KANSAS. 



that the evidence submitted fully convinced 

 him that Mr. Jumes S. Merrett was u general 

 manager in tho interest of Senator Ingalls ut 

 Topeka during the pending of the late Senato- 

 rial election, and had general charge of his 

 roui.s and the direction of his affairs; that ho 

 was aided and assisted in his plans to reelect 

 Senator Ingulls, among others, by Mr. J. S. 

 Danford and Mr. Calvin Hood; that Senator 

 Ingalls and those parties employed corrupt and 

 illegal means to secure the election of said J. J. 

 Ingalls to tho United States Senate, and but 

 for said improper influences his election would 

 not have been obtained. 



The majority of the committee reported that 

 they had examined about forty-five witnesses, 

 and that they find from the testimony that John 

 J. Ingalls, the recently elected United States 

 Senator, used no corrupt means to secure his 

 election to the United btates Senate, and that 

 neither of the late Senatorial candidates was 

 guilty of bribery or corruption in the late Sena- 

 torial election ; and they further said that In- 

 galls, the recently elected United States Sena- 

 tor, had not been guilty of any corruption in 

 office ; and that there was no evidence against 

 any member or members of the House which 

 would warrant or justify their expulsion. 



The House adopted the report of the majori- 

 ty by a vote of yeas 60, nays 44. 



The following resolution was also adopted 

 by the House : 



Whereas, The testimony taken by the Investigation 

 Committee discloses the met that certain members of 

 this House did, during the late Senatorial contest, take 

 especial pains to place themselves in position to be 

 offered money to influence their votes, and did, in 

 some instances, actually receive money, though not 

 from either of the Senatorial candidates ; therefore, be it 



Resolved, That the conduct of all such members is 

 deserving of, and this House does administer upon 

 them, its severest censure, committing them to their 

 constituents for their ultimate condemnation, which 

 they so justly deserve. 



The vote was yeas 51, nays 48. 



A committee of the Senators in Congress 

 subsequently investigated the charges against 

 Senator Ingalls, and made a report entirely ex- 

 onerating him, but condemning many of the 

 proceedings at the election. 



During this investigation a question was 

 raised which is of far more importance than 

 the matter then at issue. The committee sum- 

 moned the telegraph operator to appear before 

 them, and bring any original messages in his 

 possession. The operator sent to them a com- 

 munication stating that he was ready to appear, 

 but that he had been instructed by the man- 

 agement of the Western Union Telegraph Com- 

 pany to decline to produce any original tele- 

 grams in his possession, as the custodian there- 

 of for the company ; and further, that the com- 

 pany had forward'ed by mail a communication 

 inclosing the answer which it desired him to 

 make in its behalf in support of its right to 

 withhold from any tribunal original messages, 

 or the contents of original messages, intrusted 



to it for transmission from one person to an- 

 other. Tho operator by order of the 1 

 was arrested by the Sergeant-at-Armn, on an 

 attachment " for a contempt in refusing or neg- 

 lecting obedience to the summons (tub pctna 

 duces tecum) before the investigating committee 

 of the House of Representatives of the State of 

 Kansas," and was imprisoned. Meantime the 

 answer of the company was received. It pre- 

 sents their view of the legal aspect of the 

 question of the inviolability of telegraphic mes- 

 sages of individuals, and is one step toward 

 the final decision of the question which mnst 

 ultimately be made. The points embraced in 

 their answer were as follows : 



The Telegraph Company distinctly dkavowa all par- 

 tisan feeling or interest in the investigation ordered by 

 tho House, and which is being prosecuted before the 

 committee appointed for that purpose. The company 

 has no desire to hinder, defeat, or delay any investiga- 

 tion ordered or conducted by any tribunal for the ow- 

 covery of any illegal act against the State, or against 

 tho rights ot on individual. Their objection is, that 

 the company ought not to violate the confidence of its 

 patrons, and that to compel it to do so would be 

 against public policy, and most dangerous to public 

 and private security. The senders of twenty-five 

 millions of messages a year, intrusted to the confidence 

 of the Telegraph Company, representing as they do 

 the capital, the enterprise, and the intelligence or the 

 country in every department of human affairs, have a 

 peculiar claim upon all departments or branches of 

 Government for protection from the seizure of their 

 private communications, ami especially from any use 

 of them which would be liable to intensify nofitical 

 excitement. The Telegraph Company has therefore 

 adopted, as a rule for the guidance of all its officers, 

 agents, and employees, that no messages, whether ori- 

 ginal or copy, in any office of such comr>any, shall be 

 taken or removed from the actual possession or control 

 of the company without the consent or direction of tho 

 company's Executive Committee, or of its Board of 

 Directors. The sacrcdness of this confidence is recog- 

 nized in some States by statutes prescribing penalties 

 for a voluntary betrayal a security which the law has 

 not given to those ordinary communications between 

 private parties from which analogies are drawn sup- 

 posed to justify the application of the sub pana duett 

 tecum to telegrams. During the period in which the 

 law affecting them has been in process of adaptation 

 from tho law of evidence upon analogous topics, a dis- 

 position has been shown to apply to telegram. 1 * some of 

 the considerations of public policy which impute sanc- 

 tity to a letter confided to the post-office, and to de- 

 mand tin- same protection to the same communication 

 when confided to this quasi public agency, which 

 holds a power over men's affairs through its possession 

 of their sot-rets exceeding that which any Government 

 obtains through the mere physical custody of sealed 

 letters. Telegraph companies naturally desire to en- 

 hance the public confidence in the safety of communi- 

 cations intrusted to them, and they have strenuously 

 endeavored to establish some ground, cither of entire 

 exemption from, or of regulation of, the control over 

 the contents of their files asserted by courts and legis- 

 lative bodies. The.se ideas find support in some re- 

 spectable places where neither the interest nor feel- 

 ings of tho telegrapher can be supposed to have in- 

 fluence. 



Judge Cooley, in the last edition of his work on 

 " Constitutional Limitations." under the head of 

 " Constitutional Protection or the Citizen against un- 

 reasonable Searches and Seizures," declares his solemn 

 judgment that the agents of the telegraph can not be 

 lawfully compelled to produce the messages confided 

 to them for transmission over their wires under a nib 

 patna duett tecum, and clearly and emphatically ex- 



