Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-03-06
The Credit WobiIIer Debate.
THE HOUSE REFUSE TO EXPEL.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 81, 1873.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 81, 1873.
The House reassembled at 10 o'clock,
the hour up to the regular time of meet
ing being considered part of the legisla-
tive day of yesterday, and to be divided
out in small proportions among mem
bers who have not yet been heard on the
expulsion resolutions
Mr.. Bird expressed views in favor of
the power of expulsion.
Mr.. Holman took similar grounds,
and regarded this as the first great con-
test between representative government
and the great money corporations of the
country.
Mr.. Townsend of New York declared
himself as against the right of expulsion
for offenses committed before election.
He agreed somewhat in the views ex-
pressed by Mr.. Holman as to the danger
from great money corporations, as in
this Capitol itself proof of the decay of
moral virtue had found exhibition, but
remedy was not to be found in the ex-
pulsion of some of its most honored
members.
Mr.. Wood said on the question of
jurisdiction he differed somewhat from
the views expressed on either side. He
made distinction between the classes
of offenses over which the House might
exercise judicial power He held that
it had such power over official offenses
committed before the person was a
member, when the results OF such of
fenses were of a continuing character,
so as to affect votes and acts as mem
bers. The special committee had ex-
ceeded its authority, which was simply
to find out and report what members
had been bribed by Oakes Ames, that
did not justify resolution of expulsion
against Oakes Ames, who seemed to be
chosen as a victim simply because he
told the truth, because he in fact had
turned states evidence. His colleague
(Brooks), was in no regard comprehend
ed within the scope of the jurisdiction
of the committee. He certainly was
not bribed by Oakes Ames, he was not a
member of Congress in the sense of
resolution appointing the committee.
EIe should vote against the report in
both cases, believing that in one instance
a man was to be punished for turning
states evidence, and in the other man
was to be punished as a make weight
for the purpose of holding up a member
of the Democratic party to public
odium.
Mr.. Potter Of New York regarded the
question as only form of condemna-
ton, but the expression of members hap
pened to be an Objectionable form of
condemnation. 1t happened to be form
which some thought would establish
precedent that might at some time be
dangerous; he therefore hoped that in
some way or other the condemnation of
the House might take some form WHICH
did not involve that difficulty.
Mr.. Speer had no doubt of the power
of the House to expel a member for an
offense committed before election, es-
pecially as it continued in force after be-
coming a member of the House.
Mr.. Speer concluded by saying that as
to Dawes and Scofield, he would not
vote either to expel or censure them. Lie
owed these gentlemen nothing, either
personally or politically, but he owed it
to his conscience as an honest man, he
owed it to his sense of duty, he owed it
to the cause of truth, to say that after
the most careful examination of testimo-
ny in regard to them, he believed them
to be innocent. But when he came to
the cases of Kelly and Garfield, he had
to say with the same honesty of purpose
and the same sincerity of conviction,
that he believed them both guilty. They
never paid a dollar for the Credit Mobil-
ier stock which they received. Kelly
had been paid $1,079-for what For
nothing.
Here the hammer fell, the legislative
day of yesterday ended and that of to-
day commenced, and was opened with
prayer by the chaplain.
Mr.. Sargent of California offered an
amendment to the resolutions, reciting
parliamentary doubts in the case, and
condemning the conduct of Oakes Ames
and James Brooks.
Mr.. Hoar suggested that the amend
ment of the gentleman from California
would establish a parliamentary prece-
don't yuorca than ao1y +hat ho5 baa,, ,oro
posed.
Mr.. Poland, chairman of the select
committee, then rose to close the debate.
He commenced by saying that he did
not expect to entertain or amuse the
House and the large audience he saw
before him; he knew nothing about
stage tricks; he knew nothing about
playing the buffoon or the Harlequin, he
never had any gift for saying or doing
things for the purpose of splitting the
ears of the groundlings. Even if he
had those gifts he should not have
deemed this the proper occasion to dis
play qualities of that kind He could
not do such things if he would, and he
would not if he could. He proposed to
make plain and sober attempt to con-
vince his fellow members who were to
act on the resolutions as to what was
their proper duty in relation te them.
He would commence where he left off
the other day on the question of juris-
diction. Mr.. Poland then proceeded to
reply to the arguments made against the
power of the House to expel members
for offences committed before election,