The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-10-04
MAGUIRES WORK ON
THE FUNDING BILL

! give me the information I seek, I remain
| respectfully yours
p s;-Have you any objection to sending me
marked copy of your speech of July >, with
those portions marked which were added after
og s b as It Is very important t9T tn0Sg
exactly what you said when you were engaged
in making this fight.
| He sent me this reply the same day:
SAN FRANCISCO. Aug 81. 1898
George W. Monteith Esq.-Dear Sir: Your
| letter Of this date is at hand
troversy with you concerning the matters there
in discussed Your suggestion that an objection
would have rendered it impossible for the
House to reach vote on the general def
$500, 900, 900 of war deficiencies as well as the
Pacific Railroad refunding provision, is alb
troll of the House can, at any time, through
it's committee on rules. bring any proposition
up for consideration and action. Respectfully,
JAMES G.. mcguire.
His letter was both insulting and evas-
i've l sought no controversy; simply
wanted facts Then he proceeds to an
osition not involved In my letter.
neither said nor intimated that his OBJ
lection would have rendered 1t impossi-
general deficiency bill" He first puts up
that man of straw, and then knocks him
down. What | do claim IS that If Ma
have prevented the Morgan amendment
becoming a law, and If he denies that
proposition l will take the affirmative of
it and debate it with him before any au-
dience in the State and stand or rall upon
my ability to prove 1t.
However, although 1 thought his reply
discourteous and uncivil, nevertheless
concluded to overlook his want of good
manners and make another effort to get
the facts, so wrote this letter;
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept s. 1885,
James G. Mcguire Esq.-Dear Sir: Your let
ter of August 81 was received during my a5-
sence from the city, and will once more ad-
dress you upon the subject If you would read read
over my letter of August 81 you will see that
there is no purpose to enter into what you are
pleased to term personal controversy. ! sim
ply asked you few questions which mad
perfect right to ask of any gentleman under
similar circumstances, and which had per
feet right to expect would be answered in the
same spirit in which they asked which
was simply the desire to know the facts. You
public man. seeking a high office, you
nave been public servant for number OF
years and the questions which 1 asked GER
tainly affect your standing before the public.
When l wrote the letter l impressed with
the idea that If the impression L had formed
from reading the Congressional Record was
would lead you to warmly welcome an oppor-
tunity TO put yourself right by promptly and
uhequlVocally denying the propositions involved
IN those questions told you frankly that 1t
was my purpose to exploit this whole funding
bill question. There is feeling abroad among
the people that You did not fill the fullest
measure or your duty upon that occasion, and
/ secured the Congressional Record and made
eafe1ui examination Of all it contains. In
addition to that 1 considered in evidence the
letter OF Judge Barham of August IA, your re-
ply upon August 10 and your speech at Metro
poitan Hall delivered on your return from the
East. From the Congressional debate l gather
the impression that you knew OF the Morgan
proposition before it was offered in the Senate,
ana II that Is true you certainly had notice of
in California. Then I have been unable to
ascertain that you sent any information
here to those of us who were Interested in The
hght, or did anything TO enable US TO have
stirred up determined opposition to this
From tbe Cororas.,o-., DIS /.
that you and Senator White were in full ac-
cord upon this question, and If so you were
equally responsible with him for the action
in the Senate, where a single Senator's objec-
ton would have killed Morgan's amendment
In your public statements you have acknowl-
edged that the Barham amendment so sugar
coated the biIl that number of Republicans
swallowed ii who would have otherwise been
against 1t enough, you admit, TO have beaten
IT, and your objection would have killed Bar
paIatable condition that would have insured
enough opposition to have beaten it, as it passed
object of this critical moment upon the plea
that you did not then know the temper of the
House, and had no way to ascertain it. AS
against that position, we hnd in the Record
the fact that you permitted the conference
port TO be adopted without objection. when
amendment was offered, have precipitated a
uation is true, would have resulted in its de-
feat, at least it would have enabled you to
have determined the standing Of the House
upon the question without the matter being
complicated by Barham's amendment One OF
the questions asked you related to the parli-
mentary situation at that stage. and OF course
you are open to one avenue Of escape, which is,
that they outgeneraled you, and you didn't
sufficiently understand the procedure of the
House TO have enabled you to take advantage
of the situation. Unon that point would rise
the question of your bona fdes in the case
and we might be influenced in its determine
ton by what you said on the floor of the
House The speech printed in the Congressional
Record, which you obtained leave to print,
is, understand, different speech from the
one actually delivered. That is of course
right which Congressman assume, but one
that is hardly eXpedient to exercise at criti-
weight should be advanced before rather than
that the pur; ose Of the argument is to infuo
ence the vote the BILL rather than TO secure
the applause of confdng constituency. This
will explain why asked you the questions con-
tanned in my former letter and think If you
will calmly consider the matter that you will
find that 1t would be much better to answer
the questions in detail. 1t will not take long
to do so, and If you will answer them fairly
and frankly, and If your course has been
proper one, they will settle the whole matter
1 know that you feel unfriendly toward me.
one of good faith, and one in which any per-
sonal feelings may have should be wholly
surely do not wish to place yourself in the un-
fortunate position of refusing to state them,
when their statement can do no harm, but may
viii you not then kindly look over my former
the questions, and I will assure you that I
will deal justly and fairly with you, which is
many Of us, despite personal feelings,
given you our fullest and highest measure of
confidence, and it would be an awful thing
to find out that that confidence has been
misplaced l cannot believe that we could
have made so great a blunder. and it is pos
sible that the iil-feeling that may exist be-
tween you and myself may be the reason that
YOU refuse to answer my questions, and CIV
ing you the benefit of the doubt now appeal
to --o,, to put aside any personal feeling you
NAV have and put me right If I am wrong.
Very truly yours.
This letter Mcguire never answered
and as 1 understand, refuses to answer.
| talked it over with John P. Dunn, and
he urged me not to publish the CORE
srendence as Mr.. Hutchinson want,si to
talk it over with me. Hutchinson, who is
a good friend of mine, afterward talked
with me about It, and I showed it to him
and told him if Mcguire would truthfully
and satisfactorily answer those questions
1 would heartily support him. Hutchinson
thought he could get him to do so, but
up to this time has not succeeded.
/ saw Senator Morgan the other day
and had a long talk with him about it.
He was very much surprised to learn that
Mcguire had questioned his motives in
the matter He said that he was fully
satisfied with the measure Under the cir
cumstances, and would stand on his rec
ord, and very sarcastically remarked that
I