Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-03-01
SATURDAY, MARCH l, 1856.
Who is Shirkingl

course in regard to the Penltentiary ques-
ton, and attempts to cast odium on the
conduct of the American members of the
Senate and especially those belonging to the
Committee of Investigation appointed I'M
der the resolution of Mr.. Carter, of Frank
lin. Great fault is found with Speaker
Cheatham for appointing amajority of that
committee, of those who endorsed the ac-
ton of the Inspectors. We confess our
selves unable to see the justice Of the
grounds on which this is done. This Lee
gislature does not contain three gentlemen
with characters more irreproachable than
Messrs. Stokes, Cooke and johnson, the
American members of that committee. No
act of their lives affords the slightest fOun-
dalton for an imputation on their motives
to do justice and deal fairly in such an in
vestigation as they were commissioned to
institute. The history Of the transaction
shows their conduct to have borne out
the confidence which the Speaker reposed
in them. For the sequel abundantly proves
that the responsibility of Sinking falls on
other heads than theirs. Let US examine
and see if it does not.
A charge was alleged against the pres
ent board of Inspectors, being located spe-
officially upon Isaac Paul. Esq A COM
mittee was appointed to investigate it, be-
ing empowered to send for persons and
papers. They proceeded in the first place
to examine Gov. Johnson He was per-
mitted to make his statements without the
least desire on the part Of the American
members to suppress anything he had to
say. On the contrary we understand that
it was with considerable difficulty that GER
tain answers sought by them were elected.
Other persons were examined, and dOcu-
ments were placed before the committee
One side had been heard at length An
er parte record Of testimony was made up.
The accusation had been made, and the
chief accuser had adduced his proof The
committee with a majority in favor Of the
Inspectors had allowed the complainant the
largest liberty and the widest range in
making good his complaint As yet the
minority had made no charge against the
majority of desiring 'to shrk," or evade a
full and fair scrutiny into the matter. None
could be made Their conduct spoke for
itself As before stated their desire to
hear and know from the lips of sworn wit
neSSes everything that could shed light or
the affair had been even greater than that
of.those who instigated the investigation.
Mark, reader, what now takes place.
During a session of the Senate, and while
the Committee was not in session. a motion
was made to add another Democratic mem
Der to the committee, heightened gentle
man, by the way. Mind you, no charge had
been breathed that any unfairneSS had been
displayed by the majority. The addition
to the committee was asked on the ground
Of equalizing the number from each side.
The Senate, with an American majority,
thinking to give satisfaction placed a dem
Ocratic Senator on the committee, making
in all six, three Americans and three Dem
ocrats. At the next session of the com
mttee, having given the prosecutor a hear
ing, tint prosecutor being The chief witncss,
the American members propose to listen to
the defence. Objection was made The cues
ton, on hearing statements in behalf of the
defendant, was put before the committee,
and negatived by tie vote, the three demo
cratic members Of the committee voting
against it. Was the addition of that third
democratic member asked for the promo
ton Of fairness in the investigation, or was
it done to Stife it, TO shirk" it, and to
shrink from it? We leave an intelligent
public to answer But what was the ground
on which these gentlemen refused to allow
Esq. Paul to confront his accuser, and JUS
tify himself before the committee and the
country? A legal quibbie, which had no
application to the case an objection which,
if it had any merit, had been violated bv
allowing the party most deeply interested
TO testify on the other side. Their objec-
tion that a party to a suit is an incompe-
tent witness was, under the circumstances,
a miserable subterfuge to smother the
trnth and screen the mbecoming conduct
Of Andrew johnson from the public gaze,
and the public contempt, for the one would
surely follow the other 1t did Esq. Paul
and the Inspectors great injustice, for it
would have left them exposed to unjust i'm.
putatioas, which full investigation alone
could have removed.
That committee was as much bound to
receive the sworn testimony Of Esq Paul,
as that of Gov. johnson They were the
prominent parties in the investigation
Gov Johnson had been seeking his removal
on account of alleged official misconduct,
aud had been permtted TO state that -con-
duct and the grounds Of his charge. Esq.
Paul, always admitting the conduct, but
denying that he had violated his official
obligations, aud seeking to sabstantiate
other facts which leoHli hare rsl;-ra.2 i'm Of
any 5laule, and 61ei any lrIiot might ailaes
10 i, iotere i properly belonged. on Gopsraor
JouxsoN Aias,lf, was denied the privilege.
Who evaded Who shirked ~ Who