New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-17
FAcTS ABOUT APPORTIONMENT

II
Sundry Democratic newspapers are now as
serting with much ivehemence that the failure
TO report an Apportionment bill in the Legisla-
tnrc is chargeable to what they are pleased to
style the Tammany Republican combination
The statement has its value as showing that
the party organs realize that the majority need
defending in this matter. But since the de-
fence does not defend, the charge has no other
value. Let us look at it little.
In the first place, the assumption that there is
a Tammany- Republican coalition in the Legis-
lature is purely gratuitous. 1t is simply an
evolution out of the intense partisanship of
those who deal in it. The account of its origin
can be given in n few words. Stung 20 mad
ness by the defeat of their candidates for Clerks
of the Senate and Assembly, the "Iegular"
Democratic members cast about for some way
of letting themselves down easily. Then arose
the wish-a wish that came readily to these gem
tlemen stepped in partisanship-t that they could
credit their misfortune to Is bargain" That
wish was father to the thought that there had
been bargain and that thought in turn was
father to the assertion that there had been
bargain-that the Republican and Tammany
members had entered into corrupt cCmbina-
great comfort after being beaten in a lawsuit in
going down to the tavern and swearing at the
attorneys on the other side. The regulars re-
tired from the deadlock in very bad order and
odor, and apparently they have found great
comfort ever since in swearing Mt the Tam
many and the Republican members. The
charge that there was a bargain does not de-
ccivc any considerable number of sensible
people, and we dismiss it.
But even if there was TammanyRepubli-
can coalition the attempt to saddle it with the
blame of the extraordinary delay in reporting
an Apportionment bill would be to the last
degree nonsensical. The Appointment Com
mittee in the Senate has Mr.. Grady, a Tam
manyite, for its chairman, while the chairman
of the Assembly Committee, Mr.. Stanley, is
an Anti Tammanyite. Neither committee has
yet made a report, so each blameworthy.
But how is it possible for Mr.. Grady's commit
tee to embarrass Mr.. Shanley's committee ?
The only possible answer is that is not possible
at all. The two committees act independently
of each other, and neither can make or mar the
others work. Going a step further, it is equally
true that Mr.. Stanley has ready escape from
any embarrassment to which his fellow mem
bers on the Assembly Committee might desire
to subject him. If he finds that they will not
attend meetings or will not give their attention
to the subject of Apporti onment or by the en-
ployment of any sort of tactics are disposed to
kill any suggested bill il committee, all he has
to do is to move to discharge the Apportlon-
ment Committee from the further consideration
of the subject and that the subject be referred
to the Committee of the Whole or to one OF the
standing committees Speaking to this resolu-
ton Mr.. Stanley would have ample opportu-
nity to air his grievances, in case he really had
any, and if he was able to satisfy the majority
of his fellow-members that his committee was
not acting in good faith they would doubtless
take such action as would vindicate him by
providing an efiectual remedy. But Mr.. Shan
ley has done nothing of the kind. All that
the public knows of his labors on the Appor-
tionment Committee is that as its chairman he
appointed n subcommittee to report an appor-
tioument scheme to the full committee. This,
it will be generally conceded, was not a very
fatiguing piece of work The subcommittee
was appointed nearly three weeks ago, and was
to make its report in ten days. The report is
not yet made.
The only thing that has been done
that has been given publicity is perhaps
more in the way of suggestion than anything
else. We refer to the apportionment scheme
presented by Mr.. Browne, of the committee, an
abstract of which has already appeared in THE
TRIBUNE. This scheme is understood to be
satisfactory to the Kings County Democrats
and to nearly all the regulars. Ii is known
that three other members of the committee
have been at work on as many schemes en-
bodying their three sets of diverging views.
| Of these Mr.. McClelland's is reported 10 favor