The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-06-10

Senator MattA ews' Refu'a Al 20 Testify.
In spite of representations to the con-
trary, Mr.. Stanley. Matthews has perfect
legal right to refuse to appear before the
Potter committee. Their first notice-the
one to which ha replied-was not sub
ppna, but an invitation, and legally he was
| Just as free to decline the invitation as he
was to accept it. He made the great mistake
Of declining, but his legal right to decline
cannot be controverted. The committee
on Saturday, after considerable discussion,
in which General Butler bore the lead
! ing part instructed its chairman to
cause subpoena to be served on Senator
Matthews In point of law and constitu-
tional privilege Mr.. Matthews is as free
to disobey the subpoena as he was to decline
the invitation. He knew this well enough
when he wrote his ill-judged letter to Mr.
Potter, for indiscreet as he is he could NOT
have been so indescribably foolish as to
refuse to do from courtesy what he could be
compelled to do by authority. Mr.. Mat
thews is entirely correct in his judgment
on the point of privilege. He can, If he so
chooses, legally refuse to have the subpoena
served upon him, and if it is served
he can legally refuse to OBEY it. This
right is perfectly clear, because the
members of both houses Of Congress
are privileged from arrest and subpoena
is futile when there is no power to arrest
the person who disobeys it. The explicit
declaration of the constitution is in these
words:-"The Senators and Representatives
shall in all cases, except treason, felony and
breach Of the peace, be privileged from ar
rest during their attendance at the session
Of their respective houses, and III going to
+, and returning from the same" Mr.. Mat
thews is therefore just as free to disregard
| tho subpoena as he was to decline the invita-
| ton. If the House sh order tho arrest
Of Mr.. Matthews for contempt he would
Mt once procure writ OF habeas
/ corpus, and the federal Judge issuing it
would order his immediate release. There
have been repeated judicial decisions under
the exempting provision of the constitu-
ton just quoted, and We copy the summary
of those decisions to exhibit their scope and
|
arrest both on judicial and mesne process,
but also from the service Of summons or.
other civil process while in attendance on
their public duties" And again:-''One
who goes to Washington duly commissioned
to represent a State in Congress is priv
LEGGED from arrest, eundo,j mordndo ct red
ee,do, and though it be subsequently de-
/, t1a1t
a seat there he is protected until he
reaches home if he return rs soon as
possible after such decision 1t will be
seen that the law on this point is
perfectly clear, and that great deal Of
crudity was uttered in the discussion Of
the committee on Saturday. The Potter
committee has no authority to compel the
attendance Of any member Of either house
who is unwilling to testify.
But why does Mr.. Matthews intrench
himself behind the barrier Of his con-
stitutional privilege? Innocence does
not take refuge in such technicalities.
When Senator Ferry, who is also the
President pro tempore of tho Senate,
was invited to testify before the Potter
committee, he presented himself as soon as
his public duties would permit, aud an
swered all questions without the slightest re-
serve. Confident that he had done nothing
wrong Senator Ferry was willing to tell all
he knew. lie would have scorned to skulk
behind his privilege and refuse to appear
and give his testimony. From the very
different course Of Senator Matthews the
public draws the conclusion that he has
not the same consciousness of clear and I'M
stained honor as Senator Ferry, who might
also have refused TO testify had he chosen
to avail himself of his constitutional privi-
lege. q
Mr.. Matthews puts his refusal on the
ground that his conduct is to be invcsti-
gated by committee Of the Senate. Is he
willing to havS it supposed that he
asked for the appointment of this CON-
mittee as q means of escaping an exam
;nation by the committee of the
House? This is a natural inference from
his conduct, which is regarded rs con-
fession that he is in a tight place. Mr..
Matthews seems to shrink from the search
ing cross-examination to which he would
be subjected in the Potter committee. II
he has nothing to conceal his refusal to
testify is stupid blunder but if he desires
to screen his conduct the Senate investiga-
ton cannot help him. Even if the Senate
committee acquits him it will be regardedas
whitewashing after his manifest dread Of
an examination by tho House committee.
-s
Tho NIissfssippi Jetty system