The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1867-12-18
The Intelligencer on the Late Eiec-
ton,

| tiOn.
The IRtslligencer takes exception tC
our comments upon the results of the
October election. 1t thinks we CAM
understand the meaningisof figures, OIL
else are "intent upon misleading the
public" If either of these conclusions
is correct, "the careful reader" will
reach it unaided.
We repeat our assertion that "the
comparative Democratic gain in twelve
months has been orer four thousand rotes
in a poll of less than thirty thousand"
A year ago the Radical majority ap,
proximated to seven thousand. 1t now
reIches twenty-five hundred aud fifty
four. This year an increased Demo
cratic vote of twenty-three hundred
would have given us the State.
Last year it would have re-
quired an increase of seven thou
sand to effect the same result. 1t
does not need a remarkable arithmeti-
clan to ounderstandt that in October, 1867
the Democrats were relatively stronger
by over four thousand votes than they
were in October 1866.
Another view of the case, which seems
to have escaped the attention of the In
telligencer, is this: In but two counties,
Lewis and Logan, do the late returns
show an increased Radical vote over last
year. In the case of Lewis county, the
rejection of several township returns for
two successive years, renders an accurate
estimate impossible, while the Radical
gain in Logan is 60 Insignificant as to
form but trifling exception % the gen.
eral rule Of actual Radical losses. On
the other hand, the returns show actual
Democratic gains, in Brooke, Hancock,
Kanawha, Marshall, Mason, Mercer, Mo-
nongalia, Peasants, Preston, Putnam,
Taylor and others. Wherever there was
anything of canvass an increased
Democratic vote is noticeable, but con-
test or no contest, actual Radical losses
appear to he the general rule.
There are two reasons for the decrease
in the aggregate Democratic vote. One
is the absence of any spirited canvass
in such counties as Ohio and Wetzel.
In these two counties alone the Demo-
cratic strength was not pslled by near
ly thousand votes. The Radicals
abandoned the field, and the certainty
of the result assured .he Democrats
that their own presence at the polls was
unnace 'Sary.
With the other fact tending to show
show it came that $40 Democrats did
not 90 to the polls on the oath of Octo-
Der last" our cotemporary is probably
acquainted. The infamous appliances
of his party for preventing Democrats
from yoting will readily occur to him.
The inspired talents" that could orig
mate or defend the West Virginia sys-
tenn of Registration need no instruc-
tion in the details or results of the vii
laiay of partisan disfranchisement. If
the editor of the IRteliigencer will look
over the last years report of his party's
agents and Registrars, who were en-
ployed to guarantee Radical majorities
in such counties as Barbour, Tack
er, Randolph, Hardy, Hampshire,
Gilmer, Calhoun, Lewis, and
others of known Democratic tendencies,
he can soon account for very many of
the absentees. He will find that the
swindling which he is abetting robbed
the Democratic party offour or five hun
dred votes in Barbour county, several
hundred in Hardy and Hampshire, and
achieved somewhat similar results in
the other counties that we have referred
to, as we'll as in many which we have
not named.
The conclusion, then, is that with all
the aid of rascally Registrars, and
rigid party discipline, and secret leagues
and every other Radical reliance, the
Intelligencer's party in Western Virginia
is weaker by seven thousand than ever
before, and that the Democratic party,
in spite of Registration frauds and
swindles, is relatively stronger by over
four thousand votes than it was twelve
months ago.