17 
 
 REMARKS OF 
 
 HOITST. LYMAN TEUMBIJLL, 
 
 A REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. ' 
 
 — 111 * ■ ■ ■ ■ - -■■ — — • 
 
 The Senate on the 19th day of December, 1871, had under consideration the following 
 resolution, submitted by Mr. Anthony : 
 
 Resolved, That the CommMee of Investigation and Retrenchment be composed of the following 
 Senators: Mr. Buckingham, (chairman,) Mr. Pratt, Mr. Howe, Mr. Harlan, Mr. Stewart, Mr. 
 Pool, Mr. Bayard, and Mr. Casserly. « 
 
 Mr. Trumbull had moved to amend the resolution by-adding thereto the following: 
 
 And that said Committee of Investigation and Retrenchment be instructed to inquire into the 
 expenditures in all branches of the service of the United States, and to report whether any and 
 what offices ought to be abolished; whether any and what salaries or allowances ought to be 
 reduced ; what are the methods of procuring accountability in public officers or agents in the 
 care and disbursement of public moneys; whether moneys have been paid out illegally; whether 
 any officers, or agents, or other persons have been, or are, employed in the public service without 
 authority of law or unnecessarily; ar.d generally how, and to what extent, the expenses of the 
 service of '.he country may and ought to be curtailed. 
 
 And also to consider the expediency of so amending the laws under which appointments to the 
 public service are now made as to provide for withdrawing the public service from being used as 
 an instrument of political or party patronage. 
 
 That said committee be authorized to sit during the recess of Congress, to send for persons and 
 papers, and to report by bill or otherwise; and that said committee may appoint a clerk. 
 
 The pending question was, upon agreeing to the motion of Mr. Anthony, to amend the 
 amendment of Mr. Trumbull by striking out all after the word “curtailed,” 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I feel like congratulating some Senators on the progress 
 they have made within the last week. The resolution which I had the honor of offering at 
 that timewas denounced by them as monstrous, and spoken of with amazement. To-day it 
 is talked of as very harmless, and not amounting to anything; it is said it. would not 
 authorize an*investigation of fraud or of anything else; it does not go far enough. It is 
 exceedingly gratifying to find that Senators have made such progress in favor of investi¬ 
 gation. What new lights have shone upon them I am unable to say, but certainly some 
 light, either from above or from the sovereign people, somehow or other seems to have pene¬ 
 trated the minds cf certain Senators so that they discover now that that which was denounced 
 by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Chandler] as a proposition to create a committee pos¬ 
 sessed of all knowledge is now very proper. I believe he went on to say that the Almighty 
 did not make any such men any more; at any rate, if he did make such men, forgetting 
 that he himself was still in the Senate, he said they were not sent here. [Laughter.] 
 
 Now, it is pleasant and agreeable to find how the views of Senators have changed, and I 
 am gratified at the discovery that has been made by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton,] 
 who seems to have received peculiar light upon this subject, and he has discoverad that the 
 resolution amounts to very little. He has discovered that an inquiry into the “methods of 
 procuring accountability in public officers or agents in the care and disbursements of public 
 moneys,” “and to what extent the expenses of the service of the country may and ought to 
 be curtailed,” does not authorize an examination of fraud. The word “ fraud ” seems to 
 haunt him. 
 
 Now, suppose you call it “ an abuse ” instead of “ a fraud.” I suppose the resolution 
 would authorize investigation into abuses; and if it should turn out, when the committee 
 makes an investigation, that agents and officers having the care and disbursement of public 
 money have been using it improperly, if some agent or officer in the custom-house at New 
 York has been paying out public money for the purpose of hiring delegates to go up to the 
 Syracuse convention, I do not suppose the Senator from Indiana would call that fraud! Bat 
 if a trustee having charge of his money were to use it in that way for improper purposes, to 
 convert it to a use for which it was not placed in his hands, Very likely he would consider 
 that a fraud. I think the resolution is very broad and covers a great deal of ground, and 
 was so intended originally. The motion now pending is to strike out from the instructions 
 proposed to be given the committee these words: • 
 
 And also to consider the expediency of so amending the laws under which appointments to the 
 public service are now made as to provide for withdrawing the public service from being used as 
 an instrument of political or party patronage. 
 
 It i 3 said that is the civil service reform proposition, and that that is covered by a law of 
 Congress. The law of Congress has nothing in the world to do with it, Mr. President. The 
 
 % 
 
18 
 
 act passed March 3, 1871. authorized the President of the United States to prescribe rules 
 and regulations for the admission of persons into the civil service. That is alb 
 
 Mr. MORTON". That is not all. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. Well, I will read it; the President is by it— 
 
 “ Authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations for the admission of persons into the civil 
 service of the United States as will best promote the efficiency thereof, and ascertain the fitness 
 of each candidate in respect to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability for the branch of 
 service into which he seeks to enter.” 
 
