The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1873-02-28
coNcR EssIoNAL.
THE POLAND REPORT.
WASHINGTON, Feb. q. 1873.
HOUSE.

| w ASHlNGTON, rcu. ~, loso'
HOUSE.
The House reassembled at 10 o'clocl
this morning and the discussion OF tn
Poland Report was at once resumed.
Mr.. Bird. OF New Jersey, was the frs
speaker. He defended the report OF tn
Committee.
Mr.. Holman, of Indiana, protestes
against the adoption of the report
Mr.. Wood, OF New York, indicated
his purpose to vote against both resolu
tioDs Of expulsions.
Mr.. Potter, OF New York, also oppos'
ed the resolutions of expulsion, ane
paid high tribute to Mr.. Brooks in
tegrity. :,
Mr.. Spear Of Pennsylvania contend
ed that the House had right to &C
back OF the election and punish an
offense committed by member before
his election. He believed Messrs,
Dawes and Scofield innocent, but thai
Messrs. Kelly and Garfield were guilty,
The latter had received the stock with
out paying q dollar ioI the same.
Mr.. Baker, OF Kentucky complained
that his words had been misconstrued.
He had not contended for Brooks but
construed that the House had no juris-
diction.
Mr.. Stevenson OF Ohio, raised point
of order that the House had agreed that
the previous question should be consld-
cred as ordered after the reading Of the
Journal.
The Speaker sustained the point OF
order.
Mr.. Sargent, calculated to have read
substitute proposed by him, recltlng
that it appears from the report OF the
committee that the offenses were com
mitted more than four years ago and
that serious. doubts exists as to the pow>
er of Congress to punish otfenses COM
mitted before the individuals becam
members, ard resolving that the Rous
could not punish the conduct OF Ames
and Brooks.
PoLAND's SUMMING UP.
Mr.. Poland then rose to close the de-
bate He first took up the question ol
| Jurisdiction in which be felt muc b
deeper interest, as establishing a cor
rect precedent than in the punishment
of these men. He said, we had adopt
ed the common parliamentary law
of England as much as any other por-
ton OF the common law OF England
and it was proper to 60 back and see
what was done bv the House OF Com
mons He referred to the case OF Welch,
already cited, in the House OF Com.
mons in 1912. Welch was convicted
and the special verdict appealed from 10
twelve Judges, who, not having the
power to set aside the verdict as in our
own courts, recommended par
don which was as equivalent
and considered declaration that ne
was innocent. 1t was for this reason
he was not expelled. He cited the
case OF expulsion for otfencescommltted
prior to the election and could find no
place where this question of the power
to punish for previous offence was ever
adyerted to, and when our Constitution
was framed he held that no doubt, on
this point, was everentertained as to the
question. In our country, he denied
that it had become settled question.
On the contrary it was only within a
few years that such a position had been
raised. In the case OF Humphrey
hall the question was not raised
through the consideration OF the
subject in the senate. He said the Of
fence had not been fully established
and that the proper place to estab'
| lish that was before jury.
This he said was done by the very
men who framed the Constitution, vet 3
wear later they turned around and ex-
peled q member without a jury. DE
admitted that there was not an instance
where it has been held that the House
could not 90 back of the election, until
the case OF Malteson. In this case
there were other reasons operating
Re had been dealt with by former
Congress. and his case was fully un-
derstood by his constituents before hl'
election. This, he held, had more
weight in the decision OF the House
than the question whether the House
had power 90 back. He cited the cas'
Of Copnor OF Texas whose right to a
seat was disputed by Mr.. Butler o
MASSACHUSETTS because OF the otfense iol
which he was tried by a court Martha
honor to his election.
He next referred to the conduct o
Ames, contending that ifhe stood be-
fore Jury, there could not be q ques
ton of his conviction
Mr. Poland had commenced re-
view of the case against Mr. Brook!
when his hour expired and he asked al
extension of his term, but several mem
bers objected
STATING TIE QUESTION.
The Speaker then announced tn
question. The immediate question wa
upon the resolution expelling Ames t.
be followed by one for the expulsion o
lanes Brooks. For these subltltut'
had been offered by Mr.. Sargent. l
this was adopted, the question woul'
then recur first upon the resolution II
relation to Ames and next upon the on
, relating to Messrs. Ames and Brooks
and then upon the one in relation t
Messrs Amss sudlBrooks and the pre-
amble.
Mr.. Farnsworth said that 10 orde
that the matter might be referred to tn
people he would move the whole sub
iect be laid on the table the motion 7
H. .ahla uaa raionfad peas sc