Year: 1869

this must appear untll Inc lactS aEe us
proved.


lam rejoiced TO learn that the gentle
man has been such an active and devot
ed advocate of this bill. The only won
der is that being such he was able tC
accomplish so little as Chairman OF the
Committee having it in charge.
Mr.. Hoke's statement of what trans
pired In his committee-of what Sena-
tors favored and what ones opposed the
BILLS a gross improperly, from which
little reflection ought to have saved
him. It is not proper for member OF
deliberative body to state either In
that body or elsewhere what has trans
pired in committee. This Is rule ga
credly observed by those who have
any regard for the proprieties. If he
had been as careful of the feelings and
rights OF his fellow Senators as he was
eager to rid himself OF blame by throw
ing it on others, he would not have dis
closed how the members OF his commit
tee stood affected towards this bill.
Upon this point 1 leave the gentleman
10 his own reflections.


Mr.. Hoke says never deigned to in
quire OF him or OF the Clerk OF the SEN
ate why the bill was delayed. So tar as
had any right to inquire there was no
need of inquiry. II the Senate had
acted on the bill at all-had either pass
ed or rejected 1.-THE fact would have
been known.


had no right to enquire what was
the cause OF delay in the Committee.
They had a right to conceal that. and
for this reason 1 suppose the clerk OF
the Senate knew no more than any one
else. But it was the business OF the
chairman to call meetings of the Com
mittee and bring the bill to their atten-
ton, and considering the urgent need
OF its; passage he should have done
fkHfe EEyff RI NnIn n fol
weeks TO get a meeting? Or did 1t take
three weeks to reach conclusion after
the meeting was held Mr.. Hoke's re-
sponsibility consists either in not call
Ing a meeting of his Committee or i'll
neglecting to make a report. The de-
cision of the Committee was either tor
the bill or against 1t, and In either case
1t ought to have been promptly reported
back to the Senate for action; and l
have no doubt Mr.. Hoke's "earnest"
and "active" advocacy would at any
time have secured its passage.


The simple fact is that this measure
the most important of the session-was
carried nearly half the session in the
pocket OF the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and was finally
reported on by another member OF the
Committee, who probably got posses
sion iof it by strategy. II all this hap
pened in spite OF that Chairman's
"earnest and active advocacy
OF the bill, I beg the gem
gentleman's pardon for having ever
conjectured that he might have had
something to do with this long delay.


AS it regards the honorable chair
mans insinuation about "glass-
houses" 1 have but to say that my
record is before the public, and there
Is nothing outside of it that 1 care to
conceal. II the gentleman is sure that
he has nothing, am willing he should
least he first stone" as soon as he likes.


1t affords me pleasure to state, in
conclusion, that the same day after the
appearance of my former letter, the
Senate took up the substitute referred
to and passed 1t under suspension of
the rule and sent it to the House, and
the prospect now is, there will be
speedy settlement OF the question.


Respectfully,


s. S. FLEMING.
Wheeling, February 13, 1869.