 And for that purpose he is “ authorized to employ suitab’e persons to conduct said in¬ 
 quiries.” What inquiries? The inquiries as to providing some way to ascertain the fitness 
 of persons who appiy for office, to prescribe the duties of the commissioners, “ and to estab¬ 
 lish regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the civil ser¬ 
 vice.” He is to appoint this commission to help him in regard to ascertaining who ought to 
 be appointed to the civil service, by prescribing rules to ascertain their qualifications, &e. 
 What has that to do with assessments upon the officers of the Government here in the De¬ 
 partments, and throughout the country, for political purposes? What has that to do with 
 the cases which were testified to in the report wiiich is on our tablq and to which attention 
 has been called, where officers in the custom-house in New York were assessed a certai 5 
 amount of money for political purposes? 'What has that to do with such a case as I wili 
 read to .show the Senator from Indiana what the condi ion of the public service in some casea 
 is and has been ? Mr. R. M. Kelly—[hope the Senator from Indiana will listen to this, 
 because this is under that civil service system which he think) is the best on earth I—Mr. R. 
 M. Kelly was collector of internal revenue in the seventh district of Kentucky. Mr. A. L, 
 Thompson was a United States storekeeper in the same distri; , and on the IStn day of Feb¬ 
 ruary, 1870, Mr. Kelly, collector, writes to Mr. Thompson as foil >wa; I will read the whole 
 of this letter: 
 
 United States Internal Revenue, Collector’s Office, 
 
 Seventh District Kentucky. Lexington, February 18,. 1870. 
 
 Inclosed please find check for $33 36 and receipt of Louisville Commercial for thirty 7- dollars, 
 amount assessed against you and deducted from your pay account on the recommendation of Wil¬ 
 lard Davis, esq., member of Republican State Executive Committee from seventh district of Ken¬ 
 tucky. Address Publisher Louisville Commercial, Louisville, Kentucky,” for your papers. 
 
 It. M. KELLY, 
 
 Collector Seventh District Kch‘ uclzy. 
 
 A. L. Thompson, United States Storekeeper. • 
 
 That is an official letter from the collector written to a subordinate storekeeper officially 
 designated as a storekeeper, telling him that on the recommendation *<>f a member of the 
 Republican committee of the seventh congressional district of Kentucky he had taken thi 1 by 
 dollars out of $63 86 that was coming to him for the purpose of p-iying for p ipers. I under¬ 
 stand this Mr. Kelly was about to establish a newspaper. Tais is a sum he of one of the 
 abuses that ought to be corrected. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. I wish to ask the Senator one question. I want to ask him if thV thing 
 that he refers to was not a violation of existing law ? The co’Iector had no right to reserve 
 that money. And can the Senator make it any more a violation of the law tftan it was at 
 that time? Had not the man a right to keep his money ? 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. It is no use to try to cover up these things by saying they are violations 
 of law. Does not the Senate understand it, and does rot the Senator <rom Indiana under¬ 
 stand it, and does he not know that if that storekeeper, Mr. Thompson, had not submitted to 
 it he would have been turned out of office? How long does he suppose the men that refused 
 to oay their assessments in the custom-house at New York would have retained their offices? 
 
 Is it this system that the Senator from Indiana commends as the best in the world ? Why, 
 sir, is not the Interior Department full of it? Did not the former Secretary expose it? I 
 have known of officers, postmasters, and other officers, receiving letters from some political 
 committee telling them that they had been assessed a certain amount or per cent, on their 
 salaries for party purposes. Officials have told me they disliked to 1 use their places, and 
 supposed they had better pay their assessments than have difficulty about it 1 have known 
 hundreds of dollars to be assessed against officials in this way; and what next? Then the 
 officers, part of whose salaries are taken to pay political assessments, come to Congress and 
 ask us to raise their salaries. Not a session passes that applications are not made here to 
 raise the salaries of your clerks, your auditors, and other officials in your Departments. Why 
 are you asked to raise their salaries Because they have to take a part of them to pay the 
 assessments of some party committee. What is this but tak ng the people’s money to sup 
 port a party? The Semvor from Indiana wants to know if such practices are not contrary * > 
 law? That is what I want, the committee to ascertain, and, whether contrary to law or r t, 
 to take measures to have then corrected. To apply a remeiy we must know of the a) .se. 
 Did the Senator from Indiana know of Thompson’s case? 
 
