POLITICS AND ELECTIONS
Most political news falls into one of the general classes of stories
already considered. Party conventions, campaign meetings, political
speeches, interviews with candidates and party managers, for example,
are treated like similar material in other fields. Elections, on
the other hand, require a different handling. Three common kinds of
election stories are: (1) an analysis of political conditions preceding
an election with or without a forecast of the result, (2) a description
of election day conditions and events, (3) the results of the election.
Although some newspapers are sufficiently independent in politics to
treat political news without partisan bias, many papers still present
such news from the point of view of their editorial policy. There is a
growing tendency, however, to present both sides fairly in news columns
and to confine partisanship to editorials.
Election return stories consist largely of summaries of the most
important results of the election, such as: (1) the candidates
elected and defeated, (2) the majority or plurality of the successful
candidates, (3) the effect of the election on the political complexion
of legislative bodies, (4) causes of victory and defeat, (5) statements
by candidates and party managers in regard to the results.
* * * * *
POLITICAL FORECAST
_Springfield Republican_
Estimates as to the relative strength of the
three leading political parties are at variance,
but some of the best informed politicians are of
the opinion that the alignment this year will be
vastly different from what it was last year. Local
political workers are of the opinion that the
republican vote for governor in this section this
year will be much larger than it was last year.
This contention is made by prominent republicans
who have canvassed the western counties very
carefully, and who have done considerable campaign
work in this section. Their predictions are made
on the ground that the republican candidate last
year antagonized a large element in the party, who
either voted for Gov Walsh or for Mr Bird or did
not vote at all. The check lists in almost every
town and city in Western Massachusetts, with the
exception of a few places in Berkshire, showed that
the average republican vote last year was about 75
per cent of the normal vote of the party.
The leaders figure that Mr McCall will command a
large percentage of the republican vote that was
lost last year. They likewise figure that both
Joseph Walker and Gov Walsh will suffer serious
defections this year. They believe that Mr Walker
will not poll more than two-thirds of the vote
polled by Mr Bird last year. They figure that Gov
Walsh will lose at least 5 per cent of his vote
of last year. If these predictions should come
true, they say that Mr McCall would profit by the
defections from the other candidates. This would
mean a close call for Gov Walsh and possibly his
defeat.
While the democrats and progressives express
confidence that their respective candidates will
be winners, politicians who are not showing any
active interest in the campaign believe that
the contentions made by the republicans deserve
consideration. Figuring on the basis of last year’s
vote, local republicans predict that Gov Walsh
will be fortunate if he receives 175,000 votes.
This would mean a loss of about 8000 from his
vote of last year. Should the progressives poll
80,000, they would suffer a loss of about 43,000
on the vote for governor. These defections would
probably go to Mr McCall, who then would come very
close to defeating the democratic candidate. The
figures submitted are not impossible, as the vote
last year indicates. Mr Bird, then candidate for
governor, ran far ahead of the other candidates
on the progressive ticket. This in itself shows
that the true strength of the party was more
nearly represented in the vote cast for the other
candidates on the ticket than for the candidate for
governor.
Western Massachusetts may not prove to be such a
tremendous factor in deciding the campaign this
year, but if the signs of the times are read
correctly, Mr McCall will receive an unusually
large vote throughout this section of the state.
It is quite probable that Mr Walker may command a
sizeable vote, but his strength is not apparent
now. The injection of prohibition into the
progressive campaign is thought to have injured the
Walker cause, not because the average progressive
is opposed to prohibition, but because many of
them believe that the cause of prohibition should
be confined to the party that raised it as an
issue. The enthusiasm which characterized the
progressive campaigns in the two years past is
noticeably absent this year. Try as the leaders
will, they cannot raise the excitement of former
years, and this is not a healthy sign in the
opinion of those who have followed politics closely.
