Evening star., 1897-01-09
Sensational Episode During the Fund
ing Bill Debate.
Mr.. JOHNSON'S PERSONAL ATTACK
The Caustic Reply to Him Made
by Mr.. Cooper.
Mr.. HARRISON'S OPPOSITION

Hearst, the owner of the San Francisco
Examiner. Brief notice was made of the
speech in yesterdays Star, but even if
the hour when 1t was delivered had permit
ted, 1t would have been impossible to have
printed much of the speech, on account of
the vile language used by Mr.. johnson
and the indecency of some of his allega-
tions against Mr.. Hearst
Mr.. Johnson's scurrility and indecency
of language seemed to shock the House,
and when he concluded his vituperative
TRADE but two or three men ventured to ap-
plaud him, and even their slight demon
strations were quickly checked by the omi-
nous silence which pervaded the rest of
the House.
Mr.. COOper's Reply.
Mr.. Cooper of Wisconsin replied to Mr..
Johnson's attack upon Mr. Hearst.
In view of what has been said by the
gentleman from California he said; .in
view of the exhibition which we saw here
as l think one of the most disgraceful
known in the annals of the legislative
history of the United States-the attack
ing OF a man absent from this place in
manner known only to towards, blacken-
Ing his name, running it Gf it were in the
power of the gentleman from California
to ruin anybody who has ever had any
reputation at alD to the best of his ability,
ASSA ~ PlopSi lol Ht 70 say at least a
few words.''
Mr.. Cooper then paid a high tribute to
Mr.. Hearst and the hard work he has done
TO build up his papers, and declared that
ne did not think that anything he had
done entitled a member to attack him as
the gentleman from California had done.
Mr. Cooper turned to MIR. Johnson and
continued: Let the CALLED Jade vince
The gentleman was in a republican dis
trict He boldly championed the funding
bill and he is buried under a majority of
5000.
''rhe gentleman from New York whom
he so UNANIMOUSLY and willfully maligned is
not responsible for his defeat 1t is the
knowledge that the people of the state Of
Sah1t rnia have that the power of the
southern Pacific Railroad Company whom
the gentleman from California presumes TO
De championing here on the floor, in the
lace OF people, has been used to their detri-
nent They know of the manner in which
that corporation has for years past treated
the people of that state
me people of California have been
treated more shamefully by this corpora
non than any commonwealth in the his
tory OF the United States has been treated
by any other rcorporation-either railroad
or otherwise. They have DESTROYED or
crippled enterprise, they have DESTROYED the
business OF individuals. they have dictated
TO the merchants how they should conduct
Ihelr business, imposed hardships upon
farmers, business men, merchants dry
goods men. lumber men merchants in
tn faQ1
their heavy hand all those who under7ook
10 ship their freight in opposition to this
company. '''''
The republican party repudiated the
Luhaing Dill. why? Because they did not
want to aid the tyranny of the southern
racine over the taxpayers of California"
-Mr. cooper then proceeded with his argu-
ment against the bill Throughout his re-
ply 10 Mr johnson the latter sat quietly in
ms seat at the rear of the hall. He made
no response.
Mr Johnscn's speech does not appear in
.ne Congressional Record today, but a
hote inserted In the proceedings at the
proper place says, His remarks will an
pear hereafter."' "' "p
VT. HnrrtsOn's Opposition,
Durlng the debate Upon the Pacific rail-
way 1undins bill in the House Yesterday
MI Harrison spoke in opposition to the
measure. He, said:
flrst' say that the proposition en-
braced In the report of the majority is too
liberal to the railroad companies. 1 agree
Win my friend and colleague, the gentle
man from Texas CMr BeiD, who so elo-
auehliy showed this committee on yester-
gay that the owners CT these railroads
nave not SO acted in the past as to entitIe
lhem to any further privileges or favors at
tne names OF the American government
have endeavored as a member of this
committee to gain all the information that
could upon this subject. l have reached
the conclusion, as the result of my investi-
cations, that this proposition is not only
the proposition Of the debtor railroad com
panies, but the proposition of the weaker of
the TWO, and even a worse proposition than
that which the Union Pacific Railroad
Company had indicated, by the testimony
OF Its attorney, Mr.. Pierce, that 1t was
willing and able to make when he first
came before the committee. 1t is true that
ne alterward Withdrew 1t, and agreed that
perhaps the Union Pacific could not do bet
ter than Is proposed In this bill
But. Mr. Chairman. it is an indisputable
fact that in these two railroad companies
.nere Is great difference in ability. so
great that any reasonable man must admit
that the Union Pacific is in better condi-
tlon to pay. or in a condition to paw more
on their Indebtedness, than is the Central
Pacific. If so. pray tell me why We should
accord to 1t the same terms that we do to
the Central Pacific, unless we are under
some obligations to grant to this company
some special privilege-some privilege not
Pacific. That reason alone, Mr.. Chairman,
would Unfit ence me not to adopt the re-
port of the majority of the committee.
The distinguished gentleman from Ver-
mont (Mr Powers) said that his estimate
vas based on hard times, 1t locks to me
as though it was not cEly based on hard
times, but, If you believe what was SO elo-
quently said by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. BelD on yesterday, that it was based
on some very hard practices.
Il ask the committee of the whole House.
Are You willing to make settlement based
upon the figures of the distinguished gen.
tleman from Vermont, based, as he says
upon hard prices. and, as the gentleman
from Texas has shown You, upon hard
practices?
Il submit that the adoption of the report
of the committee would be losing bust
ness to the government, even if it were
carried out III good faith by the railroad
companies and the per cent interest, as
well as the entire principal, paid as provid-
ed for in the bill. As has been well said, if
we extend this favor, ought we not to re-
ceive something for 1t? Are we under any
special obligations to these companies or
either of them? Certainly not.
Under the proposed bill the government
will be no better protected than under the
existing law. While an increase in the sec
ond mortgages is given over the subsid-
iary lines and the terminal facilities are
included in the proposed bill, the increase
in the first-mortgage debt, which this per-
mits, will more than equal the security
proposed to be given, and then, in my
humble judgment, we will have no better
security than we have at present.
II am not content simply to oppose this
bill, but propose, after spending six months
Of investigation on the committee on Pa
cific railroads, to submit such suggestions
as have occurred to me. VIII 1t do to
simply kill the bill? think not, for, as /
said at the beginning. think the time for