Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

as to make it express the opinion of the House, beat the said Stanbery as he has represented in as to the impropriety of publishing the proceed- the letter which has been read. ngs.

He admits that he felt great indignation on Mr. PATTON accepted of the modification reading in the National Intelligencer, remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr.there stated to have been made on the floor of Drayton.) He wished to answer the objec- the House of Representatives by the said Stantion made to his resolution—that it would in-bery, imputing to the accused, by name, a gross fringe the liberty of the press. Did not the offence of which he knew himself to be innoshield of the constitution extend to courts just cent, and the dissemination of which through as well as the press? Were not the liberty and out the country, by such publication, was right of the citizen secured by it with a sanction evidently calculated to affect his honor and as sacred as the freedom of the press? And yet, character. Under these circumstances, the gentlemen who talked of the freedom of the accused was induced to inquire of said Stanbery, press, had no hesitatation to infringe on the in a respectful note, whether the report of what right of the citizen, by aiding in the spread of a he had said was truly set forth in said paperpublication so improper he had at one time to which inquiry, thus made, said Stanbery thought it unlawful as that to which he had al- refused to give any answer, in a manner calculuded. He trusted he had as sacred a regard lated still further to injure the accused. The for the freedom of the press, as any man within accused admits that he was greatly excited by the sound of his voice, or within the broad lim- these provocations, and that under the influence its of this empire. At the request of many of feelings thus excited, he did, on accidentally friends, he would accept the modification offer- meeting the said Stanbery, assault and beat ed, having no other wish than that the House him, the accused being unarmed with any other should express its opinion on the subject. weapon than a common walking cane, and

Mr. PÅTTON subsequently expressed his believing the said Stanbery to be, as he in fact willingness to withdraw the resolution, and it was, armed with pistols--that the meeting took was accordingly withdrawn.

place several hours after the adjournment of Precisely at one o'clock, Mr. Houston, at-Congress, about 8 o'clock in the evening, on tended by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and accompa. Pennsylvania Avenue, and nearly half a mile nied by his counsel, Francis S. Key, Esq. was from the Capitol, and on the opposite side of brought to the bar of the House.

the Avenue from where Mr. Stanbery's board. The SPEAKER said, Samuel Houston, are ing-house is situated; and that, at the time of you now prepared to proceed to your trial? this occurrence, he was neither seeking for, SAMUEL HOUSTON.--I am.

nor expecting to see the said Stanbery. The SPEAKER.-The letter of Mr. Stanberry The accused denies that he intended to com will now be read to you, and I will then pro- mit, or that he believed he was committing, any ceed to put the interrogations ordered by the contempt towards the House of Representatives, House,

or any breach of its privilege, or the privilege of A paper was then presented by the accused, any of its members. He denies that the act protesting against the jurisdiction of the House, complained of constitutes any such contempt or as a preliminary step.

breach of privilege, and is prepared to justify The counsel for the accused requested leave his conduct, so far at least as the rights and to submit a motion that inasmuch as one of the privileges of this House and its members are members of the House had formed, expressed, concerned, by proof. and publicly declared an opinion upon the case, The Speaken then put the second interrogahe should not be permitted to pronounce upon torythe decision of the case,

“Do you admit or deny that the sáme assault At the request of Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, and beating were done for and on account of the paper was again read by the Clerk of the words spoken by said Stanbery, in the House of House.

Representatives, in debate?" On the motion of Mr. WAYNE, leave was The accused replied, that his answer to the granted for the motion to be made.

first interrogatory was as full and complete as A discussion of some length arose upon the any in his power to give. legality and constitutionality of challenging one He was then conducted from the bar; and on of the court, which was closed at length by motion of Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts

, fiur

. leave being granted to withdraw the notice, ther proceedings in the trial were postponed till and it was accordingly withdrawn by the coun- to-morrow. sel for the accused.

Mr. DAVIS of Massachusetts was, on motion, The SPEAKER then put the first interroga- excused from serving further on the Committee tory.

to conduct the trial; and the Committee was Do you admit or deny that you assaulted and further instructed to search for precedents. beat the said Stanbery, as he has represented On motion of Mr. DODDRIDGE, to-morrow in the letter which has been read, a copy of week was assigned for the consideration of the which has been delivered to you by the order business of the District of Columbia. of the House?

