E340
,64 G4
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
0DDD5D7T15T
-^ *••-• .-^
J *
^•^^^r •
^^u.^'i'
V' ^'VL'. cv
. NJ'
/■\ ■••W^-- **'% -.IP-- /-\ ..m^".- *■
>0
5^
lV°^ .
■'-^0^
-•1°*
"^0^
^^ **
- «,'^'''^^ °o^^»' J''^\. '• "Wilis'*" «>^'^ VtOC}^*' -j.^
O, * , , o ,w ,»
'■ X.^ -'Mi- %.^' •
0' V^^TT^-'-y' '°^'-
O^ ♦ . . ' ,0
<& * • # i • •ft
.^
* • • ' .U
.-V
f: .^
v-V
,0^ .•'■"•• '^o
v' .^ili;.'*, c;^
J- ^*-?!§^'. ■^^. .'^:^ .^r.^,'?.o:<- '^... .^'
•y '^
°^
■^^^^,- ^0
► ♦ „f(\ >^l^
<'>
-h;^ -■",--
•^o-^
^•n^
i^.
%.^^"
.!i^"-.
V
v
,^0
-v-'^ .
HON. WILLIAM A. GILBERT'S DSFEMIS.
The Select Committee appointed by the resolution of the House •iihc Wi
January to investigate certain cliarcje^ referred to in the pnr.nM" of
the resrJution havinr, presented a report charginc, the uvdersiqnid
luith corrupt misconduct as a member, and recommending hi^ expul-
sion he begs leave to submit some observations ujmi that report, and
the statem.ents of ivitnesses on luhich it Is based : i^^^^
Two cliarges are made against Mr. Gilbert hy the committee-
1 . That he chc agree with F. F. C. Triplett to procure the passage
Ot a resolution or bill through the i)reseiit Congress for the purchase
by Congress ot certain copies of the hook of the said Triplett on the
pension and bounty land laws, in consideration that sai.i Triplett
should allow him to receive a certain sum of money out of the a.mro-
priation for the purchase of the book."
, 2- ''That he did cast his vote on tlie Iowa land hill, depending-
heretofore hefore this Congress, f,)r a corrupt consideration, consisting
of seven square miles of land, and some stock given, or to be c-iven"
to hiiu. ^ '
By reference to the original and amended resolution appointino- the
select committee, it will be seen that they were authorized to investi-
gate certain charges "that the members of the House had entered
into corrupt combinations for the purpose of passing and of prevent-
ing the passage of certain measures during the present Con<rress "
ihe questions then arise, in the outset, what jurisdiction had the
committee to prefer the charges they have presented, and what juris-
diction can the House exercise even if the charges were true"'^
I. AMiateyer power the House might have to inquire into the mo-
tives for which individual members "cast their vote" uiion the [owa
land hill, none was entrusted by the House to this committee They
wereselected to inquire whether " members had entered into corrupt
combinattons ior the purpose of passing or preventing the passa4
ot measures hefore Congress." °
Whatever might be the offence of an individual member or the
corrupt consideration that influenced his vote, was a matter entirely
distinct from the charges that prompted tlie investigation, an<l was
entirely Lcyond the power conferred upon the committee
Again : as to the first charge— the alleged agreement to procure the
passage of a resolution to purchase Tripiett's hook— it is not even
pretended that any such measure was ever before the iiresent Con-
gress. No ppt-tion, bill, or resolution upon the subject was even in-
troduced. Whether such agreement wouhlbe legitimate or ImnK.ral
what jurisdiction could be exercised over it by the committee or by the
House, unless it related to some measure before the House? Until
some such measure came before the House, some overt act done in the
House, and pursuant to the agreement, or some effort made, as a
member, to carry it into effect, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the
House. If any other view be taken, where is the limit of jurisdiction
over the agreements or conduct of members? It is submitted that no
principle, no precedent, or authority has been or can be shown by the
committee to justify the jurisdiction they have themselves exercised
and invoke from the House upon a subject that never was before that
body.
It is submitted that a due regard to parliamentary law, to common
justice, and a decent respect to the rights, the character, and feelings of
a fellow-member, required the committee to submit the question of
jurisdiction to the consideration and judgment of the House before
they preferred such a charge, excited prejudice against him, and affixed
a stigma to his name.
