The New York herald., 1920-01-10
CALL ATTENTION TO
VOTE BY DEMOCRATS
Central Federated Union De-
nounces Action by AS
Sembly.
REPLY TO "INDICTMENT"
Unseated Members Issue Statement
Answering Charges Made in
Albany Resolution.

Charles L. Hughes last night sent to
Ihaddeus c. Sweet, Speaker OF the. AS
sembly at Albany, a letter strongly
protesting against the action OF that
BODY refusing seats to five Socialists
on the ground that the tenets Of their
party are inimical to the interests OF
the State and nation.
Mr. Hughes action was a climax TO
Developments OF the day in political
and labor circles in this city. Repub-
lican leaders from all parts of the
State arriving. to attend meeting OF
the State Committee called for today
were plainly worried by the situation
and their worry apparently increased
after they had consulted with Repub-
licans of this city.
They were disinelined to talk of the mat
ter for publication and an effort was
made to make certain that no reference
VIII be made TO the matter at today'c
meeting. Also, they were at pains to
point out that the action of the Assembly
was by 10 means partisan, Democrats
rs we'll as Republicans voting TO deprive
the Socialists of their seats at least tenn
porarily.
Labor DcnOunccs Act.
Added to these political troubles the
Central Federated Union, the organlza-
ton OF labor which represents American
Federation of Labor bodies in the met
ropoltan district. adopted resolutions
strongly denouncing the action Of the AS
sembly. declaring that the procedure is
'as a flaming torch thrown by reckless
hands into the present hysterical fire"
Mr.. Hughes letter reads as follows:-
my Dear Mr.. Sweet
II deeply regret the action of the
Assembly in suspendlng five members OF
the Socialist party who had been duly
elected. / think that you will agree that
the high prerogative of the Assembly to
pass upon the qualifications of it's own
members should be exercised in accord
ance with the spirit of our institutions.
II is not, as I view it. in accord with the
spirit of our institutions, but. on the con-
trary. II is absolutely opposed TO tie
fundamental principles of our govern
ment. for a majority TO undertake to deny
representation To a minority through its
representatives eiected by ballots law
fully cast.
''If there was anything against these
men as individuals, IL they were deemed
TO be guilty OF criminal offences, they
should have been charged accordingly.
directed against these five elected MEM
bers as individuals, but that the pro-
ceeding Is virtually an attempt to indct
a political party and to deny II repre-
sentaton in the Legislature. That Is not.
in my judgment, American government.
Their Place I'm Legislature.
"Aro Socialists. unconvicted of crime,
to be denied the ballot? IL Socialists
are permitted to vote. are they not per-
mitted to vote for their own candi-
dates? II their candidates are elected
and are men against whom, as fndii
viduals, charges of disqualifying Of
fences cannot be laid. are they not en-
titled TO their seats?
What. may l ask. is IL supposed
these Socialists will do in the Legis-
lature? AS members, they may intro
duce bills, they may oppose bills they
may debate. In all matters they are
subject to the rules of the Assembly.
Why should these privileges be denied
to representatives of the Socialist
party? Is IL not clear that the gov
(Continued on Page Three, Col. One)