object, and he hoped no friend of his there would object to the widest possible latitude that could be taken. Indeed, he was willing that every speech of his, there or elsewhere, should be used by the accused in his defence or in his behalf, to any and every extent that might be possible. Mr. P. had remarked, when up before, that he could prove every word of the charges male by himself in those speeches. He would qualify it so far as to say, that he believed they could all be substantially proved, and that by witnesses who had been already before the select committee, if the majority had permitted the questions to be propounded. From private conversations with them, he had the strongest belief that many of them could have testified to the facts of the treason and of the perjury of Whitney. Sir, said Mr. P., when I propounded the question which covered the general character of this man, some dear friend of his would object to it, and it was voted down by the majority in ev ery instance. The man shrunk from an investigation of this kind before the House and the country, though he had himself challenged it through the columns of the official organ. Sir, I wished to introduce proof of his character; and if I did not establish that he is as infamous and as base a traitor and perjurer as I have ever charged him to be, why, then, I am willing he shall have all the benefit of my failure. Mr. GHOLSON said he would call any gentleman to order who made remarks out of order, and he insisted that this discussion was so. Mr. PICKENS said, as an individual, he would, with great pleasure, yield to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee, but, as a Representative, he felt com. pelled to decline; believing, as he did, the whole pro ceeding to be not only irregular but disgraceful. Mr. WISE raised the point of order, and called for the decision of the Chair upon it, whether the resolu tion regulating the mode of proceeding in the examination of witnesses, and raising objections to them, embraced documentary as well as oral testimony. If it did not, and he could not himself tell, for he had not read ht, then this motion to object was clearly out of order. Mr. BRIGGS informed the gentleman that the order he had referred to applied to both. The CHAIR so ruled, and desired the Clerk to read the order; which having been done, Mr. WISE said, I am satisfied, sir. [FEB. 18, 1837. card? Sir, is it not plain, simple, manifest justice, to allow the accused person, against whom that card is brought, to produce the publications which gave rise to it, and to put in the declarations made use of against him, which very declarations had demanded from him a public disavowal, in the terms and language of that card? Will it be said, sir, that this House proceeds to allow evidence which is to show the accused is without excuse, and yet not suffer him to produce evidence of the malicious, malignant, and violent circumstances and persecutions which drew from him that card? Why, sir, it does seem to me too plain a proposition to ques tion, and I am only surprised that the learned and honorable member who has objected to the introduction of those speeches should have forgotten that that card, or rather the introduction of that card, is the evidence upon which we predicate, as regards one of the gentlemen, [Mr. PEYTON,] the right to use his speeches before this House. The honorable gentleman who makes the objection seems to admit that there may be some grounds for of fering the speeches of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. WISE,] but denies that there are grounds justifying us in offering the speeches of the gentleman from Tennessee. If, however, the honorable member had remembered the card, he would have seen, by the way in which it had been introduced, and the circumstances which grew out of it, that we have the right to bring evidence justifying its publication. As to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Speaker, can any thing in the world be plainer than that we have the right to show the state of feeling, the state of hostility, subsisting in his breast towards the accused, before the pub lication of that card. The gentleman is chairman of the committee before whom this accused man is called to give testimony; nay, more, sir: it is at the gentleman's own motion the accused is summoned; and shall we not produce his speeches, to show his state of feeling towards the individual whom he has thus called before him? Sir, shall we not show that he has denounced the accused as a perjured wretch? And is a "perjured wretch" to be called before a committee to give testi mony which might charge any body.else? Or, even if it be to charge himself, is it to be pretended that any gentleman can justify the calling the accused before a committee, to have interrogatories propounded for the express purpose of criminating himself? Mr. Key would simply reply, to what he considered But, sir, I need not argue upon the propriety and jus the very extraordinary objections urged against this res tice of the course we have been bound to take in regard olution, that if his learned friend (Mr. Walter Jones) to the accused on this