New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-14
TIIADDEUS HYATT.

TO have taken high position upon great con-
stitutional right on which THE TRIBUNE is faith
less We doubt if much thought has been given
to the point in controversy by those who have been
led to o conclusion, and who, as the way is with
thcughtless persons, are merely persuaded that
where there is the most clam0r there also IL the
most truth. We invite these people to clear their
minds of cant and devote few moments TO quiet
reflection.
A number of witnesses were summoned TO
Washington TO testify before Mr.. Masons Com
mittee as TO their knowledge of John Browns pur-
pose in the invasion of Virginia. Some Of them,
who had nothing to conceal and nothing TO fear.
like Dr. Howe and Mr. John A. Andrew of BOs-
ton Tone of Mr.. Hyatt's counscl), responded to
the summons: others, like John Brown jr., and
Mr.. Sanborn of Massachusetts, who possibly had
reasons for both fear and cOncealment, chose The
opposite course, anddeclined to make their appear
ance. third course was adopted by Mr. Hyatt.
He certainly had nothing to fear, and nothing TO
conceal. inasmuch Us he had nothing TO iel but he
neither staid away nor appeared to testify, but
went forward and refused 10 answer. The simple
question is was Mr.. Hyatt's course wise one
If il was, then his legal counsel, Mr.. Andrew, DIR.
Howe, John Brown, ir., and Mr.. Sanborn. were
wanting in wisdom and courage; if it was not,
then The TRIBUNE, which has been arfaigned
with 80 much warmth for not coming to his de-
Tense, is justified both for what it has said, and
what ii has left unsaid.
Whether the Senate of the United States, or any
other legislative body in this country, has the
right, limited or unlimited, to compel citizens to
appear before il and testify to their knowledge
of any subject on which it is proposed to legisate,
is undoubtedly grave matter, and one on
which much may be said on both sides. We do
not pretend to have given IN exhaustive 'cstga-
ton to question which Mr.. Sumner acknowl-
edges is "nOyel;" but we are inclined to believe,
with the sOundest constitutional lawyers OF the
Senate that under due restrictions the power is
one which may be properly intrusted to legisa-
tive bodies; that in the history of our Government
it has thus far been exercised without evil conse-
quences; that sometimes, as in the case OF the
Covode Committee now in ssionat Washington, or
in that of the Committee proposed few days since
BY Senator Wilson, to inquire into the escape OF
SLAYER in this port, through the corruption OF az
sistant United States Marshals, such power may
be used for the public good and for the publication
of government; and that the checks upon its i'm
proper use, as in SanbOrn's case, are numerous
and effectual. But supposing, for the sake of ar
| pument, that the opposite doctrine be true, and
that such power is usurpation on the part
Congress, the simple question is: Have all the
| witnesses who were summoned before Mr.. Masons
Committee acted like fools or towards, eIceps Mr.
Hyatt alone, who has shown himself to be both
wise and brave! For, of course, it is absurd t
assume that the three different courses which hav
been taken can all be right and manly.
As the appointment of the Mason Committee
was an assumption OF no novel power, and as the
investigation proposed to impcnte not merely we'll
known citizens, but distinguished Senators and
whole political party in the proceedings Of John
Brown, il was desirable that the Committee should
have every facility that it asked for. 1t was de-
sirable because all right-minded and sober people
were perfectly persuaded that there was nothing
to be found out az to the pretended completely of
others with John Brown and his associates, and
because in the end, the investigation would react
upon those who insisted upon it, and the mining
their own petard. 10 press to an issue, at such
Time an abstract question of right the exercise OF
which, at this moment, was Expressing nobody,
was to give aid and comfort to the enemy by per-
| uniting him to draw off the public attention TO
new point, under cover Of which he was glad to
hide his own defeat at the real point of attack.
Therein Mr.. Hyatt was not wise, and the Mason
,.rtoJ,, hot
saved them from becoming ridiculous.
But putting aside this consideration, and assum-
ing it to be Il question demanding investigation,
whether the Senate or cannot summon citizens
before it as witnesses with due regard to their
rights, was this the time and the occasion to de-
mand that that question be settled Let Ms answer
this inquiry in the Yankee way by raising another.
The right Of free speech is Of paramount import
ance To free people. Would Mr.. Wendell Phil
lips be "a wise man if he should go by the next
steamer to Charleston, and on the morning after
his arrival take his stand upon the steps OF the
Charleston Post Office and commence one Of his
brilliant orations upon the wrongs OF the slaves and
the tyranny of their masters The right of free
press is not of ess Importance than that of free
speech. Would the followers of Mr. Garrison
commend his prudence and Judgment should he
take his press to New Orleans and issue there the
first number of The LiJerator, South, with the re-
newed declaration that che was in earnest, that
" he would not equivocate, and that he was not
{" afraid Z" But one answer, we fancy can be given
to these questions. Neither gentleman would gain,
by such course, anything but sudden death and
Il.