Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-02
TIE DEMOCRATIC LETTERS OF Ac-
cEPTANcE.

General Hancock's letter accepting the
Democratic nomination for the Presidency
is chiefly remarkable for its brevity. AS
a statement of political views and prinei-
pies it has no value whatever, and the
few declarations of governmental policy
contained in it are singular because of
their utter inconsistency with the4 record
of the party at whose head the writer
stands General Hancock makes just two
positive statements. He says that he is
determined to uphold the Constitutional
Amendments, and he declares himself
opposed to fraud and force in politics.
Neither OF these positions is at all CON-
patible with adherence to the policy of
the Democratic party as it is. As regards
the Constitutional Amendments it is only
necessary to say that the Democracy Is
controlled by the South, and that the
South is controlled by those elements,
which as Judge Porter recently showed,
are bent upon notification. As regards
the question of force and fraud General
Hancocks own language is opposite. he
says: st is vital principle in our sys-
g tenn that neither fraud nor force must be
allowed to restrict tue rights of the
"people. When fraud, violence, or incom-
s'petence control, the noblest institutions
'sand the wisest laws are useless. The
"bayonet is not fit instrument for
collecting the votes of freemen.
"It is only by full vote, a
'' free ballot and fair count that the
''people can rule in fact, as required by
% the theory of our Government. 1t is
difficult to realize that this language is
gravely employed by a Democratic candi-
date for the Presidency, under condition
of politics which makes the entire hopes of
his party dependent upon the very abuse
which he here reprobates so solemnly.
General Hancock knows that but for the
solid South the Democracy might as well
retire from the field that the solidity of
the South is neither more nor less than the
suppression, throughout that section, OF
Republican votes, by force and fraud ;
that the Democracy has not only practiced
this kind of fraud at the South, but at the
North that the State in which he resides
was stolen by his party through the most
gigantic and shameless rascality recorded
in history and that in short the pre-
| tense of reverence for the freedom of the
| ballot is on Democratic lips an act of
hypocrisy, of which honorable men can
only be ashamed. &C The bayonet is not a
&c fit instrument for collecting the votes OF
e freemen." Can General Hancock or any
other Democrat cite specific instance in
which the bayonet has been used for
that purpose? But what does the
General think of shotguns, rifles,
revolvers, rawhides and bludgeons,
as fit instruments for-not collecting,
but suppressing- votes of free
men, These are the instruments in mos,
vogue in the solid South, and it is some
what remarkable that a candidate whose
anxiety for free government is so extreme,
should not have thought it worth his while
to allude to them. Beyond these two
points there is absolutely no clear-cut ex.
preston in the letter. On civil service re.
form General Hancock has nothing to say.
On the Chinese question he is dumb. On
the currency he is equally silent. He has
apparently labored to make his letter as
non-committal as possible, perhaps re-
fecting that candidate whose policy, in
the event of his election, is to be shaped
for him by others, cannot be too cautious
in reserving his opinions. There is not q
trace of real thought in the letter. 1t ex.
hibits no acquaintance with the weighty
issues which demand the attention Of
statesmen. Garfeld's letter rises into ex.
cellence in contrast with this thin and
jejune performance. 1t confirms the pre-
existing belief Of observing men that Han.
cock is mere soldier, lacking altogether
in the training and knowledge demanded
in civil administration.