The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1870-06-23
Mr. scbenck's motion was agreed tc

support OF the NetO anu DN DlSSoiS'
Jenckes and Butler, of Massachusetts,,
against it, an exciting episode took
place, arising out of point of order,
made by Mr.. Farnsworth, that Mr.. But
Ter wasthe paid counsel of RollinW White,
the beneficiary under the bin. lie de-
clared IT was in evidence that the mem
Der from Massachusetts, had accepted a
fee of $1,000. Mr. Butler asserted that
there WASH such evidence. Mr.. Farms
worth affirmed there was and said twas
contained in a communication OF the
Commissioner of Patents, which he had
asked to have read at the Clerks desk,
but lis reading had been objected to-
Mr.. Butler-There is no such evidence,
never can be and never will be.
Mr.. Farnsworth-l insist npon ITS
being read
Mr.. Butler-The point between the
gentleman and myself is this: lie
charges that a fee OF 5000 was furn-
ished me to advocate the extension OF a
patent on the floor ] say received the
fee for arguing the the case in the Si-
preme Court. ...
Mr.. Farnsworth-The statutes OF the
United States declare that member OF
Congress who receives fee for matters
pending before Congress or i'll any of
the departments, commits a miSde-
meanor, punishable by indictment, and
it is in evidence that the member from
Massachusetts voluntarily stated to the
Commissioner Of Patents
Mr. Butler interrnpting-i donot give
wav to he abused by Il man who has
more beard than brains.
Nh Farnsworth-That is most ex-
cellent retort, as good as the member Is
CAPABLE of making. The member may
curse my beard, but he cannot steal un-
der the shadow of my beard. Ny
point of order is that the gentleman, the
member from Massachusetts, has no
right to advocate q claim here for fee
of $1,000.
The Speaker directed the rule 10 be
read which directed that no member
shall vote on any question in which he
is Immediately or personally interested,
and stated that if the rule were enforced
in its utmost stringency it would not
prevent the gentleman from MasSachu-
setts debating the question. The rule
was limited entirely to the question Of
voting. 1t was for the gentleman him
self to decide upon his power and his
oath H. a member The Chair could
not he conscience keeper Of the mem
berS.
Mr.. Butler only wanted the record to
be read, which would brand the state
ments of the member from Illinois as
false and infamous. Sensa-
ton.
Mr.. Farnswortll-lIaye it read.
Mr.. Butler-The entry is one uf
$1,000 for counsel fees paid Inc in Jan
uarv, 1869, when argued the case be-
fore the Supreme Court, where my brief
is filed. 1t was tor counsel fees and
nothing else.
Mr.. Farnsworrh said he would rca Il
the record.
Mr.. Butler desired that it should hr
read at the Clerks desk.
The paper was sent TO the Clerk desk
and read, from which it appeared that
Mr.. Butler had written to the Gommis-
sioner of Patents suggesting that the
patent should not he extended without
an examination and that he received a
counsel fee of $1,000 from the applicant.
Mr. Farnsworth said there were two
facts prominent in the matter The
first was that in 1869 there was pending
an application from Rollin White for an
extension of his patent; that that fact
becoming known to the member from
Massachusetts he volunteered to protest
againstit whether that was for the pur-
pose Of counting an offer of counsel fees
he did not know. The second fact was
that when White tilel his schedule
Of expenditures in 1869, in order to show
that he had not made as much out of the
patent as he should, he entered a. one
item of expenditure that in January,
1869, he paid the member from Massa-
chusetts $1,000 for counsel tees.
He would state further that the mem
ber did not utter a word in the Supreme
Court in behalf Of Rollin White. though
he did file n very small and insigniti-
cant brief so that it might appear that
he did something in the Law Court to-
ward earning his $1,000, buf' he Earns
worth } would leave it to the House and
to the country to determine what the
motive of White. in paving $1,000, was,
and what it was, if not the $1,000, that
induced the member trom Massa-
chusetts TO advocate on this floor the
extension Of that patent He believed
the House and country would arraign
the member from Massachusetts for
being on both sides of the question,
first on one side and then on the other
for fee.
The Speaker here called Mr. Farms
worth To order.
Mr.. Garfield remarked that such
language ought not to he heard in these
halls.
The Speaker asked Mr.. Farnsworth
whether he insisted on hi demand Of
the previous question.
Mr.. Farnsworth Withdrew it
Mr.. Butler replied to Mr. Farns-
worth. and as he was speaking the
members gathered around him 80 that his
remarks at times were very indIstinctly
heard by the reporters He denied
having manifested any interest in the
bill before the House in the way Of for.
warding its passage, andappealed to the
chairman of the committee on Patents,
and the members generally to bear
him out in his denial
lie explained that i'll lS61 lac wa:
applied TO by certain gentlemen in hi:
town. interested in the manufacture q