The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1857-02-12
senator Parh ON Civii Liberty.


Il will be semembered thai some few
weekssgO corruption moVenent was par
TALLY dsvelOreain Congress, andthat an In /
vesrigsiing Committee had been appointed !
BY the House 70 examine into the affair.-
The action Of this Committee was brought
to dead halt BY the refusal Of several news
paper publishers and reporters to testify TO
certain matters within their knowledge. un-
der the plea Of personal rights. A bill was
then thrust through both houses compelling
witnesses to answer questions, however great
the sacrifice Of personal rights--though Il
would even result in their own crmination.
This bill met with powerful and scrutini2-
ing opposition in the Senate by Ohios able
aud talented representative in that body,
Senator Pugh. II affords US the most com
plete qualification 10 behold the enthusias
tic and spirited, yet high toned aud digni6ed
manner 10 which Senator Pu il comes to the
rescue in every emergency. Although
about the youngest in the U. s. Senate, he
has already attained fame unparalleled in
annals and progress of Statesmanship. The
Congressional Globe gives the following Of
fetal report of the debate in the Senate on
this bill, containing Senator Pugh's able ap.
peal in behalf Of civil liberty and individual
rights: -
MIR. PUGH. Mr.. President, | had the
misfortune to dissent from the conclusion Of
my colleagues on the Committee on the Ju-
dietary in relation to two or three oil the pro.
visions ofthis bill 1t is not my purpose to
prolong the debate, but | have prepared q
very brief statement OF the reasons why |
could not support the second Sc cton OF the
bill; and simply ask that it may be recciv-
ed as a statement Of my views as u minori-
ty of the committee, and placed on record.
Several Senators. Reed it. #.
Mr.. PUGH. It is as follows:
The undersigned, a member of the Com
mittee on the Judiciary. dissents from the
recommendation Of his colleagues in favor
of House bill entitled "An act more eflectu
ally to enforce the attendance Of witnesses
, on the summons Of either House of Congress.
and to compel them TO discover testimony"
reported the 22d instant.
The second section of the bill contains
, three propositions, together with proviso.
The propositions are:
/. "Thot no person ex mined and tfsti-
fyng be ore either House, shall be held to
I answer criminally in any court Of Justice,
| or subject to any penalty or forfeiture, for
any fact or act touching which he shall be
required to testify before either House OF
4 80 r. -, L
t as to which he shall have testified, whether
before or after the date Of this act:
9. "And that no statement made or pa.
per produced by any witness, before either
/ Hunse, or before any committee of either
House, shall be competent testimony in any
criminal proceeding against such witness in
: any court OF justice:
n 8. "And no witness shall hereafter be
allowed to refuse to testify to any fact, OIL
to produce any paper touching which he
d shall be examined by either House of Con
3 gress, or any committee Of either House, for
the reason that his testimony touching such
fact or the production OF such paper may
= tend to disgrace him, or otherwise render
1 him Infamous"
These are all in violati IN Of the rules o
evidence, according to the common law, as
u administered in our courts o ( justice.
i The last proporitm is tn deprive n wit.
ness of his undoubted privilege to decline
), TO answer any question when the answer it.
self would prove him to be Infamous. The
u undersigned cannot agree that any tribunal
should be empowered thus to torture wit
ness, and compel him to the alternative OF
perjury, or exclusion from the regard of his
> fellow. men. Our judicial courts have never
/. found this requisite to the ascertainment oi
truth, or the administration of justice. II
can be requisite only to the qualification ol
wanton curiosity. or OF desire to op press
, and ruin the witness. ln the case Of q
Congressional committee especially, is such
power to be denied, as courts are, to a spe.
cihc issue, but may exercise an unlimited
freedom Of investigation.
The first two propositions are ohiectiona.
BILE also. At common law no Witness can
be compelled to answer any question. when
the answer would subject him to punishment
or afford evidence aguinst bm in criminal
prosecution. These propositions design IN
take away that privilege, and to substitute
(irsD an immunity Tron punishment to the
witness for oil transactions thus disc Iosed,
! and (second) an exclusion Of his own state.
, ment as evidence in any criminal prusecu.
ton. The undersigned objects for two reas.
ons:
l. Congress can make no law to shield
, witness from prosecution in the courts oi
the several States, nor prescribe any rule OF
evidence FOR those courts. 1t cannot give
the witness, therefore, any equivalent for the
common law privilege Of which this act
, seeks to deprive him.
.. 2. The provision will operate, in prac-
lice, as an advantage to those who are most
guilty and least scrupulous, enabling them
to escape the just consequences of their own
crime by betrayal OF their less cupable
7 associates. 1t is the system, too frequently
practiced, Of granting pardon to TINT one OF
two or more prisoners who will testify ftr
the prosecution-a system, the mischiefs oil
I which are so enormous as to have induced q
general opinion that the greatest knave is
the first to become the States evidence.
The undersigned is thoroughly convinced,
as the result of all his professional observa
0 ton, that the testimopy.of aceompIices, de.
, tectiyes, spess and the like, to secure which
alone, this section Of the bill can be re
qulfed, amounts to mere ialsehoods nine
d times in ten.
The undersigned is anxious to confer on
the committees OF Congressman especially
committee like that which it is understood
: the House Of Representatives HAS now ap
J., pointed-al such powers us are necessar,
to proper and rightful investigation; but bt
cannot consent to arm any committee will