rations in 1830?

Mr. STANBERY proposed the following in- investigation presented itself in such a manner, terrogatory. that it would be impossible, on the present What knowledge have you of the late Se-trial, to bring forward all the necessary evi cretary of War attempting to give to Gov. dence, unless they were determined to break Houston a contract for the supply of Indian through all the rules of evidence recognized by judicial tribunals. It might be necessary to Mr. WICKLIFFE objected to the proposed inquire what the late Secretary of War had interrogatory. He understood that all discus- said, some 12 or 13 months ago, with regard to sion was, by the rule which had been adopted, the transaction alluded to; or it might be neces confined to the memher objecting, and the sary to inquire what others had said about it, counsel for the accused. He regretted the so as to ascertain the quo animo of the parties. situation in which, under that regulation, he Were these matters which they could connect then found himself, and would be happy if an with the present trial; the inexpediency was other member of that House, who felt the same no less evident than the impracticability of objection as he did to this interrogatory, would such a procedure. The member from Tennestake his, (Mr. W.'s) place. If no one did so, see, (Mr. POLK,) had distinctly promised the he should proceed to state his objections to the House that, if no one else did, he would, bring putting of this interrogatory. He understood, forward a proposition for the full investigation that this question was intended to lead to an of the transaction. Its introduction on the preinvestigation of a transaction which had nothing sent occasion was, therefore, not only inexpeto do with the duty of that House as to the dient and impracticable, but unnecessary. Mr. case before it which had not, or cught not to W. said he objected to the investigation for anhave any influence on the issue of the trial other reason as he should have done to much then pending. Whatever might be the differ- that had already been introduced, if he had not ence of opinions entertained in or out of that felt indisposed to be thought troublesome by House, as to the transaction in question-what-the House-and that reason was the consump ever might be his (Mr. W.'s) own opinion as to tion of the precious time of that House. If that transaction-he thought there could be there was to be an investigation, let it be but one opinion as to the impertinency, and in-made by a committee, with full powers to applicability of the proposed investigation in send for witnesses and papers, and to examine the decision of the question then before them. into every thing connected with the transac He (Mr. W) had voted in the first instance tion. Mr. W. concluded by saying that he had sgainst the interrogatory of the counsel for the accused, calling on the member from Ohio, (Mr. STANBERT,) to produce whatever evi dence he had in his possession 'as to the sup posed fraud. In every instance since, he had expressed his decided opinion that the investi- Mr. ARNOLD thought the House would be gation of that transaction did not belong to the placing itself in an awkward attitude by considinquiry as to the guilt or innocence of the party ering this motion. What would become of at their bar, in regard to the charge of assault; the testimony of the two witnesses who had a majority of the House had, however, seen already been examined, and of the testimony proper to indulge the counsel for the accused of his colleague, (Mr. BLAIR, of Tenn.,) all of so far as to permit the witness to answer his in- which had been entered on record? He was in terrogatory. Since that time, evidence had favor of acting on the proposition of the genbeen introduced on the part of the accused, not tleman from Kentucky, as, if the interrogatory to disprove the facts, stated in the affidavit of should be objected to, the ground upon which Luther Blake; but to discredit his moral cha- the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. STANBERT) stood racter; they had been asked, not to go into the would be swept from under him, that interroinvestigation, to show that the statements in gatory forming the entire basis of the investithat affidavit were incorrect, but they had been gation which he was anxious to enter into. asked to discredit them on the ground that Mr. MERCER argued, that there was no Blake was not a temperate man, What were more impropriety in going on with the exami they asked to do by this interrogatory? To nation of the witness, than in receiving the depermit the witness to state his knowledge as to position of Mr. Blake. There was an inconthe conduct. wishes, and acts of the late Se-sistency in rejecting the oral testimony of one eretary at War, in endeavoring to give to the person, when they had accepted the written accused at the bar a fraudulent contract for evidence of another on the very same subject. Indian rations. For what purpose was this in- The distinction which was attempted to be quiry to be instituted? Was it to enlighten made, was too refined for his (Mr. M's) undertheir minds, or guide their judgments, in de-standing. The House had decided that the ciding whether the rights of that House, as a question of the contract for Indian rations legislative body, had been violated? or was it should be entered into, and he (Mr. M.) saw no intended, if the facts should be proved, to ag-reason why it should not now be carried on. gravate the punishment of the accused, if any Mr MITCHELL, of S. Carolina, took the Punishment should be inflicted. same view of the subject as the gentleman from Again, as to the question of expediency: Be-Georgia (Mr. WAYNE) did. He considered the side being wholly inapplicable, the proposed testimony as closed; and that the gentleman

