New-York tribune., 1872-03-28

move me inquiry nor dd he cooperate with the mover or
showed himself against the thing" ] object to the
scting chairman as TO judge or juror disqualified 10 sit
In court Imake the second protest with infinite
luctance, but the Committee leave alternative.
In their first invitation In tne nature of summons, and
now IN their subpoena, they compel to declare my OBJ
and feeling 1t as strongly as do cannot avoid ex-
the Committee have laid me twice under this Oh
legation: Beyond that sentiment of duty which Is with
hope that even II the present Committee cannot be cor
potency ia clearly exposed that It will be poweress
hereafter precedent obliged 10 witness the pres
have this safeguard for the future In thus declaring
my profound sense OF the wrong that has been
oe an II ny GSst tSs tanncs DO With % this
planation, aud yielding so the command OF the Commit
inquiry, but do 1t under protest. CHARLES SUMNER
EVIDENCE UNDER PROTEST.
Senator Carpenter moved that the two protests be re-
Senator Sumner the ground that they were
disrespectful 10 the Committee The question was not
taken, as the Committee not now full.
Senator HamlD rose to administer the oath. when Mr.
Sumner protested against what he called the acting
chairman whom he added was disqualified from serv
ing on the Committee.
Senator Hamln-win you state 10 the Committee any
information in your possession relative TO the matters to
be investigate and give the names or any witnesses
who may be summoned to enable Us TO get at the act
snmner-I resume protest against the competency
OF the acting chairman address any question TO
Hamin-Then you refuse TO answeri
He purposed to begin. He observed that senator
Morton in debate announced that these proceedings
arms we're known some i've months in advance OF the
Introduction OF the resolution That Senator specif
it, He stated speciacay he knew the investigation was
coming. Now he CMr snmner had TO say Senator Nor
ton was better informed the subject than he was
He knew nothing q Il until until the asd or 2a cath
, are very kindly called upon MIN, and in familiar
conversation mentioned certain circumstances, and
which, being very bad case he thought must be looked
fully his friend went into the circumstance.
Seevnc his friends statement that the case was
bad His friend bad 10 papers, nor dd ne ray
to speak With MS friend Senator sohurz who he dscov
cred IN the % eDsc@ mac who rst mentioned the
subject to him not Senator Schnrz MI schurz men
toned this to him about the middle OF January, and
said be had Of the papers, and that 1t was
/ matter that must be looked into
| Mr. Schurz asked: Has not the Marquis de Chambrrn
sroken 70 Won abont iti" Mr. Sumner replied that NJ
de- Chambrun had spoken TO him on the subject
asted him 1tbe Maronsl What Is the business which
Mr. has mentioned to me about the sale OF arms
narrative and outline, showing violation of neutrality
the part Of our Government throug MS ocers ana
that the French Government in the purchase Of arms
In n r1nose went into American pockets; whether
J INTO the pockets OF men Immediately engaged
in the Ordinance Bureau. NJ Chanbrnn did not say Mr.
sSopd IKE 70 see them" NJ Ghsmbrun then brcuehc
him copy OF the telegram from Squire to Remington
OF course he fMr summer made up his mind this
bad case The documents justified the inquiry. they
! placed our ernment in unhappy position.
Jn that letter Remington stated that he had Important
infueuce with the War Department. showing ms direct
relations with this Government ia the purchase OF arms
These papers showed there was grouu 70 suppose NO-
aton OF neutrality ana hat certain n nnnenses were ,e
when he read these papers, he asonished Picking
E te S Saphe Seea sp%tGR dateS Paris which
was stated the Committee ot the FrenSh %
ton asking the United States Government 10 furnish
the result OF the inquiry into the conduct OF american
QF ftfI
ronnv lie nnderstood the same telegram also ap-
sssn Searea IN TT m SEw-YoEK TRiBrxE, Tines, Herald,
World and other papers, and that it through the
1onobiV c6nirS. and ADDED to br letter Of Remington
and the dispatch OF squire TO E,nm2ton stating they
sti more incumbent on HIN 10 institute me inquiry IL
under these circumstances be brought the subject
before the Senate
A BArFIiNG GROSSLY ANIYATIoS.
And now as "a the question whether he knew what
witnesses would testify, he would say that he had re-
eeived many confidential letters zone last nishp naming
witnesses The wished him to regard this letter
( as confidential.
| MIR Hainlin-H Have you any names 10 give
Ihave already a Ie4 a1se1 tS MARQUIS
do not feel authorized name them the communication
I 10 me being confidential.
Mr. schurz-The Senator did not understand.
| Mr. Hamlin-He did not ask you to name the CORE
sponden but whether you have the names Of wit
ucsses that YOU deem IL proper 10 have called
! Mr. snmner-The Senator knows that when receive
such letters hand them over to him have not pre-
! served the names, unless IL be Of one.
Mr. HamlinDd you make inquiry OF the Secretary OF
I the Treasury and Secretary Of war;
MI sumner-I must protest against the inquiry az 10
my M r sbnrzYoa said you had a conversation with me
about the middle OF January III regard 10 the matter II
was considerably later. perhaps 10 or IL days. , .
Mr. sumneTIt might have been as late as the 26th OF
January but kept no note.
} M SShurz-I did not know that VI. De Chamhrun was
i n vav conVrrsant with the until the last week
in January therefore, the conversation had with Mr
Sumner must been between the 2ith and 3Otb OF
January or Il days before Mr. sumner introduced lbs
, Mr. HaInlin-I understand that NJ. De Chamhrun fur
nshed you with copy oiRn.nso9s lster 70 80
and also copy OF Ihe Iettet Hoh' 'n' 'c''''S VI war
! co the Secretary OF state.
! MT sumner-He did.
! Mr. sumner-I think II. de Chamhrun said they were
handed 10 him by Mr. Beilonet the treneh Charge Al
ertsr OF the Secretary OF War as confidential as had
been read by the Secretary aloud IN the presence o
'HGi Mf sunner in reply the question by Mr. Hamin
said had knowledge as to the source OF the fas
OF Feb He understood, however, thtt u was
We ~ ua1n read 70 him n dispatch from Minister
Washburne stating. in reply 10 inquiry OF secretary
Fish that no such resolution that referred 10 IN the
Telegram had been introduced either in the National As
| sembly or in the Committee on Purchases ,
%r sumner said he had not the resolution in La
pairs He had heard there had been some such expires
Chased tbe subject He thought it likely Chambrun had
more precise information. The Marquis was eonnecsd
teeeram rst appeared IN print the Marquis had no in
formation the subject; u was sufP,ise ,h 10 mn
mad received letters from Paris relative TO the supJect
| matter. , ~. o Aaro oorversation M fhe
x,ravoort House in November IN which You ainued 70
the matter and said you would DO" the
say St s snmner-No stopped at the Brevoort House II
have been three four days before the oIenng o.
Congress did not then KNOW & any s ftrSopd: do not
recoect any conversation WIN gehtleuen ~ a.,
said was going to impheaset oaestions ons NV Mr. Car
penter 20 Mr. suWDer, the latter su nc ,,i uu iv