The record-union., 1896-04-07
THE FUNDING BILL.
Congressman Grove L. johnson Defines
His Position.
The Anti-Funders Have Not Presented
Single Argument to the
Committee.

@0~S -
Committee.
Following is an extract from letter
written by Congressman Grove L.
johnson to Watson c. Green, editor OF
the Lodi Sentinel:
cannot understand the feeling that
some people have in reference to the
railroad funding bill The reason for
the action of the Examiner" has been
explained because it was taken off Of
the payroll of the company. The con-
duct of Sutro has also been explained
and shown to be personal controversy
with the company. They have both
been fighting the funding bill not be-
cause they thought it was wrong, but
In order to injure a person they dis
liked. Their malicious assaults ought
to have carried with them their own
refutation, and the explanation Of their
conduct ought to rob their efforts of all
weight. Why any Republican should
pay attention to the rawlings of an an
archist like Sutro and a Secesh Demo-
crat like Hearst and his Examiner
passes my comprehension. The style OF
argument INDUCED in by them shows
that they have no faith in their side OF
the controversy. 1t is solely abuse,
Misrepresentation, cartoons, carica-
lures, and then more abuse and more
abuse. There never has been printed
in any column Of the Examiner" nor
in any Of the libelous literature circu-
lated by Sutro, one single argument
against the funding bill
The decision of the United States Su-
preme Court in the Stanford case eliml-
mates the liability Of stockholders from
this question. The clear and decided
opinion Of the United States Attorney
General took from the question the l1a-
bility Of the officers Of the companies.
The only question remaining is, How
shall the Government proceed In order
to secure payment of the money due II
by these companies?" That is busi-
ness question and should be settled up
on business principles devoid of any
other coloring If the Lodi Bank, of
which you are attorney, had a second
mortgage upon farm and your debtor,
through bad luck, mismanagement,
reckless expenditure or fraud, was un-
able to pay you, and also was unable
to pay the first mortgage, and you were
in a bankrupt condition but able to
carry on business because of the conf
dence people had in you, and your
debtor should say that If he was given
time he could pay both the first mort
gage and second mortgage, and you
knew that if the first mortgage was
foreclosed the property would not sell
for enough to pay the first mortgage,
and if you foreclosed your second
mortgage you would be obliged to pay
off the first mort gage and take property
that was not worth your own mortgage,
and you did not want to go into the
farming business anyway, 1t being op-
posed to all your principles and order
of business, what would you as busi-
ness man advise your client to do? The
answer must necessarily be that you
would advise an extension Of the debt
secured as best you could get it. Bear
ing in mind also that your debtor Of
fered you some additional security.
That is the railroad debt question.
There is no sentiment except natural
one that we onght to have of pride in
the achievements of Californians who
gave us a Pacific railroad seven years
before the time fixed by the Govern
Inent.
1 have listened to every word of
argument and evidence presented to
the railroad committee. Not one pro-
position has been advanced in relation
to the funding bill except abuse of
the railroad company and the sug-
gestion that the Government foreclose
its mortgage and lose the SSO,OO0,0O0 it
has invested in these railroads in
order to get rid Of the present manage
ment and permit some New York syn
dicate to control a railroad from New
York to San Francisco. All the Cali
fornians that have spoken have con-
fined themselves TO abuse. Mcguire,
Bowers, Hilborn and Barham have
sung the same song Of the robbery of
the road and the immense fortunes
made by the builders of the railroad,
but as to any suggestion how the Gov
ernment could get its money back,
they have all significantly failed and
refused to make any.
Hearst and Sutro boil and bubble
like leaky pot over the fire and fill
the air with abuse of Huntington, bu,
they suggest no course by which the
Government can get its money. The
funding bill is a means by which the
Government can obtain every dollar OF
principal and interest 1t has loaned
these railroads. Shall we get the
money or shall we continue always
abusing c. P. Huntington?
I have written you at length and
hope 1 have not wearied you. This
matter seems so plain to me that I an
surprised that anybody should think
1t good plan to throw away $4,000
600 in order to please Hearst, SutrC
and that gang of Democratic politi.
clans. When the matter comes before
Congress for final action I shall make
a speech upon the question, fully ex'
planning the situation as 1t appears
to me, and believe that the good sense
of yourself and all other of my con
stituents will indorse my course in de
Gliding this question upon pure bust
ness principles.
The Jury Disagreed.
A young man named G. Dowdger was