Difference between revisions of ".MjEwNg.Mjk0NTc"
(Created page with "[page 89] Tuesday, Feb. 8 1881 The Committee met according to adjournment, in the Hall of the House of Representatives, Messir Pattangall, Morrill Hill, Dudley, Goss, Sargent...") |
HeatherMoran (talk | contribs) m (Protected ".MjEwNg.Mjk0NTc" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Tuesday, Feb. 8 1881 | Tuesday, Feb. 8 1881 | ||
The Committee met according to adjournment, in the | The Committee met according to adjournment, in the | ||
| − | Hall of the House of Representatives, Messir | + | Hall of the House of Representatives, Messir Pattangill, Morrill Hill, Dudley, |
| − | Goss, Sargent Eaton, and | + | Goss, Sargent Eaton, and Linscott of the Committee being present, |
Dr. Butler renewed his motion to put the witnesses under oath. | Dr. Butler renewed his motion to put the witnesses under oath. | ||
Mr. Hill objected, because he had no doubt that they | Mr. Hill objected, because he had no doubt that they | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
that the people might know the truth. He hoped | that the people might know the truth. He hoped | ||
the witnesses would be put under oath. | the witnesses would be put under oath. | ||
| − | Mr. | + | Mr. Pattangill: As far as I am concerned I have |
| − | no | + | no objection. I will submit it to the Committee. |
Mr. O.D. Baker Esq. said he had but just been | Mr. O.D. Baker Esq. said he had but just been | ||
requested to sit down and listen to the investigation, and knew | requested to sit down and listen to the investigation, and knew | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
idea to say that they had no objection to the witnesses | idea to say that they had no objection to the witnesses | ||
being put under oath, including themselves, if that was the | being put under oath, including themselves, if that was the | ||
| − | + | judgment of the Committee. | |
| − | Mr. | + | Mr. Pattangill suggested that if either party desired to put |
| − | a witness under oath that privilege should be accorded | + | a witness under oath that privilege should be accorded them. |
Dr. Butler thought this would cause insidious distinctions. | Dr. Butler thought this would cause insidious distinctions. | ||
Mr. Hill withdrew his objection. | Mr. Hill withdrew his objection. | ||
Latest revision as of 19:10, 10 March 2022
[page 89] Tuesday, Feb. 8 1881 The Committee met according to adjournment, in the Hall of the House of Representatives, Messir Pattangill, Morrill Hill, Dudley, Goss, Sargent Eaton, and Linscott of the Committee being present, Dr. Butler renewed his motion to put the witnesses under oath. Mr. Hill objected, because he had no doubt that they would as readily tell the truth without the oath as with it Dr. Butler said the investigation was a matter that concerned the whole state, and the testimony would undoubtedly be printed in some form so that the people might know the truth. He hoped the witnesses would be put under oath. Mr. Pattangill: As far as I am concerned I have no objection. I will submit it to the Committee. Mr. O.D. Baker Esq. said he had but just been requested to sit down and listen to the investigation, and knew nothing of what had previously taken place. But so far as the gentlemen against whom charges had been made, he felt out [illegible] idea to say that they had no objection to the witnesses being put under oath, including themselves, if that was the judgment of the Committee. Mr. Pattangill suggested that if either party desired to put a witness under oath that privilege should be accorded them. Dr. Butler thought this would cause insidious distinctions. Mr. Hill withdrew his objection.