thus endeavored, in a few words, to discharge what he thought a duty incumbent on him, both with regard to the propriety of procedure in the case before then, and to prevent a needless waste of the public time.

from Ohio (Mr. STANBERY) had, by special fa- the United States, with the government of vor, introduced witnesses for a specific pur-themselves: if any of their body offended, his pose, and that the indulgence did not extend further.

Mr. BURGES wished to have the vote read by which the witness had been brought to the ber. Was it on record?

Mr. BOON said, if Duff Green was not at the bar as a witness, by a vote of the House, by what authority was he there?

offence could be punished, according to its na ture and extent, by reprimand, by imprisonment, by expulsion-a punishment infinitely heavier than any they could inflict on the respondent. His defence, therefore, as to the falsity of the charge, however it might mitigate his punishment, could never justify his offence. He concluded, after some further observations, by repeating that this ought not to be held as the trial of an individual, but of their violated

The SPEAKER said, the journal of the House was not made up until after the daily adjourn ment. The witness was at the bar by the im-rights. plied vote of the House; for his appearing there had not been objected to by any member; and it was the every day practice of the House to adopt measures by a tacit assent. It was a case of frequent occurrence, even in the pas. sage of bills.

Mr. STANBERY said, he had not wished to appear in that House as the accuser in this transaction; but it had been asserted, both in that House and out of it, that the statements he (Mr. S.) had made were false. He now offered to prove that they were true. He was aware of the reluctance of members to stand forward in this matter; and he well knew the danger to which they exposed themselves by so doing; he knew the threats which had been made by the Executive against any member who should dare in that House, to oppose his wishes-but, (said Mr. STANBERY,) I am willing to bare my bo som to the assassin; and, even if he should stand alone, unsustained by a single member of that House, he was ready to carry on this investigation, and prove the truth of his former assertion. All he asked of the House was, the power of a compulsory process, to compel the attendance of witnesses.

Mr. BATES, of Maine, rose to a question of order. He would ask, if the member from Ohio (Mr. STANBERY) meant to say that the Presi dent of the United States had threatened any member of that House?

Mr. BURGES said, the trial was not now whether the charge against the respondent were true or false; it was not a question of whether he had assaulted the gentleman from Ohio or not; or whether he had assailed the dignity and privileges of that House; it was none of these points that they were trying; but they were trying the question of whether the respondent had been concerned in a frådulent transaction. It was altogether a mis-trial; for, even if the charge against the respondent, as participator in the imputed fraud should be false, still it was no excuse for him for having undertaken to violate the law and the constitutional privileges of the House. The House, he contended, by its former votes on the subject of the interrogatory put to the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. STANBERY,) by the counsel for the accused, respecting the evidence of the fraud which he might have in his possession, had, in fact, said Mr. STANBERY replied; yes; and I am reato the respondent, go on, and if you can showdy with proof that he has done so. that you are innocent, it will, in some measure, extenuate your conduct. That being the case, he asked where were they to stop? They were bound, he thought, to proceed, and ascertain if the accused was the innocent citizen he had described himself to be. They had permitted the character of Blake to be áspersed; they had heard him discredited by his own table companions, as a confirmed drunkard; they had seen the attempts which had been made to impair his testimony-testimony which, if true, would fix on the accused the whole weight of a participation in the alleged fraudulent trans-absence of witnesses, whom it would be necesaction. Should they not call in evidence, then, as to the truth or falsity of this matter? Cer tainly they should; in his opinion they were called on to do so, in justice to themselves, to the country, and to the individuals concerned. Having heard part of the defence, it was fit they should hear the whole, before they arriva ed at a judgment in the matter.

