« ForrigeFortsett »
acquaintance with L. Blake, and how long has it existed, and of what character? ..Answer.—l have occasionally seen. Mr. Blake during the last three or four months. I never saw him before this last winter. Having had business to transact with some gentlemen at the hotel where he lodged, I have occasionally met with him; I have met him, I suppose, twenty times during the winter. Question by the Committee.—Have you seen Mr. Blake at different times in the day? ..Answer.—I have seen him occasionally in the morning, at noon, and in the evening. Question by the Committee.—What were his habits as to temperance? ...Answer.—My knowledge of Mr. Blake is too slight to enable me to state what his habits were. I have never seen him otherwise than when, in my opinion, he was a sober man. I have never seen him intoxicated to my knowledge. Question by the Committee.—Do you know when he first meditated leaving the city, and if so, how long before he left it, and at what time did he expect to leave it? Answer.—I do not know what Mr. Blake's particular business was in the city of Washington, but on Monday fortnight he stated to me, “ that he contemplated leaving the city on the following Sunday. I left town myself the next day after: on my return, I understood that he had not yet left town, nor have I seen him since Monday, the 9th. David A. HALL, a witness on behalf of the House, was sworn and testified as follows :Question by the Committee.—Did you admin. ister the oath to Luther Blake on the affidavit now presented; and if so state what you know relative to taking said affidavit? .Answer. I administered the oath on this affidavit, and wrote my name to the certificate here appended. I administered the oath at Brown's Tavern on Monday 16th April. The circumstances were these—I had been called to the Tavern to take the deposition of Judge Bibb, of the Senate, to be used in a cause in Kentucky. While I was there, this paper was handed to me already prepared, as I supposed, for the signature of my name, after I should have administered the oath to the deponent. I hastily ran my eye over the deposition, it appeared to me to have been written in the proper form, and I administered the oath, then signed my name at the bottom of the affidavit, as having
Question by the Committee.—About what hour in the day was the affidavit taken? .Answer.-It must have been about one o'clock according to the best of my recollection, or from 12 to 1. Question by the accused—Who was with said Blake when you administered the oath? ...Answer.—I think Mr. Wm. Prentiss of this city, either came into the room, or to the door of the room when the affidavit was presented, and no one else. Question to Mr. Stanbery by the Committee— You stated “that you received the affidavit of L. Blake from Mr. Vance,” did he hand it to you in person, if not, what led you to suppose you received it from him? .Answer.—At the time the House was discussing the propriety of the interrogatory, Mr. Vance took his seat by my side on the right. He called my attention to a paper lying before me. Somebody else might have put it there; it must have been there before; that paper was the affidavit of Blake. I supposed that Mr. Vance had handed the paper to me, till I heard his testimony on Saturday, The further hearing of the case was then postponed until to-morrow at 11 o'clock, and The House adjourned. Thunspar, APRIL 27. Mr. ASHLEY, of Missouri, presented to the House the following letter, addressed to him by the Hon. T. H. Benton, of the Senate : Mr. STAN hear’s reference to me as a witness who would discredit Mr. BuckNER, was made without my knowledge, and was not warranted by any sentiment ever entertained or expressed by me. THOMAS H. BENTON. Mr. ASHI, EY then offered the following: WILLIAM SrANnear, a member of this House, from the State of Ohio, having, on yes. terday, (when not giving evidente,) declared to this House, that the most of the testimony given by the honorable Alexandln Bucknen, Senator from Missouri, (who had given testi. mony in the case of the trial against Samuel Houston,) was destitute of truth and infamous; which declaration of said Stanhsar is indecorous, and disrespectful to this House, the wit. ness, and to the Senate of which he is a mem. ber : Therefore, Resolved, That the Speaken of this House call upon said Stan Brar,in his place,to retract
the indignity and disrespect which he has of:
been taken before me. It appears that I did not fered, by an apology to this House, and that he insert the date, but that was owing to an im- |be reprimanded by the SPEAKER. pression that it was already inserted. It did not Mr. ASHLEY said, that in offering this restrike my eye that the date was wanting: these solution, he took leave to say, that he was not are all the facts immediately connected with the governed by any unkind feeling toward Mr. taking of the deposition that I am aware of IISTANnear ; but, as the representative of Miswould state further that this deposition was souri, and the friend of Col. Bucks ER, he conhanded to me by the person making oath, and ceived it to be his duty to defend the character calling himself Luther Blake: I did not know|of Col. Bucknen, and to repel every indignity the person at the time. offered to the State, through one of her Sena
Question by the Committee.—Was Mr. Blake|tors. disguised with liquor at the time you adminis-| Here Mr. TAYLOR rose and objected. This tered the oath? was an improper time to discuss the resolution,
...Answer:-There was nothing in the appear-|and he should call for the question of conside. ance of Mr. Blake to lead me to suppose that] ration. this was the case.
Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, spoke to erder. The gentleman from Missouri had risen in explanation of the resolution he had submitted. Mr. STANBERY expressed a hope that the matter would be proceeded in immediately, o: brought to a termination as soon as possie. Mr. SPEIGHT moved a call of the House on the question of consideration. The question on a call of the House was rejected—ayes 63, noes 80. Mr. B00N asked for the ayes and noes on the question of consideration; and the call beingsustained, they were ordered. The question was then taken, and the conideration of the resolution was ordered—ayes 147, nues 11. Mr. ADAMS rose to a question of order. He understood that, according to Parliamenta ry law, words which might be considered disorderly, were not to be noticed after the intervention of a day from their utterance. The SPEAKER said, that question properly belonged to the discussion upon the merits of the resolution. Mr. STANBERY then addressed the House. He sidhe'would take the opportunity of stating, that no member of that House was more sensible than himself of the indecorum of the htguage alluded to than himself. He wished to state this to the House, and to state, also, the circumstances which had led to the use of that language. He certainly entertained un: pleasant feelings towards Mr. Bucks ER. He saw that individual present, and he (Mr. B.) had known what was to take place before he (Mr.S.) was on the ground. He witnessed, in silence, the whole contest. He suffered, as he testified in the House, the beating to be continued, even after he thought him (Mr. S.) almost dead. It had been told to him, (Mr. S.) that that person had repeated, in the streets, statements calculated to bring him into disrePile and disgrace. He (Mr. Š.) had discovered, yesterday, also, that he had seized, with pleasure, on every opportunity of wounding his (Mr. S.'s) feelings. As to the main circumstances of the occurrence, his testimony corresponded with his own; but it was of the incidental statements which he had made, that he (Mr. 8) thought, and still did think, he had reason to complain. Mr. S. said, that, as the witness was giving his testimony under the Protection of the House, he felt it his duty to Apologize for the words he had applied. He *pologized, therefore, to this House, to the Senate, of which that individual is a member, and to that individual himself. Mr. SPEIGHT here suggested, that, under these circumstances, the withdrawal of the re. olution would, no doubt, be considered proper, by the gentleman from Misrouri. Mr. ASHLEY then withdrew his resolution. The accused was then, by the order of the House, brought to the bar, attended,as before, by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. , ASHLEY moved the entry upon the
stepped back two or three paces; he was eith
er knocked down or thrown down, I do not re-
Question by the same.—Was there any thing to prevent your seeing all that took place? .//nswer.—No.
.Answer.—I cannot say.
heard any thing of Mr. S's speech in the House,
Question by the accused.—When the parties in which Mr. ii. was alluded to?
first met, were you near enough to them to see and hear what passed”
Answer.—I was near enough to see, but it soon after the affray, and what question did you was so confused I did not hear what passed be-ask him?
fore the blows were given.
s To the putting of this question Mr. Invis
Question by the accused.—How often did Mr. objected, and the objection was sustained by S. say “don’t strike me”—“what do you the House.
Question, by Mr. Hawks.--Who applied to
.Answer.—I did not well notice, but I only you to give testimony in this cause?
recollect his saying it a few times. Question by the accused—Are you sure you heard all that passed between the parties? so, are you sure you remember all that passed, and what makes you sure that you remember all? ..?nswer.—I am certain I did not hear all that passed. What I did distinctly hear I well remember, because I paid particular attention to it. Question by the accused—How far is your father's gate from where they met? ...Answer.—About 25 or 30 feet. Quession by the accused.—How old are you? ...Answer.—I shall be 17 in about two months. Question by Mr. T. R. Mitchell.—were you standing at your father's yard gate during the conversation between the Hon. Mr. Buckner and the accused? .Answer.--If I was, I did not hear it to my knowledge. Question by Mr. Wonth INgton.--Did you see General Blair, or any person, pass you before the affray? ...Answer.—I did not notice. Question by the same.—Were you present when the affray commenced, or did you come to the place afterwards? Answer.--When I first saw it, Mr. H., was striking Mr. S. 1 went to the place as Mr. S. got up. Question by the same.—Did you see the first blow given? Jonswer.--I cannot say that I did. Question by Mr. Wandwsll.—At what time in the evening was it? ...Answer.—Between 7 and 8 o'clock. Question by Mr. Worthington.--Did you hear any conversation between Mr. S. and the accused before you saw the accused striking Mr. S. .Answer.--I did not. Question by Mr. Slabs,--Bow far was you to. wards the parties, from the gate, while Mr. H, was beating Mr. S.” .Answer.--I was between the gate and the parties about two paces from the gate. Question, by the same.—Did or did not Mr. H. say that the words spoken by Mr. S. for which he was beaten, were spoken in debate in the House? answer.-I did not hear him say that they were spoken in debate. Question, by the same.—Did he, Houston, allude to Mr. S's speech in the House?
