The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1882-06-30

N,
Did flag and an appropriation" Laughter
and applausc.] There is no doubt about that
usually.
NO STEAL OR JOE IN Fl BILL.
Now they call it a steal and a job, and yet
there is not a possibility of a steal in it. 1t
is the only bill among the general appropria-
tons that you anu get a steal into. Now
why is this so' Not a dol
lar of this money goes out of
the treasury except some work is done for
it. To near these editors and these cheap
men who go blowing about this river and
harbtr bill, to listen to them you would
think the bulk of this money went right into
the pockets of us fellows who drafted the
hill. There is not n man OF us who can get
a dollar of it. TIL people on this river can
not one of them get n dollar of it until they
earn 1t. They must go and do the work. 1t
is not possible to get a dollar out of the treas
ury under that bill except what goes for la
Dor and material. Now where Is your
chance for a job! You cannot put up a job
l'ih it. You may improve a stream that you
ought not to improve, but the congressman
will not get any of the money if you do. The
people who do the work will get the money
and you will get simply a certain amount Of
money for a certain amount Of work that
perhaps ought not to he done. There won't
anybody pocket any Of this money unless it
is earned. 1t is not possible to get a dollar
Of this money except by work. Now l wish
to say a few words to you In reference to the
manner in which the press OF this country
have treated this bill.
AN APPEAL TO THE PRESS.
It is a very easy matter to denounce any
public measure as a JOB" or a steal" but 1t
is quite another matter to make you proof,
to point out the job, to put your finger on the
| thief II IL an aasU rpottar fnr G,aprya NIL
liam Curtis to SIT in the editorial chair of
Harper's Weekly and denounce the river and
tNarbor bill as a log-rolling job and each man
fFho voted for it as a thief and a ~scoundrel,
when at the same time he knows absolutely
nothing of the real provisions Of the bill,
when he has never examined a single report
\ IS the engineers in charge of these works and
is wholly ignorant of the proof upon which a
single item is based. This kind of
wholesale aspersion of other mems
| Dotives is cheap. / select Mr.. Curtis in this
| case, not because he is better than other men
but because he thinks himself SO much purer
and better than the average of mortals.
And l desire here and now to give him full
credit for all that exalted purity and pa
triotism which he SO constantly claims is ever
present with him..
How would Mr.. Curtis think If he had been
so treated! Suppose had risen in my seat
i'm the American congress and stated that he,
Mr.. Curtis, had turned ont to be
q scoundrel, that I'm his management of
the paper he had repeatedly sold himself
had been guilty of advocating measures in
the columns Of his paper simply for gain.
| The first thing you would ask for would be
proof, would it notl You would say such
charges are unmanly unless o know what
you are talking about, and you would be
which Mr.. Curtis has treated 200 member
of congress-, all of whom are his
equals in integrity and many Of
them his peers in intelligence and culture.
Now say the editors of the country who
have initiated Mr.. Curtis in this respect are
to blame for such treatment of this bill. The
members of the committees OH in
the house and senate are not all thieves aud
robbers-neither are the two-thirds in both
houses who voted to pass the bill
over the veto Of the President all
scoundrels. II you will scan the
Il Tod men voting for as against this bill. and
3 ybveral of the best who voted against the
Tjill on its final passage over the veto voted
for it when it first passed the house, notably
iysfet Hiscock of Now York and Mr.. Reed Of
Maine. This simply shows that their OBJ
ments put on it by the senate and
ppt on account Of the works so much COM
fiained of by the press of the country. All
/ ask of the press of the country Is before
they denOunce over CwO-tnlruS OK the mem
beers of both branches of the American con-
gress, as they ave been doing, to examine
more carefully into the proofs upon which
these men acted and thus enable themselves
to speak more intelligently upon these vast
improvements.
Now look for a moment at the manner in
which the newspapers have treated this bill.
The Evening News Of Detroit,a paper which
I believe claims that it never sacrifices any
thing for the sake of being anything but
sprightly, In a few of its well adjusted clips
at me says that it is well enough that
Horr might have been expected to vote for
that bill as he had $3.50, 900 i'm IL I'm his
district. Now, what is the facts The bill
has Just $155, 600 in the old eighth district,
and in the one that you have nominated me
in to-day il carries just SOS 600. TIL News in
the matter Of $3.50, 600 is only about 5000, 900
out of the way, and that l suppose is as well
as 1t generally does. prolonged applause
and laughter
CRITICISM At LONG RANGE.
Now there Is this popularity about the
newspapers Of this country. have not
found q single one of them, and l have
amined "a good many, that pointed out a sin
gle defect in the bill in the locality where
they themselves are. [Laughter.1 The New
York Tribune says that 1t is an awful bill.
IfANy-aching over this bill W months
=, lore we reported It.. Yet they say that
1.-THE improvements about New York are very
moderate. They say that He'll Gate did not
trat enough. That, you know, is the entrance
no New York harbor, but they are Of the
opinion that of somewhere else there Is q