Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 36, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 October 1882 — DEMOTT DENOUNCED. [ARTICLE]

DEMOTT DENOUNCED.

A COMMUNICATION SIGHED HY THIRTY KKKUDLICAHS, [Logl>D*poAt Joarati'i, fciitiblU.nu.) “In accordance with a rule often announced and long established, and practiced, the Journal publishes a communication in this is*ue erHleia ing the recent speech of Urn. Mark L. Demott In defense of the River and Harbor bill. The speech was published at the request of the chairman of the Republican county committee. The reply to, and the criticism of the speech is published at the request of a committee representing thirty promipent aud well known Republicans, whose nanes were furnished as an Indorsement of the article to the proprietor of the Journal. The Journal has nothing to say on the merits of this controversy . Having expressed its opinion fully heretofore on the subject, it now has nothing to add to or retract from such expression of opinion.” THE COMMUNICATION. Ebitor Journal : The undersigned have read tne recent speech of the Hon. Mark L. Demotte, defending the River and Harbor Bill, with surprise and regret—surprise, that he should think such a defeDso would be acceptable to hi constituents, and regret, that he could so far ignore the unmistakable condemnation to the passage of the above named bill over the veto of the President, that has been expressed and manifested by a great and respectable number of the Republicans of the 10th district, and of the country at large. Following this suiprise and regret came the questions: Should this defense of what we believe to be a bad measure and policy pass unchallenged as an expression of Republican opinion? Is it our duty to quietly ignore, or by our silence indorse, an utterance so utterly at variance with our convictions on a subject of so mueh importance? After careful consideration, we have reached the conclusion that self-respect and public duty require us to speak fearlessly and frankly in

protest against the defense of such a ! n *asvire as the River and Harbor Bill, and for the bet er principles and 4 sounder policy which should mould j ■ such bills heroafter. ' I The Erst statement by Mr. De- ! Motte in the speech under conaiderai tion. is his claim that lie voted for the River and Harbor Bill, impliedly overt e President’s veto, "in coni' mou with two-thirds of both branches of Congress.” The statement in this form is inaccurate and deceptive. The fact is that Mr. DcMotte voted with two-thirds of bare quorum, or i two-thirds of both branches of Conj gross Ilis vote is Ooe of the twot bids of -two—thiids, instead bf two- ! thirds of the whole body. About a hundred R ‘pres«rntaftves and twenty Senators did not vote; and it is well known th :t il the whole body of “both branches of Congress” had ljpen present and voting the River and Harbor Bill could not have been passed over tho President’s veto. The next state*nient by Mr. DeMotte that challenges special attention is ihe following: “The lasi Congress appropriated for various works all, over the country $3.5)51,3■ 0 For continuing and com-* i p’eting these same works, the present Congiess appropriated $11,809,400. I have as vet heard no complain from %ny one in regard to this part oi the bill. That sum was necessary to pre serve and complete the works into which the public money had already been put. To have refused these ! apdropriations would have resulted ! in a wanton waste of money which i would have been alike disgraeeful to j the representatives and people. Mr. Depute thus disposes summalily of the bulk of the Rivers and ! Murbot* appropriations, and says, he j “has heard no complai t* from any i one in regard to this part of the bill,” “The declaration is, clearly an evasion cf candid discussion. What are tiie items of this $11,889,400 about which he hears “no complaint?” Two wrongs do not make a light, and the “continuation and completion” of useless or improper river or harbor work is no more to be desired than the commencement of s jell work. Other important facts are greatly at, vaii** anee with Mr, DeMotte’s claim that this sum of ovei eleven miliious was “necessary to preserve tne works into which the public money had already been put,” or that “to have refused these appropriations would have resuited iu a wanton waste of money which would have been alike disgraceful to the representatives and the people.” Liow could it have been necessary to have appropriated over eleven millions to “preserve and complete” public works when there was four millions appropriated for that purpose remaining unexpended in the Treasury? If refusing this elev eu million appropriation would have “resulted in a v, an ton waste of money etc.,” how dees it happen that the Government board of Engiuoers announces to the public that it can’t •pend these millions, and that a large portion of the amount must remain in the treasury ? It will seem to plain people in the light of these facts, that the “njfcessily ” Mr. DeM»tte urges was prising chiefly on the minds of very iibmnl Congressmen, and was founded upon tho desire of members to make a good showing for their districts in this game of logrolling grab. The Mississippi river appropriation of 85,388,500 is somewhat osfeuuitiously*justiiied by Mr. Demsito. We make no issue with him o taut question, but will call his attention to a very damaging contradiction of his defense of the River and Harbor Bill shown in that connection. ! The principle witpess quoted by Mr. i I DeM*tte in favor of the Mississippi ! appropriation is Senator Benjamin Harrison, the leading spirit of ’the Mississippi River Commission. In giving him this promingnee Mr. DeMotte simply does justice to Senator Harrison. No man in Congress, or out of it, exerted a more powerful influence in moulding the Missisippi improvement policy and appropria tions than did our able and distinguished Senator, and it is fair to presume that he was as anxious to secure the appropriation as any member of Congress eeuld be, yet lie vo ' ted against the River and Harbor bill containing if every time it came up. Can Mr. DeMotte explain away that fact? Or does he prefer to say that Senator Harrison’s vote was for a ‘ wanton waste of money” “alike disgraceful to the Representatives and the people.” Mr, DeMotte has strong good words to say for the aprropriation of $248, 500 for “surveys,” and plumes himself not alittlo upon his success in getting $20,000 of the sum for the Calumet rivor channel survey. The plain citizen who investigates the matter will find that these “surveys” need even more watching than the appro-* priatious for improvements based upon them. They are the iriiatory steps to the grubs of vast sums from the Treasury. Tney relate to the engineering feasibility ami probable cost of the proposed ‘’improvement,” leaving all questions of its necessity and propri etv ‘.o Congress. Tne survey of a river in Wisconsin showed that it ' ! could be made navigable, though the j | engineers said it might be necessary i to “macadamize the bottom of the river an d lath and plaster iis banks ” T >e mu v< y of the Calumet may show a practicable channel, but the open- ; ing of the channel at a vasf expense to the Government will i e chiefly a “big thing” for the town of Pullman, it x owner*, the owner* of other town • sites on the liver, and the contractors . who get job? in the work, while the member of Congress who gets the “sui vey” and its succeeding appropriations will enjoy the gratitude of all these henificiuries. The remaining items of the River and Harbor bill are stated by Mr. DeMotte with scunt words, and dismissed with a contemptuous sneer at the “reckless ciitic” who dares to question their propriety, and a repetition of the inaccuracy with reference to the vote of “two thirds of Congress.” Mr. DeMotte then pays his respects to the “chronic grumbler,”, who complains that the River and Harbor bill is a “steal,” “a job,” “a bargain and sale,” His reply to the “chronic grnmbler” is far from satisfactory, as it places responsibility where such responsibility does not belong. The “bargain an sale” in the bill is accomplished in its progress and passes through Congress, before auy official named by Mr. DeMotte can exercise auy control whatever over tne bill’s appropriations, The President alone can interpose objections to such bills before they become laws, and when they are made laws over his objections he is as much bound to obey them, good or bad, as any other citizen. The “steals” and “jobs” appear after the control of works ha-, passed from official hands to the hands of contractors and their friends and allies. It is nonsense to say that the Government is not “bled” in River and Harbor contracts as it is notoriZ ously “bled’ in the Indian Mail and other other departments of the public service, and It must follow, as a | matter of course that the more “jobs” aad “bargains and sales” there are in

