The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-09-05

l have read the speech of Mr.. Gage
delivered in Los Angeles on Saturday
| evening. L was greatly surprised by its
| tone as we'll as by much of its matter.
1t seems to me that he displayed unrea-
sonable anger at my pleasant illusions to
MS sacramento speech which he con-
strued to be abusive ''verbiage'
AS to his personal criticisms of myself
and of opinions held by me on questions
not involved in the campaign, shall have
nothing to say. How far candidate for
Governor may properly proceed in such
personal denunciation is wholly a mat
ter OF propriety which must be deter
mined by each candidate according to Als
own taste and judgment. For my own
part, l have always avoided personal at
tacks and have refused to notice them
except under great provocation. l choose
to deal only with his discussion of ques-
tons of fact and of principle involved in
the campaign.
referring to the passage of the funding
Dill at the last session Of the present Con-
gress, Mr.. Gage is reported as saying:
we had no opportunity to vote upon
that question, but there came a time
when James G. Mcguire occupied place
IN the Congress of the United States
When he could have voted upon it, A
snort time ago, you remember, law in
reference to that matter was adopted In
the United States Senate, and it passed
the Congress. James g. Mcguire stood
tnere, and had he raised his voice, had
he simply said, Mr. Chairman, l Oh
ject to the consideration of that BILL il
never could have been considered. He
MADE no such objection. Then what right
has he to stand upon the rostrum to-day
and assail the acts of that body? Tell
me, II you can, as honest, fair minded
CltlZenS "a
an honest official or not?"
is 1t possible that Mr.. Gage knows so
llttie OF Congressional procedure as to
believe that statement? But he must
nave been deceived into believing it,
as otherwise he would certainly not have
repeated 1T. Does he not know that the
back to the House from the Senate as
part of the general deficiency bill? That
general deficiency bill carried appropria-
lions to the amount of nearly 500 900 900
to meet deficiencies already incurred for
the support of the army and navy of the
United states Does he imagine that
prevented the House of Representatives
from voting on that bill or from voting on
the question Of concurring or non-con-
he imagine that the House of Representa-
tiVes is such an impotent or imbecile body
as TO be paralyzed and prevented from
the army and navy in time of war by
single objection, or by a hundred objec-
tons, to the consideration of an appro-
priation bill? The proposition is so absurd
that its very statement Should have con-
vinced him of its incorrectness. Mr. Gage
has been grossly deceived In this matter
The fact is that there was no possibility
OF either. defeating the refunding provi-
sion or of striking it from the general de-
ficiency bill except by majority vote of
the members of the House present at the
time of its consideration.
AS to Mr.. Cages deduction concerning
my official honesty, based upon his belief
provision by simply saying "Mr. Chair
man, | object to the consideration of that
BILL / presume he will withdraw his de-
duction when he discovers that he has
been imposed upon concerning the facts.
His suggestion that "a drunken man
sometimes has better sense than the lead
er of his party" l must. of course, pass
without notice.
Again, Mr.. Gage, referring to me, says:
HE may not have said, as the Republi-
can platform declares he did that the
taking of Spanish ships by American sail
ors was an act of piracy. but he did this
he stood there in Congress talking and