Some conversation took place on a motion of Mr. Houston--My Counsel will respond. Mr. POLK, for the appointment of a person unMr. Ker, the Counsel, then read as follows: der the report of the Committee of Privileges, The accused denies that "he assaulted and to write down the testimony.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts moved, that the resolution, inasmuch as each House had a Joseph Gales, Jun., Esq., be appointed as ste-right, under that instrument, to lay down rules nographer

, or some other suitable person, to for its own proceeding. He was convinced the take down the testimony in the case.

resolution would have a salutary effect. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. JEWETT demanded the yeas and nays, Mr. CONNER offered a resolution, providing and they were ordered. for the admission of Samuel Houston to bail on Mr. McKENNAN supported the resolution. giving sufficient security for his appearance, The House had already adopted several rules, from day to day, and from time to time, at the restraining, in some cases, the liberty of membar of House until the termination of his trial. bers in addressing the House. The rules adoptUpon this motion a debate ensued, but before ed by the House for this very trial were liable to the question was disposed of

the same objection ; in which, however, he saw The House adjourned.

very little force.

Mr. BATES, of Maine, took the same view. FRIDAY, APRIL 20.

The experience of yesterday had shown that it Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, moved the follow. was only necessary for the counsel of the reing as a rule to be observed in the farther trial spondent to throw some bone of contention in. of Samuel Houston:

to the House, and a whole day would be lost in Resolved, That in the further prosecution of debate. At this rate they were likely to sit till the trial of Samuel Houston, the examination of midsummer. witnesses, and the discussion of questions aris Mr. WICKLIFFE moved to lay the resolution ing out of testimony, shall be confined to the on the table. committee appointed to conduct the examina On that question Mr. MCKENNAN demandtion on the part of the House, and to the coun-ed the yeas and nays, but the House refused to sel of the accused, but any member may pro- order them; and the motion was then carried pose questions in writing through the commit- ayes 80, noes 52. So the resolution was laid tee."

on the table. Mr. CLAY supported his resolution by a

Mr. ADAMS again offered the following reso. few brief remarks on the consumption of time lution, which he had yesterday withdrawn : which had occurred and the tendency of this Resolved, That a select committee be appointrule to prevent it.

ed in the case of the trial of Samuel Houston, Mr. DODDRIDGE suggested a modification for a breach of the privileges of this House, to of the resolution, the object of which he highly examine the precedents in cases of contempts approved. He said that shirty-five members had and breaches of privilege, and report thereon yesterday spoken, and most of them had ad- from time to time to the House. dressed the House more than once, some of

His object, Mr. A. said, was to save time,and them four or five times.

he hoped that such would be the result. It Mr. JEWETT proposed to amend the rule was, he believed, the usual process in all Parli50 as to confine its operation to those thirty-five amentary proceedings of this kind. members: he believed if those gentlemen should

Mr. ELLSWORTH wished the resolution be kept silent, there would be little need of made more definite. No committee of five withgagging the rest of the House.

in the time this trial would probably continue, After some conversation, Mr. J. consented to could examine the whole body of existing prewithdraw his amendment.

cedents. Mr. COULTER rose to correct a misappre

Mr. HUNTINGTON moved to amend the hension with respect to the duties of the Com-resolution by striking out “the Committee of mittee of Privileges. They had been spoken Privileges,” and inserting “a Select Commitof in some of the reports, and elsewhere, as tee." though they had been appointed to manage the

Mr. ADAMS accepted of this as a modifica. trial on the part of the House. The committee tion. His intention had not been that the com. did not so understand the resolution under mittee should examine the whole body of Par. which they acted. They were appointed only liamentary precedents, but only such as related to examine the witnesses, and they had confined to the questions which might be expected to themselves to that duty alone. They had not arise in a proceeding of this kind, so as to be consulted with the complainant, or with any prepared to meet them as they might occur other person : they did not even know what from day to day. As he was upon two commitwitnesses were to be produced, or what facts it tees already, he hoped the SPEAKER would ex.

cuse him from serving on the committee he had Mr. CRAIG opposed Mr. Clar's motion, as proposed. being without any warrant in the Constitution,

Mr. HALL, of N. C., could see no practical and against the genius of our Government. The utility in adopting the resolution. The memomly sag he would ever cheerfully wear, was bers would have as much time to consult prethat imposed by his own discretion.

cedents as such a committee could have ; and Mr. COKE admitted and deplored the evil of could as well judge how far they applied. much speaking, but thought that , great as it These precedents

, when consulted, could be of Was, a less evil than the remedy proposed by no obligation on the House ; and as to those

in our own history, there were but two or three Mr. CLAY defended the constitutionality of of them.

was intended to prove.

his colleague.

