Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ask him what Mr. S. had said in the House con- the circumstances under which I was thrown cerning Mr. H.? into company with General H. They were substantially the same as those stated by Mr. Grun dy and Col. Buckner.

To the propounding of this question, Mr. Boox objected, and the objection was sustained by the House.

Question, by Mr. WORTHINGTON.-- Did you see Mr. H. when he first grasped S. and, if yes, how did he take hold of him, front or rear?

Answer.--I did not see him when he grasped him, but Mr. S's face was towards him, as well as I can recollect.

Question by the same.-Did the meeting between these gentlemen appear to be unexpected.

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 Mr. PATTON.--After you had Question by the same. Did you see the comstated to Mr. S. what you then knew about it,mencement of the affray, and if so, who was in answer to his inquiry, was nothing further said by him to you, or by the gentleman who was present?

present?

Answer.-When I left General H. there was no person in my view but Colonel Buckner Answer .--I understood him that he wished to and Gen. H., except Mr. S. I did not see any know by my evidence, to see whether it was ne- part of the affray. I seen General H. and Mr. cessary to summon me or not; that perhaps it B. standing where I left them. I met no one would be necessary to summon me. Nothing that I know of; nor did I see any other person more was said. in sight, except Mr. S., who was coming over the street.

JONATHAN ELLIOT, Senior, a witness on behalf of the House, was sworn, and testified as follows:

Question, by Mr. STANBERY.--Describe the situation of Barnes's boarding house, and the situation of Mrs. Queen's boarding house.

Answer.--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.

Question, 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 made?

Answer...--I 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:

Question, 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?

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 com. menced.

Question, by Mr. CLAY, 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 very brightly, and 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. BEARDSLEY.-When General H. inquired "Who is that coming across the street," was an answer given by you or any other person?

Answer,-There was none. I immediately marched off when I saw who the person was.

Answer.-I 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 further. When I was about to return, General H. pointed across the street, and pointed to a person crossing the street, and asked me, "Who is that?" I looked across, and recog- Question, by Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia.nised, or thought I recognised, Mr. S. The Did you or not hear the honorable A. Buckner disturbance between Gen. H. and Mr. S. had repeatedly relate the circumstances connected been the subject of general conversation, both with the affray between the complainant and in and out of this House for a week before, the accused? if yea, how does his evidence, and when I saw Mr. S. come in a direction to given in this case, correspond with his previous meet General H., I thought something un-recital of the circumstances? Do you and Col. pleasant would occur. Inasmuch as I was not Buckner board at the same house?

in the habit of settling my disputes in that To this interrogatory, Mr. STANBERY object way, I determined not to be present to see it; ed, and the objection was sustained by the I walked off to my boarding house. I heard House. considerable noise, such as would naturally be

DUFF GREEN, a witness on the part of the

on such an occasion. I can state to the House House was sworn, when

The following interrogatory was propounded very near the breast of H., and while he had it to him by Mr. STANBERY, Viz:

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

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. WICKLIFFE object-stepped back; he said that Stanbery still had

ed.

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.

The honorable THOS. EWING, a Senator of the United States, for the State of Ohio, a witness on the part of the House, was sworn, and testified as follows:

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 any thing which he did not say, though I may have omitted some 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. STANBERY.-Did you hear for a little while, that he was not certain whe Mr. 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. yea, state the same as Mr. Buckner related I recollect nothing else at present. I ought, them to you? perhaps, to add, that Mr. Buckner was convers Answer.-I did hear him relate them the ing 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 thern and also to me. I do not know, because I saw him in the group of Senanow recollect who the others were; nor am I certain that I shall be able to state exactly as he did, the facts in the case. I will try to do it substantially. He stated to me some circumstances about the meeting. I think if I remember right, thst Mr. H, some other person, and himself were together at the point where the assault took place, perhaps they had met accidentally, if not, they were walking together and had stopped, and were conversing about walking one way or another. While there, the other person who was with them, looked and walked off pretty fast; he said he looked round, and saw a person walking across the street towards them, and that the person was Mr. S. Just as he stepped on the pavement, Governor H. called his name, and said in a mill tone of voice, "Is this you, Mr. Stanbery," to which Question by Mr. STANBERY.-Are you cerMr. S. replied in an equally mild manner, "Ittain that Buckner did not use the words "run At this moment H. drew a cane, as he away?"

is."

tors conversing together. I may not, there. fore, have heard the whole conversation; probably he did not relate the whole to me. I not only saw him in the group but heard expres sions which induced me to come up that I might hear.

