Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-11-30
REVIEW OF THE REVIEWER.

The response to the perfectly clear demand
of this journal for names and facts relative to
alleged schemes and conspiracies among citi-
zens in the interest of bondholiers, and
against the interests of Sacramento, is still
wanting.
An attempted response was made yester-
day, and found full publication in these
! columns. 1t consisted. when analysed, of
only a garbled review Of the election cam
paign of March, 1882, and pitifully weak
effort by the reviewer, by means of insinua-
lions, which were wisely guarded against de-
velopment into charges, that the course of
the RECORD UNION at that time, and since,
was directed by. or in the interest OF. bond
holders schemes.
1t was precisely to silence these and like
mean insinustions against this journal, and
against citizens, that the demands were made,
and are now repeated for, names and proofs of
conspiracies against the welfare of the city.
The attempted reply to the demands more
than carries its own REPUTATION. But the lin
terviewing" of candidates on city matters is
cited, and claimed to establish that in some
way, somehow, that fact related the bond
holders to the campaign. Incsutiously, how
ever, the discoverer of this wonderful fact"
after quoting the questions relative to tnan-
cial affairs, adds that there were twelve
others relating to every conceivable subject
of city government" 1t will not
have escaped attention that the fnan-
cial questions only were quoted by
the correspondent. The reason is obvious
to quote the others relating to taxation,
sanitation, levee systems, drainage, sewerage,
etc, would have absolutely destroyed the in.
Situations of improperly in the one the re-
viewer does quote, and have shown clearly
that the wonderful and mysterious interviews
were simply of the usual order sought with
those ambitious to administer city trusts.
That the heterogeneous we're in writing, and
left openly for the candidates deliberation
and response, with notice given that the
object was publication, completely refutes in
the mind of any sane person the despicable
suspicion sought to be awakened. The rea-
son for non-publicstion Of the so-called inter.
views is not material, but has been given and
need not be repeated.
Fictitious stress is laid upon conspicuous
frauds in Republican ward primary in 1882.
What relation they bore then, or bear now,
to the bond question or the RECORD UNIONS
demand for thames and facts regarding
bondholders' schemes, is undiscoversble. 1t
is far more material to recall the facts,
since history has been dragged into the de-
bate, that the Secretary of the Central Com
mittee under whose administration the frauds
occurred was Win. J. Davis that not the
RECORD U MON, but the committee, despite
the frauds, may be said to have condoned |
them, since it met on a Sunday and declared |
Mr. Ames the candidate elected, and |
barred the new committee from review. |
By the stern verdict of the voters |
of the city, the same committee was COM
PEELED to declare the fact that Win. J. Davis |
had been defeated for committeeman at large. |
History records also the fact that the 0aly |
lCard IN the city in aebich he obtained a ma |
iOrity lcaS the qcard IN aoh,cA the shameless
practices, 1chich stir his Indignation, acere
carried out, and under the very nose Of mem
bers of the committee from that ward who
enjoy the reputation of being among the
shrewdest of politicians, and who were
reputed to carry the wsrd in their pockets. |
But, as stated bsfore, it is undiscoverable |
what connection all this has with the bond. |
holders or their schemes.
We again repeat the demands already made |
for the names and proofs Of the cityS enc.
mics