Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-21

AS further evidence that there did exist
. just ground for suspicion, and therefore,
investigation, Mr.. Schruz read extracts
. rom The testimony given by Mr.. Reming-
ION IN france on the trial of Place-Mr
Remington being witness under oath,
SAID; 81 did not regard myself as Obliged
10 make advances, and this still less mas
much as had myself to pay TO the Govern
ment oftheUnited States an advance of 10
to 20 per cent" Again, before the Iuvesti
eating Committee of the French Assembly.
ne said: "But the French Government and
were charged to treat with the Govern
ment of the United States" This last
statement showed what brought Reming-
ton back to this country in December of
That year. he came to transact the bust
ness connected with the purchase which was
ostenslbly made by Richardson, the lawyer,
and IL was after his return here on that er-
rand that the interviews and negotiations
described III his (Remington's) letter took
place.
The Senator from Indiana Morton had
objected TO his (Schurz) statement the other
day that the Government was not only
pound not to sell to men whom they knew
to be agents of either belligerents but also
to satisfy themselves by all means of infor-
nation in their possession that the persons
applying for arms were not the agents of
one or the other belligerent. But he
(Schurz) was willing to accept Mr.. Nor
TONS statement Of the rule, which was that
II the Government had reason to believe
that person buying arms was an agent of
the french Government they had no right
10 make the sale, and that all the Govern
ment was called on to know was that the
| purchaser was not an agent of one or the
other of the belligerents; and he insist
that the Government had failed to do its
duty, pledged even by the rule.
The Senator from New York I(Conk-
ling) had said that
sECRsh,
was the purchaser. That might be well. |
| provided this Mr.. Cash was rot the repre- !
sentative of known agent of the French |
| Government. No matter says the Senator |
from New York, Cash is a man who buys |
and we look at nothing but Cash. But, |
! then, where is our reasonable diligence? |
! Where is our good faith? No matter, saws !
| the Senator, this great American Republic |
OF ours understands her good faith and in |
terprets neutral duties on strictly cash |
| principles. Laughter Proudly the |
! standard OF our national morality /
and honor was borne aloft by the Senator |
| from New York with dollar mark in cash |
as the coat of arms of this great Republic |
Of the United States. (Laughter.) Are |
we sensible men? Are we honest men? Is !
this our rule of neutral duty? Is this the /
rule to be observed not only by US but to,
wards us? Let me warn Senators to pause |
long before they commit themselves to any
position so absurd, so mean, so utterly dis
honorable. Let me tell them it is not safe |
for nations to play little tricky games and
endeavOr to cover themselves up with little
quibbling technicalities.
Mr.. Schurz discussed this at great length,
and as additional evidence that there was
ground for suspicion and investigation, read
a passage from the testimony given by Jules
Lecesne, who was President of the Arma-
ment Committee at Tours, in France, while
these sales were going on. The question
was upon a certain over charge on lot of
rifles, and this witness said: "There was no
expense beyond the per centage allowed
Remington, since we had
Treated Directly
with the Federal Government Of the United
States, which delivered these arms without
charge on board the vessels"
After this and other statements, he
(SchurZ) thought Senators should cease to
talk about the want of patriotism of those
who called the attention ofthe Senate and
the country to this matter. 1t was quite
evident that foreign governments were as
well Informed as they were or even better.
Laughter These statements being made
under oath in foreign courts, left no course
open for the United States except to inves-
tigate and show the statements to be false
if they were so, or if they were true opun-
ish the guilty.
The second question was were the laws
Of our own country violated, and he argued
that 1t was at least, a. proceeding of doubt
full legality to sell breech loading rifles at
all. The statute authorized the sale of old
common arms and other ordnance stores
which were damaged or otherwise insult
able for the United States military service,
of for the militia Of the United States, and
under this the Chief Of Ordnance had as
sumed the right to sell large number of
Breech-LOadIng Rifles
Of the pattern of 1866, and that at time
when the militia throughout the country
were armed with old muzzle leaders.
Mr.. Morton said that the breech-loaders
sold were of a discarded pattern, and that
it was the intention of the government to
arm the militia with the improved rifle. In
view Of this fact, therefore, the discarded
rifles did not properly come within the
classes of the ordnance stores mentioned in
the statute.
Mr.. Schurz said that the Secretary of
War and the Chief Of Ordnance had some
doubts about the propriety of their action
at the time and he had a letter from the
Chief of Ordnance to Gen. Belknap stating
that the arms so sold were fit for use in the !
service. He felt authorized therefore to
charge aflagrant and manifest
Breach OF Law.
He charged it on the showing of the Chief
of Ordnance himself, and if there waste be
any question about this point he would be
glad to hear it at once. Possibly an attempt
would be made to explain it away, too.
But he would ask the Senate what would
become of the popular respect for the laws
if the lawmakers thus recklessly quib-
bled away their meaning? What would
become of constitutional government
in this country if the executive officers of
the government were to be allowed to feel
that they might disregard the plainest pro-
visions of the law, and that,
Like Cesar Augustus,
they could always rely on a submissive and
Obedient Senate? He begged the Senate to
remember that there was more at stake
that cartridges or cash.
On the third point Mr.. Schurz argued
that the facts already shown were enough |
to Justify a supiciOn of corrupt transactions
the testimony of Remington and the French
officials already referred to, the anxiety of
the Chief of Ordinance to aid Remington
in settling the accounts in France relating
to some transactions for which he (Reming- !
tom had been ostensibly driven out of the
War Department, the difference between
the amounts paid by the French and those
received by our Government; the
JeOpardizing
of our National relations and the risking of {
our internal harmony; the fragrant and I
confessed violation of law by the War De- |
partment and the mysterious disappearance t
of large sums Of money were all facts and '
circumstances that went to show that there
was ground for suspicion and investigation, /
and Senators on the other side knew it f
and felt it keenly, as was shown by their /
attempts to divert the Senate and country
from the true question, by charging those S