New-York tribune., 1884-11-29
THE RESULTS.

Those who doubt the wisdom of Mr. Blaine's
nomination. or the effectiveness Of his leader
ship, may protitabiy stud, the election returns
We have now whnt purport TO be full returns
from all the States except Texas, with nearly
the whole vote of that State and an estimate for
the remainder From three of the other States
the returns are not official. but they pnrport to
be complete, and probably do not vary widely
from the official returns yet to come These
returns show that Mr. Blaine received about
800 900 more votes than were cast for Presi-
dent Garfield that Cleveland received If the
returns for Texas are correct, only about
397 900 more than weIc cast for General
Hancock, and that about 1000 more votes
were cast for Mr. Blaine in the whole county
than for Mr. Cleveland. Complete returns
particnaily from Texas may alter the rcsnlt n
little, hut tho practical outcome is substantially
this: Mr. Blaine gained over the Garfield vote
about as much ns Mr. Cleveland gained over
The Hancock vote, and, If either has any
n,urality whatever it is apparently smaller
| than the insignificant plurality Of 7,0lS which
| P,psiden, Garfield obtained-exclusive of wrongs
| n, the Sunih, which meanwhile robbed both
Blaine and Garfield of half million VOTES IN Il
few Of The Southern States.
In making This statement the fusion vote has
been separated only In Michigan, where the
| two parties fusing cnst -, ,S35 votes FOR one
| Cleveland eeci0r and il,3eO vOtes fot one
bn,ler plpe,0f uniting on the oihrrelectofsn under
agreement. II " were pussible accurately 'U
separate ,he fisUn vote IN lo@a w lihe i'nthef'
| M. iiaiNe NNNii have a larger majority bi
abtNt A. bBU, pfebabii W TIE Northern states.
Byt giving seiapieis ~ t8ie 6ns Wheie "
ID pFeeiseiy hnnwh hNw Many W thu NetpIs
intended ia supppll Cleveland and heW inahf
| 90 support Builef, ,he result Is 40 inlleWs; to'
Biaiue aud Lagan, A,sln,00i; ten Cleveland
and Hendricks 1,s3s,7ls; for i'uiier
40, s7s for st. jain, lls,ooa plurality to'
Blaine, 2,ls6; majority against cleveland
321 ,OG6.
The total votc cast in 1850 for Garfield wai
4.449 O53. Mr.. Blaine therefore gained ovel
the Garfield vote 39l ,sl7. In spite OF all the
frce-trade boilers. the Pharsces. tho influence
of newspapers sometimes called powerful, tht
withdrawal Of 14S,O00 votes bya Prohibition
ticket falsely so-called. the detection OF II few
Stalwarts. and the blunder OF DR.. Burchard
A candidate who meets such odds, and YET
makes such gains, is not to be called veal
except by those who have no regard for trutl
in their statements.
The vote for Hancock in 1880 was A, ,442, ,035
Mr.. Cleveland therefore gained on Hancock
vote 396,8S3 votes, if we include for hin
$4,000 votes more or less cast by the Butte
fusionists in Iowa.
The plurality for Mr. Blaine was 76,OO6 il
New England; 1922 in the Middle States
New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania
1Os. .OO4 in the Central States between Penn
sylyana and the Mississippi, aud l6S,395 II
the Northern States west OF the Mississippi
after including for Cleveland the Butler vote IL
Iowa; in all, 42S,032 in the Northern
States. Mr.. Cleveland's plurality in the Soli
South was 425, SAT, assuming that the vote o
Texas is correctly estimated. But in tn
statement Of Mr.. Blaine's Northern plurality
number of votes not precisely known, whic
were cast for Butler in Iowa, are included TO
Cleveland. Properly Mr.. Blalnes plurality a
; | the North was nearly 100000.
If later returns make any modification o
consequence in these figures, THE TRIBUN
|, will give them. At present the supporters O
Mr.. Cleveland appear to be in minority O
about 81 ,O66 votes, after having suppresse
over 100000 votes at the South. The sup
porters of Mr.. Blaine have reason to feel tina
no other candidate could have been name
who could have secured for them such mag
nificent majorities in the West and on tn
. pacific Coast. and at the same time could hay