Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-09-30
REPEATING A LIE.

The Sacramento Democratic Convention
has trailed along in the slime and mud of
the late Democratic State Convention, and
given its Endorsement to the lie of that
body in denominating the Burlingame
treaty the " BurlingameSsSwift treaty" f.
d. Shirland, Mark Foster, J. C. Kelly, E.
Greer and J.. M. Stevenson accept the
fatherhood OF the platform, being the COM
mittee that reported it. These gentlemen,
and every me Of them know that the term
used to designate the %Burlingame treaty
conveys a false impression; that to the
Ignorant mind, the uniformed and the
prejudieed, it imparts the false i%ntelli-
genes, hat a man by the name of Burlin-
game and another by the name of Swift
now a candidate for Governor-together
acting, made and reported a treaty with
China for the United States which, being
confirmed, is now obnoxious to the people
and should be a~brogated, and that bitter
reproach attaches to these two persons for
negotiating such a damaging convention
with a foreign power.
Yet, each one of these gentlemen DELHI
erately signed his name to this false report.
Why? Because he assumes that a political
lie is pardonable; that in politics all is
fair to secure the triumph of party. Yet
neither of these gentlemen in private life
would be guilty of any such infamies. We
believe they have been led into this I'M
manly thing by a false, dangerous and
demoralizing code of political ethics ur-
happily generally accepted.
These remarks apply with equal force to
every man who voted for the adoption of
the platform, and to every candidate who
went upon the stand and Endorsed it, or
who shall do so hereafter.
Away back in 1868 the Burlingame
treaty was made. John f. Swift had
nothing in the world to do with it, or
about it. Thirteen years thereafter three
citizens-Angell, of Michigan; Prescott,
of South Carolina, and Swift, of Califor-
nia-were sent out to China to secure such
modification of the B%urlingame treaty as
they could, in order to permit of the pas
sage of restriction laws by us that would
not be held in violation of treaty obliga-
tions. Mr.. Swift believes that, had the
other two been as persistent and radically
anti-Chinese as he, a great deal larger
hole could have been made in the Bur
lingame treaty. That is the history, in
brief, of the matter.
1t would be Just as much a lie, Just as
infamous, to speak of the Burlingame-
Prescott treaty as to speak of the Bur-
lingame-Swift treaty. Mr.. Prescott is a
Democrat dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.
The Sacramento Convention does not at
tach his name to the new and false
hyphenated designation of a treaty.
Why? Is it because Mr.. Prescott is a
Democrat? If so, then it is a damaging
confession to conceal him behind Mr..
Swift, his Republican colleague. But, in
either case, it would be false, insiucere,
mean and u%nmanly. Neither Angel,
Prescott nor Swift had anything to do with
the B%urlingame treaty. They were sepa-
rated from it by nearly fourteen years of
time-a tremendous passage in the life of
an active man.
Now, in the face of these facts can any
self-respecting man indorse the lie OF the
State and Sacramento Democratic plat
forms? How, in the face of the parallel
facts we give below, can they claim to
their fellow-eitizens that there is a differ
ence between honesty in the man in po-
litical action and honesty in the man in
every day concerns?