Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1918-10-10
The Neat Congress
New York Evening Post.

hopes-we may say their expectations-regard-
ing the outcome of the elections on November
S. They look forward to seeing a republican
in Speaker Clark's chair after the 4th of next
March. What are the grounds for believing
that republican can be chosen to the position
that used to be termed second to the presi-
dency? Where are the democrats whom it
may be possible to supplant by republicans?
OF the 435 members of the present house the
republicans have 2l0. A majority being 2l8
they must pick up eight if they are to realize
their dream.
For those eight they will look with the
greatest expectancy to Kansas and OHIO
Those two states may not impossibly give
them the entire lot: Kansas has not had any
thing like republican ma jority in its delega-
ton since the congress that was elected in the
fall of 1910. At that time it chose solid re-
publican repre- sentation of eight. Two years
later it was divided into one progressive, two
republicans and five democrats. In 1914 the
democrats gained one, which they lost in 1916
Assuming that Kansas elected FIVE democrats
and three republicans in that year only be-
cause, to the aStoniShment of the country, it
went for Wilson, we may examine the figures
of 1914 for light upon its probable action in
more nearly normal year. They show that if
the republicans and the progressves had been
united they would have done exactly what was
done in l9l0-elected a solid republican dele
cation. If that happens this time the repub-
lieans will gain no less than five OF their
needed eight right there. The fact that the
democrats have no more hope of defeating
Governor Capper for senator than they have
of electing the next mayor of Philadelphia will
show why republicans bank on Kansas two
years after they lost its electoral vote by
$4,000
To republican eyes Ohio looks almost as
promising as Kansas. Unlike Kansas, it is
one Of half dozen states in which the repub-
Leans lost congressman in 1916. In 1914 they
elected IS representatives to the democrats
nine. Two years later the figures were re-
vrsed. If the election this year is to parallel
1914, here are four more representatives for
the republicans. The prospect becomes roster
when we find that two democrats in 1914 owed
their seats to the republican progressive split.
This makes no less than six seats in Ohio to
be fought for with more or less confidence by
the outs" Yet one cannot help feeling much
more doubt over Ohio than over Kansas. The
reputation of repubcanism in Taft's state
was so pronounced that it was conceded to the
democrats by impartial observers weeks before
the election. Nevertheless, there will be no
surprise if the republicans again reverse the
present ratio in the Ohio delegation. There
is also chance for republican in Delaware,
New Mexico and Utah.
Even states that went for Hughes may add
republicans to their list West Virginia, for
instance, now represented by two democrats
and four republicans, would have chosen
solid republican delegation in 1914 had it not
been for the progressive detection. And in
1916 two of the democratic congressman were
elected by pluralities of only 400 and 500. In
did not do so we'll by the republican candidates
for congress as in other years. Its four dem-
ocratc representatives include two from dis
tricts which in 1914, with united party, would
have returned republicans. Also Pennsyl-
vania may contribute to the needed eight. 1t,
like Ohio, elected fewer republicans in 1916
than in 1914. Perhaps the two that it lost may
be regained, although when one reads that in
the Thirty-irst district the successful cand-
date was republican, democrat Washing
tonian, bull moose and Roosevelt progress
sive, and is officially listed at Washington as
republican, while in the Thirty-second dis
trict the republican was beaten by democrat,
sive and Keystoner-"being" as he records,
the first democrat elected from exclusive AL
leghany county territory for third of CEN
tury"-we are impressed with the perils of
prophecy.
But may there not be democratic gains
also? If Wilson carried some democrats into
the capitol, did not the tremendous Hughes
pluralities in certain states elect some repub-
licans in districts normally democratic? What
about New York and Illinois? 1t is true that
in this state the republicans made gain of
three congressman over 1914 But it is true
also that three of the districts won by the DEM
ocrats in that year were lost to the republicans
by the progressive detection. One district the
democrats may win-Meyer Londons, owing
to the republican-democratic fusion. But this
will he NJ 70 the =
hardly more promising, Four more repub-
lcans were elected there in 1916 than in 1914,
but this was only one more than would have
been elected in 1914 had it not been for the
progressives, and in the Fourth district the re-
suit was extremely close. Much the same is
to be said of New Jersey On the basis of the
ter TWo ye,re ,ro tLa ~ao,,h