 Mr. MORTON. The Senator from Illinois knew about it. Ibdoes not require a con .ittee. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. The facts of that c'.se have come into my possession since tb’. debate 
 
 % 
 

 f 
 
 / 
 
 
 o <• ? s n ^ o 
 
 19 
 
 began. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] asks to look at the letter, as if he was 
 a little surprised at it. Is this the first he has heard of this practice? Well, he never heard 
 of that case, but he must have heard of a great many others, if he has read the report of 
 the former Retrenchment Committee. Why, sir, I have been' told that the question has been 
 asked in the New York custom-house as to the political influence a man could have, if he 
 was appointed, in securing a delegate to some convention. Now it i3 proposed to strike out 
 from this resolution any inquiry in regard to this matter. If it would not take up too much 
 time, I have got another letter here that I might read. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, what is proposed to be done? This resolution authorizes what sort 
 of inquiries? It authorizes this committee ‘Ho inquire into the expenditures in all branches 
 of the service of the United States.” The Senator from Rhode Island is willing that they 
 shall make that inquiry. “And to report whether any and what offices ought to be abol¬ 
 ished.” He is willing that that inquiry shall be made. He agrees that the committee shall 
 inquire “ whether any and what salaries or allowances ought to be educed.” He agrees 
 that they may inquire “what are the methods of procuring accountability in public officers 
 or agents in the care and disbursements of public moneys, and whether moneys have been 
 paid out illegally.” He agrees that they may inquire “ whether any officers, or agents, or 
 other persons, have been or are employed in the public service without authority of law or 
 unnecessarily.” He agrees that they may inquire “ generally how and to what extent the 
 expenses of the service of the country may and ought to be curtailed.” 
 
 But when you come to touch this sore about the use of the offices for partiean purposes-— 
 and I wish they were never used for worse than oven partisan purposes; but unfortunately 
 they are frequently used for personal and individual purposes—when you come to inquire 
 into the expediency of “withdrawing the public service from being used as an instrument of 
 political or party patronage,” the Senator from Rhode Island rises and moves to strike that 
 clause out of the resolution. He does not wish the committee to inquire into that matter. 
 
 Mr. ANTHONY. I am in favor of that investigation more than anything that precedes it, 
 and I voted to refer that matter to the committee of which the Senator from Illinois is the 
 chairman. That whole subject embraced in the bill introduced by the Senator from Vermont 
 £Mr. Edmunds] is now before the committee of which the Senator is chairman, and he now 
 comes forward and asks us to refer to a new committee not yet appointed a matter which is 
 in his own hands. Is he unwilling to investigate it himself? I would vote to gi^e him 
 power to send for persons and papers, and to employ as many clerks as he wants for that 
 investigation. Do we want to refer the same subject to two committees? I am satisfied 
 with the Committee on the Judiciary, and I think he might be. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, let us understand each other. The Committee on the 
 Judiciary are investigating and are au'horized to investigate no inquiry into the manner in 
 which offices are being used for political or party purposes. I will tell you what the Com¬ 
 mittee on the Judiciary has had referred to it. The original resolution, which I offered, 
 contained this elause: 
 
 And also to consider the expediency of so amending the laws under which appointments to the 
 civil service are now made as to provide for the selection of subordinate officers after due exami¬ 
 nation by proper boards; their continuance in office during specified terms, unless dismissed upon 
 charges preferred and sustained before tribunals designated for that purpose. 
 
 That was in the original resolution but is omitted in this, and that is the subject referred 
 to the Committee on the Judiciary—a bill to provide for examinations and in reference to 
 appointments to office; not a proposition to know whether the patronage of this country is 
 not used for political or party purposes. 
 
 Mr. ANTHONY. The whole of that subject is embraced in the bill introduced by the 
 Senator from Vermont, which is now before the committee of which the Senator from Illi¬ 
 nois is chairman; and that portion which he objects to having stricken out is the very gist 
 and animus of the whole bill. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. It the Senator from Rhode Island will allow me, I will say to him that 
 the bill which was passed at the last session, under which the President has been acting, was 
 understood to and does cover the whole question, and what the Senator from Illinois is urging 
 now has been urged by him prominently from the first as a measure of civil service reform. 
 Now, the Senator wants to say that that has not been referred to the President and is not 
 comprehended under his powers. 
 
 Mr. ANTHONY. And I hope the Senator from Illinois will not forget that when he 
 offered that amendment I co operated with him actively in the matter. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. I am much obliged to the Senator from Rhode Island for having done 
 eo. I thank him for it. He did co operate with me. * But that has nothing to do with this 
 proposition, and the Senator from Indiana cannot escape from his position of opposition to 
 this inquiry under any statute that has been passed. I will read the act again, and I will 
 hold up the statute before the thinking, reading, intelligent people of this country, and I 
 will ask them if there is one word in it on the subject of providing for withdrawing the 
 public service from being used as an instrument of political or party patronage. I say there 
 
