, 1886-03-18
The Senate and the President.

general for refusing to transmit 70
the senate papers called for Icy the
senate. and declare that refusal to be
4 violation by the attorney general OF
his official duty. and subyersive
Of the fundamental principles Of gov
ernmeHt and good administration.
The resolutions also condemn the
discharge from the government ser
vice Of ex- Unieu soldiers.
As the resolutions were read by the
chief clerk the most absolute silence
prevailed on the floor and in the gal
leries We're crowded 10 aiscomforF,
many persons being compelled to
stand. This was notably true OF the
reserved galleries. to which admission
is only permitted by cards from sell
ators, many gentlemen and not few
ladies. though early in attendance
failing to find vacant seats.
Edmunds considered the Law under
which the office Of the attorney geL-
eral exists, and made an exhaustive
argument in support Of the majority
report.
EDEUNDs's RE4GEEs.
Edmunds proceeded to tho ques-
tion. that Of the attorney for the
southern district of ALBANIA. He
read the former order OF suspension
OF Duskin. and Of the nomination of
Burnett to succeed Duslin. He also
read the resolution of the senate,
calling fer papers an file relating to
the administration Of the Office by
Duskin, and the letter of the attor-
ney- general refusing these papers.
and stating tnat the refusal was by
direction OF the presideut He main
tanned that the act of the president
did not remove Duskin, but simply
withheld from him the duties and
emoluments OF his Office, pending
decision of the matter by the senate
and that when the nomination oi
Burnett was sent to the senate Dus
kin was Z. S. attorney for Alabama
and the proposition was that he should
be removed.
Edmunds contended that had tine
senate been 4 jury it would have beer
its duty to find out how Duskin had
administered his Office. Edmunds
then entered on q long discussion OF
the circumstances Of the case already
made public.
4 HYPOTHETICAL CASE.
In the course of his remarks Ed
munds said: Suppose some preai
dent, two or three years ago. when VT
appropriated one or two hundred
thousand dollars for contingent ex
penses of the department, just pre-
ceding an election should have turned
into the treasury lump vouchers fol
that whole amount. Suppose tina
at the next meeting of the senate ant
house of representative they should
be of the opinion that for the securi-
ty of good government. and as !;
guard against any corruption OF i'm
proper use of that money, it was nee
essary that they should know wha
became Of it. Would it be within
the power of the secretary of state ol
the president of the United States tC
say no? If so, we would better bt
extremely careful hereafter as to nov
much money we put into the contin
gent fund for foreign intercourse
The improvement in public methods
so far as we had yet gone, woulC
seem to be chiefly and most conspic
aously the suppression and conceal
ment OF public papers, with tht
best intentions undoubtedly. But
Mr. Edmunds would repeat that, fol
the first time in forty years or more
so far as he had been able to discover
had either house of congress failed tt
get information it had asked fol
from public department of the gov
ernment.
When this resolution was sent t
the attorney-general there was pend
ing. in another branch OF congress, {
bill providing for deficiency o.
about $lS5,000 in the department o.
justice, for fees of jurors and wit
nesses. 1t was there, without doubt
because of the letter OF the attorney
general stating that there must be
added for this current fiscal yaai
ending on the Both of June next yeal
covering months of purely demoora
tic control, a deficiency of S165,000.
ANOTHER QUESTION ARIsKs.
Ii the case of Duskin was fairly
illustrative Of the circumstances ot
all The district attorneys and mar
shais of the United Suites, Of every
thing that went to make up the auto
nomy OF the administration of jus
tIce, then we have drawn IN the qaes
ton of what has become of the money
that Was appropriated at the regular
session to carry on the administra
tion of justice. through the depart
ment of Justice, in the United States
Duskin was enc of the persons who
were to draw upon that fund in tha;
district. He was the very person
whose agency, more than that of any
other man, would go to an eeonomi-
cal or an extravagant-justo or unjust
Expenditure of public money
Could we not know anythinga Take
the other sixty or seventy districts in
the United States. IF it were denied
TO US as to Duskin, it must be denied
as to Dorsheimer, as to Henry, mar
shal of Vermont, and every other
martial and every other district attor
ney; II the attorney general and the
president were right now, they would
be right in saying, ''No; we can give
you no information, because if we dc
you may be able to know fhe reasons
why SO many of these nlarshals and
district attorneys have been suspend
ed, and that is purely within the pro-
vince ef the president of the United
States" That was the logic or our
good friends, the minority of the com
mittee, and their good friend and
ally, the president of the United
States, who, with a courage certainly
unique, had interjected his supple
mentary report to the report of the
committee before the senate had even
considered it. Was it possible to
carry on the government in that way !
He (Edmunds) thought not.
In conclusion Edmunds said 1t did
not seem TO him that the senate could
fail to get papers on the ground that
the statute on the subject had BECOME