Year: 1876

testifes that Harney stated that he paid the


money to Mr.. Kerr, and he testified before


the committee that during the winter, while


the press was, perhaps, to use his own expires


sion, ''pitching into his employer" while these


investigations were going on which the House


and the country have been full of for the last


six months, and while he was under some ex'


citement in relation to this transaction, he


told the story he had told ten years ago to


Greene, Greene told it to Darling, and Darling


told it to Bliss, and Bliss told the story, as he


testified before committee of the House, in


New York some weeks ago to the member OF


this committee.


say, then, that the manner in which this


charge came out from Harney was perfect.
/ " natural course. He was only following up


the stoty he had told to Greene ten years ago.


When it was told to these gentlemen, with the


knowledge they had of the circumstances


which surround the case which have already


detailed, they gave it naturally to the commit


tee, and the committee have acted upon it,


and acted in good faith.


| Now, a word just here in relation to IIar-


ney's testimony itself. As have said, he told


a story that in the main was consistent with


itself; but fortunately for Mr.. Kerr We have


been able by the testimony of number of


witnesses to contradict him in some matters


testified to by him more or less material.
In the first place, he was contradicted in
| slo af ,1,o oh


have already referred. He was contradicted
| in his statement that he had never talked in


relation to this matter to any other persons
than Mr.. Darling; he was contradicted by the


testimony of Mr.. Shanks, material and i'm
portant witness, whose testimony was taken
last Saturday, and who testified that he visit
ed Harney and talked with him in relation to
this charge, and that Harney said to him in
reply to his question thai he had never said
that there was any money transaction between
him and Mr.. Kerr, but that it was only the
social relations that he referred to. Harvey
in his testimony on the witness stand denied
having ever talked to newspaper reporter on
this subject or in that direction to any one
He deRied that he had ever applied to any
member of Congress to appoint Mr.. Greene
because of any benefit that might accrue to
him out of it. That was his testimony as
given on the stand. One witness, Morgan
Jones, testified that while a. member of the
same Congress Harney approached him in the
interest of Greene, asking his appointment,
and saying that if it could be made it would
be to his advantage, and he would have nice
present for the appointment. We have also
the testimony of Meyer Strouse, also a mem
Der of the same Congress, who testified, by
the way, tnat he was on intimate and familiar
terms with the witness Harvey that Harney
had applied to him for the appointment of
Greene, saying that he might thereby make
three or four hundred dollars. We have these
contradictions of Harney on these material
matters testified to by him.


There is another matter that Harvey had
taken care to notice. He was ss-examined
in relation to the rooms occupied by Mr..
Kerr during that session and he was able in
some way to give such a statement to the
committee of the location and situation of the
rooms occupied by Mr.. Kerr at that time as
that he was not contradicted. l have not been
able to satisfy my mind as 10 whether it is not
true as he testified that he had accompanied
Greene to the rooms of Mr.. Kerr, although
Greene testified positively that no such thing
occurred, and Speaker Kerr is very confident
and clear in his recollection also in the same
direction. Harney was, however, fortified
was not-disproved. l am happy, however, to
say that in the contradictions of Harvey in his
manner before the committee the committee
were satisfied that he was not testifying to the
truth. have felt it my duty to say this as a
member of the committee, having met this
witness face to face, and it is a fact well
known to every lawyer present at least, that
it is half the question as to the value of
witness's testimony whether you can have
him confront the jury or not. He was pres
ent and testified to the committee, and am
happy to say that notwithstanding all these
circumstances which l have detailed l have
no idea that so far as the corruption of Mr..
Kerr is concerned there was one single scip
tilla of truth in his testimony. But it was
falsehood, taken advantage of by a bad man
for the purpose of blackening, or attempting
to blacken, the reputation OF good man.
[Applause.


Just here let me say one word, and the
House will pardon me for saying it, in connec-
tlon with investigations by committees of Con-
gress and the manner in which they are con-
Quoted. An investigation by committee of
Congress may be an instrument of great good
in remedying evils that have crept into the
public service, likewise may result in great
public benefit by unearthing villainies and
scoundrelism generally. But when such in
vestigations are made use of by a bad man
like Harvey for the purpose of blackening the
reputation of an honored and esteemed citizen,
they become the very worst instruments that
can be used in country like ours. Thes tes-
timony of Harney, his appearance before one
OF our committees as witness, in my iudg-
ment was the natural outgrowth of the inves-
LEGATIONS which have been conducted by some
of the committees of this House during the
last six months.


We have seen such committees, composed
either of entire standing committees or of SUBJ
committees, mousing around and dragging to
public view the private correspondence of citi-
zens, publishing the bank accounts of public
men, without charges and without specifca-
tion against them. l have thought at times,
during the present session of this Congress,
that in some quarters there was an evident
feeling of qualification when a public official
could be smirched. remember reading some
two months ago the headlines in newspaper,
in which it was announced that "Grant is