occasion. In the case of Houston, and himself were unlearned in matters of parliamentary he was allowed to offer, in excuse for his conduct in law, and as to what sort of evidence was the law of that having actually assaulted a member out of the House, a House, they should hope to be excused. It was cer- publication of that member. It was discussed and deci. tainly very excusable for them to be ignorant of that of ded that he had the right to offer the speeches of Mr. which all the world was ignorant except the honorable Stanberry in evidence; and, further, there was allowed members of the body itself. Mr. K. and his friend had to the accuser on that occasion an opportunity of prov had but little experience in parliament; but, as the arguing the truth of the assertions; and so I say here, sir, ment he could offer in support of this application was the let the learned and honorable gentlemen, who have authority of the House itself, he should rely upon that au- made these charges against the prisoner, come forward thority, as well also as upon the reason and justice of the and make them good, if they can. If they have got eviapplication itself; and he trusted he should be able to dence by which they can sustain their allegations, let it show that there was no sort of validity in the objections, come out. We, sir, will not shrink from it. the very warm objections, that had been raised against it. courted inquiry, here and every where. The accused Why, sir, said Mr. K, has there not been evidence in has been charged with gross and great offences; but this case produced against the accused? His card, for what opportunity has he had to justify himself? None, instance, which is said to have justified the wrath on the sir. We hear it avowed by the gentleman from Tennes part of certain bonorable members of the House against see that he believes those charges to be true. I do not him? Has not that card been read before the House? doubt it, Mr. Speaker; I can only lament that such com Has it not been read for the purpose of showing a vin- munications have been furnished to him as to have indication of the insult he had met with? Has it not been duced him to believe such accusations, without trial, read for the purpose of justifying and excusing the con- without investigation, without the prisoner having had duct made use of towards him? And is this House go- an opportunity any where to exhibit proof of his innoing to stop there? Is this House going to stop at that cence. How is he to get a trial? Can he come forward We have to disprove these accusations? The gentleman says he believes them; but upon what information? The hearsay information of witnesses called before the select committee, with whom he has had conversations! The question was asked before that committee as to the character of Mr. Whitney, though he was not present; and because gentlemen objected to the materiality or relevancy of the question to the object for which the committee was raised, hence the honorable member from Tennessee takes all this hearsay information as establishing, or going to establish, the truth of his accusations. Sir, I say here, that, acting upon the authority of Houston's case, we have an undoubted right to go behind that card, and adduce what brought it out. The admitted declarations of those gentlemen the House ought to receive. If there was no proof in the hands of those gentlemen to show that they believed the accused guilty, let it appear; at least, let him have a trial, and a fair opportunity of defence; and I here pledge myself he will never shrink from it. Mr. PICKENS understood the learned counsel to make a distinct proposition, viz: that the gentleman from Tennessee should be allowed to prove his allega. With that understanding, Mr. P. would withdraw his objection. tions. Mr. PEYTON. I am quite ready to go into it, sir. Mr. CAMBRELENG, I will renew the objection if it be withdrawn. Mr. Key. Mr. Speaker, we wish it to be distinctly understood that we are ready now, or at any time, to go into it. We shall not shrink from any investigation that can be made, here or elsewhere. In reference to the question before the House, he repeated that it was settled in the case of Houston, and stood upon the broad and immutable principle of manifest justice. Mr. PICKENS. With the understanding before referred to, I withdraw my objection. Mr. CAMBRELENG. I renew it, Mr. Speaker, and I will briefly state my reasons. Mr. C. was proceeding to do so, when Mr. CLAIBORNE, of Mississippi, called the gentle man to order, on the ground that the House could not entertain reasons a second time on the same question. Mr. MERCER. If the decision of the Chair is that the gentleman. from New York has no right to speak, then I appeal from that decision. The SPEAKER. The Chair has not uttered one word. Mr. McKAY. Has the gentleman from South Carolina unconditionally withdrawn his objection? Mr. PICKENS. I do withdraw it unconditionally. Mr. CAMBRELENG. I renew it, and will proceed to give- Mr. CLAIBORNE. I call the gentleman to order, Mr. Speaker, and insist upon the decision of the Chair whether, under the resolution prescribing the mode of proceeding, more than two speeches can be made to one question. The CHAIR remarked that there was no difficulty upon the question of order whatever. If one member made an objection, and was heard upon it, by withdraw ing the objection he certainly could not inhibit any other member from making an objection; and if he could not inhibit another from objecting, neither could he prevent him from stating the ground of his objections. The converse of this would give the member objecting the power of speaking himself, and of precluding every other member of the House from speaking, on any question. Mr. CAMBRELENG had but a word or two to say. