Sun River sun. [volume] (Sun River, Mont.) 1884-1885, 1884-11-27

little too rich for my blood"
And so the Hon. Mr.. White return.
ed to Delaware yesterday.
HISTORIC CLOSE VOTES.
Extremely Marrow Majorities in Some
Previous Contests.
The Democrats are having n great
jamboree over New York, as though
the fact of n close vote wore an extra
ordinary phenomenon and meant all
sorts of riotous and extreme conse-
quences. Close votes are nothing
new in this country. Mr.. Hendricks,
who is one of tho loudest shouters in
the present instance, knows that well
enough. Or, if he does not, he need
go no further than to the gubernator.
ial vote of Indiana in 1872 in order to
refresh his memory. He was elected
Governor Of Indiana that year by Il
plurality of of only LAS votes, and
yet tho capital was not overturned nor
did the heavens fall.
The idea that there must be q row
because state or National vote il
close is wholly Bourbonese, unworthy
any party or set of men. Tho situa-
tion Of affairs in New York has fre-
quent parallels in the experience OF
tie past, but there was an entirely
peaceable and lawful settlement OF
the interests at ISSUE and no ono ever
thought of stirring up an insurrection
or clamoring fraud against the prop.
erly constituted arbitrators OF the
vote.
As early ns 1924, in ~" oo".net hn
tween Adams and Jackson, there was
a difference of only 100 in Maryland's
vote on these two candidates, in favor
of Adams, but it did not occur to Old
Hickory to incite bis minority to sack
the cities and tear up tho soil OF
Maryland. -Four years later that
State voted on the same candidates,
and though there were nearly 25,00O
additional votes divided between
them, Adams still led by 1854. In
1882, when Clay and jackson were
tho rival candidates, Delaware gave
Clay but 1GG moro votes than Jackson
got, and in Maryland there was an
actual difference of only four votes,
Clay getting 10, lG0'and Jackson 10,
16O.
This is healthful precedent for
Mr. Hendricks to look to, remember
ing that his party prototype did not
therefore demand the execution OF tho
Maryland tribunal. The vote in New
Jersey that year stood, Clay 1892,
Jackson, 23,S5G, trifling yet all-iin-
portant difference OF 4G4 votes. In
1886 when Harrison and Van Buren,
were tho petitioners Of suffrage. there
was Il difference in Connecticut OF
only 7GS votes, in Louisiana OF 270, in
Mississippi of POI, and in New Jersey
of 545.
In 1910, when Harrison ran against
Van Buren,, there was q difference in
tho vote of Maine of only AL, in Mich
igan Of 1885, in Pennsylvania Of l ,345
in total vote of 2S7,O97, and in Vir-
ginia Of 1892. Between Clay and
Polk, in 1874 there were differences
in Louisiana of 70l votes, in New
Jersey of s23, and in Tennessee,
Folks home, Clay led him by Just ll3
votes. In 184S, between Taylor and
Cass, The difference between votes for
the two was, in Alabama 98l, in Della
ware 523, in Iowa 1,009, in Mississippi
Gl5, and in Virginia l,4G2.
The race of Pierce against Scott in
1852 WAS correspondingly close in
some States, the advantage being, in
Delaware only rs votes, in Louisiana
1892, in North Carolina CSC. and in
Tennessee 1880. In tho memorable
and remarkable contest of 1860 Lin
coin only had G57 votes the better of
Douglas in California, In 1864 Nc
Clellan got only Gl2 votes moro than
in Delaware. In California
in 1868 Grant received but 50G more
votes than Seymour, and in Oregon
but l64 majority. In 1872 again, be-
tween Greeley and Grant, Delaware
held her party votes within 600 of
each other. Chicago Inter Ocean.
A pathetic incident at a New York
voting place was the death of Daniel
= ~