The New York herald., 1844-09-30
Number Of Tofcs giren Electors
Electors ~ al State pho did moi
each State elections roie al The


1t thus appears that these twelve States did not,
at the late State elections poll their full number OF
votes by more han one hundred and ninety thou
sand, notwithstanding an excess in the two States
OF Missouri and Kentucky OF nearly eighteen thou
sand votes
Yet US examine the circumstances which attend
ed these late lectlons little IN derall.
And, hrst, as respects Maine writer IN the
Kennebec Journal states the number .! voters IN
that State to be over 10000; our calculations
make them 1O9, 300 OF these only 9A6OO voted
at the late election. More than 15,O0o electors,
therefore, kept away from the polls. Owing TO the
more perfect organization, or the greater zeal o
the democratic and the third parties, they brought
forward nearly the whole OF their strength, and II
hardly be doubted that the greatep part Vi the
absentees were wings; SO that, as the democratic
majority over the whig candidate for Governor
was about l0600 II is at least within the range OF
possibility that sufficient number Of wings may
be found al the November election 10 give the
State 10 Mr.. Clay.
In Vermont our table shows that A, 100 voters did
not record their opinions al the late election. Con-
scous OF their strength It Is quite probable that the
greater part of these wings, who will be found
IN November increasing the whig majority Tor
Mr.. Clay in that State to III, 900 or IL, 900.
Connecticut did not vote her iull number by
5000. The democratic party being dominant pre-
y,ous to this election, and strainiDg every nerve 10
retain their asct ndancy, voted nearly their entire
strength, and the greater part OF the non voters
were wings. This state will vote tor Mr.. Clay IN
Move mber with considerably increased majority
Next in geographical order comes Maryland -
THIS State Is represented have polled only 40 276
votes at the congressional elections this spring bui
of tins lean vote, the wings had majority Of
| l 1913 votes. Our calculations make the number oi
electors "a, 900. AT the Presidential election n
1910 Maryland cast an aggregate OF 62,2s3 votes !;
we therefore do not think we err In stating that
MARYLAND did rot use her full strength al the last
election by more than $4,000 votes. Judging OF
our nelgh3or State as we do OF others, from
knowledge that the same causes were in operation
we OF opinion that decided majority Of the
absent voters must have been wings; and we trust
| that the electoral election, calling for all the
strength OF the State, will justify our anticipaous
i by showing considerably Increased majority for
l the whg candidates
| aggregate vote Of 5,7lS. The number OF voters
ls about $1,000. More than 1900 votes wee
therefore wIthh-d at these elections. Virginia
gave ST. 223 votes in 1910, when the State went by
400 votes against the Wings. The late elections
/ show that she s now more favorably disposed TO.
wards them, since, at those elections, they had
| majority OF Sol. We have no reason 10 suppose
that the electors who kept from the polls were less
| friendly TO the Wings than those who attended
/ them II our supposltIon be correct, full vote OF
the State Will give maJonty OF 1000 votes to that
party al the Presidential election But, from the
| recent concuriing accounts we have right to
i tIcpate much more favorable result than this.
North Carolina did not, al the late gubernatoria
election, show her entire vote by 1914 and, al
/ though the Wing ascendency triumphaDy
maintained, yet ihe personal popularity of the De-
mocratlc candidate, Kept many Wings from the
soils, and caused some who did attend To vote for
| him Nearly 1000 votes less were given al this
election than AT the election in 1910 Without
| being too sangune, we may venture TO anticipate
| that IN November the Wing majority will reach
he number oil 5000 votes.
| Alabama is stated to have given 50 900 votes at
the late elections. Our table estimates her electors
al 73, 700; her aggregate vote III DSi0 62 ,l62
When II is seen that more than Il 900 voters did
not attend at the last election and that in many
counties the Wings made no opposition il il very
/ IN "A RE nf he Iafp NM
bring about very different result In November.
In Louisiana more than 5000 electors did not
vote at the elections in July. The details Of the
proceedings given at that time are strongly IN
/ proof that the majority OF the non-recorded votes
| were those OF wings. The well-tounded expecta-
| tion is, that this patriotic state will record ma
jorty for Mr.. Clay Of 1000 or 5000 votes in No
vember.
| Missouri presents The singular aspect Of having
rolled more by 10000 votes than the mode Of cal
culation applied 70 all the other States has accorded
| to her. We make no comment upon the zeal
which was thus displayed IN this rapidly growing
State, but most earnestly wish that SO much OF thls
zeal az would cause every eector IN every State 10
vote once may be found IN operation throughout
/ the Union al the approaching contest.
Illinois did not put forth her entire strength by
lS, 700 votes, and as the wings made no organized
opposition IN great part OF the state, IS reason
| able to suppose that by lar the greater part Of
those who did not vote Of that party II these
abse ntees would come 10 the polls IN November
| the democratic majority might be very materially
| reduced-possIbly annihilated.
| Indiana gave aggregate vote OF 1896 m
| 1910 at the late elections che gave only % S9
although table assigns to her l37 600 electors
i AS vmany as II Isl, therefore, did not attend
| the election in August last. la many counties al
that election the wings made opposition, and IN
others they did not zealously bestlr themselves. -
| n two-thirds OF the non-voteIs wings, we
may confidently expect wing majority IN No.
| vember treading close upon that oi l369S given
/ tor Harrison IN 1910.
| In kentucky are again met with the curious
circumstance Of a larger vote being gwen than the
| result OF fair calculation would Justify; IN this
Gaze the excess is 500. Another singular fact H.
that the aggregate vote gwen by both parties for
| Governor cxceeds that gwen by them tor Licute
| nant Governor by $50 Some OF the Kentucky
papers have alluded to these discrepancies, and
have hintcd al the possibility Of iou play IN The
1 matter, BY the introduction OF Illegal vot 4 who
gave their vote Tor the Governor only we give no
opinion upon the matter, but our Kentucky iriends
| should be on their guard. We have no doubt III 1,
the State be fully and fairly polIed, as large .
majority al least as was given TO the amented iiar.
rison IN 1910, will be accorded to the tavorlte son
/ of keutuckv ISil