The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-07-05

COstley, independent. ............... l
In 1878 at this box the vote for candi-
dates for the same office was as follows:
| j. H. Burts, democratic nominee. zee. 20
wv. Smith, independent. ........... Ga
| James Neil, independent. ...........
Showing conclusively that was not de-
feated through the opposition of the Ger
mans at this box.
At Webberville, where scarcely a Ger
man vote was polled, the result was quite
different, as witness:
Won Rosenberg; democratic nominee. 80
Breckenridge, independent. ..........117
Costley, independent. ................ 8
/ presume that no one will contend
that the majority of thirty-fve
votes which Judge Breckenridge
received over me there is due to
the opposition of German vote
for there were few, if any, Germans in
that precinct to vote at all. will add
that Webbervile is recognized as a demo-
cratic box.
At Manor, which has large German
vote, and which is strictly an ''independ-
ent" box, the result was:
Won Rosenberg's ms ority over Bracken-
rige, 20; Hornsby's majority over Pace,16.
1t will be perceived that l received a
larger majority over my opponent than
did the only other democratic nominee
who received majority, as may be seen
from the following statement:
Jernigan, independent, beat johnson,
democratic nominee, 43.
Brown, independent, beat Rogers, demo
cratic nominee, los.
Morris, independent, beat Pillow, demo-
cratic nominee, 1876.
Metz, Independent, beat Sprinkle, demo
cratic nominee, 221.
WilIett, independent, beat Barnnart,
democratic nominee, l.
To further illustrate that the German
vote was not opposed to me, cite the
following, at the same box, in 1878:
Burts, democratic nominee. 102
Smith, independent. ................1 LOG
Nell, independent. ............--.-. l79
IN 1886.
Won Rosenberg, democratic nominee Pol
Breckenridge, independent. ......... 226
Costley, independent. ...-.......... 81
In order that full understanding may
be had of the entire matter, since it has
become necessary to mention incidentally
the votes for respective candidates in
1886 and 1878, give below the grand total
of votes cast in the above two years for
the office of county judge, as follows:
IN 1886.
Won Rosenberg, democratic nominee 2,7O5 |
independent. ...... 2,7O7 |
Costley, independent. ............ 378
IN 1873,
Burts, democratic nominee. ...... 1884 |
Smith, independent ............... 1887 |
Neil, independent. ............... 1929 |
Leaving difference of only 1,060 votes
cast in 1886 over those cast in 1878.
From the figures given above it
will be perceived that was defeated by
only two votes out of total of $3.50 votes.
If Judge Burts received, in 1878, the
entire
''sTRAIGHT" DEMOCRATIC
vote, which was 1854 (his vote), the in
crease of the entire vote of the county
from 1878 to 1886, republican and demo-
cratic, being 1000; even admitting, for
sake of argument, the increase to be ex-
ciusively democratic, although he should
have received this full additional vote, it
would be only 1924 votes, which is 381
votes less than the number which re-
,eived in November, 1886; so that it Ger
tainly appears that the German voters, in
0ne instance, at least, assisted demo-
cratic nominee to the extent of nearly
one-half of their voting strength in the
county.
Let me ask: Will you call these 381
votes democratic votes? Surely not! If
7ou do, then the democratic party did not
STAND BY ITS NOMINEE,
Judge Burts, with the same fealty as to
ne. The question follows: Does the
democratic party intend to stand by its
or not? If not, there is no use
or conventions.
If neither Judge Burts nor | received
;he entire democratic vote, why is it to be
expected of me that should receive the
entire German vote when there was such
open and unmitigated
WANT OF LOYALTY
among convention democrats to their
nominees?
1 do not hesitate to say that l think it
far less reprehensible in Germans, who
are pronounced republicans, to withhold
their support from democratic nominee
han was the action of certain members
Of the democratic county convention, who
claimed to be democrats two years
ago, and whom 1 presume will de-
sire to be delegates to the
coming convention, in voting against me
On the day of election merely because |
was of German descent.
Had l received the votes of
CERTAIN MEMBERS
Of the democratic county convention who
rose to their feet and voted to make my
nomination unanimous, would, to- day,
be county judge.
l justly feel incensed at my defeat, when
[ reflect that some of the persons who
hold positions of trustAand profit under a
democratic administration, contributed to
it after having voted for me in the con-
vention. VIM. Won ROSENBERG, JR.
Never Resigned