In this vindication the careful and elaborate author shows how completely the early rule is recognized. The same learned authority, while stating the English and American Parliamentary Law, shows how the examination is conducted:-- “When an inquiry is instituted and an examination of witnesses undertaken by the House in its inquisitorial capacity, it is customary for the member on whose motion or suggestion the inquiry has been engaged in, or for some of the members voting with him for the inquiry, to take the lead in the examination of the witnesses, … or, in other words, to examine the witnesses in chief.”[39] Plainly, according to this usage, Mr. Schurz, and not Mr. Hamlin, should take the lead and examine the witnesses in chief. The other parliamentary authority to which I refer is Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, former Speaker of the House of Representatives. In his valedictory speech, March 3, 1841, this gentleman, who brought thought and study to the discharge of his public duties, took occasion to explain the principles governing the formation of committees, and all must admit that he did it with a clearness and philosophy not surpassed in parliamentary history. According to him, those having the affirmative of a proposition should have the direction of the committee. Speaking generally, he says:-- “The party upon which it naturally devolves to propose a question ought to have the power, it would seem, to present its proposition in the shape for which it is willing to be responsible; and as the different parties hold the affirmative according to the nature of the question, so ought the constitution of the committees to be varied.” Then, in language precisely applicable to the present case, the Speaker says:-- “In committees of investigation it is equally clear that the opposition, _who hold the affirmative_, should have the majority and the power.”[40] 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 old Parliamentarians were less philosophical than the American Speaker, but each meant the same thing. 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.