Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-10-05
A CONFESSION OF usrausrwosrH1aEss.

| The Boston AdUertiser, commenting
mon General Hancock's letter regarding
the Southern claims, observes Nobody
81 has thought it necessary to ask the Re-
" publican candidate to give pledge that
:. he will not coantenance any projects to
/" omen the Treasury to be plundered by
g rebel claimants. He could be trusted
g without pledge, just as the Republican
party can be trusted without pledge to
g support and enforce the constitutional
amendments. Why are pledges required
60 from one party and one candidate and
C not required from the other party and its
candidate? 1t is because the record of
g the Republican party and its candidate
is an assurance that needs no strength
ening, while the record of the Democratic
party is all against the course which the
"people desire and intend to have kept.
g In order to obtain chance it has to prom
GO Use not to overthrow what it has valnly
attempted to prevent" This is true.
The very fact that General Hancock has
been forced to give pledge that he would
if elected veto Southern claims is a confess
sion Of the untrustworthiness of himself
and his party. If the record of that
party had been such as to inspire conf
dence, neither Tilden nor Hancock would
have been compelled to come forward
at the eleventh hour and give
these assurances. Nor is this all.
General Hancock's pledge can bind nobody
but himself. His party has given no
pledge that it will not urge Southern
claims, and on the other hand the country
sees that it is controlled by the very ele-
ments which are known to be interested in
bringing those claims forward. What did
Toombs say at the beginning of this can
vass? He declared that if Hancock was
elected he would have to run the Govern
ment to suit the South, and that if he did
not so run it they would run it themselves.
That is plain talk enough, and there can
be no question that Robert Toombs is
representative Southerner, or that he
stands for the dominant element of his Sec
ton. General Hancock is merely the fly
on the wheel, in any consideration of the
comparative influence of him and his party.
He was nominated as blind. His choice
was cold blooded political trick. 1t was
calculated that by putting Union soldier
at the head of the ticket good many
Northern people would be deluded into
believing that the Democratic party had
undergone real reform and had aband-
oned all its disloyal tendencies. But
there has been no change in the Democracy.
Its record is the only guide to its character
and programme, and this is SO bad that its
candidates, even when Union Generals,
have to come forward and solemnly pledge
themselves not to do the things which it is
evident that the party is most disposed to
do. And General Hancock's letter is after
all very unsatisfactory document. When
man is going to pledge himself in the face
of the nation upon a certain issue, and
when he is sincere in what he says, he
ought to know whereof he is speaking
But General Hancock's honesty can only
be predicated upon the condition of assum-
ing his ignorance. For he treats the ques.
ton of the Southern claims as if in truth
it was mere bugaboo, and he intimates
that nobody has ever thought of advancing
such claims. Now this is VIGOROUSLY un-
true, and if General Hancock did not
know it to be untrue the fact shows that
he failed to inform himself in SO important
a matter as any conscientious and earnest
man would have done.