Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-07-05
4 SIGNIFICANT DEMOCRATIC ASSERTION.

The Democratic journals and speakers
all declare that Hancock was the strongest
candidate their party could have selected.
1t is well worth while to reflect upon the
meaning of this statement. When we IN
quire in what the alleged strength of Han
cock consists, we find that it lies IN his
entire separation from the record OF his
party. 1t is well known that he has been
all his life soldier; that he has had no
civil training or experience that ne has
never been identified with any public
measure: that he is not statesman or
politician. and that he has never had an
opportunity of exhibiting or acquiring any
political knowledge or capacity. 1t may
be that the Democrats are right in assert
ing that he is the strongest candidate they
could have chosen, but if they are right
the only possible inference is that every
Democratic public man is objectionable m
proportion to his Identification with the
policy of the Democratic party. This
claim, in fact, involves the admission that
any man who has made Democratic record
before the people thereby sacrifices his
eligibility, and that the party can only
get strong candidate by going outside
of its own politicians, and taking
up some one who has never been
known as Democrat. The rejoicing of
the Democratic press is over the circum-
stance that Hancock cannot be regarded as
representative Democrat In any sense.
| His strength consists in the public igno-
rance concerning his character and fitness,
and especially in the fact that he has never
been leader or even a prominent member
of his party. When party possess prin-
ciples and record of which it has reason
to feel proud, it naturally desires to put
at its head some man who represents it
faithfully. The Republican party has done
lies in his complete Identification with his
party. He has been recognized and hon
ored as political leader for nearly a life
time. he has been connected with every
important measure that has comeup during
the past seventeen years. He has demon
strated his craftsmanship in nine sessions
of Congress. He has shown himself to
possess all the qualifications of great and
able public man. But instead of choos-
ing such a man for the head Of
its ticket, the Democracy has sought one
who never was thought of as a politician.
who has no civil record at all and who has
passed his life in profession which noto-
riously disqualifes its members for civil
life In selecting such man and in hold
ing him up as the strongest candidate 1T,
could have chosen, his party makes con-
fession which is. not less true than dam
aging, for it admits that its weakest candi-
dates are those who represent it most fully
and faithfully. 1t had in the list of cam
didates at Cincinnati able statesmen, jur-
lists, veteran politicians, men who had
been identified with it for generation,
but all of them were passed by, and the
choice fell upon man who has absolutely
no connections with party life or civil ad-
ministration.
The significance of this can scarcely be
overestimated, for though it is clear that
the Democratic press has failed to perceive
its implications, they are right in their
general conclusion. The truth is that the
men who most faithfully represent the
Democratic party are not eligible, because
the thing represented is obnoxious to that
popular instinct which is the safeguard Of
nations having free institutions. The
Democratic statesmen have been shelved
because it does not add to the strength of
their candidates to know that they repre-
sent the doctrines of the party. They
would be recognized as having shaped the
policy and been responsible for the course
of the party, and Democratic managers
know from experience that this kind of
connection never popularizes ticket. They
are compelled, therefore, to seek out a
candidate whose Democracy is so family
outlined that he may perhaps be mistaken
for Republican by those who do not look
very close, and those who chose and those
who accept him admit in frankness that he
is strong because he is so little of Demo
crat. It has thus come to be recog-
nized among Democratic leaders that the
only way for that party tic secure pros
pect of success is for it to suppress all its
representative men, and to endeavor to dis
guise itself by nominating somebody whose
career will not be suggestive of Democratic
antecedents. If the principles and doc
trines of the party were sound, it is impos-
sible that such humiliating articles should
be resorted to. No party which did not
deserve defeat could ever be driven to stul-
tify itself by repudiating its own record,
and by striving TO persuade the country
that after all It'll not what it appears to be.
No greater contrast than the attitude
of the Republican party offers could be
found, moreover. There we have candidate
who stands for the party doctrines in
all their integrity, and concerning the
nature of whose political record there can
be no doubt whatever. But his opponent
represents merely the Democratic desire to
acknowledge the incligibility OF its own
leaders, and the dishonest endeavor to hide
its own record behind military reputa-
ton. It admits in the face of the country
that its history is its weakness, and
that ii can only hope for success by tramp
ling that history out of sight, and by
thrusting into ohscurity all those men who
have fought its battles and upheld its doc
trines in the past. A right comprehension
of this fact may clear up many doubts in
the minds OF voters.
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHARTER.