The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-12-12
A BOMBSHELL IN THE HOUS
A RESOLUTION IMPEACHING AM
BASSAD0R BAYARD FOR RE
CENT TARIFF UTTERANCES.
A LONG and HOT DEBATE FOLLOWED

After Eliminating the Impeachment
Clause the Resolution Was Adopted.
Mr.. Cullom Addresses the Sen
ate on the Monroe Doctrine.
Washington, Dec. 10.-RepresentativC
William Barrett of Massachusetts enjoys
the distinction of being the author OF
the first thrilling incident in the present
house of representatives. He threw n
bomb shell into that body soon after il
convened by Offering resolution i'm.
peaching Thomas +. Bayard, ,ex-secretlry
of state, and now United States ambassa
dor to the court of st. James, for high
crimes and misdemeanors. The grounds
in the resolution was the utterances of
Mr.. Bayard delivered before the Edin-
burgh, Scotland, philosophical institute
November Z. In this speech Mr.. Bayard
spoke of protection" as form of Estate
socialism" and said it had done more to
''foster class legislation ''breed in
equality" corrupt public life," ''lower
the tone of National representation,
divorce ethics from politics" than any
other cause. Such reflections on the gov
ernment's policy by an American ambas-
sador before foreign audience, the reso-
luton cited, were in serious disregard of
his obligations and calculated to injure
our National reputation. 1t concluded
l.. .A:. fg ntsvn off inc
mittee, which was empowered to send
for persons and papers, to investigate
and report by Impeachment or other
WISE"
Mr.. Barrett's resolution was preceded
by one of his colleague, Mr.. Mccall
Rep) of Massachusetts, in milder
tone. Mr.. McCalls resolution went
down, and then it was that Mr.. Barrett
sprang his resolution as one constitut-
ing question of privilege"
Mr. Crisp, the leader of the minority,
made an unavailing attempt to contest
the privilege nature of the resolution.
Speaker Reed overruled his point of
order and the resolution was thrown into
the arena of debate, where it remained
for three hours.
The Republicans took the position that
Mr.. Bayards speech constituted an of
fense against the country that called for
stern rebuke, if not recall.
The Democrats took the position that
Mr.. Bayard's utterances did not by any
stretch of the imagination constitute
ground for impeachment.
Mr.. Turner of Georgia asserted that
they were not even breach of propriety.
He took the position that the resolution
was largely "buncombe" to give the Re-
publicans an opportunity to air their
protection views.
Those who took part in the debate
were Messrs. Barrett, Dingley, Hit and
Cannon, Republicans, and Mr.. Crisp of
Georgia, McCreary of Kentucky, Money
of Mississippi and Turner of Georgia.
Mr.. Hit of Illinois, who will be chair
man of the foreign affairs committee, ad.
vised Mr. Barrett to amend the resolu-
ton so as to strike out the words iii
structing the committee to report by i'm
parchment or otherwise" and this was
finally done.
Mr.. Crisp moved to refer the resolu-
tion to the judiciary committee. which
was defeated by strict party vote, DO
to POT, the Democrats contenting them
selves with simply voting viva voce
against the resolution, which was adopt
ed without division.
Mr.. Barrett took the floor to make his
argument in favor of the adoption of his
resolution. He contended that Mr.. Bay
ards utterances, from public servant,
reflected upon domestic policy and were
intended to aggrandize his party, not his
country. He drew striking parallel
between the case of Mr.. Bayard and that
of Martin Van Buren,, whose nomination
was rejected by the senate because, as
secretary of state, he had given to our
minister to Great Britain, secret instruc-
tions to deal with the British foreign
Office in a manner calculated to injure
the prestige of his party in this country.
Mr.. Barrett quoted the strong words
of Daniel Webster, denouncing Van Bu-
ren's conduct on that occasion for being
the representative of his party instead
of his country"
Mr.. Barrett was given several rounds
of applause by the Republicans.
ut is true that Martin Van Buren's
nomination was rejected by the senate"
said Mr.. Cooper Dem) of Florida, inter-
rupting the Massachusetts, Republican,
"but is it not also true that in 1886 the
people of the United States yindicated
Van Buren by electing him president of
the United States" Applause on the
Democratic side.
"And | give you notice." shaking his
finger at the Republican side, that Mr..
Bayard may be vindicated in the same
way"
The Republicans were amused at this
prediction of Mr.. Cooper regarding the
possible vindication of Mr.. Bayard and
broke into cheer when Mr.. Barrett call
ed Mr.. Cooper's attention to the fact that
four years after Van Buren's vindication
in 1910 "he was buried SO deep that he
was never heard of agin."
Ex-Speaker Crisp replied to Mr.. Barrett
in rather an irOnical manner The DUR
pose Of the resolution, he said, was evil
IDENTIFY to give the gentlemen on the other
side something on which to air their views
on protection. He did not think, he said,
that gentleman elected to a seat on the
floor of the house believed that this resolu-
ton contained grounds for impeachemnt.
'If you impeach Mr.. Bayard for those
words" said the ex-speaker, you must
impeach majority Of the American peo-
ple."
The Republicans ieered at this, but Mr..