Wilmington Journal

Richardson—Stanly—Ritchie—Sengstack,

Whoever has read the resolution offered on Wednesday last by Mr. Stanly in the House of Representatives, as chairman of the "Bundlecund" committee, calling for the arrest and trial before the House of "Thomas Ritchie and C. P. Sengstack," because they refused to answer certain questions propounded to them, will have seen another foot-print of federalism quite as intelligible as the alien and sedition laws. It exhibits an attempt to establish, through a party congressional committee, a most odious inquisition into the private affairs of political opponents, and by means, if possible, more odious still, for the gratification of political and personal malice.

A short history of the origin of this whole matter may be acceptable; and will elucidate the proceedings lately going on in the House of Representatives.

The Tyler administration, the most reckless ever known in any civilized nation, had committed such gross and open violations of law and justice, had so trampled on all precedents, and so plundered the treasury, in the opinion of a large portion of the community, that the press groaned with the indignant expressions of public condemnation. Especially was Mr. Ewing, Secretary of the Interior, marked out as guilty of high offences. It was alleged that he had re-opened State claims against the government in the Pension and Indian Offices, which had been rejected by former administrations, to large amounts, and by his own single authority had allowed and paid them, although having no real foundation in law or justice.

He was also charged with making numerous appointments to office in violation of law, and in one instance conferring on one of his appointments—viz: the chief clerk of the Pension Office, whom he brought from Ohio, as it was said, for special purposes—a revisory power over the opinions and decisions of his superior, the Commissioner of Pensions. But what aggravated the charge was, that the aforesaid clerk, having assumed to himself the examination of the claims then pending in the office for commutation of pay to revolutionary officers and interest thereon—having remained in office for three months or thereabouts, so busily engaged in that examination as to be unable to attend to any other duty—suddenly resigned his office, and advertised as an agent to prosecute those very claims against the government, several of which, it is said, have been passed by Mr. Ewing, contrary to law and precedent, and a knowledge of which he very cleverly obtained by this very able arrangement.

But, in addition to these charges, it was alleged that many appointments made by Mr. Ewing were either editors or correspondents of newspapers, and were, in fact, mere pensioners on the government for party purposes. The disclosure which was made of such a case in the State Department showed the existence of such irregularities in one of the departments; and Mr. Ewing was charged with having participated largely in the abuse.

These charges should have induced Mr. Ewing to ask for an investigation, so that, if innocent, he might be acquitted before the world. But as the condition of the treasury appeared to be a growing evil, and no such request came from Mr. Ewing, Mr. Richardson, of Illinois—as honorable a member as holds a seat in the House of Representatives—moved that a committee of nine be appointed to inquire into the truth of those charges, and his motion was adopted.

The friends of a slandered cabinet officer could not ask for anything more honorable or favorable to him than a fair trial. But if, unfortunately, he is not slandered, then their course would be accordingly.

Instead of uniting in the investigation of the charges made against Mr. Ewing, Mr. Stanly determined to divert public attention, if possible, from the exposure he anticipated as its result, by a counter committee to inquire whether certain "Bundlecund" documents had not been written by a democratic office-holder, and whether certain democratic office-holders under the Polk administration did not electioneer for Gen'l Cass, contribute money, write letters, attend public meetings, &c., during the canvass of 1848.

This ingenious device of the N. Carolina statesman was executed in the spirit in which it was devised. It was intended to act as a lightning-rod in a thunder storm. In the examination before his committee, general questions were put to witnesses of a curious character, of which one addressed to Mr. Ritchie, of the "Union," is a rich specimen. He was required to say who were the anonymous correspondents of his paper.

Those who know the laws regulating the press in this country—the constitutional guaranties of its freedom—the necessity of that freedom in order to maintain the best rights of the citizen—will be startled at such an insidious yet bold attempt to shackle that great engine of public liberty.

Here was no question of an abuse of the press. No one complained of a libellous attack on private character. In either case the proper forum would be the judicial tribunal. Here was no other than a question of constructive contempt. This contempt is based upon a refusal of an editor to surrender a privilege necessary to guard a free press. Mr. Stanly brings this question before the House of Representatives, and demands a trial and punishment of Mr. Ritchie, doubtless by fine and imprisonment. I deny the right of Congress to exercise any such power.

Their powers, fortunately for the public interests, are limited to express grants. The power to make rules for governing their own proceedings cannot authorize them to trample on rights guarantied by the constitution. All parts of the instrument must stand together. You cannot construe a power to exist which violates any other power or right. If, therefore, the House of Representatives by a rule has given a power to a committee to send for persons and papers, and to examine them in investigations of any kind, those examinations must conform to principles clearly acknowledged in the fundamental law, or to resist them is no contempt.

The freedom of the press, therefore, at which Mr. Stanly is aiming a deadly blow, is in danger, if his doctrine shall prevail, and his vengeance be gratified by an oppression of the editor of the Union. Mr. Ritchie is one of the last men who should be victimized, if a courteous and fair deportment in his important station is a merit. During a long professional career, whilst always battling for the freedom of the press, he has always avoided its licentiousness. Even now no suspicion of the kind is connected with the attack of Mr. Stanly, and he will find that the fate of the old federal advocates of the sedition law will be his—to be overwhelmed with a storm of public odium, in which the whig press itself will join.

The case of Mr. Sengstack is an aggravation of the offence of Mr. Stanly in this whole matter, if the public are correctly informed on the cause of complaint against him. It is said that the contempt of which he is guilty consists in his refusal to state what democratic office-holder contributed money and otherwise aided Gen. Cass's election, unless the committee allowed him to state what whig office-holders did the same thing in favor of Gen. Taylor. He might have added, "and have been retained in office, and in some cases promoted for the act."

For this refusal, the old man is to be dragged before the bar of the House of Representatives and tried. He is to be allowed counsel to defend him, if he desires it; and I trust, if such an event occurs, that I may be there to hear.

And now the public will see the action of the House of Representatives with much interest. Worn out as the people are with the delays of the present session, they will nevertheless arouse up if a finger be laid upon their favorite—the press. I ask for Mr. Stanly no heavier judgment than he will assuredly meet with for his conduct on this occasion. Vindicator.