The neutral State must neither send troops to a belligerent, nor put ships of war at its disposal, nor furnish subsidies to aid it in making the war.

There is the true principle: “By the sending of men or war material one takes part in the war.

Did it not become the Government of the United States at this time, when making these large sales, almost gigantic, so that its suspicion was necessarily aroused, to institute inquiry into the real character of the purchaser?

Willingly would I submit to the most searching scrutiny, not only in the present case, but in all my public life.

There is not an act, letter, or conversation at any time, that I would save from investigation.

I make this statement, because I would not have the protest I deem it my duty to offer open to suspicion that there is anything I desire to conceal or any examination I would avoid.

It is important that they should not become a precedent.

And here again I declare that I have nothing to conceal, nothing that I would not willingly give to the world under any examination and cross-examination; but I am unwilling to aid in the overthrow of a rule of law which stands on…

Especially is it important in the Senate, where, without such protection, a tyrannical majority might deter a minority from originating unwelcome inquiries.

Very little reflection shows how natural is this rule as an instrument of justice.

In legislation, plainly, those who believe an inquiry necessary are the most proper persons to conduct it, and being so, they are selected by Parliamentary Law.

Thus, on submission of the question by the Speaker, the House unanimously decided that they would “not have a man that hath been against the Body of the Bill to be a Committee.” According to the report, “All said No”; and that unanimous…

The phrase “against the Body of the Bill” is strong and suggestive, showing the purpose to exclude those who were unfriendly to the measure.

There is good law as well as sense in his saying, that a child is not put to a nurse that cares not for it.

Parliamentary Law, in the creation of special committees, always seeks those who care for the business, whatever it may be.

One against an inquiry, or believing that there is no occasion for it, is repudiated by this rule, so just and benign, and also so venerable with years.

A man cannot be on a committee “of a thing he is against.” In other words, if he is against the inquiry for which a committee is created, he cannot be on it.

That these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they were in many instances a shelter and protection to the minority against the attempts of power.

Jefferson justly calls “the wantonness of power” is restrained, and minorities are protected against majorities.

Any shock to them, as in the present case, becomes a precedent by which liberty and justice suffer.

When law is sacrificed, individuals may for a moment seem to triumph, but it is at the cost of a great safeguard for the good of all.

This instructive statement is in admirable harmony with the rule, as declared in early times, that those “against the thing” cannot go on the committee,--and that a measure, like a child, is not put to a nurse that cares not for it.

The prime object is opportunity and fair play for those bringing forward a proposition, or holding the affirmative.

A committee organized to sustain the negative is the very committee described as a nurse that cares not for the child, and therefore is a committee not tolerated by Parliamentary Law.

I protest against it as constituted in flagrant violation of Parliamentary Law; and I protest especially against the acting Chairman, who undertakes to direct this inquiry and to examine witnesses, as not coming within the conditions…