Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ed.

the mean time the attention of the public will that it was unncessary, inasmuch as the paper, be arrested by the declaration of Mr. Stanbery, of which it was confirmatory, had been receivmade in his place on the floor of the House, in which he not only charged that attempts to intimidate members, in the discharge of their duty, had been made by the President, but that he stood prepared to prove it,if his statement were called in question.

CONGRESSIONAL

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1832.

TRIAL OF SAMUEL HOUSTON.
CONTINUED.

The Counsel argued, that the best proof of the circumstances attending the making of the affidavit, would be the presence and evidence of the magistrate before whom it was sworn. The motion of Mr. VINTON was agreed to. Mr. STANBERY proceeded

Although I had such knowledge of this contemplated fraud as satisfied my own mind, about the period that it took place, yet before I made the remarks in the House, I had read the exposition of that transaction in the Telegraph, and the facts stated by the editor of that paper confirmed my former conviction; and I believe that the fraud can be substantiated by the witnesses whose names I will proceed to give the House:

The House assembled at 11 o'clock. Mr. STANBERY moved, that the words "the complainant," by which he was designated in the Journal of the House, be striken out. He Mr. Thomas L. McKinney; Mr. John Shackdid not appear there as the complainant. He had ford; Hon. Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, a member addressed to the House a statement of the case, of this House; Hon. Mr. Branch, a member of and the House and the nation were the com- this House; Gen. Duff Green, of this city; Gen. plainants, and not him, (Mr. S.) For his part, Van Fossen, of New York; Hon. Mr. Dickson, he conceived that vengeance was satisfied as of New York, a member of this House; Wilfar he was satisfied. liam Prentiss, of this city.

Mr. BOON objected to the alteration; but It will be necessary to make out the case, alafter some remarks from Mr. MERCER, Mr. AR- So, tohave the proposals for the contract, which NOLD, and Mr. COOKE, of Ohio, withdrew it at are, on ought to be now, on the file of the War the suggestion of Mr. SPEIGHT. Department, and the correspondence between the individuals who made the proposals, and the Secretary of War.

Mr. HALL, of North Carolina, offered a resolution, providing that no member of the House but the members of the Committee discuss the questions propounded by the accused; that all questions be submitted in writing, and that no member but those constituting the Committee, be permitted to object to questions.

Mr. HALL was heard in support of his proposition.

Mr. WICKLIFFE, Mr. ELLSWORTH, Mr. DODDRIDGE, and Mr. HUNTINGTON followed, when

Mr. REED, of Massachusetts, moved to lay the resolution on the table; on which the ayes and noes were asked for and ordered.

Mr. HALL, however, withdrew his proposition.

I have nothing further to say in answer to the interrogatories.

Interrogatory by the Counsel for the accused: Q. When did you receive the affidavit of Luther Blake, presented yesterday?

A. I believe it was received after the last interrogatory was propounded, but before I had given any answer to it. I believe it was at the first time the interrogatory was read. I believe it was during the discussion of the propriety of putting it.

Q. When did you first hear of it, and from whom?

A. I heard nothing about it till it was presented to me..

Mr. WICKLIFFE then proposed a resolu- Q. Do you know how long the said Blake retion, limiting the discussion of questions propo-mained in the city, after giving the affidavit, sed, to the Committee; but subsequently withdrew it to avoid a lengthened discussion.

Mr. Houston was then conducted to the bar by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Key, the counsel for the accused, withdrew the objection to the depositiou of Luther Blake as testimony.

and was he in the city when you received it?

A. I know nothing about it. I have never seen the man, and know nothing about him, but from the information of others.

Q. Had you any information of his having left the city, and when did he leave it?

A. At the time I presented the paper, I had Mr. STANBERY then submitted a certificate no information whether he had left the city, or of the magistrate before whom the deposition any thing about him. I have since learned that was made, stating the date of the time when the left the city on the 17th. was taken.

