Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-02-20

contract. Cron further rec election the wines,
STATES, that ne must have received this inform
'o" zen. Swift himself, for that he remembers TO
nave had conversation with him in which the
GENERAL stated that he had an idea of leaving the
army aud becoming Interested in some contract
WIN 'he government, which the witness supposed
10 nave been the contract in question. He further
a'es' IN The same conversation, General Swift in
,v'"ea MN that lie had asked the pei mission oi
'"' N"inoun TO be ONE thus in crested. This ey>
idence If evidence i, may be called is 10 be re.
ga'oed In the two-foid aspect OF duplicating Gen.
swift IN Criminal participation in q contract made
~ himself, as the agent of the Government, and
Nir' .Saihoun IN scarcely less criminal CONN.,.
'"nee al such participation So far it relates
W Eeh' owiit, common justice requires 10 re.
marx that II is contrary to those great principle,
"a criminal Jurisprudence which fore-faheis
".etconsecra'edby constitutional declaration, 10
81 IN judgment upon citizen against whom no
ehaFS e has been presented; who has no notice TIA,
MS isesen thus informally implicated and
"no' instead OF being present to confront his ac-
| cuser, is wholly unrepresented before the Commit
'ee.
Du,, so lar as this testimony tends TO mrlica,e
~" Eainoun, the course adopted by the Commit-
.ee =, nao.e 10 much stronger objection than that
e.ey VI receiving, andrecording for publication,
i".o"pe'eht and improper testimony. They ha, e
e'iuen'iy closed the legation precisely where
oueht 70 nave commenced, leaving upon the rep.
u,aion OF MIR. Calhoun all the suspicion which
hiesai evidence could produce and emitting to
summon before them the only witness who could
give iesai testimony on The matter in question.
Coi' AfmIsiead states, obviously from the recol-
iecuons OF most ueacher Gus and feeble memory,
| tha' len. Swift Informed. him, 8 or years ago,
that he had asked Mr.. Caihoun's permission TO
become concerned in some contract with the Co.
'erhment. This is the only material fact bearing
upon the character Of Mr.. Calhoun: and il must
have been obvious to the Committee tina, Gen
swift was the only witness who could give lee a!
testimony In relation to il. Yet they have declin-
ed 10 summon BIN their own motion no doub.
IRON view OF the subject satisfactory to them
| selves. The ground upon which must presume
they have acted, is the Incompetence of the eyi.
dence before them, and its utter insufriency to fix
upon MIR. Calhoun any imputation which requires
tope reiued. But must be permitted 10 saw
that the incompetency and nsafficiency of the ey-
dence, though very sufficient reason for rejecting
II altogether, is no at all for refusing when
II IS improperly received and recorded to produce
the only legal testimony by which judicial certain
~ could be OBJ aimed on the subject. Although
! therefore, the Committee must have acted with a
view to impartial justice, the course they have pur.
sued has been precisely that which is hes, caIcua
ted to give the most injurious efficacy to ILLEGAL
testimony against MIR. Calhoun and 10 avoid The
conclusive refutation which he production of legal
evidence would undoubtedly establish To do away
the ehect oil this proceeding, the only alternative
ieit t" Mr. Calhoun is, TO place the most emphatic
and unrquivocai negative, which l am expressly
authorized to do upon the imputati.,n of his ever
having any knowledge or belief of G en- Srifr's par
licIPation IN The contract, and to call upon the
Committee to examine Gen Swif, himself as 10
ihr imputed fact OF Mr.. Ca.houn's knowledge and
connivanee.
Having shown that the entire mass of the tes-
mosy produced Is legally inadmissabe on the trial
OF am issue which can be made upon Mr. Call
heuns official conduc, or moral integrity i, is due
10 the COMMITTEE that should explain my reasons
Tor not objectng 10 it il occurred in the proyre
OF the investigation.
Convinced of the absolute falsity of the charges
presented, and OF The entire purity of Mr.. CAL
noun Character In all the relations, public or pri-
yaie, in which it be contaminated I det,rmin
ea, from the beginning, thai would interpose nc
objection 10 any inquiry which The committee
might think proper 10 institute, nor 10 any dee
crlp'ion oil evidence by which they might think
proper 10 pursue It. Any attempt my part to
restrain Tie latitude fi the Investigation, or 10 pre-
vent The abduction even of improper evidence,
would have been construed by the malicious into
desire TO screen Mr.. CALHOUN, behind technics i
forms, from a full and free inyes' iga,ion And as
was ii-hed that the more severe The ordeal the
more conclusive would be the evidence of the f.
deity and zeal OF his Official conduct, was the
mole willing that the investigation should assume
any form which the Committee might choose 10
give IT, and be prosecuted by any sort of evidence
} which they might think proper TO admit, upon
the!r own responsibility.
But although had right, as The personal friend
OF MIR. Calhoun, 10 abstain from any interference
with The course Of the Committee, have no right
considering the relation in which lie stands and in
winch stand, TO the public, to sanction, by ny
acquiescence, species of unlicensed nquisiiion
unknown TO the jurisprudence of any free country
aud which would furnish precedent utterly sub
versive OF the only effec,ual safeguards of the
reputation OF public men in periods of great poiti-
cal excitement
Having disposed of that branch Of the inv A.,
ton which relates 10 the imputaions upon Mr.
Caihonn's oihcial integrity, il remains for me TO
oner lew remarks al a view OF this subject
which, though not iByov ed in the issue referred 10
The committee. is evidently embraced in the scope
OF ibelr Inquiries. II has been too apparent 10 es-
cape the observation OF one less interested
than am, to mark the bearings of this investiga-
uon, that very large portion of the testimony
can have no other application object than TO call
IN question the general administration of the war
Department. while Alr. Calhoun presided over il +,
by holding him responsible for the minute ireau-
sTtes OF its subordinate branches and particularly
, those OF the Engineer Department: While, there.
lore, the charge is specific and limited the nyes-
igation is general and underlined, and the most Oh
vous principles OF justice require that the defence
should at least be co extensive 18th the attack,
} whether this be open and direct, or disguised and
incidental.
Assuming, then, that the general irregularities of
subordinate branch of the War DEPARTMENT. are
falr subjects OF inquiry let see whether the spe.
clhcallnns are such as, admitting their truth will
lailly fix any portion of the responsibility on MIR.
Calhoun. The contract in relation TO which the
imputed Irregularities occurred w as made the 25 h
OF July, 1918. Mr.. Calhoun took CHARGE of the