Year: 1871

"Trcaty," because they are vulgar, angry, and
untrue. But one or two respectable pa-
pers have been misled into supposinc us
guilty of an Inconsistency in approving the
seizure of teegrams by Gen. Buffers Impeach
ment Committee in 1853 and condemning an
attempt of Senators COnkling and Carpenter
to do the same thing in 1871, and to these we
submit q word of explanation The World dis
honestly misquotes what we said in May, 1863
Our language was as follows:


"There IL no sanctity In tclegrams which eyempts
them from being demanded ~ evidence and published
in the same manner as letters or any other writings A
papers or letters however confidential private
In whoesoevcr hands they may be, subject Co the
subpoena OF Che humblest court. and produced
The Western Union Telegraph Company has no more
S S % aomr o ePy the Spca or G % TO s 6e
Congress requiring to produce the kilograms Of which
il has charge"


The passages within brackets were omitted
by The World, without any sign of an omis-
sion; yet they convey the real meaning of the
paragraph. court, or committee of Con-
gress clothed for the time with the powers of
q court may order the production of private
letters or dispatches whenever the purposes
"Of justice require" The power is inherent to
the nature Of "A court. When and how it should
be exercised depend of course upon circum-
stances 0hOugh we do not believe it ought to
90 further in the case of the telegraph than
to require the production of specified dis
patch, described in the call for it. The
seizure of miscellaneous dispatches, on
a general demand and the rummaging through
all manner of private papers, having no rela-
ton to the matter in hand, is an inexcusable
outrage.) Gen. Buffers Committee consisted
of the Managers of the Impeachment of Pres-
dent johnson, specially charged with investi-
eating the report that money had been used
to secure an acquittal. They were therefore
the prosecuting officers of a high court created
by the Constitution they were engaged in an
inquiry which properly fell within their juris-
dictiOn and the power which they assumed to
exercise was that of the court whereof they
formed a part. Whether they acted wisely and
Justly in seizing telcgraphic dispatches is not
to the point: we only said that their action
was according to law.


The case of the recent Senatorial inquiry Is
very different We have maintained from the
first that the Senate was not court. The
Constitution strictly limits the circumstances
under which it can clothe itself with judicial
powers to cases involving the conduct or quail
ifcati0ns of its own members and the trial OF
impeachments. 1t had a right to inquire
whether any Senator had violated the rules OF
the Senate; but this question settled (as 1t was
in the first stage of the investigation, it had
no right to go further. The subsequent ex-
amnations were extra judicial and unauthor-
lied. We have already argued this point, and
do not purpose to repeat our argument.


aJb st1tpment
on a subject 20 which we did not think 1t
would be needful to make further reference.
The assumption that we object to the effort to
seize dispatches in the confidential keeping OF
the telegraph office, because of any embarraSs-
ment to us that might follow, is a gratultouS
impertinence There has been no hour since
this question arose when proper request
to us from the Senate Committee would
not have secured an order on the
Telegraph Company for any messages
in their keeping having the remotest
relation to the subject. What we insist upon
is the duty of the Telegraph Company to pro-
tect our confidence repOsed in it. The dis
patches are ours; the order for their produc-
ton must come from us. Practically the case
was not of the slightest consequence, since the
dispatches revealed nothing whatever, and the
Senate Committee could have satisfied itself
on that point just as easily as it did on another
with which it had nothing to dO-the author
ship of TRIBUNE editorials-by simply going
for the information it wanted, in courteous
way, to the person who had right to give it,


One word more, and we shall gladly dismiss
this whole subject, which not we, but the
Senate of the United States, chose so long to
o. 10. tttr
nish information as to the source of its copy of
the Treaty, beyond the points on which the
Senate had right to inquire, was due to no dis
credit attaching to the mode of its procurement,
but wholly to the simple fact that its repre-
sentatives had promised secrecy. The journal
which violates such pledge accepts dishonOr,
as well AZ abandOns the hope of future success
in securing early intelligence. 1t is matter
of every day occurrence to receive, on the
pledge of secrecy, important news from Wash
ingtOn New-YOrk, Albany, or elsewhere, which
ought to be published and which those fur
nishing it have the right to communicate, al
though for one reason or another they do not
care to be known in connection with it. In
precisely this way the Treaty of Washington
was brought to our office. If we had given
up to the Senate, i'll violation of our pledge,
the secret to which it had no right, we should
simply have advertised the whole Country
never to trust us more. That journalists
everywhere understand this is abundantly
evinced in their unanimous support; that The
World does not understand it is exactly what
might be expected from concern which is as
much fraud in journalism as it is prostitute


in politics.


Blue GLASS.


Are we mistakenf Can it be that the first
warning note of the millennium has sounded