The Counsel objected to its reception, as also did Mr. KERR, of Maryland.

The reading of the paper was called for, but negatived-ayes 77, noes 90.

The question then was on receiving it as testimony, and after some debate

Mr. VINTON moved that the witness be permitted to withdraw the paper on the ground]

Q. Was he requested to remain, and give evidence in this case, and by whom'

A. I heard from Mr. Prentiss, of this city, that he did request him to remain, but the urgency of his business would not permit him.

Q. Had you heard of the affidavit before you received it-did you learn at whose instance it was given?

A. I did not hear of it before it was present

ed. I have since understood the affidavit was ton. In the course of conversation I told Mr. taken at the instance of Mr. Prentiss. Johnson that my words did not necessarily im

Q. Do you know in whose handwriting the pute fraud. Mr. J. said, Mr. Houston had a affidavit is? right to put his own construction.

A. No.

Q. Do you know when the said affidavit was taken?

A. No; only from the affidavit of the Magistrate's, now in my possession, which states, that it was taken on Monday, the 16th day of April. Q. Are the papers now shown you, the Nos. of the Telegraph to which you allude in your testimony, and in which your remarks are printed from the Intelligencer, of the 2d instant? A. I alluded to publications in the Telegraph previous to my making the remarks.

Q. Did you mention to the friends with whom you say you consulted as to the reply it would be proper to make to the note of the accused, that you had not intended, in your remarks, to impute a fraud to the accused?"

Q. Did you, when you'stated to Mr. Johnson that your words did not necessarily impute a fraud to Mr. Houston, also state that you did not so intend it? If not, why did you not?

A. I did not state to Mr. Johnson that I did not intend to charge Mr. Houston with fraud. I do not know what reason I had for not stating it. I was not called upon to give any such reason, and gave none.

Q. Did you say to Mr. Creighton, that you had not intended to impute fraud to the accused?

[ocr errors]

A. I do not recollect.

Q. You speak of the accused being several times seen by you with a club or bludgeon. Was it your expectation that he would attack you with the club or bludgeon?

ways had the bludgeon with him, and I thought in passing in the lobby one day, I discovered he had pistols under his coat; I saw the mountings of the handles, and I expected he would attack me with the bludgeon, and if I made any resistance that he would attack me with the pistols or a dirk.

A. I drew my answer on the same day on A. After I had received the note from Mr. which I received the note from Mr. H. at my Houston, I noticed he was in the Hall for several desk, without consulting any one. That even-days; I do not know how many days. He aling I consulted my friends, in consequence of which, a sentence was stricken out, and some other trifling modification made. I do not recollect that I mentioned to them that I did not impute fraud. I was much astonished at receiving a note from him on the subject. I believe the note of Mr. Houston designed to be to give him a pretext to commit personal violence upon me, not to redress any grievances of his, but to gratify the vengeance of others.

Q. Did you state that belief last mentioned to those friends?

A. I think there was some conversation of the kind.

Q. Who were the friends with whom you consulted?

A. General Vance, of Ohio, Mr. Creighton, of Ohio, and Mr. Ewing, of Ohio. They were not all present at one consultation. Mr. Mercer was present at the same time. Mr. Taylor, of New York, was also consulted, he boarded at the same house, and was the first I consulted. They were usually considered as my confidential friends and advisers. There was some conversation also with Mr. Arnold, and several other members of the mess where I boarded. They did not all know it. I am confident there was a conversation with Mr. Arnold.

Q. Why did you not, in reply to the accused, state that you had not intended to impute fraud to him?

A. His letter forbade me making such a reply. He called on my only to know if my remarks were correctly quoted. One reason why I did not was, that, I thought it were pretence to give him an opportunity to make an attack. Q. Did you, in your conversation with the Hon. Cave Johnson, in relation to the accused's note, state that you had not intended to impute fraud to the accused; if not, why not?

