The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-02-14
HEARST IN BAD LIGHT
Mr.. Sullivan Replies and Wins APP
proval of the House.


Washington, Feb 1.-THE Sullivan
Hearst episode had another airing in
the house today when MIR. Sullivan
again rising to a question of personal
Mr.. Hearst had ignored his offer 10
make a statement concerning his con-
nection with the homicide to which Mr.
Hearst alluded.
Mr. Sullivan admitted it to be true
that on November "A, 1886, his father,
Eugene J. Sullivan and himself We're
convicted OF rnanSlaughter in the SUI
perior court of Middlesex county, Mass
Mr.. Sullivan explained that while his
father was conducting a licensed hotel
in Boston he was attacked by drunk
en- man. He (Sullivan) then II years
of age, went to the rescue of his father.
The man was knocked down and struck
his head against the curbstone, became
unconscious and never recovered. His
father was sentenced to three years I'M
prisonment. Sullivan was held to be
only technically guilty and was neither
imprisoned nor fined. His father was
pardoned after serving year and a
half.
Mr.. Sullivan declared that the most
that could ever be alleged against him
was that he was technically guilty of
the offense charged the district attor-
ney having admitted that he was not
even morally guilty
Il am constrained to say, how
ever, said MI Sullivan, that if my
father were now alive and he were to
be attacked in my presence 1 would
come again to his defense" All the
facts, he said, were fully publishe ed in
all the newspapers in the city of Bos-
ton at the time and We're before his
constituents when he was elected to
the Massa chuSetts senate in 1900 and
1901 and to the congress of the
United States in 1902 and 1904. land
it was not" he said in conclusion,
until 20 years after that alleged of
Tense that any individual was found
who felt that it was necessary or
proper to allude to the circumstances
of the case.
from both sides of the chamber when
he declared that he walked out of
court a free man and had not been
imprisoned a day nor fined a cent
The applause broke out afresh when
he declared that under similar cir
cumstances if his father were alive he
would go to his defense. He took his
seat amid renewed applause, several
members going to his seat and shak-
ing his hand.
In the Senate.
Washington, Feb. 14-Immediately
after the senate convened today the
agricultural appropriation bill was ia
ken up. the Hansbrough amendment in
tended to be legislative Interpretation
of the portions of the Dingley law re-
lating to the duty on wheat being first
considered. It declares that paragraph
234 of that act, which imposes a specific
duty on wheat shall not be held to be
affected by the provisions of section 30,
Of the same act, which provided for
drawback on imported articles used in
domestic manufacture
Mr.. Hansbrough spoke in support of
the amendment He commended that the
decision allowing a drawback on inn
ported that was wrong because the
portion of flour made from such wheat
could not be distinguished from that
made of the domestic product, as he
argued was necessary under the draw
back provision. He said the opinion
would be far reaching. extending to all |
articles used in manufacture.
I'VE hear much about the tariff re- |
vision said Mr.. HanSbrough remarked, |
but if the practice Of the treasury de- |
partment in accordance with this de- !
cision is to go on such revision will be |
unnecessary because the treasury de-
partment will make its own revision" |
Coming to the specific matter in |
question he said that the price paid |
for imported wheat would fix the price |
of the entire wheat product of the
United States
Mr.. Patterson made inquiry as to
whether the amendment would affect |
wheat only and while Mr.. HansbrOugh |
answered in the affirmative, Mr.. ALI
son took the opposite view, saying /
that constructively it would affect all
industries using imported articles
Mr.. Patterson expressed the opinion /
that the Interpretation should be gen. |
eral and Mr.. Hepburn expressed SYM |
pathy with that view, saying that the
lead mine owners especially need re- |
lief. He asserted that the opinion of
former Attorney General Griggs on |
of lead had worked the |
Indirect repeal of the duty on lead ore. |
Mr.. Hansbrough said that the fact |
that wheat grown in the United States
was protected had had the effect of |
making the price of wheat in this |
country worth from z to 20 cents per
bushel more than Canadian wheat and |
he predicted that the practice in con- |
fornity with the recent decision i
would have the effect of lowering the /
price Of American wheat while it in
creased the price of the Canadian
article.