National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-03-18
SENArORIAI. TACTICS.

The most SAYS "t would be well for Mr..
" (Senator) INGALLS, 10 remember that the
" Democratic aud Republican methods of
" treating Senators-clect, against whom
" serious charges of bribery and corruption
q remain unexplained aud undisprovcd, are
radically different"
Yes, they are radically different as we
propose to show In 1857 there was
charge preferred by the Legislature Of the
State of Pennsylvania that the Senator
elect from that State had procured his cleo
tou "by corrupt ana unlawful means"
This charge, with others, was referred to
The Judiciary Committee of the Senate, con-
ssting of Senators BUTLER, of South Caro-
lima; BAYARD, of Delaware To0MBS, of
Georgia; PuGH, of Ohio; BENJAMIN, of
Louisiana; COLLAMER, of Vermont, and
TRUMBUIL, of Illinois. Ga the 11th of
March, 1857, the committee reported, and
we extract from their report:
Under no state of facts could your commit
tee deem it consistent, with proprety, or with
the dignity of this body, to send out u rowing
commission in search of proofs Of frauds in
order to deprive one Of its members Of seat
to which he is primo .flcia entitled. Still less
can they recommend such n course when
the parties alleging the fraud and corruption
are themselves armed with ample powers for
Investigation. II it be indeed true that mem
bers of the House of Representatives of the
State of Pennsylvania have been influenced by
corrupt considerations or unlawful appliances,
the means of investigation and redress are in
the power of the very parties who seek the aid
of the Senate of the United States. Let their
conf pant be made to the House of which they
arc members, and which is the tribunal PEE
culiary appropriate for conducting the desired
Investigation.
This report was made by JUDAH p. BEN
JANuY, n Democrat, in behalf of Whig.
Senator BUTLER, Of South Carolina, sup
ported the report Of the committee in more
than one speech, and said:
have no idea of making the Senate Of the
United States "a tribunal before which political
parties are to maiutain their contests. % O.
If the Representatives Of Pennsylvania say
they have been dabbling in dirty water, let
them wash themselves before they come here
aud ask mo to take cOgnizance of it.
The doctrine advanced by the
Democrats at that time was simply
that the Senate had no jurisdiction
NuNll INV lAtSlolltNlS Vi llb oLUle
had acted. We neither indorse nor con.
demn that doctrine, though the Republi-
cans in the Senate have held differently
! They claimed that the Senate had the right
to purge itself without waiting for any ac-
tion from the State, and they enforced this
idea in the case from Kansas, where Sem
ator was charged with similar practices to
those in the Pennsylvania case, aud when the
evidence taken established, or seemed to es
tablish, the facts the Senator was permitted
| TO resign
The difference, as The post says, is a radi.
cal one. The Republicans investigated and
removed Senator of their own party be-
cause he was believed to be guilty of cor
rupt practices; the Democrats refused tC
entertain charge, because they said it was
none Of their business until after the State
Legislature had washed itself clean In
the case of Senator INGALLS, the Lcgisla.
ture has investigated the same charge that
is now being trumped up here, and it de
clded that no bribery or corruption wA
used, As a matter Of law the Democratic
position may be correct, yhlc in point OF
morals the Republican theory is right.
But it is evident tha The post is as unjust
to Senator INGALLS, rs it is to other Repub-
lean leaders. The o5sertion that the COM
mitteo of the Konsas Legislature, lately en-