Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1872-10-18

MIR. DOnnan, IN his speech at McGre
gor on the LIST inst, said 1--WE heard hmm
that Mr.. Stoneman and his friends were
reporting that he (Donnan) had not voted
for the $145.0OO appropriation for tho
Ship Canal, only as it was incorporated
with generar appropriation bill; to
which statement he (Donnan) took ex.
ception, and in spirited and emphatic
manner gave it fiat denial Now then,
we do not pretend to know whether Mr..
Donnan meant what he said, or not, or
whether he really knows the exact status
Of the Canal appropriation bill at the
time OF its passage; but, as we are in
clined to give him credit for truthfulness,
we conclude that he perhaps did not
know at the time of the passage of the
general appropriation bill referred to,
that the Fox and Wisconsin River i'm
provement bill was omnibused with, and
made part Of it. We are also led to
this conclusion by referring to Mr. Don.
mans letter to Hon. VIM. Larrabee, an
extract of which we published some two
months since, in which he says 1.-The Ca.
nal appropriation bill went through with
out q show Of opposition" showing con.
clusively to US, that Mr.. Donnan at the
time he wrote that letter did not fully
comprehend the situation. -Peoptes' Pa
per.
When a journal deems itself call
ed upon to take issue of fact with
one who from his position ought to
be familiar with the matter in con-
troversy, it would seem but prudent
that it should be careful to post
itself. The Peoples Paper in the
above article, as has happened be-
fore in its insane crusade against
Mr.. Donnan, only succeeds in show
ing its own lack of information and
candor. The "general appropria.
ton bill" alluded to by the Peoples
Paper in the sense of a general
jumbling of miscellaneous and in.
congruous appropriations together,
has no existence in the Legislation
Of Congress. Appropriations are
there classed under specific heads,
embracing those which are germane
to each other. In this way the ap-
preparation for the Ship Canal was
placed in the River and Harbor
bill, and not "omnibussed" in q
miscellaneous bill, as implied by
the Peoples Paper. Mr.. Stoncman
seems to have been equally as igno.
rant, or if not ignorant, as dishon.
est as his Clermont supporter, 70,
in several of his speeches around
the district he argued that there
was no credit to be attached to Mr.
Domains vote for the Canal appro.
priation, because, as Mr.. Stoneman
said, it was attached to the bill APP
2oropriatimg Mr.. Donmam's o'cm pay
as a member Of Congress. In his
speech at McGregor, Mr.. Donnar
exposed the fallacy of this charge,
first by showing that except by a
trick, the appropriation for the Ca
nal, and that for pay Of members
could not appear in the same bill
and second, by producing the River
and Harbor bill, in which the ap.
preparation of $l45,OO0 for the Ship
Canal appears, and in which nc
other appropriation not germane to
it does appear. The exposure Of
Mr.. Stoneman's ignorance, or lacl
of candor in making the above
statement, was complete, and was
received by the audience with ap'
plause. We submit that if any Of
these parties edo not fully compre'
bend the situation" it is the Peoples
Paper and its candidate for Con.
gress, and the best advice we can
give the former is to repair its ig.
norance, or if that is not feasible,
to be careful in future about expo
sing it.