The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1896-09-02
A Study in Ballots.

Let US do little figuring ard iod
out where We are cat y
The last, snd indeed he cniy, meas
ure of sbe relative strength Of Re
formers" aud ''Ccnservatives" il
South Caroliu4 was taken IL the primary
of 1892 when, in round numbers. Till
msu received 55 900 votes and Shep
pard 80, 900. Since that sine Tie "Cou-
serya,iges" have oseu without orgaoiza-
,;on or even cohesion aud have dissolved
as faction. If, however, we assume
for the purpose of bis i1quiry that
there has been DC material change III
the bers Of what we're four years
ago the opposing factions, we make
some basis icr an Interesting Icqolry.
10 1892 the total vote was $4,000
in 1896 it is IS. 0'j0. a loss Ct 10000
This loss, as a study of the returns will
suggest, hzs been q auos. wholly among
the former Conservatives " The fall
llng-of from the vote cf 1892 was ii
the cities aud towns-tbe countrT vote,
especially in the realoser districts, was
polled heavily This wa natural. The
election was contest am5ps Reform
ers," betueeo "Reform" candidates
for the most part-ls was their hgh'
and they took part in it to the extent
Of their ordinary vcsing strength A
great many who we're not "Reformeis"
were Indifferent or hopeless ADD refraln-
ed from voting for State candidates AZ
least. Say thar 10000 former Con
servatives" lid not vote. aad the !oA-
of 10,000 votes from 1892 Is accounted
for
There would then be remainder oi
55. eco "Reformers' and % coo Others
as participant. iD 'bs primary Of last
Tuesday-two TO QUE in favor OF the
foru,er. How were their votes dis
fribu:ed between the candidates for
Un;ted States senator?
Deduct the Evaos vote of nearly
39. 900 from the "Reform'' Vote OF
55 900 and We have a remainder OF
about 16. 500 given TO the other capdi
dates Who gotthem Not Duncan
for the Distribution of the vote shows
that most of support came FROM former
conservatives" They weut TO Es1!e.
The following rough apportonment
would accoun, for them. Earle re-
ceived some Is, 500 Reform" and Is
500 oue-rime "Couservative" votes
His actual total was 3l.092 vote.
Duocan received some 1000 Reform
aud 7 300 former Conservative" g"tes
His actual total was 1887. The 49,
500 Earle aud 1900 Duocan votes foo'
up nearly the supposed Conservative
80 caled-total of $4,000 The &c.
900 Evans. $500 Earle and 1000
Duncan votes foo, Up little more than
the supposed Reform" vote Of 55 600
Perhaps scattering conservative"
votes for Evans would make up the
difference.
The point to which We ask attention.
is thar if these estimates are approx
ma,ely correct Judge Earle received
BALI of his support from ''Reformers, "
aDd is therefore as much the candidate
of one side az The other In view of bis
declaration that he beloUgs 10 neither
faction it is worthy of remark that his
strength should be drawn 50 equally
from both. And although he
will draw in the second primary an
Increased vote from the d;sbanded
Conservatives we have abuudaot as
surances ,ba, his increase from the
Reform" side will be quite as large
As uon. factional candidate he could
no: he better placed Everybody can
vote for him 90 the ground Of superior
ability and character without feeling
that they are contributing TO the fact
iooal supremacy of others The State.
quo diopeucorv in Ward , GnlDm-