Mr. LECOMPTE was opposed to the reso The interrogatory of the counsel was then lution, as unnecessary. The case was novel, again put to the witness; who had proceeded and common sense would be a sufficient guide. but a few moments, when He moved to lay the resolution on the table, Mr. WAYNE objected to his being allowed which motion prevailed—Ayes 62, Noes 49. to proceed.

So the resolution was laid on the table. Mr. WAYNE being called on by the CHAIR

Mr. PLUMMER resumed his discussion on to state the ground of his objection, withdrew the subject of the Wiscasset Collector, which it, having made it under a misapprehension of he continued until the expiration of the hour. the terms of the question.

Mr. Houston was now again placed at the The witness having gone a sentence further bar of the House.

in his testimony Mr. STANBERY requested that his testimo Mr.JEWETT objected to his being permitted ny, as yesterday recorded, might be again read to proceed. It was not competent to a witness to him, as he wished to correct one part of it, to declare his opinion as to facts. Whether a which, on reflection, he believed to be not quite certain transaction, in which the President and accurate. He then stated that his first impres- late Secretary of War were said to be involved, sion had been, that he had been knocked down did or did not amount to a fraud, was a matter by the club of his assailant, on the first, or se-of opinion, and wholly irrelevant as testimony. cond blow; but, from finding some of his wast Mr. WAYNE explained. He had made his coat buttons gone, and his shirt bosom torn, he former objection under a misapprehension, was induced to believe that he might have been having at the moment forgotten that the House thrown down in the scuffle.

had sanctioned the interrogatory. He disclaimMr. KEY explained the nature of the motion ed any thing like concert with the gentleman he had yesterday made. It was not leave abso- from New York, in the interruption of the witlutely to withdraw the interrogatory he had of- ness, and was in favor of his being permitted to fered ; but to substitute another in such a form proceed. as to obviate the difficulty which had arisen. The question being whether the witness

The SPEAKER now put the question on the should be allowed to proceedmotion of the respondent's counsel, which, af Mr. VANCE demanded the yeas and nays, ter a remark or two by Mr. WICKLIFFE, and which were ordered. Mr. BEARDSLEY, was, on motion of Mr. After some further remarks from Mr. JEW. HUNT, laid upon the table-Ayes 86, Noes 69. ETT, and a disclaimer, by Mr. STANBERY,

The question then recurring on the motion of lof all intention to acquit the respondentpof fraud. Mr. ARCHER, as modified, viz:

Mr. ALEXANDER moved for a reconsideraThat “the House consider the interrogatory tion of the vote of the House permitting the inas having been sufficiently answered.” terrogatory to which the witness was now an

Mr. McDUFFIE warmly remonstrated against swering, to be put. stopping the witness from completing his an. The question of reconsideration was argued swer in whatever manner he might deem neces. by Messrs. JEWETTI DODDRIDGE, Mesary to vindicate his character. He considered DUFFIE, BURGES, BOULDIN, PATTON, & it a monstrous proceeding, and hoped that the SUTHERLAND), in very animated speeches. gentleman from Virginia would consent to with Mr. STEWART, of Penn., moved the predraw his motion.

vious question. Mr. ARCHER did not admit that there was The House sustained the motion; the previous any thing irregular or “monstrous” in the pro- question was put and carried; and the main position he had made. On the contrary, it was question being on the reconsiderationabsurd to require the witness to state evidence Mr. H. EVERETT demanded the yeas and in support of an imputation which he disclaimed nays, which were ordered; and, being taken, having made. But, as the gentleman from stood as follows yeas, 62-nays, 114. Ohio might perhaps consider it a hardship not Mr. STANBERY, at his own request, was, to be allowed to preceed, Mr. A. would consent excused from voting. to withdraw his motion.

Mr. BEARDSLEY, after commenting upon Mr. VANCE said that his colleague had been the interrogatory, was going into an argument misunderstood: he had never admitted that he to show the impropriety of requiring the witheld the respondent guiltless of fraud: he had ness to produce evidence of an imputation which only meant to say that what he had uttered in he denied, when he was called to order by the House was not directed at the respondent Mr. FELDER, as arguing a question which as the object of attack. He had referred to a had been twice settled by a vote of the House. fraud contemplated by the late Secretary of Mr. BEARDSLEY then moved that the witWar, but could not certainly tell whether the ness be precluded from stating his belief of any respondent was in it or not. He had never dis- fraud having been committed by Gen. Houston, avowed a belief that General Houston was guil- he having disclaimed the intention of imputing ty of a fraud.

fraud to him in his printed speech. Mr. ARCHER said, that he would withdraw Mr. WICKLIFFE said, this was not the queshis motion for the present, and wait to see whe- tion the gentleman had argued. He hoped the ther the witness in his testimony should charge question would be taken without debate. any other fraud than that which was then in is Mr. MERCER inquired whether it would be sue: in which case he should object to his pro- in order to move the question of consideration? ceeding further.

The CHAIR replied in the negativa; when

the printed speech of said witness imputed to be granted him to question the witness respect.

[ocr errors]

the motion of Mr. BEARDSLEY, by adding to itput certain questions to the witness as to the the words “but may be permitted to state any manner in which it had been taken.

Mr. VANCE suggested a modification of the tion on granting this permission to the Counsel, the motion, as thus amended, was agreed to, in this affidavit was good evidence or not; it form

Mr. BATES accepted the modification, and to the witness. The question was, not whether

“ That the witness be precluded from stating might, in itself, be good for nothing, it was to his belief of fraud committed by Gen. Hous- be received as constituting a part of the testimoton, but may be permitted to state any evidence ny. The interrogatory required him to state

Mr. BEARDSLEY was about to offer ano-determined that he should be permitted to give onder, inasmuch as the rules of proceeding re-ceived. The House would judge whether it

Mr. SUTHERLAND objected to it as out of of fraud. The paper, therefore, must be refraud: he had ness to produce evidence of an imputatos, qured that, when an objection had been dis was good evidence or bad. The counsel had no

cussed, and decided on, the examination of the right to put any question to the witness respect

The witness then resumed his testimony; but under the apprehension that he was discussing
Mr. BEARDSLEY moved his resolution, in was permitted to proceed.
* That the witness be precluded from giving right to ask the question he had referred to.

evidence of any fraud committed by, or partici- His right was to object to the paper; and on ould withdraw Mr. WICKLIFFE said, this was not the o ait to see whe- tion the gentleman had argued. He hoped paled in, by Samuel Houston; and which is not that right he must insist, unless liberty should was then in is. Mr. MERCER inquired whether it would ct to his pro- in order to move the question of conderstur

STATES WEEKLY TELEGRAPH.

Mr. BEARDSLEY supported his motion by d to the reso

Mr. McDUFFIE said, he was not in the haThe interrogatory of the counsel was then an argument drawn from the practice of courts bit of making such a motion as he should now ise was novel, again put to the witness; who had proceeded of justice, and the received rules of evidence. make, but this measure was of such an extraorfficient guide. but a few moments, when

Mr. C. ALLAN moved to amend the motion dinary character that he must demand the yeas on the table, Mr. WAYNE objected to his being allowed of Mr. BEARDSLEY, by striking out its latter and nays. !, Voes 49. to proceed.

chuse.

Mr. DICKSON moved to postpone further le table.

Mr. Warxe being called on by the CHAIE Mr. BEARDSLEY accepted the motion as a proceedings in the trial until 12 o'clock to-mordiscussion on to state the ground of his objection, withdrey modification. Hector, which it, having made it under a misapprehension di

row, in order to allow an opportunity for having

WT. TAYLOR, observing that his colleague one of the rules of proceeding altered. of the hour. the terms of the question.

had argued one question, and pointed his moplaced at the The witness having gone a sentence further

Mr. IRVIN remonstrated against the attempt tion to another, moved to amend it, by striking to shackle the witness. in bis testimony at his testimo. Mr.JEWETT objected to his being permited thereof, the word "evidence." Mr. *. denied withdraw his motion.

out the word "belief,” and inserting, in lieu Mr. BURGES requested Mr. Dicksox to be again read to proceed. It was not competent to a witnes that the witness had stated any belief; what he one part of it, to declare his opinion as to facts. Whether a had begun to state, was evidence. So that, if motion for postponement.

