Arizona weekly citizen., 1884-11-15
HISTORIC CLOSE VOTES.

The Democr ts are having a great | iemboree over New York, ss1hough the | fact of 0 close vote were an extraordi- nary phenomenon and meant all sorts l of ri tous and extreme consequences, | which state of affairs has caused the Inter-Ocean to con,lude that close votes are nothing new 1T this country. MT. Hendricks, who is one of the ioudest shouters in the present instance, knows that well enonCh. Or, if he does not, he mel go no further than to the guber- material vote of Indiana in 1872 in order to refresh his memory. He was elected Governor of Indian that year by plu- rAlity of only 1,l4S votes, and yet the capitol was not overturned nor dia the heavens fall.
 Tn idea that the,e must be row be- canse state or national vote is close IS wholly BOurbonese, unworthy any party or get of men. The situation of affairs n New York has frequent parallels m the experience of the past, but there was an entirely pesceable and lawful rettl-ment of the interests at issue, and DO one ever thought of stirring up an iusurrection or clanoring fraud against the properly constituted arbitrators of
 he vote.
 As early as 1S2l, in the contest be- tween Adams and Jackson, there was a liffereuce of only l09in Maryland's vote on these two candidates, in favor of Ad ans, but 1t dld not ocsur to Old Hickory to inci'e bis nFority to sac, sack
 he ci,ies and tear upf6a soil of Mary laud. Four years lateE as St'te voted 0u thes5same. candIdsse Sand though there were nearly 256J0 additional votes divided between them, Adams still led by 1,lSl. In 1882, when Clay aud Jackson We're the rival candidates, Delaware gave Clay but 166 more votes than Jackson got, and in Maryland there was an actual difference of only four votes, Clay getting 19,l60 and Jackson l9,156.
 his is healthful precedent for NIT. Hendricks to look to remembering that tbis party prototype did not therefore demand the execution of the Maryland
 rIbunaL. The vote in New Jersey that
 ear stood, Clay 23,392, Jackson 23.S56, A trifling yet all-impcrtant difference of 464 votes. In 1885, when Harrison and Van Buren were the petitioners of suffrage, there was difference in Con- necticut of only 76S votes, in Louisiana
 f 20, in Mississippi POI, and in New Jersey or 5t5.
 In 1Si0. when Harrison ran against Van Buren, there was difference in the vote In Maine of only 4ll, Tn Mich ian of 1885, in Pennsylvania of 345, In total vote Of 2S7,O97, and In Virgi- ma ot 1892. Between Clay and Polk in 1914 there were differences in Louisiana If 701 vo.es, in New Jersey S23, and in
 enuessee, Folks home. Clay led him ny ITst 1l3 votes. In 1S4S, between Taylor and Cass, the difference between co.e for the two was, in Alabama, 9Sl, ID Delaware 523, ID Iowa 1009. m Mis- sissippI 6I5, and in Virginia l,462.
 The race of Pierce against Scott in 1852, WAS correspondIngly close in some states, the advantage being, in Delawar, ,nly 9 votes, in Louisiana 1892, m North Carolins 6S6, and in Tenn ssee l.SSO. In the memorable and remarka- bl- contest of lS6O. Lincoln only had G57 votes the better of Douglass in Cal
 fOrnia. Tn 1864 Mcclellan got only 6l2 more votes than Lincoln in Delaware. ID California in 1868 Grant received but 5O6 moro votes than Seymour, and in oregon but 164 majority. In 1872 again, .erwten Greeley and Grant, Delaware n Id her party votes within 909 of each her.