Mr. BURGES, after some remarks on the majority which had permitted the respondent to go into the question of fraud, said that he would by no means admit that if the charge was false, he was justifiable in taking a blu geon and beating the member making it to his feet. The members of that House were charged, by

Mr. WICKLIFFE begged the gentleman from Ohio not to suppose that it was any apprehension of any consequences which might follow, that had induced him to oppose this investigation: he had always endeavored to discharge his duty in that House with a proper feeling of responsibility; but it was not dread of any danger which he might incur, that had then, or ever would, dictate the course he should pursue. Mr. W. repeated the necessity which he saw, from the state of business before the House, the late period of the session, and the

sary to summon from distant parts of the Union, that the investigation should not then be entered into. Mr. W. concluded, by asking the ayes and noes on the question of putting the proposed interrogatory.

Mr. COULTER rose to a point of order. By rule of the committee, it was not competent for any member to call an additional witness, except by order of the House.

The SPEAKER said, no objection having been made, by any member of the House, he had taken it as the will of the House that the witness should be called. If any member now objected, he would put it to the House whether the witness should remain and be examined.

Mr. WAYNE agreed with the gentleman Mr. WAYNE further objected to the interfrom Pennsylvania, (Mr. COULTER,) and for the rogatory, as placing the gentleman from Ohio, additional reason that the member from Ohio,(Mr. S.,) in a very curious position, who, in his (Mr. S.) had asked the indulgence of the testimony in chief, had denied that he intended House to introduce additional evidence for a to impute fraud to Governor Houston; the inparticular purpose, namely, that he might have vestigation must therefore be, as to a fraud, an opportunity of showing that the ridiculous committed by a third party. light in which he had been placed by a part of Mr. REED expressed his disapproval of the the evidence, was capable of explanation, or, course which had been taken by the House, in at least, of some relief. That evidence he had permitting any question to be put as to this adduced, but the witness now introduced by transaction. He had voted against that course, the member from Ohio, was intro:luced for but it was sustained by a majority of the quite a different purpose. For that reason, and House; and he did not see how they could now under the rule stated by the member from Pa. extricate themselves from the difficulty, or rebe (Mr. W.) should object to the examination fuse the examination of the witness; and the of the witness now before them. more so, as it had been declared by the gen

Mr. MERCER inquired if certain other wit-tleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. CRAWFORD,) nesses, and particularly Thomas L. McKenny, that the quantum of punishment would, in his had been called to attend by the subpoena of judgment, depend on the truth or falsehood of the Chair? the charge as to the alleged fraud.

The SPEAKER informed the gentleman Mr. ROOT argued, that the House would be from Virginia that all the subpoenas were issued placed in a very embarrassing position by by the clerk of the House, by order of the adopting the motion of reconsideration. It House itself, and, therefore, without the know-would extend as far back as the original quesledge of the Chair. tion of the Counsel for the accused, on the

