I don't say that at all in the way of criticism or complaint. It was probably inevitable that the proceedings should take that form. If this were merely an investigation of course it would be the duty of the party presenting evidence to present both sides of the case, present all the facts bearing upon the issue so that the Committee might have all the facts before it in arriving at its determination. As we all of us know in this case that has not been the procedure adopted. The prosecution, or the attorneys appearing for the ouster of these Assemblymen, have presented their evidence for the same purpose that they would have presented it had there been a trial in court. Where a document has been introduced they have introduced so much of the document as they felt aided their contentions and have left it to us to introduce the balance either to explain away what they had introduced, if we could, or to meet their proof in other ways. The same rule has been followed with regard to oral evidence. The result has been, I think, that the counsel for the Socialists here and the Socialists themselves have given this Committee quite as much aid in spreading before it all the facts as has been afforded by counsel on the other side.

This proceeding would have been very partial and one-sided if the Socialists and their counsel had not pursued that course. So that since the purpose of this proceeding is to arrive at the truth and ascertain the facts, the five Assemblymen and their counsel have aided the Committee exactly as much as the prosecution, certainly, they have been diligent in trying to present the facts within their control bearing upon their contention and upon their point of view, just as the other side has been diligent in presenting facts bearing upon its contention and its point of view. It seems to me the two sides stand upon an equality so far as asking for reimbursement of the necessary expenses are concerned. My request or motion, therefore, is that this honorable Committee, when it shall report to the Assembly, shall, as a part of that report, or in connection with it, make a recommendation that the expenses of the five Assemblymen for counsel fees and any other necessary expenses be provided for exactly the same as I understand the expenses of the other side will be provided for.

Attorney-General Newton.- Mr. Chairman, so far as my representation of the Committee, and my duty as Attorney-General is concerned, I have no concern with the suggestion made by

counsel. Whether it is deemed proper to at any time consider the request made or not is one for the judgment of the Assembly.

I make this suggestion as it is not a matter for this Committee to determine the expense at all, or make any recommendation as to whether counsel should or should not be paid, employed on either side of this controversy. It is a matter which; if I understand legislative procedure, is presented by a bill purposely drawn to meet the condition when it arises; and I am frank to say that, so far as I am concerned, I have no wish to express either way except that justice be done in the matter; but I do not think it is a proper subject for recommendation of this Committee. It is a question for the judgment of the House when the proper time comes and when the question is presented by proper legislation.

Mr. Roe. If I may say just a word, your Honor. I think that we agree entirely as to the procedure. My purpose in making this suggestion was that it might be made upon the record and be considered by the Committee and members individually, and also to call it to the attention of the Assembly. I think, however, that it would be entirely proper for the Committee, in its report, to state for the benefit of the Assembly the character of the services rendered on either side, and as to whether those services had been beneficial and of aid to the Committee in arriving at its conclusion.

I quite understand that the action would be taken in the case of the expenses of the Assemblymen as in the case of the attorneys on the other side, by some action of the Assembly itself. I may say that the reason I make this suggestion at this time rather than later in the day, it properly would come at the conclusion of the case I think, is that I may not be able to be here throughout the argument to-day.

There is one other matter I wish to suggest. In going over the record I find that there are a good many errors in the record, which is inseparable from getting a record out as rapidly as has been done in this case. I think the service we have had has been most excellent, quite remarkable, but it is inevitable that there have been a good many errors, some of some importance, which have crept into the record. I would suggest, if it is agreeable to the Committee and counsel on the other side, that each side have permission to file and submit as a part of the record a sort of

addenda pointing out the errors in the record and indicating what the corrections should be.

The Chairman. That may be done. The question of allowances we will take up in the Committee.

Mr. Roc.-One other thing perhaps I should speak of at this time, the O'Hara record which, I think, has been introduced here, was the personal property of Mr. Nelles. We need that for use to-day. If it could be returned to me or Mr. Nelles temporarily and then when we are through with it it will be turned over to the Committee.

It is a matter of some disappointment of counsel for the five Socialists that we haven't our brief ready to submit to-day, but it will be ready within a day or two. It is practically completed and we regard that as a part of our labor in this case, just as it was to try and present the evidence in the case and that will be placed at the service of the Committee.

Mr. Brown.- Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee. We meet under very exceptional conditions.