Jìnswer.—I do not know his name, Question, by the same.--Was he a member
.Answer.--Yes. Question, by the same.—Did you have a conversation with Mr. S. before coming as a wit. ness; and, if so, what did he say to you? .Answer.—He merely asked me what I knew concerning it. Question, by the same.—Did you ever see Mr. H. before you saw him beating Mr. S.] ...Answer.—I never saw him before, since he was a member of this House. Question, by Mr. Lecompre.—Did you know Mr. Buckner, of the Senate, before the occur. rence of which you have testified; and, if so, how long? . . Jìnswer.—I did not know him, nor do not. Question, by the same.—How many persons, besides Houston and Buckner, were present when the fight began? Answer.--There was one person walking off he was about fifty feet across the street. Question, by the accused.—Did Mr. H. strike with his right or left hand? .dnswer.—I did not notice. Question, by Mr. Thompson, of GeorgiaHave you not been frequently with Mr. S. since he attack upon S. by H. Jìnswer.—No; I have not. Question, by Mr. Whirlaser, of Ohio.-Hast you ever been with him, Stanbery, since the
|affray, except the time before alluded to by
the complainant, William Stanbery, or ho friend through whom your testimony was sought came to the knowledge that you were presea! when H. attacked said S. ..?nswer.-No, I do not know. Question, by Mr. Lewis convict.—Did you hear anything like the snapping of a pistol, * see sparks of fire? 4nswer.—No; 1 did not. Question, by the accused.—Was you ever sent for to go to Mr. S.’s room, since the occurrence; if so, how often? Who did you see there, and what took place? Answer.—I was there only once. I saw the gentleman that roomed"next to Mr. S. He merely asked me what I knew concerning it. Question, by Mr. Slaps.--Did you or di you not meet some person immediately aflo the affray; and, if so, did you or did you no
isk him what Mr. S. had said in the House con-lthe circumstances under which I was thrown
Its, how did he take hold of him, front or so to * ... .4-liner...I did not see him when he grasped him, but Mr.S's face was towards him, as well is I can recollect. , Question, by Mr. Pattox.--After you had stated to Mr. S. what you then knew about it, inanswer to his inquiry, was nothing further said by him to you, or by the gentleman who was present? dancer.--I understood him that he wished to know by my evidence, to see whether it was netessary to summon me or not; that perhaps it would be necessary to summon me. Nothing mote was said. Jonathan Ellior, Senior, a witness on behalf of the liouse, was sworn, and testified as follows: Question, by Mr. Stasarar.--Describe the to lituation of Barnes's boarding house, and the situation of Mrs. Queen's boarding house. dnswer.--Mr. Barnes's boarding house is three-fourths of a square, about 400 feet, east of my dwelling house, Mrs. Queen's is a little to the east, nearly opposite my door. Qualion, by the same.--From Mr. Barnes's door, could Mr. S. be seen coming out of Mrs. ... Queen's house, on the evening the assault was o made? to Ånner.-- think a person could be seen, but #. not recognised. It was a very moonlight evening. --- Mr. John Blair, a member of this House, * from the state of Tennessee, a witness on the on the part of the accused, was sworn, and testified as follows: Quasion, by the accused.--was you present at the meeting, or just before the meeting between the accused and Mr. 5. If yea, state your knowledge of that occurrence? disco- was present, and walked on the pavement in the direction to Brown's, as far as to the cross street which leads to the City Hall. General H., Mr. Buckner, and myself, had a parley, and I remarked I would go no frther. When I was about to return, Gene* H. pointed across the street, and pointed to * Person crossing the street, and asked me, "Who is that?" I looked across, and recogoed, or thought I recognised, Mr. S. The disturbance between Gen. H. and Mr. S. had *n the subject of general conversation, both in and out of this House for a week before, | ind when I saw Mr. S. come in a direction to oet General H., I thought something unPlaant would occur. Inasmuch as I was not In the habit of settling my disputes in that *y, I determined not to be present to see it; I walked off to my boarding house. I heard considerable noise, such as would naturally be on such an occasion. I can state to the House
into company with General H. They were subTo the propounding of this question, Mr. stantially the same as those stated by Mr. GrunBoom objected, and the objection was sustained dy and Col. Huckner.
