The Elk County advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Pa.) 1868-1883, 1880-10-28
Figures that do not Lie.


In the election of 1874 the vote of
Elk county for Lieutenant Governor
was for Latta, Dem. 1927; Olmstead,
Rep. 474 or total vote OF 1891. In
the same year the regular candidates
for Sheriff and the votes which they
received We're as follows: p. w. Hays,
Dem. 322; III. II. Wensel, Rep. 259 or
a total vote of $50. The reason for
this falling Off is not denied by any
body; the ring came forward and
openly run and elected Mr.. Scull as an
independent Democrat. The Demo.
cratic vote of st. Marys and Benzin-
ger being as follows st. Marys, Hays
q; Scull $50. Benzinger, Hays I;
| Sculi 273. In Jay township Mr.. ; jull
received 80 votes and in all the bal
unce of the county he got but % votes.
There never was any reason for max
ing bitter fight for his election; all
| his interests, social, and financial were
in Philadelphia, and he was only
temporarily a resident of this county
! The only redeeming feature of his
election was the fact that his admins
tration of the affairs of his Office was
as unsatisfactory to his friends as it
was to his opponents. But the run
ming of Scull by the Ring had II
marked influence on the vote for AS
sembly. Mr.. WINNER was the regu
| l., Ia.
strict party vote he should have re-
ceived a majority of6G3 votes. AS it was
his majority was cut down to 224 and it
was only through the extraordinary
eXertions Of himselfand II few friends
that he was saved from defeat. This
result was not caused by any unpopu-
larity because Mr.. WINNER was at
that time and is to day one of the
strongest men the Democrats could
nominate. His narrow escape from
defeat can be wholly attributed to the
ring.
In 1877 the regular nominees fol
Sheriff were John r. Kline, Dem,
and ID. G. Oyster, Rep. and the total
vote for Sheriff was 1920. On Il strict
party vote Mr.. Kline should have
been elected by majority of 676 votes
as it was he received 522 votes whilC
Mr.. Oyster got $50 and the Office. Al
this election Z. j. Burke, George
pendent candidates, the total vote fol
Burke being 354. 1t is denied tina
the Ring supported Burke, and thi:
denial is true so far as the individual
vote of the Ridgway branch of th'
Ring is concerned, he cast his vote fol
Mi Kline, but the result of the elec
tiOn does not show that he worked TO
him unless it be conceded that his ad
vocacy of candidate has a tendenc,
to drive votes away, But, grantin:
their pretentions in regard to Ridg
way, what was the course of the St
Marys wing? If they also supported
Kline it is q curious coincidence tina
wherever their influence was creates
) the vote for Kline fell Off the most
In 81. Marys and Benzinger togethe
Kline received Ia votes when h
should have received over 500. An,
it has been asserted that they induce
Everitt To run for the express purpos
of defeating both the regular cand
dates and electing Burke. Not onl
did the ring thus oppose the electio
; of Kline but two reliable witnesses sa
they saw j. l.. Brown the preser
Ring candidate throw the ticket 0
: the floor saying, "there is the Demo
! cratic ticket if anyone wants to vot
it, shall vote for Oyster"
With this record staring them j
: the face it is almost impossible to b,
{ lieve they could have the braze
= effrontery to ask anybody to sustai
/ the ticket which they succeeded i
J. putting in the field by various trick
J. and devices best known to themselve
. . but pretty well known to others, an
ii which they now call the regular tick'
Il and which they fiaunt in our fac,
It with the battle cry of "Who I'll
: devil cares for the wishes of ii
e people ?" For great many years Il
e Ring has disregarded the wishes
n the people; they have run" II
: county long enough in their ow
/ private interest," it is high time thi
y at least part of their extravagant II
y pirations should be subdued, and it
y confidently believed that sufficiel
Is number of votes will be found GU
II side of their vest pockets to roll up
n rousing vote for Farley and Taylor.
v Nv