Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1871-06-20
SPEECH OF HON. MATT. II. CAR
PEWTER
In the Senate Of the United States.
May 26th, 1871.
On the Resolutions to Discharge u. 1. White
and II. j. RamsdelI from the Custody
OF the Sergeant.
OF the senate.

been asked, in relation to certain &C
cusations against him concerning al
important public transaction, why
he did not vindicate himself. His
answer was that he never cleared
his sidewalk until it had done snow
ing. There was great wisdom il
this reply. Every man should wait
until he hears all that malice can sug
gest against him on given subject
and then meet the allegations. But
inasmuch as the Senate is soon tC
adjourn, and | am threatened with
everlasting denunciation by the
press, am compelled to vindicate
myself while tho storm is still raging
The circumstances under which
this investigation was initiated were
stated in tho Senate yesterday.
was not aware even that the treaty
had been published until informed Of
it in the Senate on Friday by the
Senator from Ohio Mr. Sherman
My recollection IS that the resolution
ordering the investigation was hand
ed to me by the Senator from Neva
da Mr. Stewart who requested me
10 introduce il, and | did so. Nc
Senator objected TO an iuvestie cation
on the contrary, every Senator de-
manded investigation, and the reso.
luton passed unanimously Having
been appointed chairman of that
committee, it became my duty, in
common with every other member
| Of the committee, to prosecute a
thorough investigation of the subject
committed, No sooner was the fact
published that the committee had
been raised than | began to receive
anonymous letters, threatening me
with the utmost vengeance OF the
press if should dare to proceed with
the investigation so ordered. | was
warned that the public sentiment OF
the country is controlled by the
press, that tho Washington cores
pondents of the various newspapers
could mako or break any public man ;
that the investigation was regarded
as an invasion of their privilege to
obtain news, and that in the deter
miuation to battle the investigation
they stood a unit.
Well, sir, Notwithstanding these
| warnings, / concluded TO discharge
my duty as a member of the commit
tee and take the consequences, well
knowing that omission TO do so
would justly subject mo to public
contempt.
The committee assembled and en-
tered upon the investigation ordered
by the Senate. The witnesses called,
who knew the facts, refused to testi-
fy. The committee thereupon re-
ported to the Senate that the wit
nesses were in contempt, and recon-
mended that the Senate should com
pei them to purge themselves of the
contempt and answer the questions.
This report was concurred in by all
the members of the committee-the
Senator from Massachusetts Mr..
Sumner, the Senator from Illinois
mr.. Trumbull], the Senator from
New York [Mr. Conkling], and my
self, the Senator from Kentucky Mr..
Davis1 not being present.
In the verdancy Of my brief ser
vice in official life supposed that af-
ter the Senate had ordered an inves-
tigatiou and the committee bad en-
tered upon it, and the investigation
was arrested by the contemptuous
refusal Of witnesses to answer proper
and pertinent questions, there would
be no difference Of opinion among
Senators in regard to compelling
obedience to the order Of the Senate.
| was led into this serious error by
my former experience in courts OF
Justice. 1t often happens that a
court is divided in opinion as to the
propriety Of rendering a judgment,
or the granting of an injunction, or
any other matter that may be pre-
sented for it's decision and judges
may dissent and publish at length
, their dissenting opinions. But after
the Judgment Of the court has been
pronounced, the dissenting judges
: in all subsequent proceedings, as wei
as those who concurrod, may safely
! be relied upon to enforce the judg
ment IF the court and punish disobe
dience.
This course is indispensable to thu
administration Of justice. The ma
! iority of court must, in the natur
Of things, settle the question whether
an Injunction should issue and tina
question being settled, every judg,
feels that disobedience must be pun
ished A Judge who had dissenteC
from the Judgment of the court grant
I ing an injunction would commit al
/. impeachablo offense who shoulC
y thereafter refuse TO punish its viola
II ton upon the ground that he wa
= right and that the majority wer
wrong in ordering the injunction
No Judge could stand moment il
the estimation Of the bar who woul
pursue such course, but would b
4 regarded as a dishonored man, an III
= worthy judge.
y Blinded by my want of legislativ
/ experience and by the little know
edge l possessed of judicial proceed
ings, | was led into the folly of sur
posing that upon the precise an
mere question of whether witnes
who had refused to answe" prope
question in an investigation ordere
by the Senate should be compelle
to answer, and whether he should b
committed ojail until he did answer
there could beno difference of opinlo
in the Senate and that the resolutio
ordering the witnesses 10 stand com
mitted until they should answe
would be supported by every Sen:
tor, without regard to his privat
II opinion as to the propriety of the il
', vestigation itself which the Senat