The progressives, however, maintain that they have
not suffered any losses, and they again predict a
large vote this fall. Richard J. Talbot, chairman
of the progressive city committee, claims that
one-third of the new registration will be found
voting with the progressives on election day. Mr
Talbot likewise goes on record as predicting that
the contest for governor this year will be between
Mr Walsh and Mr Walker. He believes that Mr McCall
will run third, as Mr Gardner did last year.
The progressives and the democrats will follow
closely on the heels of the republican spellbinders
who will invade the city Monday evening. A big
republican rally is planned for that evening when
Mr McCall, Senator Burton and Congressman Gillett
will be heard. The local republican city committee
has planned a reception for the candidates from
7.15 until 8 o’clock. The rally will be held in the
Auditorium. The democrats will hold their rally in
the Auditorium on Wednesday evening, the 28th, and
it is possible that the progressives will follow on
the 29th or 30th.
* * * * *
ELECTION DAY
_New York Times_
The fair weather and the fact that the new modified
Massachusetts ballot gave the voters little trouble
made ideal conditions yesterday for rapid voting.
Voters began to crowd polling places within five
minutes after the polls opened at 6 o’clock. They
voted in steady streams until 9 o’clock, when the
first lull set in, and a tabulation of figures
revealed the fact that nearly half the votes were
cast.
It was a record for early voting for any election
in recent years. By noon 65 per cent. of the
total vote was in, and at 4 o’clock reports
indicated that the late afternoon rush would be
inconsequential, as 85 per cent. of the vote had
already been cast. The total vote was recorded in
several election districts more than an hour before
the polls were scheduled to be closed.
Trouble had been expected from the new ballots, but
as voter after voter emerged from the voting booths
within a minute after entering, the watchers began
to gain confidence that the day would pass without
serious confusion.
In the districts near Columbia University some
voters took as long as nine minutes to vote,
their extreme deliberation indicating that they
were splitting their tickets with much care. In
the downtown districts political parties set up
sample voting places as near to the polls as the
law would allow. With sample ballots and the aid
of instructors, they taught the voters who had not
had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with
the new ballots earlier, how to vote in the normal
amount of time.
The “place of stay” voters were conspicuous by
their absence. Watchers for the Honest Ballot
Association, who were employed in squads of 100
members each, scoured the city with warrants for
the arrest of men who were suspected, but they
went empty-handed for the most part, although they
challenged a few suspects.
One young man became very indignant and wanted
to fight when challenged. He rushed into the
office of Supt. of Elections Voorhis, denouncing
everybody in general connected with the election,
and demanding that an escort be given to him to
see that he got his legal chance to vote. He was
asked where he voted last year and he said in New
Jersey, insisting, however, that he had lived here
a year since that time. Supt. Voorhis with a smile
informed the young man that the election last year
was on Nov. 4, so that if he swore in his vote this
year he “would be taking a pretty long chance.” He
changed his belligerent mood at once and left, with
thanks for Mr. Voorhis’s warning.
The only serious quarrel of the day occurred
at the opening of the polls in the Fourteenth
Election District of the Eighth Assembly District
at 180 Eldridge Street. A Democratic Captain
objected to Joseph Strulowitz as a member of the
Board of Inspectors. Strulowitz was supported
by Misha Hymowitz, Chairman of the board, and a
seventeen-minute argument ensued that sometimes
grew so warm that bystanders had to separate the
contenders.
While it lasted not a single vote could be cast,
and it was finally settled by the protests of more
than 100 voters, who urged that they had to be on
their way to work and couldn’t afford to stand
about just to see a row. Strulowitz finally was
permitted to take his place. Supt. Voorhis had to
send a Special Inspector to a Brooklyn election
district on receiving a report from a Deputy that
only three Inspectors instead of four, as provided
by law, were on duty.
Mr. Voorhis sent out 300 Deputies in a search
for election frauds. Upon receiving reports from
them as to the speed and quietness of the voting
throughout the city, Mr. Voorhis announced that it
was the quietest and most smoothly working Election
Day he had ever known.
