National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-03-24

1 -
ectoaps shall b afsseckod upoQ1 y M. ~
10 maks N rovDal What fk41iDefs' -
they wero pgoauoed.
Noe, w. btAe liotkl CaAyou a . lIise
or os1tee un8 thaI - WA vas 80
By - co0mittee TIT n u1tieated thecfaEQ
0fnl1goveRnme9 inloSo aRainst ne Exsoui3vl
Depnlsmont. HWas thosS held-
IL Chairmaa WheSs Do yoa and The his
toy q tlat1 :.
1udgs Blaek. / nnd = IN the report mad
which have heee, and recollect Il ina doom
upon. I think the best discussion on this sub
Jet, - said On Saturday. that ever va!
made, WAS made By Mr.. Hamer N hn speech
sustaining thb report, ard especially thas par,
oft which reported 70 Congress their refasa
| to hear testimony concerning the purchase o
public lands ~ didcrcus meabeFs Of ne Al
ministratioa.
The rule which We there laid down, and.t
e b not the true rule Il = tmpcssihle Sof fea,
the committee might examine into svery tseue
action of public od,cer which IVES unlawfnl
every transaction OF private individual Wkh .
public Officer, which vas corrupt OF improper
but that whenever you came 70 the point wners
Il was manifest that the fact, II proved, would
not show anything unlawful, there you mus
stop; that no man was bound to render 70 the
Congress Of the Uaited States an account Of
bis private affairs, which was f@ nimseif ALONE
In the application OF this doctrine they Per
mitted anybody, producing evidence before tne
committee, to show that the secretary OF the
Treasury, or any clerk or oficer Of thai
Department had purchased public lands
because, that being shown, II would
prove that somebody IN the Treasury Depart.
ment had been guilty OF an uniawful act. II
was forbidden expressly y statute: And when
they proposed to SHOW that the Secretary OF
War, who was NOT 20 Uroadden, mao also Pur-
chased public lands, they said there Is nothing
wrong about that. He had rignt 70 90 ~
We, therefore, stopped the Investigation INFO
these private transactions Just tnere-wnen II
becomes purely private not 2 thing promo.
lied By law, but matter which the party nao
right TO engage n-tnen Jon snau 90 no
farther.
Now, It was SAID the other Gay oy member
OF the committee thaS these gentlemen, tine
counsel for the memorfalists, had already made
an aecusatson.a general aesus.sonL:na nat t .s
purchase was In some way connecleo VIII inc
proceedings Of the Board OF Public Works.
They have not done %, either In wnnng OF
orally. That u all we AK them 70 90.
they will simply say now, upon the Obligations
of their professional conscience and honor, that
they intend to connect the persons fof Wnom
MIR. Latta made TINS purchase with any P9piif
act OF the board, ior the mutual oenent OF poen
parties, We have no fortner opjection 70 the
question being answered, ior II Is not mater
Of delicacy that we are standing upon u TINS
time. Mr.. Stewart thinks that there was moth
ing wrong In the purchase, either for him or
for anybody else. nave no oouotC
Senator Stewart. In the abstract act OF the
purchase, I want to know how 1t ID connected
with anything wrong. think, - an abstract
right, anybody can buy any property IN wash
ington. What wanted counsel to show was
As to how It was connected.
Judge Black. Mr.. Stewart has no reason In
the world for having the fact concealed that
certain Of these purchases were made for him;
but another man may have very good reasons
for saying that he does not want 1t publicly
known. The question you are now to decide
ID, whether, under such accusations as these, q
broker, or all the brokers In the city OF Wash
ington, may be called upon to explain his or
their transactions, and declare for whom, and
with whom, all Of them we're made. II that be
90, then you can call every cashier or president
of Q bank, and make him tell everything that
has ever occurred In thetransaction of business
with his institution.
Now, they say ON the side of the memorial
lists, that there was . conspiracy between the
Board of Public Works and certain other per-
sons, some of whom are named, and some not
named, to make purchases of property for the
interest OF all the conspirators, and tnat the
value Of that property was to be appreciated by
an unlawful, or at least, an extrayagant i'm
position of taxes upon the part OF the COM
munity to improve the property. Undoubtedly,
II they are able to prove that, they prove .
most serious accusation against these people;
an accusation which ought, II It proved, to con-
sign them to everlasting fnfamy-everybody
that was engaged in It. And no man ought
to stand here and attempt to shield them from
the Just consequences Of their criminal mis-
conduct.
They do not say, however, that tn" Individual
or individuals for whom Mr.. Latts made this
purchase were some Of the conspirators. If
they will simply say that they were we are re-
lieved from all obligation OF secrecy. But If
this is . mere exploration, If they are out on
voyage of discovery, they must make this dis
covery in some other way. They cannot call
us up here, and put the respective parties upon
their oaths, and insist upon their telling
whether their suspicious are true or false, any
more than they could establish the old institu-
ton Of the rack, and stretch their joints and
make them confess. A case was cited by Judge
Thurman, the other day, but It does not strike
me at this moment IS being precisely applica-
BILE to this case.
The question that was asked the witness
was, who committed q certain offence! He
knew who it was. The object OF the inquiry
was to ascertain who 1t was. The committee
had right to know. Congress had right to