New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-01-13
CHAMP CLARK EXPLAINS
Defends Democrats Who Voted
to Support Cannon.
! From The Tribune Bureau

IRON Inc Ilcu1e Bureau.
Washington. Jan. 12.-Admitting that the
Norris resolution OF last March. which re.
suited in an elimination Of the Speaker
from the Rules Committee and the en-
largement Of that committee. WAS O,
revolutionary character and not authorized
under the rules Of the House. Champ Clark
and Oscar Underwood. Democratic lead
ers, issued statements to-day defending
those Democrats who "colted" their pre-.
vious record when a somewhat privileged
resolution was offered last Monday Mr.
Clarks statement follows:
There is a tempest i'm a teapot about how
the Democrats voted on Monday on the
question Of sustaining Speaker Cannons
. ruling. Some of the papers have been
charging that the Democrats reversed their
action Of the 18th OF March, 1910. This is
an entire mistake. Every Democrat who
on the lIth 18th and 18th OF March. 1910.
took particular pains TO state that the
precedents were In favor Of the Speaker,
ruling on that occasion, and that what We
we're then doing was revolutionary In its
chara cter. ! used this language on that
occasion. There IS no use 10 mince mat
tiers about II. II Is revolution Individually
/ am not AFRAID OF revolutions. for people
OF our blood always revolutioniZe in the
right direction.
The difference in the situation is that In
March. 1870 we were lighting TO accom-
plish a great result. namely. 70 liberste the
House from the domination OF an oligzr-
chy OF tve, OF which the Speaker was one.
In fact, in the slang phrase Of the day.
he was it, That was the COMMITTEES on
Rules The despotisg Of that old Commit
tee on Rules-cOmposed Of Ave men. 81
which the Speaker was chsirmsn-had be
come intolerable. and We were entirely
Justified IN upsettng all the presidents
mat were ever made 10 emancipste our
selves, which We did
The question last Monday was an in
significant squabble between Judge Fuller.
OF Illinois. and James r. Mann. OF Illinois,
both Republicans, neither one an insurgent,
each determined 10 have his own way.
Each one had a bill that ne wanted 20
get up. and that IS all there was 10 II.
There was no principle involved whatever.
BY our votes We said that the Speakers
decision was sustained by the precedents,
and We also said by our votes that the
matter in controversy was not of sum
Gent consequence 10 revolutionize the
House.
There is no Inconsistency whstever In
our votes in March 1910. and last Monday.
The Speaker can get all the pleasure out
of il he wants. which IS very little, ! think.
The appeal from his decision was taken
by a rampant Republican. Joseph Holt
Gaines Of West Virginia, stand -pstter OF
the stand -patters. II the Democrats had
overruled the Speaker by their votes ana
thus created a precedent. then IN the
S2d Congress the Republicans could have
usad the precedent thus established 10
arise each day with various amendments 20
tine rules, and by this conduct prevent any
tariff legislation or any remedial lcglsla-
ton Of any character
Representative Underwood takes SINH
lar view.
The fact that the majority OF the Demo-
Gratis who voted with the Republican resu-
lars have been called inconsistent boilers
has stirred up considerable feeling In
| Democratic ranks. and their explanation
! departments are now working overtime