Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1876-12-12
THE VOTE FOR sUPREMEJUDGEs.

rl I
The Of6cial vote for Judges of the Supreme
Court of Appeals was Raymond 81, 653.
johnson 50 40. Green 56.517. Flick a.
s5s. Berkshire 1889, Brown As, 0s4 !; the
Democratic candidates for Judges in Wayne
county lost 2ss votes each, aud the Repnb-
l1can candidates for Judges 1872 votes each,
that number Of votes not being counted be-
cause the ballots failed to designate whether
tho votes were cast for Judges for the full
term or for the vacancy. "7i;ss15z 'sis9cr
Correcting this error the real vote was:
Raymond 1881, johnson 5T.747, Green
56,S15, Flick Al 1855, Berkshire 41,971,
Brown 1926. The real Democratic and
Republican vote is probably correctly repre-
ssn.ed by the votes of Judges Green on the
one side, and Berkshire and Flick on the
other. JOhpson's vote exceeded Green's by
something less than one thousand votes, but
johnson and Raymond were not only the can.
didatesi of the Democratic party, but were also
the candidates of the Greenhack or Peter
Cooper party, who likewise ran . regular State
ticket
This ticket got SO small vote in the State
generally, that the newspapers did. not report
their vote except in few counties this vote
in the two counties of Wood and Kanawha
was between 400 and $50, and probably their
vote amounted to as many more in the other
counties in the State.
Browns vote exceeded Berkshire's and
Flick's some 1900, but he two was a candi-
date of the Peter Cooper or Greenback party,
and probably received from that party near
one thousand votes, and he was also the reg
ular candidate of the Changers in his own
county, and as such received about four hum
dred votes more in that county than either
Berkshire or Flick.
A secretary of Grange of Jackson county
notified the GraDgers in other counties that
the Graugers of jackson, as such, would vote
for Brown as Judge and asked their co, opera,
tion, but from the returns We infer that the
Changers everywhere else declined to Coop
CRATE a large number of Democratic tickets
were published with Browns name on them,
but that this had been done was discovered
before the election day, and exposed by cir
cuiar letters sent to good many counties, and
while it is probable this fraud got fewaad>
ditiOnal votes for Brown yet it seems to have
had but little effect, and to have been gem
orally discovered before the election. The
real Democratic majority, as it will be shown
when the returns for the State ticket gener>
ally are announced next January; will be
about II, 500. The majority in the Pres
idential election is somewhat less. We do
not think We can be in error in assuming that
the vote cast for Judge Green fairly repre>
sents the Democratic vote cast at the election
We have not, it is true, had an opportunity
of comparing it in many of ihe counties in
the State, with the vote of any of the officers
on the Democratic State ticket except that of
Governor, the newspapers frequently giving
only the Governors vote but compared with
the Governors vote, the vote for Judge Green
in most counties exceeds that for Mathews,
and in some by a considerable number of votes,
while Mathews vote does not exceed his by
any considerable number in any county We
have observed. except in the county of Jack
SOD, where the opponent of Judge Green was
voted for by the Changers as their candidate
Tho vote for Judge Green exceeds the vote
Tilden at the Presidential election, $50 votes,
while the vote for Flick and Berkshire falls
short of the vote for Hayes 71S and 727 votes
respectively, and the vote for Brown falls
short of the combined vote for Hayes aud
Cooper SIS votes. Judge Haymond's vote
exceeds the combined vote of Tildeu aud
Cooper 123 votes, while Judge JOhnsoD's vote
falls short of the combined vote of Tllden
and Cooper 81 votes.