Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-08-08
Unjust InsinuatiOns.

! good many of the newspapers when
! have always made it point to condemn
theriver and harbOr bill, whether 1t appro-
priated So, 000, 900 or $15, 900, are In
sInuatfng that the President signed the
river and harbor bill, passed by the present
/ Congress, and also the oieomargarine bill,
/ because he thought by so doing he would
! increase his chances for denomination.
That these insinuations are unjust there
Is no room for doubt. The President sent
TO Congress his reasons for signing the
oleomargarine bill, and very good reasons
they are. He would hardly have been
justified in defeating measure that had
been so thoroughly discussed as that
was, and which had been ap-
proved by so large majority in both
Houses OF Congress.
With reference to the river and harbor
bill it is only necessary to say that he
was unable to find anything in it that JUS
titled him in vetoing it. He stated to the
country through the Associated Press his
reasons for signing it, and no one OF the
papers which condemn the bill has I'M
dertaken to answer them. Gen. Newton,
the chief of the army engineers, stated
| that he had made very thoro ugh exam
ination of the bill, and that he was pre-
pared to say that SO per cent. OF 1t
was for works that were absolutely de-
manded by the foreign and domestic COM
merce of the country, and which were
already under contract. There are few
appropriations, he said, amounting to
perhaps l per cent. of the bill, for i'm
provements about which he knew little
or nothing, but even those, he admitted,
might be meritorious.
1twas clearly demonstrated to the Presi-
dent that the damage TO partly completed
improvements, if abandoned until another
river and harbor bill could be passed,
would be at least $4,000, 900, to say nothing
of the injury to commerce by the shOal-
ing of harbors and rivers.
Assuming that per cent. OF the Dill is
an out and out steal-and there is only
very slight foundation for such an as
sumption-would the President have
acted wisely if he had vetoed it to save
less than $l50,0OO when such action
would have cost the government
"a, 900, 900?
1t Is unfortunate that the newspapers
which are forever condemning what they
call the river and harbor steal do not in
form themselves so as to speak about it
intelligently.
1t is undoubtedly true that there are
some appropriations in the bill which
ought not to be there, but they are small
ones. These ought to have been sought
out before the bill passed and condemned
In such way that neither house would
have dared to make them.
There is an appropriation for an alleged
Improvement in this locality which is a
waste OF public money. The improvement
in question is virtually a private enter
prise, aud can never be made to benefit the
commerce of the city to any great extent.
And yet the money which has been spent
| upon it could have been used so as to have
greatly helped the city's commerce.
On account of the appropriation for
this improvement, however, and few
others of like character 1t would not
have been statesmanlike act to have
vetoed the bill, and brought the pu bile
works OF the entire country to standstll
for a year or more. When the President
signed the bill he listened to the voice OF
the people, and as long as ne heeds their
voice he will not go very far wrong,