Mr. DICKSON complied, and withdrew his to be not quite certain transaction, in which the President ani

the gentleman wanted to stop him, he should s first impres- late Secretary of War were said to be invitici

put the motion on its true ground.

Mr. VINTON now moved to lay Mr. BEARDSnocked down did or did not amount to a fraud, was a maite

Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, moved to lay

LEY's motion upon the table. le first, or se-of opinion, and wholly irrelevant as testimer.

the motion, as amended, upon the table.

The CHAIR pronounced this motion not in

order. le of his wast-. Mr. WAYNE explained. He had made by

The CHAIR pronounced it not to be in order, osom torn, he former objection under a misapprehens,

under the rules adopted by the House in rela: the House, on the ground that the motion of Mr.

Mr. VINTON appealed from that decision to ght have been having at the moment forgotten that the Hex

tion to this trial, to receive such a motion. had sanctioned the interrogatory. He dicas

BEARDSLEY did not come within the rules of .

MET. STANBERY inquired what part of the proceeding referred to by the Chair; when, afof the motioned any thing like concert with the gentless testimony it was which the gentleman objected ter a rather brisk discussion on the point of ornot leave abso- from New York, in the interruption of the re

der, between Mr.VINTON and the SPEAKER, Gry he had of- ness, and was in favor of his being permited to

After some discussion as to order, the amendin such a form proceed.

Mr. BEARDSLEY withdrew his resolution. had arisen. The question being whether the sites

H. CRAIG offered an amendment, a copy of course of his testimony, produced an affidavit

The witness now proceeded, and, in the question on the should be allowed to proceed whicla could not be obtained; but which was un-of"Luther Blake, relating to certain conversasel, which, af. Mr. VANCE demanded the yeas an era

lentoad to prelude all testimony relating to the tions between himself and the respondent, KLIFFE, and which were ordered. notion of Mr. After some further remarks from DE JEM

touching bids for a contract for rations to the ME

. CARSON demanded the previous ques. emigrating Indians, in which the accused had $ 86, Noes 69. ETT, and a disclaimer, by MT. STANBEE: - the motion of of all intention to acquit the responden:pí fans

But the CHAIR decided that the motion and others, with a view to get the contract for Mr. ALEXANDER moved for a recorded)

themselves at a higher rate.
interrogatory tion of the vote of the House permitting this 3
red.”
terrogatory to which the witness was 2012

e no et Tes, of Maine
, moved to amend ceived, unless he might be permitted,

first

, to strated against swering, to be put. pleting his an

The question of reconsideration was Eht deem neces. by Messrs. JEWETT; DODDRIDUL

The SPEAKER was about to put the ques. He considered DUFFIE, BURGES, BOULDIN, PATTON hoped that the SUTHERLAND), in very animated species consent to with Mr. STEWART, of Penn., mored com vious question.

Mr. ADAMS observed, that it was not com

put that there was

The House sustained the motion; the pret us” in the pro- question was put and carried; and the 3

of the witness' answer, and, it state evidence Mr. H. EVERETT demanded the Fezi 6 a he disclaimed nays, which were ordered; and, beings -ntleman from stood as follows-yeas, 62-ays, 114. - hardship not Mr. STANBERY, at his own request

what evidence he had, and the House had just would consent excused from voting.

as had, ague had been the interrogatory,

he the te

ment of Mr. T'Arlon was rejected.

tion,

could not be received under the rules.

Mr. CRAIG's amendment was rejected.

facts going to prove it."

amendment, by striking out the word or facts," when
and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words “evi-

dence he then had, or now has."

the following form:

ontrary, it was question being on the reconsideration

be now has, to it

ther resolution, when

Mr. BEARDSLEY, after commenting 3

was going into an art

should proceed.

sustained the
had said only a few words, when

had uttered in he denied, when he was called to order by ne respondent Mr. FELDER, as arguing a question ** I referred to a had been twice settled by a vote of the How e Secretary of Mr. BEARDSLEY then moved that the si 11 whether the ness be precluded from stating his belief ofw

had never dis-/fraud having been committed by Gen. Hori iston was guil- he having disclaimed the intention of impot

fraud to him in his printed speech.

ing it.

twice by a question not , but, on explanation,

Mr. KEY explained. He did not claim any

the following words:

[ocr errors]

wid Houston."

should charge question would be taken without debate

[blocks in formation]

The CHAIR replied in the negatis ; whes

viz :

dence, not for every thing which the witness FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE. might suppose to be such.

