Sidebilder
PDF

Mr. WAYNE agreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Coulten,) and for the additional reason that the member from Ohio, (Mr. S.) had asked the indulgence of the House to introduce additional evidence for a particular purpose, namely, that he might have an opportunity of showing that the ridiculous light in which he had been placed by a part of the evidence, was capable of explanation, or, at least, of some relief. That evidence he had adduced, but the witness now introduced by the member from Ohio, was introduced for quite a different purpose. For that reason, and under the rule stated by the member from Pa. he (Mr. W.) should object to the examination of the witness now before them. Mr. MERCERinquired if certain other wit. messes, and particularly Thomas L. McKenny, had been called to attend by the subpoena of the Chair? The SPEAKER informed the gentleman from Virginia that all the subpoenas were issued by the clerk of the House, by order of the House itself, and, therefore, without the knowledge of the Chair. The discussion was further continued by Messrs. Donnanor, Warne, Coulten, and Pattox, the latter of whom moved a reconsideration of the permission of the House to ad. mit the witness. Mr. ADAMS then rose to another question of order. No vote had heen taken on the admission of the witness, and it was a rule of the House that no member could move for the reconsideration of a vote, unless he had voted in the affirmative, Mr. A. put it to the Chair, whether, under the circumstances, a motion of reconsideration could be sustained in the present case? The SPEAKER decided that, according to the daily practice of the House, such a motion could be sustained. . Mr. CRAWFORD advocated the examina**, on the ground that the accused had a right ifho pleased, to put his own conduct in quesion; he had done so by calling on the member from Ohio, (Mr. S.,) to produce evidence of the asserted fraud, and Blake's evidence had been admited on this ground; not because it **ictly legal, but because the accuser was called on in produce any evidence in his pos**on. Mr. C. further advocated the investiSotion, as necessary to show whether the charge of the member from ohio, of fraud, in this to action, was made out of wantonness, or on officient ground, inasmuch as he thought the House should not measure out to the accused the same punishment in the one case as it would in the other. If Gen. Green's testimony * to strike at Governor Houston, and who, *ing present, did not object, he (Mr. c.) thought it ought to be taken; if it was to affect the character of others, not before the House, he thought it should not be admitted. Mr.CLAY offered aproposition with the view ofobviating the difficulty which had arisen; but The SPEAKER decided it was not then in tr.

[ocr errors]

Mr. WAYNE further objected to the interrogatory, as placing the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. S.,) in a very curious position, who, in his testimony in chief, had denied that he intended to impute fraud to Governor Houston; the investigation must therefore be, as to a fraud, committed by a third party. Mr. REED expressed his disapproval of the course which had been taken by the House, in permitting any question to be put as to this transaction. He had voted against that course, but it was sustained by a majority of the House; and he did not see how shey could now extricate themselves from the difficulty, or refuse the examination of the witness; and the more so, as it had been declared by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Chawronn,) that the quantum of punishment would, in his judgment, depend on the truth or falsehood of the charge as to the alleged fraud. Mr. ROOT argued, that the House would be placed in a very embarrassing position by adopting the motion of recensideration. It would extend as far back as the original question of the Counsel for the accused, on the subject of the evidence of fraud. That question appeared improper to him, and he had recorded his vote against its being put; for the inference which he had foreseen would be drawn from entering upon that charge was, that the justification of the accused depended on the truth or the falsehood of the imputation. Mr. Roor continued, by adverting to the for. mer proceedings on evidence given concerning the fraud, and concluded by repeating his opission that the question should come up on the motion of Mr. Wickliffs, to reject the testimony, which would showepon the journal the reasons for their vote upon the subject. Mr. DODDRIDGE said, he had foreseen the difficulty into which the House had plung. ed itself; but having already gone into cir. cumstances with a view to extenuate the offence charged against the accused, no interrogation which might have the contrary effect of aggravating the offence, could, with propriety, be refused. His objection to a reconsideration was this—although he (Mr. D.) should vote against this interrogatory, as now put, yet one might be proposed to the witness to which he should not object. He under. stood the interrogatory now offered, to relate to the conduct of Gen. Eaton, in regard to a certain transaction; but it might be so modified as to connect Houston with that transaction. In which case, he should think it, according to the rule which the House had acted upon in this trial, perfectly admissible. Mr. DAV1S, of Massachusetts, said the question was argued as if it was, whether it were proper to put the interrogatory. That was not the question. The question was, whether they would reconsider the vote which the House

