The San Francisco call., 1898-05-30

Judge was back in the, organization." 1 This is probably a very harmless false | hood, but it is false, and It IS dlTncult to | imagine that you can have been so dense 1 ly Ignorant as to believe it true. Do you really believe that the Democratic party | did not make material change Tn sts Pa3fssr5onS gaaaaTt' 1ss dnd p1fD0ss55 July Oe'R | Hundreds of thousands of Zen l left the Democratic party and cent over to the Republican party in lSSS, on account of the Democratic National plat form of that year, and a less number, but l still hundreds of thousands ot Republl- cans came over to the Democratic party on account of the same platform; yet, with a sublime audacity, which brooks no restraint of conscience, you assert that | there was no change in the professions or the Democratic party during that period. That part fof your article must nave been written to influence fass of Ce CeTy readRers Rr you believed your own a1atemeht, III lnlS behalf, you must indeed have secured your present position like the Right Honorable Sir Joseph Porter, K. c. B., through your persistent avoidance of tne manly haElt of thinking. ,, -
 You may remember the thrilling narra- tive of Sir Joseph's promotion;
 1T thought so little they 1ewarded zle,
 By making me the ruler or the queen
 navee"
 Should it be desirable to immortalize your present dignity in song, little modil- cation of t1ese lines of "'Pinafore'' might serve the purpose. You might well sing:
 "I thought so little they rewarded me,
 And now I am editing The Call, as you
 see.''
 FALSEHOOD NO. 5.
 In your issue of May g, referring to me, you say: "As chairman of the MetrOpoli- tan Temple meeting he sustained the Buckley organization, which he denounced in 1SS7.''
 That sentence contains two distinct falsehoodS. l was not chairman or the Metropolitan Temple meeting to which refer and I did not sustain the BUCK ley organization.
 1 was present at the meeting in question as a member of the general committee, which was established by the reorganizers who drove Buckley and Rainey from their control of the Democratic municipal or ganization in 1892 The pending propost- ton was to disband that general commit tee l opposed diSbandment on two grounds: First, that the method being pursued was irregular and undemocrauc; and secondly, that the diSbandment or the committee would restore Ralney to the control of the Democratic. party or ganiZation in San Francisco. The contest was between the old general committee and the committee which had held sway during the last two years Many or us, with some reason, feared that this latter committee might be dominated by Ralney, but your designation of the old coIn1nli- coInI tee as a Buckley organization accoIuS fairly with your reckleSSneSS or state ment in other matters. That co1nH1ltIee' or, more accurately speaking, the oIgal- izers of that committee, had driven 6uSh- S-
  committee had kept him out of San Fran cisco politics for four years DeIore lHe date of the meeting in questlon, +ba
 If YOU base your statement upon tLe fact that a number Of Democrats, "Iio' Drior to 1892 acted with Buckley Tn the Democratic municipal organlzzaftlo1ti tbe ~eld enlId committed that fact affords no pasIs Iot your statement. An appeal to that Lact hegs the whole question. Ii It was wrong to dishand the old committee should vote for that wrong simply because few of Mir. Buckleys former assoclates were in favor of the right courseF Ceildlhly no sensible man will make that claim.
 Your suggestion that I had denounced their former organization and its praG- tices Is quite true but it does not fol- low that my feeling of hostility should extend to the individuals so as 10 pregut dice me against them in their subsequent effort to do what I believed to be right;
 Early in life I learned that splendid1 fo hate the sin and yet the sinner love" I have tried to apply that rule in all my relations with my fellow-men IT. there- fore, you shall repent and return to ways you in all sincerity: Misguided man, man, go thy way and sin no more anu snou es shalt be rewarded even with my dhec- ''0-1' THE LETTER OF 1887.
 You have rescued one of my letter rom the shades of oblivion and have shaken from it the dust of eleven years. l trust " YOU may find it worth the space you nave bgf perdd ef t of Is an Which % te Democratic party has long since out grown I have nothing now to say about the letter except that it represented my sentiments when it was written. If you are determined to fling your bubblfng venom over the flowers of my thought, so be it:
 What is writ is writ
 Would it were worthier-"
 Republish what you will of all that have really said and written. All I ask Is that you shall not distort it nor fals- fly it.
 I will not defend it as the perfection of wisdom nor as the perfection of knowl- edge, but of all that I have said and of III that I have written I do affirm that it my honest thought at the lime of it's utterance.
 You may think, and the public may at irst think, that I have given too much F attention to you in this letter, but long experience has convinced me that one cannot give too much attention to ven ,mous serpent until he has eXtracted it's 'angs When I have satisfactorily per- ormed that operation in your case you k will be permitted in your fangless 1ra- to hiss and squirm and coil and strike to your hearts content without urther notice from me. Respectfully,
 JAMES c. MAGUIRE.