The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-28
THE FRENCH ARMS HUDDLH.
Sumner Testifies Under Double
Barrelled Protest.
History Of tho Resolution-An About His Chum
Chambrun, the "Attorney"-His No
lions Of . Senator'S Patriot
ism and Privilege.
RuFFLED DIGNITY ALL ROUND.

WASHINGTON, d. c., March q, 1872
rhe Senate Arms Committee this morning exam
lned Herman FunKe, OF The house OF Herman
Boxer Co The witness having been asked as to
the sale OF in October 1870, he said he became
acquainted with the facts ut North German house.
and came to Washington and called upon Baron
Gerot He informed the Baron that he would puy
on the required terms II ne baron Gerolt) would
guarantee to him the same margin that this govern
ment demanded from purchasers. The Baron re-
Piled that he could not do So having no such
authority. The witness suggested that III. Ger0lt
should
TELEGRAPH TO GERMANY
Tor authority. AS the time for receiving the bids
had been postponed he intended TO make q bid for
tine whole lot lie thought the sale was postponed
from the 18th to the 18th OF October. On the nth
Baron GerOlt received q telegram from Count Bis
marck, stating that the German government did not
want the arms. the witness, however, went to the
Ordnance Bureau and made a Did. receiving $4,000
Springfield rifle muskets, which he sold to Schuyler,
Hartley 4 Graham the next day.
SENATOR SUMNER,
who was present. asked the chairman OF the COM
miltee Mr.. Hamlin, TO direct the clerk read the
subpoena which was served upon hinl, as he wished
to make protest against it. He appeared because
he would not on any account fail to pay the COM
mittee the courtesy which 1t should receive. He
supposed the committee were aware that They had
no precedents in their action. member may
waive his privilege, Mr.. Cushing says, and he
waived lis. He then read tine following
SECOND PROTEST.
since reading and Ming my protest yesterday
have received by the hands or the Sergeanl-at-
Arms . subpoena commanding me ~ appear before
Lnls committee In answer 70 this subpoena now
appear. IL Is my duty declare that my Judgment,
as originally set forth III my protest. Is IN no respect
altered by this subpoena i 40 not think the com.
nlutf fn.dn
still ind on the committee several members occu-
pyng seats in violation OF an unquestionable rule
signallZe themselves in the Senate by open speech
against the pending inquiry, or according to the
therefore, nave disqualified themselves as much as
. judge who has been CounSei IN o case or juror
VINO has
DECLARED HIS OPINION BEFOREHAND.
This disqualification is not founded on argument or
inference. but on peremptory rule, traced back
thortles ana constituting part OF what Mr.. Jefrer-
son calls the 'Code" for the government OF The
appreciation. Besides the authorities which cited
yesterday there are two Others from our own coun-
try which geem 1t my duty TO adduce The irstis
ne Laws aa practice s,a,.s
is placed by parliamentary law IN the hands Of the
mover; thus 1t became the established practlce Tor
The MEMBER upon whose motion a committee mad
been oruered to move the names OF the members to
compose It, being OF course, OF his own selection,
his own name being among them, and perhaps
the hrsT named on Inc list Ii ne felt any dellcacy
moving his own name the mouon might be made
by some lriend as on the occasion OF the appoint
meat OF the committee 70 prepare ARTICLES OF i'm
parchment against Lord Melville which had been
ordered on the motion OF Mr.. Whlthead. That gen.
tleman was hrst appointed one Of the com.
tnen. on motion OF Mi. Withheld, the
o;her members or the committee, Lord Temple
investigation 1t Ia a precedent for Us now. But our
committee was constituted IN very different man.
ner. Mr.. Cushing vindicates the practice OF
ALLOWING THE MOVER OF PROPOSITION
himself TO nominate the committee Tor the c0nsld.
eraLlon OF ,ne house saying that Sne House ny
nihed lis Willingness That the subject snail be so
considered or investigated that the member NOM
mating the committee must be supposed to feel as
strong interest La the proper consideration OF the
subject as any one, and also TO possess or
Secessary "I to enable him to decide upon
the qualifications OF the members ne selects.
ana IN s nova ae eare n
early rule is recognized. The same learned author
Ity, whle stating the English and American Par
dncted:-"When an inquiry Is Instituted and
examination OI witnesses Is undertaken by the
tor the member on whose motion or suggestion an
Inquiry mas been engaged in, or for some OF the
members voting with him for the inquiry. to take
the lead IN the examination OF the witnesses; Or in
EXAMINE THE WITNESSES IN CHIEF"
Gushing, p 1881 Plainly, according TO his usage,
MIR. Scnurz, and not Mr.. Hamlin. should take the
lead and examine the witnesses IN Chief The other
parliamentary authority to which refer is the Hon.
X. N. r. Hunter, former Speaker OF the House OF
Representatives. In his vaedictory speech, March
3, lS41, this gentleman who brought thought and
took occasion to explain the principles governing
the formation OF committees, and all must
admit that ne did 1t with clearness and philosophy
not surpassed in parliamentary history. According
to him, those VINO have the affirmative OF prOpo.
sition should have the direction Of the committee
Speaking generally, he says, "The party upon whom
naturally devOlves 10 propose question ought TO
have the power, IL would seem, to present Its
proposition in the shape for which IL is willing to be
responsible, anu as the different parties hold the
Affirmative according 10 the nature OF the question,
30 ought the constitution OF
THE COMMITTEES TO BIZ vARIED.n
Then, IN language precisely aPpcaoie 70 the he
who hold the Affirmative should have the majority
OF the power" This instructive statement Is In
early times that those against the thing cannot go
on the committee, and that measure, Ike child
NURSE THAT CARES NOT FOR 1T.
The old parliamentarians were less philosophical
than the American speaker; out each meant the
bringing forward O proposition or holding the az
frmauve. committee organized to sustain The
ss cares t mot for the chd and therefore
lay; Thus III from al quarters. SsS!nn rs
rerson, the father OF American parliamentary law;
Mr.. Cushing, Its most authoritative expounder,
Anu nOt lOTBttllnR al AmcIiCitu cpcdhcI, pIOCccuS
c0ncurring testimony 70 the parliamentary rule
requiring an inquiry to be placed In the hands OF It's
frlends. Especially Is 1t necessary that the chair
man who directs the inquiry and examines the
witnesses should be known Is one Of It's trends
Therefore must be pardoned II | renew my pro-
test against the competency OF the present com.
mlttee. protest against 1t as constituted In
FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW;
and protest especially against the acting chair
man, who UNDERTAKES to direct tins inquiry and to
examine witnesses, as not coming within the cond-
tons established by rule. by usage ana by reason.
the record shows that ne did not move the inquiry,
nor did he cooperate with the mover or take any
part in sustaining him, while In open speech he
showed himself ''against the tning." object TO
the acting chairman as to Judge or juror dlsqua-
infinite reluctance but the committee leave me no al
tentative In their first invitation In The nature Of
summons and now, Ia their subpoena, they compel
Seeing " clearly as do and feeling II as strongly
~ l do, l cannot avoid expressing u. 40 50