FRIDAY, APRIL 20. Mr. SUTHERLAND inquired as to the right of the counsel to make this objection.

The hour of 12 o'clock, meridian, having arThe CHAIR replied that he had supposed rived, the counsel had a right to object to any, evi

SAMUEL Houston, accompanied by his Coun- . dence he thought improper, and he had there-sel, was placed at the bar of the House, by orfore received the motion.

der of the Speaker. Mr. HUNGTINGTON inquired whether, if

Mr. STAN BENT' requested that his testimony the counsel objected to any piece of evidence, he gave the following explanatory testimony,

delivered yesterday, be read—which being done, the counsel alone could discuss the question?

The CHAIR replied in the affirmative.
From this decision, Mr. ADAMS took an ap- test, and the whole of the next day, that I had

“I believed during the evening of the conpeal.

been knocked down by the club on the first After some explanation from the SPEAKER, Mr. ADAMS insisted on his objection to the the next day, and perceiving that the buttons

or second blow; but on examining my waistcoat counsel being permitted to exclude the paper were some of them torn off, and my shirt, the offered by the witness.

bosom of which was torn, 1 began to doubt my The CHAIR required the counsel to put his first impressions, and was led to conclude that I objection in writing; which having been done, might have been thrown down in the scuffle." The CHAIR received the motion,

The question recurred on granting permisMr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, inquired whe-sion to the accused to withdraw the interrogather the objection was not open to the discus- tory propounded by his Counsel yesterday, to sion of all the House.

Mr. STANBERY, and which is as follows: The CHAIR, on farther reflection, decided “ These remarks, thus published, impute a that it was.

fraud to the accused. Had you then, or have Mr. ADAMS withdrew his appeal.

you now, any, and what evidence of the corMr. ELLSWORTH, and Mr. COOKE, of rectness of such imputation?” and to substitute Ohio, opposed the Counsel's motion, insisting in lieu thereof another interrogatory, which is that even in an ordinary letter or parole informa. as follows : tion might be given in answer to the interroga. tend to impute fraud to the accused in the state

Did you or did you not impute a fraud or intory, much more an affidavit.

Mr. H. EVERETT called for the reading of ment of your remarks in the Intelligencer of the affidvavit.

the 2d? Mr. KERR supported that motion.

Which motion was subsequently withdrawn. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, strenuously

The question then recurred on the motion opposed it.

made by Mr. Archer, yesterday, and which Mr. KENNON insisted that the witness had a mission to withdraw the interrogatory and-sub

was pending when the accused moved for perright to produce any paper which he considered stitute another, as aforesaid; whích motion is as as evidence in support of the charge of fraud

follows: he had made. There was no need that the

Resolved, That the House consider the witpaper should first be read, to settle that quesness as having sufficiently answered the intertion. The question being then put, Shall the

rogatory propounded. paper

And after further debate thereonnow be read? it was decided in the affirmative;

Mr, ARCHER withdrew his said mosion. ayes 82, noes 71. So the House ordered the affidavit to be that the House do reconsider the vote taken

A motion was then made by Mr. ALEXANDER read, and it was read at the Clerk's table ac

yesterday, by which the said interrogatory was cordingly.

directed to be propounded to the Complainant, The objection of Counsel was also read; and

viz : the question being, Shall this question be re

“ These remarks, thus published, impute : ceived? Mr. VANCE demanded the yeas and nays.

fraud to the accused-Had you then, or have Mr. KERR now moved to postpone further you now, any, and what evidence of the cor

rectness of such imputation?" proceedings in the trial until 12 o'clock to

And after debate, Mr. L. CONDICT, with a view, as he said, to STEWART, and being demanded by a majority

The previous question was moved by Mr. cut off the unprofitable, and worse than un- of the members presentprofitable, discussion which had so long occu The said previous question was put, viz pied the morning of every day, moved to Shall the main question be now put? amend the motion by substituting 11 o'clock, And passed in the affirmative. which was agreed to.

The said main question was then put, viz :So the trial was postponed until tomorrow Will the House reconsider the said vote? at 11 o'clock,

And was decided in the negative. The accused was conducted from the har, WM. STAN BERY was, at his request, excused and the House adjourned.

from voting on this question, as well as on any

moITOW.

« ForrigeFortsett »