20 
 
 is not. I say that the proposition which was adopted in the Senate by the aid of the Senator 
 from Rhode Island—I do not know that we had the aid of the Senator from Indiana—was 
 in reference to appointments to office, not in reference to the use of the offices afterward for 
 political and partisan purposes. Now I will read the whole of the act again, because I am 
 not going, if I can prevent it, to permit the Senator from Indiana by constant asseveration 
 ' to mislead the people as to what that article is: 
 
 “ Sec. 9. That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to prescribe 
 such rules and regulations for the admission of persons into the civil service of the United States 
 as will best promote the efficiency thereof, and ascertain the fitness of each in respect to age, 
 health, character, knowledge, and ability, for the branch of service into which he seeks to enterP’ 
 
 That is all that the President is authorized t > do as to appointments or appointees under 
 that act. 
 
 “ And for this purpose the President is authorized to employ suitable persons to conduct said 
 inquiries, to prescribe their duties, and to establish regulations for the conduct of persons who 
 may receive appointments in the civil service.” 
 
 He is authorized to call persons to his assistance in framing rules in regard to the entry of 
 persons into the civil service. 
 
 Now, Mr. President,! think I have shown that this ia not a matter that the Committee on 
 the Judiciary are investigating at all. A bill is before that committee in regard to the civil 
 service, but they are not g >ing to examine how the public patronage is being used, which is 
 the clause that is proposed to be stricken out of this resolution. 
 
 Now I propose briefly to give a narrative, which I think ought to go to the country, and 
 ought to be understood by the Senate, of this resolution and of the course which has been 
 pursued here in regard to it In July, 1866, a proposition was made in the House of Repre¬ 
 sentatives to raise a joint Committee on Retrenchment, That resolution came to the Senate 
 and was acted upon in this body on the 13th of July, 1866. The Senator from Vermont, 
 [Mr. Edmunds,] from the Committee on Commerce, of which the Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
 Chandler] is chairman, and who it will be remembered has taken such high ground against 
 this committee, that committee having considered the resolution, reported it back to the 
 Senate? It wa3 not then as full as it is now. It provided for inquiring into the civil service 
 of the country. The Senator from Ohio, [ Ir. Sherman,] whom I do not now see in his seat, 
 and who has also been “amazed” that I should have offered this resolution in the Senate, 
 moved to amend the resolution by striking out the word “civil ” before “service” wherever 
 it occurred, so that the inquiry might apply to all services. That amendment was agreed to. 
 The Senator from Vermont then moved to amend it further. He said: 
 
 “ I move to amend the resolution by inserting after the word e reduced ’ in the seventh line the 
 words, 1 what are the methods of scouring accountability in public officers or agents in the care 
 and disbursement of public moneys, whether moneys have been paid out illegally, and whether 
 any officers, or agents, or other persons, have been or are engaged in the service without authority 
 of law or unnecessarily.’ 
 
 “The amendment was agreed to.” 
 
 And then my good friend from Rhode Island, [Mr. Anthony,] who now wants to strike a 
 particular clause out of the resoluti >n, offered this amendment: 
 
 “ And also to consider the expediency of so amending the laws under which appointments to the 
 civil service are now made as to provide for the selection of subordinate officers after due exami¬ 
 nation by proper boards, their continuance in office during specified terms, unless dismissed upon 
 charges preferred and sustained before tribunals designated for that purpose, and for withdraw¬ 
 ing the civil service from being used as an instrument of political or party patronage.” 
 
 That amendment, after being very highly commended by the Senator from Vermont, was 
 also adopted by the Senate and the Senator from Rhode Island, not satisfied that that was 
 broad enough, also asked to strike out the word “ civil,” so as to have the provision apply 
 to all services. 
 
 Mr EDMUND8. Had not that, already been done on the motion of the Senator from Ohio? 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. In hi3 amendment the Senator from Rhode Island had inserted the 
 word “ civil,” and he asked to strike it out of his own amendment.' After this resolution had 
 undergone these various amendments it was submitted to the Senate in the very same words 
 in which I ofFered it here on the 7th day of December. 
 
 The resolution was again adopted on the 6th of March, 1867, in these words: 
 
 “ Mr. Anthony submitted the following concurrent resolution, which was considered by 
 unanimous consent, and agreed to : 
 
 liesolved by the Senate , (the House of Representatives concurring,) That the joint select Com¬ 
 mittee on Retrenchment, raised by a concurrent resolution of the two Houses at the first session 
 of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, be. and the same is hereby, revived and continued for and during 
 t*13 Fortieth Congress, with all and the same powers and duties appertaining thereto ia said 
 Thirty-Ninth Congress, and with power to appoint a clerk, and with power in its members to 
 administer oaths ; and that any vacancies in said commmitte be filled by the Presiding Officer of 
 eich House respectively.” 
 
