The Louisiana populist., 1896-12-18

ago, when the vote was so close
that one of the Cleveland electors
was elected, and it is the largest
vote ever hitherto gwen by that
State to any candidate, Democrat
ic or Republican. 1t is 10000
more than Campbell received last
year, and 4S, 900 more than Bush
nell, the present Governor OF the
State received. The biggest vote
ever received by any Republican
candidate up to 1896 was BushnelPs
vote in 1895, and that was $4,000.
This year Bryan beat Bushnells
vote by $4,000, and yet he is re-
ported as defeated by, say $4,000
majority.
How was il done2 The returns
show that the total vote of that
State this year is $780, ,7S4 votes
more than was cast last yer (1S95. J
The contest in that State last year
for Governor was very exciting
one, and the vote was 100, 900 lar
ger than ever cast before in the
State. The Republicans tried to
explain the great increase then by
saying that every vote in the State
was cast then for the first time.
On the other hand the Democrats
charged that votes were imported
and that ballot boxes were stuffed.
They showed that the population
of the State was 3,S25, 900, and
that counting one voter for every
five of population that the total
vote could not be over 765, 900
while the returns showed $50, 800
votes. Now here comes a Presi-
dentital election only one year later
and the total vote is 259, ,7S4 larger
than it was last year.
There is something very rotten
there. No one can claim that the
population of Ohio has increased
over q million in one year, and it
would take such an increase OF
population to explain this increase
of vote even if the election was
honest in 1895. In short cOmpar-
ing the population and the total
vote in Ohio this year, it would
show that nearly one person out
every three of population Count
ing women, children, cOnvicts and
insane) voted. This is absurd. 1t
is impossible.
Yes there is something rotten in
Ohio, and if it can be investigated
and the truth arrived at, it would
show that Bryan carried the State.
SIN 1892 Kentucky's total vote
was 34O,S4S. Cleveland received
175, ,461 and Harrison 1876, ,441. In
1895 Kentucky's total vote was
357,0 In 1896 Kentucky's to-
tai vote was 06,O00.. Ont of these
Bryan received about POP, ,9S1, Nc
Kinley about 2O3,410. In Ken
lucky Bryan received lat least 2T,
600 more votes than Cleveland re-
reived in 1892, and at least 80 00O
more votes than the successful can
didate for governor received in
Kentucky in 1895. But Ken
tncky's vote increased about So
900 in one year. Where did they
all come from
Next let us look at Iowa. In
1892 the combined Cleveland and
Weaver vote in Iowa was 216, 900;
Harrison's vote was 219, 200; total
vote, $4,000. The total vote this
year was 512, 200, of which Bryan
received $1,000 and Mckinley
2S9, 900. This was gain in four
years of 1900 votes. Of this
gain Bryan received 1000 and Nc
Kinley 10000.
This was a gain of 40 votes in
each of the 100 counties of the
State. Counting five inhabitants
to each vote, we have an increase
of population in Iowa in four years
of 1850 to the county, a total OF
3S5, 900!
The census of 1890 gives Iowa
1,911, 900 population. The State
census, taken last year, gives the
population as 2,05S,000, gain in
four years of 147, 900.
If the vote this year was honest,
and the census of 1890 and 1896
correct, then Iowa has gained 1885,
600 souls during the hard times OF
the past year, whereas she gained
but 147, 900 during the four subse-
quent years
Could such a thing as this hap
pen? 1t is absurd and shows that
there is something rotten in Iowa
also.
Another most remarkable phe.
nomena of the Iowa vote is found
~, tho foof that MIN, <ou{hc cf <br