Question by Mr. STANBERY.-Did Mr. Buckner state that Stanbery attempted to run away? Answer. He stated, as I have already said, after receiving the first blow, he turned, and attempted to walk off, and that Houston jumped upon his back. That I think was exactly his expression. I think I can give the main statement no more distinctly than I have already done. He said walk off, or make off; I am not certain of the precise words, but that was the idea conveyed.

Question by STANBERY.-Did Mr. Buckner state "that Stanbery halloed all the time pretty much?"

called it, and gave him an under stroke with Anwser.-I think he did not in my hearings his cane on the side of his head-the blow I could hardly have forgotten them if he bad knocked his hat off; he said that S. reeled used those strong words, back, whether he stated that another blow was given or not, I am not certain. He said that S. reeled and turned, and H. jumped upon his back; that a struggle then took place, and he soon discovered that S. was the stronger man, At this point, I told him that could not be the case if Mr. H. was as strong as I supposed him to be. He said that then a struggle ensued, and that S. had an opportunity, if he chose, to have dirked Mr. H. He said that, after a strug gle, Mr. S. fell into a ditch by the side of the Question by Mr. STANBERT.-Did Mr. Buckpavement, that H. struck him a number of ner say that Stanbery exclaimed, “O don't?” blows after he was down. In a part of the con- Answer.-I do not recollect that either. I

Answer.--I think I have heard him say so, whether in that conversation I don't know. There is a pretty strong impression on my mind that I have heard him say to that effect. I can't be certain whether it passed at that first time or at another interview a short time afterwards.

versation he said, "he thought at one time don't recollect certainly to have heard him say that H. had killed S." or that "S. was likely that at any time. I think I did not. The exto be killed." He said that, during the strug pression is new to me as relates to this transac gle, S. turned over, drew a pistol, presented it tion.

Question by Mr. STANBERY.-Did Mr. Buck. ner state that while Stanbery lay on his back, he, Stanbery, put up his feet, and Houston struck him elsewhere?

[ocr errors]

Question by Mr. Boos.--Will you state whether you and M S. are particular friends? Answer.-I have been intimate with S. ever since I came to the bar; we have practised together about fifteen years, and have been

Question by Mr. HAWES.--Was the conver

Answer.-I do not recollect. I can't say I remember the minutia of Mr. Buckner's state-friends. ment more than I have already stated. I do not recollect that which is stated in the interro-sation to which you allude held at the seat of gatory. One thing has occurred to me since 1 the Hon. Mr. Mangum, in the Senate Chamber. gave the evidence. Mr. Buckner stated that, Answer. It was not; I had no conversation after Mr. Houston ceased striking Mr. Stanbe. with Mr. Buckner there: it was behind the cory, he got up, took hold of his coat, and shook lonnade and beyond the Vice President's chair: the mud off of it, which is the only additional circumstance that I remember.

Question by the accused.-Did or did not Col. Buckner remark to you that Mr. S. behaved very cowardly and begged very much-and that be deserved a good whipping for not mak. ing a better fight, or words to that effect, and did you not express to Col. Buckner your re gret at the conduct of said Stanbery as related by Buckner in that affair.

it is perhaps material to state that it was about the chair of Mr. Mangum, there I first saw the group I have already spoken of in conversation, and heard the expressions which induced me to suppose he, Col. Buckner, had been present at the meeting over night; I then went round behind the colonnade and met him, and we conversed.

Answer.-I think he did, in substance, state that he mentioned in addition some very slight acquaintance with Gov. Houston, having seen him at some of the rooms.