Q. Had you not, before seeing what you supposed to be pistols on the accused, armed yourself in the manner you have previously stated?

A. I armed myself immediately on receiving his note. That is, the next morning. I do not remember seeing Mr. Houston before I received the note. I had a slight recollection of seeing him once before on the Pennsylvania Avenue.

Q. Had you not before or about the time of receiving the note met him in the War Office, and did he then offer you any insult or violence?

A. I have no remembrance of meeting him at the War Office. I will here observe, my acquaintance with him is very slight. At the time he was here in 1830, he was pointed out to me. Possibly at some large party he may have been introduced to me. I remember to have met him then, but did not know him,

Q. In the attack you have spoken of, did the accused attack you with his right or left hand?

A. I do not know; the blow was violent on my head.

Q. What was your reason for not officially charging the fraud which you state you knew of, upon the parties concerned in it?

A. I do not know that it is incumbent on me to make charge of all the frauds I hear of. There are other members in this House whom I wish to take the lead. I am willing to lend my aid to go ahead. I wish further to state, A. I considered it too improper, after what that when I first heard of this fraud, I considhad taken place, to have any conversation with ered myself as a supporter of the administraMr. Johnson on that subject. I thought that he tion, and I was not prepared, exactly then, to ought to have addressed himself to Mr. Creigh-make an attack on them. It was the first act

that shook my confidence in the then adminis- ter some time, I left my lodgings alone. I was tration. alone when attacked.

Q. Were you, when met, as you have stated, Q. by Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio. What has by the accused, on your way to attend any been your acquaintance and intimacy with Mr. committee of this House, or any other official Ewing before he took his seat in the Senate, business? and down to the time when you made the

[ocr errors]

A. I will state that I was on business con- speech? nected with my duties in the House. Mr. Ew- A. Mr. Ewing lives about 25 miles from me, ing had informed me that a colleague of mine, in a neighboring town. We have practised at in a speech in the House, had made severe the bar together, and have been acquainted for charges against me. I was not present in my 15 years. We have been intimate friends ever seat at the time. Mr. E. informed me that it since, and are now.

was incumbent on me to reply to it. The char- Q. by Mr. WHITTLESEY, of Ohio. Were you ges, I understood, made against me, by my col-wounded by the blows given, and to what exleague, were in reference to these same re-tent?

marks, denying the truth of the charge I had A. The severest injury I received was on the made. When I left my lodgings, I intended head. Violent blows on the head have preto call on Mr. Ewing, at his lodgings at Mr. vented me, more than any other injury, from Davis's. I was on my way there at the time; attending to my duty. One bone of my left and I intended also to call on Gen. Green, for hand is fractured. My left arm is also much the purpose of consulting with him as to the bruised. I received a severe blow on the right proof that could be obtained to substantiate the arm, at the elbow, and a severe one on the fraud relative to the contract for Indian rations, back of my right hand. I have other marks of in order to enable me to defend myself against violence on different parts of my person, which the charge of my colleague, or to institute some do not give me much pain. inquiry on the subject in this House.

A reference was here made to a former part

Q. by Mr. CRAIG, of Virginia. Do you re- of the testimony as to sending the speech for collect, certainly, that you referred to General publication. Mr. Stanbery said it was sent to Houston by name, upon the floor of Congress, the Intelligencer office by a messenger of Mr. in the speech you supposed to offend him, or Gales. The correction was entered on the did you afterwards add the name when you Journal. wrote it over for the press?

A. I mentioned his name in debate. Q. by Mr. DICKSON, of N. York. Do you intend it to be understood that Mr. Dickson, of this House, has any other knowledge of the facts in relation to the contract, than such as he has derived from third persons?

Mr. CRAIG objected to the question; but it was ordered to be put.

A. Some publication which I have seen has denied that the accused was in partnership with Gen. Van Fossen. I have heard Mr. Dickson 83y

Mr. JEWETT objected to this testimoy of what persons had been heard to say.

