Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-08-08
Southern Democrats and the River
and HarbOr Bill.

those from the South mainly voted with
the Republicans to pass the bill over the
Presidents head. This has caused a
great deal of unfavorable criticism on the
part of the Northern press, one Of our
exchanges stating that ''the Mississippi
valley and the South joined hands with
California, Connecticut and Massachu-
sets and swept all before them" while
another declares that New England
Republicans and Southern Brigadiers
united to rob the Treasury Of $1S, 0O0,-
900 at one fell swoop."
While it would have been more graft
flying perhaps if the Southern members
had, without any hesitation, placed
themselves on record sOlidly in opposition
to this measure, which was in great part
simply a Radical scheme to raid the
Treasury for campaign purposes, it will
not do to condemn them too hsrshly, for
there are many extenuating cIrcum-
stances connected with their action.
They had. asa rule, opposed the measure
in the first place, and large number who
voted TO pass the bill over the veto had
previously voted against it. This exon
Grated them from the charge of any
completely with the Republicans to pass
the measure and placed them on record
against it.
The Republican majority in both
houses. however, were determined to
have this bill and no other. This
the Democrats plainly saw, and
not only were there in the bill
many items of decided benefit to the
South, but it was the first time since the
war that this section had been accorded
any consideration of any consequence
whatever Millions of dollars had been
voted in previous appropriation bills for
the North and West, while on the South
albeit she has always borne her full
proportion of the national burdens-only
few insignificant crumbs were
grudgingly bestowed. By this bill
the South was to obtain a liberal
share of the sum total. The Mississippi
river was to get for its share of the ap-
preparation s., 1913, 900, besides the items
for the Missouri and Ohio, viz. 5000, 900
and $3.50, 900, respectively, making in
| all Sc, 678, 600 Besides these, for other
improvements in the Southern States,
the appropriations were as fol
lows: Virginia, $2SS, 800; West Virginia,
$685., 900; North Carolina, 1920. 400;
South Carolina, $371, 900; Georgia,
$3.50, 900; Florida, 1885, 900; Alabama,
1910, 600; Mississippi, $50, 900; Louisiana,
| s115, 900; kentucky, 1886, 500; Missouri,
| SIS. 600; Arkansas, $3.50, 900; Tennessee,
1874, 500; Texas, 1882, 800, making all
the appropriations for the South. in
Guiding what is given to the Mississippi
river below Cairo, $9.617, 300, or about
half the whole bill. This is more than
was ever done for the South by the
General Government before, and the ex-
pen6iture Of that sum of money in our
section must necessarily prove of meal
culable benefit
Notwithstanding this, the Southern
members, as we have seen, feeling conf
dent that the claims of their section were
Just, and that should the original bill
fail and another be formulated before
adjournment these claims would be rec
ognized, first voted against the measure,
because of its many Ubiquitous provis-
ions, which they regarded as little better,
if any, than so much stealage. But
when the bill was passed, and was
vetoed by the President. it then be-
came evident that the Republican ma
majority in Congress, if the veto should
be sustained, would not consent to pro
| long the session so as to re-enact new
measure, from which the iniqui-
tous items would be eliminated, and so
the provisions contained in the bill for
the benefit of the South would be de-
layed, if not wholly lost. Acting upon
this view of the case, and seeing the
danger in which they must place South.
ern interests if they lent their aid to de.
feating the measure, Southern Democrats
determined to make sure of what they
had and secure the good even if they
had. in order to do so, also to endure the
bad. In other words. they took the
ground that bird in the hand was worth
two in the bush, and fearing lest the
South would finally suffer, determined
to make certain of what was within
reach. rather than run the risk of losing
everything.
We admit that this is not our idea of
the highest standard of political or moral
ethics, but, under the circumstances,
who can blame the Southern Democrats
for acting as they -did2 Surely the North
cannot, for its Representatives, under
similar circumstances, would not have
/ felt a moments hesitation in voting to
advance the interests of their section as
the Southern members voted to advance
Southern interests. 1t must be remem-
bered that the Radical majority in Con-
gress would never have consented to give
the South anything if their schemes
were not allowed, and as those schemes
were foisted upon the country by a ma
iority of Northern votes, it was simply
worldly wisdom ON the part of the South
to swallow the bitter to secure the sweet.
Under different circumstances Southern
members would have acted differently
but under the circumstances by which
they were surrounded, they no doubt did
what they believed was their simple duty
to their section and their constituents.
The Baltimore Day warns the Repub-
licans that they cannot escape response
bllity for the river and har6or bill, be-
cause some Democrats voted to pass it