How the States Got Their Shapes Too_ The People Behind the Borderlines - Mark Stein [87]
Jackson too, by dint of his flinty personality, was also an embattled man. Shortly after Houston’s arrival in Washington, Congressman William Stanberry delivered a speech on the floor regarding Jackson appointees who had, or should have been, fired. Amid those he was listing, Stanberry declaimed, “Was the late Secretary of War removed in consequence of his attempt, fraudulently, to give to Governor Houston the contract for Indian rations?” The answer to that question was yes and no. No, that was not why Secretary of War John Eaton had left office. And yes, there had been fraud—but not in Houston’s contract. The fraud was in the previous contract, the holder of which deprived the Cherokees of adequate rations while pocketing the surplus profits. Secretary of War Eaton awarded Houston the new contract knowing it would be administered honestly. In so doing, Eaton aroused the wrath of entrenched political interests.
Houston’s anger at being wrongly accused of fraud was intensified by the fact that he had no legal recourse. Congressmen and senators have immunity from slander for anything they say in session. Houston did what any man worth his salt would do; he sent Stanberry a note. To which Stanberry replied:
I received this morning, by your hands, a note signed Samuel Houston, quoting from the National Intelligencer of the 2nd a remark made by me in the House. The object of the note is to ascertain whether Mr. Houston’s name was used by me in debate, and whether my remarks were correctly quoted. I cannot recognize the right of Mr. Houston to make this request.
Very respectfully yours etc.,
William Stanberry
One might wonder what Stanberry intended to achieve. Why not stand behind his statement, rather than imply the note might not be authentic (and therefore unfair to Houston) and then insult Houston? Elsewhere, Stanberry acknowledged that he knew the note was authentic and also knew the character of the man who sent it. “It was the opinion of one of my friends that it was proper that I should be armed,” he stated on the floor of the House, “that, immediately upon the reception of my note, Mr. Houston would probably make an assault upon me. Mr. [Thomas] Ewing accordingly procured for me a pair of pistols.”
Houston, however, did not assault Stanberry upon receiving his reply. He assaulted him ten days later. There could have been any number of reasons for the delay, including the “hot-headed” Houston’s contemplation of the political chessboard.
One thing certain is that on the evening of April 13, 1832, Stanberry crossed the street from his boarding house and, as he later testified:
At the moment of stepping on the sidewalk, Mr. Houston stood before me. I think he called me by my name and instantly struck me with the bludgeon he had in his hand with great violence, and he repeated the blow while I was down.… Turning on my right side, I got my hand in my pocket and got my pistol and cocked it. I watched an opportunity while he was striking me … and pulled the trigger, aiming at his breast. The pistol did not go off.… He wrested the pistol from my hand and, after some more blows, he left me.
Stanberry’s testimony was not given in court. Houston’s trial took place in the House of Representatives after it voted that its sergeant-at-arms should arrest Houston. Congressman James K. Polk strenuously opposed this action:
Was not the law of the District of Columbia open to the member? Was not the individual who had assaulted him … guaranteed by the Constitution to a trial by jury?
But a counterargument was made by Congressman Daniel Jenifer:
The Constitution … expressly declared that no member might be brought into question elsewhere for words spoken in the House.… Now, [I] would like to know, whether in the present case there had not been an attempt not only to question the words of the member assaulted, but to … deprive him altogether of the power of exercising