The age-herald., 1901-02-27
Unprecedented Action of Speak
 CT Had to be Explained
THE SPEECH. ATTACKED MIR. HANNA
Sensational Episode Was Closed By Forced Adjournment-Sampson
 and Schley Controversy Is U, Again Aired By Berry.

Washington, February 26-The House was the scene of a sensational incident late this afternoon, which threw that body into a violent state of excitement. For an hour the storm ragged, ending ab fuptly when an adjournment was taken, upon motion of MT Payne, the floor leader of the majority
 MT. Lentz, an Ohio Democrat who has created many sensations during his serv- Zee in the House, stirred the Democrats to fever pitch by rising to question of privilege, and alleging that a speech he had turned over to the public printer, under general leave to print had been withheld from the Record and had been turned over to General Grosvenor of Ohio by the Speaker. The nature of the epeech was not developed during the events that followed, but it was learned that it was an attack upon Senator tIannna, and the methods by which he was elected. The Speaker explained that 1t had been represented to him ...at the speech violated the privileges of the House and he had decided that it be with drawn until he could look over it.
 Pressure of business had prevented him from doing so, however, and only twenty minutes before, he said, he had directed that the speech go into the Record, be- lieving that if it contained anything offensive it could be stricken out of the Record by the House later Intense ex- citement followed.
 Several Points of Order.
 Several points of order were made by Republicans, but the Speaker declined to side or to take the matter in that way holding, however, that to proceed a proposition of some kind must be before the House. Therefore MT Richardson, the Democratic leader, offered a resolu- ton that the Speaker had no right to withhold the speeches. Against this the question of consideration was raised by MT. Lacey, and by a strict party vote the House decided not to consider it.
 Amid still greater excitement and confusion, MT. Richardson offered an- other resolution condemning the speak CTS action In terms and directing that the speech be delivered forthwith to the public printer. Again MT. Lacy raised the question of consideration and again by a strict party vote the House refused to consider it. At this point fur ther proceedings were cut off by an ad- 1ournment taken on the motion of MT. Payne and again sustained by a strict party vote The controversy probably will be resumed tomorrow.
 Early in the day a partial conference report on the Indian appropriation bill was agreed to and the bill was sent back to conference. The western members made an effort to accept the Senate aemendment appropriating AO0,C00 for IT, rieation experiments on the Gila River in Arkansas but they were defeated-oS to g7 The conference report on the na- val bill was beaten on account of the item creating assistant chiefs of bureaus in the navy department and motion to accept the Senate amendment authoriZ- inx the construction of three additional submarine boats was pending when the row above mentioned was precipitated by MT. Lentz
 Report on Naval Bill.
 MT. Dayton, of West Virginia, pre- sented the second. conference report upon the naval appropriation bill. The report still left in issue the Senate proposition for the transfer of the Port Royal dock to Charleston, the authorization of three submarine boats and the promotion or netty officers to the rank of ensigns. MT Davton demanded the previous question  nand was refused-4S to 76.
 The control of the floor then passed to MT Hepburn, who opposed the feature of the report accepting the Senate amend ,,,ent relative to the detail of assistant bureau chiefs in the navy department. His ground of opposition was that ap- nointing naval officers at the head of inc bureaus year by year was raising Inc aeryice to an "aristocracy" and ,,,hich enabled the navy to lobby here in yvoshippton when legislation affecting tbe navy was before Congress. In his t,,dement there should not be single navsI officer directly connected with the department
 Tha old controversy between Admirals cor,nson and Schley was made the sub iect of comment by MT Berry of Ken tuckv. who said it was still the evident nurnose of the Navy Department to con- fer tbe highest honor upon the man who nas "farthest away" at the battle of Sont,aro. He had read Admiral Samp- son,s alleged recent letter to Secretary Ioro as to the individuality of giving warrant officers in the navy commissions on account of their lack of social refine ment Mr. Berry said that Admiral Samp- .or who had written the letter, was of extremely humble origin himself, and what refinement he had obtained had been due to his service in the American navy. He entrusted Admiral Sampson's attitude toward the men of the navy with Admiral Schley's action during the stress of battle in sending word to those below that "all went well," and when the bat lie was over in saying that the victory belonged to the men behind the guns"
 MT. Sulzer of New York endorsed
 (Continued on Second Page.j