The discussion was further continued by subject of the evidence of fraud. That quesMessrs. DODDRIDGE, WAYNE, COULTER, and tion appeared improper to him, and he had PATTON, the latter of whom moved a reconsi-recorded his vote against its being put; for the deration of the permission of the House to ad inference which he had foreseen would be mit the witness. drawn from entering upon that charge was, Mr. ADAMS then rose to another question that the justification of the accused depended of order. No vote had heen taken on the ad- on the truth or the falsehood of the imputation. mission of the witness, and it was a rule of the Mr. Roor continued, by adverting to the forHouse that no member could move for the re-mer proceedings on evidence given concerning Consideration of a vote, unless he had voted in the fraud, and concluded by repeating his the affirmative. Mr. A. put it to the Chair, opinion that the question should come up on whether, under the circumstances, a motion of the motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE, to reject the reconsideration could be sustained in the pre- testimony, which would show upon the journal sent case? the reasons for their vote upon the subject. The SPEAKER decided that, according to Mr. DODDRIDGE said, he had foreseen the daily practice of the House, such a motion the difficulty into which the House had plung could be sustained. ed itself; but having already gone into cir. Mr. CRAWFORD advocated the examina- cumstances with a view to extenuate the tion, on the ground that the accused had a right offence charged against the accused, no interif he pleased, to put his own conduct in ques-rogation which might have the contrary effect tion; he had done so by calling on the member of aggravating the offence, could, with profrom Ohio, (Mr. S.,) to produce evidence of priety, be refused. His objection to a reconthe asserted fraud, and Blake's evidence had sideration was this-although he (Mr. D.) been admitted on this ground; not because it should vote against this interrogatory, as now was strictly legal, but because the accuser was put, yet one might be proposed to the witness called on to produce any evidence in his pos- to which he should not object. He under. session. Mr. C. further advocated the investi-stood the interrogatory now offered, to relate gation, as necessary to show whether the charge to the conduct of Gen. Eaton, in regard to a of the member from Ohio, of fraud, in this certain transaction; but it might be so modified transaction, was made out of wantonness, or on as to connect Houston with that transaction. In sufficient ground, inasmuch as he thought the which case, he should think it, according to the House should not measure out to the accused rule which the House had acted upon in this the same punishment in the one case as it trial, perfectly admissible. would in the other. If Gen. Green's testimony Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, said the ques was to strike at Governor, Houston, and who, tion was argued as if it was, whether it were being present, did not object, he (Mr. C.) proper to put the interrogatory. That was not thought it ought to be taken; if it was to affect the question. The question was, whether they the character of others, not before the House, would reconsider the vote which the House he thought it should not be admitted.

Mr.CLAY offered a proposition with the view of obviating the difficulty which had arisen; but The SPEAKER decided it was not then in order.

was supposed to have given, admitting Gen. Green to examination as a witness in this case. He asked where the House would be, if they should adopt the motion and the witness should be conducted from the stand? Suppose the

party should introduce him again as a witness and was not his going away sudden and unexhow could they object to him? The first in- pected?

quiry would be, is he a competent witness?—| Answer.-I have been acquainted with him The answer would be "Yes;" for nobody ex-nearly two years. During his stay here, of an presses a doubt on this point. Would the evening I have seen him under the influence of House then place on record, in their journal, liquor frequently. His habits, I believe, while that they would not examine a witness whom he was here, were very irregular. I saw him no one declared incompetent to give testimony? when he was getting into the carriage to leave And if so, what reason would they assign for the city; he was then evidently under the inobjecting to him? Would they say that his fluence of liquor, very much so. His going evidence would not be relevant to the case?-was very unexpected to me. I saw him in How could they be supposed to know any thing the morning, and asked him when he was of its relevancy, or importance, until they heard going? He said he did not know. I saw it? He (Mr. D.) was willing to judge of this him again at noon: he then said he was going by putting interrogatories; if they were im- in an hour. He went at three o'clock; I saw proper, object to them by all means. But his him get into the carriage, and he left the city. vote, he declared, should never deny to any Question by the accused.-Do you know the party the right of examining a competent wit-cause of said Blake's sudden departure from The competency of a witness was the the city? only question, and here, he repeated, there were no objections to the competency of Gen. Green.

ness.

Mr. WICKLIFFE urged Mr. PATTON to withdraw his motion for reconsideration.

