thorough inquiry to the respective committees; these can, by way of ordinary investigation, call upon Department and bureau officers and others for information, about the conduct of the public business at the time when the suspended officer was in place, and then ascertain whether there was cause for the suspension. In a similar way it can be ascertained whether the suspended officer was an “offensive partisan.” For instance the case of General Salomon, in whose place Dement was appointed, might have been properly so treated. If such inquiries were conducted openly, aboveboard, in broad daylight, they would determine the public judgment. But such an effect cannot be produced by the Senate receiving and examining papers in secret conclave, and then pronouncing verdicts after secret discussion of the reasons. I regret to say—but it is a solemn truth—the secret proceedings of the Senate in regard to such things have no longer the confidence of the people. And it would be useless to disguise the fact, that the Republican majority of the Senate has gained nothing by the debate now going on. On the contrary it is bound to lose as long as it sticks to its secret proceedings, with such things as the confirmation of Dement, of Rasin and other similar cases breaking that darkness with occasional streaks of light. It looks as if the rule of secrecy were bound to yield before long, and the party defending it will be at a great disadvantage in public opinion.
FROM GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
| Senate Chamber, | |
| Washington, March 26, 1886. |
I have yours of the 25th. The trouble would be, in the way you propose, precisely the one that now exists, with the further complication that, in sending for persons and papers by a
