Page images
PDF
EPUB

WEDNESDAY, March 12, 1862.

Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution submitted by Mr. Wilkinson on the 20th of February for the expulsion of the Hon. Lazarus W. Powell from the Senate, reported it without amendment, and with a recommendation that the resolution do not pass.

THURSDAY, March 13, 1862.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution for the expulsion of the Hon. Lazarus W. Powell from the Senate; and

After debate,

On motion by Mr. Powell,

Ordered, That the further consideration of the resolution be postponed to to-morrow at 1 o'clock.

[The debate is found on pages 1208-1216 of the Congressional Globe, part 2, 2d sess 37th Cong.]

FRIDAY, March 14, 1862.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution to expel the Hon. Lazarus W Powell from the Senate; and

After debate,

On the question to agree to the resolution, as follows:

"Resolved, That the said Lazarus W. Powell be, and he is hereby, expelled from the Senate,"

It was determined in the negative-yeas 11, nays 28.

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Davis, Dixon, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Pomeroy, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, and Wilkinson.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Carlile, Ciark, Cowan, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Harris, Henderson, Kennedy, King, Lane of Kansas, Latham, McDougall, Nesmith, Pearce, Rice, Saulsbury, Stark, Thomson, Trumbull, Willey, Wilson of Massachusetts, Wilson of Missouri, and Wright. So the resolution was not agreed to.

[The debate is found on pages 1230-1234 of the Congressional Globe, part 2, 2d sess. 37th Cong.]

[Remarks of Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, March 14, 1862.]

"I consider it due to the committee, whose organ I was in reporting adversely to the passage of this resolution, simply to state, not by way of argument, or of provoking reply, the ground upon which the committee reported adversely to the passage of this resolution. It was not because the committee approved of the doctrine of neutrality in Kentucky. In my judgment that was a most mischievous position, and one wholly untenable, either in April, or June, or September; but it is known that the people of Kentucky very generally assumed that ground, and the Government of the United States, if they did not recognize the neutrality of Kentucky, we may at least say paid some respect to it. The resolutions that were adopted, in which they declared that the United States had no right to pass its troops over the soil of Kentucky, were, in my judgment, preposterous. It was downright opposition to the constituted authorities of the Government; wholly unjustifiable. I have no excuse for it. I think it is without excuse. But, sir, such was the position of the great body of the people of that State; and many persons now believe that it was owing to this position of neutrality which was then assumed that Kentucky has at last arrayed herself on the side of the Union. I do not think so; but good Union men doubtless did take that position.

'Well, sir, the time came when, notwithstanding Kentucky had assumed this false attitude, it was necessary that her people should take sides either with the Government or against those arrayed for its protection. Some men who got upon this neutrality platform left it sooner than others; some in June, if you please; some earlier; some stood on it till September; but when the time came that Kentuckians had to meet this thing face to face, go with the Government or against it, fight for one or the other, then, sir, the traitors arrayed themselves, and undertook to get up a provisional government in the State of Kentucky. Breckinridge and the traitors alluded to by the Senator on my right [Mr. Davis] went into the organization; they joined the rebels; the Senator from Kentucky, whose case is under consideration, came here-came to the Government of the United States to discharge his duties here. He does not agree with me in sentiment; his opinions are not my opinions; I do not agree with the views that he has so often announced here; but he is entitled to his own opinions; and no man is to be expelled from this body because he disagrees with others in opinion. Since Kentucky assumed this position and took sides with the Union nothing has been shown to satisfy the committee, at least, that the Senator from Kentucky has had any communication or done anything to favor the cause of the rebellion. I think neutrality did favor it; but, sir, that is now over.

[ocr errors]

79908°-S. Doc. 1036, 62-3-78

[Thirty-seventh Congress Second session.]

JAMES F. SIMMONS,

Senator from Rhode Island from March 4, 1841, till March 3, 1847, and from March 4, 1857, till he resigned in August, 1862.