Mr. PATTON assented, stating that he was about to rise for that very purpose.

The question then recurred on the objection to the interrogatory.

Mr. STANBERY modified his interrogatory as follows:

"Do you know of any attempt on the part of Gov. Houston, fraudulently to obtain from the late Secretary of War, a contract, &c.?"

Mr. WICKLIFFE then objected to the admissibility of this question. It is precisely the same, and he offered it for the same reasons.He would state that it was the intention of a member to introduce a proposition for the full investigation of the subject of the imputed fraud. He implored them not to waste the public time by further debate on the question, but to pass upon it at once. This charge had been imputed to them in a paper of this morn ing; but he would rid himself of the imputation by saying no more than that he called for the yeas and nays.

The question was then taken, and decided in the negative-yeas 94, nays 124.

So the House refused to permit the interrogatory to be put.

Mr. STANBERY then said, that as the House had determined not to enter into the subject of the fraud, he should propound no further interrogatories to this witness.

The witness was then conducted from the bar by the Serjant-at-Arms.

EXTRACT FROM THE JOURNAL.

TUESDAY, APRIL 24th, 1832.

Answer.-I do not.

Question by the accused.-Had you not previously understood from him, that he was engaged in business here, that would detain him some time at Washington?

Answer.-I did.

Question by the accused.-What is the seve ral characters of said Blake, for truth?

Answer.-As far as I have understood, I had never heard his word doubted on any important subject.

Question by the Committee. On what day did said Blake leave this city?

Answer.--I think on last Tuesday.

Question by the Committee.-Was there such particular intimacy between you and Luther Blake, as that you would necessarily be acquainted with his movements long before this occurred?

Answer. I think there was. Question by the Committee.-What was that connexion?

1

Answer. We were in habits of daily intercourse, having to attend the department on the same business; that was, the settlement of his account, and the settlement of the account of the agent I was here attending to.

Question by the accused Do you or do you not believe that said Blake's sudden departure from the city was owing to his having given his affidavit about the accused?

To this question, Mr. HUNTINGTON, a member of the committee, objected.

And the question was put, "Shall the said interrogatory be propounded to the witness?" And was decided in the negative-Yeas 31, Nays 120.

Question by Mr. CRAIG.-Do you know any facts or circumstances calculated to induce the belief that Luther Blake left this city in conseSAMUEL HOUSTON, accompanied by his coun-quence of having given his affidavit to be read sel, was placed at the bar of the House, and in the case before the House? If yea, what are THOMAS MURRAY, Junior, a witness on the they?

part of the accused, was sworn and testified as Answer. I know of none. follows: Question by Mr. WARDWELL.-Did you hear Question by the accused.—Are you acquainted him say any thing about his affidavits in relation with Luther Blake' if so, what are his habits to the accused, and what?

of temperance? Has he not been in the habit of getting drunk nearly every evening or night?

Answer.-I did not.

Question by Mr. SLADE.-What was the bu What was his situation when he left the city,siness, which you understood from the said

Blake, would necessarily detain him in the city? Answer. The settlement of his public account as sub-agent of the Creeks.

Question by Mr. BULLARD.-IS Mr. Blake still acting as sub-agent? Answer.-I believe not.

Question by Mr. C. C. CLAY.-From what you have witnessed of said Blake's morals and habits, would you believe him on oath?

To this question, Mr. BATES, of Massachu setts, objected.

And the question was put, "shall the inter

Question by Mr. BATES, of Mass.-When rogatory be propounded to the witness?" was he discharged?

Answer.—I do not recollect.

Question by Mr. BULLARD.--When was he appointed; or has he been discharged at all? Answer-I do not recollect when he was appointed; but he certainly has been discharged. CHARLES E. HAWKINS, a witness on the part of the accused, was sworn and testified as follows:

76.