The Hon. ALEXANDER BUCKNER was again examined, and testified further as follows:

Question by the accused.—Are you convinced that Mr. S. made use of the exclamations "O dont," mentioned in your evidence-was it or was it not made repeatedly.

Question by Mr. HAWES.--What do you think is the age and weight of Mr. Stanbery? Answer.--I do not recollect Mr. Buckner To this interrogatory an objection was made, making use of these expressions contained in and the objection was sustained by the House. the first clause of the interrogatory. The sub- Question by the accused.-Did or did not stance of that which is contained in the second Col. Buckner tell you that both the men were clause, he did say after Col. Buckner's detailing strangers to him, and that he felt no interest in what have already stated of the transaction. I the affair, nor partiality for either of them? said to him in substance, to Col. Buckner, that Stanbery was not a stout man, that he had not much bodily strength, and little or no action. I said to him also, that Stanbery had been to tally unused to a rough and tumble--and I supposed was not very well prepared for it. I expressed regret that he had failed to fire his pistol; I think I added, too, that I-thought Col. Buckner must be mistaken, as to the pistol's flashing, that Mr. Stanbery had probably fail ed to draw the trigger. I did not hear Buckner say, in these words, that Mr. Stanbery behaved very cowardly, and begged very much. What he did say to me is exactly given in my main statement already given as I can state it. One expression of Mr. Buckner has occurred to me. I recollect his using these words: that Stanbery grunted at every blow; that I think was the expressior. he used to me. One other expression of Mr. Buckner has occurred to me which he used in conversation at the time he Question by Mr. WORTHINGTON.- Had you said Stanbery could have stuck Houston with on the evening of the affray, or at any other his dirk. I said it was doubtful whether Mr. time previous to the affray, any conversation S. had his dirk with him. Col. Buckner said with the accused on the subject of his differthat S. deserved to be well whipped, if he had ence with Mr. Stanbery? neglected that.

Question by the accused.-Did you or did you not say that Mr. S. thought the accused had lain in wait for him, and did not Col. Buckner tell you that that was a mistake, that the meeting was entirely accidental?

Answer-I did say that, and Colonel Buckner replied as is supposed in the interrogatory. Question by the accuesd.-Were you sure which it was, Stanbery or Houston, that Col. Becker told you grunted at the striking of the blows!

Answer.-I thought it was S. he referred

Answer-I am perfectly certain that he did say "Odont," putting his hands up over his head, and that he said it repeatedly, and made use of many other wild heterogeneous expressions, which it is unnecessary to repeat here.

Question by the accused.-If he made use of any other exclamations, state them?

Answer.--He stated "dont strike me," "dont strike me any more," "please sir," "oh Lor. dy," and many other such expressions.

To this interrogatory an objection was made, and the objection was sustained by the House. The further hearing of this case was then postponed until to-morrow 11 o'clock A. M. Samuel Houston was then removed into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

And then the House adjourned until to-morrow, 11 o'clock, A. M.

APPORTIonment of repRESENTA

TIVES.

IN SENATE, April 5, 1832.
Mr. WEBSTER made the following report:

to; I cannot be certain; I may have got a wrong The Select Committee to whom was referred,

idea.

on the 27th of March, the bill from the House

[ocr errors]

of Representatives, entitled "An act for the must necessarily speak of particular States, but apportionment of representatives among the it is hardly necessary to say, that they speak of several States according to the fifth census," them as examples only, and with the most perhave had the subject under consideration, fect respect, not only for the States themselves, and now ask leave to report: but for all those who represent them here. Although the bill does not commence by fix

