The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-10-22
BIRD MEN
 AT BEL MONT PARK
SHOWS
 HOW HILLS VOTE
 WAS FOR CANNON
Democratic Candidate For Con- greSS Cites the Cold
 Hard Facts

Hard Facts There is mistake in my reading of the record of the Connecticut dele | gation in Congress" said Lynn W | Wilson, Democratic candidate fol | Congress, from the Fourth District. that B. Stevens Henry, Edwin w l Higgins, N. D. Sperry, John 0. Til son and Ebenezer J. Hill all voted for Cannon for speaker and they all voted to prevent the amendment o1 the rules by Champ Clark, and they all voted for the amendment to the rules by Congressman Fitzgerald, which saved Cannon. on that memor- able March IS. 1909.
 The exact language that I have hitherto used is:
 'EThe fact is, my friends, that
 the Representatives of this State, in Congress, were not our Repre-
 sentatives at all.
 They stood for Cannonism,
 which means. the interests.
 fNThey all voted to make Can
 non speaker They all voted
 House, when it was attempted to
 take the sceptre from Cannon and
 the interests. MT. Hill even voted
 against the income tax, and
 against practically every bill in
 the interest of labor.
 '"The critical moment in the last House in Congress came on March 15. This day was Monday, and the House was called to order.
 'tThe vote came upon the election of Cannon for speaker.
 ''Every Connecticut Congressman voted for Cannon.
 Then MT. Da1zel1, Cannon's Repre- sentative on the floor of the House, offered this resolution:
 Resolved: That the rules of the
 House of Representa- lives of the
 Sixtieth Congress be adopted as
 the rules of the House of Repre-
 sentatives of the 61st Congress.
 T-ll10S under which Cannon held his enormous power the exercise of which had become obnoxi- ous to the country.
 ''Da1zel1 moved the previous question as means of permitting his reso1u- tion to come to an immediate vote.
 '"The entire Connecticut Ndelega tion 1ss to Tf89 in favor of the motion.
 stMr. Clark of Missouri, demanded recount, which was refused.
 "The Dalzell resolution was voted on and defeated, 193 to 189
 "Again the Connecticut delegation voted with Cannon and Dalzel-
 t.When MT. Clark offered resolu- ton naming a cofnmittee on rules which should elect it's own chairman. This resolution relieved from Cannon the power to appoint most of the committee to be raised was instruct ed to bring in a revision of the rules.
 ssMr. Clark moved the previous question upon his resolution, to bring
 "The motion was defeated 1so to 2o3. MT. Hill and the rest Of the Connecticut delegation voted with Da1- zel1 and against the motion.
 sHThen Fitzgerald of New York in troduced his famous amendment to Cannon and the system and made the Payne Aldrich bill possible.
 ssAnd for this Fitzgerald resolution the Connecticut delegation in Con md non was, for the time being. saved
 ssIt will be noted that Fitzgerald is a Democrat.
 'HThis vote for the Fitzgerald reso-'| Iution is made thes basis of a classi- fcation of Congressnen in an article in this months Everybody's magazine, which has been called to my atten-
 atIn this classification the Congress- men are divided into tinsurgent Re pub1icans, near insurgents system Democrats and System Republicans. 'sThe insurgent Republicans, who voted for progressive measures and against privileges, are 25 in number. The Republicans who are classed as near insurgents number 16 and are those who voted on March IS, 1910, with the insurgent Republicans and the Democrats to eliminate Cannon from the rules committee. tNThe system Democrats number 20 and are those who voted away from the Democratic majority and with
  gerald resolution of March 15, 1909. "A list of System Republicans is also given, of whom Everybody's says,
 '|The following Republicans sup ported Cannon and Cannonis1n. Through the organization of the House and the preservation of the rules they are responsible for the Payne-A1drich tariff bill. We do not attempt to pass on the honesty | or integrity of these men, nor do we know the motives which prompted them in supporting Can nonism; but the roll call finds
 them on the side of privilege.
 ttI presume it is true that Congress- man Hill did not vote for the Norris resolution, and I presume that it is true he was miles away when that vote was taken. But I have never said that he voted for it. Or against t, or that he did not vote, although have always supposed that had he lot been many miles away he would nave voted with the other Congress- men from this State. against it.
 MT. Hunter, I understand, did speak of MT. Hills absence when the Norris resolution came up. But lid. not do so, and have not, there ore misrepresented MT. HilPs atti- ude in any way whatever in respect O that natter