July 2, 1862. near the end of Mr. Simmons's second term in the Senate, a resolution was submitted that he be expelled from the Senate. The preamble stated that it appeared from a report of the Secretary of War that Mr. Simmons had exercised his official influence over certain of the heads of the Departments in procuring an order authorizing a certain person to manufacture rifles in behalf of the Government for the Army and Navy, and that Mr. Simmons had agreed to receive as a compensation for such services the sum of $50,000, and that he had already received two promissory notes amounting to $10.000. July 8 the resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of 31 yeas to 7 nays. July 14 the committee reported that the facts were substantially as above given, and that they were of opinion that "such a practice is entirely indefensible, and that it was highly improper for a Senator of the United States to have acted thus, even when the Government sustained no loss thereby;" that it was manifest that Congress disapproved of such conduct from the fact that they had promptly passed a law making it a penal offense thereafter; but that to visit a severe penalty upon an act which at the time of its commission was not punishable or forbidden by public law would be retroactive in its effect, and render the step liable to that objection to which all post facto laws are justly subject. The committee unanimously reported back the resolution. accompanied by the statement of facts, that the Senate might take such action as they might think fit. No action was taken. [Congress adjourned within three days after the report was made, and Mr. Simmons had resigned his seat in the Senate before the next session.]

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from Senate Journals, 2d sess. 37th Cong., with the report of the committee from Senate Reports, 2d sess. 37th Cong., No. 39.

The case was not debated.

WEDNESDAY, July 2, 1862.

Mr. Wright submitted the following resolution for consideration: "Whereas, by a report made to the Senate of the United States by the Secretary of War, the Hon. E. M. Stanton, bearing date June 21, 1862, it appears that the Senator from the State of Rhode Island, James F. Simmons, gave and exercised his official influence over certain of the heads of the Departments of our Government in procuring for one C. D. Schubarth an order, dated October 11, 1861, authorizing the said Schubarth. in behalf of the Government, to manufacture, for the use of the Army and Navy, 50,000 breech-loading rifles; and, further, that the said Senator did agree to receive, as a compensation for services rendered in such procurement, the sum of $50,000, and did subsequently accept two several promissory notes from certain parties in New York, 'one payable in August, and one in September next, both amounting to $10,000,' in payment for procuring said order: Therefore,

26 Resolved, That the said James F. Simmons be, and is hereby, expelled from the seat he holds in this Senate."

TUESDAY, July 8, 1862.

On motion by Mr. Wright, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by him on the 2d instant for the expulsion of the Hon. James F. Simmons, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island, from the Senate; and,

On motion by Mr. Ten Eyck that the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 31, nays 7.

On motion by Mr. Wright, the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Carlile, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, Kennedy, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morrill, Rice, Sherman, Stark, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of Missouri.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Foster, Henderson, King, Nesmith, Powell, Trumbull, and Wright.

So the motion was agreed to, and it was

Ordered, That the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

MONDAY, July 14, 1862.

Mr. Ten Eyck, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a resolution to expel the Hon. James F. Simmons, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island, from the Senate, submitted a report (No. 69); which was ordered to be printed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

[The committee consisted of Messrs. Trumbull (chairman), Foster, Ten Eyck, Cowan, [arris, Bayard, and Powell.]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 14, 1862.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Ten Eyck submitted the following report:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a resolution for the expulsion f James F. Simmons, a Senator of the United States from the State of Rhode Island, Lave had the same under consideration, and, after full deliberation, make the following eport:

That in October, 1861, Senator Simmons being in Washington on his own private usiness, was called upon by a Mr. Schubarth with a letter of introduction from Messrs. 1. D. & J. Y. Smith, a wealthy business firm in Providence, Rhode Island, requesting im to aid Mr. Schubarth in procuring an order from the Government for the manuacture of a breech-loading rifle for the use of the Army and Navy, of which he was the nventor, and stating that if the order was procured they (the Messrs. Smith) were to be concerned in its execution.

Mr. Schubarth was introduced by Senator Simmons to the Secretary of War, General Ripley, of the Ordnance, and Captain Harwood, of the Navy Department. His rifle was tried at the navy-yard, and a favorable report made, but the Government declined ordering his breech-loading rifle, and, preferring the Springfield rifled muskets, gave an order on the 11th of October last for 20,000, at the rate of $20 for each arm, with the appendages.

