New-York tribune., 1882-02-18
TIE PARTY YTHATLE1RNS NOTHING.

When the votes came to be counted at the
election of last November, it turned ont that
thc Democrats had carried beth branches OF
our State Legislature. They regarded 1t as
biz victory. They had not been in the major
jty III the Senate since 1871; they had only
been once in the majority in the Assembly
since that year.
Democracy had good reason to be iubilant
over the restoration of the party to Legislative
power. And it was jubllant, very jubilant.
From one end of the State to the other the
Joy of the leaders and of the rank and file was
unconfned They congratulated one another
in the heartiest manner and IN the most
elusive terms. They pointed to the election
returns oil the Legislature as demonstrating
that the Democratic party had once again come
into possession of the confidence Of the people
of New York. Passing from felicltatlOn to
prophecy, they were loud and frequent III their
assurances that those whom they had sent to
the Senate and Assembly were going to make
the most Of their opportunities, were bent upon
treating the taxpayers to a short, clean, COM
mCn-sense session. characterized by strict at
tention to great public interests by economy,
retrenchment, and the related virtues. And,
be it remembered, there was special reason
why the Democrats of the Legislature OF 1852
should have desired to make an unimpeachable
record. They were aware, and they realized
that every man in the State with a memory
was aware, that the session when their party
last had control of both the Senate and Assen
bly, was notoriOusly the most prohigate and
corrupt in the annals of the State. 1t was
in 1871 that the ruling spirits of the Demo
cratic Senate were William NJ. Tweed, Harry
Genet, Michael Norton, and Thomas j.
Creamer and that William lIitchman presided
over a Democratic Assembly numbering among
its leaders Thomas C.. Fields, James Irving,
Alexander Frear, Timothy j. Campbell, George
ID. Lord and Smith NJ. Weed. There is no
need at this day to rehearsc the shame of that
Legislature of 1871. 1t has passed into his
tory with the brand of popular execration upon
it. and it will remain as an awful warning of
the dire effect of suffering a corrupt and I'M
scrupulous ring to supcrsede the rule OF the
people.
Now with this record of the last Democratic
Legislature staring them in the face the
majority in the Senate and Assembly of this
year might well have been inspired with the
determination to blot out the remembrance of
1871 by serving the State with uncom
promising zeal and fidelity from the begin
ming to the end of the present session.
How, then, shall we account for the extra
ordinary fact that neither this consideration
nor the consciousness that there is to be Il
GubcInatonal canvass next fall and that the
Presidential canvass of 1854 is not so very
far Oft has served to keep the Legislature of
1882 from being in some respects as disgrace
ful as tile Legislature Of 1871, and in all
respects unworthy Of aught but condemnation
The explanation Is that the Democratic party
at all stages of its career during the past
quarter of q century has acted as if it was
possessed by devil. 1t learns nothing i'll the
school OF experience. 1t has a poor head at
the best, and little success turns it. " hen
an emergency arises it takes counsel not of
wisdom but of folly. Now and then the peo-
pie call it from the rear, where 1t properly
belongs, and ntrust it with leadership. But
such treatment of it is not to be construed as
a testimonial of confidence i'll its wisdom and
discretion. As n rule it is to be interpreted
simply as the peoples way of rebuking the
real or imaginary shortcomings of the Rcpub-
lipau Marty.