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] had, he said, expressed some of the strongest objections to this proposition, but Mr. C's principal objection was his. They had but a few days remaining of the session; [H. OF R. and if this business was not finished that night, he feared the appropriation bills would be lost. He really thought every member was tired with this case, and had no desire to go further into it; nor did he think the House was about to take its business out of its own hands, and send it to the committees below stairs. Mr. PICKENS then withdrew his call for the yeas and nays, and the proposition to introduce this testimony was lost, without a division. Mr. GHOLSON, from the committee appointed to conduct the examination, then arose and announced that the counsel for the accused had closed, so far, their oral testimony, but desired, through him, to submit a proposition to the House. They had furnished him with a list or memorandum of certain portions of the journal of the select committee of which the Hon. Mr. GARLAND, of Virginia, was chairman, with a request that a clerk be directed to transcribe them for the use of counsel and the members. The reason of the request was this: the journal was then in the hands of the printer, and could not, without very great inconvenience, be spared from the printing office; because, if it was, it could not be printed in time for the report. He therefore moved that a clerk be appointed to make such extracts, for the purpose above mentioned. Mr. PEYTON rose to inquire of the honorable chairman of the committee, [Mr. GHOLSON,] and the learned counsel of the accused, whether they would be unwil ling that the same clerk should likewise furnish copies or extracts from the journal, showing all the questions propounded to, and the answers returned there'o by, witnesses upon the same points upon which questions had been propounded in the House. The learned coun. sel would understand Mr. P's meaning. It was this. Some few of the witnesses had responded to the inquiry, as to whether the accused was known to them, and that favorably or unfavorably, for capacity as well as integrity. These Mr. P. would want. He also wished extracted, from the same journal, copies of all the questions on this subject that were propounded, whether responded to or not, either before the committee or elsewhere. He could not think the counsel would object to it. Mr. GHOLSON explained the extent the committee proposed the call should go, and the gentleman could see if it would satisfy him. They proposed, then, to have extracts made of all the answers to the 29th interrogatory, which was in the fol. lowing words: "At the time he [i. e. the accused] was so designated, were you acquainted with him personally; and was he favorably known to you, either for capacity or integrity?" Mr. G. supposed that would satisfy the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. PEYTON. If I understand the gentleman correctly, I accede to his proposition; which is, that we have extracts made of all questions and of all answers upon that subject, either before the committee or elsewhere. Mr. GHOLSON. All that took place in and before the committee, that appears on the journal. Mr. PEYTON. To be sure, as well the questions propounded as the answers upon that subject. I want all that appears upon the journals upon that subject. Mr. GHOLSON. That is my understanding of what the counsel proposes; every thing connected with the 29th interrogatory. Mr. PEYTON. But that interrogatory does not get out one half, one tenth, one fiftieth, of what is on the journal. Mr. THOMAS. I will remind the gentleman from Tennessee that yesterday, on motion of counsel, the whole journal of the select committee was made part of the proceedings of this House; and the entire journal will, therefore, be in possession of the House before, probably, this investigation will close. But, in any event, any member of the House, it being part of the proceedings, can designate that part of the journal he may desire to use in any discussion that may arise, and be furnished with it without any special order. Mr. PEYTON. If so, then why do counsel call for any particular part of it? [FEB. 18, 1837. Mr. GLASCOCK. I shall object to the proposition made by the gentleman from Tennessee. These are matters with which this House has nothing to do. Mr. PEYTON. I will state my object in a few words, with this further remark. What I want from the journal is the evidence I have already stated, and the entry of the additional