The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-06-18

was forced out upon all occasions with degree or ih0eu
cacy unparalleled by witnesses whose sole purpose was
10 crafty their malice Senator'S representatives, his
Cabinet Ministers and intimate friends were called upon
relate his previous conversations Witnesses were
summoned without order and without notice. and to this
end the chairman usurped all the powers of the
mittee In one remarkable letter attacking the
political integrity Of member Of this House-Mr.
Cox, or 0hio-was read In COMMITTEES BY
the Chairman The writer after enuncatns the charge
proceeded 10 say TO the effect that at least the publicity
given TO the affair by its examination before the Commit
tee would tend TO weaken Mr. Cox his district and
might result in defeating him, and thus expected
would be made for individual Of opposite politics
1t sought to committee Of this House In cid Of
POLITICAL ricksters The attempt thus 10 prostitute the
power Of ihs House was in the opinion OF the under.
signed high conteftt THIS was but ooe Of several
cases where long examinations gone through and
private correspondence paradc1 for the qualification Of
the spleen Of low and malignant witnesses. Again, indi
vduals were summoned before the Committee
and compelled to produce private letters. The
undersigned Of opinion that Shevs was
no power in the committee for such purpose. He
deemed that It had been well settled that the power 70
send for persons and papers confined to public pspe
records and did not at all the application Of
force to exort private letters but this opinion was NOT
cpncuIreQ IN Dy majority OF tue cOmmittee IA inc
18th Of April Robert walker late Governor Of Kansas
appeared in obedience 70 subpoena and required
produce letter from the President under date July H.
1851 touching upon the policy Of the government in
gard TO the distrscns condition Of things in Kansas
and suggestions TO the future official Of the
witness. The undersigned opposed its introduction, In
addition 10 the objection herenbefore stated,
other and higher grounds. 1t was then under
stood that the matter should be carried before the
House for its decision The undersigned detained the
succeeding day by indispostou On that day. during his
absence, E. b Schnsbe examined. He had not been
summoned by order Of the committee; but on the mere
motion of the Chairman in defiance Of the repeated
Of the undersigned that witnesses should
be unless upon notice and special order inter
rogatores had previously furnished to him by the
without the knowledge or Of tho uuder
signed or his colleague entirely ignoring the advan
tapes desirable for the examination In violation OF
another well settled rule of law, parole evidence
was given OF q written document where the exist
ence and custody OF the original was known, and
within reach of the committee, which had declared
itself possessed power obtain it, and had sgnded
the intention Of exerting that power.
The undersigned forbears to dilate upon the conse
quences which may result If the Of the committee
on this point should be drawn into precedent 1t must
be obvious the most careless and superficial observer
that its tendency would be to parayze every power OF
and TO place the public interests at the mercy
of the demagogue and the INSCRIPTIONS.
Here follows Of the matters connected with the
printing of the Post Office blanks and the executive bind
ing The report proceeds 10 discuss at length the action
of the President regard the Kansas policy and the
passage of the Iecompton English bill.
The issue between Judge Black aud Webster thus
tced:--
Another charge against the administration was an i'm
editor Of newspaper In PHILADELPHIA This purchase
to be made by using the public printing for that purpose
1t alleged that the Attorney General promised the
printing Of the post office blanks to Forney upon the
conditions mentioned. All this entirely and CON-
petey beyond the range Of any inquiry which the House
had authorized the committee to make The undersigned
opposition thereto lest his motives might have
been misinterpreted David Webster, of Philadelphia
was called to prove the charge, and he d.
tailed a private conversation which he had
with the Attorney General. About two years
ago. It manifest that he himself did not regard
ANYTHING took place In that conversation any de-
gree disreputable or improper for he said his oath
that nothing occurred which Judge Black would wish
10 conceal The only thing which he said, fable
memory Is which partisan malice could dis
tort evil statement that the Attorney General
had promised the public printing 10 Forney condition
that he would pledge himself not betray the party
which he then proessed to belong But this statement Of
Webster at all supposed 70 be wiuly false untrue
point of act and for this opinion the undersigned pro
ceeds give his Frs Is directly contradic,ed
by the Attorney General himself the other party the
versaton who swears he made no promise but
that the contrary he distinctly cautioned Webster
not SO TO understand him. The contradiction would
enough settle the question Of fact against the party
asserting the Affirmative The burden of proof lies aga
/ theother party-in their oath against oath Common
justice and the universally admitted rule OF law requires
he point be decided such against the accusing
party but websters oath Is not entitled 10 the credit
which may be fairly claimed for that Of the Attorney
General. The latter 10 the committee with i'm
puationus upon his character that which implied
in this single accusation, and II that be unfoundcd,
| there Is mputation, and whether 1t be true or
not Is the very point under examination. Webster,
the other hand himself with asserting TO all that
he charges against the Attorney General and In addition
thereto with having to Washington and sought the
interview and instruction OF Forney II there inquy
the Transaction Forney enjoy the fruits Every
lawyer knows that where the testimony OF partioep
crisns offered TO criminate Others s uniformly re
fused all crcence In courts Of Justice unIcss corroboraed
IT. therefore, there anything criminal CONVEX
sation Mr. Webster not competent 10 prove by his
own oath r. on the other hand the conversation was
innocent and had nothing in dishonorabc 70 either
party, then those VINO wAntoDIy dragged before the
public regardless Of the sacredness with which hitherto
society has looked upon private correspondence before
this committee published private letters they and they
only are guilty OF offence against good morals,
and must bear the burden Of the just which
later shall BY all good be visited upon
them. websser's testimony from beginning to end
from beginning to end shows that his memory trcaoh
and unreliable. he fails when he attempts 10 give
the contents Of his letter deliberately written out
What reliance be placed upon his recollection Of de-
suiory conversation Of four hours In length which
red than two years before He himself seems dis
trustful Of himself. Instead Of giving the Attorney
Generals words he says Judge Black gave TO under
| stand, etc. II Is clear that the whole conversation