The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-10-04


to vote for Mr.. Mcguire, while support
ing the Populist-Democratic ticket gen
orally. In an interview yesterday MI
Monteith said
1T is true that I am not supporting
James G. Mcguire for Governor, and
have no hesitation in giving my reasons.
When l went to Sacramento last July
l had given the political situation but lit
tie study, having been engrossed for
some time with the Railroad Commission
case. l represented Marin County and
being alone cast her four votes. On my
arrival there l found a strong faction
that wanted to nominate Mcguire and
make q fusion arrangement, and one, per-
haps stronger, that was opposed to all
fusion and that wanted a straight ticket.
Most Of the latter faction favored Mr..
Shanahan for Governor. Between these
two there were some delegations who
were undetermined, but who leaned to-
ward a straight ticket. Some of these
wanted me to be the nominee, and 1T is
possible they could have forced it. 1 did
not want 1t, and refused to go into the
race.
What did want above all else was to
make a clean antt-railroad fight, and while
opposed to fusion on any other ground
favored 1t simply a means to accom-
pllsh the end of the railroads domina-
ton of the government of this State.
LAS to Mcguire, while 1 had always be-
lieved in and warmly supported him, l
had strong personal reasons for opposing
him. These, however, 1 was entirely will
ing to put aside in case he was the man
to lead the battle against the monopoly.
1 did not for moment doubt his sim
cerity as an anti-railroad leader, and upon
thinking it over finally concluded that
he was the one man to take the lead.
'At that time l was ignorant of what
I have since learned was his action on
reminding passed Con-
gress as a rider upon the deficiency BILL
THAT proposition was embodied in an
offered by Senator Morgan in the Senate
on June 20 last, with unanimous con-
sent, both White and Perkins being pres
emf. and passed with an amendment Of
fered by White the same day.
THE amendment was further amended
by Judge Barham in the House, and pass
ed that body July or 6.
The Populist convention met July Y
so the Congressional Record did not reach
California until after Mcguire was nom
mated. L had only seen the meager &C
count in the newspapers, and like many
others supposed that Huntington had
finally won the fight by trick. Mcguire
every one else here, thought 1t was bad
measure, and that he had done all he
could to defeat it.
on Maguire's return, shortly before the
Democratic convention, he denounced 1t
unqualiiedly, and at the same time bit
terly attacked Senator Morgan, then In
Honolulu,
rendered to Huntington. He also severe
~ criticized Congressman Barham, who
replied TO him in an open letter, pub
Iished August IA, and to which Mcguire
made a rejoinder on August Is. Barhams
statement and Maguire's reply did not
read until the Sunday after l returned
from the Democratic convention In sac
ramento, when my attention was called
to both by my wife. l then looked up
Maguire's speech, and concluded that
something was wrong.
over to Oakland, where got copy or the
Congressional Record from CLUB over
there located on Washington street. The
following Sunday made a careful exam
nation of the Record and much to my
surprise found that, If Magu1re's asser-
ton was true that the Morgan amend
ment was such an infamous surrender
to Huntington as he claimed 1t was, he
appeared 10 be morally particeps Grim
inis to the infamy by not stopping 1t, as
1T was apparent he could have done so.
There were some matters involved IN
more or less doubt that might have been
in his favor, and so concluded TO write
would have no hesitation in answering
them. 1 wrote him this letter on August
31St:
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 81, 1898.
James G.. Maguire-Dear Sir: l have been
examining the Congressional Record lately with
reference to the funding proposition which
passed Congress as rider upon the deficiency
bill / have also read your speech delivered
on your return. Mr.. Barhams statement and
your reply to 1t, and, to be frank with you.
1t looks to me though you had not fulfilled
your duty in the premises. However, as do
to ask YOU a few questions concerning some
matters that 1 would like to hear your side OF.
The amendment came before the Senate June
29 and Senator Morgan stated that it had the
unanimous approval of the Pacihc railroad
that you knew of the proposition before June
49, and 1t also appears that you attended some
conference at which this matter was discussed.
Upon this part of the matter 1 would like to
ask you the following questions:
First-Did you know of the Morgan amend
ment or of his intention to offer some kind of
amendment or bill upon the subject prior
second-Did you discuss the matter with Sen
ator White on or prior to June 20?
Third-When did you obtain the first intima-
ton information that the refunding PROPOSE
ton would come up in any form in June or
July last?
Fourth-Did you attend any conference at
which the refunding proposition was discussed,
either as Senator Morgan offered it 1t
proposed to offer it for the consideration of
either house of Congress in the session just
closed?
Fifth-when you received the first intimation
you had that the refunding matter was to
come up either in the form It did or in any
other form, did you notify the committee of
fifty or any other of the interested parties here.
or did you give the item to the newspapers,
and, If so, when and how soon after you first
learned of 1t?
Sixth-Did you make any effort to get any
Senator to prevent the matter being tackled on
to the deficiency bill by making the solitary
objection that was necessary?
Seventh-What did you do to prevent action
In the Senate, If anything?
AS understand your position it Is this: That
the only opportunity you had to have a vote
upon the bill that would determine the senti-
ment of the House the final vote upon the
motion of Mr.. Cannon to concur. Under the
circumstances II clearly your duty and
the duty of every other California Congressman
to exhaust every possible remedy known to
parliamentary tactics to have prevented the
passage of that infamous measure That being
true, If you failed to do anything which might
have been done you were derelict. You claim
l believe, that under the rules of the House
there was nothing which you could have done
to have prevented that refunding proposition
becoming a law except to have beaten it upon
final vote. l think you wrong in this par
ticular but as you familiar with the
rules than l am L will ask you one or two
questions upon that point
on page I46S Of the Record appears coIloquy
between yourself and Cannon after which the
conference report adopted without any oh
lection from you. Could you not at this point
that is, before the motion was made to adopt
the report, or as substitute for the report
have made motion that the conference report
be rejected and further conference be re-
quested under instructions, whereby the House
would inform the Senate that it would recede
from all Its points of difference contained in the
report saving that relating to amendment num-
Der 80, and that the House would not concur in
that amen dment?
Would not such motion or something similar
to 1t have been in order and could 1t not have
been utilized both to debate the question and to