was supposed to have given, admitting Gen. Green to examination as a witness in this case. He asked where the House would be, if they should adopt the motion and the witness should be conducted from the stand? ...Suppose the E. should introduce him again ała witness, ow could they object to him? The first inquiry would be, is he a competent witness?— The answer would be “Yes;” for nobody expresses a doubt on this point. Would the House then place on record, in their journal, that they would not examine a witness whom no one declared incompetent to give testimony? And if so, what reason would they assign for objecting to him? Would they say that his evidence would not be relevant to the case?— How could they be supposed to know anything of its relevancy, or importance, until they heard it? He (Mr. D.) was willing to judge of this by putting interrogatories; if they were improper, object to them by all means. But his vote, he declared, should never deny to any party the right of examining a competent witness. The competency of a witness was the only question, and here, he repeated, there were no objections to the competency of Gen. Green. Mr. WICKLIFFE urged Mr. Patton to withdraw his motion for reconsideration. Mr. PATTON assented, stating that he was about to rise for that very purpose. The question then recurred on the objection to the interrogatory. Mr. STANBERY modified his interrogatory as follows: “Do you know of any attempt on the part of Gov. Houston, fraudulently to obtain from the late Secretary of War, a contract, &c. *

[blocks in formation]

and was not his going away sudden and unexpected? ...Answer.—I have been acquainted with him nearly two years. During his stay here, of an evening I have seen him under the influence of liquor frequently. His habits, I believe, while he was here, were very irregular. I saw him Hwhen he was getting into the carriage to leave the city; he was then evidently under the influence of liquor, very much so. His going was very unexpected to me. I saw him in the morning, and asked him when he was going? He said he did not know. I saw him again at noon: he then said he was going in an hour. He went at three o’clock; I saw him get into the carriage, and he left the city, Question by the accused.—Do you know the cause of said Blake's sudden departure from the city? .Answer.—I do not. Question by the accused.—Had you not previously understood from him, that he was engaged in business here, that would detain him some time at Washington? ..?nswer.—I did. Question by the accused.—What is the seve. ral characters of said Blake, for truth? .Answer.—As far as I have understood, I had never heard his word doubted on any important

subiect. ğion by the Committee.—On what day did said Blake leave this city? .Answer.--I think on last Tuesday. Question by the Committee.—Was there such particular intimacy between you and Luther Blake, as that you would necessarily be acquanted with his movements long before this occurred? ...Answer.—I think there was. Question by the Committee.—What connexion? * .Answer.—We were in habits of daily inter

was that

been imputed to then in a paper of this morn ing; but he would rid himself of the imputation by saying nu more than that he called for the yeas and nays. The question was then taken, and decided in the negative-yeas 94, nays 124. So the House refused to permit the interrogatory to be put. Mr. STANBERY then said, that as the House had determined not to enter into the subject of the fraud, he should propound no further interrogateries to this witness. The witness was then conducted from the bar by the Serjant-at-Arms.

EXTRACT FROM THE JOURNAL. Tuesnar, Apnil 24th, 1832. SAMusl, Houston, accompanied by his counsel, was placed at the bar of the House, and Thomas Munkar, Junior, a witness on the part of the accused, was sworn and testified as follows: Question by the accused.—Are you acquainted with Luther Blake? if so, what are his habits of temperance? Has he not been in the habit of etting drunk nearly every evening or night? What was his situation when he left the city,

course, fiaving to attend the department on the same business; that was, the settlement of his account, and the settlement of the account of the agent I was here attending to. Question by the accused —Do you or do you not believe that said Blake’s sudden departure from the city was owing to his having given liis affidavit about the accused? To this question, Mr. HuxTINgron, a mem. ber of the committee, objected. And the question was put, “Shall the said interrogatory be propounded to the witness?” And was decided in the negative—Yeas 31, Nays 120. Question by Mr. CRA1a.--Do you know any facts or circumstances calculated to induce the belief that Luther Blake left this city in consequence of having given his affidavit to be read in the case before the House? If yea, what are they? .Answer.—I know of none. Question by Mr. Wannwell.—Did you hear him say anything about his affidavits in relation to the accused, and what? Jīnswer.—I did not. Question by Mr. SLApr.--What was the business, which you understood from the said Blake, would necessarily detain him in the city? Jīnswer.—The settlement of his public account as sub-agent of the Creeks. Question by Mr. Bulland.—Is Mr. Blake still acting as sub-agent? Antwer.—I believe not. Qutalion by Mr. BATEs, of Mass.--When was he discharged? Answer.-I do not recollect. Question by Mr. Bullarn.—When was he appointed; or has he been discharged at all? Answer.—I do not recollect when he was appointed; but he certainly has been discharged. CHARLEs E. Hawkins, a witness on the part of the accused, was sworn and testified as follows: - - * , , Question by the accused.—Are you acquainted with Luther Blake; if so, what are his habits of temperance? Has he not been in the habit of getting drunk nearly every evening or night? What was his situation when he left the city, and was not his going away sudden and unexpected? , Antwer—l am personally acquainted with L. Blake. I should judge him, from having been a room-mate for three months whilst he was in the city, to be a man of intemperate habit. With respect to getting drunk every evening, there was an interval of two or three weeks, when he was engaged in business, du. ring which he kept sober. During the latter part of the time he was in this city he was exceedingly intemperate, especially for a few days before he went away. His departure was sudden, Question by the accused—Do you or do you not know \ta difference existed between the accused and Luther Blake; if so, what do you now about it? onwer.-The only knowledge I have of the difference existing is from Luther Blake him. self from whose expressions I should conclude that he had been, previous to Gov. H.’s arrival in the city, an inveterate enemy. tion by Mr. Alexanden.—Doyou or do

