New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-11-14

AND HARBOR BiLL-FAlLUhE IO IN
FLUENcE ITS FRIENDs-FATE OF THE CON-
GREssMEN WHO FOLLOWED ITS coUNsELs.
BY TELEGRAPH To THE TRIBUSE.1
WAsHINGToS. Nov. 13-The attempt Of the Ad-
mlnistraton to shift the responsibility for the re-
cent overwhelming defeats Of the Republican party
1rom lis own shoulders to those Of Congress is looked
upon here with amusement. Was il the River and
Harbor bill that caused Republican defeatf II so,
then the Administration confesses its own respon-
sibility: For it is an obvious tact that
the River and Harbor bill was passed
over the Presidents veto by his own
friends in Congress-nen who ha received his pat
ronage and stll receive it,. At all events the Ad-
minlstratIOn did not exert itself tO control its
friends IN Congress and prevent the final passage of
the BILL so that the public at last believe that the
Administrators opposition to the bill was "A mere
sham. he fact was The Administration desired the
patronage, the only thing the President under
stands, and at the same time popularity with the
public, which might be secured by yetOing the
bill 1t is clear that the President was not
actually hostile TO the bill. He did not put forth
bis hand to control men like Senator Jones, whom
he could have controlled, in th IT final action on the
bill Nor did he punish his svowed supporters In
Congress after they had thus deliberately oyerrIden
his ve'o Of The bill They have since received such
favors from him that 1t Is evident he was not dis
pleased with their conduct. The Administration
cannot avoid its responsibility, seeing that 1t had
the power to defeat the bill.
The late overthrow, it Is clearly evident was due
to the course Of the Administration added to which
general public disgust at the conduct of Con-
Gress with the River and Harbor bill. Each was
punished with condemnation at the polls. House
OF Representatives Democratic by majority of
fifty is to succeed Republican House. 1t IS inter-
estIng now to recall the political fate of the men
who voted for the River and HarbOr bill with the
secret consent of the Administration. The bill
finally passed the House of Representatives
by vote of 122 to 80. A change OF
two votes would have defeated 1t. Sixty
Republicans, 50 Democrats and 4 Greenhackers
voted TO override the veto and 80 Republicans %
Democrats and Greenbacker voted to sustain it.
How did 1t fare with the 10 Representatives and
how with the 59f Ofthe majority 5s, or AZ per cent,
only were reuOminated and rejected while %, or
~ per cent, were rcnOmnated aud defeated, AMI
35, or 20 per cent were not honored with renom-
nation. Of the minority, 43, or 10 per cent, were
renominated and reelected, while only 2, or 3
per cent, were defeated after a denomination.
Fourteen, or "a per cent, failed Of renomlna-
ton. OF the 30 Republicans who voted
to sustain the veto o were renomnated, and
all except ! of the 10 were reeected while of 90
Republicans who voted TO override the veto ~
were nominated only y of whom were reelected.
In ot her words 9j per cent of the Republican OPP
pOnents of the grab who candidates for reelec-
ton successfulabd only 81 per cent OF Its sup
porters who ran were reelected. OF the % Demo-
crais who voted to sustain the veto % were renOn-
mated and all Of this number except one reelected
and OF the 50 Democrats who voted to override the
veto 81 were nominated, Of which number7 we're de-
feated. In other words. SO per cent OF the Demo-
cratic opponents Of the grab who were renomlnated
were reelected. while of It's Democratic supporters
who were renoT mated only - per cent were re-
elected The difference between 81 per cent and 81
ner cent is probably pretty fair measure of the
additional responsibility which the people placed
upon the shoulders o. the Republican majority III
the House and for which it was held to account.
II NAV be interesting TO note the fate OK some Rep
resentatiyes who were Conspicuous friends of the
bIl and voted to pass it the veto. Mr. Page, of
California chairman OF the Commerce Committee,
has just been defeated IN district which had hye
times in succession honored him with an election to
Congress by majorltes ranging from 900 TO 5000
IL isa district which has given Republican ma
jorities regularly for many years-dong so even in
1867 when George c. Gorhan, the Republican eau
dldate tor Governor, was defeated By large ma
iority Niles Ross, OF New-Jersey, represents a
district which has elected Republican TO Con-
IN the ltisI twenty JcdI9 anu HiliNH
has honored him with election four times IN sue
cc.son. Too much River and Harbor bill defeated
Miles Ross, George VI. RObesOn represents another
New-Jersey dIstrct--one which las been unihter-
ruutedly r. presented in Congress 10y Il republican
ever since the birth of the Republican
marty for more than a quarter or "A century. Inc
Democratic tidal wave of II DID not submeige TINS
district any more than it did the one represented Dy
Mr. Page. Ouiy two years ago IL gave Mt. hODes IN
a majority OF 3.4j7 votes IL mas just elected his
ia mocraIlc opponent by majority OF nearly
. 600 votes Nh Robson stood by the X yer and
Harbor grab to the last. Charles g. Williams, OF
Wisconsin, was elected 10 Congress hye times IN
succession by majOrItes ranging from 3,OOO TO
600 aud be received his largest majority only Two
wears ago. MIR Williams voted 10 pass the fuYer
and HarDor BILL and last Tuesday ne was defeated
tor reelection Dy his Democratic opponent ltus-
sell Errctt, of Peunsy lvanIa, was eitcted 10
Congress two years ago by q majority OF
about 1 600 over Nr. Hopkins, MS DeluOcIatc
opuOuent Mr. Errett had already been elected III
1876 and 1875 by smaller malOrltles' MT. LIrett
voted TO the last tor the RIVER ana IiafDor gTdD
and on tuesday last his Democratic opponent, Hr
Uopklns again. was elected Oy IA majority OF about
. 600 votes. lt Is generally agreed that The De
yotlOn OF Mr.. Errett to BOSS cameron cost MIN
a GOOD many votes OF course NOBODY
contends that support of the River aud HarOor
hi alone defeated MIN, or many Of the other
unsuccessful candidates for rejection. IN many
ca-es however like those OF Mr.. Buck, IN Connec-
ficuf and Mess,s. Harris and hOss OF NeW-Jersey,
tbe support gwen to that measure was the main
r(,un,eut used by The upposl ion and Is generally
a..igned rs the chief cause OF the defeat OF those
canaldates Mr. CalkIns who had very narrow
e.cape from defeat, almost gave up nope OF success
fitre, weeks before the election, and SAID 10 ms
friends that his vote iOr the RIVER &hu u.LpOI O!H
would IN al probability cause MS defeat 1t Is pretty
saf. IA say that another Sl9,OOOOOO bill OF that
sort will not be rushed through Congress Tor some
time to come