The Portland daily press., 1882-06-08
Worcester Spy.l

Which Are the Blind Partisans?
The Republicans of the House of Represen-
tatives have been accused by Democratic pa
pers, and to some extent by Democrats in the
House, of blind and undiscriminating partisan
ship. 1t has been said that they pronounce in
favor of the Republican contestant in every
case, regardless of the facts. Some of those who
make this accusation do so probably without
knowledge of its falsity, but charge made at
random, wholly without knowledge, is scarcely
more ex cusable than 1t would be If willfully
ard consciously false. The facts of the pres
emit condition of contested election cases in the
House prove this charge to have no basis of
truth. AT the opening of the present Congress
twenty-five contests were referred to the COM
mittee on elections. OF these twelve have been
considered, and reports have been made upon
them, and upon five of these the House has
acted. These cases are familiar. They were
those which required prompt action, because
in each Of them the decision of the committee,
which was sustained by the House, was against
the sitting member. They were all from the
Southern States except one, that of the dele
gate from Utah, and in each the sitting MEM
tention, especially because of the stubborn and
angry resistance made by the Democratic
minority to action upon the committees re-
port. AS ia one case after another the Demo-
Gratis were borne down by force OF numbers and
organization, loudly protesting at every step
that they were unfairly treated, and yielding
nothing to evidence or argument, the organs
of their party, knowing nothing, and seeking
to know nothing of the facts except from the
assertions of the representatives OF their party
in Congress. declare that the Republicans de-
eide all contests upon party grounds, without
regard to truth or justice.
But the record of the committee on elections
tells different story. Besides the I'VE cases
that have been disposed of by the House, the
committee has reported upon seven others. In
each of these the report is in favor OF the sit
ting member. all but one are from Southern
States, and in each case, except that from Ore
gon, the sitting member is Democrat. 1t
appears, therefore, that of twelve cases acted
upon by the committee, the decision in six has
been in favor of Republicans, and in six in ia
yor of Democrats. So far as mere numbers are
guide in judgment of their work, the COM
mittee seem to have been strictly impartial.
These six southern cases, in which Democratic
members are declared to have been fairly elect
ed differ in no respect, except in the evidence
presented, from those decided in favor of Re-
publicans The advantage to the party would
have been the same ia unseatDg Oates Of Ala
bama as III unseatiDg Wheeler. OF the same
State or in giving seat to Stobrand OF the third
South Carolina district as in admitting Mackey
of the second district. These cases attract
no attention because there is no dispute about
them in the House. The Republicans decided
against men of their owl party and the Demo-
Gratis assent, of course. Here, then, are twelve
contested cases; the Republicans decide half
of them against their own party; the Demo-
Gratis insist even to the extent of revolutionary
obstruction, that every one shall be decided in
favor of their party Against which can the
charge of undiscriminating partnership be
made moro reasonably? Would it not be very
remarkable, not to be believed without the
clearest evidence, that in every case of dis
puued election the Democrat should always
have right on his side and the Republican
never?