The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-04-29
AN UNFORTUNATE CANDIDATE

~the Executive Committee Of Grant
Club, No. l." have addressed the Sacra-
mento Publishing Company, publishers
of the Record Union" letter with
circular under the same cover, in which
the Secretary, L. NJ. Wood, declares
that reasons are given why few poll
1icians in San Diego believe Mr.. Ulysses
S. Grant, Jr., to be especially qualified
to represent this State in the Senate of
the United States. The letter covering
the circular invites suggestions which
it declares will always receive prompt
consideration"
Encouraged by this invitation, we
beg leave to offer a few suggestions
and commend them to the prompt con-
sideration Of the gentlemen who have
undertaken to make Ulysses S. Grant,
Jr., Senator in Congress from the State
of California. The circular declares
that the availability of Mr.. Grant lis
not embraced in his being the son Of
General Grant" but-to quote the Ian
guage of the circular-"rests upon his
own faithful, lifelong and unwavering
service to the Republican party" The
suggestion which arises to the mind
by this statement is, What was the ma
ture Of that service? Has Mr.. Grant
been the exponent Of any great Repub-
lican doctrine? Parties live because
they have proven themselves to be fit
to govern a nation. Upon the states
manship Of the measures and policies of
a party its life depends. What policies
originated in the mind Of Ulysses S.
Grant? What statesmanlike suggestion
originated with him which would lead
any constituency to believe that he is
possessed of commanding abilities?
If the faithful services referred to in
this connection mean that Ulysses S.
Grant has voted the Republican ticket,
he has many millions of compeers. The
party owes no man any favor because
he has advocated it's principles. It
should choose men in sympathy with
its policies. But the patriot belongs to
a party, because it represents his own
honest convictions as to the best policy
which should obtain in government.
When any one arises to claim that ad-
herence to party has entitled them to
consideration, there is the uncomfort-
able suggestion that party devotion
was not the result. of honest conviction,
but was rendered in the hope of ulti-
mate reward.
The circular proceeds to say that the
special ability Of Mr.. Grant to serve
the State is based upon his personal
intimacy with the men who have made
some of the brightest chapters of Amer
ican history" upon his familiarity with
the higher phases of political life at
Washington, and upon his earnest sup
port Of the candidacy of Mr.. McKin-
ley"
Encouraged by the invitation Of the
letter from this club to make sugges-
lions, 1t may not be aniss to suggest
that at best this presents Mr.. Grant
merely as a superior kind Of lobbyist.
He will be able to serve California be-
cause OF his personal intimacy with
the men who have made some Of the
brightest chapters Of American his
tory" What would be refused to a
sovereign State on its merits would not
be denied to this personal friend of
the manufacturers Of the brightest
chapters OF American history. Measures
which an ordinary mortal might pro-
pose to the Congress of the United
States would fail simply because the
representative from California lacked
personal intimacy with the history
makers Of Congress. The rights Of a
sovereign State which would thus be
trampled under foot would receive re-
6pectful consideration at the hands of
these great men simply because the
measures had been proposed by one
personally intimate with them. Has it
come to this, that measures are not
considered upon their merits, but de-
pend for adoption upon the personal
favoritism Of the men who have made
the brightest chapters of American his
tory?
In perfect candor we offer the same
suggestion in connection with the con-
Eideration that Mr.. Grant supported
the candidacy Of Mr.. Mckinley. There
were some seven millions of men in the
United States who did likewise. Must
California be a petitioner for neces-
Eary legislation at the hands of the
nation simply because it's Senator sup
ported the candidacy of Mr.. Mckinley?
Is the Republican party likely TO elect
any man to the United States Senate
who did not support Mr.. Mckinley +?
Is Mr.. Grant the only man fit to be
Senator from California who supported
Mr. Mckinley? Does the President of
the United States entertain so con-
temptible an opinion of his duties as
Chief Magistrate Of the country that he
would concede anything to a measure
proposed by a Senator simply because
the man proposing it supported his can
didacy for the Presidency?
The suggestion arises that Mr.. Grant
has not long been a citizen of Califor-
mia. Must the State present itself to
the other States of the Union as being
incapable of breeding up Senators? Must
IT resort to new impertations for Sen
atorial timber on the ground that there