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

you not know the cause of Mr. Blake's departure?

Answer.—I do not. Question by the Committee.—what is the general character of Blake for truth? , Annett-I never had any business transac. tions with Mr. Blake, and I am, therefore, totally unable to say. If I should judge from orcumstances which have passed, I have some. times found him wanting in truth: as to his general reputation, I don’t know what it is. I never knew him till his arrival about the middle of January. Quction by the Committee—what were the *Pressions of Blake, concerning Houston, from which you inferred his inveterate hosility? Answer.-The expressions were these: “He believed Gen. H. to be a scoundrel; that he (Houston) had prevented his making a large ortune by some speculation among the Indians, and that he had carried weapons there for the Purpose of killing Gen. H., if he met with any difficulty with him (Houston.)”

Question by Mr. C. C. Clar.—From what yon have witnessed of said Blake's morals and habits, would you believe him on oath? To this question, Mr. BATEs, of Massachusetts, objected. And the question was put, “shall the interrogatory be propounded to the witness?” And passed in the affirmative; yeas 80, nays 76. .Answer thereto.—I have not sufficient acquaintance with the general character of Mr. Blake through his life to authorize me to form an opinion. Question by Mr. Leavitt.--Did you hear vsr. Blake say any thing in relation to the affidavit, which he has made against Houston? And if so, what did he say? ...Ansurer.—I heard hish say nothing about it. Question by the accused.—Do you or do you not know of his seeking and obtaining a reconciliation with the accused? If so, state facts within your knowledge. .Answer.—I believe he did; we were at dinner at Mr Brown’s, Mr. Blake was there. Gov. H. was there, at that time. . They did not speak to one another. Governor H. invited us all to his room, and in passing to his room, I saw Mr. B'ake take a gentleman, I think it was Doctor Davis, of 8. Carolina, by the arm, and say something to him. Afterwards I heard Dr. Davis a-k Houston, “if he would receive Mr. Blake?” General H. replied, “certainly.” When Blake came in, General H. got up and offered him his hand in a friendly and conciliatory manner. This is all I know of the matter. Question by the Committee.—When did the reconciliation take place? .Answer.--It took place previous to the departure of Gov. H. to New York. I do not know the time precisely. I presume the Governor can furnish it, it was some six or seven weeks ago, I think. Question by Mr. Ihn Is..—When was it that you heard Blake call Houston “a scoundrel,” before or since the reconciliation? .Answer. —It was before the reconciliation, before Gov. H. arrived here for the west. Dr. E. S.. Davis, a witness on the part of the accused, was sworn, and testified as follows: Question by the accused.—Were you asked by L. Blake to procure a reconciliation between him and the accused, and what passed in consequence of that request? .Answer.—Mr. Blake called on me, and ob. served that he discovered Gov. Houston and myself were on friendly terms; that he had had a difference with the Governor in Arkansas, but wished now to be on friendly terms with him, and he would be glad that I should inter. fere and make up the difference. I went to him (Houston) and told him what Blake had said. Governor Houston showed some reluctance to comply, and told me that he would think of it. Mr. B. subsequently told me he wished I would repeat to Gov. H. his wish to become reconciled to him. Mr. Shaw, I think,