21 
 
 The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] who was so “amazed” at this resolution the 
 other day, on the 16th of March, 1867, offered the following resolution: 
 
 “ Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concurring,) That the joint Committee 
 on Retrenchment, be, and are hereby, iustructed to make a careful and minute examination of the 
 method adopted by the Treasury Department to print the bonds, notes, and securities of the 
 United States; what guards have been adopted to prevent fraud or mistake, and what additional 
 guards, if any, ought to be adopted to prevent fraud or mistake; whether there has been any 
 fraudulent or erroneous issue of bonds, notes, or coupons, and if so, by whose fault or negligence, 
 and the proper remedy and prevention thereof; and especially to examine the official conduct 
 of those charged with the printing, registration, and issuing "of any notes, bonds, or securities 
 of the United States; and that said committee have power to sit during the recess of Congress, to 
 send for persons and papers, to examine the same, and to take testimony and report at the next 
 session of Congress.” 
 
 Then a discussion followed, which was participated in by the Senator from Ohio, p<jr. 
 Sherman,] and others; and the Senate adopted this resolution with this “ monstrous power” 
 in it to send for persons and papers, and to sit during the recess of Congress! 
 
 The resolution was again adopted at the commencement of the Forty-First Congress. So 
 that.we have had the resolution adopted originally in the Thirty-Ninth Congress at the in¬ 
 stance of the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Edmunds ;] in the Fortieth Congress at the instance 
 of the Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. Anthony;] and in the Forty-First Congress at the 
 instance, I think, in this body, of the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Patterson,] and we 
 have had various gentlemen upon this committee. The first joint Committee on Retrench- 
 ment consisted, on the part of the Senate, of Messrs. Edmunds, "Williams, and Buckalew, ap¬ 
 pointed in 1866. In 1868, Messrs, Edmunds, Williams, Patterson, and Buckalew consti¬ 
 tuted the committee on the part of the Senate. In 1870, Messrs. Harris, Patterson, Schurz, 
 and Thurman constituted the committee on the part of the Senate. 
 
 Now, sir, I supposed that a proposition to raise a committee that had had an existence 
 ever since 1866, with precisely the same powers that I asked for it in 1867, would have been 
 adopted in this body without objection. On the 7 th day of December, 1871,1 offered a reso¬ 
 lution to revive this Committee on Retrenchment, which had expired with the Forty-First 
 Congress on the 8d of March last. After I offered the resolution the Senate immediately ad¬ 
 journed without any action upon it. 
 
 On Monday the resolution, if I recollect aright, came up and was considered to some ex¬ 
 tent, but without arriving at any conclusion. On Tuesday the Senate sat but a few min¬ 
 utes; and again, if I recollect aright, the same thing was gone through with on Wednesday, 
 and the newspapers of the country say that a caucus of Republican Senators was held in 
 reference to this resolution. I wish the Senator from Indiana to consider what I am saying. 
 The newspapers of the country say that a party caucus of Republican Senators was called to 
 determine whether this resolution of investigation and inquiry to reduce the expenses of the 
 Government should pass or not. Who gave this a party turn, or sought to give it a party 
 turn ? In my judgment, it was not a proper subject for party consideration. The very fact 
 that Republican Senators got together to consider whether a resolution of inquiry into the 
 abuses of the Government should be permitted to pass this body showed that the meeting 
 was called for the purpose of considering it in a party point of view. The whole country 
 has been given to understand that the Republican Senators were called together, for what? 
 For the purpose of considering whether a resolution that had passed this body for five con¬ 
 secutive years without objection should be permitted to pass again. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. The Senator refers to newspapers, and says that they say there was a 
 caucus for the consideration of this question; an.d he further says that it was not a proper 
 subject to be caucused on. I desire to ask him if the newspapers also state who it was that 
 nrst brought his resolution before a caucus. 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know that they do. I have not attempted to speak of what 
 occurred in the caucus; but when a resolution is offered in the Senate for the purpose of in¬ 
 vestigation, and any party go into caucus to see whether they cannot shape it in a different 
 iorm^the country will th;nk, or, to use the language of the Senator from Indiana, “impartial 
 observers will say, and it cannot be prevented,” that the caucus was called for the purpose 
 *f preventing the investigation. Mr. President, I undertake to say that the resolution was 
 aot a proper subject for a caucus of any party after it had been offered in the open Senate. 
 It might have been a proper consideration if it had not been here to determine whether 
 you would bring in such a proposition, but it was not a proper subject for party considera¬ 
 tion afterward; and the moment that the Republican Senators were called together for such 
 a purpose, it was manifest the country would understand that there were some party reasons 
 
 that required it. . . _ , , , , ,. 
 
