Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1871-06-20

swer OF the reporter that he did no
receive it from Senator, accompa
MED by refusal to answer from
whom he did receive it, does not ex
onerate the Senate, nor does it ena
bic the committee to ascertain wha
the Senp.o desired to know, how anC
by whom the treaty was made pub
lie
This publication may have beer
made from Senator's copy, without
any fault on his part. 1t may bt
true that without negligence oil
knowledge on his part bis copy wa,
purloined and used and this fact as
certained would exonerate every
member of the Senate. But the
witness, after answering that be
knew from whom the copy was OBJ
tanned, refused to state from whom
he procured it; and it was proposed
by the Senator from New York Mr.
Fenton that the witness should only
be required to state from whom be
did not procure it, and not from
whom he did procure it. Had the
witness answered that he procured
the copy from John Smith, John
Smith could have been called to
prove from whom he obtained il
and thus the responsibility for the
offense could have been fixed upon
the individual who committed it.
But to excuse the witness from an
swering such question was simply to
preclude further investigation. OF
course the Senator from New York
Mr.. Fentonl is as anxious as any
that the most thorough and search
ing investigation should be made up
on this subject, but he will pardon
me for saying that his method would
not secure the desired result.
To repeat what | have said, when
| offered the resolution which direct
ed that the contumacious witness
should be committed to Jail until he
answered the pertinent and proper
questions put by the committee, and
which he refused to answer, assum-
cd that even if there had been diff
erence OF opinion among Senators as
to the propriety of the investigation,
which there was not-there could be
no difference OF opinion as to the OBJ
legation OF the witness to answer
Before preparing the resolution, de-
string TO observe all righteousness of
form, | requested the Secretary of
the Senate to furnish me some prec-
edent, and he handed me the volume
containing the proceedings in Hyatt's
case In this | was extremely unfor-
tUnate.
The Senator from Massachusetts
Mr.. Sumner] was q membor of tho
committee, and concurred in the re-
port that Messrs. White and Rams
dell were in contempt for their refus
al to answer proper questions. He
had the kindness to admonish the
witnesses when before the commit
tee that their refusal would subject
them to punishment for contempt
But, sir, the mere fact that the reso-
luton was drawn according to the
precedent from Hyatt's case awaken
ed in the mind Of the honorable SEN
ator long train ofgloomy reflections
against slavery and the prosecutors
of the investigation as to the abolition
invaders of Virginia, who entered
that ancient dominion by way of
Harper's Forty and the honorable
Senator sprang into the champion
ship of these contumacious witnesses
against the logical result of the re-
port in which he had concurred and
made what newspaper of his own
state declared to be one of the great
est constitutional arguments of his
life.
Mr.. SUMNER-Is that so?
Mr.. CARPENTER-That is so !;
by which | mean the paper says So
Laughter
The Senator from Massachusetts
was once lawyer, but he has been
a statesman long time, and must
be supposed to have lost some of the
characteristics of the profession to
which his early years were devoted
Let me ask him what would the lu-
minaries of the law of his own state,
could they be recalled from their
graves, say to his course in this pro-
ceeding? What would Parsons, and
Parker, and Shaw, and Story say to
q Massachusetts Senator who should
vote against committing to the COM
mon jail witness who should con-
tumaciously refuse to answer a prop
er question in the course of an inves-
tigation ordered by the Senate of the
United States2 What would those
great judges say?
An inv estigation is ordered by the
Senate; committee is appointed to
conduct it. The first witness called
safes that he is possessed of all the
facts, but refuses TO disclose them
and, on motion to commit him for
contempt, Senator from Massachu-
setts makes great speech in which
be discusses everything except the
question under consideration, and ii
nally votes in the negative.
But, sir, pardon the Senator from
Massachusetts the course he pursued,
in tender consideration of his long
absence from the courts but my
heart was broken when my honora-
bic friend from Ohio + Mr. Thurman
turned his back upon logic and law
l love and admire that Senator, and
sincerely do L mourn his course in
this proceeding He maintained
that the Senate had the power tc
make this investigation. He admit
ted that it had been ordered, anC
that the questions put by the com
mittee to the witness were pertinent
and proper, and that the witness wal
in contempt. He was too good :
lawyer to deny these propositions
But, sir, he turned his back upon hi
own speech and upon bis lifelong
training in the profession. and dem
onstrated that he, too, had become
statesman. Laughter He oppos
ed the resolution to commit the wit
ness for contempt. He admittet
| . 1,4~ 20 q