Daily national Democrat., 1861-08-08
Letter from San Francisco.
SAN FnANcIsco, August 9th, 1861

SAN FRANcIsco, August 9th, 1861.
EDITOR NATloNAL DEMocRAT-There is no
thing of interest in local circles outside OF
war news and politics Universal iudigna~
tion is expressed that miserable system OF
political nepotisn practised by the parties in
power, and which ollicered our brave troops
with sharp politicians, but incomptent sol
diers, should have been the means of defeat
ing as fine an army as ever took the field
thus giving the enemies of our Govern
ment an opportunity to rejoice over an ap-
parant success of rebellion.
The Union Democratic ticket is gaining
strength here every day, and those in the
secret, laugh at the desperate efforts Of its
enemies to cause its defeat by harping about
Conness vote on the Bulkhead bill. Here
that question is fully understood, but enc
mics of the Democracy have misrepresented
the measure in the country, and they en-
deavored to lasten it on the Democratic
party, as if in times like these petty scheme
Of local improv vement should take precedence
of National questions To hurt Conness il
is charged that the Bulkhead bill was to tax
the commerce of the State. No such thing.
Ever since we had any commerce ii has been
roundly taxed in the shape of tolls and
wharfage, and every dollar Of money collect
ed from that source has gone into the hands
of private individuals who will not improve
the city front Not parcel Of goods has
been landed or taken from our wharve
without paying tribute to those who are op-
posing Conness because Of his vote on the
Bulkhead. Under present wharf regula
tions no power now exists to reduce this tax.
The Bulkhead bill provided that this tax
should never be greater than ii now is, and
gave the Board of Supervisors of this city,
and the Legislature, power TO reduce it any
time it further provided that one-tenth of
the money collected should go into the pub
lie treasury, to assist in reducing the rate Of
G neral taxation; and it further provided
that the Bulkhead Company should eXpend
SO, 100000 to $5,O00,000 in improving the
city front and adding to the value of proper
ty in the State. 1t still further provided that
at the end of a certain period the whole work
should revert to the State, free of cost, after
which no tax need be levied
1t is supposed that the people OF this city
understand this matter, owing to their local
ity, better than otner people. Their estiloa-
ton of Bulkhead may be inferred from the
vote at the late primary elections. John
CoSness voted for The measure; John G.
Downey vetoed it. Conness had no local in
duences 80 work for him, and Downey had
here about one hundred officers indebted to
him for places; he had also ali the anti
Buikhead influence. Both were candidates
for Governor before the Union Democratic
Convention, and in this city Conness beat
Downey two to one In the Republican party,
Phelps and Stanford were candidates for1
Governor. Next to Downey, Phelps did
more than any other man to defeat the Bulk
head he was an old resident here, and per-
sonally well liked Stanford did not reside here
and his position on the Buikhead was un-
known. Phelps, in addition to his personal
and local popularity, had all the anti Bulk
head influence in his favor, yet at the prima-
ry election Stanford beat him two to one. If
these facts indicate anything, they certainly
indicate that the people of this city do not
care to rssi0t well-known anti Bulkheadcrs
TO office.
So much for the starting, here, of that
|
local question which the opponents of Mr..
Conness, 10y misrepresentation, are endeavor
ing to make an issue in this canvass 1t will
benefit him here, but they think it may hurt
him in sections where the manter is not un-
derstood
Is it not strange that the Secessionists and
Redublicans generally prefer to harp on a
dead Bulkhead bill rather than to discuss
live issues?
Yours, UNION