The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-02-17
MIR. Andrew before the Harper Ferry In
vcstigating Committee.

The Washington telcgraphic correspondent OF
the n. Y. Tribune gives the following in rcla-
ton to John Andrew, Esq, of Boston, before
the Investigating Committee of the Senate,
upon the Harper Ferry matter:
John A. Andrew of Boston also appeared be-
fore the Committee. lie was summoned be-
cause the Committee had learned through Mr..
Chiffon of this city that he had been retained
ns counsel for the defense of John Brown,
through Mr.. Andrew. The Committee desired
to know from what source funds were derived,
what interests he represented, and what motives
influenced his intervention MIR. Andrew stated
that when intelligence reached Boston, that
John Brown had been urged to trial without
time for preparation, without opportunity OF
being reached by his friends, and have his case
properly examined, and while Frustrated on
his bed and unable to sit up and instruct
counsel, il he had any, the whole proceeding
struck his mind, and that of most people whom
he met, rs judicial outrage, certainly without
any parallel in the history OF Massachu-
sets.
He supposed Virginia was strong enough to
conduct such n case with justice aud prOpriety,
and without being excited by unfoundei apre-
tensions. lie confessed, too, sympathy for a
man whom he believed the victim of an idea,
anu MnOSp lnlsIOIluHC illu wv" ~
c;pitated by what his family and friends had
seen and suffered ut the hands of the Slave
Power in Kansas. He had entertained good
opinion of him rs brave and conscientious de-
fender of the free State cause. which he con-
sidered the cause Of liberty and good govern
mcnt, in which all free settlers of Kansas,
whether from North or South, had n common
interest. In consequence OF his own reflections,
and the suggestions ot others, representing all
shades ofOpinion, ard as there was no time to
lose, he assumed the responsibility ofengaging
Southern counsel in Washington and Richmond
whose business il should be to secure John
Brown the fullest and faircst trial of which the
circumstances would admit.
lie according guaranteed and paid $1,000 in
fees, of which Mr.. Chiffon OF Washington re-
ceiyed one thousand, and Mr.. Green of Rich
mond three hundred dollars. This money was
refunded by the voluntary contributions OF
various gentlemen, when they became informed
of his interference, and who approved Its
purpose and accomplishment Many contri-
buted, who were less ant-slayery than himself,
but who thought the excitement would be
quietcd by proper defence. No concealment
was observed or desired, in the whole matter.
The Committee inquired Mr.. Andrews opinion
concerning John Browns conduct in Kansas,
and the transaction attributed to him, particu-
larry horse stealing, and the Potawotmle homi-
cides. Mr.. Andrew answered, he had always
understood that in the conflicts between the
Fee and Slave State parties, the horses were
regarded as the spoils of war, and he was not
aawre that Brown formed any exception.
lie had no belief. from information which had
reached him, that Brown was present at the
Potawatomie homicdes but he had long since
heard that Brown and many other people were
convinced that the Potawatomie affair was one
of imperative necessity,as measure ofself de.
Tense. Having never been in Kansas, he could
not speak of pcrs )lal knowledge. The COM
mittce inquired il Mr.. Andrew would have felt
a sympathy for Brown ON account OF his SER
vices to the Free State cause, ifhe had known
that Brown went to Kansas to train himself
and others, and organize settled plan OF
violence to invade the slave States. MIR. An
drew replied, certainly not. His convictions
were anti-slayery, but he was opposed to their
propagation by violence and arms. Reason
aud intelligence were the only weapons he
desired to employ. AS n Republican he felt u
great cause to complain of the llarper's Kerry
affair as most unfortunate and unjustifiable,
from any point of view in which he could regard
il. But since his opinions were asked, he would
give them frankly.
Intending no disrespcct to anybody, he con-
sidercd John Brown and llarper's Ferry as the
fruit native 10 the tree which the slave power
had planted that in view of the aggressiOns
upon free State men IN the Territories, organ
ized in the slave States, and approved by Lead
ing Southern men, and the sulterings and
disasters To those settlers which flowed there
from. lie did not think il remarkable that
few men should have been educated thereby up
to the point of armed retaliation. However
much this transaction was 20 be condemned or
deporc'l, 1t was not comparable IN point Of
public danger 10 the assault made upon a Sena-
tor of Massachusetts, on the very floor ofthe
Senate, AMI for no other reason than an honest
discharge Of his duty aud fearless expression
Of his opinions, which was generally applaudel
throughout the South. That was u direct and
deadly blow aimed a, civil liberty and represcn-
ta,iye government in America.
Among other facts, Mr.. Andrew stated that
he had never seen Brown but once, and that
accidentally. That while he impressed him as
a man OF decided character, he then believed
his mind was strangely disturbed; and in
writing here to Judge Blair to provide counsel
for his defence, he had expressed the opinion
that evidence of his insanity could be procured
from Boston 10 Kansas, which was aflerward
literally verified. Aftcr answering these and
other questions. Mr.. Andrew desired TO record
his protest against this assumption OF undele-
gated power. He contended that the Senate
does not possess the power to obtain testimony
by coerciye inquiry, under the resolution pur-
suant TO which he was summoned, because the
resolution contains no parliamentary purpose,
but only an apparent effort to aid some judicial
end by legislative means.
That this investigation Is not undertaken rs
incidental to the power Of the Senate TO try i'm
pcachments, nor its power TO judge OF the
qualifications oft piembers, nor ITS power to
punish contempts against its own authority,
nor its power to pr tect its own privileges
and that the discovery ofall the matters pointed
at by the resolution. would not tend to in
struct the legislative mind, in the amendment
Of existing statues, or In the framing Of new
legislation. That he regarded the power to