New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-09-16
THE DEv0cP47IC S1R0NGHOIDs

Tie natural increase in the population of
New-York County Will give 1t tins year a total
vote of about 10000, as against III 900 in
1876. We hear of no claim that the aggregate
will be higher. and the figures would not justify
it if IN de. This will be an increase of about
20, 900 over he vote of 1876. The proportion
of this increase would be in round numbers
L., OOO or wo-thrds, to the Democrats, and
1000, or one-thIrd, to the Republicans. These
figures would show a total v0Je for Hancock
comparing with tie vote of Tildcn and
Hayes Of 12j,000 as against $1,000 for Car
field, q majority III this county of 10000 for
the Democrats.
In Kings County the proportion of natural
increase is not quite so large rs in this county
but a calculation on the same basis employed
above would give total vote there of 100000
which, divided between the two parties, would
show $4,000 Democratic and 1000 Rcpubli
can, or Democratic majority of 22,OO0. 1t
will thus be seen that we shall have to over
come an apparent majority in the Democratic
strongholds of 50 900.
We say an apparent majority, for the calcus
ton is based upon the suppostion that Genera
Hancock is as strong candidate as Mr.. Illden
was, and that Garfield IS no stronger than Mr.
HAYES was in 1876. 1t Is Clearly evident al
ready that the first of these propositions is in
correct, not only as regards the whole State, but
especlally as regards NewYOrk and Kings
Counties. All must see that General Hancock
has not created the enthusiasm among the
masses that was anticipated at the time of his
hurried nomination. The absurdity of the posi-
ton in winch he is placed-a zero of the war for
IL
States sold er leading the party which to the
last moment declared his work failure, and
himself untitled by bis very profession of soldier
for civil leadership-is too broad not to excite
some rdcue. The Inconsistency OF his opinions
and the patty declarations for years past
dampens the ardoI of consistent Democrats who
honestly believed In the principles they an
nounced. His silence upon some of the most
vital questions of the day leads those of his
party largely and deeply interested in the
material welfare Of the country to hesitate. He
has not organized anything approaching the
close and active canvass which Mr.. Tilden con-
Quoted in this and the neighboring city. But
most of all, he is weak by comparison with Mr.
Iilden upon the question of finance, and in this
county and Kings this is a bad point to be weak
in Mr. Tilden had the hard times " cry behind
him then General Hancock has that of good
"times" against him. In 1876, Mr.. Tilden
stood foremost of all his party in the estimation
of the business men Of the county as "a sound
financier; General Hancock is not thought of
in connection with this point General Garfield,
on the other hand, stands prominently before
the country. by reason of his declarations on
finance long before he was thought of as a can
didate for the Presidency, as the leading advo-
cate of the existing financial policy, in which no
business mau wants a change.
There are many minor reasons why General
Hancock will not prove so strong as Mr.. Tilden
was in The Democratic stronshods. The ndiiier-
ence of Mr.. Tilden here and of " Bos. " Nc
Laughlin in Brooklyn will cost Hancock many
votes some will be lost through the dissensions
of Ii aders IN both counties the general distrust
of the rebel Brlgadiers whom Hancock is now
leading will have its effect wiih thoughtful