This bill, like all laws on the same subject, must be regarded as of an interesting and deli.ing the whole number of the proposed House cate nature. It respects the distribution of po of Representatives, yet the process adopted litical power among the States of the Union. It by it brings out the number of two hundred and is to determine the number of voices which, forty members. Of these two hundred and for ten years to come, each State is to possess forty members, forty are assigned to the State in the popular branch of the legislature. In the of New York, that is to say, precisely one-sixth opinion of the committee, there can be few or part of the whole. This assignment would seem no questions which it is more desirable should to require that New York should contain one. be settled on just, fair, and satisfactory princi-sixth part of the whole population of the Uni-, ples, than this; and, availing themselves of the ted States, and would be bound to pay onebenefit of the discussion which the bill has al- sixth part of all her direct taxes. Yet neither ready undergone in the Senate, they have gi- of these is the case. The whole representative ven to it a renewed and anxious consideration. population of the United States is 11,929,005; The result is, that, in their opinion, the bill that of New York is 1,918,623, which is less ought to be amended. Seeing the difficulties than one-sixth of the whole by nearly 70,000. which belong to the whole subject, they are Of a direct tax of two hundred and forty thoufully convinced that the bill has been framed sand dollars, New York would pay only 38.59. and passed in the other House with the since- But if, instead of comparing the numbers asrest desire to overcome those difficulties, and signed to New York with the whole numbers to enact a law which should do as much justice of the House, we compare her with other as possible to all the States. But the commit. States, the inequality is still more evident and tee are constrained to say, that this object ap-striking.

pears to them not to have been obtained. The To the State of Vermont, the bill assigns unequal operation of the bill on some of the five members. It gives, therefore, eight times States, should it become a law, seems to the as many representatives to New York as to Vercommittee most manifest; and they cannot but mont; but the population of New York is not express a doubt whether its actual apportion- equal to eight times the population of Vermont ment of the representative power among the by more than three hundred thousand. Verseveral States, can be considered as conforma-mont has five members only for 280,657 perble to the spirit of the constitution. The bill sons. If the same proportion were to be ap provides, that, from and after the 3d of March, plied to New York, it would reduce the num1833, the House of Representatives shall be ber of her members from forty to thirty-fourcomposed of members elected agreeably to a making a difference more than equal to the ratio of one representative for every forty-seven whole representation of Vermont, and more thousand and seven hundred persons in each than sufficient to overcome her whole power in State, computed according to the rule prethe House of Representatives. scribed by the constitution. The addition of A disproportion, almost equally striking, is the seven hundred to the forty-seven thousand manifested, if we compare New York with in the composition of this ratio, produces no ef Alabama. The population of Alabama is 262,fect whatever in regard to the constitution of 208, for this she is allowed five members. The the House. It neither adds to, nor takes from, rule of proportion which gives to her but five the number of members assigned to any State. members for her number, would give to New Its only effect is, a reduction of the apparent York but thirty-six for her number: yet New amount of the fractions, as they are usually call-York receives forty. As compared with Alaed, or residuary numbers, after the application bama, then, New York has an excess of repreof the ratio. For all other purposes, the re-sentation equal to four-fifths of the whole re sult is precisely the same as if the 1atio had been 47,000.

presentation of Alabama, and this excess itself will give her, of course, as much weight in the House as the whole delegation of Alabama, within a single vote. Can it be said, then, that representatives are apportioned to these States according to their respective numbers?

As it seems generally admitted that inequali. ties do exist in this bill, and that injurious consequences will arise from its operation, which it would be desirable to avert, if any proper means of averting them, without producing The ratio assumed by the bill, it will be perothers equally injurious, could be found, the ceived, leaves large fractions, so called, or recommittee do not think it necessary to go into siduary numbers, in several of the small States, a full and particular statement of these conse-to the manifest loss of a part of their just proquences. They will content themselves with portion of representative power. Such is the presenting a few examples only of these results, operation of the ratio, in this respect, that New and such as they find it most difficult to recon-ork, with a population less than that of New cile with justice, and the spirit of the constitu- England by thirty or thirty-five thousand, has yet two more members than all the New EngIn exhibiting these examples, the committee land States; and there are seven States in the

tion.

