Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 5, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 March 1886 — SENATOR PUGH’S REPORT. [ARTICLE]

SENATOR PUGH’S REPORT.

The Minority Report of the Judiciary Committee Replies to the Majority. Mr. Pugh, of Alabama, submitted to the Senate, on tho Ist of March, the report of the minority of the Judiciaiy Committee on the Senate papers relating to the removal from office ot United States District Attorney Dustin of Alabama. It is very long, and contains no resolutions. It says that when President Cleveland came into office 95 per cent, of the offices were ftllod by Republicans. Notwithstanding tho great demand of his supporters for offices and the fact that good reasons for the removal of Republicans were abundant, removals from office have been sparingly made. In the case of Dustin the report says that Dustin has made no complaint that he was wronged. The whole point at issue is tho right to the possession of a single document relating exclusively to the removal of Dustin. The decision of tho President that this document Is not a public one must, the report says, be accepted as conclusive. The minority admits that all public documents relating to any subject over which Congress has power arc subject to call, but denies the right to d mand documents relating exclusively to removals or suspensions. The only rights ul custodian of such papers is tho President. The minority expresses surprise at the appearance in the majority report of the resolution relating to the preference of appointing honorably discharged soldiers and sailors, and asks by what authority such a resolution was reported, and what it has to do with the Dustin case. The information of the minority is that Dustin never was a Union* soldier, but on the contrary was either a Confederate soldier or sympathizer, and they believe the intent of the resolution was to secure political aud partisan advantage. In conclusion, the report denies the right of the Senate to try tne President for an alleged violation of his public pledges. It admits that the President did declare that he would not remove officials merely because they were Republicans, but says he at the same time declared that ho would decapitate officeholders who had been guilty of offensive partisanship. The President, it says, declines to submit voluntarily to the decisions of a tribunal having no jurisdiction over the question, the sufficiency of such cause for suspensions, especially when his fear is that such conduct in tho officer might be regarded by the Republican majority as a reason for tho retention of the incumbent in office. In relation to the reasons of the President for removing officials the report says that the documents in nearly every case contain only a partial statement of the causes, facts, and reasons, while in a large majority of tho cases the President relied on oral testimony, which it would be impossible for him to remember or reproduce in every case, so as to put the Senate in possession of all the facts which governed him in tho suspension, even if the Senate had the authority under the Constitution or laws of the United States to call him to an account.