The entrance of former football stars into the
business of watching the polls provided in some
districts an element of interest that almost
overshadowed the voting. L. Bigelow, Jr., Captain
of Yale’s football team in 1907, led the football
forces that had volunteered as watchers. He was
the centre of admiring throngs of boys when he
visited voting places in lower Fifth Avenue. With
him were Walter Logan and John Kilpatrick, ends on
the Yale team in 1910; “Pop” Foster, a Yale tackle
in 1908; Arthur Howe, an All-American quarter back,
selected from the Yale team of 1910; S. D. Baker of
Princeton, and “Big Ed” Farley of Harvard.
The football squad worked with 250 college men,
who were registered as members of the Volunteer
Watchers’ League and were under the direct control
of Assistant District Attorney Weller. Some of them
remained in automobiles at the Criminal Courts
Building ready to respond on an instant’s notice to
any call for help.
A bit of humor that enlivened the day in the upper
east side was contributed by the fact that four
Election Inspectors, a ballot clerk, a poll clerk,
and a policeman had to remain on duty all day at an
election district where the entire vote was cast
at 9 o’clock and there was no possible prospect of
getting any more votes through the long day’s wait.
The voteless watch occurred at the Forty-seventh
Election District of the Nineteenth Assembly
District at McGowan’s Pass Tavern in Central Park.
At 8:58 o’clock 50 per cent. of the district’s vote
was cast when Max Boehm cast his vote, and the
other 50 per cent. was cast when Max Boehm’s son
Bertrand emerged from the booth two minutes later.
They were the only two registered voters in the
district.
Women from the Women’s Political Union visited the
different polling places distributing suffrage
literature. The women were on duty, some of
them from 6 A. M., and they remained until the
close. Hundreds of women passed in and out of the
headquarters of the union at 25 East Forty-fifth
Street during the day to get literature and
directions for distribution. Mrs. Harriot Stanton
Blatch, the President, was at 623 Columbus Avenue,
her own district, with her daughter and little
granddaughter, the latter distributing literature
with her elders. Mrs. John Winters Brannan was at
the polls in the cigar shop, 103 West Forty-sixth
Street, and Miss Anna Constable, at 631 Park
Avenue. Polling places on the lower east side were
thoroughly covered by the women.
* * * * *
STATE ELECTION RESULTS
_New York World_
(Lead only)
By a change of more than 330,000 votes the electors
of New York State yesterday brought about these
results:
Swept the Democratic party from the control of the
New York State government by electing Charles S.
Whitman, the Republican candidate, Governor by a
plurality of 129,642 over Martin H. Glynn, Democrat.
Elected James W. Wadsworth jr., Republican, to
the seat in the Senate now held by Elihu Root,
over James W. Gerard, by a plurality of probably
55,000. Mr. Gerard, however, ran many thousands of
votes ahead of Mr. Glynn, not only in the City of
New York but in the country districts. He received
132,000 plurality in New York City; Mr. Glynn
57,000.
Turned over to the Republicans the control of
both branches of the Legislature, the next
Senate probably containing 32 Republicans and 19
Democrats, and the Assembly 106 Republicans and 44
Democrats.
Reduced the Democratic representation in the New
York delegation to the House of Representatives
from 31 to 23.
Gave a surprisingly large vote to William Sulzer,
the Prohibition-Progressive-American candidate for
Governor, not only in the country districts, but
in the Tammany stronghold of Manhattan. He carried
Steuben County by 300.
Showed a slump in the Progressive vote in every
part of the State, in some instances the number of
ballots cast for Mr. Davenport, the Progressive
candidate for Governor, being negligible. The total
Progressive vote was apparently about one-fifth of
the 393,183 given Mr. Straus two years ago.
* * * * *
STATE ELECTION RETURNS
_New York Times_
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 3.--Boies Penrose was re-elected
to the United States Senate today by a plurality
approaching 100,000.
Dr. Martin Brumbaugh, Republican candidate for
Governor, was elected by more than 125,000, and
the entire Republican State ticket was swept into
office, according to latest unofficial returns from
all parts of Pennsylvania.
