The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-27


? letter from the Secretary OF War to Secretary
Fish; be did not see copy or it in the hands OF
lts contents; the witness did not know from wRom
AR. Sumner obtained copy OF the cable telegram
about the War Contract Committee having passed
q certain resolution, nor did he know how Cham.
brun obtained copy; he had no knowledge oil any
American citizen or government Official who
he saew we' was what O'I had been a' oStansa
seemed to be to investigate the whole subject, for
the purpose OF ascertaining whether any money
cas or other paes the Witness had
brun since 1867, and had been on pretty familiar
terms with him; he understood that Cnambrun
was engaged IN the prosecution OF claims OF French
citizens against the government; he understood
from Chambrun that It was mis- opinion that II the
and brought TO light 1t would appear that
CERTAIN AMERICANS WERE FRAUDULENTLY CON-
with the sale OF arms, and that It would be found
that Consul Place was not the Only sinner. and
therefore ne was anxious TO get all the facts 10 pc
The witness did not understand that Place had
been convicted; Chambrun said ne had no desire
to have the matter investigated Tor the purpose OF
bringing anything against this government or any
parties nut that the facts should be obtained for the
purposes OF his own government In connection with
the trial. In answer to a question from Senator
Schurz the witness said he had known Chambrun
hign-minded man, ana that the Secretary OF War
was anxious II there were anything wrong In the
not make report; the witness did not have fre-
quent conversations with MIR. Sumner on the sub
SENATOR SUMMERS WRITTEN PROTEST..
Senator Sumner appeared before the committee.
He refused TO testify and asked leave TO read pro-
test which the committee granted. Mr.. sumner
then read as fOiOWs:-
.Personally object to no examination. Willingly
would submit to the most searching scrutiny, not
only In the present case. but In all my public lie.
There Is not an act, letter or conversation at any
ss rsmak BECAUSE would no have thus proe
open to the suspicion that there ID anything desire
to conceal or any examinatloa would avoid But
appearing before the committee OH an invitation
which Is In the nature of o summons to testify in
the investigation, originally moved BY, me,
Obliged obi to consider my duty as Senator Personal
tnclnattons, whatever they may be, cannot De my
So wa bs cass 70 pore
any questions am constrained to
wc has me- Is Of less
what these questions may be, although there are
certain obvious Limitations to which VIII allude at
sas the and not A eennee Sa
dents as when Mr. seward I and MI wilson wilson
were examined with reference to the expedition Of
John Brown, but any examination with regard to
his public conduct and especially with regard to q
matter which he has let 1t his uuty to lay before
the Senate IN the discharge or his public duties is
Senator acts on his responsibility under the sane
ton Of an oath, and the constitution declares that
Tor any speech or debate he shall not be questioned
any other place. This prohibition, while not
preventing questions OF certain character, must
limit the inquiry. but the law steps forward with
plain tnat
A SENATOR CANNOT BE INTERRoGATEp,
first, IN regard to his conferences with other Sena
tors on public business, and secondly with regard
TO witnesses VINO have conadentlally communicated
Senator sumner then quotes Greenleaf on Evil
dence, and says the rule is equally imperative with
regaru 10 witnesses VINO have conhdentally COM
After again quoting from the same authority he
marks and adduce these AUTHORITIES because,
perusing the testimony OF Mr. Schurz, find that
ne ne was was lnterroeated on these very matters,
sire to put on record my sense OF the Improperly
OF such questions. 1t Is important that they should
not become a precedent. And here again declare
that l have nothing to conceal, nothing that
would not Willingly give to the world under any
Ing to aid In the overthrow or O rule of law which
stands In unquestionable grounds OF public policy
Especially is 1t important IN the Senate, where
without such protection, tyrannical majority
might deter minority from originating unwelcome
inquiries. From these preliminary remarks l pro-
SUMMER yEHEMENTLY PROTESTS,
deem it my duty to protest against the formation
and constitution Of the committee as contrary to
the unquestlonabe requirements Of parliamentary
as my answer to their letter Of invitation. make
this the more readily because In nv speech in the
moved me to the inquiry, being grounds OF suspl-
cion which, in my Judgment, rendered the most
quiry absolutely necessary. The general par.
rule ia the appointment of special COM
mlttees requires that they should be organized SO
to promote the business or inquiry for which
the committee Is created. This requirement Is
Authorities in familiar lsnaaaSe o
Is committed TO Its friends and not to
It's eAemies In Illustration OF this rule We are told
that members who have spoken directly against
what is called tho body OF the blll,' meaning, OF
course, the substance or the inquiry, are not ex-
pected to serve on the committee, but should they
be so nominated to decline. Their presence on the
committee is not unlike participation IN trial by
little reflection shows how natural is the rule as aD
instrument OF justice. The friends OF measure
majority, as a committee can do no more than ad.
duce evidence that exists so that the business cam
measure or hostile to an inquiry may, from luke
warmness or neglect or possible prejudice, fail to
value, SO that business wiI surer In legislation,
plainly,
THOSE WHO BELIEVE AN INQUIRY NECESSARY
are the most proper persons TO conduct tG, and,
being SO, they are selected by parliamentary law.
This rule may be traced in the history Of Parlia-
The ancient statement was SIMPLY that those
against the bill should not be on the
be seen In the cases which have occurred in the
House OF Commons as far back as December 4,
1884, In the reign OF Queen Elizabeth on the com.
mitment OF bil relating to mlsdemeanors. The
entry mentions that It was given TO certain men,
aae aea sas M Harris to be
against the body OF the bil' In other words, a
speech against measure disqualified the learned
member, SO that, according to the expressive
words, he was exempted out OF the committee
Mr.. Sumner cited several cases to show that
those against the bill should not be on the com.
mittee."
GOING BACK TO OLD TINES.
In referring to bill affecting the city or London
wMch came up November IL, 1901, the question was,
II tne members Tor London known 10 be against the
bl could be OF the committee ana when the neak or
put the vote he said, "Au that Will have q min mat
hath been against the body OF the bill to be conf
mttee let them show their opinions by saving
Yea - and no one said 'Yea'f .'All that will not
say NO." and all said "No." Parliamentary law
up 10 the creation or committees always seeks those
who care for the Inquiry and believe that there Is
occasion for IT, One against the inquiry or believ-
ing That there Is no occasion for 1t Is
repudiated by this rule SO just and
benign, and also so venerable with years.