The Arkansas advocate., 1835-11-27

tiGQt II idS CbIiSl OiH Ato Et All US 5dN- cess are involved all the interests for which man was created. Ii must prevail Dis- aster and temporary disappointment may be before us,-but the country, l believe, Is safe. II will stand the shocl,-it will wea- ther the storm. 0rif the country be not safe, out of its sinking energies will arise new forms of freedom and virtue. Fidelity and Hope,-these are the duties of tie Pat riot and the Christian
 PENNSYLVANIA friends of Mir Van Buren pretend to believe that if Wolf and Muhlenberg get more votes than Ritner then 1t will be fair 10 consider the electoral votes of that State as sale for Van Buren. They do not seem to know that 10000. masonick Whig votes have gone against Ritner. be- cause he Is such decided Antimason; they do not choose to remember that twelve newspapers have opposed Ritner which will also oppose Van Buren; they do not take into consideration the fact, that all the irn- mense government patronage of the State has been used against Ritner's election, and that this patronage IS now III his hands; nor do they give any allowances of gain which q victory always gives to party. Much is said because Ritner does not receive more votes than he did in 1892. This is easily explained. In 1882, many Jackson men voted for Ritner because he was opposed to the high toned system of internal improve ments by which Wolf was fast running the State into debt, anu Rnner would then have succeeded, but for the opposition to his elec- lion by Masonic Wings. As it was, how ever, he came within 3049 votes of an elec- lion, although the Jackson ticket for elec- tors the same year received 3,l63 major ity. This year, the Jackson men who were in favor of reform and retrenchment in the State Administration, had candidate of their own In the person of Mir hiuhfenberg, and they withheld their votes from Mir Rit- ner, while the whig masons, to the number of about 10000, went for Wolf.
 The votes given for members of the As- sembly would be better criterion by which to judge of the strength of parties, than are the votes for governor. Taxing the for mer as the test, we believe the Anti Van Bu- ren men would have carried the Legislature by decided majority
 If should be known, too, that such men as Hon. Samuel D. Ingham, and Senator McIkean. supported Mr. Wolf with all their tia ;siiss they were as warmly oS- posed to Mr Van Buren as they were in fa- yor of Gov. Wolf. So strongly was the Wolf party opposed to Mr. Van Buren as Il candidate for the Vice Presidency in 1882, that they chose rather to throw away the electoral vote of that State, than that Mir Van Buren should have it, although he was then as now the concus candidate. Ii is be- lieved that at this moment majority of the Wolf party are opposed 10 Mr. Van Buren, and will hereafter sooner act with Ritner's friends than with the Muhlenberg party.
 It will be recollected that in our calcula- ton we gave Ritner 89,o00; now in 1882 he received between 8S,000 and S9,000, while Wolf received about g., 2,0o0 and in that calculation we gave Wolf and hIuhen- berg l07. .000--or lo,000 more than Ritner, and unless their united vote exceeds Rit- ner's by 5000, we consider and shall here- after speak of Pennsylvania as opposed 10 Mir. Van Buren. We know so well that the friends of Mr. Van Buren will labor to bolster up the sinking spirits of his friends, by holding out that Pennsylvania will uti- mately go for Mir. Van Buren, that we have deemed fl proper in this article to give Il few ofthe many reasons that convlnee us he cannot receive any support from pennsyl- vania.