The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-12-31
THE PROHIBITION VOTE
New Basis of Representation Arranged for
the Party's Convention In 1000

In the Presidential election 81 1892 the total
vote 81 the Prohibition party, then united WAS
26ioOO and with three exceptions only louis
lana, South Carolina and South Dakota Gen.
Bidwc the party's candidate. received some
votes In every State. His largest vote WAS IN
New York. where the Prohibition electors re-
ceiVed $4,000 votes. ohio contributed 20 600
votes and Illinois and Pennsylvania 25 900 each
W The Tohibi'ion column. In California. Of
which Gen. Bidwcli was a resident. he received
5000 votes Al the next succeeding convention
OF the Prohibition party. held in Piitsburg in
May 1895, there were Sii delegates in attend
anc-, aud they do not appear To have been dis
trbuicd with any reference to the Prohibition
vote east AT the election preceding. There wcr,
no delegates present from .>lahama and Idaho
two States In which there WAS organiz-d support
al the Prohibition ticket but from South Dakota
In which there were no Prohibition votes AT the
preceding national election. four delegates AT.
tended and took part In the proceedings Maine
the pioneer Prohibition State, had five delegates
only, but from Maryland there were twenty two
ONO which cast 1000 more votes for the cold
water Ticket than Pennsylvania, had seventy.
two delegates Pennsylvania had eighty Texas
the largest Of the States terriorially. IN which
Prohibiiionists outnumber those in Delaware
In the proportion Of about ten To one. had 1--WE
delegates whereas Delaware had seven. The
Piltsburg Convention broke up in n row between
the rival Prohibition faclions the points Of diff.
ference being woman suffrage and declaration
Tor Tree silver coinage al the ratio Ia i8tul
The htiOnhl Committee II the regular Pro
hlbi'l0nisls those who supported lowering and
Johnson IN 1870, met recently in Chicago und
chose that city as the place aud June - as ih,.
time for holding the Prohibition Conyen,inn
81 1900, and arranged Tho basis 81 reDrcsrntn'
non IN way which II was hoped would avoid
IN" incongruiiies that have been The cause OF
friction IN previous Prohibition Conventions
u was agreed that each State should have four
delegates atlargc and two delegates from each
Congressional district absolutely and irrespective
~ me vote cas- IN such district or "f The absence
Of any rrohiblti9n vote IN il. and that there
should h ono additional delegate from each Con
Eres%i0ha ais'rict for each 1000 votes or major
iIarnian 'hereoi. taSI for Levering and johnson
lana, Nevada, South Carolina aud Utah, there
were no Prohibition votes cast in the Prcsiden.
llal election 81 1906 but Louisiana il entitled
Notwithstanding this iact, 10 sixteen delegates
Of Mr. leycring EAST 2, 100 votes for him
u one effect 81 the Prohibition division in the
lltshuIg Convention Of four years ago was The
practical break up Of the Prohibition forces, and
he las Presidential election led 10 The curing
hown oi The Prohibition vote from 200, 900 10 100
W. loss 81 one-hali within four years. Among
The States casting n considerable Prohibition
votes; New York with 10, 900 was The only cihrr
STALE ~ which the Prohibition vote was in excess
81 10000 In nearly every, State u the country
bill has recently been defeated, being The last
among them) the Prohibition question and The
'quot license question, too, have been taken
nul Hi inc ncld Of politics through legislation,
and IT'S npt expected that there will be any s;;os
revival o. Interest next year among prohbiionists
'he political parties Of the past