The record-union., 1896-10-13

tack some one, and then turn around
and say, You must not mention my
name, because did not write the arti-
Gle. In the name of God, if he does not
want 70 nave his name mentioned,
why does he assail other men, better
men than he ever dared to be: and if
my colleague (Mr. Maguire) is SO jealous
! Of this mans character and feelings that
he does not want his name mentioned
why has he not prevented him from at
| tacking other people.
Maguire-I have no control over him;
but l say, with regard TO this article,
that it is not fair to mention and attack
I Mr.. Hearst in this way, when the prob
ability is that he never heard of that ar
| ticle and never saw it,
| Johnson of California; think it is
fair, for this reason: That newspaper
has attacked me, and do not believe in
/ this shielding of ones self behind the
name of q newspaper. That newspaper
| is his. He is the man who is responsible
! for it, and he ought to be responsible for
1 it. When the time comes in these United
/ States that man can shelter himself
/ behind the name of his newspaper and
say he is not personally responsible for
what appears in that newspaper, the
end of government, the end Of decency
! the end of protection to individual rights
will have been reached.
/ Maguire-I admit Mr.. Hearst's legal
responsibility.
| Lacy-I should like to ask the gentle
man from California a question. In his
remarks he has referred to the difficulty
| of getting this bill up. Is it not true that
/ the department has opposed the bill on
| the ground that the expense would run
! up very high, estimating the expense at
over a million dollars? Has there not
been difficulty in getting recognition be-
| cause the bill created a large number OF
! Offices and involved a very heavy ex-
| penditure of money?
Johnson of California-That is true,
| and that is the reason why, when the ad-
ditional expense was put on this bill, II
required the bill to go to committee,
| either the Committee on Public Lands
| or the Committee of the Whole. 30 1ar
as the question Of expense is concerned
| do not think it amounts to anything.
When thing is right it ought TO De
done. even if it does cost a great deal OF
money.
Prescott (Ark), July -, 1870.
Hon. Grove L. Johnson, M. C.-Dear
Sir: Your letter Of recent date has been
1
doubt about you and other members OF
the California delegation working
faithfully for the California mineral
land bill
In view of the do-nothing policy
adopted by those who directed the bus1-
ness of the House, / was surprised that
you got it through the House at all.
The Senate amendment under the
- la1-
when the bill was returned to the House
except by unanimous consent SO the
bill and amendment was referred 10
the Committee on Pubic Lands. You
and other members of your delegation
came promptly before the committee,
but as the bill was not privileged in the
House and would not be reached IL
the regular order on the calendar, 1t
could only be considered by unanimous
consent, or by a special rule from the
Committee on Rules, or by suspen-
sion of the rules which involved recog-
milton by the Speaker. 1t is known to
all that for the last part of the session
Mr.. KEN objected to all requests FOR
unanimous consent, and L understood
the Speaker refused the friends OF the
bill the special rule of recognition. OF
course, l know nothing of the opposl-
ton of the Speaker, but know that the
status Of the bill is such that it was
impossible for you and other friends OF
the measure to do more than you did
without his aid and help. Yours truly.
THOS. c. McRAE.
House Of Representatives, Z. S.,
Washington ID. c.. June ;, 1896.
Hon. Grove L. Johnson, House of
Representatives, Washington, d. c.
My Dear Sir: l am in receipt Of your
letter of June Sd, making inquiries rel
ative to the matter of your connection
with the mineral land bill of California
which was pending before the Public
Lands Committee some weeks ago.
L am a member of the Public Lands
Committee and was actively interested
in the so-called mineral land bill of Cal
ifornia while it was pending before our
committee and in the House. L was
especially interested in this bill be-
cause we have a similar law for Idaho,
which has worked remarkably we'll and
to the advantage Of our citizens A
practical test has abundantly proved
the necessity for this legislation there
For that reason / believed it would do
the same in California, and was there
fore anxious to aid your bill in every
| way possible.
The matter was first called to my at
| tention by yourself and Mr.. Bowers
who is a member of our committee. You
| appeared before the committee repeat
edly in the interests of this legislation
and through the efforts of yourself,
aided by Mr.. Bowers, more than
| through the efforts of any others, and
/ may say of all others combined, is due
the fact that committee recon-
mended the passage Of this bill, and
that the House finally passed it.
/ remember well when you asked
unanimous consent for the consid
Grafton of the bill in the House and the
earnest and vigorous manner in which
you presented it to that body. For a
! time | had doubts as to the ability of
| the friends of the measure to secure
| unanimous consent for its considera-
| ton, but owing to your magnificent
management on the floor, which finally
| overcame all opposition, unanimous
consent for its consideration was given
and the bill finally passed. I will cheer
| fully state that had it not been for your
| efforts on that occasion there would
| have been no possibility of passing the
| bill.
4 T holt % h