The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-03-19
TO PROTECT. PRESIDENT
HILL AIMED AT ANARCHIsTS
 DISCUSSED 1w SEMATE.
1pnAtor YUttus Declarts He VIII B<
 Compelled to Vote Against the { Xeasure-Bacon and Mason .. in oolloquy.

Washington. March 1&-For three hours seday the Senate had under consideration the Dill providing for the protection of the President of the United States and for the punishment by the United States courts of those who commit assaults upon him.
 Mir. Bacon (Ga.) opposed the bill and Nr. Hoar (Azass.) and Mir. Mason Ulisl supported it. Mir. Bacon's argument fol- lowed the lines of his speech delivered ten days ago. Mir. Hoar's speech was largely legal and constitutional. He nAintained the right ot the government to protect itself against assaults upon its sovereignty sthrough the President. Mir. Mason made an attack upon anarchy and its methods and sharply criticised an axnSpdnent to the bill offered by Mir. Bacbn. He denounced 1t as opening the door to special pleading for the benefit Of assassins of the President This drew Ar. Bacons fire. He considered MT. Msson's criticism . personal reflection on him and resented 1t with heat. An the atmosphere.
 Earlier in the day lively debate was Dreeipitatsd by the effort of Mir. Rawles (Utah) to have printed as q, document some Philippine correspondence. Eventu- any the matter was ordered printed as requested.
 Thirty-nine private pension bills were passed and the calendar cleared. The un- finished business--the bill for the protec- ton Of the President of the United States.-wSs then laid before the Senate.
 MT. Pettus tAla.) said he would be forced to vote against the bill as he ob- 3ected to the re-enactrhent Of the old sedition laws.
 Mir. Bacon (Ga.) offered an amendment to the first paragraph of the bill provid- ing the penalty of death for an assassin of a President or the assault on the President were committed because Of his oflciai position or for the purpose or destroying the government or ifnpairing the exercise ot Its constitutional powers, :"
 Mir. Vest tMo.) suEgested the possibility of a federal jury acquitting an assassin of q President if the assault On the specified by MT. Bacon's amendment had not been proven.
 Mir. Bacon said his amendment was for the purpose of tiifferentiating between an assault on the President personally and crime against the government.
 An assault on the President. as per- son, he contended, ought to be punished precisely as any similar offence. against any other citizen was punished: other wise an official class would be created.
 Mir. Macon dll.) said the pending bill was but the formation and shape of public opinion which thrice had been aroused bv the murder of the President" The amendment offered by Mir. Bacon, he thought, was not warranted by the conditions or by the laws. ...-. $
 ''The towards and sneaks." he insisted, ''who take the advice they receive in dark halls and kill the President of the United States ought to pay the penalty provided in this biil.'
 He said the present was bad time to fix special pleading for anarchistic crina- inals. Their crimes were against 7o.oooooo people. 1 ! Mir. Mason concluded with ain eloquent denunciation of anarchy. which elicited hearty applause from the galleries.
 In supporting the bill, MT. Hoar sug- gested. that Mir. Bacon's Amendmept and his objections to the bill were founded not on a special rule of law. but a special rule of escape for the criminal specified by the measure.
 Mir. Bacon took sharp exception to the criticism of MT. Hoar. asserting that the Massachusetts Senator's statements were 'unjustifiable and misrepresented'' his
 
 In Conclusion. Mir. Hoar maintained that the bill would afford real protection to the President, and said 1t would safe guard the interests of the Government to have such crimes against the President punishable by the Government of the United States.
 MT. Bacon replied with some evidence of heat to criticism or his amendment made by MT. Mason, which. he said, he felt reflected on him personally. He de- nanded to know whether there was a Senator on the Republican side who be- Iieved he could be guilty of defending anarchists or their schemes, or a Sena- tor who believed that he had presented anything that would afford method of escape of anarchists from just punish- ment when guilty of an assault on the President.
 MT. Mason replied that he certainly be- lieved what he had said, and was willing to state it again. The Senator from Geor- eia knew, however that he was inca- pablo of refiecting on his (Bacon's) honor or integrity Of purpose.
 What I said" replied MT Mason, .'did not reflect directly or remotely on the honor of the Senator. was characteriz- ing the amendment, not the Senator"
 Without concluding the debate, at 4:sS p. m.. the Senate went into executive session and at 4;45 p. m. adjourned