The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-15
NOT ALL BAD.

The passage of the San Joaquin ter
minal bill, is matter of such profound
importance to the people that very natur-
ally there is the warmest approval OF all
who voted in favor of the measure and a
hot indignation against those opposed to
it. The coincidence of Senator Biggy's
charge OF corruption in the Senate adds to
this indignation, and as consequence
the righteous wrath of popular judgment
is not likely to discriminate among men,
but to pronounce an equal condemnation
upon all who stood apparently for the in
terests of the monopoly against those of
the people.
1t is to be admitted that such condemna-
ton is not unreasonable. The issue in
volved in the bill was so great, the terms
were so clear, the benefits to be gained by
its passage so vast, and the popular senti-
ment in support of it so strong and so
well founded, it is not easy to see how
any intelligent and sincere man could
oppose it. It must be remembered, how
ever, that men do not always look at SUBJ
jects from the same point of view. "Many
men of many minds" is an old proyerb
whose truth has been approved by the ex-
is not doubtful that some men are as sin
cere and honest in error as other men are
in the right.
In the case before US, the issue involved
questions of constitutional law which may
well have perplexed those who pay more
attention to the letter of law than to its
broad principles, and dealt with matters
OF such great moment that men of little
enterprise may have been sincerely
troubled at the thought of entering upon
them. We do not deny, therefore, that
there may have been some sincere oppo-
nents of the bill We regret, however, that
man like Senator Seymour should have
been among them. His vote in opposition
is one of those acts which it is hard to ex-
plain. On the one hand, it is difficult to
believe that man of his known integrity
and approved worth could have voted
against his convictions; and, on the other
hand, it is equally hard to understand how
man whose knowledge of the State has
given him such comprehensive under
standing Of its needs, could have mistaken
the right course to pursue in case SO plain
as this.
Senator Seymour has so often proven
DIS uSclulueSS W Tile Dldtc anu Ills regard
for the public welfare that he will not be
irrevocably condemned by his constituents
because in this instance he blundered.
Nor should he be so condemned in
the State at large. lie should have put
himself into sympathy with the great
policy of the people, but failed to do so,
and political blunder was the result.
Other men may have erred in the same
way, and the people should be willing to
accept all explanations where honesty is
discernible. In fact, if those who voted
against the bill on honest grounds
prove their regard for the welfare OF
the people and the State by getting
at once into line on the issue and
going forth to work for the San Joaquin
road and doing all in their power in a
legitimate way to break down the monop-
oily control of the transportation system OF
| the State, they viii be judged leniently.
| This, however, does not apply to those
men whose course was too plainly the re-
sult.of subserviency to the monopoly, or a
! desire to be bought, for their infamy to be
mistaken. The members of the San Fran
| cisco delegation who opposed the bill need