The Russellville Democrat., 1884-05-29
RUssELLVILLE, POPE O.. ARK, MAY %. 1884
SOME SIGNIFICANT FIG-
 URES.

It is one thing to gush, but quite another to come down to brass tacks In humor of the latter style, the Globe Democrat, the great republi- can organ, of the 18th inst, got down to a solid tussle with facts on tho l presidential situation, and it must be admitted that it's candor drew a picture not Of the most enticing character for the party of great nor alt ?)ideas. We quote from ft as fol lows:
 In estimating the chances of Re publican success this year, and dis cusslng the doubtful phases of the situation, it should be borne steadily in view that the victory of 1880 was won only through very strenuous endeavor and by very small mar gin. We can not hope to have things any easier this time; on the contra ry, the indications are that the sled ding will be in some respects con. siderably harder. There were some advantages on the Republican side in that contest which are hardly to be expected in the impending strug gle, and certain influences which then operated to determine the course of good many wagering vo. ters are not now to be so much count ed upon; and yet with such special aids to success, we missed defeat so narrowly that there was not much room for loud boasting.
 | The election of Garfield was plu- rality triumph. While he secured 214 of the 369 electoral votes, he did not receive a majority of the popular vote by over 300,000 That is to say, his vote fell that much short of the combined vote cast for the other can didaLes; and even Hancock came within 1000 of receiving as many votes as he did There were in round numbers 9,000.00O votes boiled, and Garfield got 4S.26 per cent of them, against 48.25 per cent given to Han cock, the remainder going to Weaver, Dow and Taylor, the candidates of the Greenback, Prohibition and Anti Secret Society factions. On a square test, therefore, between the Republican party and all opposing parties, the opposition had maJorl | ty. Possibly if only Republican and aDemocratic candidate had been. Tn the field, the former would have received majority: but that is merely conjecture. As matter of fact, the election of 1880 did not show preponderance of Republican votes in the country.
 If we take the votes by States, which is the true test, it will be seen that in a number of instances tue re- suit was decided by remarkably close count. In no former election were so many States carrled or lost on such narrow margins. Garfield beat Hancock in New York by plu rality of 21, 1000, but his majority in the State over all opposing candi- dates was only 6,500. Thls gave him B electoral votes and insured his election, for If these votes had gone to Hancock they would have given us Democratic President In Ono. Garfield received plurali ty of 34,000, and majority over all of 24,000. Indiana gave Garfield q plurality of 5000, but the majority of the total popular vote was 6,000 against him. The Republicans got Oregon by-a slender plurality, 67l, and majority of 422; and Colorado and Connecticut were both secured by pluralities of less than 5000.
 The States named, all of which are put in the doubtful list this year, and seryeral Of which are es. sent;al to republican success, cast S4 electoral votes in 1880, or nearly two flfths ofthe whole nlmber which Garfield received. There was diff ference of only 59 between the elec- toral votes cast for Garfield and tLose cast for Hancock; and a change of only 30 of the S4 votes in question would therefore have elected the lat ter instead of the former-and such a change would have been accom- plished by the shifting of. less than 1 per cent of the popular vote in New York alone from the Republican to the Democratic ticket, A loss of $500 Republican votes in total Of 4,449,000 would have defeated Gar field. A fact like that is worth con sidering very seriously at this time. If the Republican party is to tri umph again this year, it must clear. ly put it's best foot foremost. and ex ercse the strictest caution, and reso- lutely refuse to take any hazard that can be avoided. When the fact is squarely faced that a change of less than l per cent in the vote by which Garfield carried New York, Indiana, Connecticut and Oregon, would be sufficient to give all those States to the Democratic candidate this year it is idle to talk about taking any chances except such as are absolute ly not to be eliminated from the problem.
 UHct