II. The committee having disregarded these considerations, and
made a defamatory report against a member of tlie House, it becomes
necessary briefly to examine the grounds on which they profess to rest
their accusation. " The testimony of ^u'o witnesses," says the re])ort,
"relates to that member." In regard to this testimony, as it is
called, it will be observed, 1st. That it was taken by the committee
ex-parte, without notice to the accused, behind his hack, and was
thirteen days in possession of the committee before any information of
it was given to the party. The record shows that Sweeney and Trip-
lett were examined on the 16th of January. — (Koport, pp. 55, 66.)
On the 29th of January, Mr. Gilbert was informed by a note fi'om the
chairman that •' certain testimony (a copy thereof being i'urnished)
was given before the committee, in which liis 'name appears."' But
-what" view was taken by the committee of that testimony, whether it
was regarded as within the scope of their inquiry, whether it would
be the foundation of any charge against him, or would be acted upon
by them, was not only undisclosed, but carefully concealed from the
party until the report was read in the House. For the record shows
(page 80) that an anxious and distinct application being made to
know whether they regarded Sweeney's testimony as " of sufficient
importance to justify further proceedings so far as he was concerned,"
in order that he might prepare his defence, he was informed that the
committee would not "intimate any opinion" — "that he must himself
be the judge of the ?!rt/(»'e, exteii, and scope of his defence." Thus
accused in the dark, until the moment when the report was read, he
was left without any intimation of the nature, extent, and scope of de-
fence that might be requisite.
It may be said, indeed, that lie had a copy of the testimony. But
when tlie resolution of the House limited the jurisdiction of the com-
mittee to "■comhinaiions of members ibr the purpose of passing, or
preventing the passage, of measures before Congress," how was he to
know that his alleged conduct in regard to a measure never before
Congress, or that the consideration for which his individual vote was
cast on the Iowa bill, was to be the subject of specific charges against
him by the commitee — that these were embraced within the nature.
extent and scope of the reqmml defence? In former cases, the
conduct ot individual members named in the resolution, ov relatin- to
part.cu ar specihed transactions, have been the subject of innuTry
but in the whole range of parliamentary proceedings no instance par-
allel to the action of tins committee can be found
fn \V" r--if *V'"' "'^''^ '° ^!''' '^i'"''^' *'^'"»^ " the committee tendered
to Mr. Gilber an opportunity to confront the witnesses whose testi-
mony related to him, and to have them subject to examination in his
presence, but this was declined by him." But when was this - ten-
der made. ^ The record shows that it was not until the 3d day of
February. But on the IGth, Uth, and 20th of Januarv, the wit-
nesses were before the committee without anv notice to the partv of
what was going on against him, and not untilYourteen days after'the
testimony u'as closed, when the last arrow was discharged, and when
he commitee acknowledged they had no "testimony in reserve"
they offered him the slim chance of recalling Sweeney and Trinlett •
refusing however to let him know to what point he should direct his
examination, or what was the nature, extent, and scope of needful
cletonce. '
Under these circumstances it is submitted that in no form of pro-
cedure can the statements, of these witnesses have any character as
evidence against him.
IV. The po,sition in which the witnesses stand, the nature of their
statements, and the manner of their examination bv the committee are
also worthy of notice. " '
The only two witnesses are Sweeney and Triplect, who stand bv their
own confession, in the position of acknowledged accomplices of each
other .s guilt, and who seek to connect Mr. Gilbert with themselves in
their offence, thereby to escape the consequence of their own admitted
acts. They are uncorroborated by a single witness, or a single fact
s ated by any other person; and the shallow effort of the committee to
strengthen their statement by their orrohoration of each other, would
excite a smile If It were not done for the grave purpo.se of affixing a
guiltv stain ni.on a fellow member. The testimony of parties wliose
"'^;!J •?»'' IS manifest, has never been held, even in slight matters
sufficient evKlenceto establish the guilt of another, uules.s corroborated
by some honest witness, or some fiict outside of their own testimony •
no concurrence betioeen themselves is adequate for tiiat purno.se The
allegation of the committee that there is a " substantial concurrence "
will hereafter be sliown to be incorrect.
