Smyrna times., 1896-11-11
Higgins vs.. Addlcks.

The most disappointed persons in
the late campaign must have been ex-
Senator Higgins and his henchmen,
who, if they believed what they said,
thought Higgins and Houston would
have much larger vote in the State
than Hoffecker and Willis, whereas,
the latter received nearly two to one of
all the Republican votes cast in the
State, and this despite the agreement
whereby the Democrats were to be
benefited in the choice of voters as
slstant. The total shows on the
Governor, HOtfecker receiving 1869
and Higgins 6,957. Whatever it might
have been in New Castle County it is
certain in Kent and Sussex the voters
assistant was the means in getting many
on the Higgins ticket that were de-
signed for the Union Republican ticket.
1t is believed that in the two lower
counties the Higgins vote counted
about double what was the intention
of the voter. And, through the same
Higgins ingenuity of hurting the Re-
publican ticket, many votes were lost,
the statement being made that in one
place below, about 100 of each ticket
were stamped and the ballots thus
thrown out.
1t was the intention of the Whining
ton cabal to throw the odium of defeat
on HOffecker and Willis, but instead it
falls heavily on Higgins and Houston.
With such defeat goes the plums of
political patronage that the ex-senator
expected to dispense.
The object of Mr.. Higgins was to
bring down Mr.. Addicks, but in the
fall he was underneath, and down with
him went the Higgins dynasty for the
next generation.
Whatever Mr.. Addicks has been to
the party he certainly has been a thorn
in the side of certain leaders, who
would destroy party to keep him out,
Legislature, Governor, Senator and
Representative in Congress being the
cost of the spite. The ex-Senator's
want of political sagacity is proverbial,
nor, Judging by the last campaign can
much more be said for Mr.. Addicks.
His methods had not the first quality
of diplomacy: it could more properly
be compared to the sledge hammer.
This was manifest at the May Con-
vention when the CUNT rule" Ca
known matter of repugnance in all
Delaware COnventions) was applied,
the delegates of New Castle County
denied a choice in the selection of their
own National Delegates, and the min
ority denied any voice in the formula
ton of resolutions. Such an unyielding
attitude to say nothing of the howlings
of the ''free car" attendants, did not
show good politics in the start. So it
went through the campaign, even to
the putting up ticket in New Castle
County were there was no show of
electing it, when it insured opposition
Republican tickets in two lower coun-
ties. Mr.. Addicks' tactics from an in
dependent stand point were not sagaci-
Gus, but quite as much so as Mr.. Hig-
gins who, to defeat Mr.. Addicks who
was not on the ticket and could only
reach his ambition through one branch
of it, made supreme effort to defeat
the whole ticket.
Mr.. Higgins staked his all on the
late fight and lost. Mr.. Addicks saws
he Is still in it for '9S. He has sacri
feed men, and made heavy sacrifices
for himself, but he can never hope to
win with the same defiant methods.
Delaware may probably witness two
Legislative bodies in session the same
as in New Jersey two years ago. Both
the Democratic and the Republican
members of the canvassing Board have
made official returns and the matter
will probably be determined in the
Court.-Erchange.