Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-11-02
BY MARK SULLIVAN.

DA MANN oNADA NV
IRON the varied significances of
l. the outcome of next Tuesdays
election four can be detached as
i having primary Importance. One
| is the historical significance-the
| bearing that next Tuesdays result will
have on the presidential election two
years later: whether in 1882 the Re-
publicanS will continue TO keep control
of the White House or will lose 1t to
the Democrats.
| The second is the relation to the
tariff; to the probability or improb-
ability of another tariff revision follow
! ing close on the heels of the one re-
Gently completed.
The third is the relation Of next
Tuesdays outcome to prohibition.
| The fourth has to do with the issues
! that have influenced this campaign,
some of them widely proclaimed but
actually unimportant, others hardly
mentioned but extremely fundamental.
AS respects the historical significance
of next Tuesdays election, If it should
happen that the newspapers on Wednes-
day should be called upon to announce
Democratic control of the Lower House,
such announcement would be attended
Immediately by predictions that in the
next presidential election, 1882, the
Democrats would elect their candidate
| for President.
Validity of Prediction Rests on Precedent.
The validity of this prediction, if the
circumstances should cause 1t to be
made rests wholly upon precedents.
Stated in the broadest way, the sum Of
| the precedentS may be expressed thus:
During the past so years, since 1880,
every time the party out Of power Gin
! the present case the Democrats) have
won control of the House in an cleo
ton coming in the middle of a presi-
Dental term, it has followed that in
the ensuing presidential election two
years subsequently the same party has
elected its President.
In detail the presidents are:
| In 1918 the Democrats had control Of
the presidency and of Congress Gas the
Republicans have now). In that year
the Republicans won control of the
House. Then two years later in the
presidential election of 1920 the Repub-
leans won the presidency.
In 1910 the Republicans were in
power, with control of Congress and
with a Republican in the White House.
In that year and in that state Of facts
! the Democrats won control OF the
House Thereafter two years later, in
1912. the Democrats elected their can
didate for President.
| IIcSC are IIlc LNO ulOSI ICCClb PACOS~
| dents. Going on back to 1880, there
were four additional precedents. Upon
the aggregate of all these precedents
over a period of so years rests tho as
sumption that If in the election next
Tuesday the Democrats should win
control of the House, they would there
after in 1882 elect their candidate for
the presidency.
| Room for Skepticism.
The precedents are convincing, so far
| as precedentS can convince. Actually
there Is room for skepticism. For ex-
ample, If we follow the research into
history just two years further back, to
1873, we find that the precedent falls
down. In that year the Democrats won
control of the House, but that did not
prevent the Republicans, under Gar
field, from winning the presidential
election in 1880.
Also the one precedent upon which
the Democrats must rely, namely, 1910,
is very vulnerable. Specifically and
literally, it is true that in 1910 the
Democrats won control of the House,
and that in 1912 they duly elected their
candidate for President, woodrow VIII
son. Upon the analogy, alleged, be-
tween 1910 and the present year, 1880,
Democrats depend strongly.
There are, however, some defects in
the analogy. One is that the Demo-
Gratis were enabled to elect their candi-
date for President in 1912 chiefly for
the reason that the Republican party
was split into two by the deepest cleav-
age that ever occurred in any American
political party. The Republicans in 1912
were divided into the regular Republi-
can party, which nominated William H.
Taft to succeed himself, and the much
larger Progressive party that nominated
Theodore Roosevelt. But for that split
in the Republicans one feels justified
in saying the Democrats would not have
elected their candidate for President in
1912.
Nevertheless, if the Democrats should
win control of the House next Tuesday,
there will be deep discussion, much OF
1t justified, about electing Democratic
President in 1882.
If we turn now to the bearing of next
Tuesdays election upon the tariff, the
common saying, supported by precedent
and quite probably correct, Is that II the
Democrats should win control of the
House on Tuesday they would proceed
at their earliest opportunity to "evlse
the tariff. True, their earliest oppor-
tunity" would be considerably delayed
They would not be able to step into
power for Is monthS-in December,
1881. Even at that time they would
have control of the Lower House only
They would be obliged to wait until
after electing their candidate for PreSi-
dent assuming they should do 500 and
until after his taking Office in 1888.
But that the Democrats would in due
course revise the tariff is very probable
One of their outstanding leaders, ex-
Gov. James NJ Cox of Ohio, their can
didate for President in 1920, has for
mally announced revision of the tariff
as a consequence of Democratic victory
next Tuesday.
This idea that the Democrats. If sue
cessful in carrying the Lower House on
Tuesday, would thereafter revise the
: tariff is borne out by precedent as re-
spects both parties. In 1918 the Repub-
licans won control of the House, and in
1922 they revised the tariff in he Re-
publican direction. In 1910 the Demo-
Gratis won control of the House, and in
1913 they revised the tariff in the DEM
, ocratic direction. In 1894 the Republic
; cans won control of the House, and in
1897 they revised the tariff in the Re-
, publican direction In 1890 the Demo
! Gratis won control of the House. and IN
1894 they revised the tariff in the DEM
: ocratic direction.
Prohibition Question Lacks Precedent.
, About the third important signifl-
canoe of the outcome of next Tuesday
election we have no precedent to guide
U.S. The outcome will have bearing
on prohibition. But national prohibit
ton, unlike the tariff, is only 10 years
!, old and has never before figured in g
congressional election or in politics Al
all in the way in which it now figures.
About all that can be said Is tina
during the past few months in botf
: parties the cause of repeal Of the pro