V. The statements of these persons, moreover, consist oi conversations
unaccompanied and uncorroborated by any act; aclass of evidence justly
characterized by a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court, "as the
most doubtful and suspicious of all proof, seldom correctly remem-
bered or truly stated easily and almost always misrepresented. "-
2 W all.ce.) J or is this all ; for the record shows, page 57, that the
chief witness, Sweeney, does not pretend to remember the details of
the conversation on which the whole charge rests ; that he was not
even required to state them ; but that the committee, acting behind
the back of the member, called for Sweeney's ^' impression, "^uu\ lent
liim tlieir aid by leading questions that would not be tolerated m
any court of justice.
For example: the first and only serious charge is the contract with
Triplett, whicli was at first intimated to be in writing. But when
the contract was called for, Sweeney acknowledged it was in his oivn
name, and when produced, it was ibund to be an agreement between
Triplett and Sweeney alone, or rather an order by Triplett, on the
Clerk of the House, in favor of Sweeney, in which Gilbert's name is
not even mentioned. — (Report, p. 56.) In order to connect Mr. Gilbert
with the transaction, it was necessary to violate the plainest law of evi-
dence hy parole 2)y oof , contradicting and explaining the written docu-
ment, allow Sweeney to swear his own name off the writing, and put
on Gilbert's. In this predicament Sweeney stated that the writing
was not the contract, but that the contract was verbal, and made in his
presence, between Gilbert and Triplett. — (Report, page 56.) Being
asked to state the conversation between Gilbert and Triplett, on which
the whole case turned, he says: "I cannot remember the details of the
conversation." — (Report, page 57.) Being then asked to give the
''general puiyort," he answers : "Iioould not pretc7i(l to give the lan-
guage used on that occasion. I do not hioiv that I can give EVEN THE
SUBSTANCE OF THEIR TALK."
Able to give neither the details of the conversation , nor the language,
nor its general purport, nor even its substance, this question is then
propounded: " By Mr. Orr. What was ?/o«rH??pres6W)i:^" — (lieport, p.
57.) Thus turned loose into the boundless and rmchecked field of
imjyressions, it would seem to be an easy matter for a witness of
Sweeney's character to esfablisli any point the committee desired ;
but at almost every step he needed and was lent the aid of leading
questions, for the very answer as to his impression whether the rate
to be paid was $1 35 per copy, and the sum $7,500, is qualified by
the remarkable exjircssions, " / may be mi.staJce7i in saying tliat he
was to give $7,500 if tlie book was ]iut in at $1 35. It may have com-
menced at $1 40, at $8,000. 1 think I could fgii7-e if up so as to speak
precisely ; but my vnpression is, that it was $7,500 for $1 35 per copy,
and $500 for every five cents per copy beyond that sum." — {Becord,
p. 77.) At tliis juncture, unable to specify thecontract by language,
details, purpoi't, substance, or impression — for his im])ressions contra-
dicted each otlier — unable even to " figure it up," he is helped out by
the suggestion of a "graduated scale," and seizes upon it with alacrity.
" By Mr. Orr. It was a graduated scale contract tlien?"
"Witness. Precisely." * * *
But this was not free from difficulty, for the writing was for a
specific sum — was no "graduated .scale contract;" so that, seeing
danger aliead, the witness goes on to say : " Then there was a certain
sum which he agreed to pay beyond that ;" "I think it was the ex-
pectation, &c. I think he was to pay at the rate I have stated, &c.
I could not speak with accuracy, hoivever, as to the figures, iviihout
making a calcidation." Pausing here, let any candid man notice
this proceeding. The committee were dealing behind a member's
back witli a matter that involved his dearest rights as a member, a
citizen, and a man. Tliey were inquiring in his absence as to his guilt
or innocence of a charge which, if true, in their view warranted ex-
pulsion. They had belbre them a witness to establish that charge.
The question was, whether there was a contract between Gilbert and
Triplett, as the witness had sworn? The writing he produced
showed the contract was his own, and not Gilbert's. The witness
then undertook to establish by conversation a verbal contract , different
from the writing. Charged, as the committee were, with the honor
of a member and the duty of justice to a man, by assuming an exam-
ination behind his back, in what court would such a leading examin-
ation have been allowed ?