The SPEAKER desired that he would reduce his objection to writing.

The objection, as read from the Chair, was, that he shall not go into a statement of what he had heard Mr. Dickson say. The objection was sustained by the House.

Mr. COULTER here announced that the committee had no further questions to put to the witness.

Q. By Mr. BATES, of Maine. You have stated you were on your right side when you drew your pistol. On which side of you was the pistol, and in which hand did you hold it?

A. The pistol was in my right pocket, and I drew it with my right hand.

Mr. COULTER stated, that by the order of the House, it was for the accused now to open his defence. The committee, therefore, would not put any more questions to the witness.

Mr. KEY, the Counsel for the accused, put another question.

Q. Was there, or was there not, some person with you near the door of your boarding house just before the assault was commenced? If so, who was that person?

A. There was no person. The Counsel for the accused then stated that Mr. STANBERT. I suspect Mr. Dickson has he wished to examine the Hon. Cave Johnson. no other knowledge but that derived from third Mr. MCDUFFIE offered a resolution for the continuance of the investigation by the committee, instead of the House, but it being objected to by the accused, it was withdrawn.

persons.

Q. by Mr. BATES, of Maine. Did you use Gov. Houston's name in this House, in the same connection and language as in the printed report?

Mr. STANBERY. I believe I did.

Mr. VANCE stated, that as he intended tomorrow to leave the city for a few days, if the Counsel for the accused wished to examine him, he should prefer giving his testimony today.

Q. by Mr. COULTER, on the part of the committee. Was any person with you when you 1:ft your lodgings, immediately before the as- The Hon. JOSEPH VANCE was accordsault, when you crossed the street where the ingly sworn and examined in his place. assault was made? By the Counsel for the accused. Q. When, and from whom did you first hear he mess in the dining room, after supper. Af- of the affidavit of Luther Blake, and did you

A. I had been sitting with a gentleman of

[ocr errors]

know before it was given to you, that he could having understood that some difficulty existed prove the fact therein stated, and by whom? between him and Mr. Stanbery, I hesitated A. On Monday morning last, (the 16th,) I about taking the note lest I should be involved am not certain whether before or after the in its consequences, and I intimated to Gov. House was called to order, Mr. Prentiss ob- Houston what my apprehensions were on that served that he had an affidavit, which he hand- head, and was going to apologize to him for ed to me, and which I read. I had not heard not taking the letter. Gov. Houston, howof it before. I do not know Mr. Blake, nor ever, stopped me by informing me that the whether he is able to prove the facts or not. I letter was not of the character that I appreknow nothing of the transaction. I suppose it hended. He then opened the letter, and asked was handed to me because I had been the per- me to read it, which I did: after having read son who had instituted the inquiry. the letter, and seeing the nature of it, I inQ. Was the affidavit then sworn to, and at formed Gov. Houston that I would carry the what hour on Monday did you receive it? letter, but on condition that I was to be no A. It was sworn to; and never was out of my farther concerned in any thing that might possession but for a few moments, to take a grow out of that letter; that I thought it my copy of it, until.I sent it to my colleague after duty to deliver the letter as he had asked it, the first interrogatory was put. I handed it to but that I desired not to be connected with him the door keeper, there being a considerable as a friend in any future transaction that might crowd in the House, and requested him to give grow out of it-with this understanding I reit to my celleague, believing it to be evidence ceived the letter and delivered it to Mr. Stanon the interrogations. I have before stated bery in his seat, remarking to him that Gov. that I do not know the hour it was handed to Houston would like to have an answer to his letter as early as convenient. On the next Q. Do you know whose hand writing it is? morning, about the time the House met, Mr. A. I do not.

me.

Creighton of Ohio delivered to me the reply.Q. Did you understand when you received I discovered that the letter was addressed to the affidavit that the said Blake had left the me personally, and read it with some considercity, or had shown it to your colleague, or had able surprise-when I looked over the letter, informed him of its contents before you sent the general apprehension that he could not it to him? recognize the right of Mr. Houston to make A. I did not then understand that Blake had the request contained in his letter, induced me left, or was about leaving the city. I had not to believe that Mr. Stanbery either meant to shewn the affidavit to my colleague, or inform take personal exception to Governor Houston, ed him of its contents. I had showed it to a few which might involve me in difficulty with him, of my messmates and other persons, from whom or that he intended to avail himself of his Parhe must have got it, if he had it at all. I think, liamentary privilege in not recognizing his on reflection, I showed it to General Green, but right. I think I then mentioned to Mr. CreighI am not certain. ton the difficulty which I had in regard to the

Q. Is Wm. Prentiss, from whom you received proper construction of the letter, and that I the affidavit, the same person whose letter is should consider a personal exception was inpublished in the United States Telegraph? tended by it to be taken to Gov. Houston: I A. I understand him to be the same person. should be personally involved in the controI do not know that there are two William Pren-versy, which I regretted, and should dislike.tisses. I then asked of Mr. Creighton an explanation

A. Mr. Prentiss made no such request of me, nor said how, or in what way I was to use it. He left it entirely to my own discretion.

Q. Was, or was not your knowledge of this whether Mr. Stanbery intended to avail himself affidavit intended to be kept from the accused? of his Parliamentary privilege in not recognizing and was, or was not such the request of said the right of Gov. Houston, or intended to take Prentiss? personal exception to him. Mr. Creighton replied to me, as I understood him, "either that he had no explanations to give," or that "he was not authorized to give any beyond the face A motion for postponement was here moved of the letter itself." I think I then replied to by Mr. MANN, but negatived; ayes 79, noes 81. Mr. Creighton something like this; that if Mr. The Hon. CAVE JOHNSON, of Tennessee, Stanbery did intend to take personal exception was then sworn and examined, and testified as to Governor Houston, he would find an indifollows: vidual who would play the game out with him. It will, perhaps, be more satisfactory for me I said something to this effect, and perhaps to commence and give a narrative of all the used this very language. Some short time after circumstances of this affair, as far as I have the conversation between Mr. Creighton and been connected with them, if such a narrative myself, after reflecting on the subject, I went would suit the purpose of the counsel in pro-to my desk, with a view of addressing a letter posing this interrogatory. Governor Houston to Mr. Stanbery, in reply to the one which he applied to me in the lobby of the House, to had addressed to me, demanding of him a more present a letter from him to Mr. Stanbery; the explicit statement whether he excepted per date of the letter which has been given in sonally to Gov. Houston, or intended to avail evidence will show on what day. When Gov. himself of his Parliamentary privilege. When Houston applied to me to present this letter, I came to my desk, preparatory to writing the

