Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-03-26
Observation-Disclosures

1 THESALE0FARN SINVESTIGATION
IMPORTANT TESTIMONY OF SENATOR PArrBR
| soN-MR- SUMNER REFUSES TO TEsTrPG-HIs
WRITTEN PROTEST-HE Is sUBPoENEp To
| APPEAR AND TESTIFY TOMORROW.
| The special committee OF the Senate to inquire
| into the sale of arms to France met this morn
| ing, and Senator Patterson, of New Hampshire,
| testified that the Marquis de Chambrun in
! formed him that the French consul at New
| York was in some way mixed up with personal
Interests in the sale of arms to the French. but
| as he was French subject he could not have
access to the books OF the War and Treasury
Departments to ascertain the facts. Senator
Patterson the Secretary of the Treasury
| and related the conversation to him. The Sec
| rotary thought there had been no fraud in the
| sales and no violation OF International law or
treaty stIpulationS. The Marquis wanted to get
| information TO use in connection with the
| charges against the French consul at New York.
| Cham brun told him that he thought q. X. Gar
Tison and John Hoey were in collision tor the
| sale OF arms Senator Patterson had no infor-
| nation as to how Senator Summer obtained a
| copy Of Re mington's letter to lie Cesne. Sena-
tor p. further testified that he called upon bod
| the Secretary of Warand the President in rela-
| ton to the lie Cesne letter, and they were both
| anxious that the matter should be Investigated
The President said ii any officer was guilty OF
selling arms to the French he would have him
| punished.
MR.. sUMNER's WRITTEN PROTEST
| Senator sumner appeared before the commit
| read a protest, which the committee granted.
Mr.. Sumter then read as follows:
4 personally. i OBJECT to no examination
| Willingly would 1 submit to the most searching
scrutiny, rot only in the present case but in all
| my public life. There is not act, letter or
| conversation at any time which would save
| from investigation. 1 make this remark, be-
| cause would not have this protest open to the
| suspicion that there is anything desire to
ceal or any examination would avoid.
But appearing before the committee on an in
| NitatiOn, which is in the nature of a summons.
| to testify in the investigation originally moved
| by me into the sale of arms to France I am
/ OBLIGED m
| sonal inclinations, whatever they may be, con-
| not be my guide. L must do what belongs to a
Senator under the circumstances of the case.
Before answering any questions, l am con-
| strained TO consider the competency of the com
| mittee which has summoned me. 1t is of less
| importance what these questions may be, al
| though there are certain obvious limitations to
| which will alude at the outset.
| The examination of a Senator by a committee
| OF the Senate on a matter outside OF the Senate.
| ana not connected with his public duties, Is
4 sustained by presidents, when Mr.. Seward
| and Mr.. Wilson were examined with reference
| to the expedition of John Brown; but any exam
| lnation with regard TO his public conduct, and
especially with regard to matter which he has
| felt it his duty TO lay before the Senate in the
| discharge OF his public duties, is Of very doubt
ful propriety. In his public conduct Senator
acts on his responsibility under the sanction of
| an oath, and the constitution declares that for
| any speech or debate he shall not be questioned
| IN any other place. This prohibition, while not
| preventing questions of a certain character,
| must limit the inquiry; but the law steps for
| ward with its own requirements, according to
| which it is PLAIN that Senator cannot be in
terrogated, first, with regard to his conferences
| with other Senators on public business, and
secondly, with regard to witnesses who have
| ccnfdentially communicated with him.
| Senator Sumner then quotes Greenleaf on
| Evidence, and says the rule is equally impera-
tive with regard to witnesses who have contideB-
| tally communicate with Senator. Aftel
again quoting from the same authority he con-
| flnues as follows
| am led to make these remarks and adduce
| these authorities because, perusing the test
| mony OF MIR. Schurz, find that he was interro-
gated on these very matters; and since L. too.
| am summoned a. a witness, 1 desire to put
| record my sense of the improperly OF such
| questions. 1t is important that they should not
| become precedent; and here again / declare
| that have nothing TO cOnceal-nothing rat ]
| would not willing." give to the world under an,
| examination and crOss-examination-but an
| unwilling To AID i'll the overthrow OF a rule OF
law which stands on unquestionable grounds OF
| public policy. Especially is it important in the
| Senate, where, without such protection, a ty-
| rannical majority might deter minority from
originating unwelcOme inquiries.
| From these preliminary remarks proceed t.
consider the competency of the present com
mittee. Requested As a Senator to appear before
| you, deem it my duty to protest against the
formation AL q cOnsti ,utiOn OF the committee a.
contrary to unquesiiOnable requirements OF
parliamentary lew, and ask the committee TO
receive this protest as my answer to their letter
ofinyitatiOn. | make this more readily becauS.
| in my speech in the Senate, February 2S, 1872,
| have set forth what moved me to the inquiry,
being grounds OF suspicion which in my JUDI
ment rendered the most searching inquiry by a
| committee friendly TO inquiry absolutely neces
| SaIy.
The general parliamentary rule In the ap-
rointment Of special committees requires thai
| they should be organized so as to promote the
| business or inquiry TOR which the committee j.
| created. This requirement is according to
| obvious reasolS and Is sustained by parlia-
| mentary authorities. In familiar language a
| proposition is committed to its friends and no
| to its enemies.
| In illustration of this rule, we are told tha.
| members who have spoken directly against
l what is called " the body OF the bill meaning
OF course, the substance OF the inquiry, are MOI
expected to serve on the committee, but should
| they be so nominated to decline. Their presence
on committee is not unlike participation i'm
| trlal by judge or juryman interested in the
Very little reflection shows how natural is this
| rule as an instrument of justice The friends OF
| measure, or the promoters of an ina uiry
| though in the majority as a committee can do
| no more than adduce evidence that exists SO
l that the business cannot suffer through them
| while these unfriendly to a measure, or hostile
70 an inquiry, may, from lukewarmness or ne
glect, or possible pref Hdice fail to preseGt the
| proper evidence or recognize its just value SO
that business will suffer. In legislation. plainly
| those who believe an inquiry necessary are the
most proper persons to conduct il, and being So
they are selected by parliamentary law.
| This rule may be trace in the history of Par
lament anterior to the settlement of our coun-
| Try. The ancient statement was simply that
"thOse against the bill should not be on the com
miitee." The meaning OF the rule may be seen
| IN the Eases which have occurred in the House
of Commons as far back as December 4th, 1854,
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, on the com
mittment of bin relating to misdemeanors:
the entry mentions that twas given to a certain
me mber, and then says, "and Mr.. Sargent Har-
| ris to be exempted out of the committee be
cause he spoke against the body OF the
BILL" in other words, speech against a
measure disqualified the learned member
so that according to the expressive words
he was exempted out of the committee
MI 5. cites several cases TO show that .'those
against the bill should be no committee" In
referring to bill affecting the city of London
which came up November 18th, 1901, the cues
hon was il the members from London known TO
be against the bill could be OF the committee.
and when the Speaker put the vote he said. "AIi
that will have man that hath been against the
body OF the bill to be a committee let them sbox
their opinions by saying yea;" and not one said
yea. 'All that will not, say no." and ali said
no. Parliamentary law In the creation of com
mittees always seeks those who care for the in
quiry, and believe that there is occasion for II
One against the inquiry, or believing that Their
Is no occasion for IL, is repudiated by this rule
SO just and benign, and also SO valuable with
years.
Mr.. Jefferson adds other words of his own
land when any member who is against the bin