But to constitute the contract, there must ha\c been a sum to be
paid, and a person to receive it. As to the sum, we have seen that
neither "purport, " "impressions," "figures," nor "graduated scale"
would arrive at any certainty, and the committee have not even ven-
tured to specify any sum, although an essential element of the contract,
if any existed. How is it as to the jier.soji who was to be paid ? On
page oT), near the top of the page, it will be seen that tlie witness says
"■there teas sorne misunderstanding , as I understood, as to whom the
money was to be paid." The payment specified in the writing was
to be made to Sweeney alone.
VI. On page 57, near the bottom of tlie page, it will be seen that
the committee having failed, even by the mode they adopted, to as-
certain what sum was to be paid, directed their attention to the person
who was to receive the money. The writing showed no connexion
•with Gilbert ; and having asked whether any resolution had been
offered, which was answered in the negative, this question, if it can
be so called, was immediately proi)ounded :
" By ilr. Orr. You were, then, to pay over this money to Mr. Gilbert,
if the resolution passed?" But the witness, not yet prepared to fol-
low this lead, answered : "There was something said about negotiating
the jjaper, if the resolution passed."
" By the Chairman. Who was to have the avails of it?
" Witness. I have stated in my exjdanation who the bargain was
made between. 1 do not know that I was instructed, in so many
words, to pay the money to anybody." But it being necessary, in
the view of the committee, to implicate Mr. Gilbert, the witness was
again led to the charge that was wanted :
" Bv r>Ir. Orr. Then it was the nnderstan-intj that it was to be paid
t(i Mr.Gilbert by you !" Placed on the safe ground of understanding,
the lead was thus promjjtly followed :
" Witness. That was my understanding at tiie interview to wliich
I have referred." But he adds : " As I have stated, I was not called
on afterwards to ])ay it to anybody." (Page 57.)
With such a witness, and such a course of examination by a secret
committee behind his back, what mend)er of Congress is safe from
im)mtation?
The attention of the House is directed to what took place a little
further on, at page 58. Seeking for the implication of other members,
the witness is asked by Mr. Orr for conversations between Mr. Gilbert
and other members as to tlieir i>articipation in this transaction, with
the proper caution in this instance that " I only in that ask lor your
personal knowledge." Thus restrained, the honor of other members
■was saved only by that precaution, as Mr. Gilbert's might have been,
if, as common justice required, the same caution had been used towards
him, for the witness answers —
" Witness. My impreftsion is very strong that other persons did
have an interest in it, but I cannot certainly answer the question ;
for, although I have inferred that other members were interested, I
may have drawn the inference erroneously, &c."
Now if the same rule had been applied to others, and this witness
called upon, as he was in respect to Mr. Gilbert, for his " impres-
sions" and his "inferences, although they might be erroneous," who
would have escaped ? And why were all the rules of evidence and
common justice violated in or^ler to strike down one member rather
than another? If one inquisition may select its victims, why may
not another do the same?
VII. To pursue the examination and point out all its violations of
justice and law would require too mucli time. But one thing is too
remarkable to be passed over. By what means the committee under-
took to establish their first charge has already been seen. Having
exhausted the "impressions," tliougbts, "figures," and "under-
standings" of the witness on the first point, they proceeded, on page
59 of the report, to make some enquiry touching the subject of the
second charge. After some questions had been propoumled by Mr.
Orr, the answers to which in no degree implicated Mr. Gilbert, or
any one else^ the witness having intimated that he could not crimi-
nate any one but Mr. Gilbert, he is thus encouraged —
"By Mr. Warner. It is due to other witnesses icho have testified before
us that their testimony should he corroborated, and therefore loe ash you
the question." — {Report, page 60.)
Now, this examination was on the 16tb of January. The journal
of the committee shows that they met for the first time on the 12th
of January, and appointed a clerk. — {Report, page 40.) That they
again met on the 14th and examined Henry J. Raymond, and on the
15th examined James W. Simonton. Sweeney was the next witness.
