 |
| Secretary of State James Blaine |
PAGE FOUR/EDITORIALS.
The McKinley bill which passed the house of representatives made the following estimated
reduction in revenues:
Internal
tobacco taxes, $10,328,000.
Sugar
tariff taxes, $55,976,000.
Other
tariff taxes, $4,960,000.
Total,
$7l.264,000.
The
senate has already stricken out the tobacco items, amounting to over $10,000,000. Mr. Blaine recommends that the sugar item, amounting to almost $56,000,000 be
next stricken out. What will then be left for the McKinley bill?—Albany Argus.
 |
| William H. Clark, publisher and editor of the Cortland Standard. |
The editor of the Cortland Standard charges
Mr. Palmer with surreptitiously circulating the petition opposing the
McKinley bill, because the same was not presented to him. Now
there was evidently some surreptitious work performed in the last
legislature, which amended section 473 of the Penal Code. Possibly the
editor of the Standard can explain the matter. Here is a
copy of the section:
Chapter 220, which became a law without the
approval of the Governor, April 29, 1890, amends section 473 of the Penal Code,
and applies to all school district officers, so as to read as follows: Section
473. A public officer, or school officer who is authorized to sell or lease any
property, or to make any contract in his official capacity, or to take part in
making any such sales lease or contract, who voluntarily becomes interested individually
in such sale, lease or contract, directly or indirectly, except in cases
where such sale, lease or contract, or payment under the same. is
subject to audit or approval by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.
The part of the section printed in italics was
inserted by the legislature last winter. To understand what the section was
before the amendment was inserted, read that portion printed in Roman, skipping
the italics.
The intention of the legislature originally was
to prevent school trustees and other officers from performing work for or
becoming interested in contracts for the erection of school buildings or the
furnishing of supplies. The reason is obvious. It would be manifestly improper
for a school trustee to furnish supplies for a school, the bills for which were
to be audited by himself. He might, and many of them doubtless would audit such
bills at an extravagant price. The amendment throws the doors wide open and now
any school trustee of any of the Normal schools of the State, can become
interested in a contract for repairing or erecting a school building or
furnishing supplies for the same. He then audits the bill himself which is sent
on to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for his approval, which is
expected to follow by return mail. What is there to prevent a majority of the
trustees from forming a combination to rob the State? Absolutely nothing,
except the honesty and integrity of the trustees themselves.
Who appoints the trustees of the Normal
school in this place? Andrew S. Draper of Albany, by and with the advice and
consent of William H. Clark of Cortland. What influence can prevent the latter
gentleman from recommending and securing the appointment of trustees that will
be controlled by him in everything? Nothing but an uprising of the people and
they will have to be constantly on the alert to prevent the surreptitious
performances of that gentleman.
It would be interesting to know who procured
the enactment of the amendment to section 473. It is directly in the interest of
William H. Clark. Who else would take the trouble to have the act amended simply
to benefit him? Was it some of Draper's work? What special object would he have
in asking for an amendment purely that Clark might benefit by it?
What has Assemblyman Peck to say about it?
Did he connive with our neighbor and help to put the amendment through or was
it the work of Clark and Draper? Wherein will the State be benefitted? Was even
a petition circulated asking for the amendment? Did any respectable number of people
ask for the bars to be thrown down that wholesale fraud and corruption might
stalk in? The law as it originally stood was intended to prevent corruption.
The amendment invites it.
No matter how largely Mr. Clark may be
interested in a Normal school contract, if he can get his bill audited by the
board of trustees, the approval of Superintendent Draper would undoubtedly
follow. What would Draper know or care about it? The audit by the board of
trustees would stand between him and harm. Fortunately for the people, there
are enough honest men on the board to prevent any very extensive rascality, but
who knows what the future may bring forth? Would a man who takes the trouble to
open the way to corruption, be likely to forego the opportunity to avail
himself of the privilege should it occur? When a man petitions for a favor he
generally intends to take the benefit of the same if it is granted. If he has
no desire or intention of taking his neighbor's property, why does he
surreptitiously obtain possession of the key to his hen-roost?
The amendment became a law April 29, 1890.
The Standard has done all the printing for the Normal school since that
date. It seems that the editor of that paper knew that the amendment had become
a law at once, while all the rest of the people were permitted to remain in
blissful ignorance of the fact until the 1st of July. Does Clark run the
Legislature of the State as well as the Normal school? Must all the safeguards
which have been thrown round the State treasury be removed that no obstacle to
the greed and rapacity of our neighbor may stand in the way?
Stones
from the Standard's Glass House.
MR. EDITOR:—You have the unfeigned gratitude
of the writer for the generous treatment he has received at your hands, both in
the space you have permitted him to occupy in your valuable paper and the able
vindication your editorials have afforded him.
The Standard like that marine
pole-cat the cuttlefish, to conceal its defenselessness and baffle its pursuers,
has again emptied its pouch of filth. Such an antagonist Sir Hudibras
discoursed upon when he said:
"Twas ill we had to do with so
dishonorable a foe,
Quoth he that man is sure to lose.
Who soils his hands with dirty foes,
For where no honor's to be gained
Tis thrown away in being maintained."
Nevertheless having once engaged such an
antagonist we might as well finish him as to retreat, as it is now too late to
avoid the necessity for burying our clothes.
The Standard's false pretence that my
reply to its vindictive and vituperative attack was crowded out of its columns
for want of space, is as hypocritical as it is dishonest, it durst not present
to its readers such a microscopic view of its editor as that article afforded.
The cowardice and meanness of the Standard
is seldom more characteristically displayed than it was by this hollow
affectation of candor and magnanimity.
The shallow attempt at wit and sarcasm manifested
in the insinuation that the pen portrait of its editor was a likeness of the writer
fitly illustrates the fatuous imbecility of the Standard's editorials.
While nothing can be said more derogatory than to attribute the mental defects
and moral deformities of the Standard's editor to another, the fact
remains that he who charges his own hideousness to another is like the bird that
fouls its own nest, and such an one will hardly win a reputation as a wit or a sage
among anything but idiots.
The assumption that the writer was
attempting to discuss an "economic question" in replying to the Standard's
libelous attack upon him illustrates the mendacious idiocy which pervades
its editorials.
When did the Standard's billingsgate become
an "economic question?" Presumably when published for purposes
of blackmail. To the question, what do you expect to gain by publishing such
articles—referring to the Standard's editorial—the editor is reported to
have replied, "I expect to get another loan of ten thousand dollars, and
to do this I must show Belden and Hendricks that I am actively pushing their
interests and those of the republican party." Does the fact that such
loans have been made upon the editor's application and that more are sought,
account for the personal attack of the Standard upon unoffending
citizens? If so it is apparent how they are "economic questions."
It has long been notorious that the Standard
was controlled by barely two motives, namely dollars and cents; that he
invariably exacts a large divy from the campaign fund and that only renegade
democrats stand any show of employment in the post office under his management
is well known, but if a price is established at Syracuse for democratic heads
it may not be long before that market will demand the scalps of those who
perfidiously publish illustrated, fulsomely worded biographies of democratic candidates [State Treasurer Fitzgerald--CC editor]
during closely contested campaigns in alleged republican organs.
The ridiculous assumption that a question of
veracity was raised between the gentlemen whom the Standard falsely
reported as recanting and excusing themselves for signing a
remonstrance, against a high tariff on raw materials used by them in the
manufacture of goods, and requesting that the duties thereon should be fixed at
the lowest rate consistent with the needs of the federal treasury, is as
baseless as it is contemptible. No one can be induced to believe that these gentlemen
have repudiated their interests, abandoned their well founded convictions and
stultified themselves, in the manner represented by the Standard. So
apparent has this been that the writer has made no effort to see these
gentlemen, but one of them, voluntarily stated that he had said nothing of the kind
attributed to him by the Standard, and in this he was corroborated by
another gentleman who was present and overheard the interview, both of whom
unequivocally disputed the Standard's report, which is at best mere
hearsay from a discredited witness.
Nothing but a statement over the signatures of
these gentlemen whose statements the Standard purports to give will
convince any one that it has not grossly misrepresented and misreported them
and foully abused the writer.
It is safe to say that Mr. Belden is not the
only Congressman who voted for the McKinley bill against his convictions and the
interests of his constituents. The republican members who made speeches against
the bill and voted for it are too conspicuous to need mention.
Either the Standard has maliciously characterized
the letter sent to Mr. Belden with the remonstrance as "the hodge-podge of
socialism, political and financial lunacy," without any knowledge of its
contents or it must be inferred that he has it in his possession. But the fact
that no part of the letter was published by the Standard taken in
connection with the satanic disposition displayed by the editor, goes far to
show that he saw but little opportunity to garble or distort its contents to my
disadvantage, or it would have been published in full. Two letters were written
by me to Mr. Belden. They are doubtless open to criticism, having been written
hurriedly and with no expectation that their contents would ever come into
question; yet now that they have been made the subject of animadversion. I
challenge the Standard to publish the correspondence between Mr. Belden
and myself and leave it to his readers to say who is in the right. Durst the Standard
risk the experiment?
The Standard falsely pretends to
quote from the McKinley bill the following: "In the metal schedule no
change of duty has been recommended upon iron ore or iron in pigs." That
this language never formed part of any bill is apparent upon its face, yet it
is sent to the readers of the Standard as a companion piece to its fib
that the Mills bill put potatoes on the free list.
It is not so long since the Standard’s editor
represented the Peppermint District in the Assembly that he could have forgotten
the difference between a report and a bill, if he has, the want of appreciation
displayed by his constituents when he was ignominiously defeated in a district having
an overwhelming republican majority, is accounted for.
Clark favors a high tariff because from that
source the republican corruption fund is largely derived and he expects to
share in its division. Here is an example which illustrates the subject:
The duty on cotton velvets (which includes corduroys)
by the present tariff is 40 per
cent ad valorem. Under the McKinley bill it is raised to 88 per cent, and the
Senate Committee has just increased it to 117 per cent. This last increase was at
the instigation of Senator Aldrich, of Rhode Island, who in turn was
"coached'' by the Crompton Company, of Rhode Island, who are the only
manufacturers in this country of cotton velvets, and are reported to have
contributed $10,000 towards the election of Mr. Harrison. That is the way they
get their fat back, and is one of the many instances of returning campaign subscriptions
included in the present tariff bill.
Thousands of yards of these corduroys are
used annually in trimming carriages by the manufacturers in Cortland. And thus the
people are robbed to enrich a few who in turn are made to supply a corruption fund
to purchase votes to elect Presidents, Members of Congress and Senators, who in
turn enact or perpetuate tariff laws to secure their re-election.
M. S. Quay is a vulgar rascal and a notorious
thief, thrice as bad as Tweed ever was, who began his political career as Clark
has done, as a local boss, in controlling appointments and subsisting on the campaign
fund. He advanced step by step until he became Senator from Pennsylvania and
Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Clark is ambitious to repeat
Quay's experiences and achieve his success, and to add thereto the Peck-sniffian
qualities of Wanamaker, the prince of pharisees and pious frauds.
IRVING H. PALMER.
No comments:
Post a Comment