fact which I offered to prove by a witness, and which evidence was suppressed by the friends of the accused, viz: that he is a bankrupt to a large amount, Mr. GHOLSON. I will again explain to the gentle- and that he has been guilty of every dishonest practice man. The chairman of the select committee [Mr. GAR- to defraud his creditors, living at this time within the LAND] informs me that it is impossible to get that jour-bounds in this city, in a style of princely splendor and nal entire, from the fact that it will not be out of the extravagance, and that he has actually told his credit. hands of the printer before next Thursday, and surely ors that if they would not come to his terms he would we will get clear of Mr. Whitney before that time. Mr. BELL. It seems to me proper to bring the entire journal. Mr. WISE. That journal, or any portion of that journal, brought here to prove the general character of the accused for truth and veracity, or for common integrity, will be insufficient. I wish to know if gentlemen will prove, by witnesses who were introduced before that committee, the specific facts touching the integrity of this man. I will name one instance. There was introduced before that committee a gentleman of this city, of the highest respectability, to testify to the fact that this man, who is now called "the accused," was a fraudulent and dishonest man as a debtor. Mr. BRIGGS. I call the gentleman to order, Mr. Speaker. I do conceive this is not the time for making charges. Mr. WISE. I am making a question of the introduction of testimony, not a charge; and I think the gentleman will understand me when he hears me through. Well, questions were propounded to that witness, and also the particular question as to the specific fact, but the committee objected; and whether he could have proved it or not, was to be tested. It can be done now as well as then. If these extracts are taken to bring in that witness before this flouse, and simply testify here what that committee would not inquire into-if that be the object, why, then, I hope, sir, the fullest latitude will be given. Mr. PEYTON. I think, sir, I have not been sufficiently understood. They wish the positive evidence; I wish the negative evidence. I will illustrate my idea, so that, if possible, I cannot be misunderstood. One of the witnesses who testified favorably of the accused, and whose answer they have required to be produced by the clerk, stated that the accused was known to him individually favorably, both for integrity and capacity. But to this question, and which appears on the journal, "Were you acquainted with the general character of the ac cused when he resided in the city of Philadelphia, and, if so, what was his character for honesty and veracity? Would you believe him upon his oath, in a court of justice, from his general character?" That question, Mr. Speaker, was not only not answered, but was voted down by the committee, a majority of whom supposed it was not proper to be put. Another question was this: "Was it not universally understood in Philadelphia that, during the late war, he (Whitney) was a British commissary, and engaged in smuggling gold and driving cattle from the United States, to pay and feed the British soldiers?" That question, sir, stands on the journal, and they skulked from that, also. Another question was, "Did he not maintain there the character of a common blackleg, as the keeper of a faro bank in that city?" swear Mr. VANDERPOEL. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to call the gentleman to order. Here are charges of the most grave character, brought against a man now at your bar, who has not, cannot have, the opportunity of reply. I put it to the gentleman himself whether it is fair. Mr. Key. Mr. Speaker, the counsel for the accused wish to submit a proposition to the House, which I hold in my hand. The CHAIR said he entertained at the commencement of this matter Mr. PEYTON. I want the whole of the testimony! The CHAIR. Order! The Chair said he had supposed that, by general consent, some agreement would have been come to between the committee on the part of the House, the counsel for the accused, and the members generally. Entertaining this view, the Chair had suffered the debate thus far to progress, but the whole of it was irregular on both sides. If the counsel for the accused had not finished their testimony, but had any further testimony to offer, they would proceed to do so; or if they had any request to make, they would submit their motion in writing, and then it would be regularly ascertained whether any member of the House ob jected to it. Mr. McKAY. I object, sir. Mr. GLASCOCK. I have objected. Mr. THOMAS. I hope gentlemen will not object till they hear it! The CHAIR stated that the examination was in the hands of the accused and his counsel, and the Chair had only entertained suggestions under the idea that some agreement would have been arrived at. Finding, however, that difficulties had arisen, he must now intimate to the counsel that they would proceed regularly till they had closed their testimony. Any request they wished to make, out of this course, must be reduced to writing. Mr. MERCER. I