The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1880-08-13
rms cnkrst esrsoS.

Upon tho questions Of Chinese inn
migration, there isap intense inter
est manifested on tlh Pacific Coast,
but General Hancock does not seem
to have thought 1t worthy even OF
tho slightest mention. This omission
VIII cost him good many votes, as
tho people will compare the positive
utterances Of General Garfield upon
this important question, with slight
ing silence of the Democratic candi-
date. Rosebitfy fia6mealer
How can we expect our State TO
ever amount 10 much when editors OF
newspapers arc 50 ignorrnt as this
we say ignorant because we do wish
to accuse him Of pisreprosentlug
faets. We advise our editorial friend
to look ut tho Democratic Platform.
The eleventh resolution reads rs fol-
lows;
Amendment OF the Burllngame
treaty; no more Chinese immigration
except FOR travel, education aud for
eign commerce, and therein carefully
guarded.
Now turn 10 fImeocls's letter Of nc.
eeptance, and you SEQ that he says,
''tho principles enumerated by the
Convention arc those ] have cher
ished in the past and shall endcavof
to maintain In tho fuiurc.n II you
think that Is not enough TO set him
right before the people of this Coast
on the Chinese question, then read
this, which Is taken from converse
ton which Hancock had with Mr..
Foley and Mr.. Frost, two of the Cal
Ifornia delegates to tho Cincinnati
Convention:
"fell the people OF the Pacific
Coast for me that my heart Is with
their interests. If Congress will give
me q bill like they gave IIaycs-oni9
Igreter n stronger oIte-I will sign 1t,
for | know how the artisans and me-
chanics are oppressed in trying 10
compete with tho Chinese"
Does that Indicate that Hancock
''does not seem 10 have thought tic
Chinese question worthy or even tho
slightest mention.
How docs Garfield stand on the
Chinese question?
lie talks very fair since lie became
candidate, but 10 apply the old rule
''by their works yc shall: know
them TO his case and see how Il
works.
Did he ever In a single instance In
Congress vote In favor OF tile laboring
man aud against the Chinese. II he
did II IS not on record?
1t IS an absolute fact that at one
time he ,eas i, t;aro,. of Chaese aaf,v-
alisaiio aad s,.Grage and 50 roi>i.
This ia as true rs gospel, and we
"sling no mud" wien we say So
Consult the Congregational Record and
you will see that on thc22d OF March,
1869, Mr.. johnson, or California,
asked unanimous consent 10 offer this
in the House of Representatives:
Resoire.i, That in passing the rcso-
luton for the 18th Amendment 10
the Constitution Of the United States,
this House never intended that Chi
nese or Mongolians should become
voters.
Mr.. Johnson moved 30 suspend the
rules, and dema1dcd the yeas and
nays, which were taken, and Jas. 4.
Garfield voted SAY.
This man Garfield stands on record
as being opposed 10 the "Fifteen Pas
senger Act" vetoed 10y Hayes, and
has always opposed every measure
intended for the relief Of the laboring
men OF this Coast, but now, when he
Is a candidate for the Presidency, aud
wants the twelve eieetrnl yotes from
this Coast, he changes his line of nc
tion and is in favor ~ OF no more
Chinese Immigration.
Which will laboring man prefer,
Hancock or Garfield?