Roanoke daily times. (Roanoke, Va) 1886-1890, 1890-03-13

cussins Parliamentary rrivileGe-The
Practice OF Printing Unspoken Speeches
In Tho Record Generally Condemned.
The Matter Goes Over.
WASHINGTON. March l2.-Mr. Hoar s
resolution for the exclusion from Inc
Record 81 the sentences lnterpolated by
Mr.. Call in the report of his remarks il
the discussion with Mr.. Chandler some
weeks ago caused an extended debate
iu the senate. III winch nearly all t''e
leading members participated.
Mr.. George opposed the resolution Is
being $50 far Us his experience lii the
senate WENT without precedent.
While it did not expressly contain a
censure, it was certainly capable OF that
Interpretation. Mr.. George went on TO
compare the words actually spoken with
those inserted in The Record, anu argued
that while there was verbal chanSe
there was no change OF meaning
iustis Defends Call.
Mr.. Eustis said that the order asked
by the committee implied Il censure.
Mr.. Edmunds asked Mr. Eustis
whether he defended the propriety of
printing paragraph which had not
been uttered in the presence OF the
senator to whom it alluded.
Mr.. Eustis wanted TO know what the
committee had found Mr. Call guilty OF.
G ,rtain!y not on the Justification item
of The Record, or that he had violated
the custom of the senate, for on TINS
the committee was absolutely silent
There was not, he said, single eXag-
ceration in what was inserted IN Inc
Record as compared with what was pub
liclv uttered on the floor. The language
was not the same bat the accusation
was the same, although he confessed
that the language inserted IN The
Record was probably little more
flowerv than the language on the floors
Edmunds and Eustis Cross Swords.
Mr.. Edmunds illustrated the question
by saying:
might say on the floor OF the senate tiiat
believed that the senator (Mr. Eustisl miSrtp-
resented the state OF Louisiana, and II there
had been an honest vote and an honest count
in that state the senate should not have tht
pleasure Of the seniors presence.
Here Mr.. Eustis interrupted TO in
ouire. 'Why do you make that state
ment:
NJ. EuHluluS-A liltsAS ~ pNNseNSN = -
lievc it.
Mr. Eustis-O, not because its true.
Mr.. Edmunds-Also because il is true rs
believe il. Now, ii l make that statement III
the senate and tomorrow there appears IL
The Record an additional statement that TINS
WAS accomplished in some way by the senator
himself. and that with bloody hands ana
wicked intentions he had managed by iraut
and violence 10 construct legislature OF thai
7 Tria IN Isl
ana would say that all that had been said
Yesterday, and that it was Very proper for
me, behind his back, TO have IL inserted II
The Record
Mr.. Edmunds was continuing when
he was stopped by a point of order from
Mr.. Daniels, who asked that Mr.. Ed
munds Dc taken down. Mr.. Daniel,
said he understood the senator from
Vermont to impute distinctly to the
senator from Louisiana the defense OF
murder and it was to that language thai
he took exception. on the ground that
no senator had right to impute wrong
to another.
\ sentence written out By the official
reporter having been read. llr. Daniel:
said that those We're not the words &c
which he took exception. Later on Mr..
Daniels said that il was difficult TO find
the Objectionable sentence. he wouiC
not press the matter.
MIR. Daniels on Parliamentary Privilege
Mr.. Daniels said that the question
was one which addressed itself TO the
sense of honor of the senate. He had
heard the remarks made by the senator
from Florida and he did not regard
them as coming within the pale OF par
liamentary privilege. He Went further
than the senator from Massachusetts
t0lr. Hoar) in his idea OF the range OF
parliamentary privilege of senators.
No senator had right 10 point his
finger TO another and to attribute to hln
Separating him from his colleagues %
from the mass Of his political associates
anything that would cause him pain OF
offense. Therefore he did not hesitate
to say that the senator from Florida hac
no right to designate the personality a;
person responsible for the crimes ana
charges imputed to him. The senate
however. should strike at the root o.
such personalities. 1t was the duty Of
the presiding officer rs soon as he
noticed the drift into personalities tC
cali the offending senators to order.