wish to submit a question of order to the Speaker. A question similar to that which I am about to propound was suggested to the Chair a short time ago, the answer to which was not satisfactory to me. If the Chair will examine the language of the or der of the House, in reference to the mode of proceed. ing in this case, and under which we are now acting, he will perceive that authority given to the respondent, by that order, is to "examine witnesses." The word "testimony" is subsequently introduced into the order. I consider, therefore, sir, the whole of the last part of our proceedings entirely irregular, inasmuch as it is a departure from that order. We have not been examining witnesses for some time; and if there be no other witness to examine, I have a resolution in my hand which I wish to submit. Mr. GLASCOCK. Mr. Speaker, I make this point of Another was, "Is not the accused a notorious bank-order: that, according to the rule the House has adopt rupt at this time?" Mr. GHOLSON. Mr. Speaker, I call the gentleman to order. What is his object, sir? ed, and under which the proceedings in this case are conducted, no proposition whatever can be recognised, other than that growing out of questions to be propounded to witnesses, and such proceedings as may grow out of them. Mr. THOMAS asked leave to read his proposition, with a view, he said, that the House might judge of its propriety. There being no objection, the proposition was accordingly read, in substance, as follows: Ordering that the Clerk of the House cause extracts to be made from the journal of the select committee of certain portions thereof therein indicated. The CHAIR said there was a witness (Mr. Moore) then on the stand, who had bad time to prepare his answer, and the Chair was informed that he had been ready for some time to give it in. The answer of Mr. Moore, for which time had been given him, was then handed in, as follows: Answer. I have read the remarks of Mr. Peyton and Mr. Wise, as printed in the Globe, and it is my opinion that, in their general tenor, the remarks of both these gentlemen, as there given, correspond essentially with my recollection of them as delivered on the floor of the House. Cross-examination of Mr. Moore. Question by Mr. WISE. Do you not distinctly recollect that Mr. Wise did utter the remarks commencing with the words "Let me not be misunderstood," &c.? And what did you understand him in substance to say, and to mean, in explaining his act and intention in interposing between Mr. Peyton and Mr. Whitney? Mr. Jones, counsel for the accused, objected to this interrrogatory, and he did so because the interrogatory called upon the witness to give his understanding of the words used by the honorable gentleman, whereas, as a reporter, he should only give his language, and let every one draw their own inference from it. Wr. WISE believed, if the learned counsel had looked more particularly into the interrogatory, he would have found that it did not call upon the witness for his construction of the language used on the occasion, but only asked him for his recollection of the words. In the first place, it asks him whether he recollects distinctly the words; and in the second place it asks him for his understanding, that is, his memory and recollection of the words which he (Mr. W.) had uttered, and the meaning which those words imported to him at the time. [H. of R. Mr. W. hoped the learned counsel would withdraw his objections to this interrogatory, as he believed questions of a similar character had been propounded to witnesses without objection. This question did not go to prove the guilt of the accused, but it went to prove the innocence of Mr. W. himself. The question was then put, and it was decided, without a division, that the interrogatory should be propoundded to the witness. Mr. Moore then returned the following answer: Answer. I have a distinct recollection that the words referred to in this question were uttered by Mr. Wise, certainly in substance. The meaning which I attached to them at that time was, that Mr. Wise would only have interposed by violence to protect the life of his friend, Mr. Peyton, in case he, Mr. Wise, had seen a movement, or the indication of a movement, towards violence on the part of the accused. In that event alone, did I understand that Mr. Wise would have interfered otherwise than by conciliatory means. Question by Mr. WISE. Was the proof sheet of the report in the Globe, within your knowledge or information, submitted to Mr. Wise for correction? Answer. The proof sheet was not submitted to Mr. Wise, either for revision or correction. The witness was then discharged from the stand. The question then recurred on the proposition just read and submitted to the House by Mr. THOMAS; and it being again read from the Clerk's table, objection was made to it; when Mr. GHOLSON moved a suspension of the rule; and the question being taken by tellers, the vote was: Ayes 67, noes 52-no quorum. Mr. GHOLSON moved a call of the House: lost, without a division; as was also the motion to suspend the rule, (it having been ascertained, before putting the question, that a quorum was within the hall.) Mr. Key. