Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/431

 388

you'll never let that bill get through. You are a friend of mine, and I want to tell you it isn't the Rivers bill you're voting on in the House, remember, but the future of your party in this State, for it is the little things the people have the habit of getting worked up about." I must confess I had not put a great deal of thought on Rivers' bill. I thought there would be time enough to do that when it reached final passage. I am afraid even now I did not clo the Governor nor the bill justice, for I contented myself with voting against the bill on its final passage; but that did not avail me much, for the bill passed Senate and House and was sent to the Governor. What happened in the executive chamber was expected—by me, at least. The bill came back with the Governor's veto and a mes sage giving the Governor's objections to its passage. This discussed at length the merits of the bill, and the Governor assailed it rather vigorously, as vicious and unwise. There is no need—nor would it be wise, perhaps—to discuss the provisions of the measure. I did not myself look upon it as a matter of great importance. I am confident that the subsequent fight over the attempt to pass the bill over the Governor's veto would never have occurred had not Senator Rivers been the father of the bill. The Governor and the Senator represented two different factions in the party politics of the State. These factions pulled together fairly well at the polls or wherever the suc cess of the party, as a party, was at stake. Each realized its dependence on the other. A permanent, rupture would mean oblivion for both. In the nominating conventions, in the Legislature, even in local politics, the Gov ernor's friends and the "Rivers crowd" were more inclined to show their 'hands. In the last State convention the Governor had had the votes to win; but the Rivers crowd be lieved that now its star was in the ascend

ancy. The Governor had made some mis takes; his friends had said some unwise things—and in politics a man is held respon sible for the antics of any fools that choose to follow him. An enemy can hurt him; but a fool friend can' do him more damage in a minute than an enemy may hope to cause him in a month. 'When the Governor vetoed the Rivers bill, be did it because he thought its passage would hurt party success in the State. But Senator Rivers took it to be a personal slap. I do not think he had a large idea of the bill's im portance himself; but he had a large opinion of his own. He had heard there was some talk against the bill in the State, and he did not like the part assigned to him in this little political tableau in which the Governor stepped in and killed the measure and there by won applause. The Rivers men claimed to be in control of House and Senate, and the Senator de cided to make the Legislature show its hand. When the bill came back to the Senate, with the Governor's veto attached, for reconsider ation, Senator Rivers had it tabled until such time as he could find his strength. If a care ful survey of the field led him to believe he could force its passage by a two-thirds vote he intended to do it. He was sure of the Senate; but of the House he was not so sure. It was ten days later before the Senator called up his bill, and in the meantime it had become the most talked-of measure under consideration. It did not take the old-time members long to find out which way the pendulum was swinging and to climb into the Rivers band wagon. I had no third-term aspirations or appropriation bills worrying me, and I decided to stick with the Gov ernor. The chief executive knew also which way the battle was going. He wrote the names of twenty-six Senators who would vote for the Rivers bill on the back of an envelope for me. • One day I found him in his office walking