 Sir 1 deny that the Republican party of this conntry is to be bound by any such anion, 
 and for one I repudiated on the spot the idea of being bound by any such caucus I will 
 never consent while I have the honor of a seat here that a party caucus, or any other com- 
 bination or organization, shall prevent my bringing before the Senate for its investigation 
 matters that I bqlieve the public good requires to be investigated. 
 
22 
 
 Sir, what followed ? The resolution then followed in this body offered by the Senator 
 from Rhode Island, [Mr. Anthony,] to do what? To create a Committee of Investigation 
 and Retrenchment, to cqnsider such matters as should be referred to it, a committee with no 
 power whatever. It could not move a step until something was referred to it. 
 
 I want to remind Senators of what they said when the resolution was originally before 
 this body. They spy to-day, “ Oil, we were for investigation.” Did you talk that way on the 
 11th, 12th, aud 13th of December? n 
 
 Mr, EDMUNDS. To whom do you allude? 
 
 Mr. TRUMBULL. I will tell you to whom I allude. I allude to the remarks made by 
 the Senator from New York, [Mr. Conkling.] In alluding to the resolution to revive the 
 
 Retrenchment Committee he said: 
 
 “ I did not know that we had ever had a committee in this body with functions so broad and 
 absorbing that it would take to itself from the Committee on Military Affairs an inquiry like this.” 
 
 That was said ia reference to a resolution to raise a committee in the very words in which 
 we had adop ted it here time and again. What further did he say ? 
 
 “ But, Mr. President, I have another objection to this. The general and vague terms of which 
 I am speaking will unsettle in a great degree the understandings and obligations now resting 
 upon the other standing committees. It is proposed to employ this language, they are to inquire 
 ‘ what are the methods of procuring accountability in public officers or agents in the care‘an* 
 disbursement of public money ? ’ These powers, as to place and time, are universal.” * * 4 
 
 “ Again, I am indisposed to vote for language so general in its character as to exonerate othei 
 committees from the obligations resting upon them. 
 
 Was not this making opposition to the resolution ? The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] 
 said 
 
 “The Senator from Illinois insists that this committee shall commence with extraordinary, 
 powers not conferred upon any committee of this body.” * * * * “ I am amazed that such 
 
 powers should be sought to be conferred in violation of the ordinary usages of the Senate unless 
 in a special case for special reasons.” 
 
 Again, referring to the Hodge case, he said: 
 
 “There can be no objections to having this committee authorized to examine all his papers, all 
 his accounts, everything that would throw light on his transactions. But would you because it is 
 necessary in that case to arm the committee with this power, give it a right to go without limit, 
 without restraint, without definition, without accusation, without particulars, all over the United 
 States ? ” 
 
 That, is the way the proposition to revive this joint Committee on Retrenchment was met. 
 The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] said : 
 
 “We owe much to public integrity, and we owe something to private rights. A committee so 
 armed, as I before said, would beceme an inquisition, a tyranny too intolerable to be borne by a 
 free peeple.” 
 
 Again he said : . 
 
 “ I am not mistaken about the whole drift of this debate. It has been to show that there is 
 corruption existing under this Administration, and gross corruption. The drift of this debate is 
 a reflection upon the Republican party.” 
 
 Why was it not a reflection upon the Republican party two years ago? No one then 
 thought, so. Does the Senator from Indiana suppose, does the. Senator from New York sup,- 
 pose, does the Senator from Ohio suppose, that they can oppose a resolution in the very 
 words in which it had been adopted year after year, and say that it is a resolution that 
 “ amazes ” them; that it is a resolution, according to the language of the Senator from 
 Indiana, which creates “ an inquisition, a tyranny too intolerable to be borne by a free peo¬ 
 ple;” that they can oppose it now when they voted for it years, and have the country 
 understand that they are for a full and fair investigation? I know they say they are for 
 one. I do not deny it; but I say to the Senator from Indiana he need not be surprised that 
 the country cannot understand it in that way. 
 
 What was the trouble about the resolution as originally offered? Oh, it proposed to raise 
 a joint select committee, and that would not do! Well, sir, I was indifferent whether it was 
 a joint committee or a standing committee of the Senate; but when it was proposed to have 
 a standing committee of the Senate, what sort of a standing committee was proposed? A 
 standing committee that could not move an inch until it was ordered by the Senate, which 
 had no jurisdiction of anything by the express terms of the resolution creating it. When I 
 f proposed to give to this standing committee the same power to summon persons ayd examine 
 papers, to inquire whether retrenchment could not be brought about in the public service, 
 whether useless offices could npt be dispensed with, when I brought to the attention of the 
 Senate the fact that there were in the custom-house at New York numerous officers with 
 nothing to do, when we showed these facts and asked that this committee be clothed with 
 power to investigate them, we are told, “ Oh, no, it will not do; ” the Senator from Ohio 
 and the Senator from Indiana are alarmed: the Constitution of the United States is going 
 