Union, whose members amount to the number and undeniable. The main question has been, of 123, being a clear majority of the whole whether the principle itself be constitutional ? House, whose aggregate fractions, altogether, and this question the committee proceeded to amount only to fifty-three thousand; while Ver- examine, respectfully asking of those who have mont and New Jersey, having together but ele doubted its constitutional propriety, to deem ven members, have a joint fraction of seventy-the question of so much importance as to justi five thousand. fy a second reflection. Pennsylvania by the bill will have, as it hap- The words of the Constitution are, "reprepens, just as many members as Vermont, New sentatives, and direct taxes, shall be apportionHampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey; ed among the several States, which may be inbut her population is not equal to theirs by a cluded within this Union, according to their rehundred and thirty thousand and the reason spective numbers, which shall be determined of this advantage derived to her from the pro- by adding to the whole number of free pervisions of the bill, is, that her fraction, or resi-sons, including those bound to service for a duum, is twelve thousand only, while theirs is term of years, and excluding Indians, threea hundred and forty-four. fifths of all other persons. The actual enume.

But the subject is capable of being present. ration shall be made within three years after ed in a more exact and mathematical form. The the first meeting of the Congress of the United House is to consist of two hundred and forty States, and within every subsequent term of members. Now, the precise proportion of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law power, out of the whole mass represented by direct. The number of representatives shall the numbers two hundred and forty, which New not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but York would be entitled to according to her po each State shall have at least one representa pulation, is 38.59; that is to say, she would be tive." entitled to 38 members, and would have a resi- There would seem to be little difficulty in duum or fraction, and, even if a member were understanding these provisions. The terms given her for that fraction, she would still have used, are designed, doubtless, to be received but thirty-nine; but the bill gives her forty. in no peculiar or technical sense, but according These are a part, and but a part, of those re-to their common and popular acceptation. To sults produced by the bill in its present form, apportion, is to listribute by right measure; to which the committee cannot bring themselves set off in just parts; to assign in due and proper to approve. While it is not to be denied that, proportion. These clauses of the Constitution under any rule of apportionment, some degree respect not only the portions of power, but the fo relative inequality must always exist, the portions of the public burden, also, which committee cannot believe that the Senate will should fall to the several States; and the same sanction inequality and injustice to the exten language is applied to both. Representatives in which they exist in this bill, if they can be are to be apportioned among the States accordavoided. But recollecting the opinions which ing to their respective numbers, and direct had been expressed in the discussions of the taxes are to be apportioned by the same rule. Senate, the committee have diligently sought The end aimed at is, that representation and to learn whether there was not some other num-taxation should go hand in hand; that each ber which might be taken for a ratio, the ap-State should be represented in the same explication of which would work out more jus-tent to which it is made subject to the public tice and equality. In this pursuit, the com- charges by direct taxation. But, between the mittee have not been successful. There are, apportionment of representatives and the apit is true, other numbers, the adoption of which portionment of taxes, there necessarily exists would relieve many of the States which suffer one essential difference Representation foundunder the present; but this relief would be ed on numbers, must have some limit, and obtained only by shifting the pressure on to being, from its nature, a thing not capable of other States, thus creating new grounds of indefinite subdivision, it cannot be made precomplaint in other quarters. The number for- cisely equal. A tax, indeed, cannot always, ty-four thousand has been generally spoken of or often be apportioned with perfect exactness; as the most acceptable suostitute for 47,700; as, in other matters of account, there will be but should this be adopted, great relative ine fractional parts of the smallest coins, and the quality would fall on several States, and, among smallest denomination of money of account, yet, them, on some of the new and growing States, by the usual subdivisions of the coin, and of whose relative disproportion, thus already great, the denomination of money, the apportionment would be constantly increasing. The commit-of taxes is capable of being made so exact, tee, therefore, are of opinion that the bill should that the inequality becomes minute and inbe altered in the mode of apportionment. They visible. But representation cannot be thus think that the process which begins by assum-divided. Of representation, there can be ing a ratio should be abandoned, and that the nothing less than one representative; nor by bill ought to be framed on the principle of the our Constitution, more representatives than one amendment which has been the main subject of for every thirty thousand. It is quite obvious, discussion before the Senate. The fairness of therefore, that the apportionment of representhe principle of this amendment, and the gene. tative power can never be precise and perfect. ral equity of its results, compared with those There must always exist some degree of inwhich flow from the other process, seem plain equality. Those who framed, and those who

« ForrigeFortsett »