Sacramento Daily Record Union

The response to the perfectly clear demand of this journal for names and facts relative to alleged schemes and conspiracies among citizens in the interest of bondholders, and against the interests of Sacramento, is still wanting.

An attempted response was made yesterday, and found full publication in these columns. It consisted, when analyzed, of only a garbled review of the election campaign of March, 1882, and a pitifully weak effort by the reviewer, by means of insinuations, which were wisely guarded against development into charges, that the course of the Record-Union at that time, and since, was directed by, or in the interest of, bondholders' schemes.

It was precisely to silence these and like mean insinuations against this journal, and against citizens, that the demands were made, and are now repeated for, names and proofs of conspiracies against the welfare of the city.

The attempted reply to the demands more than carries its own refutation. But the "interviewing" of candidates on city matters is cited, and claimed to establish that in some way, somehow, that fact related the bond holders to the campaign. Incautiously, however, the discoverer of this wonderful "fact," after quoting the questions relative to financial affairs, adds that "there were twelve others relating to every conceivable subject of city government."

It will not have escaped attention that the financial questions only were quoted by the correspondent. The reason is obvious—to quote the others relating to taxation, sanitation, levee systems, drainage, sewerage, etc., would have absolutely destroyed the insinuations of impropriety in the one the reviewer does quote, and have shown clearly that the wonderful and mysterious interviews were simply of the usual order sought with those ambitious to administer city trusts.

That the interrogatories were in writing, and left openly for the candidates' deliberation and response, with notice given that the object was publication, completely refutes in the mind of any sane person the despicable suspicion sought to be awakened. The reason for non-publication of the so-called interviews is not material, but has been given and need not be repeated.

Fictitious stress is laid upon conspicuous frauds in a Republican ward primary in 1882. What relation they bore then, or bear now, to the bond question or the Record-Union's demand for "names and facts" regarding bondholders' schemes, is undiscoverable. It is far more material to recall the facts, since history has been dragged into the debate, that the Secretary of the Central Committee under whose administration the frauds occurred was Wm. J. Davis; that not the Record-Union, but the committee, despite the frauds, may be said to have condoned them, since it met on a Sunday and declared Mr. Ames the candidate elected, and barred the new committee from review.

By the stern verdict of the voters of the city, the same committee was compelled to declare the fact that Wm. J. Davis had been defeated for committeeman at large. History records also the fact that the only ward in the city in which he obtained a majority was the ward in which the shameless practices, which stir his indignation, were carried out, and under the very nose of members of the committee from that ward who enjoy the reputation of being among the shrewdest of politicians, and who were reputed to carry the ward in their pockets.

But, as stated before, it is undiscoverable what connection all this has with the bond holders or their schemes.

We again repeat the demands already made for the names and proofs of the city's enemies.