letter, I read over again the letter of Mr. Stan- had taken on this subject individually; and bery to me. I thought upon the second read-also on the request of Governor Houston to ing of the letter, that it was sufficiently ex- ask him to inform Mr. Stanbery that he would plicit that Mr. Stanbery did mean to stand upon consider what course it would be proper herehis Parliamentary privilege; and that I ought to after to pursue. I could not find Mr. Creighhave nothing to do with it. I then, before I ton in the House; I discovered Mr. S. sitting in acted, thought it prudent to consult with some this part of the House, and invited him to walk of my friends in the House, in relation to the into the lobby with me. course I ought to pursue, and did so. I showed I then explained to Mr. Stanbery what had the letter to a member of the House in whose taken place between Gov. H. and myself when judgment I had confidence, and his opinion his letter to Mr. S. was first handed to me, and concurred with my own as to the propriety of I also explained to him the difficulty I had as to delivering the letter over to Gov. Houston; and the construction to be given to the letter rehaving nothing further to do with it. The last ceived by me in reply to it. I mentioned the interpretation of the letter being deemed the apprehension which I had at first entertained true one, I then delivered over the letter of that I should be involved personally in the con Mr. Stanbery to Gov. Houston, at the back of troversy, and the regret which I had felt at the the Speaker's chair in the lobby. idea of it. I also mentioned my consulting Governor Houston read the letter in my per- with my friends as to the construction to be put Bence, whilst I was standing by him, and com- on the letter, and that I had delivered the letter mented upon it as he proceeded with the peru-over to Governor Houston, also mentioned Gov. sal, in harsh language, concerning Mr. Stan- H's request that I would inform Mr. Stanbery bery, as to various parts of his letter. I recol- that he would consider what would be eh prolect particularly when he came to that part of per course for him to pursue hereafter; and I the letter in which his own letter is described, mentioned to Mr. S. that I then had done with as being a letter signed Samuel Houston, he it, or had washed my hands of it-that I inseemed very much provoked, and using some tended to have nothing further to do with the harsh epithet, that "he would introduce him- controversy between Mr. S. and Gov. H.; duself to the damned rascal," or some harsh epi-ring the time of this narrative, Mr. S. I think inthet of that sort. He made comments on va-terrupted me by speaking only tw ce, to my rerious parts of the letter till he got through it. collection: whilst I was speaking of being perI do not recollect particularly all that he said, sonally involved in the controversy, he remarkbut in general he used very harsh epithets to ed "that he would not have replied to Gov. Mr. Stanbery. After he had read over the let-H's letter at all, had it not been out of respect ter, with a great many harsh observations to- for me, or he thought I was entitled to it from wards Mr. Stanbery, he became extremely vio- him." The second time he interrupted me lent, and said "he would whip the damned ras- was whilst I was speaking of the difficulty of cal before he left the House." This language being personally involved in case of the excephe used two or three times. I then urged Go- tion to Governor Houston being personal; he vernor Houston by all the arguments which remarked that he reserved that point for future presented themselves to my mind at the time, consideration. I do not recollect myself of any against the propriety of a course of that sort. other facts that are material. After wh..t I have What particular arguments I used I do not re- already narrated, I d.d not consider myself to collect; but among other things I mentioned to have any thing more to do with the matter. him that it would be a contempt to the House. Mr. EVERETT, of Vermont, offered a reAfter I had said what seemed to me to be pro-solution to the effect of assigning the duty of per, Governor Houston resorted to a variety of continuing the interrogation of the witnesses to arguments, to show that the course which he the comm.ttee; but proposed to pursue was a correct and proper course. He replied to my argument that it would be a contempt, that he would, "right or wrong, wherever it was given, even were it in Two millions ot palm leaf hats were manuthe court of heaven." A good deal was said factured last year in the United States, chiefly between us, pro and con, in relation to the sub-in Massachuseets. The pr.ce is from 10 cents ject. It is impossible that I should specify every to a dollar.

Before any order was taken on the motion,
The House adjourned.

thing that was said, but I think that this was Mr. Humboldt says that, in the thirteenth the substance of the whole of what passed century, the practice of eat ng human flesh perI was about then to leave Governor Houston to vaded all classes in Egypt. Even phys.cians take my seat in the House, when he stopped were devoured who were called to visit pame, and "thanked me for what I had done for tients under a pretence of sickness. him," and said that "I had acted right in del vSir Walter Scott, say the papers, has had the ering him the letter," and he requested me to say to Mr. Stanbery that he would consider honor of being presented to the King of Nawhat would be the proper course for him to ples. The Subirist says, that the King of Napursue hereafter. I then searched for Mr. ples has had the honor of being presented to Creighton in the House, for the purpose of con- Sir Walter Scott.

versing with him upon the subject, with a view

Counterfeit five dol'ar bills have been detectof explaining to Mr. Creighton the course Iled on the United States Bank of Baltimer-f

« ForrigeFortsett »