Page images
PDF
EPUB

amount of this claim; they seem to manifest entire ignorance of the principle, that in the construction of that act, it was the bounden duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General, and all accounting officers, to examine the report on which that law was enacted, and to use it as a key to the meaning and intent of that law. They have reasoned admirably against the propriety of that report, and the law predicated on it-pity that gentlemen, and especially the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CONGER,] and the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. BURT,] had not exercised their great reasoning powers against that report, and against the passage of that law, when they might have prevented its passage. But it is not the first instance in which the stable-door was first locked after the steed was stolen.

[ocr errors]

justice becoming confused from the similarity of names, rendered judgment against the constable, whose name was Sixbury. No person has a right to assail or criticise the bargain that the honorable George W. Crawford made with Dr. Milledge Galphin to go share and share in the recovery to be had on that claim, though the great interest involved led to strange and otherwise unaccountable means to obtain it. Who that knew that this claim was paid by the Creeks and Cherokees in 1773, and knew how Georgia had treated those Indian tribes, would have deemed it expedient to ask of those tribes again to recognize and again to pay this claim? Who that knew the nature of an Indian would have done it, except prompted by the hopes of the highest reward. What I have to complain of is, that, having so deep an interest in so large a claim, he should permit himself to become a member of the Cabinet, and have the claim urged through, when his forecast must have sugs gested that the allowance of the claim under such circumstances, no matter how honest and just it might be, would bring scandal upon the Cabinet of which he was a member. The apology for this is, that he was bound to act for his client; and this, no doubt, is true; but there was no obligation for him to become or remain a member of the Cabinet.

It illustrates, however, how much keener we are, how much more alive to the interests of party than the real interests of the country; and it demonstrates, also, the absolute necessity of having another tribunal than this for the adjustment of claims. As to the conduct of the Secretary of War, at whose request this investigation was begun, it seems that the committee have entirely neglected to investigate it; but by an enlargement of jurisdiction unprecedented, have taken leave to criticise the conduct of those who were not on trial, and to pass judgment, in my estimation most unfounded and unjust judgment against those not on trial. I know of but one parallel case-it was tried before an ignorant justice, and is often referred to in the "Jefferson County Nights Enter-between the Secretary of War and this House. tainments." The title of the cause was Salisbury vs. Spallsbury, in which Salisbury had Sillsbury, and Spallsbury had Spillsbury for a witness. The

The worst, the most flagitious feature in the whole transaction, and for which I can find no apology or extenuation, is the effort to interpose our good, honest, patriotic President as a shield

The rules of this House will not permit me to characterize this part of the transaction with the name it deserves.

Printed at the Congressional Globe Office.

SPEECH

OF

HON. C. L. DUNHAM, OF INDIANA,

THE CONDUCT OF THE LATE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN
THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN INDIAN AND VIRGINIA CLAIMS.

DELIVERED

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1850,

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE.
1850.

THE EWING INVESTIGATION.

Mr. DUNHAM said:

Mr. SPEAKER: I intend to employ the brief time allotted to me in vindicating the action of the committee, whose report we are now considering, and of which I had the honor to be a member, and in endeavoring to place before this House and the country, in its true light, the conduct of the late Secretary of the Interior in the transactions | referred to it for investigation. Sir, I shall expose a case of Galphinism unparalleled even by any transaction under the late Administration, which has yet been brought to light. I think I shall be able to show that thousands of dollars have been plundered from the Treasury, not only without law, but in violation of the plain, express, and emphatic language of the law, and of the clear provisions of the Constitution. The subject is an important one, for it involves not only the thousands that have been paid, but the principles upon which they were paid render the Treasury of the Republic liable to the payment of millions more. I cannot do justice to it or to myself in a single hour, for to present the merits of at least one of the cases which I shall consider, I must carry my investigations back through the legislation of Virginia and of the Federal Government, to the very

formation of the latter.

Sir, I have been much surprised at the report of the minority of the committee, at the course they have seen proper to pursue in reference to the report of the majority, and at the efforts made here to stifle this investigation. Sir, they may succeed, from the peculiar circumstances which surround us, in procuring a condemnation by this House of the action of the committee. They may get the report set aside and the resolutions accompanying it rejected. The strength of the Whig side of the House--the late Secretary's own political friends, increased by the support of those honorable gentlemen upon this side whose constituents are interested in the matter, may be sufficient for that purpose. Let them do it, sir; 1 shall console myself that we of the majority of the committee have done our duty. The transactions have been brought to light; the conduct of the late Secretary has been exposed to the country. The facts cannot be suppressed; they have gone out before the people, who will pass sentence upon them. This cannot be prevented, although this report may be stifled here. The people will want no better evidence that there is something wrong in these trans

[ocr errors]

actions, than the effort made here by the friends of the late Secretary to stifle and cover them up. An innocent man dreads no exposure of his conduct; he courts an investigation of his proceedings. They who dread the light are those whose deeds are evil.

There can be no better vindication of the invincible truth of the matter set forth in this majority report than this effort on the part of the minority of the committee and the other side of the House, to avoid them by the veriest special pleading that ever was seen or heard, and the disinclination on their part to meet directly, and endeavor to overthrow them. This effort to escape them is evidence that they cannot be successfully combatted.

Sir, we are told that this investigation is unconstitutional. The novel doctrine is avowed by the minority, and by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY,] that this House has no right, through a special committee, to investigate the conduct of the executive officers of this Government. Has this House no right to institute an investigation into the transactions of an executive officer, for the purpose of ascertaining whether his conduct has been such as to make it the duty of the House to prefer articles of impeachment against him? How otherwise can we know whether his conduct merits an impeachment? Shall we prefer one upon mere suspicion, or upon mere hearsay-mere rumor? And when the House has reason to believe that the conduct of such an officer has been such as to require an impeachment, has it no right to make a preliminary investigation, for the purpose of ascertaining the facts upon which the impeachment is to be predicated? How else can we authoritatively know them? Shall we prefer it by guess? Shall we run the hazard of getting proof to sustain it, and perhaps allow a corrupt officer to escape because of a variance between the articles preferred and the proof produced to sustain them? Have we not a right to investigate the transactions of the executive officers of the Government for the purpose of ascertaining the construc||tion which they have put upon particular laws, and the manner in which they have discharged their duties under such laws, or to ascertain the operation and effect thereof, that we may know whether further and what legislation is necessary to enforce the compliance of the officers with their duty, to secure the rights of the citizen and to pro

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »