OCR Text |
Show C0MEKF0RD IS BOUNCED" MdMlLEINftlHODSE .... . , ---?- . SPRINGFIELD, in., Feb. 9. Frank D. Comerford. a Representative ' from the Second Senatorial district of Cook county to the Forty-fourth General Auembly, waa expelled atf a member of that body and bis name stricken from tbe rolls of the House. - His expluslon was the climax of a se-rles se-rles of sensational charges of corruption and attempted bribery made by Mr. Com- erford against members of .the Illinois Legislature In a lecture delivered before a law college In Chicago, which were Investigated Inves-tigated by a special committee of the House, appointed for that purpose, which found, after protracted sitting and listening listen-ing to a great mass of testimony, that the . charges brought by Mr, Comerford were utterly unfounded. V This ' comml.te reported i .Ri - findings find-ings to tbe House, neither for nor against punishment to be Inflicted upon the young Cook county member, but the reading of tbe report was followed by a resolution providing for the expulsion of Mr. Comer-ford. Comer-ford. Tbe resolution cited Mr. Comerford to appear before the bar. of the . House and show cause why he should not be expelled. Mr. Comerford emphatically declined to take up the time of the House, by further deiay. waiving his right to prepare his defense, and stated that- be waa ready right then to defend himself. He was taken at his word, and In a brilliant speech of mors thai an hour's duration he re viewed the testimony taken before the Investigating committee and fiercely scored the committee for so limiting . the scope of the investigation that "God Almighty Al-mighty himself, if be came here., would have been prevented from- getting 'evidence 'evi-dence against a self-confessed thief." "This committee stands convicted before tho country of resorting to subterfuges to prevent any real investigation." he said. Mr. Comerford had his speech In typewritten type-written form, but frequently he departed from its text to denounce certain members of the House for the nature of their testimony tes-timony before the committee, which, he claimed, was far different from what they had told htm. Members of the investigation committee, one after the other, arose and hotly resented re-sented Mr. Comerford's reflections on the action of the committee. One after another of the members attacked Mr. Comerfom for his attacks on them. Mr. Comerford demanded the right as a defendant of having the last word. It was given him. On roll-call, the resolution resolu-tion of expulsion was adopted, 121 to 11 |