, 1896-11-28

hours later, corrected reports showed
that the republican victory ha' noe
been so sweeping as was supposed.
Then followed the claims OF senator
Jones, chairman of the democratic
campaign committee, and w. j. Bryan.
their nominee, that certain close states
would throw the election to them. But
as the returns continued to come in. it
was shown that their Claims We're
~groundless. and hal McKinley's vic.
majority.
Since then, however, it has been a
common remark among republicans
that they would have liked to see an
overwhelming majority which would
kill the silver craze" We think that
while the silver snake may not be kill
ed, 1t is scotched and dying. We see
much in the democratic press of "a
narrow republican majority" of 30
600 votes changing the result" and
similar statements. Owing to our eX-
tremely complex system of e!ectine
presidents. it is possible to make such
a showing. There have been times
when a president has been elected who
had a majority of the electors. while
the defeated candidate had a popular
majority.
Let us make "A brief study of the
electoral vote. the popular vote. and
the population of those states voting
for Mckinley and those voting for Bry-
an. 1t will prove not uninstructive
The Examiner. of November 18th.
says: Mr.. Mckinley. with nearly a
million plurality on the popular vote.
would have been defeated if about 30
900 voters in a fow close states had
changed sides" This is entirely true.
A change from 10000 to 10000 votes in
| the states OF South Dakota. Kentucky,
Wyoming. Delaware, Oregon. Tennes-
| see, California, North Dakota. West
Virginia. and Indiana would have Civ
en- the election to Bryan. The total
vote this year in these 10 states vas
about 10. 900, 900. Thus a change of two
per cen Of the vote OF 10 states would
have made Bryan the president. free
silver tn" currency. and anarchy the
law of this republic. Even taking the
large popular plurality of 1000, 00C
polled by Mckinley, it would apparent
ly leave undisputed the disagreeable
| foot Ia at AZ out Of ny-nryr I'M tp,nrinar
citizens voted in favor of free silver.
But while these are facts. they are
facts viewed from a democratic stand
point. Let us look at them from anoth-
err standpoint. Twenty-Five state sup
ported Mckinley; 20 supported Bryan.
The population of the 25 Mckinley
states is As ,426.33S; the population of
the 20 Bryan states is "a, 1888, 795. Ac-
cording to the United States census the
wealth OF the Mckinley states is SAT-
3S4.7l7, 976; the wealth of the Bryan
states is SIG, $50, 1884, 9S4. The percent
age of illiteracy in the Mckinley states
is IS: the percentage of illiteracy in
the Bryan states is %. Putting it in
another way, the illiterate population
of the Mckinley states is 3.406. 976; the
il%literate population of the Bryan
states is 5.4S5.2l5. Yet the population
Of the Bryan states is about one-half
that Of the Mckinley states, while its
illiterate population is nearly twice
that Of the Mckinley states. The Uni
ted States voted for Mckinley and
sound money by an electoral majority
of more than 100 out of 447. The Nc
kinley states declared for honest mon
ey by an aggregate majority of $780,
600; the Bryan states voted for free sill
yer by a majority of 500, 900. or one
third that of the Mckinley majority.
Thus it was shown that even in the
Bryan states the sentiment for free sill
yer was a qualified one.
But the most striking fact in all
these figures is hat the states voting
for Mckinley contained 5000. 90 of peo-
pie. and the state voting for Bryan less
than %, 0O0. 900. Thus the verdict for
sound money as against free silver is
nearly two to one. Who can doubt that
the silver issue is dying. if not dead?-
Argonaut.