When called upon by Mr. Schubarth with the letter of the Messrs. Smith, as above stated, Mr. Simmons determined to aid him in procuring the order for the manufacture of the rifle invented by him, by going with him to the Departments, recommending his arm, and soliciting a contract in the same manner as he had done before in other cases, and has since done in behalf of constituents of his without any offer of compensation having been made to him for his aid, and without expecting or dreaming of receiving any. That after he had thus undertaken to assist Mr. Schubarth, either before or after he had introduced him at the Departments, (Mr. Simmons thinks it was after and some time during the stay of Mr. Schubarth in Washington, while going to or returning from the Departments,) Schubarth said he had a letter from the Messrs. Smith authorizing him to pay a commission for obtaining an order, which he offered to Mr. Simmons to be read, but which he declined reading, saying, playfully, "that the Messrs. Smith were rich enough to pay, and that if he got commissions for all he did for his constituents he should be as rich as some of them were;" but it appears that no suggestion was made to Mr. Simmons to pay him a commission or compensate him in any way for any aid he might render until after he had determined to assist the parties in getting the contract; and that nothing further ever passed between Mr. Simmons and the Messrs. Smith on the subject of commissions.

That afterwards, in November, 1861, Mr. Simmons being in Washington, on his way to Hatteras Inlet, for the purpose of consulting the Government about procuring a vessel load of cotton, Mr. Schubarth informed him that he could do nothing with the order he had obtained unless it was made for the same number and as long a time allowed for delivery as other parties had, and requested him to aid in getting such alteration, which he did; and on the 26th of November last an additional order was made for the manufacture of 30,000 more.

In January last, Mr. Schubarth informed Mr. Simmons that the Messrs. Smith declined pursuing the business. And seeing him afterwards in February, in New York, Schubarth told him he had made arrangements with other parties for means to carry out the contract, and that they wanted to have an understanding with him about his commissions. Mr. Simmons states that he saw these parties, and took from them an agreement, in writing, to pay at certain stipulated times (in about a year from May last) the amount agreed upon. The agreement was without qualification or condition, and had no connection with what the Government might subsequently do, only binding themselves to a due execution of the order on their part. Under and in pursuance of this agreement they subsequently gave him one note, payable in August, and one in September next, both amounting to $10.000, which he expected would be paid, as he had no doubt of their responsibility.

Mr. Simmons further states that he never expected Schubarth to pay him a cent for the assistance he rendered him; that he was in moderate circumstances; that the Smiths were rich and that he expected them to pay; and that he should have aided just

as soon, and acted as earnestly in endeavoring to procure the orders, without compensation, as he had repeatedly done in other cases for his constituents. Mr. Schubath states, on the contrary, that he considers himself bound to give Senator Simmons 5 per cent. commission on both orders, and he says he made the offer of commissions to Senator Simmons because he had understood that a commission was paid for obtaining contracts, and he thinks it was one of the Messrs. Smith who told him so. It may not be amiss to state that Mr. Simmons, who has appeared before the committee and with great frankness and fairness detailed all the circumstances of the transaction, and an swered all questions put to him promptly and without hesitation, also stated that he is now, and was at the time, unconscious of having done anything wrong in acting as be did, and that he was not aware that it was unlawful, there being no law prohibiting it; that he considered he was not only benefiting his constituents, but was also doing the Government a service by procuring for it responsible contractors for the prompt supply of arms, which was then so greatly needed, he having about that time learned in high quarters that although 500,000 men had recently been called to the field, the Government had then only 200,000 stand of arms to put in their hands.

It further appears that Senator Simmons still holds the notes given him for these commissions as agreed upon, and expects to receive payment on them when they fall due.

It also appeared to the committee that both before and after the contract for these arms was made, many other contracts were made for similar arms, between July 1, 1861, and January 1, 1862, and the lowest price paid by the Department for arms of this description was $20, the price agreed to be paid to Mr. Schubarth; that $20 was the lowest bid that was made at the Department for the manufacture of such arms during the periods aforesaid, and that the Government lost nothing in consequence of the offers of Mr. Schubarth to pay Mr. Simmons a commission for his assistance in this particular, after he had voluntarily undertaken to assist in procuring the contract without reward. The committee on these facts are of opinion that although Senator Simmons may have thought, as he declares, that his act was neither unlawful or wrong (a declaration which his age, respectability, and long, useful, and honorable life, it would seem, should favor, whilst it is true that these very considerations should make a willful departure from the line of correct conduct more glaring and censurable), still, that such a practice is entirely indefensible, and that it was highly improper for a Senator of the United States to have acted thus, even where the Government sustained no loss thereby; but especially at a time when the very existence of the Government and the Union was endangered by a fierce and huge rebellion, to suppress which the patriotism of the country was everywhere engaged-a rebellion which, first by robbery and afterward by occasioning unlimited requisitions for the purchase of supplies and arms, had subjected the public treasury to untold and frightful drains.

