People's party paper. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1891-1898, 1892-08-19
It's real meaning might be more

W say WneGH6T ne DolcV0Q MS own
words to be true or false. He stated
that they were true, and no sooner
had he thus asserted his honest opin-
ion IN regard to his own statements,
than he was Kissed by the Demo
cratic side and virtually driven from
the floor.
Mr.. Tracey, Of New York, having
assumed guardianship over the honor
of the House, demanded that Mr..
Watson's words be "taken down"
This highly technical and satisfactory
procedure having been had, the cpl
sode was over for the time being.
In few moments, however, Mr..
Boatner, of Louisiana, introduced the
resolution under which our commit
tee has held what is called an inves-
tigation.
The resolution required us to as
certain whether it was true that
drunken members have been seen
reeling about the aisles," aud whether
drunken speakers have argued
grave public questions, etc."
At the beginning of the so-called
investigation, Mr.. Watson stated
under oath that had the opportunity
been given him to explain, he would
have SAID that while the charge was
part Of an Indictment against the
house, the number Of members who
had been seen drunk on the floor
we're few, and that so far as his
knowledge extended at the time the
book was written, they were con
fined to though he had heard
of others.
He discIaimed any purpose to act
as prosecutor Of the House in the
so-called investigation, and declined
to give names of individual members,
except under compulsion.
AS a matter of fact, no mention
was made of any individual member
until Mr.. Oates, of Alabama, was in
troduced as a witness on the other
side.
Mr.. Watson said he felt bound to
Introduce sufficient testimony to
prove that he had not fabricated a
SANDER when he wrote the lines
complained of.
In support of his assertion that
members had been seen reeling about
the aisles intoxicated, he produced
several honorable members of this
body who substantiated his state
ment. Mr.. Davis, Of Kansas; Mr.
Butler, of Iowa; Mr.. Ken, Mr..
Otis, Mr.. Baker, had each seen mem
bers drunk on the floor Of the House.
An analysis of the testimony will
show that it makes out case against
at least four different members.
Unless each and every one of these
honorable members are slanderers OF
the House, then Mr.. Watson is not
slanderer.
Mr.. White, of Iowa; Mr.. SheII,So
South Carolina; Mr.. Turner, of
Georgia; Mr.. McKaig, Of Maryland,
and other witnesses, had seen one in
toxicated member on the floor of the
House.
Nr. Kilgore, Of Texas, had seen
two.
On this branch of the case there
was proof made out as to several
members having been seen on the
floor ia the condition described by
Mr.. Watson. The proof was posi-
tive, aud came from members of the
House. To meet this proof the other
side put up merely negative testi
members who had not seen.
Some of the witnesses thus sworn
are noted absentees. Mr.. Stahlnecker,
Of New York, by some strange over
sight, was not sworn.
On the second branch Of the case
the proof was equally positive.
Drunken speakers were shown to
have debated grave public questions.
Mr.. Davis had seen two such in
stances. Mr.. Otis had seen two.
Mr.. Butler had seen two, and several
other witnesses had seen one. These
witnesses had not all testified as to
the same occasion, or as to the same
individual.
One Of the members testifying had
witnessed such scene during the
discussion Of the river and harbor
bill. Another had seen a similar in
stance on pension night. Another
had seen like occurrence during
coloquy between members. Several
had seen it during the Noyes- Rock
well case.
Hence it is submitted that unless
these honorable members are all SLAM
derers, Mr.. Watson is not slanderer.
They have said under oath just what
he was Kissed for saying in his book
AS to the particular case Of Mr..
Cobb, the minority has this to say
He admits he was drinking whisky
during the latter part Of his speech