The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-15
Speech in Which the Claim B
Made that the Senate Has No Right to In-
ouire Into the Morals Of In hsmbsu
Mr.. Roach Willing to Have the Charges
Against Him Fully Investigated.
An Inquiry Demanded BY Senator chsndIer-p
Democrats Criticised for Barring the Way-
Condition of IndisnoN National Banks


occupied during tne Rreatef part OF tno
days session with resolutions Tor the ins
vestigation of the charge against Senator
Roach. of North Dakota. Mr.. Chandler
had obtained yesterday unanimous consent
that he should address the Senate to-day
in support of that resolution. and he did 50
at much length. But all the point and ins
terest had first been taken out Of hi6
speech by Mr.. Roach rising. ss soon ss the
journal was read. and expressed his entire
willingness and desire to have the investis
cation made. Mr.. Chandler was replied to
by Mr. Voorhees,. and, at the close of his
speech, Mr.. Harris moved to lay the rssos
luton ana amendments on the table. and
only withdrew that motion because il was
undepatable. and Mr.. Platt desired 10 res
ply TO Mr. Voorhees,
As soon as the journal of yesterday was
read. Mr.. Roach. who was at the momene
occupying Mr.. Blackburn's seat, near tbs
front aisle. rose and addressed the Chair.
He said:
Mr. President--My colleague. the Senator from
North Dakota tMr. Hansbroughl Is reported -
have said referring TO the charges IN the ,esolu-
ton OF the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr.
Hoarl, that I told him that desired TO offer q
resolution for an investigation or that thouKh(
IL the best thing 10 do. rise now 10 confirm thaq
statement aud 70 say that am perfectly villin9
After the conversation referred TO by my cois
league yielded TO the advice of friends In the
Senate and did not act on my own impulse In the
matter. Hence / did not offer the resolution
which desired and intended 10 offer New 20
this body and entirely unfamiliar with its Gus
tom and usages, 1 naturally attached weight
to the advice and opinion OF those old
in the service and versed in the practices and
prccedents OF the Senate j was informed, or
given to understand that no viewer much mikhu
desire 10 demand an investigation. 1t was noq
the practice OF the Senate to take notice or Juriss
diction of alleged acts or conduct prior 60 the
election of senator, or having no connection
with the legality thereof. Now. desire 10 say
sirous that this Investigation be proceeded with,
That has been my position from the beginning
sse1 for S q sDs
did say something | desired to say this muchf
in Justice TO my colleague aud TO myself, and
newspapers, because this thing is proceeding so
far on newspaper allegations
MR.. CHANDLER's SPEECH.
After short debate Mr.. Chandler took
the floor and commenced his speech in sup>
port OF the resolution offered by Mr.. Hoaf
on the 10th of April This resolution di.
rects the committee on privileges and elecs
tions to examine the allegations recently
made in the public PRESS charging William
Roach, a Senator from the State OF North
Dakota, with certain criminal ofenses com>
mitted while cashier or official of bank
in the city Of Washington, and 20 ascer-
tain the facts and circumstances, so far Re
to enable the committee 20 determine what
are the duty and power of the Senate IN
regard thereto. lt was only possible MIR
Chandler said, to defeat that resolution by
laying down the rule. in the American Sen-
ate. in the year 1888, that no matter whss
crime may have been committed by per~
son occupying q scat in the Senate
under whatever circumstances of atroc<
lty and otherwise-it 10 not within
the constitutional power of the Senate
even so much as to instruct Q COMMITTEES
to make an investigation into the facts
and circumstances of that ocrduct or OF
that crime. He had. be said, certain
summary which had already been mado
public. and which be now read. He then
proceeded to make numerous aud volumin-
ous citations from English and American
history bearing on the question whether
expulsion from parliamentary body can
accused person had become o member. lie
claimed that the precedents established
that right. In conclusion Ar. Chandler
said that ne should have refrained from
making any statement of the facts in the
case had lt not been for the fact that the
Senators on the other side had given notica
that the case was not TO be investigated
| He did not think the Senate would eve1
put itself on record as making declara<
ton of the constitutional principle thaf
there is no power under any circumstances
TO investigate the conduct Of o Senatof
before his election.
For the facts in the case Mr.. Chandler
referred TO articles in Eastern newspapers.
also the reports in the Office of the Con@
troller of the Currency. and he asked
whether. if these facts were stated
and they had not been denied-the charac<
ter of the offense was net sufficient to de-
mand an investigation. Here. he saids
was grave breach of the trust alleged. az
embezzlement on the part OF an officer Of {
national bank. He believed that. if ther@
was anything necessary for the prosperity
of this country. IL was that breaches Of
trust should BE commensurately pun
isbed. He believed that there was nothing
that so much untitled Q man 70 sc}
as Senator as the fact that h{
had been q defaultor in either public
or private trust. He did not believe thai
it would be seriously affirmed by the Sena<
tor that although man might be expelled
from the Senate for burglary. or murder d
forgery, the sacred agis of the Constitution
would be thrown around him IL he had
committed one of these crimes the day be-
ident as having complimented the Senate.
on taking the chair 20 preside over it. q
being the most august deliberative body
known TO man. and said that the determi.
nation of the pending question In the mega
tive would show that those words werG
mere sarcasm and mockefy.
DEFENDED BY VOORHEES,
Mr.. Voorhees, replied TO Mr.. Chandler.
He said the prescriptions wese in favor OF
the virtues. intelligence and capacity of the
States to send to the Senate men who were
fit for that high position. and tho presump-
rions were that the representatives of other
States would be better employed in mind
ing their own business than IN critsclsing
the action of o State in CHOOSING is Sense
tors What was to be said Of the SEN
ator from North Dakotaf IL WAS to be said
of him that during all these fourteen or
fifteen years he had beon subject 20 the Law
of the United States, subject 20 the laws
of the District Of Columbia, subject -
every law which had been lnfraeted.
tie had not been In Csnsde
or across the water. He had
stayed under the American dsg and otoo4
it ont like man. No Indictment hod beeo
found against him. It stood confcosod nn6
absolute fact that the parties oato 20 hovo
been injured by him had no word 81 oon~
plant against him. And yet tbot Vas The
case which had been e41God upon ~ enc
calling tor the direet n r|ohuont th>e
could be inflicted. WH31 ~ proDool.
''atfaincer.f which D0uod - =
proceeding used - 1nfQf -
blemisb. to sully & on6 -
| corrupt his bl00 - ~
Quisitorial proc