The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1897-03-12

table that theyote of 1S92-was an unusu-
ally light one, being a gain of but SO
per cent over that of the preceding presi-
dental election. This is the lowest gain
made at any time in the quarter of CEN
tury which this table covers. The vote of
1892 was evidently the lightest in proper
ton to the voting population that has been
given within the period in question.
1t would not be surprising therefore,
if the increase in 1896, d9mpafed with
1892 should be an unusualEy large one,
especially in view IF the fact that the in
terest in the election was more intense
than was perhaps ever felt before, at
least in the memory of the present gen.
GRAFTON. An examination of the percent
age column, however, will show that the
actual increase over 1890 was only 156
per cent, while in 1876 the increase over
the preceding presidential election was
3O.1 per cent, and the increase in 1888
over that in 1884 was 1873 per cent, nearly
as much as 1896, on which occasion the
interest in the campaign was unusually
great and the efforts to rally every vote.
by both sides, were exceptional. A study
of this table will show to those who ex-
anime it that it cannot be successfully
charged that the total vote of the nation
III iocO was CACSSSlNS VI OuL Oh Dr0DOr-
ton IN its increase, especially when it is
remembered that the vote of 1892 was
unusually light and that the percentage of
gain is estimated upon that light vote.
In order to give, however, those who as
sumo an excessive vote in certain States
the full advantage of every fact, let us
examine the votes in the States of which
Mr.. Allen complains and compare them
with the vote of 1892, confessedly a light
vote. Pennsylvania increased her vote in
1896 1874 per cent, as compared with the
vote of 1892, and Mr.. Allen complains
that there was a fraudulent excess" of
$4,000 in Pennsylvania's vote. He makes
no complaint. however, of the fact that
the State of Montana, which was as
earnest for the free coinage of silver as
was Pennsylvania against it, increased
her vote 21.9 per cent. Indiana increas.
ed her vote 14.7 in 1896, as compared with
1892. yet Mr.. Allen, whose party carried
South Dakota, makes no complaint of the
fact that South Dakota increased her vote
III per cent. nor does he refer to the
fact that Indiana, in the election of 1876.
when she went Democratic, increased her
vote 26.3 per cent. Iowa increased her
vote 17.6 per cent. land Mr.. Allen charges
II 800 fraudulent excess" of votes. but
Carolina, a. Populist- State, increased her
vote 17.S per cent nor does he refer to
the fact that Iowa in 1876 increased her
vote So per cent. California increased
her vote 81 percent in 1896, as compared
with 1892, and Mr.. Allen charges 22OOO
fraudulent excess" of votes, but makes
no reference to the fact that his own
State, Nebraska, increased her vote II L
per cent in the same election. Maryland
increased her vote 1913 per cent in 1896
as compared with 1892, and although Mr.
Allen charges fraudulent excess" of
S,TOO, he raises no objection to the fact
that ten States, giving their votes to the
pulist-Democratic candidate, increased
their votes in much greater ratio than
did Maryland, nor does he refer to the fact
that Maryland herself. in 1888, when she
went Democratic. gained 13.5 per cent
over her own presidential vote in the pre-
ceding election. Ohio. of which Mr..
Allen complains as casting 94,5O0 fraud