This estimate is based upon the heavy Republican
vote polled in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and the
sweep of the Republican column in such Democratic
strongholds as Lehigh and Lycoming Counties.
The commanding lead of the Republicans indicates
that the Democratic delegation in the National
House of Representatives will be reduced from
twelve to seven, the Progressive delegation reduced
from seven to two, and the Republicans increased
from 17 to 27.
The Republicans will have a large majority in both
Houses of the State Legislature.
Until late tonight, Democratic State leaders
claimed the election of Vance McCormick, Democratic
candidate for Governor, by 135,000, despite the
all-apparent Republican victory. Progressive State
leaders admitted defeat shortly before midnight.
A. Nevin Detrick, State Chairman of the Progressive
Party, said tonight:
Returns indicate an overwhelming victory for
Penrose and Brumbaugh. I attribute this vote to a
revulsion against the Democratic Administration
and the belief on the part of the electorate that
the Republican Party is the instrument through
which there will be a revival of prosperity.
State issues seem to have been lost sight of by
the voters, and the entire result is apparently
based on national traditions. Returns from over
the State are too meagre to predict from as to
the district, Congressional, and Legislative
candidates, but there is little doubt that the
returns for the head of the ticket will prevail
throughout the list.
Gifford Pinchot, Progressive candidate for United
States Senator, said:
During the campaign just ended, I made the
statement that, win or lose, I would keep on
with the fight for the conservation of natural
resources for the use of the people, against
the monopolies and special interests, and in
particular against the kind of government that
Penrose represents. I reaffirm that statement now.
A. Mitchell Palmer, Democratic candidate for
United States Senator, ran second, with Pinchot,
Progressive, third. Palmer commanded a much larger
vote than had been conceded by the opposition
leaders.
The four Republican Congressmen at large, Scott,
Crago, Lafean, and Garland, were elected, and the
Republicans in all probability have carried into
office nineteen of the twenty-seven members of the
State Senate.
Latest returns from this city indicate that
Brumbaugh carried Philadelphia by a majority of
115,000 and Penrose by 100,000. Republican leaders
in Philadelphia asserted that this sweep meant that
the full Philadelphia delegation of six Congressmen
had been won by the Republicans.
The vote throughout Pennsylvania was exceptionally
heavy, and it is estimated that upward of 1,000,000
citizens went to the polls.
While no estimate of the complete Pinchot vote is
yet possible, it is believed that Col. Roosevelt’s
recent invasion of Pennsylvania aided little in
bringing support.
* * * * *
CITY ELECTION RETURNS
_St. Louis Globe-Democrat_
The St. Louis vote in Tuesday’s election was a
landslide for the Republicans.
The tabulated vote from all the 474 precincts
shows majorities ranging from 3000 to 25,000. The
St. Louis County vote also was carried by the
Republicans.
The final count shows that the Democrats elected
only one congressman, three members of the
Legislature, four justices of the peace and four
constables.
The home rule police and excise laws carried in St.
Louis by a majority of 8400. The vote in the state,
however, defeated the home rule laws.
The woman suffrage amendment received a hard blow
in St. Louis, the majority against it being 57,135.
The total Republican and Democratic vote in St.
Louis is estimated at 114,000. The vote of the
Progressive party almost disappeared. Arthur N.
Sager, the Progressive candidate for United States
senator, polled only 1600 votes.
The Socialist vote, which has not been tabulated,
is estimated at about 8000.
The Republican ticket was led by Howard Sidener,
candidate for re-election for prosecuting attorney.
His plurality was more than 25,000 over Walter A.
Kelly, the Democratic candidate. The plurality of
Louis Alt for license collector was over 25,000. He
defeated Dennis P. O’Brien, Democrat.
Karl Kimmel defeated Glendy B. Arnold, who led the
Democratic judicial ticket, by 3000 votes. George
H. Shields, Republican, had a plurality of 15,378
over John J. O’Brien, low man on the Democratic
judicial ticket.
