Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1896-12-17
WHERE BRYAN GAINED.
It Was Not Mach Of Gain After All, and
Does Not Bear Scrutiny.

| opinion has been quite general that.
making no allowance for the support OF
! the populists, who numbered more than
10000 for them, Weaver In 1892,
the Bryan or popocratic vote was some
5000, 600 more than was cast for the
successful CLEVELAND ticket in 1892. A
gain in one presidential election of
900, 900 over the total of the election
| preceding would certainly be q mani
Hesitation ofstrength for the popocrats,
especially when it is consinered that
| the gain of the Democrats in 1892 over
the total OF 1888 was only 1900. But
while it seems on the face of the re-
turns that Bryan actually received
9OO, 900 more votes than were cast for
the Cleveland and Stevenson ticket in
| 1892, a little inquiry will show that
the democratic alliance with populism,
SO far from securing democratic gain
! on the popular vote, actually means
very little, and whatever slight inn
portance may be attached to it is en-
tirely offset by the fact that MIR. Nc
Kinley polled 1900, 600 more votes than
| did the republican national ticket in
| 1892.
The number 100000 represents the
! gain of Bryan and Sewall over Cleve-
land and Stevens son the face OF the
returns" comparing the results OF 1896
with those of 1892 But from this total
must be snbtracted, in order to make
| the comparison fair one, $1,000 votes
cast for the Bryan electors in Utah,
which was not state participating in
the election in 1892. In that year there
| were no Cleveland electors voted for in
three other states, Colorado, Idaho and
Wyoming. In these states Mr.. Bryan
| received At the recent election $4,000
votes. and obviously no comparison
can be made with the Cleveland
strength in thete states rs there was
no Cleveland ticket run in them four
yerrs ago This vote added to the
Bryan vote in Utah, gives total of
232, 900, and to it must be added the
$1,000 votes cast in North Dakota for
Mr.. Bryan at the recent elactiOn, the
democrats running no ticket in that
state in the election of four years ago.
Again in Oregon and Nebraska the
democrats generally supported the
populist electors in 1892. and were ad.
committee to do so as the surest
electors, although in neither case did
the plan succeed. Kansas is another
state in which the democratic vote in
1892 was cast solidly for the Weaver
electors, whereas Mr.. Bryan secured
in Kansas this year III, 900 votes
only 5000 more than were cast for
the Weaver ticket in the same state in
1892.
Thus it appears clearly that, If the
Bryan vote of this year is to be COM
pared with the democratic vote of 1892,
more than half of the increase (50OO,-
600 of the total 900. O00) is represented
by states in which either there was no
Democratic electoral ticket four years
ago, in which the democrats voted for
the populist ticket four years ago, or in
which there was no election four years
| ago. These deductions made, the
Bryan vote shows a net gain Of about
400, 900 compared with the vote of four
years ago, not much more than the
normal increase in the vote brought
out by the gain OF population and,
moreover, by the duration and excite
ment of the years canvass. In illinois,
for iostauce, in which Organism was
wholly su emerged, such have been the
gains in the voting population there
that the Bryan vote was 10000 greater
than the democratic vote of four years
previous, and this increase cannot be
ascribed to the aid given by the pupu-
lists, for in the election of 1892 they
numbered only $4,000 for Weaver in
the Prairie state. In Ohio, where
there was listless and Indifferent
fight, the success of the republicans
being regarded as fOregOne conclu-
sion, the vigor Of this years battle
brought to the bolls larger vote. Mr.
Bryan polling in Ohio 70, 600 more votes
than the democrats did four years ago
bat the republican vote in the Buck.
eye state increased from 4O5, 900 to 425,
COO. In the eastern states such were
the disasterous results of the demo
cratic alliance with populism that
notwithstanding the increasec vote
brought out by The vigorous campaign
and the steady growth of the vOtine
population, the democratic vote in 1891
fell subsequently below what it hai
been in 1892. In New York state the
falling off was 1000, in Pennsylvani,
l6l 600; in Massachusetts, $4,000; i,
; Maine, 10000: in New Jersey, $4,000
,, In Connecticut, % 5000: il Rhode Island
,, 10000: in Maryland 1000; and in New
: Hampshire, 2l,OOO-just one half o
Of the demOcracit vote in 1892. In VII
!, vinia the Bryan vote was 1900 les
than the democratic vote of 1892; i
Wisconsin 200 less; in Alabama 81,
less; in Georgia $4,000 less; Delawar
showed a democratic loss OF 2,OOO, an
West Virginia also democratic loss
The state in which Bryan did best wa
Colorado; the state in which he di
,. least was Vermont. The vote cast Il
q Bryan and Watson electors. who had
2 separate ticket in some states, WI
Is nearly as large as the vote cast Il
20 Palmer and Buckner. In proportio
e to the total vote cast, the Palmer an
Buckner ticket did best in Massadh,
sets.
81 Ole RI. Olson at the City Baker
y keeps always on hand fresh supply
e white bread. Boston brown bread, ne
q process bread, Vienna breab, crea
20 bread, rye bread, graham bread, q