New Britain herald., 1917-10-12
.LAF0LLETTE ASKS
 RIGHT T0BE HEARD
Calls Some Reports False, and Speaks About St. Paul Speech

ert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin has written to the senate special com- mittee appointed to investigate his alleged seditious utterances before the Non-Partisan League at St. Paul, de- handing the right to be heard and to defend himself against the movement to expel him from the senate. The Wisconsin senator laid before the committee an official transcript of his speech. In addition the commit tee yesterday received from the Min nesota Public Service Commission three other transcripts of the speech, taken by different stenographers. The committee spent several hours exam ming the transcripts. It found nu- merous variations as to phraseology,
 but was unable to discover any sub- stantial differences affecting the meaning
 In substance, Senator LaFollette denied saying the United States had
 no cause for war, denounced some press reports of his speech as "grossly false," and certified to the accuracy of the record regarding his staten ent that ex-Secretary of State Bryan knew
 of ammunition being in the Lusi- tania's cargo. Ills asked to examine any witnesses called by the commit tee.
 Senator LaFollette's letter, ad- i dressed to Senator Pomerene, chair man of the Investigating committee, follows:
 My Dear Senator: Since my letter to you of the 5th inst. I have received transcript of the speech referred to by you in your letter to me of that date. The transcript I have received
 is from the notes of the official re-
 porter of the Non-Partisan league
 who was present to report the pro-
 ceedings.
 l have compared the transcript re-
 celVed by me with the committee
 print which you furnished to me. The fact is, both transcripts show l spoke
 extemporaneously I had with me a few notes on the Revenue bill, upon
 which l expected to speak more fully
 than I did. But the digressions caused by questions and suggestions from the audience led me to put my
 notes aside. I desire to aid the mem
 bers of the committee in their inves-
 tigation to the end that they may
 have as nearly as possible the same
 understanding of all that transpired
 in the St. Paul meeting as they would
 have if the members of the committee
 had been personally present. I am, therefore, furnishing the committee
 With the transcript of what I said, ac- cordlng to the notes of the official
 reporter of the Non-Partisan league, emitting therefrom merely extraneous matter involving the comments and explanations of the reporter.
 There were two Interruptions from the audience not shown in the trans script of the official report of the Non-Partisan league, but which I re- call and which are also shown by other reports of the proceedinss Thinking that these might have sig nlf1cance in your consideration of the subject matter of the speech, I here refer to them. One is the question from the audience. How about the Lusitania.' Of course, all that I said upon that subject was said because of this interruption. l had no intention of referring to it. The New York Times report of the meeting and oth- CT press reports show this to be as here stated, and it accords with my recollection.
 The transcript of the official report of the Non-Partisan league is of course, at your service, if you desire the same
 The second interruption which I note as not appearing in the text of the transcript furnished me shows that the expression, Shame on Con- gress,' came from the audience and that 1 replied as shown in the con- text of the speech. This so appears in the print of the speech furnished by you at Page II, Line 8. With these interruptions, the transcript of the speech l am herewith submitting IS substantially correct, so far as I can now recall.
 You did not indicate what particu- lar portion of the speech you had under consideration, and I have gone over it generally, to make certain that It is substantially correct. As you will | observe by comparing the two texts l of the speech. there are many differ | ences between them. If any of these | differences have any significance for | the purpose of your investigation and | you desire to direct my attention to | any. particular language in either text, | will be glad to give it further con- 1 sideration.
 I assume that the wholly false re- ports sent out by the press generally | to the effect that I stated in various ] forms, We had no grievance" is re- ce1vlng no credence from you, since that is contrary to the text of the l speech, you furnished me- I shall be very glad, however if your investiga- ion is sufficiently broad to take in an inquiry into the causes which led to the publication generally of these grossly false statements by the press.
 Permit me to say that, if it is the purpose of the committee to make an investigation as to any statement of fact in the speech. then 1 request that