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a very few words in explanation. Mr. ALFORD. I object to those few words, sir. Mr. BRIGGS. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a question of order. Mr. MERCER. I call the gentleman to order. Mr. BRIGGS. Sir, I rise myself to a question of order. I understand that the counsel for the accused have progressed in their case until they have come so far, where there is certain written testimony upon the journals of the committee, which they cannot reach without an order of the House; and the counsel move the Speaker that the House will accordingly order that testimony, which is on the journals, to be produced before it. Now, if I am right in stating the request, I ask if the Speaker decides that this is in order, or not in order. The CHAIR. In that form, the Chair will be compelled to say it is in order; but, nevertheless, it would still be in the power of a majority of the House to refuse it. Mr. BRIGGS. Certainly, sir. I now ask the counsel if that be not the state of the question. He would be glad if the learned counsel would instruct him how to ask the witness this question, as he was inexperienced. What he desired to ask was, how the witness had understood him on that occasion. He wished to ask him for the words, and the meaning of those words, as he comprehended them, and what sensations they had created in his breast at the time. His object was not to accuse the accused, but to defend himself. He knew, from the course pursued by the learned counsel in this examination, that an effort was making to convict him of having made use of the expressions and entertained the feelings of an assassin. That it might be made to appear to the world he had made declarations of his sentiments and feelings, on that floor, which held out the idea that he was a character wholly unsafe for this gentleman to appear before as chairman of the committee. Mr. W. should not vote to make this wit-proceeding in a court of justice. The accused is at the ness appear before the committee, nor would he vote at all in this case; but, as far as he could, he meant to demonstrate, before the investigation was got through with, that this was not an individual matter; and if the House carried on this investigation as it should, and called upon the accused to purge himself of this contempt, he did not expect the accused himself would say, before God and the country, that he was afraid to appear before the investigating committee of which he (Mr. W.) was chairman, on account of any thing he had said on that floor. Mr. Key, (one of the counsel.) Certainly, sir. bar, and entitled to counsel by order of the House. He Mr. GLASCOCK. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask how far this House, without the consent of that committee, [viz: the select committee of which Mr. GARLAND, of Virginia, was chairman,] have the right to control one particle of the testimony taken before that committee, until they report to this House. Sir, I deny that any of the proceedings in that committee can be considered as testimony before this House, in their present inchoate state, or that they can be reached by any process of the House, or in any other way, except through the committee itself. The CHAIR. That was the point to which the Chair endeavored to arrive before this difficulty arose, viz: to have a distinct proposition, in writing, before the House. Mr. MERCER. Mr. Speaker, if I had no other rights by staying here than my own, I would withdraw my res olution, and withdraw myself too, for I should have no business here any longer; but I am here as the representative of my constituents, and I ask that my resolution be read. This was acceded to, and the resolution was read from the Clerk's table, as follows: Be it resolved, That all further testimony in the case of Reuben M. Whitney be suspended, and that the com. mittee of five members be instructed to prepare suitable interrogatories to be submitted to said Whitney, in order to enable him to purge himself of the contempt imputed to him. The CHAIR stated to the gentleman from Virginia that his resolution would be in order, but that there was a pending motion before the House, at the instance of counsel, [viz: the one intimated by Mr. Key;] and whilst that motion was pending, another could not be received until it was disposed of. If the House nega. tive or affirm that proposition, then the gentleman might submit his. Mr. MERCER. That motion is withdrawn, sir. [FEB. 18, 1837. aware the time of the House was very precious, state his reasons for doing so. He had already intimated to the House that he did not consider it within the power of that House, or even if it were within its power, they ought not, to arrest the proceedings of that select committee of investigation, or make use of any evidence contained therein, until that committee had made their report, and that report had been finally adopted by the House. He had been given to understand that the report of that committee, as it was intended to be reported to the House, had not been finally agreed upon; and he held that it would be improper for the House to take any