up by the chairman
of the committee. =---


Mr.. Ferguson said this was very re-
markable report. BE had had intima-
tions from members OF the committee
that a report would be made completeIy v
exhonerating him, and he had been sur
prised to learn only yesterday that this
report was going TO be made. In regard
to the request that he should resign, he
did not choose TO do that. Hewas will
ing to leave it to the House whether
there was anything in the aspect OF this
affair and the manner in which il had
been conducted to make it proper for
him to resign his seat at the bid of this
committee He didn't choose to do so.


Mr.. Wheat said the committee had not
done their duty. They were not called
upon 10 deal with the legal aspect of the
case. Mr.. Ferguson's own statement
showed he had been indicted and par-
doned and 1t was unnecessary for the
committee to apprise the House of that
fact. The committee had been appoint
ed to examine the case and report their
opinion as to Mr.. Ferguson's actual
guilt or, innocence He didn't believe
there was a member of the House that
doubted his innocence. The commit
tee had put their report in a shape call
culated TO injure the gentleman from
Cabeu more than the original charges


Mr.. Harris said the committee didn't
undertake to decide on the actual guilt
or innocence of Mr.. Ferguson for lack
of evidence. The committee did not
undertake to say Mr.. Ferguson's state
ment in the House and that made to
the committee under oath, were not
true in every particular, but there was
only small part of the latter that
could be admitted as evidence. The
rest only as tending to form their opiu-
ion. The committee could not get over
the fact that the Indictment and the use
of the pardon to procure dismissal of
the case were not denied, al
though Mr.. Ferguson alleged IL
was obtained without his knowledge
and would not have been applied for at
all with his consent. The committee
had avoided expressing any opinion as
to actual guilt or innocence, having
taken the thing in its legal phase. The
acceptance of the pardon, he considered,
implied a confession of crime. The
committee had endeavored to discharge
its duty in a friendly spirit towards
Mr.. Ferguson, with desire to exhon-
crate him If possible. He had no right
to complain that the committee did not
give him fair opportunity. He had
been invited, if he had any evidence 10
bring forward, or would take steps TO
obtain it, to do so, but had declined.


Mr.. Ferguson asked the gentleman
to say when this was.


Mr.. Harris said it was only yester-
day, it was true, but he had given the
ge ntleman assurance that in that event
the report would be held back.


Mr.. Wheat repeated that the commit
tee had no business to make a judicial
investigation. Why did not the COM
mittee report that notwithstanding the
circumstantial evidence against Mr..
Ferguson detailed in the report, they
didn't believe him guilty, bnt did be-
lieve he had been hardly dealt by and
wSs an innocent and prosecuted man,
The committee could have reported
that Notwithstanding the facts, even if
they thought Mr.. Ferguson did carry
OF the articles as charged, they didn't
believe he did so. with felonious intent.
This report going TO the country with
the endorsement of the House would
injure Mr.. Ferguson more than the in
dictment and pardon did. He would
be the last man to vote for Mr.. FerRu-
sons expulsion or to desire him to re-
sign.


Mr.. Ferguson said be desired no quar-
rel with this committee. He only said
the report was a remarkable one. If
the committee were so anxious to pre-
sent the case in an impartial light he
wondered the committee omitted
so many things that ought
to have gone into the re-
port. At his own instance, the
bItterest enemy he had in the State
an enemy of . years standing CCol. B.
SMITH had been summoned before
the committee He had the old gentle
man examined, and then, not knowing
precisely what the committee wanted to
do, he stated then and there TO the
committee that If they wanted to go
into an Investigation of the question of
guilt or innocence, he would prepare
hardship on him, on account of the
river being frozen up, and all commu-
nication with his county being cut of,
and on account of getting the witness
es, particularly Mr.. Taylor, the most
important witness ian officer of the
boat on which this offense was chargedl, \,
who lived somewhere in Ohio, and
whose first name was not even known
to him. But he said to the committee,
if that was their wish, he would do the
best he could to get the witnesses here.
He never received one single word or
intimation, however, that the commit
tee bad determined TO go into such
an Investigation. The chairman
of the committee had told
him one day if he had any evidence to
submit he could submit it; but he
could get none except by extraordinary
eXeriions and neglecting the business
of those who sent him here. Captain
RamsdeA, he said, happened here and
was before the com mmittse and that COM
mittee saw fit to omit the most import
ant part of his testimony. He told the
committee under oath not only that he
saw our condition but that he had an
interview with Burns after he got sober,
and that Burns told him distinctly he
had no idea at all / had. ever intended
to steal his carpet sack, if had taken
it at all, and told him he didn't think
ever touched the carpet sack; that he
saw some man run over the roof OF the
boat-who he was hedidn't know-and
that I was pointed out as the man
who lust come into the cabin, as
he supposed the man he was pur-
suing had done. That is precise
" the evidence the COMMITTEES
had, and if they ever took and other it
was without his knowledge BE was
a little surprised at the omission TO state
this important fact. While the COM
mittee say he admitted the use
made ofthe pardon, they failed TO say
ANYTHING In relation to its having been
obtained without his consent. He sub
lmitted documents to the COMMITTEES
enough to satisfy any sensible man on
God Almighty's earth, that the pardon
was obtained without his consent, and
those documents were ready 10 be sub
mitted to the House. His pardon bears
date March 19, 1850, and he had q series
of letters from the gentleman he had
employed as counsel Judge Rice, from
four days after that pardon Is dated 70
nearly month after urging him TO pre-
pare for trial, and a subpoena actually
issued for witnesses on the 18th oi
ApriI, nearly month afier. AlIthese
facts were submitted to the commit
tee, and yet they have even failed
10 say there were documents at least
tending thoroughly TO show that the
pardon had been obtained without his