National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-03-17

puIbueu ever slnCc nc (Mrs MOTTllll nlu
been n member of the committee, aud the
committee had never had refusal until re-
Gently.
Mr.. Morrill, read tho portion Of the law
creating the Office of Secretary OF the Treas
ury which defines the duties Of It's In
eumbent, ITO make report and give In
formationto either branch OF the legislature
in person or In writing, as he may be re.
quired, respecting all matters referred to
him by the Senate or House of Representa-
tives," and said II was perfectly clear that
the Senate had right to call upon the Sec
rotary to come before any committee or to
furnish papers.
Mr.. Cullom then resumed the floor. He
said the refusal Of the Attorney General to
furnish the papers called for by the Senate
was q denial OF the right of the Senate to
inquire into the management of public
Office. lie (Mr. Cullom) denied that the
question was 'mOot questionn--as char
acterized by Mr.. Pugh. No question could
be "moot question:" Mr.. Cullom thought,
that was directed to asccrtaining whether
an American citizen had been unjustly
treated by having false and slanderous
charges and secret assaults made against
him and filed In public department to
blacken his character and injure his good
name.
The senator from Alabama had said the
Attorney General, in refusing the papers,
had acted under the orders of the Presi-
dent, and had seemed to think IL would be
great calamity for the Attorney General
to disobey presidential orders, as II might
result in the loss Of his office. The senator
was doubtless right. 1t might be that
Democrat could imagine no greater calam-
ity than the loss OF his office, but the law
should be obeyed whether such disaster
was averted or not. The Attorney General
was an officer Of the law. His duties
were defined by law, and IL was his duty to
obey the law, whether II cost him his office
or not. The senator stated in hisminor-
ity report that from 1889 to 1867 there
could not be found single case like the
one under discussion. The truth was that,
In the hundreds of calls that had
been made, there could be found very few
instances In which the information asked
for had not been furnished to either house.
There might not be another case exactly
like the present one In all respects, but
there had been hundreds substantially like
IL in principle, II not In all the facts. The
prominent fact was that when other
branches Of Congress had called for any in
formation It had usually been furnished,
and that In the exceptional cases I'm which
IL had not been the refusal was not based
on the constitutional prerogative OF the
President. When the President suspended
Duskin, he did 1t under the tenure OF Office
act. So the case stood that the President
proposed to obey the law in getting men
out Of o!fce, but questioned its constitu-
uonality when the Senate, under that law,
said it had right to inquire into his
act of suspension, and to do that intelli-
gently needed all papers on file. The
President used the law in suspending men
from office, and then in n volunteer mes
sage intimated that the Senate was attempt
ing to interfere with his high and mighty
prerogative as Chief Executive. Verify,
consistency was not jewel conspicuously
worn in these days Of "Jefersonian sim
plicity."
Replying to the remarks OF the senator
from West Virginia (Mr. Kenna) as to
what constituted public paper, Mr.. Cullom
said the Importance or relevancy of papers
must be judged by their substance. The
irrelevancy of the hypothetical letters sug-
gested by Mr.. Kenna was apparent.
Following that senator's idea. Mr.. Cul-
Ion suggested probable communication
to public officer which would be public
paper. Suppose, he said, some Democrat
should draw. upa paper bearing the sem
blance Of an information or true bill of in
dictment charging the Republican incum-
bent of an office the Democrat desired with
| all sorts Of offenses. This was, perhaps,
sworn to, and then forwarded to the Pres
dent, by whom It was filed In the proper
department. This paper was perhaps fol-
lowed by its authors application for the
office. 1t might perhaps be assumed that
the President had the right, MS he claimed,
| to consider such communications as private
papers, but after he forwarded them to a
department and placed them on the files
they certainly became public papers.
II the President has removed no officers
except for cause, some such papers must
have been fled. Indeed, such documents
had been invited by the present admins
avid nf xtFhto oh To- Tn1I
read the celebrated confidential letter OF
Postmaster General Villas, showing that
documentary evidence would be required
in making removals, in which circular the
Postmaster General stated that he spoke
for the President. IL such papers were
now on file the Senate was entitled To
them, and the President ought in good faith
to produce them; If there were no such
papers on file, let him say so, and the
country could judge how we'll he had re-
deemed every pledge he had made to the
Mr.. Cullom reviewed the cases cited by
Mr. Kenna, and commended that as prece
dents they were not in point in the present
controversy, and were only resorted to u
cover up the real issue and confuse thu
public mind. During the year that thu
present administration had been in powe
the Senate had IN no instance failed to treat
1t with impartial consideration and exact
justice. The majority of the Senate hat
not sought to offer any factious opposition
to the administration, and had gone ever
further by treating 1t precisely as Repub
licap administration would have beei
treated.
Mr.. Cullom discussed at some length tn,
constitutional questions involved In tn
Presidents power of removal. He wa
willing to allow large latitude to the Presi
dent In that matter; but as the very hungr
and very thirsty were clamoring for seats a
the official feast, there was danger tina
falsehood, or even perjury, might be re
sorted to. Was 1t true, as had often bee
said Of late, that public Office was publ
trust? Was public Office the property o
the Executive to give and take at willY Wa
the advice and consent OF the Senate
perfunctory act to be performed at the be
hest Of the Executive as his clerks woul
engross his lettersY If the President
statements were made In good faith--to tn
effect that removals should be made TO
cause? II so, why conceal the cause? |
his recent message, the President said b
hoped defense against unjust suspension
might be found in the. justice of the Execu
tive.
"The Justice of the Executive, forsooth!
"Upon what meat doth this our Caesar fee
that he is grown so greatp"
Mr.. Cullom disclaimed any intention Il
keep Irenus IN ONCE, Dut protesCeu aSalns
secret or "star chamber proceedings tina
reflected on the personal character of hor
est men. Men should not be allowed
come sneakingly to the Postoflice Depar
ment, at the Invitation of the Postmastt
General, and lodge secret complaint
against honest men. A refusal to produC
the papers would be an admission that the
could not bear the light.
Mr.. Maxey followed Mr.. Cullom. II
opposed the resolutions reported from IL
: majority of the committee, The real que
tion at Issue, he said, was one Of grave in
portance. The Duskin case had bee
merely seized on as an occasion to raise q
: Issue with the President as to the point II
| rnl,,nh AIr IMnNnr innnlrnh nulinn IL