The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-11-06

have isp.ed somewhat from ITS value In
behalf OF Democrats, Council candidates
In the wards, comparing this years
returns with those Of year ago.
The Fifth Ward presents the notable
example of a full Repuplicsn ticket,
chosen without either opposition or the
| assistance Of the ahracsdsbra OF Goo
| Gooism in anv OF its several forms. The
citizens OF Wards 3, 81, 9, 10 managed to
make their choice without any of the en-
tsrrassing sppendsges OF Goo Gooism.
Therein straight Republican nominees
met face TO face straight Democratic, or
Prohibition or Socialist candidates, and
the citizens markso their ballots without
indulging their fancies in any OF the
frivolity OF tue nsw political vocabulary.
In word, six out OF the 10 wards had
their elections on the old and much
abused party lines.
Indeed, we may say that seven OF the 10
wards were thus disposed, for in the
Eighth but two parties were represented,
although one quartette of candidates had
adopted the title Of "Citizen." Tney, like
tho citizens who put them in nomination
were chiefly Democrats however, and
three OF the four were defeated-the citi-
zens in general thus refusing to accept
the party sppeIlation as meaning them.
In three wards, then, there were the
ornamental titles that Goo Gooism Ioves
so we'll to play with and that other or
dinarily sober minded citizens have had
recourse to, fsncying that by such pretty
signs their political chances may be ad-
vanced. But 1t evidently signiies moth
ing at all that the Dem. Goo Goo
candidates In the First Ward were sue
cessful. The Repu blcan cani dates might
have, quite as we'll, secured a similar en-
dorsement BY passing a paper among their
natural friends and running as Rep. Goo
Coos, In opposition to their Dem. Goo
Goo, opponents. They would have been
defeated just the same, az 1t now ap-
pears. And the Dem. Goo Coos would
have won II they had dropped the Goo
Goo sign. Indeed, it was evident that
the breyity OF the political title or the
number OF hypens In 1t did not really in
fluence the result one way or the other.
Here In the Second Ward record, we find
Il q, GRAY. who was DemotrAt-Good
Goyernment-Prohibi candidate, the
ranking title IN point OF amount and
variety, unsqualed, unapproached, any
where in the city, was not only out
classsd In the returns by COOKE ana SIS
SON who lsid no claim to be anytninp
more than Dem. q. G's, but also by
BARpEN and JONES, who were nothing
but plain Reps.
Only one in the Fourth Ward list cared |
~ w thc Contcot Wltuout
q foil stock OF political, or rather non
poli'icai symbols. Every body but
SWEENEY was Cit, or an Ind, In addi-
tion TO what he ordinarily would be, and
the fact OF record that SWEENEY only |
got 5s votes would, indeed, seem to indi.
cate thst he made a grievous mistake in
not tying 20 himself tell OF some sort OF |
the kind indicated. SWEENEY went It
bravely alone as straight Dam. His
Is to b, admired, even II his kind
Of judgment may be ceplored. There ia
evidence TO seemingly support
ms view in tho record that BLAKELEY,
who was was a Rep. lit. Ind, secured
more votes than either PREsBREY or
SwARTs-wh were only Rep. Inds., or
RANDALL, who was no more than Rep.
CIT. And the further fact that SwARTs
and PREsBaEy recsiveo more votes than
RANDALL indicates that to be Rep. Ind.
be poke more OF favor Ia the Fourth than
10 be kep. Git.