The San Francisco call., 1905-02-14
ACCUSATION OF MURDER.

ACCUSATION OF MURDER.
AS soon as Sullivan concluded
Hearst arose. Replying to Sullivan S
criticism that Hearst had been guilty
of lack of action in the House, Hearst
said he was proceeding in the way he
thought most effective to his constitu-
ents. He did not know any way by
which a man could be less effective
for his constituents than in emitting
chewed wind on the floor of the
House
Hearst then began a review of the
attack upon him by Representative
Grove L. Johnson of California. when
he was interrupted by Payne of New
York, who alleged the remarks were
unparliamentary.
Il ask for fair play" demanded
Griggs Of Georgia.
Payne withdrew his point and
Hearst proceeded. He declared that
he had no desire to criticize Sullivan,
because If he had he would not have
done 1t in so puerile a manner. He
then sprang a sensation which threw
the House in an uproar. He charged
that John A. Sullivan was one of two
brothers who had kept a saloon in
Boston where a murder was commit
ted and that the two Sullivans were
indicted for manslaughter.
Il would like to ask the gentleman
from Massachusetts" calmly inquired
Hearst, what he knows about the in
cident?"
Sullivan arose and facing Hearst,
said:
IF the gentleman is asking that
question of me / will be very glad to
answer st."
Hearst ignored the remark. how
ever.
HOUSE IN AN UPROAR.
This is not a washshop," shouted
Butler of Pennsylvania, who appealed
TO the Speaker to know If there was
any power TO prevent continuance
of the discussion.
The Speaker ruled that Hearst was
proceeding by unanimous consent
and besides, he was not sure that
Hearst was specifically referring to
Sullivan. not being familiar with his
given name.
But Mr.. Speaker" said Butler
''he has inferentially charged the
gentleman with murder"
Butler was thoroughly enraged and
as he walked across the aisle, ex-
claimed:
This is not fair to the country"
After the excitement had subsided
Hearst, resuming, said he recognized
the justice of the remarks of Butler
about the turn of affairs, and that he
greatly regretted it; but, he added
he was compelled in defense Of him.
self ito define the character of men
who have made their attacks upon
me-" 1t was, he said, the duty of a
newspaper when such men were in
public life to refer to their past and
their character.
At this juncture Speaker Cannon.
noting the effect on the House of
Hearsts charge, interrupted and de-
clared that IAN accusation of homi-
eide against a member seems to fall
within the parliamentary prohibition.
calculated to provoke disturbance and
disorder and to bring the body itself
into contempt and criticism
The Speakers admonition caused
Hearst to cut short his remarks with
A statement that he was proud of the
hostility OF such as Sullivan and that
he would continue "to incur the hos
tility of that class of individuals so
long as he was in journalism or In
Congress.
Hearst, In an interview on the days
incidents in the House of Representa-
tives, said:
I need not say that 1 consider tc-dsys ses-
sion Of the House oisagreesble to all and abb
so1utely disgraceful to those who deliberately
planned such scene and forced 1t upon my
self and other unwilling members. l feel that
they deserved the disagreeable shock and dis
cOm1ture that met them when they learned
through the extremely appropriate kind o.
man whom they had selected their mouth
piece.