The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1896-12-30
HE ADMIRES HANNA.
Alfred Henry Lewis Finds an Inter-
esting Aftermath to the
Campaign.
He Admires Hanna for His Votes Building
Ability Displayed in Ohio-The Gigantic
Rascallty Of the Rich Boodler
Made Clear.

In a letter to the New York Journal
Alfred Henry Lewis writes from Wash
ington: I am fallen prey to the late
election figures from Ohio. They feed
upon me. Far be it from one so humb BILE
as l to distrust the superb honesty of
Hanna, or the pure and milk-white
worth of his campaign management.
Hanna is all right. He is, as Edgar
Lebbs Murphy would say, "A game bird,
though he flies funny"
Yet, Notwithstanding my boundless
faith in Hanna, the Ohio figures make
nightmare for those, like me, who love
their country and are thoughtfully in
clined. We gaze on the numerals and
the fear lifts it's hideous head that the
wood-pile contains negro. We dare
not go to leeward lest we smell him.
Let me give you these Ohio figures
that predicate my apprehensions. We
all know, especially we who refused the
guiding crook of Hanna, were even as
lost sheep of free silver in the late cam
paign, that Bryan was defeated in Ohio.
My memory is that Mckinley IAN over
him by $4,000 votes in that state NY
memory is enlisted by the fact that 1
wagered modestly that Mckinley could
not turn the Ohio trick on Bryan by 5O,-
600 majority, and a discreet stakeholder
gave the other man the money. So, as
stated, am scared with the belief that
Mckinley scared above Bryan full $4,000
votes and over in the Buckeye state.
Yet Bryan, be it known by these pres
ents, received full ATS, 900 votes. Now
here's where my blood begins to curdle
While Mckinley won over this by $4,000,
receiving at fewest full $4,000 votes,
Bryan's vote of 475,00O is over 10000
largerc than any man for any Office ever
polled in Ohio before
Bushnell, now governor, in 1895, mer-
ely swift, short year ago, only re-
ce1Ved AT 900 votes. This was high
water mark; no one ever before attained
to 1t. And yet year later Bryan beats
1t $4,000 votes, with total roundup of
475,O00; and Mckinley with the honest
management of Hanna, overtops that
with $4,000. How warmly is it thus
proven that honesty is the best policy!
But to go on.
Bryan beats Bushnells vote of year
ago $4,000. He beats Campbell, who ran
for the Democrats against Bushnell,
10000 votes. Bryan gets 10000 more
Ohio votes than did Cleveland in 1892.
when he carried Ohio for one elector
and ran within 1900 of winning the
whole bunch. Do you marvel that these
vote wonders of my native state curl
my hair and set my brain ablaze?
With Bryan getting 475,O00 and Nc
Kinley $4,000 in this very virtuous con-
test in Ohio the aggregate would be L.
100000. Add to these the votes of such
untrammeled spirits as the Populists,
the water drinkers, the Socialists and all
~ hro 49, ~
one gets a state total of 100000 for
very garish, not to say gaudy, figures;
yea and full of vanity and vain glory
For, look you at the population of the
state-the men, women, children, aliens,
paupers, strangers within the gates and
Indians not taxed, from which this vote
is pruned. What saith the census?
That q 1890 gives to Ohio 3,672,316
souls. Last year the census estimates
of OhiO's secretary Of state, man full
Of talent and republicanism, put the
Buckeye total at 3,S25,OO0. And this
estimating official wasn't chronicling
any passed balls; wasn't letting any
thing get away. And yet he quits on
3,825,O0 people in Ohio.
Is is from these, then, that we get the
100000 votes. Verify, Mark Hanna
the Moses of the Republicans, must have
smote the hard rock of party need with
bag of doublOons to bring about a
pouring forth!
1t is a theory acceptable to most men
that the vote of a community should be
about one in five, or one-fifth of a total
population. Hanna's management in
Ohio does better. 1t brings the Buck
eye average to less than one to four
say, one to every three and three
fourths of population.
If, as hath the proverb, he is public
benelactor who makes two blades of
grass grow where one grew before, what
is he who, by energy and honesty and
fertilization with money, SO multiplies
the vote crop of the land?
And do not forget that Ohio, too, is a
state where the per cent of foreign-born
is almost one-fifth of the whole, Of
which full one-fourth has no vote. In
the cities like Cleveland there are entire
regions given over to such as Bohemians
and Poles. The state is strongly
streaked with Europe everywhere. And
yet the vote shows one to every three
and three-Quarters of population.
AS a guide and friend to cogitation,
take North Carolina. It's last census
189O-gave it a poulation of 1,617 ,947.
The foreign element is less than / per
cent; the people are practically solid
American.
OF this almost purely native popula-
tion 1,617,947 the census numbers $780,
900 voters, and the returns show 1000
of these voting. The in rule is much
upheld in results in North Carolina, and
one might infer that it would all the
more be shown in a community like
Ohio, which has foreign exhibition of
one-fifth. vote af in 6 of population
would be the way to read Ohio by the
candle of results in North Carolina.
And yet Hanna strives SO wisely and
so we'll that he reaps vote harvest Of
1,1O0, 900 from a field of population re-
stricted to 1925 900, by even the dizziest
vision of it's own secretary of state, who
is expected by all at such crisis to lie
little in favor of piling things up.
Great, therefore, is Hanna! He pro-
duced in his state 259, more votes
than the efforts of both parties could
drive to the polls year ago.