And passed in the affirmative; yeas 80, nays

Answer thereto.-I have not sufficient acquaintance with the general character of Mr. Blake through his life to authorize me to: form an opinion.

Question by Mr. LEAVITT. Did you hear Mr. Blake say any thing in relation to the affidavit, which he has made against Houston? And if so, what did he say?

Question by the accused.-Are you acquainted with Luther Blake; if so, what are his babits Ansuer. I heard hifh say nothing about it. of temperance? Has he not been in the habit Question by the accused.-Do you or do you of getting drunk nearly every evening or night? not know of his seeking and obtaining a reconWhat was his situation when he left the city, ciliation with the accused? If so, state facts and was not his going away sudden and unex-within your knowledge. ..pected?

Answer.-I believe he did; we were at dinAnswer. I am personally acquainted with ner at Mr Brown's, Mr. Blake was there. Gov. L. Blake. I should judge him, from having H. was there, at that time. They did not been a room-mate for three months whilst he speak to one another. Governor H. invited us was in the city, to be a man of intemperate ha- all to his room, and in passing to his room, I bits. With respect to getting drunk every saw Mr. B'ake take a gentleman, I think it evening, there was an interval of two or three was Doctor Davis, of S. Carolina, by the arm, weeks, when he was engaged in business, du- and say something to him. Afterwards I heard ⚫ring which he kept sober. During the latter Dr. Davis a-k Houston," if he would receive part of the time he was in this city he was exceedingly intemperate, especially for a few days before he went away. His departure was sudden.

Question by the accused.-Do you or do you not know that a difference existed between the accused and Luther Blake; if so, what do you now about it?

Answer.-The only knowledge I have of the difference existing is from Luther Blake him self, from whose expressions I should conclude that he had been, previous to Gov. H.'s arrival in the city, an inveterate eneiny.

Question by Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you or do you not know the cause of Mr. Blake's departure?

Answer.-I do not.

Question by the Commillee.-What is the general character of Blake for truth?

Mr. Blake?" General H. replied, "certainly." When Blake came in, General H. got up and offered him his hand in a friendly and conciliatory manner. This is all I know of the matter.

Question by the Committee.-When did the reconciliation take place?

Answer. It took place previous to the departure of Gov. H. to New York. I do not know the time precisely. I presume the Governor can furnish it, it was some six or seven weeks ago, I think.

Question by Mr. IHRIE.-When was it that you heard Blake call Houston "a scoundrel," before or since the reconciliation?

Answer.It was before the reconciliation, before Gov. H. arrived here for the west.

Dr. E. S. Davis, a witness on the part of the accused, was sworn, and testified as follows: Question by the accused.-Were you asked by L. Blake to procure a reconciliation between him and the accused, and what passed in consequence of that request?

Answer.-I never had any business transactions with Mr. Blake, and I am, therefore, totally unable to say. If I should judge from circumstances which have passed, I have sometimes found him wanting in truth: as to his generai reputation, I don't know what it is. I never knew him till his arrival about the mid-a difference with the Governor in Arkansas, dle of January.

Question by the Committee.-What were the expressions of Blake, concerning Houston, from which you inferred his inveterate hosility Answer. The expressions were these: "He believed Gen. H. to be a scoundrel; that he (Houston) had prevented his making a large ortune by some speculation among the Indians, and that he had carried weapons there for the purpose of killing Gen. H., if he met with any difficulty with him (Houston.)"

Answer.-Mr. Blake called on me, and ob served that he discovered Gov. Houston and myself were on friendly terms; that he had had

but wished now to be on friendly terms with him, and he would be glad that I should inter. fere and make up the difference. I went to him (Houston) and told him what Blake had said. Governor Houston showed some reluctance to comply, and told me that he would think of it. Mr. B. subsequently told me he wished I would repeat to Gov. H. his wish to become reconciled to him. Mr. Shaw, I think, was by. As I felt some reluctance to go a second time, Mr. Shaw went with me, after