23 
 
 to be violated; the rights of the citizen are to be encroached upon ; an inquisition is to be 
 established 1 
 
 When on earth did those Senators wake up to this alarm for the rights of the citizen ? 
 They vo^ed to grant these powers to a committee two years ago. But they say that was 
 different. The committee to which we.voted to give these powers was a special committee 
 of both Houses, and not a standing cornmitiee of the Senate. What difference does that 
 make to the rights of the citizen ? Will the citizen be any the worse off if his rights are 
 encroached upon by a standing committee of the Senate, than he would if they were 
 encroached upon by a select committee of the two Houses? Is the Senator from Indiana 
 astonished, or is the Senator from Ohio astonished that the people of the United States can¬ 
 not see the difference? Are they surprised that the people cannot understand what differ¬ 
 ence it makes whether a standing committee of this body has authority to send for persons 
 and papers, or a select committee of both Houses has that power? It is the thing that we 
 are after; we want to expose and correct abuses if they - xist. I do not think they should 
 be at all surprised that the country understands them to be opposed to retrenchment and 
 the correction of abuses, when they look back at the action of the last few davs in this body. 
 
 When it is proposed to raise a standing committee of the Senate, and I offer as an amend¬ 
 ment the proposition that it shall have authority to make these inquiries, to example for 
 abuses, to ascertain whether the patronage of the country is used for mere partisan purposes, 
 ind not for the public good, and that the committee shall have power to send for persons 
 and papers, how am I met? “ Oh, it will not do to give that power to a standing committee 
 of the Senate; that is monstrous.” First, Senators go to work to get rid of the joint com¬ 
 mittee of both Houses, and propose to raise a standing committee of the Senate without 
 giving it flay powers ; and when it is proposed to give it powers, “ Oh, you must not do that, 
 because it would go into the rules of the Senate that a standing committee wa9 vested with 
 certain powers, and that will never do! ” How could the Senator from Indiana expect an} 7 - 
 thing else but that, to use his language, “ impartial observers ” would say that these were 
 met e formalities, technicalities, thrown in the way of the investigation which it was sought 
 to make ? 
 
 Well, Mr. President, the proposition to amend the resolution raising a standing committee 
 of the Senate by vesting it with the powers that had been given to the prior Committee on 
 Retrenchment was voted down. Then it was said, “Oh, you have got civil service in this 
 amendment, and that subject has already been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.” 
 I said to Senators, “Let us take civil service out of the amendment, except that part of twe 
 provision which relates to the use of patronage for partisan purposes.” Net satisfied with 
 that, the newspapers say another caucus was called, and another resolution is brought into 
 the Senate naming the members of the committee. 
 
 Mr. President, I have nothing to say in regard to my associates who are to be placed upon 
 the committee. The chairman of the committee, the honorable Senator from Connecticut, 
 [Mr. Buckingham] is a gentleman of the highest character, one of the purest men in public 
 life in this country, one in whom I have the utmost confidence, who through a long life has 
 been noted for his integrity, his uprightness, and his virtues in every walk of life, and he is 
 my personal friend. I have no imputation to cast upon the committee as individual Senators. 
 I would have no right to make imputations. In my heart I have no feelings of unkindnesa 
 against one of them. But, in the language again of the Senator from Indiana, “impartial 
 observers” will ask, how did this committee happen to be made up as it is? 
 
 Now, sir, we have arrived at the last step where it is proposed to form this committee 
 after having voted down or laid on the table the various propositions to give it those powers 
 without which it can be of but little service. I have struggled here day after day. and until 
 I fear I have wearied the Senate and made myself obnoxious in trying to get a direct vote 
 to see whether the Senate was disposed'to vest this committee with powers that would make 
 rt efficient. Why, sir, the Senator from Connecticut pure as he is, and opposed to every 
 sort of iniquity in public or private life, can do nothing under this resolution unless you give 
 him some power under which he can act. And now when it is proposed to give him this 
 power, we are told, “ Oh, no, no power to send for persons and papers, no power to inquire 
 whether the patronage of the Government is used for partisan purposes,no power to inquire 
 whether out in Kentucky subordinate officers have had deducted nearly half their monthly 
 pay on assessments made by political committees.” Sir, I want this committee clothed with 
 authority to go and make all these inquiries. It is accidental that 1 happen to know of this 
 Kentucky case. It is accidental that 1 learned of the case in Vermont in reference to which 
 I handed a letter to the Senator from Vermont. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I do not think it strange that the intelligent people of this country 
 should have supposed that there was something in the way of investigation; but before 
 taking my6eat I desire to clear the skirts of the Republican party from any such imputation. 
 I deny that thirty-four Senators in this body have a right to speak for the Republican party 
 of this nation. They may speak for themselves, but they cannot bind the Republican party 
 of my State, nor of the other States of this Union to any such proposition as will throw ob¬ 
 stacles—whether designed or not, the people will understand them to be obstacles—in the 
 
24 
 
 way of investigation. The people of this country, as I said, do not care whether your ih- 
 vestigations are by a joint select, committee of the two Houses or by a standing committee of 
 one House They care not whether the power to send for persons and papers is exercised by 
 a joint committee or by a standing committee. 
 
