People's party paper. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1891-1898, 1896-10-09
Some Side Lights on Arthur Sew
all of Maine.

In the first place, find that MIR.
Sewall is exceedingly unpopular, not
only with his employees, but with
his neighbors as we'll. 1t is mainly
due to his aversion to social contact
with them. He has few personal
friends, and although he has lived
all his life in Bath, Maine, he is com.
paratively unknown. The Demo
Gratis have no expectation of carry
ing Mr.. Sewall's own ward, his
own city, his own county Or
his own state. His first sp-
pearanoe in politics in Bath was
in 1875, when his friends tyied to
secure his nomination as mayor,
through the Republican managers.
The deal resulted in their consent
ing to his candidacy for the board
of Aldermen for ward six. There
was no Democratic opposition, and
Mr.. Sewall was elected. The next
year he failed to command the Re-
publican vote, as he did the year
previous, and 35 votes were cast
against him; some of those being for
for Mr.. j. S. Eliot, his opponent,and
it was only by total vote of SO that
Mr.. Sewall was elected. The fol-
lowing year, Mr.. Sewall ran again
on the Republican ticket, the election
occurring ON the day Hayes was de-
clared President. Mr.. J. S. Eliot
ran as independent Republican, OPP
posed to him, and this time Eliot
polled 105 votes to Mr.. SewalPs 49,.
Again, as recent as 1894, Mr.. Sewall
commended for election to the board,
and was defeated by Frank Haggett,
a ship Joiner, and think a Sewall
employee, who polled 121 to Mr..
Sewall's IS. Mr.. SewalI had a
citizen's nomination, but failed to
hold the Democrtic vote. You will
observe that Mr.. Sewall has. there
fore, been twice defeated in his own
ward, and has lost ground every
time he has contested for election.
Although nominated by Republicans
and running in Republican ward,
he demonstrated his decreasing
strength by polling l18 votes the
first year, "a the second year
and 48 the third year, (eaoh
year as Republican, and IS as
against the ship joiner's 12l the
fourth year, when Mr.. Sewall bid
for the support OF all parties, as a
citizens candidate.
Iquestion if this unpopularity can
be equalled by any man SO wealthy,
employing SO much help, and so
prominent in his party in the United
States, and only beyond question,
how much of burden his party is
carrying through his candidacy. l
have not touched on his equally re-
pelling labor record, as | have not
finished my inve stigations in that
direction. He has only been elected
when the Republican managers sue
ceeded, by hard work, in holding
their voters in line for him. MIR.
Sewall's father was great ship
builder, and the only success that l
can learn that Sewall has achieved
was in receiving his property from
his father at his decease. His loss
of votes was in spite OF the fact that
he brought all the pressure possible
to bear upon his employees as well
as upon his social relations, together
with the active work of the Republi-
can managers in his behalf, and
the liberal use of money. Mr..
Sswall was not leader, even in so
small a circle as the Aldermanic
chamber, and the only measure he
champ oned was a measure in the
form of municipal fnanciering, which
I understand proved an immensely
expensive experiment for the city of
Bath. In his social attitude, in his
city, he is by instinct almost re.
cluse, and an autocrat rather than
man of the people. He is exceedingly
vain and pompous, and is using his
candidacy for all it is worth to help
establish his social relations. His
own friends concede, that unfortun-
ately, his attitude towards labor, has
been in the past, of hostile nature.
Naturally overbearing, he ignores
their rights and scorns arbitration.
His unpopularity is again shown by