That Congress disapproves of such conduct is manifest from the fact that they have promptly passed a law making it a penal offense hereafter; this will prevent all such acts in future; but to visit a severe and striking penalty upon an act which at the time of its commission was not punishable or forbidden by any public law would be retroactive in its effect, and render the step liable to that objection to which all post facto laws are justly subject.

The committee would further state in this connection that it was the common praetice until a recent period for members of Congress to prosecute claims against the Government for fees and rewards, and that for many years our most distinguished public men were in the habit of prosecuting claims under such circumstances without censure or criticism; but this was made a misdemeanor by an act of Congress in 1853, and since that period the practice has been discontinued.

The committee unanimously report back the resolution, accompanied by the statement of facts herein contained (about which there appears to be no dispute), in order that the Senate may take such action in the matter as they in their wisdom and discre tion may think fit.

[Forty-second Congress-Third session.]

JAMES W. PATTERSON,

Senator from New Hampshire from March 4, 1867, till March 3, 1873.

February 4, 1873, a message was received from the House of Representatives that the House had solved that there be transmitted to the Senate a copy of evidence reported to the House by a seet investigating committee, the preamble to the resolution reciting that the evidence contained atter affecting members of the Senate. The communication was referred to a select committee. ebruary 27, the committee reported, exonerating the other Senators mentioned in the report, and porting the following resolution in regard to Mr. Patterson: "Resolved, That James W. Pattern be, and he is hereby, expelled from his seat as a member of the Senate." Mr. Patterson's term pired March 3, no action having been taken by the Senate on the resolution. March 26, the nate resolved that “Observations on the report," &c., submitted by Mr. Patterson, be received, ed, and printed with the report, the preamble reciting that it was manifestly impossible for the nate to consider the resolution at the session then just passed, and that it was very questionable it was competent for the Senate to consider the same after Mr. Patterson had ceased to be a memer of the body.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating it fom the Senate Journal, 42d Cong., 3d sess. The report of the committee is found in Senate Ceports, 42d Cong., 3d sess., No. 519.

Special references to the debates of each day are inserted below.

TUESDAY, February 4, 1873. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Anthony in the chair) laid before the Senate the following message, this day received from the House of Representatives:

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February 4, 1873.

Mr. Poland, from the select investigating committee, &c., submitted the following; which was agreed to:

"Whereas the evidence taken by a select committee of this House appointed Decemper 2, 1872, for the purpose of examining into charges of bribery of members of this House, con tains matter affecting members of the Senate: Therefore,

"Resolved, That the Clerk of the House be directed to transmit to the Senate a copy of all the evidence thus far reported to the House by said committee, together with a copy of this resolution."

Attest:

Whereupon,

EDW. MCPHERSON, Clerk.

On motion by Mr. Patterson, and by unanimous consent,

"Resolved, That a select committee, consisting of five Senators, be appointed by the Presiding Officer, to whom shall be referred the communication this day received from the House of Representatives in relation to matter affecting members of the Senate, together with the copy of the evidence accompanying the same, and that the said committee have power to send for persons and papers, and to employ a clerk."

WEDNESDAY, February 5, 1873.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Anthony in the chair) appointed Mr. Morrill of Maine, Mr. Scott, Mr. Wright, Mr. Stockton, and Mr. Stevenson the select committee, under the resolution of the Senate of the 4th instant, to whom shall be referred the communication yesterday received from the House of Representatives in relation to matter affecting members of the Senate disclosed before an investigating committee of the House of Representatives.

[The debate is found on page 1099 of the Congressional Globe, part 2, 3d sess. 42d Cong.]

THURSDAY, February 6, 1873.

Mr. Stevenson submitted the motion that he be excused from service on the select committee appointed under the resolution of the Senate of the 4th instant, to whom was referred the communication of the House of Representatives in relation to matter affecting members of the Senate, disclosed before an investigating committee of the House of Representatives; and

On the question to agree thereto,

After debate,

It was determined in the negative.

« PreviousContinue »