New-York daily tribune., 1858-02-19

mr. " 0ic0.t, tno leIr1cvDry Wllncss boH cona'o1
in Washington jal-by 10 means very comfort
abe place Of detention-for refusing to answer the
questions Of an Investigating Committee, does not
SEEM yet to hSve sued out MS threatened WIS Of
habsss eorpus. Nor DO we see how, if ne did, nat
procee ding would help him. Admitting that Com
mittees Of Congress have the right OF summonlng
snd examining Witnesses power which 1t
rstbA too late to dispute-the extent TO Whlch
they can carry their examinations must be taken TO
be the same Nth those Of court Of justice. Now
it clear that no court Of justice would be content
With TIE sort Of answer which Mr.. WOcott has
put in. The state Of the case is this: 1t appears
aliundt, and We believe that Mr. Woicott does not
undertake TO deny it, that be received from the late
firm Of Lawrence, Stone & Co. the SUM OF S1o,OOo,
TO be expended in promoting the passage Of the late
amendment to the tariff in relation to the duties on
wool. All the information which Mr.. Wolcott ls
willing to give the Committee, or the House, as to
the expenditure Of this money, is his declaration
that he did not employ il directly or indirectly IN
br.bng Members. This answer, however is not 30
much the statement of fact the statement of an
inference On the part Of Mr. WolcOtt. Whether the
money was directly or indirectly employed to bribe
Members is q point upon which the Committee and
the House have a right to judge for themselves,
after being informed of the precise way in which
it was expended. They are quite as able to draw
an inference as Mr Wolcott, and possibly, il put in
position to do 80, they might come to result
different from that which he has arrive1 st Be-
sides even suppose that no Member was bribed
Al fa1 hot fhnaa
who furnished it to bring about change in the
lAw-and was, it is to be presumed, spent for that
purpose-ths Committee and the public are enti-
tied to know how it was spent. II is absurd for
hr. woleott 80 sAt up that this was his private
transaction; that be had q right to spend his own
money or that intrusted TO him by others ss he
chose; and that il is not competent for the Com.
mittee to pry into his private affairs. Had this
been q mere ordinary commercial trsnsaction-an
investment Of so much money in wool or stocks
that might be. But it was no such thing. Except
in the sense of secrecy, it was no private affair at
all. 1t ws g transaction involving public in
terests. The money was to be invested in bring
ing about q change in the law. 1t 10 absurd
to sttempt to give to transaction of this sort the
character of private negotiation. in which only
Lawrence, Stone & Co., and the Bay State and Mid.
deseI Mills, and Mr. Wocott and few other un-
known individuals, were interested. 1t was al ex-
pendituc of money in connection with Transaction
in which the whole public were interested--to wit,
q change of the law. The only way that Mr.. VOL
colt can avoid going into the details Of the expendi-
ture of that money is to decline answering, on the
ground that, By so doing, he would expose himself
TO crimins! prosecution.
As the case now stands, it seems not very likely,
even though the House should let him of, that Mr..
Wolcott can avoid full disclosure. The creditors
Of Lawrence, Stone & Co. and the Bay State and
MddleseA Mills to whom this m6 ney stands charged,
have private interest and q right to know whst
has become of it. Who can tell bat thst it yet re-
mains uneIpended in Mr. Wolcotts pocket In
doubtedly means can and viii be found, if Mr.. VOL.
colt does not disclose at Washington, to compel
him to disclose after be gets back to Boston; and
the longer he refuses to answer the stronger will be
the conviction that ha has something to tell and the
resolution to make him tell it,