The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-10

phlcial paper, no matter how vie or Iaise ~ may
be. It did not belong to the man. whether Presi
dent or Attorney-eeneral, but the officer in his
character as an officer The Attorney general
gave no hint that any part of the papers called
4or were private. or unofficial, or corndentai.
Public papers-oficial papers-were called TOT,
and such papers only were spoken OF In sne re-
ssponse. But the papers were refused because
they would not only give the facts: but wouio
enable rs to understand the reasons OF the
president for exercising his official act NOW,
the proposition was that the Senate. being calieo
on in the exercise Of its jurisdiction to Judge
Of the official conduct of Duekin-the
President having already been call
ed on within his jurisdiction to
pronounce Judgment on simple question about
The same mantle Senate could not have sne
papers because if it did, they would disclose the
grounds on which the President acted. IF
that" said Mr.. Edmunds, lis not proposition
which would stagger the credulity and amaze
the understanding of any intelligent man in
government of Law, or In a government OF rea-
son, / am quite unable to comprehend what
would be-"
All the offices Of the government, Mr.. Ed
munds continued, were executive and had it
chief executive officer of the governments. Con
gress could know nothing as to the facts and cir
gumstances relating to the execution OF the laws,
because, IL they did, they might be able to com
prehend the motives or reasons OF the PRESIDENT
10 carrying out the laws. Why, such a state
ment was shocking-if that Was the logic of this
whole thing The Jurisdiction Of Congress was
infinitely broader than that OF the President.
His was executive power; Congress made the
laws and when the Constitution commands him
to give Congress information on 1.-THE state of
the Cnion,n it says he "shall" do ii. That had
reference to the universal power of knowledge
of the two houses OF Congress in respect to
every operation Of the government, and every
4ne OF its officers That is the state of the
Uni5s.r The state of the Union ia made up Of
every drop in the bucket" of the execution of
every law. and the performance of every officer
under the law There was no one thing. no one
subject that represented the state of the Union"
It was the condition of the government and
every part of it, and not only its legislative parts,
about which the President could communicate
no information. The Constitution had declared
that the two houses were to regulate themselves,
but he was to give to Congress-. and was posi-
lively commanded to do 30, from time to time.
Information on the state of the Union. and that
ia because Congress was entitled to have it. And
he violated positive command OF the Constitu-
ton when, on a constitutional call in the regular
way be omitted to do it. That was the reason
why, since the beginning Of the government,
when either house is seeking for information, it
Is not supposed that there might be
q question as to the undue disclosure
of confidential information. And so he
mr.. Edmunds maintained that either house of
Congress has right to know everything that
was In the executive department of the govern
ment He would state the EXTREMIST case posi-
be, and that either house calling or the
President or Secretary Of State for information
ms to the disbursement of the contingent fund
for the payment of the expenses of foreign in
tercourse, which ordinarily called a secret
service fund There the money of the people
was appropriated under the law which said that
a voucher Of the President of the United States
should be evidence to the accounting officers OF
She Treasury that the money had been properly
expended. while in the State Department the
zeal vouchers remained which shows for what
haA haax, Id NAxu han
pose some President two or three years ago.
when we appropriated 800, 900 or $780, 900 for
4ne contingent expenses of the department., just
preceding an election, should have turned into
the Treasury lump-voucher for the whole
amount. Suppose that at the next meeting of
the Senate and House of Representatives
they should be Of opinion that,
for the security of good government,
it was necessary that they should know
what became of it. Would it be within the
power of the Secretary of State, or the Presi
dent of the United States, to say no? If so. we
had better be extremely careful hereafter as to
how much money we put into the contingent
fund for foreign intercourse. The improve
meuS in public methods, so far as we had
yet gone, would seem to be chiefly and most con-
spicuously the suppression and concealment of
public papers, with the best intentions undoubt-
edly; but Mr.. Edmurds would repeat that, for
the first time In forty years, or more so far as
he had been able to discover, had either house
OF Congress failed to get the information it had
asked for from the public departments Of the
government. Why, in respect of this very in
stance-which illustrated the Importance of
standing up for this right of good government
when this resolution was sent to the Attorney
general, there was pending in another branch of
Congress bill providing for a deficiency of
about 1880 in the Department of Justice for
fees Of jurors and witnesses, and there there,
without doubt, letter of the Attorney general
stating there must be added for this current
fiscal year. ending the Both Of June next,
a year covering twelve months of purely
Democratic control, deficiency of $lS5, 900. If
the case of Duskin was fairly illustrative Of the
circumstances of all the district attorneys and
marshals of the United States-everything that
went to make up the autonomy OF the admins
tration of justice-then we have drawn in the
question what has become of the money that was
appropriated at the regular session to carry on
the administration Of justice through the de-
partment of justice in the United States. Dus-
kin WAS one of the persons who were to draw
upon that fund. In that district he was the very
person whose agency, more than that of any
other man. would go to an economical or ex-
travagant--a just or an unjust--expenditur of
the public money. Could we not know anything
about it, Take the other sixty or seventy dis
tricts in the United States. If it were denied to
Us. as to Duskin, it must also be denied to them
all What, then, we're we to do2 If we had
passed this resolution while we were acting in
legislative way-as il there were any difference
in the powers of the Senate, whether sitting with
open or with closed doors-if we had sent pre-
eisely this resolution and applied it to
all the districts in the United States,
IL the Attorney general and the Presi-
dent were right now. they would
be right then in saying mo; we can give you no
Information, because if we.do you may be able to
know the reasons why SO many of these marshals
and district attorneys have been suspended, and
that is purely within the province of the Presi-
dent of the United States" That was the logic
of our good friends, the minority of the commit.
tee, and their good friend the President of the
United State, who with courage certainly un-
to the report of the minority COMMITTEES before
the Senate had even considered it. Was it posi-
Bile to carry on the government in that way7 He
Mr.. Edmundsl thought not So far as the con-
stitutional relations between the two houses of
Congress and she executive department of the