OCR Text |
Show CHAMP CLARK TRIES TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE Washington, Jan. 13. A statement, outlining the view of tho Democratic Democrat-ic party In tho house as to the meaning mean-ing of the recent rules fight, Betting forth the precedent that would liaYe boen set if the Democrats had voted to overrule Spoaker Cannon at that time, was issuod today by Representative Repre-sentative Champ Clark, the Democratic Demo-cratic leader of the house and probable sneaker of the next congress. The statement follows: "There Is a tempest in a teapot about how tho Democrats voted Monday Mon-day on the question of sustaining Speaker Cannon's ruling. Some papers pa-pers have been charging that tho Democrats reversed their action of the 19th of Maroh, 1910. This Is an entire mistake. Every Democrat who made speeches on tho proposition pending on the 17th, 18th nnd 19th of March, 1910, took particular pains to stute that the precedents wore in favor of the speaker's ruling on that occasion, and that what wo wero then doing was revolutionary ill its character. char-acter. "I used this language on that occasion. oc-casion. Thoro Is no use to lnlnco matters about It. It is revolutionary. Individually, I am not afraid of revolutions, revo-lutions, for people of our blood always al-ways revolutionize In tho right direction. di-rection. "Tho differenco in tho situation Is that in March, 1910, wo wero fight-lug fight-lug to accomplish a great result, namely, name-ly, to liberate the house from the domination of an oligarchy of five, of which tho speaker was one. In fact. In the slung phrase of the day, 'ho wn6 it,' That was tho committee on rules. "Tho despotism of that old com,-mlttee com,-mlttee on rules, compoaed of five mon of wjilch tho speaker was chairman, had become intolerable and wo wero entirely justified In upsetting nil precedents pre-cedents that woro ever mado to emancipate eman-cipate oursolvos, which wo did. "The question last Monday was an Insignificant squabble between Judge Fullor of Illinois nnd Jupies R. Mann of Illinois, both Republicans, neither one an insurgent, each determined to have his own way. Each ouq hnd a bill thnt ho wanted to get up, and that Is all thero was to it. Thero wus no prlnciplo Involved, whatever. "By our votes we said that the speaker's decision was sustained by the precedents, and wo also -saldv by pur votes that tho matter in controversy contro-versy was not of sufficient consequence conse-quence to revolutionize tho house. 'There Is no inconsistency whatever what-ever In our votos In March, 1910, and last Mondnv. The speaker can get n'l i he n'oasui-f out of It ho wnnts, which I ver littlp. I tlUnk. Till ap-pppl ap-pppl Inmi h!- .l',r"l'") i , in Von lv . uu , u' Pi i ' i i.i n ih r )lf Gain . oi W v. t l u ' , injiprt tor of the stand-patters. If the Democrats Demo-crats had overruled the speaker by their votes and thus created a precedent, pre-cedent, then in the sixty-second congress con-gress the Republicans could have uacd this precedent tlis established to rise enclf day with various amendments amend-ments to the rules and by this conduct con-duct prevent any tariff legislation ot any character." oo |