204 



CONGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



offensive sense to the honorable Senator, but I 

 submit and assert upon my responsibility here 

 that a witness may testify before a committee 

 with open doors as freely in my State, and I 

 believe in every other Southern State, as he can 

 in the State of Maine or Massachusetts." 



The Secretary proceeded to call the roll on 

 Mr. Butler's amendment, and the result was 

 announced, as follows : 



YEAS Armstrong, Bailey, Bayard, Beck, Cockrell, 

 Coke, Davis of Illinois, Davis of West Va., Eaton, 

 Eustis, Garland, Gordon, Grover, Harris, Hereford, 

 Johnston, Jones of Florida, Kernan, Lamar, McCree- 

 ry, McPherson, Merrimon, Morgan, Kandolph^ Ean- 

 som, Saulsbury, Voorhees, Wallace, Whyte, \V ithers 

 30. 



NAYS Allison, Anthony, Blaine. Booth, Bumskle, 

 Cameron of Pa., Cameron of Wis., Christiancy, Conk- 

 ling, Dawes, Ferry, Hamlin, Hoar, Howe, Ingalls, Kel- 

 logg, Kirkwood, McMillan. Matthews, Mitchell, Mor- 

 rifl, Oglesby. Paddock, Patterson, Plumb, Bollins, 

 Saunders, Teller, Wadleigh, Windom 30. 



ABSENT Barnum, Bruce, Butler, Chaffee, Cono- 

 ver, Dennis, Dorsey, Edmunds, Hill. Jones of Neva- 

 da, McDonald, Maxey, Sargent, Sharon, Spencer, 

 Thurman 16. 



The Vice-President : "On the amendment 

 proposed by the Senator from South Carolina 

 [Mr. Butler] the yeas are 30 and the nays are 30. 

 The amendment is rejected ; and the question 

 recurs on the amendment proposed by the Sen- 

 ator from Maine [Mr. Blaine]. The amend- 

 ment will be reported." 



The Secretary read as follows : 



That hi prosecuting these inquiries the said com- 

 mittee shall have the right, by itself or by any sub- 

 committee, to send for persons and papers, to take tes- 

 timony, to administer oaths, and to visit any portion 

 of the country when such visit may in their judgment 

 facilitate the object of the inquiry. 



Mr. Davis of West Virginia : " I presume it 

 will be in order to amend the amendment of the 

 Senator from Maine with the words ' shall sit 

 with open doors if any member of the com- 

 mittee desires." 



The Vice-President : " The question is upon 

 the amendment just stated, upon which the 

 yeas and nays have been ordered." 



Mr. Bayard: "The action of the Senate 

 upon the resolutions and all the amendments 

 has had the mark almost of unanimity. Why 

 shall it not be continued in respect of this 

 proposition ? The system of taking testimony 

 in courts of justice is invariably open ; and, if 

 there ever was an inquisition as to fact which 

 ought to be public, it surely is that which 

 touches the affairs of a whole community. 

 Ordinarily, in contests as to rights between 

 individuals, issues of fact are created by plead- 

 ings, so that some degree of certainty is brought 

 to every mind, and we know the subjects mat- 

 ter and general character of the testimony to be 

 expected. But here is little else than an in- 

 dictment of communities as a whole, vague, un- 

 certain, and surely there is the spirit of fair 

 play which dictates that, if you strike, you at 

 least shall hear. There is something un-Amer- 

 ican in secret inquisition, something in the 



proposition that is repugnant to a sense of jus- 

 tice. If the charges are true, I hope that ex- 

 posure will follow, and that punishment may 

 follow exposure. If they be untrue, I hope 

 they may recoil on those who unjustly set 

 them on foot. But the truth is something that 

 no honest man should fear ; and, believing that 

 this proposition to try whole communities upon 

 vague and general charges calls especially for 

 open and public investigation of the facts, I do 

 hope that the Senate will unanimously agree 

 that no such thing as a secret inquisition shall 

 be held upon such a state of facts as is alleged 

 by those who have moved this proceeding. 



" I have been by the direction of the Senate 

 assigned to duty upon every committee of this 

 public character of inquisition since 1870. The 

 tirst was in the State of North Carolina; next 

 there followed a joint committee of the two 

 Houses, twenty-one in number, upon all the 

 Southern States ; again followed a special com- 

 mittee in respect to the State of Mississippi. 

 All of that testimony was taken in secret ; all 

 of that testimony was taken in short-hand and 

 fully published. There was then the same 

 proposition made that we should sit with open 

 doors, that the communities who were to be 

 assailed should hear at least what was said 

 against them that they might reply; but the 

 majority of those who controlled those inves- 

 tigations forbade it, and men came and swore 

 to anything they pleased, assailing men who 

 were absent, uninformed of the time, unpre- 

 pared to meet it, and unable to meet it simply 

 from want of knowledge of what had been 

 said. All this testimony was published, pub- 

 lished in full, and I have never heard in the 

 succeeding cases, where committees have vis- 

 ited again those States, that the publication of 

 the testimony in full ever produced any breach 

 of the peace whatever." 



Mr. Blaine : " May I ask the honorable Sen- 

 ator a question ? " 



Mr. Bayard: "Certainly." 



Mr. Blaine: "Before any of these commit- 

 tees of which he has been a member did he 

 ever know testimony affecting the character 

 of an individual submitted which that individ- 

 ual, through himself or counsel, did not have 

 some opportunity to review and rebut ? " 



Mr. Bayard : " Yes, sir. I can tell him there 

 was no case except it came through the action 

 of a member of the committee who might 

 choose to summon the man assailed." 



Mr. Blaine : " Was he not summoned ? " 



Mr. Bayard: " Sometimes he was and some- 

 times he was not." 



Mr. Blaine : " What I want to get at is this : 

 Whenever it was regarded as essential to the 

 protection of the reputation of any man, was 

 it not invariably the rule that any one assailed 

 was summoned? " 



Mr. Bayard : " I can not say that any such 

 rule prevailed. I mean to say that where a 

 subpoena was aaked for I never knew it re- 

 fused." 



