The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1905-02-14

Rising TO a question of personal priv
ssege In the House of Representatives
this morning Mr. Sullivan of Massa-
chusetts made an explanation of the
charge preferred against him in the
House of Representatives yesterday by
Representative Hearst of New York
Mr.. Hearst was not present during
Mr. SiiliYan's speech.
The sentiment of the House showed
itself in the manner in which the state
rnent of Mr.. Sullivan was received. En-
thusiastic and continued applause. led
| by the Democrats and heartily followed
| by the Republicans, interrupted him at
| several points.
He took his seat amid a storm of en-
| thusiaSm
MI Sullivan's Defense.
| Mr.. Sullivan first made an effort to OBJ
! tain unanimous consent to make an eX-
PLANTATION without raising the question
OF personal privilege Objection was
raised and Mr.. Sullivan then, speaking
| to the question Of personal privilege,
said:
/ mir. Speaker, I rise to question OF
person:I privilege The gentleman from
New York stated on the floor of the
House yesterday that John A. Saiif-
| van had been convicted of manslaughter
| in Cambridge, Mass, in 1885. and said
! I would like to ask Mr.. John A Sullivan
if he knows anything about that Incl
| dent, and that if l desired TO make =
I hostil.. criticism of him / could not have
referred to that?'
! Mr.. Speaker. arose and said: Mr.
/ Speaker. the gentleman from New Yors
has asked me a question which l desire
to answer If he desires an answer Ii
L,
man from New York ignored this Offer
and my opportunity to reply then anc
there was cut off by the interruptions
of several members and by the ruling OF
the Chair therefore desire to make 8
personal explanation in reply TO tbs
statement of the gentleman from New
York
Was Convicted Of Ofense.
''It Is true that on November IT, 1886
my father. Eugene j. Sullivan. and my
self were convicted of manslanghter il
the superior court of Middlesex county
III the State of Massachusetts.
This case arose in this manner Nj
father was the sole proprietor of 4 Ii
! censed hotel known as the Centra
House in Cambridge, Massachusetts
An intoxicated man. who was not
guest and had not entered the hote
that day. came to the main door. ane
my father. seeing him, shut the doc
against him. Thereupon the man Wen
around to the back door and broke
window
Ny father went out upon the street
| st.ok the man by the collar and demand
! cd that he pay for the damage he hat
done. The man responded by striking
him. and a fight ensued.
1T is a fact, and one that has neve
been denied. that no weapons Of an,
kind wero used by either side
i came upon the scene at a tim
when my father was being oVerpow were'
by this man and took the part of N,
father in the struggle
Finding of the jury
THE jury found that the man wa
knocked down by q blow from M
fathers fist and struck his hea
| against the eurbstone and became un
conscious. There was testimony in tn
trial of the case that he never recov
cred consciousness, and died some tw
days after the assault
AT the conclusion of the trial m
! father was sentenced To three year
in the house Of correction ,,s -
rnotion, stated to the court that II
would ask no sentence against me, a
| | was then but a boy seventies year
old, in my first year at the Bosto
Law School, and without any mora
guilt in the matter at all; that l wa
held solely because 1 was present an
w..s a party concerned in the assault
and was only technically guilty.
Accordingly. the court placed N
case on file | was not fined one cen
nor imprisoned one minute.
After eighteen months OF m
fathers term had been served, til
governors council of Massachusett
pardoned him. Then action was du
| to the fact that two Witnesses VIII
did not appear at the trial IN tn