Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1882-07-20
Facing the Music.
[Greenville Daily News.1
WAsHINaToN, d, c., july l6.

DO not agree with you that II is uecessar,
mat should explain anything, because tho New
1ork Sun chooses to put my name In what 4
calls Its "black list' under the heading OF III,
"Robeson Steal" But the prominence whtot
you have given the extract which you publish
from its columns, and what you were pleased tc
say about 1t, does mako IL necessary thst
should give some facts about the bill and its
passage through the House for the benefit Of
those who do not know them.
The measure referred to is known as the
"Naval appropriation bill" It is ore of n
number Of appropriation bills which have been
passed by every Congress since the foundation
OF the government. II does not differ in many
particulars from vast number Of it's predcces-
| sors. 1t Is far less in amount than many of the
same character, and for like purposes which
have received the sanction Of both Democratic
ana Republican Congresses. II is yery little, if
at all, in excess Of the naval appropriation bill
passed by the last House, which was Democratic
1t contains many features which should oom-
mend 1t to the whole country; II introduces
several useful reforms and does much to i'm
prove the morale Of tho service; it relieves
the navy from tho danger of topping over
with an excess of unnecessary officers; it cuts
off eighty lleutenants and ono hundred and
forty engineers; ii creates a new "Advisor,
Board" to take the place of the one which has
been charged with incflicency, if with no
greater offence, aud provides for tho disuon-
t'nuancc Of many useless aud expensive navy
pards. The passage Of the bill was opposed
on the ground that no provision should DO
made for completing tho five monitors, which
have remained in on unfinished condition upon
the stocks In private ship yards for eight or
ten years past. The government has already
spent over $4,000.000 on them; a Democratic
House Of the Forty fifth Congress voted 81 ,00O,-
600 to continue tho work on them, and tho
point Of difference when the bill camo up for
discussion was chiefly upon the point of finish
ing these monitors. Some thought that the
iron hulls could not be converted into war
vessels fitted 10 cnrry and use efficiently tho
heavy destructive guns with which England
and other nations possessing first class navy,
now supply their iron clad ships of war
Others, who possibly possessed equul if not
superior opportunities for knowing what was
best to be dohe, gave strong reasons 10 show hat
these hu'ls could be utilized with great profit 10
our navy service, and contcnded that it would
be great folly I'd throw away the $1,000, 900 and
$5,0000 600 already expended by the goycrnm, mt
and sell these hnlls as old iron. IT was oucs
ion about which members. equally honest,
might we'll differ. In committee of the whole
did, though / confess with some mispivincs.
vote against appropriating money TO complete
these mouitors. The faot however, that This
feature was retained in the bill by The vote Of
the majority, did not in my opinion justify
vote against The bill on its final passage A
refusal TO make tho appropriations contained in
II would have brought back our ships of war;
now IN distant seas for the protection Of our
commerce anl tho liberties of our citizens in
foreign lnnds; would have disbanded our navy
and shut up our naval academy.
In the 4Gth Congress we tried the experiment
OF resisting the passage of appropriation bills,
and as consequence lost The lower House of
Congress and the election Of Democratic Pre-
sident. In my judgment tho only reason
which could justify defeat of approp, iatons,
necessary to keep the wheels of government in
motion, must be such as vitality concern The con-
s'itutional rights and liberties of the people.
There was no effort to make the passage Of
this bill party question, and consequently
there could be, as intimated by the News and
Courier, no "descriion of our colleagues" By
those of us who supported the bill. Very few
of sour colleagues" am sure, would have
voted against it if they had imagined that their
votes would havo defeated it.
The fact that Mr.. Robeson advocated The
mcasure has nothing 10 do with its merits
Neither have the charges against his admins
traton of the naval department during the cor.
rupt reign Of President Grant II the simple
fact that Mr. Robson supports bill is sufficient
to stigmatize IL as 'Robesoh Sten," then
every appropriation bill which has passed the
House during this session may be 80 stigmatizcd
and the names of those who voted for them be
put into "black list"
have thus hurriedly run over some of The
reasons which influenced mo- and which have
no doubt had weight with my two colleagues, in
voting for this BILL ] might, il it we're neces:
snry, add many others, but think these should
be sufficient to satisfy even those who may have
been willing to lend willing ear to the vile
SANDER published by you from tho New York
Sun.
mail you copy of the bill to examine for
yourself.
Very respectfully your obediont servant
JOHN II. EVANS.