The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-02
A LETTER fRvMr..5.!!se..s.. rase sass !!

December ~. 1se9.--My Dear Friend;
! have received yours Of the sth instant
inclosibg extracts from several newspa-
pers, In which, am charged with having
attempted to deceive the people as to
Senator Chilton's vote upon the bill APP
propiiating s2O.00O,o0O to carry out the
obligations OF the treaty between the Uni
ted States and Spain. OF course, no
candid and intelligent man would make
such charge; and II Is made In the
hopo of misleading people who are not
familiar with the facts. You heard the
joint debate. and WILL therefore, recall
that what | said was In the presence oil
Mr.. Chiffon and with a full knowi-
edge that he was to follow In
speech OF thirty minutes, to which l would
have no opportunity Of replying. u
IS. therefore. absurd TO suppose that any
sane man. oven II he were totally lost
to all sense of fairness. would attempt,
under such circumstances. to misrepre-
sent the attitude of his opponent
Senator Chiffon spoke at Henderson,
in Rusk county, on November /, and laid
special stress on the fact that he voted
against the passage of that bill | spoke
from the same stand the following day,
and he was in my audience when l fatty
contradicted his statement. lie did not
raise any issue with me during my speech
or after it; and If / we're uncharltable
would conclude that the explanation
which the senator made at Fort Worth
was invented to relieve him from an en-
barrassng situation. The Record shows
that the bill was taken up by unanimous
consent, and passed without syllable OF
protest. can not conceive how any sena-
tor would give his consent for the con-
sideration OF bill appropriating such a
vast sum of money II he thought II ought
not to pass; and ! gave Senator Chiffon
credit for having the courage and the
wisdom to resist In every honorable way
the passage of a bill to which he was op-
posed. with the Record before me show
ing that tho senator had given bis consent
for the consideration OF the bill out Of
its regular order. and had permitted 1t
to pass without uttering word of OPP
position. | did not hesitate for moment
TO say that he had not voted against It.
1t was judging him by the same rule that
would apply to myself, and 1t Is GER
tdln lHHt i WOuIu never nave consented 10
the consideration OF the bill, and then
have allowed 1t to pass without recording
my protest If 1 had been opposed TO it's
passage.
1t frequently happens where a bill in
wolves a small amount. or where mem
Der is not fully satisfied about It, he al
lows It to be taken up by unanimous con-
sent, and contents himself with stating
that he will vote against It; but do not
believe any man can defend his action
in allowing a bill involving 500 1000, COO
to DO taken UP out of Its regular order,
and passed without stating his opposl-
tlon in the Record. when he believes that
the bill ought not to pass at ALL
1t Is true that in his opening speech
at Fort Worth Senator Chiffon sought to
dismiss the passage of that bill as OF no
particular Importance; hut that Is not
the way he dealt with 1t In his speech at
Henderson,. At that place he claimed
great credit for having voted against It,
and declared that II the house of repre-
sentatlves had stood With him. something
might have been accomplished Every
| body understood that In saying this he
not only sought credit for himself for
having voted against the bill, but he also
sought TO imply censure against me for
| having voted for II. Ii will be remembered
too. that for more than month before
the Henderson meeting. Senator ChLton's
| newspaper friends had been assailing me
because had voted for the bill. and had
been praising him because. as they
claimed, he had voted against It; and
| surely the senator will not reflect upon
ms editorial supporters by claiming that
they we're seeking to discredit me over
nm unimportant matter Even when l
explained that the bill for which / had
voted was not bill to buy anything but
was simply bin to pay debt that had
been contracted, they were stin not sat
lsned, and continued to attack me until
the senator, in order to extricate himself
asserted at Fort Worth that the matter
4 was unimportant. This was different
view from The one he had expressed at
henderson, but II was the only one that
could possibly excuse him for not resist
ing III every way permissible under the
rules OF the senate, the passage of the
bill. My own judgment Is that the appro-
priation of $50 900 can never be an
unlmportant matter. 1t must be either
right or wrong. II right, It ought to be
advooated' II wrong, 1t ought to be re-
sisted TO the last extremity.
o." NOT entirely SatiSned that senator
Vhilton voted against the bill, even in the
weak and perfunctory way that he claims;
but in order to avoid raising a question
OF yeracity with him, | shall accept his
statement in our future discussions. and
then deal with t. from another point of
view, He may improve his reputation for
accuracy but he will not improve his rem.
utation for courage aud wisdom by asking
the people to believe. that he voted in
vain against a bill, the passage OF which
he could nave then prevented by his
single objection Such conduct may BE-
conservative" but il is not the kind
which ought 10 be pursued by one who
has been commissioned to speak for the
lighting democracy OF Texas The men
who, opposed the passage 81 that hill IN
ths house Of representatives not only
vigorously protested against IT, but they
demanded the yeas and nays: and hslped
them 70 obtain roll call. although | In
tended 70 vote, and did vote. the other
way When member OF the house or
the senate is opposed to a hill which nm
propriates as much as $50, 000, GOO no ought
10 say so In such a manner as b leave
no room for men 10 be misled about his
action; and he ought not to compel him
self TO supply by oral testimony what
the Record OF Congress should contain
perhaps nothing could better illustrate
hVa.. -rNH