Raymond and Simonton then were the only witnesses who had been
examined. They were the persons to whom it was " due that their
testimony should be corroborated," viz: the writer ot the charge
against members of Congress and its publisher. But was that the
authority delegated to this committee by the House ? Was it not
their only duty, by fair means and legal evidence, to seek the truth
without regard to whomsoever might be "corroborated '" or contra-
dicted ? And when did it ever before occur in a judicial investiga-
tion that a flag was held out to a witness to notify him that others
had gone befnre in the path of accu.satioti, in which he might safely
follow? That " therefore" the question was asked? And does not
this statement, appearing upon tlieir own record, aftbrd a clue to the
extraordinary conduct of the committee in violating the rules of evi-
dence and the principles of justice towards a member ? A calumnious
charge indiscriminately against members of Congress, published in a
widely circulated journal, the testimony of its authors failing to es-
tablish its truth, they required "corroboration." But the undersigned
solemnly protests against this effort to sacrifice him in order to cor-
roborate the assailants of Congress.
And in this connexion, it cannot fail to be observed tliit lintb
Sweeny and Tnplett seem, like the comniittee, to ons de it S
special mission in this case to " corroborate" those who had ..one be-
fore them in charging; corruption upon Congress, for both sCar to
ang'sf ''''" "'^'""" *'^^ ^^'''^ '^ '^^ general r^^^ilTtion of
VIII. How such an intimation as was given to Sweeny bv Mr Warner
would operate upon "a vindictive and not over scrupubus man a
the commit ee admit Sweeny to be, can readily be understood' and
It accounts ior his extraordinary and incredible\story that a raembe
ot Congress voluntarily should in the public streets boast to a other
^^lhout motive or pledge of secrecy, tliat he had received '^seven Care
miles ot land and some stock" for his single vote for a biron w idi
only o9 members voted against its passage!
The means by whicli the committee extracted from Sweenv tliP -^n
cusatory material npon the first charge (evidence i? cannot le eilecri
has already been considered. And here is revealed, bv tlie dec ara
ton of one ot the committee, in open session, to a witness on tie
stand, the reason why they sought tbr the oth<;r charge Jit is i?
not incumbent on the committee to explain what conoboration was
needed (or the witnesses " who bave testified before ?" WheeTs their
evidence.'' <vncie is meir
Xc .such previous testimony appears on the record '
A witness npon the stand, under secret examination, evidentlv de
s.rous, but he.s,tating to accuse, is told by his exaniine ,'t at -'it is"
due to other witnesses who have testified before ns tliat tlieir testimony
should be co,Toi,>r«/e<Z.' -(Report, p. 60.) What is the m port of
this ob.servation to the witness immediately after his own hint ha he
can implicate souie one? Is it not an imprtident and .lan^erousfn i-
niat.oii to him-hrst, that the committee «6'«// to stren<.then a in
•sat.on, and ^c^ll credit the accuser ; second, that he ,J^ 5y IVcus "
because others have already done so ; and as he will co/roboate hem
so they will corroborate h ni ? Does it not also si-rnitV tl.af +i '
mittee, losing sight of the limited aut loi Vaml re^ZoL We dnnT"
trusted to them by the House, had become, Is it Ve^r^e p oS f, ^J
agents of the editor and correspondent of 'the New York T mJ an f
in anxiety o " corroborate" the wholesale traducers of Congress for
got justice to members of Congress ? ^"oit-ss, loi-
IX. The story of Sweeny, however, is incredible in itself and stnnd«
by the confession of the committee, ".solitarv and alon ' Tu4i ly twc^
witnesses against Mr. Gilbert were Triplet and Sweeney a nd rfm
of land (4,480 acres,; worth, at government price, over 811 000 v re
gn-en for one vote, the land must have had some loc°U on-t'S mnst
teo iVsr "wiK^e'tT' "•' ^:r'i '^r -r^"- ^« ^'^•^^«- «uch rbru.
