Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-11-03
an Analysis 0r.THE vorEOF THE
FIRST DISTRICT.

4
nublican and Democratic vote is i6te,
falling away of the DemocratRe 9ubli-
and not in the increase OF
can vote. LcorE did not re-
1t shows tina. Republican les s, as
HIN HUTCHINSON did in y pluro,ty and
Gory was elected by . ,t b, IS94 plu-
HUTCHINSON was
, rality. total &C III io0' wa
~ sss am Mr.. 4aaxton county hav-
10 va, 10, $50. this district, we take
S ,n, IN @n addedxote of 1891
:, ne preside8agh Mr. GoFF received
&SossL6tes in the district than Mr..
ISSS m9ksoN did in 1880, we say he re-
HuP less number of Republican
cfs, for the very evident reason that
IA 1880 there were 1906 Greenback
votes, and in 1882 there were but COS
Greenbaek votes cast in the district.
There is no dispute about the fact that
these Greenbaek votes were cast for
GOFF, and if we subtract the difference
between the Greenback vote Of 1880
and 1852, from GoFF's vote, it shows
that he received GIG less than HUTBH-
INsON did in 1880.
Now, there were 1887 less votes cast
for Mr.. COOP than for Mr.. WILSON, in
1880.
Did Mr.. GOFF get these Democratic
votes?
If he did, his total vote should have
been Is, 59l, whereas it was only l4,254.
And if the missing Democratic votes
were added to the vote Mr.. GOOD actu-
ally received, it would make just about
the vote of WILSON in 1880, and give
him majority over GOFE of 400 votes
in the District. If then the Greenback
vote GoFF is supposed to have received
be substracted from his vote, GOODS
majority w6qldhave been 1910.
In Other we4ds the total vote of the
First district was ], 1858 votes less in 1882
than 1880. There were l POI Greenback
votes missing in 1882, and if these be
added to the vote HUTCHINSON received
in 1880 it will just about make the vote
GoFF received in 1882. There were p
337 Democratic votes missing in 1857,
and this is within SSi votes ofthe entire
decrease in the total vote of the district,
and if they were added to the vote
GoOD received in 1882 they would just
about make the vote WILSON received
in 1880.
There would seem to be no more con-
elusive explanation of the disposition OF
the votes of the different parties than
the above shows.
Now, a similar result will be found If
the votes of the several counties are sub
jected to similar analysis.
Let us take the vote of Harrison
county: 1t gave HUTCHINSON 1916
votes in 1880. 1t gave GoFF !, 1922 votes
in 1882. That is it gave Corr 3O6 more
votes than HUTCHINSON.
But now observe: When HUTCHIN-
SON ran, the Greenbackers pOlled 7T9
votes in Harrison; when GOFF ran
they pOlled only 4l0 votes. Subtract
the difference fletween the Greenback
vote of 1880 and 1882, and we have S69
votes, or just about the difference be-
tween HUTCHINsON's and GOFF'S vote
in that county.
So also Harrison gave WILSON 4T3
more votes than GOOD. That is just
about the number of decrease in the
total vote of the county as between 1880
and 1882. Or in other words the total
vote of Harrison county in 1880 was
4,O72, and in 1882 it was 1856, de-
crease of $50, and Mr.. GOODS loss in
that county was AIS, or within 63 of the
loss on the total vote of the county.
Take Ohio county for. another exam
pie: Mr.. GOFE received 1873 more votes
than Mr.. HUTCHINSON. But when MIR.
HUTCHINSON ran, Ohio county cast 1873
Greenback votes, and when Mr.. GOFF
ran it cast "narry a Greenback vote"
If it had Mr.. GoFF's vote would have
been only 60 more than HUTCHINSON
received. Who doubts that those l3S
Greenback votes went to Mr.. GOFF?
But Ohio county cast 1884 votes in
1850 and !, $50 votes in 1882, or loss of
l24 in the aggregate vote. Mr.. GoFF's
majority over Mr.. GOOD in the county
was i2S votes, or votes more than the
decrease in the aggregate vote. 1t gave
GOOD 164 votes less than WILSON, so
that GOOD's loss is SO more than GOFF's
majority. Or in other words if the
missing Democratic votes in Ohio
county are added to GoOD's actual vote
he would have SO majority over the
combined Republican and Gresnback
vote.
We might pursue this analysis on
through every county in the district,
with the same result, but this is suffi-
cient to render any further explanation
superfiuous. Three conclusions are in
| evitable:
l. That the Republican vote for GoFF
was less than HUTCHINSON received.
>. That where GOFF's vote is in eX-
cess of HUTCHINsoN's it was supple
mented by the Greenback vote.
8. That the decrease in the aggregate
vote of the district corresponds with the
decrease in the Democratic vote and
proves conclusively that the decrease
in the aggregate vote, as well as the
Democratic defeat, are due solely to
the failure of the Democrats te vote.
|
UNDER the date of October30, United
States Fish Commissioner BAIRD