to stay at home, arrived at the Senate Chamber and tried to go up to the gallery, but the attendant, who knew her, told her: “No room in the gallery, madam; but you, as everybody, can go on the floor to-day; your husband is speaking.” As she was trying to get in, the crowd was beginning to pour out, and Sumner, who was seeing out some friends, met her in the lobby and stretching out his hand cried out: “Oh, madam, I congratulate you. Your husband has just made the greatest speech that has been heard in the Senate for twenty years!” Afterwards he thanked me profusely. It was indeed, not the best speech, for the subject was comparatively small, but the greatest parliamentary triumph I ever had in the Senate. (Conkling was so deeply hurt that he never spoke to me again.) You can find a description of the affair in the New York Tribune of the next day, Feb. 21st.
The Senate constituted the investigating committee for the evident purpose of acquitting. In defiance of well-established customs, those who moved the inquiry were rigidly excluded from membership. On the contrary, they were made to appear as accused parties. I was, however, permitted to ask questions.
Nevertheless, the investigation clearly established two things: 1. That the rule of neutral duty as laid down by the Administration itself had been glaringly violated, and that the defense of the War Department consisted of the most transparent subterfuges; and
2. That in making these sales the laws governing the sale of arms and ammunition of the Government had been most unceremoniously set aside.
The investigation, the report of the majority of the committee and the speeches of the Administration Senators showed also how completely the Grant régime had subjected the moral sense of its adherents in Congress. Perhaps you might read with some profit in
