CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



135 



" Perhaps also it would be worth while to 

 consider whether it is in conformity with par- 

 liamentary law I will not say simply usage, 

 but parliamentary law, for the law is found in 

 usage. 



"Now, as I understand, this inquiry was 

 first presented by the Senator from Illinois 

 (Mr. Trumbull), and urged by him in an elab- 

 orate and able speech, which has already 

 awakened echoes throughout the country. I 

 miss his name from the committee. In that 

 debate the Senator from Illinois was most ably 

 and eloquently sustained by the Senator from 

 Missouri (Mr. Schurz), I miss his name. There 

 were other Senators who spoke on the same 

 side; certainly there were others who voted 

 on that side. I miss all their names ; I think 

 the country will miss them. Then there was 

 for five years previously a Committee on Re- 

 trenchment, joint in character, still with rep- 

 resentatives from the Senate. I know not if 

 any member of that committee is on the list. 



" My friend before me (Mr. Schurz) says, 

 * No, not one member ; ' not the honorable 

 chairman from New Hampshire (Mr. Patter- 

 son), who had gained much experience in ex- 

 amining and exposing these abuses; not one 

 of his associates finds a place on this commit- 

 tee. Why, sir, to me it is simply inexplicable 

 on any ground of justice or parliamentary law. 

 I am at a loss to understand how my excel- 

 lent friend from Rhode Island, in whom 

 reigns, I have always believed, the spirit of 

 justice, should bring forward a proposition 

 for such a committee at this time." 



Mr. Anthony : " I do not know what my 

 friend from Massachusetts means when he 

 speaks of the Senators here who were opposed 

 to this inquiry. I do not know of a Senator 

 in this body who is opposed to the most 

 searching and thorough inquiry into any 

 charges of corruption, by whomsoever brought 

 in this Chamber. Every Senator who has 

 spoken during the debate there was no de- 

 bate on this resolution, but during the debate 

 on a cognate resolution every one expressed 

 himself earnest for a thorough and complete 

 investigation. Sir, I ask you to read the 

 names of the men on this committee, and say 

 if there is a man there whom you believe 

 would cover up corruption, if there is a man 

 there who would endeavor to shield his best 

 friend as a public man from any just charges 

 of corruption made against him ? I consider 

 the committee an eminently judicious one, and 

 in my experience in the Senate this is the first 

 time that I have ever heard a committee ob- 

 jected to on account of the character of its 

 members, and I am very glad that the first ex- 

 ample has been made in the case of men 

 against whom so very little can be said." 



Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, said: "Mr. Presi- 

 dent, I submit to the good sense of the Senate 

 that the Senator from Rhode Island is entirely 

 evading the question. There is no Senator 

 here who will stand up and utter one word in 



disparagement of the character of any one of 

 the Senators who is proposed as a member of 

 this committee, and no such issue can be 

 forced upon the Senate. We are not here to 

 try the character of those individuals, but we 

 are here to inquire if this proposed committee 

 will be, if appointed, in accordance with par- 

 liamentary usage and good, sound sense." 



Mr. Anthony : " Will do their duty." 



Mr. Thurman: "Well, sir, will do their 

 duty. It is not a question at all as to the 

 purity of men's motives. They may be ever 

 so pure-minded, ever so honest, and yet their 

 actions will be more or less governed by their 

 opinion, by their belief; and it is upon this 

 ground " 



Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, said: 

 "I wish to ask my friend this question: 

 whether the parliamentary rule is not that 

 persons who vote for the measure should be 

 on the committee ? I understand that every 

 one of the persons on this committee did vote 

 for this measure. But the insistment seems to 

 be that we ought to place on the committee 

 those who voted against it." 



Mr. Thurman : "I do not say any such 

 thing. The Senator says everybody voted for 

 it. Then nobody voted against it. The argu- 

 ment is not so at all. I do not understand 

 the Senator when he says that the argument 

 is that somebody should be put on who voted 

 against it." 



Mr. Frelinghuysen : "I wish my friend to 

 understand me. I understand the parliamen- 

 tary rule to be that the committee ought to 

 consist of those who favored the resolution, 

 and that that is the parliamentary rule insisted 

 upon by the Senators from Massachusetts and 

 Ohio. Now, the record shows that every 

 member of this committee did vote for this 

 measure." 



Mr. Thurman : " There is another rule of 

 parliamentary usage, and that is that the Sen- 

 ator who moves an inquiry is to be placed at 

 the head of the committee if he is of the party 

 that is dominant in the body. Is the Senator 

 from Illinois, who moved the first broad, 

 sweeping resolution, placed at the head of this 

 committee ? No, sir, he is not on it at all. 



" Mr. President, I had said that the reason 

 of the rule to which I referred is that there 

 are in every legislative body differences of 

 opinion; and in this particular case here in 

 the Senate some Senators affirm in their places 

 that there is great necessity for investigation ; 

 that they believe great abuses exist which 

 ought to be exposed, and the exposure of 

 which ought to lead to action on the part of 

 Congress. Other Senators do not so believe, or 

 they do not believe it so strongly as those Sen- 

 ators who have made these declarations. And 

 it is because of this difference of belief, which 

 will influence the action of Senators, that the 

 rule is that those who are in earnest in favor 

 of investigation shall constitute a majority of 

 the committee ; and it is not at all a satisfac- 



