Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-03-17
THE DISTRICT INVESTIGATION.
Meeting Of the Joint Committee Last Evening

senator Allison Elected Chairman.
At the session yesterday evening of the Joint
Select Committee of Congress to inquire into
the affairs of the District of Columbia-present
Senators Thurman and Allison and Representa-
tives Wilson, Hubble, Hamilton and Bass-Mr
Wilson offered the following preamble and
resolution, which was adopted:
"Whereas, Mr.. Thurman has stated to the
committee that he does not desire to continue
to preside over il; and whereas Mr.. Stewart has
stated to the committee that he does not intend
to act as member of this committee under the
appointment made by the President of the Sen
ate on Friday last: Therefore, be it resolved,
That the committee do now provide to appoint
a chairman"
Mr. Wilson offered the following resolution.
which was also .adopted: Resolved, That
Senator Allison be, aud he hereby is, appointed
chairman OF this committee"
Adjourned till this morning.
To days Proceedings.
The committee resumed its session this morn
ing, all the members were present, except
Messrs. Stewart and Jewett.
Mr.. Thurman stated that he had been in
structed by the committee to announce the cleo
ton of Senator Allison as chairman who took
his seat as presiding officer.
Senator Allison (at quarter TO II O'Clock,
said the first business in order was the srgu-
ments with reference to the advIsability OF
bringing before the committee private pa
pers, and that the members were ready to hear
them.
MR. sHRLLABARGER's ARGUMENT
Mr.. Shellabarger, counsel for the memorial
ists, said the question TO be argued was one OF
great gravity and importance, but he doubted
II ii was one OF great difficulty. 1t was COM
mon law of Parliament that either house of that
body had the highest prerogstive, and it had
been the practice OF both houses, where prnci-
pies of high public welfare were at stake, to
produce private papers where matters of a
public concern were under investigations; pa
pers of every description. English law would
sustain such procedure; He quoted Cush-
production OF public and private pa
pers, and said that papers were secured
by an order of the body desiring them,
and differed from the production of wftne sses
inasmuch as the latter were summoned by sub
rena. He further cited from the same work to
show that the order ought TO describe the pa
pers, and give SPECIFIC and definite designation.
The order must be as specific as the nature OF
the case Will admit Of. By adopting the rule
quoted the committee could not send out a drag
net TO bring in every kind OF private papers,
because they would be as specifically described
az the nature of the case would admit of. The
case under consideration was not one which
brought into play the constitutional safeguard
OF taking papers by seizure, or without due
process of law, &c. No search was PROPOSED
he held that testimony as such shall be pro-
duced under welknOwn regulations and limit
atoms of law, and said the difference between
the proceedings in parliament and courts had
been established for the good of public policy;
that witness before parliament was protected
because no evidence adduced before it could be
gwen by either house OF parliament to be used
against him at any other place, and
that parliament has refused to furnish
evidence thus procured, provided tue
witness testified truly; that when important
evidence was required from witness. Parlia-
ment usually passed an act TO indemnify him
from any consequences arising from the utter
ance. The common law of England was the
law of Congress until the passage OF an act OF
January oath, 1851, which provided that any
witness summoned before either house OF Con-
gress or committee thereof, who refused to ties
tify, was liable to Indictment; and that sny
witness testifying before either house of Con-
gress, could not be arraigned before any court
on evidence thus adduced; and that for any pri.
vate paper produced he should not be answera
the witness was thus excused from all penal
consequences or criminal prosecution. Mr..
SheIlabarger then gave history OF the passage
of the law quoted, which was passed in order to
protect Congressman whom certain parties
were trying to corrupt. The law passed the
House OF Representatives by vote of 1s3 TO Il
He then quoted from the Globe OF the 3Ith Con
gTess, to call the attention of the committee to
the debate in Congress on the subject, pending
the action OF the House of Representatives prior
10 passing the law. He held that the citizen
should hHve no secrets as against his govern
ment; If that were not the law, the conse-
quences would impair good government
Mr. Thurman (interrupting Mr.. Shellabar-
ger) called attention TO the refusal OF a witness
10 answer certain questions propOunded by the
kuklux committee; that motion was made to
arrest HIM for contempt, but that certain SEN
ators held that the Senate had no right to ar
rest him, inasmuch as the committee was a
joint one-in fact, a committee Of esck house.
Mr.. Shellabarger said counsel had come to the /
CONCLUSION, after consultation, that the House
committee, to all iItents and purposes, was a
House committee, and the Senate similar com
mittee of the Senate. u the law he had cited
does not apply to joint committees, it deprives
the committee OF all law which surrounds the
committees of the two houses Of Congress.
I" think" said he, 90 though you act concur
rently, that you are two Committees represent
ing each house of Congress"
AT ten minutes of II O'Clock the Committee
took recess until 2 p. m.
AFTER RECESS.
The committee reassembled at O'Clock, all
the members present qncluding Senator Stew
art except Mr.. Jewett.
Mr.. Mattingly, one of the counsel for the Dis
trlct government, made the arguments in its
behalf He said they were not there to deny
that II any paper which has a relevant bearing
on the case was wanted that it should be fur
nished. In part he admitted some of the points
OF law laid down in the argument by the cOun-
sci for the memorialists. A drag net, however
Is called for, and it demands an exercise of
power worthy OF despotism, and shocks
the sensibllities of any good citizen liv-
ing under free form of government
de describes the motion CT the memorialists,
as something akin to the cd form OF seizures /
and searches in England, which was finally
discarded by that government. Hequoted from
i.oiu Camuen w snoW tnat the private papers
OF an individual were among his most sacred
rights He quoted frem case in New York in
1910 where the recorder of that city had seized
certain papers to prove conspiracy in connec-
tion with the election frauds, and was rebuked
by Gov. Seward, and not sustained by the At
torney General to whom the case was referred.
Mr.. Mattingly was still speaking when our
report closed at 8 p. m.
Gard from N. Halstead.
TO the Editor Of The Washington Star:
In An editorial notice which annaayed in Tup