The conduct of this trial in this chamber is itself significant of the importance of the issues involved. It has been said to be a trial. It is a trial, but the parties to it are not the parties of the record. It is not a trial between the five Assemblymen and the Assembly of the State. It is a trial between five Assemblymen and the people of the State as to their right to represent the people in this sovereign body.

The importance of the issue is great, because it involves a procedure and determination on the part of the Assembly as to the right of men who are citizens to sit in this body,— a very unusual proceeding. The right has been conceded for hundreds of years for a hundred years since the establishment of the State-yes, hundreds of years if you go back into the colony. And to deny that right there must be a very exceptional condition, and investigation and determination of the question as to whether the right ordinarily accorded should be denied, and that matter is one of great importance.

The Assembly itself, in common with the people of the whole State, are jealous of an exception to a general beneficial rule, and you have, therefore, given to the investigation of the issues seven or eight long weeks of inquiry; every opportunity to

every interest to be fully heard; every opportunity for the people and the press of the State to consider the issues, so that nothing -no serious mistake should be committed. It is important, upon the other hand, to the people of the State that there should be no one sitting in this Assembly who is in hostility to the institutions of his country, who desires to occupy a seat here for the purpose of undermining and destroying constitutional government. It is important that a rule should be laid down, now that a party has arisen, or what claims to be a party, and organized for the purposes for which the Socialist party is organized, to say whether or not, now and hereafter, the members of that party are competent, under the Constitution, to sit here and perform the high duties which are devolved upon this sovereign body of the State.

The duty which is cast upon you is unwelcome. It was not created by the Assembly itself. It was created by the conduct and declarations and positions of the five Assemblymen and of their party. You are not sitting here as willing investigators or a willing court. You have taken your oaths to support the Constitution and the laws of the State. You have an express obligation an implied obligation-over and beyond that, to give all that is in you for the protection of the State, for the protection of the body which you constitute. constitute. And having that duty devolved upon you, you have no alternative except to pass upon and determine this issue.

Now, these questions are of such an exceptional nature that they were but little understood at the opening of this proceeding. They were but little understood by counsel. They were but little understood by the members of the Legislature, and they were less understood by the people of the State, because such a situation never arose before, and we have not, in recent years, been engaged either in the analysis or development of representative government.

We have taken what we had, and been contented with it, and have not been given to considering the problems and difficulties that might arise from a situation of this kind.

Not understanding it, a great many people, without any consideration of it, were given to forming impressions based not upon law, not upon the Constitution, not upon precedent, but upon their impression of what, under the circumstances, they would do, giving expression to that impression without any consideration. of the real facts in the case.

It was, therefore, inevitable that there should be a great deal of misunderstanding; that there should be conflict of opinion, and it becomes your duty, gentlemen, to see to it, in the decision of this case, that every step that you take is not only justified by precedent, but that it is justified in reason and demanded by the public welfare.

I shall, therefore, take pains this morning, at some length, to refer to the history of the treatment of cases of this character, with a view to seeing whether or not we are upon the right road, and if we are upon the right road we can then go upon our journey and consider the various questions involved. If the proceeding were not justifiable it would be your duty to dismiss it, and I should be the first to ask that you do so. I deny that I or my associates are here merely in the light of paid counsel for the sake of conducting an issue or a prosecution. We are here to aid the Committee in getting the truth, with the obligation resting upon us heavily as requested to act as your counsel to give you no advice which is inconsistent with the interest of the State, the rights of the people, the preservation of our government and of its institutions.

I dread to take up with you and follow the precedents upon this subject. It would be more interesting for me to speak to you generally about it, but it is a matter of such vital importance, it is so essential that you should form a just judgment upon it; it will carry weight not only in the judgment of this case, but it will carry weight in the history of the State; it will carry weight in other States; it will be the basis of action not only in this judgment but in other judgments, that it is of the first importance that your actions should be along right lines. I, therefore, have no alternative except to speak to you with the utmost precision and accuracy of which I am capable. I am not going to be as exhaustive upon the subject as I might be, but I will refer you to the sources of information if you desire to pursue the study further.

Taking up this question of the right of the Assembly to challenge the right of these five men to their seats in the Assembly, I make bold to say, notwithstanding the care with which I invite you to give it attention, that the processes and procedure adopted here are sustained by overwhelming authority.

The Assemblymen are State officers and are so defined in the Constitution and in the Public Officers Law. They are officers