Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1889-06-27

the Repub lie. at meeting Monday even,
ing passed. the following resolutions,
which are self>explanatory:
WHEREAS. On June 10, 1889, an srti-
Gle was published in the Rock Island
DAILY ARGUS purporting to voice the
sentiments of this post as expressing in
dignation because the sum of $25 was
gratuitouslY allowed by our committee on
memorial arrangements to Comrade Will
liam McPheeters for delivering his ad>
dress at tn, Island cemetery, May 80;
therefore he it
Resoloed. That instead of feeling the
least indig lant, this post hereby indorses
| the action Of said committee on such ex-
penditure 10 Comrade McPheeter for his
able and excellent address delivered on
said occasion, and that too at a less ex-
pense than such services have heretofore
been rende red.
Res0lUsd That we believe the motive
for such pu blication was personal and in
tended to injure the character and stand-
ing of CoInrade McPhecters. whom we
esteem highly as brave soldier, an able
orator and patriotic citizen.
ResolUed. That a copy of these resolu>
tons be furnished to the Rock Island
ARGUS with a request that said paper
give it the same publicity that it gave the
article to which the resolutions refer
Also that the resolutions be published in
the Union.
THOMAS CAMPBELL. Commander.
Official: MORRIS T. STAFFORD,
-. Adjutant.
The above resolutions were handed TO
the ARGUS for publication Tuesday
morning. but with no intimation on the
part of the post to pay for their publica
ton. Taking for granted. however. that
the post thinks the ARGUS owes an spol-
ogY for the article which called them
forth, we will publish them gratuitOusly.
The Argos is no more surprised than
the public generally that Buford post
| should lend its official endorsement to
the unprecedented and unpstriotic act of
charging Zee for what should especially
to al old soldier. be labor of love.
When the ARGUS stated in its issue of
June 18th. that there was Indignation ex-
pressed among members of Buford post
over the charge of S25 made by Rev.
McPheeters for the address deliv-
cred by him on Memorial day +,
it stated the truth, and reiter-
/ ates the statement now, notwithstand
ing the resolution passed Monday even
ing.
Upon inq 1iry, indeed we are pleased to
! find that the resolutions are as severely
condemned by old soldiers, whose pas
triotism and service to their country is
unquestioned, but who do not parade
their bravery before the public contin-
| ually, as was the bill of Rev. McPheeters.
These veterans, while mortified that one
claiming to be an old soldier, should re-
quest remur Grafton for paving proper re.
spect to the memory of his dead COM
rades, feel 40 less outraged that the post
should expend funds donated by the city,
for such purpose.
As near as we can ascertain the white
washing re resolutions were passed aftel
most of the members who had been pres.
ent had left. and large majority of thu
post knew nothing about them unit
they were seen in print.
The resolutions appearing in the Unio'
Tuesday morning had only the name o
Adjutant Stafford attached. but the cop,
sent to the ARGUS contained the name O
Commander Campbell. This of itsel
looked little suspicious. and Happening
to meet Mr.. Campbell yesterday. he wa
asked if he had signed them. He said b,
had not. and didn't know anything abou
them. This looks as though everythin!
wasn't just right. But the resolution
were adopted, whether correctly or not
and are not only complete endorse
ment of Rev. McPheeters, but charge
the ARGUS with being actuated by per
sonal motives and intending to injure thu
reverend gentleman's standing. This il
not true, and if the gentlemen who passed
them possessed reasonable degre'
of propriety, they would not misconstru'
our motives. Inasmuch, however, as the
few very patriotic gentlemen who are 80
prominent and conspicuous in grand army
affairs, have seen fit to sustain Rev.
McPheeters and place themselves on the
same level, it may not be out of place tt
| - v,atxar an l;ttla
At the tine the city council sppro'
priated $200 towards defraying the leglt
innate expenses for memorial day services
that official body was criticized as over
stepping the powers delegated to it
While the appropriation was clearly al
illegal one no particular remonstrsnc,
was raised, considering the sscredness O.
the purpose for which it was donated
But the question may now be raised
what did tie post do with that money!
The council did not intend to give tn.
$500 to the general fund of the post, bu
simply to asaist in defraying the expenses
on that particular occasion. If there il
any balance It should be paid back intt
the city treasury. Besides it is hardly
probable that the council would have al
lowed the post cent if it supposed for al
instant portion of it was to be paid I
hired spealer. The only honorable
course for the post to pursue, under thu
circumstance 9, is to refund the city thu
$25 paid Nc Pheeters, and whatever bal
ance, if any, is left of the 5000. It hat
better pass resolution of such charac-
ter, before it tries to exonerate McPhee-