i River and Harbor * UHla, * the ' more “steals” there will be in 'doing the i work provided for, to say nothing of j the “steal involved in the expending 1 of the public money for a private I benefit, such, for instance, as con: necting the town of Pullman with the ! harbor of the Calumet might be. i Mr. DeMotte advances a plausible 1 theory in favor of “relieving the peo i pie from the inordinate greed of railroad monopolies” by “providing competitive water ways,” but unfortunately for his theory the “greed” of the River and Harbor bill he defends, | is much more “inordinate” than that 1 of the “railroad monopolies” and very weak in the matter of “providing com- ! petitive water ways.” The “greed of railroad monopolies ” during the last I two years has provided transportation for the people at tho rates against [ which the “water ways” cannot compote; while the bill he deloods gives millions of the people’s mon -j to | "water-ways” that can ne er compete with any hlng. The argument of Mr. ; DeMotte, quoted and nuproved, that | the lack of benefit in River and Harj bor expenditures and waste is made i good oy the fact that the money is ; paid for labor, and thus returned to i circulation among the people, is not sound. He would scarcely say that money stolen from the Treasury, and paid for labor, restoring it to circulation, would justify tue stealing, or I make it less a crime. A member of j Congress has no right to vote money ■ for any purpose whioh is not benefl . ! cial in order to get the money into circulation.

Mr. DeMotte concludes his defense by saying: “When properly undet stood, I believe the American people will approve the now much abused River and Harbor bill. In tills declaration, which UDdor the circumstances must be considered arrogant, if not insulting. Mr. DeMotte assumes that those who oppose the bill do not understand it; that President Arthur and his Cabiuet were either re ikless critics, chronic grumblers, or thickheaded numbskulls, wheu they agreed to the 'teto of this bill; that the veto message, which has remained unassailed and unanswered to this day, was a pieco of blundering nonsense; .that the vote of Senator Harrison i against the bill was a stupid mistake; the denunciation of the bill by Gen. Tom Browne was a display of silly ignorance; that the ’outspoken condemnation of the bill by almost the entire press of the country, including every newspaper in DeMott’s district, was mere malicious gabble, conceived in ignorance and brought forth in flippant f lult finding; that, summing it all up, DeMotte is a wise aud Honorable man while the great body of the American people opposing him in this River and Harbor matter are fools and knaves. .This we take it Is the reasonable interpretation of his defense and its conclusitn, and we dissent and protest accordingly. Instead of defending and apologising for such acts as the River and Harbor bill, we hold it to be a duty to condemn and denounce them for the plain reason that if the acts are approved or condoned the natural result will be their repetition and enlargement ou the same basis. If Mr, DeMotte’s defense of ‘he bill he voted for is indorsed, he will be authorized to vote away more millions next year upon similar pretexts. Speaking for ourselves and many others, we say to him that his vote for the -River and Harbor bill was a vote which we must sincerely and entirely condemn, and his wholesale, indiscriminate and unreserved defense of the bill only adds insult to injury. W< believe the popular estimate of the bill to be the correct one. the honest judgment of the great, honest heart of the people, and President Arthur aud Senator Harrison, with our faces set as flint against the enactment of another such Iniquitous measure in this fair land of ours.