The San Francisco call., 1905-02-14

cent years has the House witnessed
such disgraceful spectacle as it did
to-day with Sullivan of Massachusetts
and William r. Hearst of New York as
the central figures. Both INDUCED in
personalities of the graVest character
and stirred the House so as to arouse
among certain members a feeling of
the greatest Indignation. Sullivan
heaped upon Hearst TRADE of denun-
citation. while the latter. by implica-
tion. charged Sullivan with completely
IN q murder.
The affair grew out Of the recent dis
cussion OF the freight rate question in
the House. when Sullivan inquired of
Lamar OF Florida, who was favoring
the Hearst bill why Hearst did not
defend his own bill this being followed
by criticism Of Sullivan in the New
York American and Journal
Several appeals were made to Speak
er Cannon TO cause the two men to de-
sist in their abuse Of each other.
Speaker Cannon, however, allowed
them to proceed. Sullivan entirely con-
cluded, but in the case of Hearst the
Speaker, on reconsideration, noticing
the temper OF the House, decided that
an accusation Of homicide against a
fellow member was supplementary,
because IL was calculated TO provoke
disorder and disturbance. Almost i'm
Tnediately thereafter Hearst took his
seat, hurting defiance and declaring
that IL would be his pride TO continue
his hostility TO individuals such as he
charged Sullivan TO be.
SULLIVAN ANSWERS INSULT.
Sullivan took the floor Immediately
after the reading Of the journal at
noon to-day. He had prepared his
speech in advance and read IL through
out After he had explained the pur-
pose Of his remarks he read the article
In the New York American to which
he had taken offense. This, he said,
touched him in his representative ca
pacity and was deliberate insult from
one member Of the House 10 another.
At this point Robinson of Indiana in
terrupted to make the point of order
that Sullivan was violating the rules
OF the House. There were quite gen.
eral expressions of disapproval Of Rob-
insOn's point and il was some time be-
fore Speaker Cannon could restore or
der TO pronounce his ruling. He held
that the language used at that time
was strictly in order.
Cannon read the rule governing the
point and Sullivan proceeded, but with
such vigorous denunciation as TO bring
forth another point Of order from Rob-
have TO hear the words read again. He
sent for Sullivans manuscript and the
reading clerk slowly repeated the par
agraph questioned. This paragraph
scsthingly assailed the Presidential as
pirations Of the gentleman from New
York. Cannon ruled the speech in or
der and no further interruptions were
made.
HEARST ARISES TO REPLY.
-
livan when the latter took his seat. He
had to wait two minutes for order His
reply was brief, the sensational part
being contained in the concluding SEN
tences. which by inference charged Sui
Ivan with murder. Hearst said he as
sumed entire responsibility for the ar
ticle which had aroused Sullivan's in
dignation, although, he said, he had
not inspired II, nor did he know in ad-
vance Of its intended publication. He
said he was glad TO incur the hostility
of that class Of individuals" Previous
70 this he had reviewed the attack
made upon him by Representative
Grove L. Johnson Of California, and
said that Johnson's defeat for Congress
was the result
Sullivan after the House adjourned
said he would take the floor tomorrow
and answer the reflection upon him
contained in Hearsts speech.
VITUPERATIVE ARTICLE READ.
At the outset Of his speech to-day
Sullivan said that he had given his no
tice early IN order that Hearst might
be present. He had interrupted La
mar, he said. because he thought La
mar was criticizing too harshly his
Democratic colleagues for their failure
TO support the so-called Hearst bill, and
he felt that Hearst himself might pro-
duce the desired effect. Ordinarily, he
said, public men expect fair criticism
Of their official acts, but where the pro-
prietor Of a paper is a member of Con-
gress he owes a double duty to his col
leagues TO be fair and impartial in his
criticisms Of them. He read the article
IN the New York American of February
in criticism Of himself. which he said
had been called forth by an infraction
Of Hearst's monarchical dignity and
thereby had been consigned to the po-
litical assassins Of Hearst's paper. The
article in question, Sullivan said.
touched his representative capacity and
was "a deliberate insult to one member
by another" Continuing Sullivan said:
The writer raises the inquiry whether my
ignorance OF pending measures was due 10
congenitsl incapscity Indifference TO the
Peoples rights. Congenital incapscity is a
serious charge. yet obviously one which a
person accused would not care to discuss. II
fortunate and Il is surely a grievous misfor-
tune not 70 be able 10 appreciate the value OF
the legislative services Of the gentleman from
New York. But congenital incapab bilty TO un-
derstand Is q word which covers wide range
oC mental and moral deficiency. IT covers the
case OF the moral degenerate. the unclcan. un-
productive, shiftleSs members Of society. and
il frcludcs the man who. totally bereft OF the
sense Of Propricty. raises his profaning eyes
tcnard the splendid temple OF the people s
highest gift--the Presidency OF the United
etatos-blissfully unconscious Of the Woeful
contrast between the qualifications requisite
Tor that high Office and his own contemplate
moral equipment.
HEARST A YELLOW PERIL
Sullivan referred 10 Hearst as "the
unknown man or political novice, whose
only recommendation is his inherited
wealth
The scheme OF political assassination.
he said, had been mapped out evident
ly with the idea Of destroying the re-
spectacle clements Of the Democratic
narty. He commended Williams, the