The Washington herald., 1907-10-13
By WILLIAM E. CHANDLER.

II may De unwise to wonder what would
have happened in any one of the critical
and close contests. military and political.
in war and peace, of nations and men.
if the result had been different from
what it actually was. But mankind will
continue to speculate in such fashion
till time shall be no more.
One such inquiry comes to me when
remember how close was the vote by
which the Wilson tariff bin Of 1894 passed
the Senate on July with amendments
which, being adopted in gross on. August
Is by the scared House of Representa-
tives, led President Cleveland to call il
a bill of ''perfidy and dshonor" Yet he
did not venture 10 veto It. but let il be-
come a law in ten days without his sig
nature. What would have happened
politically if 1t had been defeated in the
Senate? Would any other bill have
passed, or would the Mckinley bill of 1895
have remained the law? Would McKin-
ley or Democrat have been elected
President in 1895? What would have hap
pened If President Cleveland had vetoed
the bill, as he wished, but dared not do?
The wilson tarfr bin passsS the Sen
ate by 80 yeas to "a nays at about 1915
o'clock in the evening; one Democrat,
Senator David B. Hill. voting nay II
Senators Blanchard and Caffery, of
Louisiana. and Irby, of South Carolina,
had voted nay, the vote would have been
Sc yeas 10 81 nays, and the bill would
have failed.
The record shows that at first, during
the roll-call, Mr.. Blanchard refrained
from voting, and Mr. Caffery voted nay.
while Mr.. Irby voted yea; so that even
if Blanchard had voted nay, the vote
would have been 81 TO sc, and the bill
would have passed, unless Irby had
changed and voted nay. reversing the
vote to s. yeas and 81 nays. The final
record reads as follows:
Mr.. Cafery after having voted in the
negative)-Mr. President. I desire to say
only a word l cast the vote I did to
enter a protest against what 1 conceive
10 have been an injustice 10 my people
and 10 my State I east that vote as a
protest against what l consider to be the
unjustifiahle action of my own side Of
the chamber, in going back upon plan
of action which they had deliberately
adopted. Having made the protest, I
change my vote from nay to yea.
Mr.. Blanohard-I ask permission for
one moment of debate.
The Vice President-Is there objection?
Mr.. Teller-I object to any debate pend
ing the roll call
Mr.. BIAnchard-I desire TO vote. vote
yea
Congressional Record, Vol. %, part Z.
page 1857
There is reason TO believe that if Mr..
Irby had voted nay. MT. Blanchard, after
his waiting, would have voted nay-and
the bin would have been defeated. There
is reason TO believe that if Mr.. Blanchard
had not at first withheld his vote, Mr..
Irby would have voted nay.
What had happened may in part be
briefly stated: Senator Caffery with his
colleague. Senator Blanchard) had been
very indignant because the Democrats
proposed in the Wilson bill to grant only
low duties on sugar while repeating the
sugar bounty given by the Mckinley act;
but in view of some acrimonious words
between him and myself an hour earlier,
was much surprised 10 have him come
TO the Republican side OF the chamber
and speak to me just before the final
vote was to be taken, while I was on the
floor predicting doleful results from the
Wilson bill
The remark he made led me TO ask Sen
ator Manderson 10 take the floor in the
debate. in order TO secure a delay in
voting. (See Congressional Record, page
1857 This he did, and I listened 70 Sen
ator Caffery, who said that he and his
colleague were willing to vote against
the bill if It could be defeated, and that
this could be done with Senator Irby's
vote I told him I believed it could be.
and instantly conferred with two or three
Senators, who, / thought, had the means
of knowing what Senator Irby would do.
This Senator had vacillated-I think at
times leading Senator Hill 10 believe he
would vote against the bill, at other
times leading Senator J. K. Jones to be-
lieve he would vote for it, Gov. Tnlman
had been communicated with; what. if
any. advice he had given Senator Irby, I
did not know
In response TO my quick investigation
I learned that Mr.. Irby would vote
against the bill if Senators Blanchard
and Cafery would do the same and make
il certain that the bill would be defeated;
and I sent word 10 that effect 10 Mr..
Caffery, a minute before the voting be-
gan.
II Mr.. Blanchard had voted no, with
Mr.. Caffery following. as he did. with no.
Mr.. Irby would have vote no, and the bill
would have been defeated. But, alas!
for our house of cards. Mr. Blanchard
hesitated and did not vote at ALL Mr.
Caffery was true to his determination
but Mr.. Irby was disconnected by Mr.
Blanchards failure 10 do hisRpart and
voted yes. Undoubtedly, I repeat, he
would have voted no If Mr.. Blanchard
first on the list, had voted no. The bill
having votes sure to pass 1t, Mr.. Caffery
beat a retreat. So our well-laid plans
went TO pieces, and the bill of "perfidy
and dishonor. the Wilson-GOrman tariff
bin, became a short-lived law, to be sue
ceeded by the prosperity producing Ding
ley bill Of 1897.
Did the passage of the bill make any
difference in later political resuItsl Doubt
less none that viii be felt a thousand
years from now,
Similar wonderings might be indulgeS
in concerning the after events which
would have happened if President Hayes.
IN 1876, had received only 1s4 votes and
Mr. Tilden, through the Cronin vote from
Oregon, or in some other way, had re-
eeived l& votes and been elected. What
would have been the course Of public
questions? Would he have been succeeded
by Garfield (assassinated) Arthur. Cleve-
land. Harrison, Mckinley (assassinated).
and Roosevelt: or should we have had as
Presidents A. B. c. D. Z, and F; and
how, under their leadership. would the