tco IS gitt. Where then is the land, and who gave it? Everv foot
?ra :3 tcfSr ri f 'n 'T '""' '-''^ ^"' ''' *''-^"'J- None h:7beea
traced to Mr. Gilbert by the committee. They had befbro them Mr
Chase, the very person named as the bestower of the -'ift and m
positively denies the whole charge. But the laborious paU by .ih
the committee arrived at the ridiculous story of Sweeney and he
xnannor in which he trifled and amused l"--;;.;''^;!;^! '\rrne'
of notice It appears from the report (pa-e^GO) that aitei _ i\i . ^v arner
had held out thJ flag to the witness, Mr. Orr took lum m hand, and
after an examination of a page and a half extrac ed nothing^ On
pafe fil Mr. Warner took Irim, but soon relmqmshed ^mi to Mr
fcis who immediately relinquished him to Mr. Ritchie^ He tried
Sm n vain for another'page and a half, and gave h™ v^Mr Orr-
Davis who again failed. Mr. Orr then complains "By Mi. Orr
?tMnk you put yourself in an awkward 1--^-;^^^ J^^TdHv^'
are taking, especially when you say y?^ ;\77 .^'^^ ;:'/? L'w tiey
s:d£!?T^^t^^w::ir^^^s:iiS^^^
U n resmned the task, and at last the witness, taking l-ir opinion
^<°iewT aho^S Fo'^r-td-a-half street," for its time " lat-n tl^
Pven n<r " and for its accompaniment " a glass of soda water, and it
<^vymursu prised-' the witness, so much so that he went home
and I'enw ed to^u'. fanuly that " I thought it very strange t^iat he
should have placed himself in that position. '-Report, p. G4. The land
Sno locaJion, he did not know how the ^^'S Lwl's M '
hut the name of the negotiator was an ^^7"^'^'^^'"/* !-;^ \^e 'ansac-
Chase a witness hefore the committee, who proved that the transac
*^l'^UrSeS^SS;.ns, the testimony of Sweeney is dismissed
wiUi' the single remark, that if a witness was ever successfully impeach-
dn his general character, and his character for truth and veraci y
by genera'reputation and particular- facts, J^-^1.1 ; J^'J^^^t er-
n^nn- nnd if anything be wanting to show the House the utter pei
^ershm of the testimony by the committee, it will be found by read-
[nTtheirstatmenras^.; Sweeney's character, and the evidence of
mnelchmen It is true, some witnesses held his character good and
3d believe him ; and so it is always. Nothing is more extraor-
Zary than hat aW' man, however base, cannot find some one who
win bel eve him if he swears to an evil story against another. But
3 on fie witnesses of high personal character, great intelligence
am uiQue i ned integrifyr come from a man's home and swears tha
i?f "eXl c racter f. had, that Ms character for truth and veracity
S &arf /'if r^^'^"?'^ ^ot helieve him on oa^A-and upon a cros -
^aSaSon sh^w that by his former ^-nds and benetactor , k
Ti,=tir, T Biitterfield, late Commissioner of the i.and umce, anu
otie s by hi^ partnei's in business, by those who have had no dis-
pute or co'ntrovLsy, political or otherwise ^flX7t^:i^rieT^'
Lv«an<ihe i^rec-ardedin hs own neighborhood as rotten-neaneu,
^'i^Z^^ r^^^oherons," -ly^^," "doe-tful,' "revengeful
'Mivnocr itical ' "false," and "dishonest," there is in the character of
suclfa nmn Bothing to iustify faith or credit in any story, ho^
3 obable in i"self, luuch less when the story comes as Sweeney s came
nnd is such as he tells. The committee, moreover, are constrained
to coSe^^taThe is'" vindictive when provoked, and not over scrupul-
ous in his measures of revenge."— (i?e/>or<, page 8.)
XI. The time already occupied forbids, and, indeed, it is unneces-
sary, to make much remark as to the remaining witness, Triplett, for
the case will he found to rest entirely upon Sweeny's shoulders. With
a book that he wanted Congress to buy, it appears from his own state
ment that Triplett, starting out witli the notion that '^nobody who
knows the organization of Congress expects to carry anything through
it merely by love of justice," he was introduced by Sweeny to Mr.
Gilbert, and upon that introduction some conversation took place in
respect to the book and the price at which it could be furnished ; Trip-
lett mentioning the price he would take, and that he did not care what
became of the balance. It appears that Sweeny was engaged in lob-
bying claims, and some time after this interview Triplett gave to him
the order upon the clerk of the House that has been mentioned. No
resolution to purchase the book ever passed, nor was one ever offered.
