The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1888-05-30
TIE skINN.Nc or Mr.. scorT.
Mr.. Dalzell Uses Only Plain
Facts. But They Do the
BUSINESS.

Mr.. DaIzeil Uses Only Plain
Facts. But They Do the
Business.
In rising to a question Of privilege IN
the House. Mf. Dalzell. of Piftsburg, SAID
tha. be sesir-d 10 call attention TO nun
her of errors in the Congressional Record
of las Thursday IA 5rning On Wedncs-
dav a coloquy had occurred between hls
colleague I lBramml and himself, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania tScott-J
He found upon examination Of the Rec
. OH tha, the report OF the transaction had
been very materially altered in two ways.
Il WAS altered first bs the suppression oi
what actually took place, and by the IN
ser,ion of what did not take place These
Insertions and omissions we're material
"a the discussion. While be conceded IN
.he fullest and most generous way the
rigbt Of any member TO revise his re-
marks. he suggested that the rules of the
rIo.se and the rules Of common fairness
and common sense did not give mem
her the liberty toreyise remarks in which
other parties were interested
The gentleman from Pennsylvania
Tscoiil had no ri9st to 80 alter the colo
guy as to pIaac Brumm and himself Dali
zelll in Cd attitude which they had not
oecuBied. He found upon examination
IT the public printing office that MI
Scott's speech had been sent to him
fScottl for revision, and that, with the
exception Of one or two pages. 1t had mol
been returned. Something prepared by
Mr. Scott himself had been returned IN
lieu thereof. He held in his hand
transcript Of the notes Of the official re-
porters, and he compared it with the
printed record Of Mr. SCOTS speech TO
show that the two records were essential
iv different. The printed record omitted
the assertion on the part of Mr.. scott
that he paid his men at Scott Haven IN
cash and tri-weekly and he was unwill-
ing that Mr.. SCOTS assertion on that sub
ieca should not stand as made. In the
actual transaction Mr.. Scott hesitated,
even though in the heat Of debste, TO
impute that he Dalzeill was here as an
attorney for certain interests, but in the
deliberation Of his closet he said: Il
expected the gentleman as the special
representaiive of the trusts of this coun-
srv.n Ii was not creditable to Mr.. Scott
that he assumed in the heat Of debate
more manly position than ne did when
he undertook TO sit down in his room and
make for the country an imaginary rec
ord Of what took place in the House, and
the charge the gentleman made-if lac
made II as a charg untrue. Anoth-
er point. where the Record was changed
was in the gentlemsn's reply TO Mr..
Brumm. On the floor he denied point
blank that he ever contributed 10 the
payment Of the coal and iron police. In
the Record he suppressed that denial and
denounced as false any charge that ne
employed Pinkerton detectives. He call
ed attention 10 this because Mr.. Scotts
statement on the floor might at some fu-
ture time he PCT to the test Of truth. The
latter part Of Mr. Scott's published speech
was never uttered. What he did say was
1T Is as fal-e rs he'll itself This was
omitted.
In conclusion. Mr.. Dalzell denied the
right of member 10 put ia the Record
what did not occur and 10 take that out
which did occur, when such inteuections
and omissions affected the interests Of
another member
Mr.. Scott inquired Of the Speaker
whether the extracts from his speech
read by Mr.. Danzell would appear in to-
lnorrow's Record. and received an affirm
ative answer. That, he said, left him lit
tie to say During his absence from the
House some time ago, his colleague, Mr..
Brumm, had charged him with employ
ing Pinkerton detectives
Mr.. Reed. Of Maine, called attention 10
the fact that Mr.. Brumm was vet pres
cnt
Mr.. Scott retorted that he had not been
present when Mr.. Brumm had made the
charge a retort which evoked from Mr.
loak, of Tennessee, the statement that
il was an easy way to fight one at time.
Continuing, Mr.. Scott said that his col
league Dalzell now tried TO show that
he had been misrepresenting the charge
that Mr. Brumm had made against him.
I'm response TO a telegram asking whether
pinkerton detectives had ever been en-
ployed at his mines, he had received the
following telegram from the superintend-
ent Of the mines at Shamokin, Pa: 'No,
never had any occasion to employ de-
teciives" That was all he had 10 say on
the question.
Mr. Dalzell said that his colleague had
only replied to Mr. Brumm, who was
able 90 take care of himself, on the ques-
ton involved in the telegram As to the
employment of detectives, he Dalzelll
had on his table evidence, the reading of
which would occupy the whole day 10
show the gentleman's attitude in regard
to pluck me- stores, the employment Of
detectives and the rates of wages TO la
Dor. lie refrained now from offering
this evidence simply because the state
menls made by the gentleman had re-
lAtion 10 Mr.. Bumm and not TO himself