was by. As I felt some reluctance to go a se. cond time, Mr. Shaw went with me, after which Mr. Blake entered, and was met by Governor H. and they shook hands together. Question by the accused.— Did the accused #. his reason on your first applying to him or declining the reconciliation. ...Answer.—Yes, he did give his reasons; he stated to me that Blake had branded his character in some publication, perhaps, or in some dispute with him; he assigned that as a reason why he would not receive him, but would take time to think of it. If he went into a detailed statement of the circumstances of their differences I do not recollect it. I recollect the general expression. He said “that Blake had branded his reputation,” or “that they had had a quarrel in some way.” Question by the accused.—Did you, in the accused's absence, at New York, see the publications in the Telegraph charging him with fraud in relation to the contract for supplying the Indian rations? Did you write an article to exculpate the accused from those charges, and send it for publication to the Globe? Did you show the article or read it to Luther Blake? Have you endeavored to obtain the article from the Globe, and seen the editor search for it, and was he or was he not unable to find it? If so, what were the contents of said article, and what did Blake say as to its correctness? ...Answer—A few days before Gov. Houston left the city for New York, probably the very day before he left here, he observed to me “that he had understood before he came to the city, probably in Philadelphia or Baltimore, that Duff Green was about to make an attack upon him about Indian rations.” That was the first I had heard of it. “On finding that I knew nothing about it, he read to me a publica ion which he had made, I think in an Arkansas paper, on the subject. After he left here a few days, a piece appeared in the Telegraph on the same subject, and as he was not here to answer it, I did write a piece and sent it to the Globe, refuting in general terms what had appeared in the Telegraph, and begging the public to suspend a decision on the matter until he should return. I mentioned othese facts this morning to the counsel of Gov. Hous on, who “told me that it was all-important to recover the manuscript of this article.” I went to the office of the Globe, and afterwards to the house of Mr. Blair, who searched for the manuscript in vain; he told me he would bring it to the House in 15 or 20 minutes, or half an hour, if he could find it. After I had written this piece for the Globe, I sent for Mr. Blake, (known generally as Judge Blake,) to my room, and invited him up. I read to him this piece, in which he concurred most fully. I observed to him, that these remarks embraced the grounds, as 1 supposed, on which he and Houston had quarrelled. He said he believed t embraced the greater part of them. I said o him, have I stated any thing here which is not correct ' He said no, or gave assent, by words or gesture, that I had not. I can’t reply to the latter part of the interrogatory fully, for I did uot keep a copy of it, but it contained a

[graphic]

general denial of the charges preferred by the article in the Telegraph. Question, by the accused.—How long have ycu known the accused; has he always, during your knowledge of him, suffered from a severe wound, still unhealed, in the right arm i and is the wound such as to disable the arm .Answer.—I became acquainted with Gen. Houston in 1827. On intimating my intention to visit Tennessee to Mr. McDuffie, of this House, he gave me a letter to Gov. Houston, who was then Governor of the State. We met at Lee’s Spring, a watering place in Tennessee, where we remained together some time ; while there I examined his wound ; I had understood the object of his visit to the springs was to renovate his health, which had become impaired by this wound. The wound is in the right arm, about two inches from the shoulder joint, it was caused by two balls which entered the upper part of the arm ; and, from having lacerated the integuments very much,the wound

amined it this morning. He is disabled in the use of it he could not exert it so as to strike a blow, or anything like that. Question, by the Committee.—Which article in the Telegraph have you reference to, an on what day was it published * 4nswer.—I alluded to the charge against Gov. Houston of fraud in the rations of the Indians—I do not recollect the date, I cannot designate it particularly, but the article contained charges of fraud against Gov. Houston. It may be well enough for me to state it was the first article which appeared on that subject in the Telegraph. Question, by the Committee.—lm the piece you wrote, and showed to Judge Blake, did you state any thing relative to the proposals made by Mr. Houston to the War I)epartment in the name of other persons to supply the Indians with rations Answer.—I think not, Question, by the Committee.—Did you state in that piece anything relative to the proposals made by Judge Blake, or by Mr. Prentiss, or by David Butler, jr. Answer.—I did not. I mentioned none of their names, nor did I mention anything about it. Question, by the Committee.—Did you state in the piece alluded to, any thing relative to an interview between Judge Blake and Mr. Houston, on the 21st of March, 1830, or any interview between them from that day to 24th of the same mon-h 2 . Answer.—I did not. Question, by the Committee.—Did Mr. Houston leave the Arkansas paper containing the publication alluded to by you, in your posses. sion, or had you access to it when you wrote the piece for the Globe Answer.—He did not leave it with me, nei. ther had I access to it. Question by Mr. Bund. Do you know whether Governor Houston is right or left. handed?

was running much, and is still running—I ex-.