By a majority of more than 14,000 over Edward
A. Feehan, Democrat, Charles W. Holtcamp was
re-elected probate judge. For each of the more
important offices, the Republican candidates’
pluralities exceeded 12,000.
By the election of L. C. Dyer in the Twelfth
District over John P. Collins, the Republicans
will gain one congressman from St. Louis. Henry A.
Hamilton, the Republican candidate in the Eleventh
District, was defeated by William L. Igoe by a
plurality of more than 1900. Collins lost to Dyer
by 2100.
Jacob E. Meeker, Republican candidate, was elected
in the Tenth District by a plurality over Francis
M. Curlee of more than 14,000 in the city. Meeker,
who will succeed Richard Bartholdt, had a large
majority in St. Louis County.
The Democrats elected their representatives in
the Legislature from the Third District only, the
successful candidates being J. J. Moroney, Charles
Rizzo and Martin Ward.
The Republicans elected three state senators and
thirteen members of the House of Representatives.
The election gives the Republicans of St. Louis
sixteen votes in the General Assembly of the state.
A. C. Wiget, Jr., defeated Maurice J. Cassidy, the
Democratic incumbent from the Thirteenth District,
in the State Senate.
Four justices of the peace were elected by the
Democrats--Edward Rice winning over Col. Dick
Johnson in the Third District, Andrew Gazzolo and
Rod Gorman being elected in the Fifth District, and
James P. Miles winning in the Sixth District.
George Grassmuck, Republican, defeated Andrew
Scully, member of the House of Delegates, for
justice of the peace in the Eighth District by a
large plurality. W. D. Moore, Republican, defeated
Robert J. Carroll, Democrat, in the Ninth District.
Lawrence P. Daley, Democratic city committeeman in
the Seventeenth Ward, was defeated for constable
in the Fourth District. The Democrats elected only
three constables. Daley led Turpin in the voting,
but fell behind Floyd E. Bush, Republican, who was
elected.
Republican majorities were piled up in the
First, Second, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth,
Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Twenty-first wards.
* * * * *
VOTE ON LIQUOR ISSUE
_Chicago Record-Herald_
Richmond, Va., Sept. 22.--[Special.]--Virginia will
join the other dry states Nov. 1, 1916, a majority
of the voters of the state having cast their
ballots to-day in favor of state-wide prohibition.
Anti-liquor forces carried the election by not less
than 25,000.
The cities of Alexandria, Danville, Norfolk and
Richmond were the only ones that gave a majority
against state-wide prohibition. Richmond voted
4,287 for prohibition and 6,011 against. The vote
in the twenty cities of the state was 21,726 for
and 19,699 against state-wide prohibition.
Scattering returns from all the counties show heavy
dry majorities.
The surprise of the day was the vote in Petersburg,
2,122 for state-wide prohibition and 1,123 against.
The wets had figured on carrying that city as well
as Newport News, which went dry by a vote of 1,024
to 761.
In Alexandria, the home of a large brewery, the
vote was 387 for and 1,132 against. Bristol, which
voted wet in the last local option election, voted
424 to 282 for state-wide prohibition.
Roanoke joined the dry column by a vote of 2,329
for and 1,226 against, and the vote in Lynchburg
was 1,713 for and 973 against.
The counties of Amelia, Page and Greene are the
only ones so far heard from that registered a wet
majority.
Ninety of the 100 counties voted dry in previous
local option contests.
The result of the election will cause the state to
lose in revenue about $700,000 annually. It will
cause all of the liquor manufacturing concerns
to remove from the state. Only manufacturers at
present engaged in the production of wine and its
by-products, cider and beer, of not over 3½ per
cent alcohol, can manufacture in this state after
Nov. 1, 1916, and the product must be shipped
outside the state and into territory where its sale
is legally authorized.
The day was a perfect one throughout the state. No
disorder was reported in any town or county.