The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-24

LII
Quoting this number from the 1000 Re-
publican gain in 1894 would leave an
increase in the Mormon Republican
vote over 1898 of 1890, while the DEM
ocrats should have an increase OF
above 1000. If we credit to the Dem
ocrats 1000 of the Liberal vote
and to the Republicans 4,4Oe O o6
the Liberal Vote-making total OF 5,V0O
Liberal yotes-and deduct these Gentlie
votes from the Democratic and Repupn-
can total votes for 1894, the Mormon vote
would stand practically as follows; DEM
ocrats, 1900, and Republicans, 1S,OOO.
Cannon,s Plan Realized.
The desire of Mr. Cannon was realized
In three years from 1S91-when the divi-
sion took place and the Democratic was
5000 in excess of the Republican vote
we find that the end he then had in view,
and to which he has ever since then been
moldng his people-of having the Nor
mons so evenly divided that the weight
either way-had been literally accom-
plished
In the Third precinct in Salt Lake city
Republicans, 81, and Liberals. 349-a DEM
ocratic majority above all of 245. In 1892
the vote stood: Democrats, 5S7; Republic
cans. 269, and Liberals. S5Ca Democratic Ito
and Liberal gain of l. If the Republl-
can increase was due to Liberal votes
how can this condition of the votes be
explained? But in 1893 the Democratic
vote jumps to 772-a Democratic gain of
1S5, in place of the loss that occurred in
the Democratic landslide year of 1882:
The Republican vote was 2oS-a 40 loss OF IL
votes. The Liberal vote was 1888, loss
of u. If the Liberal vote all went Re
publican, or part of it, how comes 1t that
there is a loss of II to Republicans and
II to Liberals the same year, while there
is gain to Democrats of all both oppon-
ents lost and of the increase besides? 1t
can only be explained by the fact that
Mormon Democrats, who were borrowed
permitted to vote their convictions in
1893. 1t may be added that in the special
election of 1894 Mr.. Varian Republlcan),
defeated Mr.. Hall Democrat, and Re-
publicans freely confessed that they had
for the occasion borrowed 500 Democratic
votes
The vote in the Fourth precinct of Salt
Lake city in 1891 stood: Democrats. 451;
Republicans, 63. and Liberals, Sl3-a Dem
ocratic majority over all. In 1882, when
Mr.. Cannon,s son ran the vote was as.
24S 1S5 gain; Liberals, sol, a loss of Y;
Republicans not only secured n vote equal
to the loss of both the other parties, but
all the increased vote besides. Mr.. Can
mons son was running for delegate, and it
was in a Democratic year, too. In 1873
the vote in this precinct was: Democrats.
so, gain of SO; Republicans, 25S. a gain
of 5 this year, when Mr.. Cannon's son
was not in the field, against gain of PAS
the year before when he was; Liberals,
III, a loss of "a. If all the Liberal votes
that are not accounted for by the Repub-
lican gain of 5? Every Liberal loss is a
loss of voters, and Republicans not only
gained in a Democratic year all the
natural increase, but took from Demo
Gratis enough to make up the loss of
Liberal votes. The same condition pre-
vailed throughout the territory. In 1894,
in these two precincts both Democratic,
P0nSft-
tutional delegation. In the Fourth pre-
cinct Mr.. H. P. Henderson, Gentle. but
personally a most popular man, running
between two Democratic Mormons for
delegate to the constitutional convention.
was defeated by an inexperienced, but
popular, young Republican Mormon.
Thus the Fourth precinct elected both the
Mormon Democrats and one Mormon Re-
publican, and defeated the Gentle Re-
publican.
The same state of facts prevails in the
Third precinct. Three Democratic Nor
mons and two Republican Mormons-
Apostle ]. ii. Smith and Bishop Emery
were elected. the Gentiles being defeated
on Doth sides.
The defeat OF Judge Henderson was in
excusable. especially as an examination
of the ballots showed some 60 Republican
tickets scratched in his favor. As a dele
gate to the Democratic national conven-
ton in 1892 he secured full recognition for
that body by Mormon Democrats. In
every respect one of the best-eGuipped
men III Juan IOT the Work. vet WlS'uIiR &c
avoid it, he was defeated by Mormon
votes in favor nf q Young man unuuali-
fed for the work. though in every wav a
most excellent Young man. albeit a Re
publican. But HIS election in Demo
cratic precinct and his defeat of the only
Gentle on the Democratic ticket does not
sit we'll even on the Republican con-
science. and will require n deal more
exnia nation than the occurrence has yet
brought forth.
Mr. Rawlins' own precinct is the
Fourth. He is personalIv verv popular IN
| it. Democrats carried n In 1901 with AZ
vofes-a maioritv over Republicans If 2o1
When Mr.. Pawlins ran against the pn'it-
teal son of Mr. GEORGE o. Cannon. in 1902
| however. the Democratic vote fell to All
| "a loss of A6-while the Cannon increas sc
was 1s5-still Democratic mo ioritv over
| Repuhlioans Of 1e2 That year Rawlins
heat Cannon in the lstter's own county.
| and in his own rrecinct
| In 1894 Cannon carried his own pre-
| cinct: he gained his owr county nv
| about 400 notwithsta nding the fact that
| Democrats elected most of the county
| officers. apd. the same Jav. elected a ma
| iority of the delegates 70 the constitu-
tional convention Pawiire had deserved
the suffrage of everv Utah voter. voure
r'arpon had deserved nothing-hardly to
| be his fathers son.
| In 1904 Mr.. Rawlins with every senti.
ment Of the people Of his own precinct