Question by the same.—Did the meeting
Question, by Mr. Woathington.--Did you between these gentlemen appear to be unex. tee Mr. H, when he first grasped S. and, ifipected.
...Answer.—As much so as the meeting of any two gentlemen I ever saw come together; and I am as sure General H. had as little expectation of meeting Mr. S. that evening as he ever had in the world. Question by the same.—Did you see the com. mencement of the affray, and if so, who was present? ...Answer.—When I left General H. there was no person in my view but Colonel Buckner and Gen. H., except Mr. S. I did not see any part of the affray. I seen General H. and Mr. B. standing where I left them. I met no one that I know of, nor did I see any other person in sight, except Mr. S., who was coming over the street. Question by the same.—As you returned, did you see the witness, Jonathan Elliot, Jr., and where was he? Answer.—I did not see him, or any other person, that I know of. I may have passed where he was standing before the affray was commenced. Question, by Mr. Clar, of Alabama.--Did you hear any thing said by General H. or Mr. S. at the time of the affray, and if so, what was it? ..Answer.—Nothing that I can repeat. I heard much noise, as I stated before, but nothing so distinctly as that I can repeat it. Question by Mr. Whittlesey, of Ohio.— How far was Mr. S. from you when Mr. H. asked you, “Who is that? . Answer.—It occurs to me that he had just started from the opposite side to cross to where we were standing. The moon was shining ve. ry brightly, an I could have recognised any of my acquaintances across the street with great ease. He was not on the opposite side, but in the act of coming across at some point between the two pavements. Question, by Mr. BEAmnsler.—When General H. inquired “Who is that coming across the street,” was an answer given by you or any other person? Jinswer.-There was none. I immediately marched off when I saw who the person was. Question, by Mr. Thompson, of Georgia.— Did you or not hear the honorable A. Buckner repeatedly relate the circumstances connected with the affray between the complainant and the accused? if yea, how does his evidence, given in this case, correspond with his previous recital of the circumstances? Do you and Col. Buckner board at the same house? To this interrogatory, Mr. Stan near object. ed, and the objection was sustained by the House. Durr Gazes, a witness on the part of the House was sworn, when
150 UNITED STATESE
The following interrogatory was propounded to him by Mr. StAnsenz, viz:
Do you know of an attempt on the part of General H. fraudulently to obtain from the late Secretary of War, a contract for Indian rations in 1830. State all the knowledge you have of the transaction.
To this interrogatory Mr. Wickliffs objected. And the question was put, “Shall the said interrogatory be propounded to the witness?” and was decided in the negative.
So the House decided that the interrogatory be not put.
very near the breast of H., and while he had it there, the pistol flashed, he distinctly saw the light from the percussion cap. He stated that at the time he thought Stanbery was killed, or nearly killed, he stepped up to tell Houston to desist, or to interfere and prevent further violence; at that moment Houston did desist and stepped back; he said that Stanbery still had an opportunity, if he had a weapon, to have shot. Some words were spoken by Houston, and in which Houston said that he had done this for what Stanbery had said of him in the House. This is substantially what Mr. Buckner said. I have not mentioned anything which
The honorable Thos. Ewing, a Senator of he did not say, though I may have omitted some
the United States, for the State of Ohio, a witness on the part of the House, was sworn, and testified as follows:
which I do not remember. After a moment's reflection, I recollect Mr. Buckner said, after we had discussed the strength of Mr. Stanbery
Question, by Mr. STANnear.—Did you hear|for a little while, that he was not certain wheMr. Buckner relate the circumstances which] ther Stanbery did not fall partly by the blow, took place when Mr. H. assaulted Mr. S. If I think he used some expression of that kind.
state the same as Mr. Buckner related|I recollect nothing else at present. I ought,
erhaps, to add, that Mr. Ruckner was convers.
.Answer.—I did hear him relate them the ling on the subject, if my memory serves me
morning after the assault took place.
I met|right, before I came up, and perhaps he conti.
Mr. B. in the Senate Chamber, back of the co-|nued to converse upon it after I left him. That lonnade, several other Senators were present;|he was conversing before I met with him, I
he spoke to them and also to me.
I do not] know, because I saw him in the group of Seminow recollect who the others were; nor am I tors conversing together.
I may not, there.
certain that I shall be able to state exactly as fore, have heard the whole conversation; pro
he did, the facts in the case.
1 will try to do it [bably he did not relate the whole to me. I not He stated to me some circum- only saw him in the group but heard expre:
sions which induced me to come up that I might hear.
don’t recollect certainly to have heard him */
tion. - :
I think I did not. "The *