 And, lest I forget it, Mr. President, let me say right here that this is a false alarm that is 
 raised lest the rights of the citizen should be enroached upon if the committee is vested with 
 power to send for persons and papers. This committee ha3 been treated as if it was to ex¬ 
 amine into the private affairs of citizens throughout the country. It is no such thing. It is 
 a committee, Vested, if my amendment should be adopted, with power to send for persons 
 and papers in preference to what? In reference to the expenditures in all branches of the 
 service of the United States, and to inquire what offices ought to be abolished. Is there 
 any objection to clothing a committee with power to send for persons and papers to make 
 euch inquiries, to know what offices ought to be abolished? Does that authorize the com¬ 
 mittee to summon before it the citizens of the country disconnected with office, and examine 
 their private papers as to private matters? Not at all. It authorizes a committee of the 
 Senate of the United States to inquire into public matters, and that is a just authority be¬ 
 longing to a committee of this body. 
 
 My proposition is to vest the committee with power to send for persons and papers, so a3 
 to inquire into the methods of procuring accountability in public officers or agents. Is that 
 going to interfere with the rights of the citizens? It is in reference to public employment, 
 in reference to public money, in reference to the collection, the care, and the disbursement 
 of public funds, in reference to the official conduct of men in office, that we propose to inquire; 
 and am I to be told that it is a dangerous power for the Congress of the United States or one of 
 its branches to inquire into thepublie service by sending for persons and sending for papers 
 whenever they deem it necessary ? So, sir, you see that this is no unusual power; it is no 
 new resolution. 
 
 I have offered as an amendment to the pending proposition the resolution substantially as 
 I offered it originally. I am met with a proposition to strike out its vital parts, to deny the 
 committee power to send for persons and papers, to deny the commitee power to inquire 
 into the propriety of withdrawing the public service from being used as au instrument of 
 political or party patronage. Sir, they are the vital parts of this resolution. I show you 
 instances of the abuse of public patronage, and I wish this committee to have authority to 
 inquire into it that we may have a purer public service, a higher standard of political 
 morals, and greater economy in the management of public affairs. Why this i3 objected to, 
 I cannot see. I see these technical objections that are made, and I am not surprised that 
 the country regards them as technical. But, air, I deny that the Republican party of this 
 country or the Administration of the Government is opposed to investigation, is opposed to 
 economy, is opposed to an inquiry as to how moneys are collected and disdursed. 
 
 It was in consequence of the abuses of the Government and its encroachments upon 
 human liberty that the Republican party was formed. It must not be false to its origin, 
 and. sir, my Republicanism is not to be measured by the standard that is attempted to be 
 set up here in this Senate Chamber. I repudiate it. I deny the authority of the Senator 
 from Indiana or any other Senator, or forty Senators, to determine for me what true Repub¬ 
 licanism is. The action that has been taken in this body is at war with the genuine princi¬ 
 ples of the party as enunciated from the beginning. I am willing that my action in refer¬ 
 ence to this matter shall go to the country, and let those who vote down the proposition 
 they sustained for years explain the reason of their action, if they can, to the satisfaction of 
 the people they represent. 
 
 After further debate, the motion of Mr. Anthony to amend the motion of Mr. Trumbull 
 by striking out all after the word “ curtailed” was adopted by the following vote: 
 
 YEAS—Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Boreman, Buckingham, Cameron, Carpenter, Chandler, 
 Clavton, ConkVing, Corbett, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry of Michigan, Flanigan, Frelinghuysen, 
 Gilbert, Hamlin, Hitchcock, Howe, Morton, Osborn, Pomeroy, Pool, Pratt, Sawyer, Spencer, 
 Stewart, Wilson, and Windom—29. 
 
 NAYS—Messrs. Bayard, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Fenton, Hamilton of Maryland, 
 Kelly, Logan, Patterson, Saulsberry, Schurz, Stevenson, Stockton, Sumner, Thurman, Tipton, 
 Trumbull, and Vickers—18, 
 
 Subsequently, on the same d$y, the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull was amended 
 by adding thereto the following: 
 
 And that the said committee be authorized to send for persons and papers during the present 
 session of the Senate, and to report by bill or otherwise, and also to appoint a clerk. 
 
 The amendment, as amended, was then adopted, and the resolution, as amended, was 
 agreed to. 
 
 \