The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-01-07
ANAL LYSlS OF The VOTE.
Explanation Of the Apparent SMALL
ness Of the Popular Majority
y, for Cleveland.
Ballots Actuated by Democratic
Sentiment Exceed Those Bear.
Ing Democratic Names,
Cast Their Votes for weavsr In States
Which II Was Necessary Harrison
should Loso.

Should Loso.
WASHINGTON, Jan. Ga statistical quss-
tion Of interest just now ID the one raised
- TO tho relative strength Of the demo-
cratic and republican parties. All doubts
on this poins oan Eendily be dispslled by q
candid analysis Of the popular vote at the
presidential election. The claim il broadly
made that tho idess Of the popuiist OF third
party men wore sustained BY over 1,0OO. 600
Of the voters 1t the presidential election,
numbering more than ons-twslfsh Of the
total voters OF the country. On this
ground it IL asserted that the populists
form the party Of The future" having
risen to this distinction az . presidential
factor from the small beginnings Of former
presidential efforts, 90 indicated BY the
labor vote Of 1888, which numbered IA. .00O,
the 0resnbaok vote Of 1884. with it, total OF
175.00O and the gresnbaok-labor vote Of
1880. aaRreRatinR nearly 10000. II IL to be
noted that in the three presidential years
preceding this ono the populist sls-
ment steadily increased, the ad-
vooates of financial and industrial
propositions irreeoncilsble with either OF
the .contendinR schools that were leaders Ia
American politics RrowinRdownwards stead-
lily. This fact casts suspicion upon the
claim that by any natural evolution of poll
tics LAG. 1856 labor votes in 1883 grew up to
1.025, ,O60 Weaver. populist or third party
votes in 1892.
To test this statement examine the re-
turns. In Colorado, according to the tab
ulatlon of the vote Of 1892, Cleveland had
no supporters. while Weaver had majori-
ty over Harrison Of moro than 1900. In
1890 the vote Of Colorado on the congress
sional issue was: Townsend. republican,
43,O68; O'Donnell. democrat. 34.757; Burr,
independent. 584O; and Richardson, pro-
hibition, 1,O89. Why did the $4,000 and
more democrats Of Colorado. as established
by the election Of 1890. cast no vote for a
democratic president in 1892? Was it be-
cause they had changed their party faith
and abandoned the demooracy2 Certainly
not. They voted for the Weaver electors
simply to throw the state against Harrison.
Allowing for any possible development Of
third pnrty ideas, it is absolutely certain
that more than thres-Quartcrs.s or at least
10000, of the Weaver votes of Colorado were
cast by Cleveland men.
As to Idaho with its Weaver plurality Of
1.60O, similar comparison holds good, In
1890 Sweet, the republican nominee. was
elected to congress- by 1O,107 votes against
1856 for Mayhem, his democratic opponent,
the republican plurality that year being
2,18G. Did all the democrats of Idaho dis
appear in two years? Assuredly not. Cor
tainly there ia abundant reason to credit
Cleveland at least 1900 Of the Weaver votes
cast in Idaho.
Then COMES Kansas with nearly 6, 900 plu-
Faiity for :hs Weaver electors. In 1890 the
state voted for governor with the result of
115.O25 for Humphrey, republican, 6.927
for Robinson. democrat. and T.Sb7 for
all the progress that may have been made
or can be claimed for populist ideas in
state that since it's crention from terri
tory has led political revolutions. il is plain
that good deal more :han one half of the
Weaver vote of K0nsas should be credited
to the democrats. But call IL less than
one-half. and there remains to be added to
the Cleveland score from the state of Kan
sas 18 600 ns n minimum.
Next comes Nevada which has Just given
Weaver u plurality of about 4,5OO. In 1890
its vote was, on the cong tessional issue
Bartine, republican, 6,6l0; Cassidy. demo-
crat. 5,736, with thirty four votes only to
the prohibitionists. Cleveland got only I'll
votes in 1892. Where did the other 5000
90? Assuredly to Weaver, and along with
them more than 4, 900 votes of former re-
pnblicans. 1t is clenr that from the state
OF Nevada alone 5000 votes at least allowed
to Weaver are positively votes Of Cleveland
men. Taking these four test states to-
Rether, we have the following positively
ascertained Cleveland votes to be deducted
from the Weaver column: Colorado. 40
90; Idaho, 1000; Kansas, 10000. and Ne
vada. 5000. Thus. in four states out of
many where like conditions existed. there
<h,l l~x~ ik,l ,o1A Jafi
GOO votes to be deducted from the third
party side and indeed to the apparent Cleve-
land plurality of 39l, 900.
In Wyoming which. on the popular vote
the republicans carried, there is a similar
transfer equally significant as to tho
resulting in n transter OF suffrage in tho
electoral college. In Wyoming Cleveland
got no votes; Harrison received 8 $40. while
for Weaver there were cast 1886 ballots.
Now, In $780, the vote for congress was:
CLARK. republican, S.751, and 6,215 for Mr..
Beck. the democratio nominee. What be-
came of these 5000 democrats? Did they
disappear from political and personal
sight? Not at oil. They voted for Weaver
in the hope that with the cooperation of
third party men. formerly republicans,
they would carry the state, or those 80
voting it is clear that not less than 5000
were democrats. So in five states We have
Cleveland men cast for the third party
nominee. swelling the actual plurality Of
Cleveland over Harrison to 25G, 900.
It is to be remembered that during the
presidential contest tho democratic head
quarters did not for moment lose sight Of
the possibility OF failure of choice by the
people and the throwing the election into
the house Of representatives. II was sx-
peoted from start to finish that Cleveland
would win over verything. Hut prudence
dictated that no chance should be lost.
There was special far western bureau at
the national headquarters under charge of
a bright and enterprising committeeman.
Hugh G.. Wallace, Of tho new state OF
Washington, who, CHANGING to be the son-
in- Law OF Chief Justice Fuller, os that ac
count as we'll as on account of his own
abilities Was implicitly trusted by the DEM
oc alto nominees and tho party committee
men. He is yet in similar relations
in regard TO tho western senatorial
contest. II WAS one of tho most delicate and
yet one of the most important features of
the democratic oomnittee's work to culti-
vAto tho Weaver vote as fnotor against
Harrison without driving democrats away
from tho party into tho republican ranks.
That function Was performed throughout
tho whole region west Of the Missouri river
to an extont and with an effect that The hg- |
ures OF the five states above quoted serve TO
indicate.
Taking tho country at large, IL is not too
much to say that the democratic votes
which went for Weaver for the sake Of DEM
ocracy numbered quito one half Of those |
cast for the populist nominee, and that CON- |