The sun., 1897-01-13


day as the representatives OF the 13.9o3.O0o
electors who participated in the contest OF two
months ago. In 1892 the total vote for Pres-
dent in all the States Of the Union. then forty
four. was lo.154.542. and the totals Of the two
elections compare as follows;
Total vote. SOC ..'lssSaoss
Total vote 1892
Incr,.se i,7op.io
This Is gain OF more than 10 per cent. In tho
voting population OF tho United States in four
years. and IL there were no special reasons to
explain the disparity OF the Increase In the sew
eral States where there is an Increase, n study
OF the figures In each would be Interesting. The
fact however, is that there has been no uniform
and evenly distributed gain In the voting popu-
lation Of tho United States since 1899, but nb-
normal and spasmodo increases in some States
and an actual falling of in the vote In some
Others. In South Carolina. for instance, the
total vote for President in 1902 was 70.444; in
1900, under the amended State Constitution. II
was only 0s.0O7. In North Carolina, on the
other hand. tho vote of 100000 In 1899 was IN
creased to 100000 In 1905. This remarkably
large Increase was due chiefly to the amendment
to the voting laws following the defeat OF the
Democratic candidates in the State election of
1904. The Industrial conditions which operato
to make the growth in population In South
Carolina small are the same prevail In North
Carolina. but while the former state. in its
political aspect Is ruled BY reuctionnry policies,
in respect to voting laws the latter is governed
by progressive policies. and this explains tho
difference In the vote Of the two States In 1906
compared with 1892.
The very largest increase In any State was In
Colorado. or from o.. o0o In 1902 TO 10000 in
1890. This remarkable increase was not due TO
any marked growth in the number OF inhab-
itants, but to woman suffrage, women voting
tho Same men and under no different or moro
serious restrictions. In Wyoming. however.
whore woman suffrage Is new thing, the
total vote OF the State, which was 1918 In
1892. increased only TO 20. 500 In 1905. A COM
pnrlson OF the figures In the several New Eng
land states at the recent election and at the
election OF four years ago shows anew the sin
gularly steady character of their voting popula-
ton even under pressure OF great interest ana
excitement OF last years campaign. In Massa-
chusetts tho total vote increased from 39l 900
in 1892 TO 4ol,000 In 1896. . gain OF 10000
only. In Maine II increased from 10000 In
1862 TO $4,000 in 1896. gain OF 1000 only.
In New Hampshire there was a falling off of
5000, or from 50. 900 to $4,000. In Vermont
the gain was 5000. following an exciting State
election In September. and In Connecticut the
increase was 10000. or from 100000 to l74.ooo.
crease from 53,lss TO 54.7s5. and Il was due
almost exclusively TO the naturalization OF So
cialsts In the large manufacturing cities.
Both New York and Pennsylvania cas-. over q
million votes in 1902. The gain in New York in
1896 was only $1,000 votes, but In Pennsvlva-
MIA Il was 10000. ohio. with about 900. 900,
and Illinois, with about 900, 600, also crossed
the million mark in 1890. The total vote OF
New York in 1895 was nearly as larye as that
Of the whole United States In 1886. and the
vote of the Union as q whole has more than
doubled within twenty-five years. II was
$500. 900 In 1879 aud 1900, 900 at the recent
election.
The slight increase OF the voting population
Of the now Northwestern States Is noticeable.
When they were admitted It was sald that they
would soon qualify themselves for verItable
Statehood by q large growth OF population.
The conditions of tho recent election were GER
tainly favorable TO the casting OF n very large
vote in States whore silver mining is an I'M
portant element OF business. yet the gain in the
voting population was small. Tho vote In
Montana increased from ~. 900 In 1899 TO
$4,000 in 1906. a gain OF 20 per cent. The vote
Of Erie county. New York, was 900 Last No
vember. or so per cent. moro than that OF Mon
tana. In Idaho. another Of the newly admitted
States the vote was only 10000. or only about
as many as Major Mckinley poiled in onon-
daga county. New York. In south Dakota the
increase from 1902 TO 1890 was merely from
10000 to $4,000: In North Dakota 80. 600 to
47,O00, and in Nevada, where the silver Ques-
tion was supposed TO overshadow all other mat
ters. the total vote in 1896 was actually less
than in 1892. the falling OF being from lo.s7s
TO lo.3l5. The explanation 10 that the popula-
tion of Nevada Is decreasing. In Utah 49, 900
votes were cast last November; woman suf-
frage there accounts for SO large . total.
Virginia cast 100000 votes In 1892 10 oo4,-
900 In 1895; Delaware. $1,000 to $4,000. In
Texas. where the growth OF population is rapid.
there were 20 900 more votes In 1896 than In
1892. In Alabama the falling OF was 10. 900;
In Georgia 10000; In Louisiana, IL, 900. while
in Arkansas there was very little change.
One remarkable thing about the returns OF
the recent election is the great growth In the
voting population OF what were known as "the
border" States. In Kentucky the total vote
increased from $4,000 In 1892 to 445.O0O In
lB08. The explanation that this gain of over
100000 in four years due to tho uncertainty
OF the contest there does not sufice, because in
Missouri, where from the beginning the result
was an almost forogone conclusion, there was q
larger increase, or from $40. 900 in 1899 to 614-
900 In 1896. In Maryland. too. where there Is
no large growth OF population. the increase
from 1909 to 1896 was nearly 10000 In = total
OF 10000 and in West Virginia tho Increase
was nearly 30, 900 in u total Of 10000.