The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-31

appropriation b now on Inc Speakers table on lis thiId
MIR. BISSELL objected.
So leave was not granted.
Mr. sASHNUN SUGGESTED the propriety Of taking up
all the general appropriation bills the Speakers
table
Mr. DUER made motion 10 that end; but
MI. p KING objected. RINK
lMr OAlASmoyed The suspension OF the rules 10 go
into Committee OF the Whole on the private calendar
not agreed 10 ,,.s,s4e.-e..s-.
The SPEAKER announced the first business IN
order 10 be the further consideration OF Mr.. STAsLY's
resolution directing the Sergeant al Arms to take mo ms
custody and bring the bar OF the House, the bodies oil
Thomas Richie and e p Sensstack, to answer for a
contempt committed by each, in refusing to reply 70 GER
tain nqufes put BY The Bundeeund Select Com
mtee &t u
4 Mr. SCHENCK, who was entitled to the floor.
apoogizng Tor addressing the House such Time went
reply TO the argument OF Mr. FIrcH upon this re-
solution.
The committee had been directed by the House TO make
inquiries only subject Mr. Richie, having been
summoned refused to answer the committees questions
touching that point claiming immunity the ground Of
the confidential relation between an editor and his cores
pondents Now, his excuse would not be valid before
court OF justice So far as the committee were concerned
he cared nothing; but representative OF the people,
he felt called insist thus vlndicaing the author
ity OF the House Of Representatives. The other wit,
ness Sengstack, refused to answer the question pro-
pounded unless he authorized to give an answer ex
lending above and beyond the right OF the committee 10
make nquies-to give his views and opinions about
something else. II was in his (Sengslacks) case as
though witness on sand when asked relative TO a
quarrel between and b. refused to answer, unless per
ntei also 10 tell all about quarrel between and d.
such conduct the part OF witness. He had no dspo
son to go into the controversy about the character OF
Richie; neither he (Nr s. nor the House had anything
do with that II was sufficient Tor the House TO know
thai he is contumacous witness.
Mr. FircH (said Mr.. 81 had undertaken 10 say that
the wings of the committee had some motive in reporting
this resolution which unknown to the democrats on
IT, This proper manner OF arguing question OF
law The House had nothing to do with the motives OF
the committee. The gentleman from Indiana knew well
that all the facts reported by the committee were true
and YET he had attempted TO get rid OF the Affair." by repre-
sentng it too trivial 10 occupy the time OF the House
e Mr.. FcHl had justified the refusal OF Sengstack to
reply because he not permitted TO swear to the whole
truth. This poor subteruge, as he proceeded to
show The committee had agreed unanimously upon The
form in which the witnesses should be sworn and The
action Of Mr. FITcH in complaining Of this proceed
ing OF the committee, was not to that gentlemans credit
The truth was, Mr. Richie and Mr. Sengstack wanted,
for nolorety's sake 10 be made martyrs He was moi
disposed crafty them the present press OF business
He would, therefore, move an amendment TO the resou
ton Of Mr. STANLY, TO make the Sergeant al, Arms war
rant for their apprehension returnabe the second
Monday Of December next. He believed that The Ser
geant- at Arms kind man, who would cause these
persons Inconvenience, letting them 50 about their
business until the coming Of the day for the return OF the
warrant He would not object to their keeping each
other Mr.. Sengsack, who bad had experience as
ailor, might keep Richie, for augh, he cared
Mr.. returning TO The aguneA OF the Case insisted
that involved an important principle and that the House
should by no fail 10 defend its own authority. If
his views oil the rights OF the House were wrong, he de-
sired 10 be convinced oil that TACT
Mr.. CARTIER desired 10 know whether would be
in order 10 move, amendment that the wafiast be
returnable before magistrate.
The SPEAKER replied in the negative
Mr STANTON, OF Kentucky y, explained Mr.. Ritchie's
conduct before the committee had been perfectly re,
speciiul.
vote for the original resolution, in order 10 gray the
wings, in giving them such power IN this connexon as
they desired that they might pursue their iuse~iga
fbn rtnf he i'm
true question The exieD, OF The inqaisilorIa
power OF the House. He differed from the views tina,
subec, expressed by the wings who had spoken upon IT,
Could the House demand OF an editor information as 10
the number OF subscribers 10 his paper, and as 10 how
much he made who were his sleeping parners' who
wrote for his paperl Ii not, he deied MIR. ScHENCK TO
draw distinction between these questions and those the
committee had asked. The1esoution creating the special
committee was broad and general. What was the object
OF It's inquiries Suppose the facts sought by Mr. STAhLy
10 be esabshed-wha action is proposed in conse
quence thereof Suppose clerks did correspond for news
paperswoud the House make their letters the basis OF
legal proceedings against themi Have the House the
right TO peer into his private atIars' Do the wings in
tend 10 lay down the principle that man takes
office under the government his mouth must be closed
and his hand palsed for speaking and writing on public
affairs lie trusted that democrat at least, would hold
Office such terms. Was he to lose the right OF inter
Became h U.s. as republicans 10 eace the steps so in
considerably taken on the 9th Of May, in the adoption
OF the original resolution. Ii became the House 10 sol
EMMY resolve that Mr. Richie not bound 10 answer
The questions put 10 him. In before a civil or
criminal court the doctrines beid By Mr. EVANS OF Mary
land might be correct but they By appl-
cable here What would the House do If all the facts
sought by Mr. STAsLY to be established be proved
Would The consequence be The bringing up OF these
parties TO be lectued by the Speaker and discharged
Bnt single portion of the rcsolu,ion-ih portion
nqung what clerks left their duties make speeches
had been properly enacted. That could legltmaIey
have been asked By the committee. But that question
not put TO Mr. Richie The refusal of Seng stack 10
tell hall improper Instead OF making that answer
he should have gwen direct refusal TO answer az the
clerks had right 10 do what they would with their own
money Had Richie and Sengsack been taken into Gus.
ody and had awrt OF hGbeds corpus been taken out by
them, The judiciary would have been forced to discharge
them from custody on the ground that the government
bad nothing to do with the subjects which they had re
fused to make disclosures Had they refused 10 answer
The quesiion-what clerks have left business TO cleo
honeer 1.-THE committee mi come properly 10 the House
Tor ITS action, as now demanded.
lie reoiced that this editor had independently taken
his stand lie desired 10 have the question tiled Let the
other side, If they dare, this man for refusing Ia
answer The questions of this committee lie desired 10
have this question 90 TO the courts of justice
The Time might come when, with nrant in the Chair
q State, clerk. loving his country might disclose
through a newspaper treason against her liberties II
might be that effort would be made 10 sacrifice that
clerk under this precedent These days might be alar off
bat ~ the extraordinary changes passing before the
eyes OF The world could tell how soon the action
demanded by the committee, II taken by the House
might be relied on TO destroy patriot in The public
service, awaiting himself Of The newspapers 10 warn his
countymen against designs against their liberties
MI CARTIER proposed TO make amendment lie /
desired 10 move 10 ecomnlt, with instructions TO the
select committee to go with their important duties
Mr.. DUER moved to lay the whole subject on the table
and on that motion he demanded the ptevlous question
But NJ the request OF Mr.. SfANLY, who desired TO /
H. AZ. r.. Al