The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1870-10-20
pailp ARGUS.
OFFICIAL CITY g. COUNTY PAPER
RADICAL LOSSES EVERYWHERE.

Elections have already been held il
California, Kentucky, Maine, North
Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Ohio, Pennsyl-
vanis, Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska. Let
the impressive fact come first, that in ere,y
one Of these elections, there has been a
marked Radical loss. This depreciation is
too uniform 10 be explained away on any
possible hypothesis of accidental influences
Like the inductive generaliza,ions OF
modern science, an unerring law of deterior
alton declares itself against the prolonged
and disastrous rule of the revolutionary
party that has brought the country to a
frighstul brink from which it is saving
itself by the mere energy of healthy public
thought, awakened by the vague but fearful
signs of general dissolution of societ
through the corrupting operation of the
most abominsble misrule that deforms the
modern history of the Anglo Saxon race.
1t must be some days hence before we
ly prevalent Radical losses. In Maine, the
democratic gain was 1904. Ia North
Carolina, the change was so overwhelming
as to render figures insignificant In Ohio,
the loss may be plausibly charged to the
democrats, as Hayes, majority for Governor
last fall was only 1911, while the presen,
state ticket is elected BY probably $4,000.
But it is estimated that 5000 negroes
(dlsalioving the extensive frauds charged
on the radicals in colonizing Kentucky
negroes) voted IN Ohio for the frst time,
which at a majority of $4,000 on the state
ticket, would make radical loss out of the
voters last tall, of 1922, but even at that,
the comparison is unfair. Mr.. Pendleson
had been successfully opposed in the nomi
mating convention of the democrats on
marked and ineffAcesbls grounds, in favo.
of General Rosecrans for Governor, yet was
nominated, under the utmost dissd vantages,
by the State Committees, after Rosecrans
had Unexpectedly declined. The mos.
sagacious men of Ohio declare that q
regular democratic nominee would have
been elected by large majority. But the
true rule of comparison, after all, is the
vote for the presidency. Ohio gave Grant a
msjority of 40,6l7. State ticket las,
week, say $4,000. Loss, 26,6l7. Sub.rac.
from the former and add to the latter the
new negro vote, 5000, and the radical loss
would exceed $4,000.
There is no pretence against the heavy
loss in Indsna-that state gave Grant a
majority of 9,572. Assuming her democratic
majority now as 1000, we have more than
1850 radical loss. But take ou, Of the
radical vote the new negro element, es,i
mated at 1905, and the whole radical loss
out of their former rank and file would be
l4.477.
In Pennsylvania, the new negro vote is
estimated at 9,475. We cannot venture to
estimate the popular democratic majority at
the recent election. But counting the state
tie, the radical bona fde loss would be
equal to the accession of colored votes, to-
gether with Gov. Geary's majority last fall
-4,506. These two figures added make
l4,07l as the radical loss. But ON the
proper basis of the national election, s.
which Grant received q majority of 2s,99s,
the loss would be (supposing neither party
claim popular majority now, and subtract
ing the negro vote) 1928.
In Iowa, the negro vote is inconsiderable
but the loss, crediting the radicals with
30, 600 now, would be, say, 10000 since last
fall, and over 16, 900 since Grants majority
of 46 ,359.
In Nebraska, without reference to colored
votes the radicals have lost since their las,
election of Governor 1,l79, and out of
Grants majority, which was in the same
year, 3.l56, in q total vote of less than six
teen thousand, which is losing more than a
third of their whole party in the state.
In California, as in Oregon, the great
democratic gains are fresh in the public
recollection.