The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1884-11-13
Historic Close Votes.

Chicago Inter Ocean: The Democrats
are having great jamboree over New
York, as though the fact of close vote
were an extraordinary phenomenon and
meant all sorts of riotous and extreme
consequences. Close votes are nothing
new in this country. Mr.. Hendricks, who
is one OF the loudest shouters in the pres
eht instance, knows well enough. Or, if
ne does not, he need not go no further
| than to the Gubernatorial vote of Indiana
| in 1872 in order to refresh his memory.
He was elcted Governor of Indiana that
| year by plurality of only las votes.
| and yet the Capitol was not overturned
| nor did the heavens fall.
The idea that there must be row be-
cause State or National vote is close is
wholly BourboneSe, unworthy any party
| or set of men. The situation of affairs in
New York has frequent parallels in the
experience of the past, but there was an
entirely peaceable and lawful settlement
OF the interests at issue, and no one ever
thought OF stirring up an instruction or
clamorlng fraud against the properly
constituted arbitrators of the vote.
As early as 1924, in the contest of Adams
and jackson, there was difference of
only 100 in Maryland's vote on these these
two candidates, in favor Of Adams but it
did not occur to Old Hickory to incite his
minority to sack the cities and tear up the
soil of Maryland. Four years later that
State voted on these same candidates. and
though there were nearly $4,000 additional
votes divided between them, Adams still
led by ,l8l. In 1882, when Clay and
Jackson were the rival candidates, Della
ware gave Clay but l66 more votes than
Jackson got, and in Maryland there was
an actual difference of only four votes,
t. ~
This is a healthful precedent for Mr..
Hendricks to look to. remembering that
his party prototype did not therefor de-
mand the execution Of the Maryland tri-
bunal. The vote in New Jersey that year
stood, Clay 1882, Jackson 23,S56, a tri-
fling yet all-important difference of AGA
votes. In 1886. when Harrison and Van
Buren, were the petitioners of suffrage.
there was a difference in Connecticut of
only 76S votes, in Louisiana of 27O, in Mis-
slssippi OF POI, and in New jersey of
545.
In lS40, when Harrison ran against Van
Buren,, there was a difference in the vote
in Maine of only All, in Michigan of 1856.
in pennsylvania of 1,345. in a total vote of
PSI ,O97, and in Virginia Of 1882. Be-
tween Clay and Polk in 1874 there were
differences ia Louisiana of 70l votes, in
New Jersey 1913, and in Tennessee, Polk 3
home, Clay led him by just 113 votes. In
184S, between Taylor and Cass, the diff
ference between votes for the two was, in
Alabama 9sl, in Delaware 523, in Iowa
l,oO9, in Mississippi 6l5, and in Virginia
1,462.
The race Of Pierce against Scott in 1852
was correspondingly close in some States.
the advantage being, in Delaware only %
votes. in Louisiana 1892, in North Caro-
lima 696. and in Tennessee 1880. In the
memorable and remarkable contest of 1860
Lincoln only had 657 votes the better of
Douglas in California. In 1864 Mcclellan
got only 612 more votes than Lincoln in
Delaware. In California in 1853 Grant
received but 5O6 more votes than Sey-
mour. and in Oregon but 1874 majority.
In 1872 again. between Greeley and Grant,
Delaware held her party votes within 900
of each other.
In the states where there was a real con-
test for electoral votes. Blaine polIed three
hundred and fifty Thousand more votes
than Cleveland. In the South there was
really no contest, as the 153 electoral
vOtoo fhoro xroro coltoJ .1ovp,, o,.1 I'll