The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-03-30
.sunlner Protests.

asked leave to read q protect, Which the
committee granted. Mr.. Sumner then
read Hs follows:
personally, 1 object to no examina-
tion; willingly would I submit to the
most searching SCRUTINY; not only ia tho
present case, but in all my public life.
Lhere IL not an act, letter or conversa.
t'on ut any time, which I would save
from investigation. I make this remark.
because would not have this protest
open to the suspicion that there is any
thlng desire to con cenl, or any eynmi-
nation I would avoid. But. appearing
before the committee on IN inyitutiou.
which is in the nature of q summons to
testify in tho Investigation originally
4noted 10y me- int) the sale of arms to
France, am obliged to consider my
duty as d Senator. Personal incl:na-
tlons, whatever they may be, cannot bo
my guide. l must do what brlones to n
Senator, under the circumstances Of the
case. Before answering any questions.
am constrained to consider the conpc-
tency OF the committee which has sum
moned me. 1t is of no less Importance
what these Questions may be. although
there are certain obvious limitations TO
which l will alluds at the outset. The
examination Of Senator by commit.
toe ol the Senate ou a matter outside of
tue Senate and not connected with his
Puolic duties, ID sustained by prece-
dents, as when Mr.. Sewurd and Mr..
Wilson we're examined with reference to
the expedition Of John Brown; but any
exnninhtlon with regard to his public
condnct, apd especially with regard to a
matter Which he has felt it his duty to
!y before the Senate in tho discharge OF
his public duties. is of very doubtful
propriety. In bis public conduct, IL Sc.
na'or acts on his responsibility under
the sanction OF au oath. and the Cons j.
tuition declares that for auy speech or
dcbnte he shull not be questioned il, nny
other pincc. This prohibition. while
not preventing questions of certain
character, must limit the inquiry. but
the law stops forward with i,a own re-
Gnirements, according to which it il.
plain that n Senator cannot be interro.
guted-tirat. with regurd 10 his con
ferences with other Senators ON uuh,,c
business; aud secondly, With rexnr,l to
wlipesbcs who have cOutiientiuily com
mnnlcated with him. Seuator Sumner
then quotes Greenleaf ON evidence. nnI
says the rule is equally imperative will,
regard to Witnesses who have couG
de lily communicated with a Senator.
Att. tcnin quoting from the same au.
thorisy, lie continues ns follows1:
aln led to mako these Remarks and
addnce these authorities because, pcrus-
ing tho testimony Of Mr.. Schurz 1 find
That he was interrogated on these very
mutters, and since I, too, am summoned
as witness, desire to put on record
my scnso of the impropriety OF such
questions. 1t is important Tint they
should not become q precedent, and here
again declare that l have nothing to
conceul-nothing that would not will
lngiy give to the world under auy ex.
animation aud cross-eIumiuutiun; but I
AN unwilling to aid in the overthrow
OF rule of law which stands on uu-
questionable grounds of public policy.
Especially is it importuut III the Senate,
where, without such protection, tyran-
meal majority might deter minority
from originating nnweicome inquiries
From these preliminary remarks [ pro-
ceed to consider the competency of the
present committee. Requested Us a
senator to appear before you, I deem
1t my duty to protest against the for
matlon and constitution of tho commit
tee as contrary to the nnpncstionablc
requirements of parliamentary law, and
L nak the committees to receive this pro-
test rs my answer to their letter Of iu-
vitation. L make this the more readily
because in my speech in the Senate,
February %. 1872. 1 have set forth
what moved me to the inquiry, being
grounds OF suspicion which, in my
rendered tho most searching
inquiry. by f" committee friendly to in-
qIiry, absolutely necessary. The gene
r"l parliamentary rule in the appoint.
meht of speclul committees requires
that they should bo organized SD as to
promote the business or inquiry for
which the committee is created. This
requirement. is according to obvious
reason, aud is sustained by purIiamen-
tury nuthoriti. In fumiiiur language.
Il proposition is committed to it's friends
ami not to It's enemies.
III Illustration oi this rule, we are told
that members who have spoken directly
against what is called "lhe body of tho
bill. menning, Of course. the substance
Ut tho inquiry. are not expected to serve
on the Committee, bnt should they bo so
nominated, to decline. Their presence
"n tho committee il not uullku purtIci-
patton in u tr. .al tIv u i,,]p,. .,r i.,ryn,n,,