[ocr errors]

hist lung ty to

ands

Gen. *no if th; lso est

fifty. " list;

o

Amrwer.—l do not know. Question.—By Mr. Bunn.—As a professional man, do you, or do you not know if one limb of a man be disabled, so as to throw more exertion on the sound one, whether such sound limb receives increased strength or not? Answer—I believe it is a settled principle in the philosophy of our profession, that it does— yet it depends very much on the constitution and personal habit of the individual, or the em. ployment in which he is engaged. As a general answer, should say that it would, perhaps. Question by the accused.—Do you, as a prosessional man, think that a man's having for many years a running wound in one of his arms, increases the general strength of his body and other limbs? .instver.—l should think that it would not. We know that it would tend to debilitate the system, and not to strengthen it. Quasion by the accused.-Did, or did you not, in the article written by you, refer to the publication of the Telegraph, and in general terms deny its correctness, and did not the said Blake read the publication in the Telegraph, or speak of it as if he had read it? dower—l did reply to the article in the Tekgoph in general terms, denying the charges Preserted there against General H. Whether Mr. Blake had read the article or not, I cannot toll; but I repeated to him the general contents of the article in the Telegraph, which was then lying on the table. Quasion by the Committee.—Can you Male any one sentence, or the substance of any one entence written by you for the Globe? *wer-Yes, I thinki could state, and perhaps accurately, Isaid the charge of the fraud : alloged in the Telegraph against Governor Houston was unfounded i dverted to the Publication of Governor Houston which he had **n me in the Arkansas paper prior to his leaving here for New York. Qualion by Mr. Cooke, of Ohio.—Where do you reside? Antwer-la South Carolina. * by the same—how long since you arrived in his city, o *wur-lthink it was the 20th or 22d of *!)-I do not recollect the day of the *th; it was about the middle of January, perhaps. , otion by the same—have you been an intimate associate of Mr. H. *-Yes; and I felt honored by his ac. Quaintance, Qualion by the same-Do you not know, *have you not heard, Mr. H. declare," that **rmed for the purpose of attacking Mr. *"and what kind of arms did Mr. H. carry for that purpose? .*wer.-yes; I know he was armed with ** and a dirk-knife; and 1 also know that *the evening he attacked Mr. S. he was not Armed. Quation by the committee.—Do you in. *4 to be understood that you know he was so "med for the purpose of attacking Mr. S.

...Answer.—That inference must be made by gentlemen for themselves. General H. always goes armed. Before he went to New York, he had the same arms—belted around him; and I know that since he had the dispute with Mr. S. he has worn the same arms. Question by the accused—What did Mr. Houston say to you, about attacking Mr. Stanbery? Answer.—After Governor H. received the reply of Mr. S. probably on the same day, he came to my room at Brown's Hotel, (our rooms are not far apart,) he read to me the reply of Mr. S. and appeared to be rather doubting how he should proceed in the business. He said, “If I challenge him, he won't fight; my only alternative is to whip him; and I will do it whenever I can catch him.” Question, by Mr. H. Everett—Do you know, or have you heard said Houston say, when and where he obtained the cane with which he attacked Mr. S., and whether he obtained it for that purpose? .Answer.—I heard him remark “ that it belonged to a Mr. Shaw, of Georgetown.” He said “he had brought the stick from the Her. mitage, the residence of Gen. Jackson, and given it to Mr. Shaw.” How he got it back, I did not hear him say. I am pretty certain I heard him say, “he got it back for the purpose of chastising Mr. S.” W. E. Asquith, a witness on the part of the accused, was sworn, and testified as sollows: Question, by the accused —Were you present

at Dr. Davis's room, when he read the article

he had prepared, denying the fraud charged in the Telegraph against the accused, to Luther Blake; and when they conversed on that subject? If yea, state what passed. ...Answer.--I do not think I was. Question.—Did you ever hear said Blake say any thing on that subject? Answer.—I do not recollect that I ever heard him mention it. Question by the accused—Did you ever hear said Blake express his feelings towards the accused? If yea, what did he say? Answer.—l have heard him state “that they had been enemies, desperate enemies, when in the Indian country; that his animosity grew out of a quarrel which was not his own, but onlaccount of his friends, with General H.; and that at one time his feelings were so hostile, that, understanding Gen. H. was about to cross a ferry owned or rented by him, that he sent word to Gen. H. that if he did so cross, he must be prepared to meet him, as he should be armed on the opposite bank, and oppose his land. ing.” I have also heard him say, here, since he mentioned that fact, “that as the quarrel originated between a friend of his and Gen. H., and he had understood his friend was satisfied, he was willing to come to a friendly under. standing with Gen. H., and that he had ceased to entertain, those feelings of hostility against the General.” Richand S. Coxe, a witness on behalf of the House, was sworn, and testified as follows: Question by the Committee.—Have you any

« ForrigeFortsett »