Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1884-09-12

THE MILWAUKEE GERMANS ON THE LITTLE ROCK
AND FORT SMITH RAILROAD MATTER IN THEIR
REPLY TO MR.. scHURz.
You have in your speech represented
Blaine's decision, as speaker of the house, in
a manner 80 as to leave the impression that
the decision would have been different IL
Blaine had had no interest in the Little Rock
q Fort Smith railroad, while it is plain from
the Mulligan letters that Blaine then had no
interest in the road mentioned, and every one
knows that Blaine, as speaker of the house,
in the performance of his duty, could not
have decided otherwise than he did
1t was almost midnight on the 9th of April,
1863, and during the last session Of congress,
that the Little Rock railroad bill was called
up in the house. Mr.. Julian, Of Indiana,
then proposed as an amendment that the
company should be bound 10 fix the maximum
price at 81. 80 per acre, and not sell it in
greater quantities than l60 acres. With this,
however, Mr.. Julian was not satisfied. His
interest was in the Memphis & FL Pasco land
grant, to which, in both houses, but especial
ly in the senate, so much opposition was
manifested that TO bring this matter 10 a fa-
yorable conclusion was not TO be thought Of
during the last hours of the session.
During the whole day an unusually power
full lobby was at work to smuggle the scheme
through as a rider" on the Little Rock bill
and Julian added to the first amendment an
other in favor of the land grant TO the FL
Pasco railroad company. This naturally
brought the friends of the Little Rock bill to
their feet, for they knew that the bill 30
amended, even If passed the house. would
never get through the senate, and consequent
ly the result Of a years work would be lost
Mr.. Root whose constituents made his reelec-
tion contingent upon the passage of the Lit
Rnnk L., n,,1 -,
tation to the speaker Of the house, Mr. Blaine
who told him that Julian's amendment was
out of order, and that some one should raise
the point of order.
That Mr.. Logan did and Speaker Blaine
sustained the point giving his reasons as fol-
lows
l. 1t is expressly prohibited by the rules
OF the house that, when land grant to a rail
road company is passed, land-grant to an
other railroad company shall be passed in
any way in connection with it,
=. The rules Of the house determine that
no proposition which is opposed to that un-
der consideration can be brought up under
the disguise of an amendment.
None of the representatives present disput.
ed this decision of Blaine's although sharp
parliamentarians like Garfield Hale, Dawes,
Knott and others we're present. Blaine did
not have the slightest interest in the railroad
He made the decision exclusively according
to the rules of the house, and he could not
have acted otherwise than he did act.
Why do you not, Mr.. Schurz, interpret the
letters in a manner required by fairness and
dignity when prominent man is in question,
but on the contrary as if a new piece of ras-
cality was to be fastened upon one already
often branded with dishonesty? You are of
the opinion, Mr.. Schurz, that Blaines friends
very unwillingly hear these letters spoken of.
Not quite. We have these letters at hand /;
we have Just as great an interest as you to
clearly understand their true nature, and we
do not fear to give these letters to our neigh
bors to read, and 80 far as it is necessary TO
illustrate your position and ours to reproduce
them in this address. Here is the letter of
June 20 1863: