Weekly Trinity journal., 1874-01-17
4 QUESTION or vEEAcIi4.

The following par7 -aph appeared in
the Daily Sacramento Union OF the sth
instant;
VIOLATED PLEDGES. = We have re-
ccived a communication from Trinity
county which states that Assemblyman
1lnnin, IN the last campaign, made vol
untary pledges and promises that in the
senatorial contest he would go for Casser-
y first and for Booth next. He leaves
it to the people to say whether Tinnin
has kept his promises.
Next days Union contained the sub
Joined explanation by Mr., Tinnin, and
editorial comments
W. J. TINN1N ExPLAINs.
EDITORS UNION: ] see in this morn
ing's Union an editorial paragraph, based
on communication from Trinity county,
charging me with having broken my
pledges in the Senatorial contest-that L
promised the people Of Trinity county
that would Vote for Casserly first and
Booth next. Now | have no desire for
any newspaper notoriety, particularly in
a controversy with Ito me) an unknown
or irresponsible scribbler, but pronounce
the assertion an unmitigated talsehood.
Ny political ideas are too well known in
Trinity county to admit Of any doubt Of
how l would vote on the Senatorial ques
ton when a Democrat was in the field.
did say in the canvass that before |
would vote for a monopoly, or, as they
are usually termed, a railroad Democrat,
that | would vote for Governor Booth,
and | repeat the same now, and assert
that | do not believe any man is q Dem
OcTdt unless he is an advocate Of the anti
monopoly principle.
BY inserting the above in your paper
you will oblige, very truly yours,
w. j. TINNIN.
[Our correspondent is Il. SillcoX of In
! dian Creek, Trinity county, and he gives
| blyman from said county John McMur-
ry, Senator from Shasta and Trinity; j..
! =. Jones, United States Senator from Ne
vada, formerly Of Trinity; l.. A. Booth, ,
formerly Of Sacramento ard now Of Oak
land, and Judge j. c. Burch, formerly
OF Trinity county.-EDs. UNIoN.l
The above presents a question Of We
racity with which the JOURNAL has MOTH
ing to do. We give it place because Mr..
1innin and Mr.. SillcoX are well known
citizens, and the controversy between
them is consequently Of interest to our
readers. Knowing that the Sacramento
Union habitually garbles and perverts
the facts to suit its purposes, we should
give no crcdence to the condensed state
ment first appearing in that paper had it
not, contrary to its usual practice, given
the name of the writer. If the facts are
correctly stated by the Union, the CON
troversy is a very singular one in some of
its features. According to the Union Mr..
SillcoX writes to that journal that Mr..
Tinnin made voluntary pledges and prom
| ises IL the last campaign which that gen
tleman has failed and refused to perform,
and at the same time refers tho Union to
Mr.. Tinnn himself for an endorsement
of Mr.. Silcox. Mr.. Silcox also refers
to Hon. John McMurry and j. G. Burch
who, it is well known, are among Mr..
| Tinnn's strongest and most intimate
personal and political friends. Mr.. Tin
min has denied positively the charge as
made and unless Mr.. SilcoX is misrep-
resented an issue Of veracity is joined be-
tween these two gentlemen. The jour
NAL opposed Mr.. Tinnn's election for To-
cal and political reasons, but fully en-
dorses Mr.. Tinnin's statement that, My
political ideas arc too we'll known il
Trinity county to admit of any doubt o
how | would vote on the Senatorial ques-
ton when a Democrat was in the field"
If there is any one thing concerning Mr.
Tinnin that ought to be generally known
in this county, it IS that he is an ultra
Democrat and strict party man. I'm
der these circumstances, the Sacramento
Union saw fit TO give Mr.. Tinnin the
benefit Of its commcndations, and those
who voted for him expecting he would
bolt the regular party nominee either de-
ceived themselves or were caught Will
chaf.