The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-04


constituents. But did not appear as counsel il
the case. ~ - iaEs9
Mr.. JOHNSON, ofTennessee wish to asl
the gentleman from Missouri this question: Dir
you ever receive any compensation for your actor
before this Commission Z
Mr.. PHELPS. did not appear before tha
coaIG az aii, nor did receive any compensation
for filing the memorial. ~ i
Mr.. HOWARD. As the gentleman from Geor-
gia mas mentioned my name in this connection,
desire to state that two constituents of mine sent
cases to me which filed before the Board. nre-
sented them, however, without having exacted or
received any compensation
Mr.. STEPHENS Then understand the oen-
tleman from Texas did appear before the Roar
but received no compensation for it. l
s. Mr.. iHO WARD. Twill state, that received ne.
utIons and papers made out, some of which cor
rected, and one petition redrafted, signed them as
counsel, and presented them before the Board. but
never received any compensation nor charged
any have never charged or received any paw
1or business to which here attend to before the
Departments f1si7 81 :,
While am up, however, will state, that do
not myself consider an appearance before such a
board as anything improper in ITSELF l agreed to
this report, however, because think it is better
for the representatives and the country that MEM
.bers OF Congress should not appear before such
commissions, and not because considered such an
oPFSoIoooO as IIlt5 Improper IN lLSclf. Shall
take occasion to state my reasons for this opinion
before the debate Closes " =
Mr.. STEPHENS What I was informed
then, is true that these gentlemen did act as coun
sci before this Board. Mr.. PHELPS did not appear
before the Board in person, because it was not ne
cessary; but as the papers presented by them were
for constituents they did not charge or receive anv
compensation for their services. On that point.
as stated, was not informed as to either or any
OF the gentlemen named by me- sse..3si z :.
Mr.. PHELPS. / did not appear before the
Board at all. merely handed in the papers.
Mr.. STEPHENS. sThe gentleman did not ap-
pear, because it was not necessary | presume
there is no question that neither of these gentlemen
received any compensation for their services. But
the gentleman from Texas very correctly states, in
my opinion, that it was nothing unusual or inpro-
per in membass of Congress in appearing before
such Board as counsel for compensation.
fMr. STANTON, of Tennessee Will the een-
teman allow me to make a statement?
Mr.. STEPHENS. Be brief
Mr.. STANTON. | do not know whether the
gentleman from Georgia has my name as appear
ing before this Commission or not, but I did an
pear there, In one case for constituent of mine,
who employed me as his counsel, and paid me for
It, drew his memorial and presented it before
the Board. 1 did not think the Commission allowed
him half as much as he was entitled to- but he paid
me in accordance with his own proposition.
Mr.. STEPHENS. did not have the gentle
mans MS name and it is very possible other mem
bers OF Congress appeared about whom / have
no information. 8 !,
Mr.. STANTON. l will state further. Mr.
Speaker, that have attended to business for nv
constituents and others, thousand times. and
never received cent for my services, and never
would receive a cent, although money has been re-
peatedly offered me. 11Hi - g
Mr.. STEPHENS. 1t seems then, that the
onnt Mr. o,d A.,
happened to have the papers of constituents, in
consideration of which they did not charge them
for their services but if the papers had been pre-
scented by others, according to the statement of
the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. SrANToN.)
and of the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. HowARD,)
they would have considered it nothing improper to
have appeared before that Commission, any more
than to have appeared before the Supreme Court
as counsel. 20 4l
Now, my point was, to show from the whole
legislative history of the country that such con-
nexion has never been deemed improper; that there
is no legislation against it. This, think, / have
established The only Department of the Govern.
ment in relation to which such connexion is pro-
hibied by law, is that of the Treasury That is
the only Department in which public officers are
prohibited from holding such relationship In the
War Department there is no law against either the
head of it or any subordinate being interested in
claim, or prosecuting claim pending before the
Treasury In the State Department there is no such
prohibition, or in any other Department Here,
and in this connection, beg to call the attention of
the House to the investigation which was had in
1887, before the memorable committee of Mr..
Wise. You recoect, perhaps, that amongst other
charges of improperly preferred by Mr.. Wise
was, that the heads of some of the Departments
were specializing in the public lands, and with hav-
ing interest in, and with prosecuting claims against,
the Government. The position of General Jack
and of the then in of L.
was emphaticaly the head, was, that there ,uas no
lao against it, and that if the head of any of the
Departments, except the Treasury, or any OF the
officers of the Government, had q claim against
the Government, or was disposed to invest his mo-
ney in specializing in the public lands, that it was
no well-grounded charge against the integrity of
such officer. | have the report of that committee
before me, with the remarks of Mr.. Wise upon it.
These papers, think, fully sustain this position.
The Secretary of State was charged at that time
with being largely interested in land company in
he State of Alabama. Witnesses were put unon
he stand, and questioned as to that fact The cues
ion was so modified and restricted as to make the
witness answer whether the Secretary of State had
'een interested in any land speculations contrary
o law" There was no law against it, and the
question was not permitted to be propounded touch
ng the matter without this modification. The in
erence was clear that he was, or if he was, that il
vas his legal right to be, so interested.
Well, sir, with this distinct allegation as to the
Secretary of State, what said General jackson to
his committee? elf you are able to point to anu
ase where there is the slightest reason to suspect
corruption or abuse of trust, no obstacle which |
an remove shall be interposed to prevent the full
st scrutiny by all legal means.n This he said to
Nf. Wise. He had specified the speculations of
he Secretary of State in public lands. But that
vas no case of " corruption and abuse" in the
opinion of General Jackson, because 1t was not
gainst any law.
General jackson held that there was no corrup-
ion in the charge if true, because there no law
gairst it; and his friends in this House on the
ommittee would not allow the question to be put
And say, sir, you must first define crime be-
ore you go hunting criminals. You must first pro-
lain by law what is wrong, and what you intend
, hold up to public odium, before you can hold
ar. Corwin, or MIR. Anybody else, up as public
lalefacter for breaking your law. Your law must
rst be made and published. Where there is no
w, there is no transgression. Therefore you can
OF rghtfully charge the Secretary of the Treasury
Senator of the United States, with being i'm
roperly" employed as counsel before the Board of
1exican Commissioners, which is the issue in this
latter, until you declare by law that Senator shall
OF be SO employed, and until he then shall have 4
,ndered himself obnoxious to the provisions of 4
our law. When all this takes place, his conduct
i'll fall within the range of those acts which are
llled naala prohibita,n and not even then within
lat class denominated nlala in Sc" unless there