The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-11-22
CONSORTING WITH THE ENEMY

by which candidates of party in reg
nlar nomination excuse their con-
sciences for contribution of sinews of
war to an opposing party in considera-
Eion of Endorsement. w hatever may
be the reasoning, it is fallacious and in
defensible
In the late city campaign, for in
stance, the Republican party presented
for the support of the people a ticket
of regularly nominated candidates for
city offices. The party acting under the
law called upon the candidates thus
favored to contribute funds necessary
10 conduct the campaign. These nomi-
nees pledged themselves to support the
ticket, and to do all in their power
iegitimately and honorably to secure
not only their own success, but the
election of each and every one Of their
fellow nominees on the ticket.
But suppose after such acceptance
and pledge that they paid to other Or
ganiZations arrayed against the ticket
in whole or in part, money to aid in the
defeat of the Republican ticket in whole
or in part in order that their own can
didacy might receive some new sup
port by Endorsement. Suppose that
their is no predatory bargain, but that
the Endorsement comes unsolicited and
unexpectedly, and that thereafter the
candidate SO Endorsed pays money in
consideration of it, and to aid the or
ganization to promote its campaign
ends. For however the matter may be
stated, Endorsement is the thing paid
for That is the plain English Of all
such bargaining. whether by prear-
rangement or by conformation and rati-
flcation, whether the consorting is with
q regular party organization or a
piece club
1t must be obvious to the dullest in
telligence that such payment would
lie in direct violation of the proprie-
given to the Republican party There
is no possible escape from this conclu-
sion; the logic of the situation newt
ably brings the impartial mind to that
judgement, we care not how ingeni-
ously excuses may be woven to escape
st.
Let the case be stated by example
and see how it appears to common
sense. A, B, C and D are nominated
by the Republican party for public Of
fees, and under the law they contrib
ute to the party fund to defray the ex-
penses of a campaign to promote their
election. Each Of them is pledged to
support the whole ticket and inferen-
1ially to at least do nothing to contrib
ute to the defeat Of his fellow nominees.
But another political party, or a piece
club, or a citizens association, enters
the field and announces its intention
TO oppose and secure the defeat of the
nominees of the Republican party in
whole or in part. To that end the new
factor dominates E in opposition to
A, and f in opposition to B. But when
1t comes to the offices for which c and
D are candidates, it indorses them, or
regularly dominates them irrespective
Of their prior nomination-it makes no
difference how the proposition is stated.
c and d to contribute to the campaign
fund Of the organization, and they do
30.
Now come A and 3 and say TO their
colleagues, Us this fair play? Is it
the right thing to do for you TO con-
tribute money to an organization that
uses it to compass our defeat? Is that
standing by the mutual pledge by which
we age bound to do nothing against any
nominee on the ticket?'' To these ques-
tions there can be but one answer that
is tolerable by common-sense. a po-
litical party owes it to itself and to
those who contribute to its support, to
prohibit absolutely and explicitly any
one receiving the favor of its nomina-
tion from contributing munitions of war
to the enemy, no matter what form the
opposition may assume.
Hereafter ii should be made a part of
the announced policy of every political
party that its Central Committee shall
remove from the list of nominees the
name of any man honored with
nomination by the party who puts a
knife into the hands of the enemy,
whether it be regular organization or
piece club, with which to slit the throat
of another nominee on the same ticket
with him. More than this, every politi-
cal party should affirmatively exact of
lis nominees a pledge not to furnish aid
and comfort to any other organization
in the field for the express purpose of
downing its ticket, or any part of it. If
this is not done, with what warrant of
appeal can a party hereafter call upon
its members to contribute means to ad-
vance the interests and principles of the
PARTY that they may be impressed upon
the policy of the Government?
The thing is absurd, farcical and grim