The National tribune., 1888-08-09
opequan and at Fishers Iii, to say nothing
of the final operations against Lee.
Applying any standard of GeneTalship,
Jackson must fall far below Sheridan.
THE EFFECT OF THE PROHIBITION
VOTE ON CONGRESS-.

THE EFFECT or THE PROHIBITION
VOTE ON CoNGBEss.
Gen. Clinton B. Fisk, candidate for Presi-
dent on the Prohibition ticket, stated few
days ago that in his Judgment so per cent
of the Prohibition vote of the country came
from the Republican party and 40 per cent
from the Democratic party. Assuming for
the moment that this estimate is correct, it
is interesting to note what would have been
the political effect upon the present Con-
gress if these votes had been cast for the
Republican and Democratic candidates re-
spectively, instead of being lost by being
thrown as they were.
They are styled lost simply because it is
assumed they were cast to express an honest
preference, and not with the intention of
defeating by indirection distasteful can
didste, although it is not possible to suppose
that the expectation was entertained of elect
ing the PrOhibitionists in any of the districts
where this organization appeared as third
party. The comparative smallness of the
total vote in each district precIudes such
hypothesis, because in an intelligent COM
munity where class of voters is less than
10 per cent, of the whole it is obvious to all,
without poll, that success is impossible.
These votes were then Willingly wasted
so far as regards the success of the candidate
for which they were cast.
IF the Prohibition vote had been cast for
the old party tickets in heproportion named
by Gen. Fisk, the result would have been
reversed in the Fifth Michigan, First New
Hampshire, Fourth New Jersey and Seventh
Ohio Districts, as will be shown.
The present Representative from the Fifth
Michigan District is Mr.. Ford just now in
vestigating Italian immigration in New York.
He received 1857 votes, and his Repub-
hcan competitor, Mcbride received 1920.
There were also 3,0s6 votes for Briggs, the
Prohibition candidate Ford was therefore
elected, not by a majority over all, but by
plurality simply of 447, being his excess
over the next highest. If however, we add
so per cent. of Briggs vote to McBride's, he
would have 1871, while Ford, with the
balance, or 40 per cent added to his, would
have 1892. In other words, the Republic
can candidate would have come to Congress
by 169 majority.
Take the First New Hampshire, repre-
scented by the hirsute and voluble McKin-
ney. he received 1880 votes against 49,
265 for Martin Haynes. There were ST
votes cast for the Prohibitionist Applying
Gen Fisk's rule, and Haynes would have
had 1870 votes 10 McKinney's 1878, and
would have been elected instead of the gra-
tuitous apologise for the Southern Briga-
-diers.
In the Fourth NewssTorsey District Pid-
cock would have beep kept at home by
Cen Fisk's basis of calculation if the third
party man had not appeared He received
1855 votes against II ,563 for Van Blarcom,
Republican, and 2,772 for the Prohibition
candidate. Dividing the Prohibition vote,
as before, Pidcock would have had 1875 to
Van Blarcoms 1926.
Campbell, the sitting Member from the
Seventh Ohio District holds his seat by
plurality Of only two votes over Little, Re-
publican. The former received 15, 303 against
15,3O1 for the latter. There were 982 cast
for the Prohibitionis5 candidate, however,
which, If allotted as before to the Democrat
and Republican respectively, would have
elected the latter by vote of IL, $50 against
15,696.
Thus the Republicans would have gain
ed the four Members, and the Democrats
would have lost them. In no event could
the ProhibltiOnists gain any,
Leading Republicans, however, in the
States where the Prohibition vote is large
claim that Gen Fisk's estimate is too low on
their side They maintain that their party
furnished fully 6hree-fourths of the votes for
the Prohibition ticket. If this hypothesis
be correct the Republicans would have a
majority of the present House of Represent
atives, provided the Prohibition candidates
had kept out of the contest in the close Dis
tricts.
In the First Connecticut District, Vance,
Democrat, received 1883 votes against H.
$50 for Buck, Republican. There were 9s8
votes for the Prohibition candidate, which,
/ if divided in the proportion of three to the
Republican candidate to one for the Demo
crat would have elected Buck by 148 major
ity. On the same basis, Granger, Democrat,
from the Fourth Connecticut District, would
have been defeated by Mills, Republican, by
a majority of 219.
In the Eighth Michigan District Tarsney
would have been beaten by Roswell G. Horr
by 228 majority, stovers would have defeated