Los Angeles herald., 1890-11-02
Our Steve Addresses the VOt-
ers of Southern California.
He Shows Why a Democratic
Legislature Should Be Chosen.
Will Independent and Patriotic Re-
publicans Sustain Pure POliticsS
-Wote-Buyers Scored Without Mercy BY
the Los Angeles Favorite in Terse
and Telling Terms.

regret to me that circumstances
have made it impossible that ]
should fully canvass Los Angeles
county, and take this method of max.
ing few suggestions to those whose
duty it will be to determine pending
issues at the ballot-box. The sugges-
tions which l desire to offer are con-
nected with the senatorial Office. When
this campaign was inaugurated, public
ally stated that the election of Repub-
lican legislature meant the return of Mr..
Stanford. The Chronicle and other
party papers for a while denied this, but
matters have been so shaped that there
is no longer any doubt, and everyone
comedies that my statement was correct.
The Chronicle evidently feeling that
am correct, asks the Republican party
of California "whether it is willing to
'submit to this imputation of venality,
''or to admit that if the people repose
confidence in it, and delegate to it the
"task of electing senator in addition
''to the usual legislative functions of law
making, it will betray that confidence
"by returning to the senate a man who
"has no claim upon the state except
"such as the possession of great wealth
"mav be deemed to confer upon him."
Mr.. Fitch has stated that it is even i'm
pertinent for any Republican other
than Mr.. Stanford to aspire. will not
take up your space in arguing in sup
proposition that the only way to defeat
Cfon ford m o1oof q non0pro Flo Ion,c-
lature. Every vote polled for either OF
the Republican legislative candidates in
Los Angeles county is in effect vote for
Mr.. Stanford. Even if these gentlemen
were not bound to support him
at the outset, they will be tied
up by caucus usage, and their
election means the contribution of their
votes to the sack candidate. The ques-
ton then arises, is it desirable to re-
elect Mr.. Stanford? Will the Republi-
can voter of Los Angeles be true to his
duty, if he votes for the Republican
members OF the legislature?
Moral considerations alone ought to
defeat Mr.. Stanford.
Every one knows, Pixley and Estee to
the contrary Notwithstanding, that Sen
ator Stanford, through his managers,
bought his seat in the United states
senate. There were few members of
the legislature who, like our worthy
mayor, refused to sign the contract, or
to be party to the infamous transac-
ton. But the deed was done.
Was this moral? Can our Republican
friends afford to indorse it? Is it any
answer to the proposition to say that
Democrats have bought senatorships?
The specific proposition now before the
people is whether they will ratify the
purchase by Mr.. Stanford of his seat in
the senate, or whether they will choose
a Democratic legislature, which will
elect man who does not ask for the
place because of his wealth.
In the next place, the means now be-
ing employed by the managers to pro-
cure this Endorsement of their chieftain
are pernicicus and criminal. They are
literally seeking to purchase Legislative
seats. Every Republican candidate
who needs it-and they all need it's
furnished with large amount of money.
On election day there will be thousands
of dollars spent in every county in this
state by the Stanford managers for the
purpose of electing his henchmen. The
honest and decent Republicans are
asked to associate their infiu
ence with this purchased trib
ute. There has never been such whole
sale corruption threatened, and l am
sorry to say there has never been such
apathy about it. The Stanford mana
gers are committing crimes against our
statutes for which they should be
punished by imprisonment in the state
prison. Under these circumstances,
let me inquire again, can any honest
Republican afford to vote this year for
any Republican legislative candidate?
We all remember that, under the pro-
visions of the Thurman act, it became the
duty of Mr.. Sanford's railroad company
to pay a certain amount of money into
sinking fund designed to liquidate
their Indebtedness to the government.
President Cleveland appointed COM
mission to inquire as to whether
this duty had been properly
discharged, and also to suggest
a proper basis of settlement of
the large sum of money soon to become
due from the railroad. The commission
took evidence in various parts of the
United States, and it sat in the city of
San Francisco for many days. Mr..
Stanford appeared as a witness. The
commission discovered that the sum of
$4,S18,OO0 had been disbursed by the
company without the retention of suffi-
.cient vouchers. In order to ascertain
what had been done with the money,
many witnesses were examined, and,
finally, Senator Stanford was asked the
question whether he had used any of
this coin for the purpose of influencing
legislation. What did he do when this
leading interrogatory was propounded?
will quote the language OF the report
made by this commission: "Mr.
''Stanford followed for awhile
"the line of indefinite explanation,
"but when asked the direct question
''wnether he had ever used any of the
moneys covered by the insufficient
"vouchers and bearing his signature for
"the purpose of influencing legislation,
che declined to answer" Afterwards,
the United States court, Judge Hoffman
dissenting, held that he could not be
compelled to answer. Think of this sit
uation. A man asking the people to re-
elect him to this most honorable office,
and yet refusing to say whether he has
invaded the halls of legislation with
coin in his hand; whether he has vio-
lated not only the written law but the
general obligation of honesty imposed
upon us all. Had he been innocent, he
would certainly have responded imme-
diately in the negative. Does not his
evasion constitute telling proof of guilt?