He states that Mr. Gilbert never asked ior the order. He, there-
fore, had no more than Sweeny's word that any member of Congress
was interested in it. Sweeny ivas thex>arty who came to him originally
upon the suhject — page 69. He did not know who was to receive the
money, " he did not care about inquiring who was to receive it." But
as his knowledge failed to show any guilt, his impressions were in-
voked.
" By Mr. Orr. Was it ijour impression, when Mr. Sweeny made ap-
plication to you for the writing, that it was made in consequence of
anything that had passed between him and the member ; in other
words, that his application was based upon an interview with the
member ?
"Witness. That was ray impression, thoiu/h the member never told
me so. The truth is, Mr. Sweeny came to me originally u^mn the sub-
ject," d'c. — Report, p. 69.
So that Triplett' s ^^impressions" from Sweeny's stories are all tliat
were derived from this witness by the committee !
From the beginning to the end, the charge rests solely upon Sweeney's
uncorroborated story, so far as there is any guilt to be imputed.
XII. From the sources that have been mentioned, and by the means
referred to, the committee have derived their charge. That, standing
alone, it is wholly unsupported by anything worthy of the name of evi-
dence, must be plain to every candid mind. But when notiiied of their
proceedings, Mr. Gilbert appeared before the committee, and, under
oath, put in his answer to the defamatory story; that answer, full and
complete, alleges, among other things, that " no agreement was made
with me by Mr. Triplett, Sweeney, or any other person, whereby I was
to have or did expect to liave any benefit from tlie passage of the reso-
lution. I never knew of or had the remotest idea of tlie existence of
the writing or order until after it was produced before the committee."
And in regard to the Iowa land bill, " I have to say, that I have not
tlie slightest recollection of ever having had a conversation witli
Sweeny on the subject, and IJcnoiu that I never told him that 1 was
to have seven square miles or any otlier quantity of land for my vote.
I never stipulated for any quantity of land or other pecuniary cou.side-
ration for my vote for that or any other hill."
' ' I have voted upon all the measnres before OoTigress since I liave
been ^ member according to the dictates of ray judgment, and not
from fiiiy motives of personal gain."' — Pi/'nr.ri.^ p. 79.
The record shows (p. 76) that the committee decided they would
not regard him as a witness. But from that decision he appeals
to the better judgment of the House, and claims, that in cases
of this nature tlie statement of a member under oath is evidence in
his favor of the highest character, that cannot be overcome but by the
testimony of two unimpeached witnesses. This he is advised is the
])arliamentary law, and without this wholesome rule a member of
Congress would be at the mercy of any scoundrel that infests the
halls of Congress. His statement is, moieover, confirmed by the
testimony of Mr. Welcli and Mr. Chase, both of whom swear to facts
wholly inconsistent with the stories of Sweeney. Justice to himself
would require some other points in the report and proceedings of the
committee to be noticed, were it not that the defence has already ex-
tended beyond the limits he desired. This necessity has been im-
posed upon him by the irregular and unfair procedure to which he
has been subjected. But, without further remark, he submits his
case to the House. If the charge be entertained he demands an open
trial by the House, where justice will be administered according to
legal evidence, and in legal form, and where his rights as a man and
his privileges as a member will be respected. Protesting his inno-
cence in fact and intention in every respect wherewith he stands
charged, with an apology for the length of these remarks, he cheer-
fully abides the judgment of the House.
W. A. GILBERT.
89 W
"'^'*' % ^^ '^'
^ >-. -r-^;
*• ^^'\ \1^'° /\, '"^W/ ,'^''"\ ^^^^.^ ^^-
0" ♦'.
^^^o
n~.fl
^°-^^
^** ' • • t ^v ^
^°-^<^^
'• V ,o^.i;^,>, ..^\.^i',V /.•;.'^'«'^o.
-^-^ *
K^*^
• ' ^ • <^
v>\M-^'
0' ^^ *.,,.• ^v
>.^/
..^'
vv'^;ri,(;(>^i-iSi^;NCi''
* '^^xMl'\,' ''^
.0
.ivjHc, PA
0' .-
•^^0^
^•1°^
v'
aiSC-i'i
^°^. '••■'