Year: 1876

The case of Mr.. Kilbourn is exciting far
more attention in the country than the major
ity in tine House seem aware of. People every
where discuss it, and the more they consider
it the more they condemn the course the
House has pursued. The personality Of Mr..
Kilbourn does not count. The people never
heard of him before, and have no personal in
terest in him whatever. He may be as honest
as Henry Wilson or as speckled as Jay Gould,
a Democrat or Republican, saint or ras-
cal, an ascetic or a glutton. So far as the
present case and the public interest in it are
concerned, none Of these things weigh one
atom. The simple fact that this man is i'm
prisOned by order Of the House without con-
stitutional warrant, and in defiance of the
rule adopted by Congress in 1874, because he
refused to lay his private books and business
papers before committee of the House, is all
they care for, and is enough to excite public
indignation. He has done what any other
private citizen should have done under similar
circumstances. He is defending the principle
of the inyiolability of private right, even by
Congress, without constitutional warrant.
And he is suffering what any other private
citizen may be forced to endure 1T any hour if
the right is not contested, and the sacred
guarantees OF personal liberty are not main
tanned.


Mr.. Kilbourn's case has been simplifed of
all extraneous and merely incidental matters.
He had repeatedly offered to meet any chal-
lenge made by any member of the committee
or any witness that may appear. If any one
will make oath that Mr.. Kilbourn is mixed up
in transactions which involve the Government
to the amount of one dollar or affect the in
tegrity of any Federal officer, he will satisfy
the committee that the charge is unfounded.
He will open his books and papers to throw
any light they contain on any specific case in
which the public interest is involved, which
anybody will come forward and declare that
there is even q suspicion that he is concerned
in. He takes a solemn oath that nothing in
his business or books infringes to the amount
of one dollar on public interests in any way,
and il his oath is not sustained by fact he is
liable to punishment for perjury. Nobody
accuses him Of direct ..complicity in any Of
fense against the Government. He stands as
private citizen at the bar OF a committee
which, without definite change or even a sus-
picion against him, demands that he shall
spread his whole private affairs out on its
table where they can be exploited and
used TO his private injury and that of his
clients. As an American citizen he rebels
dSdlusI SUCH an uuuclTu-Ol INVASION Oh MS
private rights. Were he an English subject
he could slam his door in the face of royalty
were such demand made upon him. But as
an American his personal liberties and rights
have still more express guarantees. They are
set forth in the language of the Constitution.
They are contained in the limitations imposed
upon Congress. They have been set forth by
Justice Story and Chancellor Kent. Even
Congress has recognized them by making a
special provision to cover precisely such cases
as that of Mr.. kilbourn by referring them to
the proper legal tribunal. Yet, in spite of
all defenses, private citizen is imprisoned,
WITHOUT trial or due process Of law, by the
direct act Of the House, for not yielding to an
order that has not even tic color of constitu-
tional warrant, and Is the very essence of ab-
solutism. Ifthe House can imprison Mr.. Kill
. bourn in the premises, it can imprison Mr.. A.
T. Stewart or Mr.. David Dudley Field, should
he refuse to lay his books and papers upon
the table of a committee to gratify the cupidity
or spite of any member Of it. Surely it is
time to seriously ask whether an American
citizen has any rights Congress may not in
wade or annul at pleasure.


1t is question of personal right. Is the
private business Of an American citizen invio-
late: If it is not, and either House of Con-
gress can require any private banker to ex-
pose all his private transactions to q commit
tee when not one member oft dares to affirm
that they have the least bearing on a single
public interest, all talk about personal liberty
and the sacredness of personal rights is idle
breath. Every man does business at the
mercy of Congress. Suppose man like Mr..
Belmont were on a committee, and for any
cause were to insist that Vanderbilt should
explain all his railway operations, or that
the representative OF the Barings should
disclose all the secret transactions OF that
great house to his inspection 1t is easy to
see at a glance that nobody is safe, that no
private interest has a particle of protec-
ton, that even the guards which the
common law throws about the poorest
Englishman are stripped away from the
citizen of this great Republic. 1t is the prin-
ciple at stake which makes the case so impor-
tant. And, strange to say, this great prinei-
pie of personal right is violated by Demo-
cratic House. All through the war the
Democracy were eloquent in their defense of
the principle. They insisted 1t was sufficient
to protect even a traitor while he was making
war on the nation. But they have forgotten
their own history and are swallowing their own
words. 1t is strange that their own record
does not teach them the inconsistency of their
proceedings. The people recall what they
have forgotten and interpret their hollow pro-
fessions of dozen years ago by their present
act. 1t is to be hoped that Mr.. Kilbourn will
stand firm to the last. His case is clear. His
cause is that of every private citizen in
America.