action upon the evi dence elicited before that committee till the report was brought in and agreed upon by the House. They had constituted a committee for the purpose of examining into certain matters, as connected with the different departments of this Government, or a particular depart. ment of it; and, as was usual on such occasions, that committee had doubtless adopted for themselves rules and regulations by which they were to be governed. Now, among them, it was well known that the members of the committee were not even permitted to state what testimony had been given in before it; and that was one reason why he thought it would be premature for the House to adopt this resolution or order, until the com. mittee itself had brought in their report, when the whole would be in the possession of the House, and such extracts could be taken as each member might require. But, independent of this, let him ask if gentlemen did not foresee what this investigation must inevitably lead The CHAIR inquired if the counsel had withdrawn to, and what an unnecessary consumption of time would their proposition? Mr. Key. Not at all, sir. The CHAIR so unders'ood. He then inquired if the counsel had suspended their proposition, to enable the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. THOMAS] to present his. Mr. Key. The resolution presented by the gentle man from Maryland is our proposition, sir. Mr. MERCER. That cannot be, sir. One proposition cannot be two. The CHAIR explained that he certainly would not have entertained the motion to suspend the rule to introduce the proposition of the gentleman from Mary land, if he had understood it to be the same motion counsel intended to submit. He understood it to be a different one; and hence the Chair ruled it necessary to suspend the rule, in order to get it in. The counsel now makes his motion in writing. As counsel, he has the right to move the court. The Chair receives the motion; and it is for the House to determine whether they will grant the request or not. Pending that motion, however, none other can be received. Mr. CALHOON, of Kentucky. I desire to ask the chairman of the committee [viz: of examination,] through the Speaker, whether the questions put by the com. mittee, or which purported to be put by the committee, have been agreed to by the members of that committee or not; or whether they have been put by a member of the committee upon his own responsibility, but as coming from the committee. Mr. GHOLSON (chairman of the committee) replied by stating that three of the members of the committee agreed to submit the questions, not only as coming from the committee, but with the concurrence of the counsel of the accused. This was done to get round a difficulty that appeared to prevail at the time. The CHAIR directed the Clerk to read the proposition; which was done. The substance is given above, when it was moved by Mr. THOMAS. Mr. GLASCOCK said he should object to the adop. tion of that resolution, and would briefly, as he was be the consequence, if this resolution be adopted. He had understood that all were disposed to bring this matter to a speedy close; yet there would seem a disposition, on the part of some, to lengthen out this investigation, for the purpose of bringing out all that had transpired before the select committee. Why, by the adoption of this resolution, he contended, they would be reassu ming to themselves, and taking out of the hands of that committee, the power they had specially conferred upon it. If the proposed extracts were to be made from their report, (if it could be called a report, though no report had yet been made;) if they could go into the of fice of the "Globe," and take away those incipient and imperfect proceedings, he would ask whether it would not necessarily be attaching to the proceeding before the House matters wholly irrelevant to the issue, so far as that issue involved the question of contempt. And that was the only question before the House. For his own part, Mr. G. was not prepared to attach to the pro ceedings in this case testimony wholly unconnected and ir. relevant to the present issue. What was the issue before that House and the country? The simple issue, he re peated, was, had or had not a contempt been committed by Mr. Whitney? Now, he would ask the House if every question immediately connected with that issue, so far as related to the gentleman from Virginia, had not been extracted, had not been already drawn out, from the witnesses already examined. Had not every thing which could bear upon the alleged contempt been fully attended to and investigated in their proceedings? What had the conduct of Mr. Whitney, except in relation to the particular question which gave rise to the difficulty, as connected with the investigation before the committee, to do with the present investigation? What possible bearing could such extracts as were now sought to be produced have upon the present issue, being, as they were, wholly unconnected with it? Where the necessity of making these extracts, for the purpose of accompanying the other proceedings before the House? In his opinion, he must say, it would be a reflection upon the |