The record-union., 1896-08-09

Filborn, and Mr. Hilborn thought it in
judicious to have that relation as pub
liciy exposed as would result from his
speaking at meeting presided over
by an officer of the Southern Pacific
Company. This is simply the true In
wardness of Mr.. Hilborn's anti-railroad
demonstrations on that occasion.
Mr.. Hilborn has twice been nominat-
ed for Congress in the Third Congress
sional District, and on each occasion
has solicited the assistance OF the
friends of the railroad. The evidence OF
this is not far to seek. Whenever he
encountered a railroad man he solicited
his influence upon the plea that he was
a reliable friend Of the corporation. His
candidacy and his election have here
tofore been promoted by the railroad
company.
He was an obscure attorney in Solano
County, and moved to Oakland because
Alameda County has a. majority in the
Congressional district in which he re-
sided. He had neither acquaintance
ship nor standing in Alameda County,
but the railroad evidently wanted him
for Congress, and through it's influence
he was nominated. Just why the rail-
clear. He did nothing while in Con-
gress. No man can point to anything
he did which impressed itself upon the
legislative history of the country. No
man can point to an act of his in con-
travention to the wishes of the railroad.
He did not introduce any bill in Con-
sress relating to the extension Of the
railroads debts. He permitted Con-
gressmen from Eastern States to
do that. If he had been an enemy Of
the company he would have offered
some affirmative hostile proposition
But he contented himself with letting
things drift, which was probably the
exact policy the railroad had expected
or demanded at his hands.
The committee, consisting Of Messrs
Barry, Fitch, Leggett, Truman and
Coward, are called upon to cite some in
stance Of anti-railroad legislation in
Congress introduced by S. G. Hilborn.
This same committee assaults Grove
l.. Johnson, Republican candidate for
Congress in the Second District. 1t has
affirmative declarations to make con-
cerning Mr.. Johnson. 1t says that Mr..
Johnson was persistent from the begin
ming in defending the Pacific Railroad
against every assault that was made by
representatives from California Gin
demanding of them that they produce
their proofs" If Mr.. Johnson did this,
he is certainly very remiss in his duty
toward the people of the Second Dis
trict, the Government of the United
States, and the State of California. The
man who will demand of somebody who
will come before committee that they
produce proofs is certainly very confus
ing and intends mischief. The gentle
men who signed a manifesto of this
kind ought to be, but perhaps are not,
ashamed of it. They lack moral sensi-
b:lity; hence the absence of shame. To
assault a Congressman on the ground
that he demanded proofs for statements
would be 10 interfere with the peculiar
prerogatives of Messrs. Barry, Fitch,
Leggett, Truman and Coward. What
they want is to make assertion which
shall remain uncontradicted and con-
Cerning which no proofs shall be de-
manded. They want the people of Cali
fornia TO elect a man to Congress who,
when people come before any committee
with an assertion, will have the grace
not to demand any proof in support of
their assertion. To demand such proofs
would be to take away their entire stock
in trade