The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-11-08
PROHIBITIONISTS
LOST HEAVILY
Decrease in Their Votes Larger
Than That of Any Other Party
Social Democrats and Soc
iaIiSt Labor Did Better

Boston, Nov. Although the official
returns from the Massachusetts, cleo
ton, showing the vote of all the candi-
dates, will not be tabulated for several
days, unofficial figures have been re-
ceived by the Associated Press from 304
of the 1853 cities and towns giving the
vote for the Socialist Labor, the Pro-
hibition and the Social Democratic
tickets. 1t appears that while the Re-
publican and Democratic votes fall off
heavily, the Socialist Labor and the So
! cial Democratic parties came nearer to
! holding their own. The Prohibition
vote shows much greater decrease
| than any other, the loss being more
than 40 per cent. While the Democratic
loss was ~ per cent. and the Republic
can loss 1872 per cent from last year,
the Socialist Labor vote has fallen off
approximately less than per cent. and
that of the Social Democratic ticket,
about 8 per cent.
According to the figures received from
the 304 cities and towns, the total vote
of each of the three parties was: So
cialist Labor, 1893; Prohibition, Bill;
Social Democratic, 1926. These cities
and towns last year gave the Socialist
Labor candidate 1929 votes, the Prohi-
bition 1851, and the Social Democratic
II, 429.
While many of the smaller places
show fluctuations in the figures be-
tween the parties which embody the
name Socialist the returns show con-
siderable gains In the cities for the So
cialist Labor party. This is particularly
true of the western counties Of the
state
In North Adams the Socialist Labor
vote was SO last year; this year 1t was
1872. Holyoke increased the vote for
the same party from 1853 to 29S; North
ampton from AZ to So and Pittsfield
from 81 to 49,
224 for the Social Labor candidate,
Michael T. Berry. against 2O5 last
year.
Coming to the eastern part of the
state 1t appears that Taunton gave
Berry 227, an increase Of 70 over last
year; Lawrence 337 against 269. Salem
245 against $780, Cambridge 243 against
241, Lowell 262 against 226, New Bed
ford 224 against 243 and Gloucester SO
against so in 1900. OF these places the
Social Democratic vote fell off in Law
renee, Salem, Northampton, Cambridge,
Lowell and Gloucester In North
Adams, Pittsfeld. Taunton, Holyoke,
Quincy and Fitchburg the Socialist
Democratic vote increased with the So
cialist Labor, in Boston, Worcester,
Brockton. Somerville, Newburyport,
Lynn. Haverhill and Fall River, they
decreased together.
In the districts which have been con-
sidered strongly Social Democratic
some losses are shown. In Hayerhill
the Socialist Labor vote fell from IT'S to
159 and the Social Democratic from
1923 to 1149. The figures for Lawrence
show Democratic Social loss Of 60,
while in Brockton the total fell from
1880 to S12. Woburn, the shoe town
which last year gave ia Socialist La
Dor votes and So Social Democratic this
year gave so and 20 votes for the re-
spective parties.
In Fall River, while the Socialist La
Dor vote decreased As. the Social Dem
ocratic fell off 49, The vote in Boston
for each Of the three minor candidates
was, Socialist Labor 1877; Prohibition
ist 356; Social Democratic 1881.
Outside of Boston the strongest So
cial Labor points were Fall River 312,
Lawrence 1877. Holyoke 29S and Worces-
ter 80 votes. The strongest Socialist
Labor points were Haverhill 1149, Lynn
272, Springfield 321. Brockton 812 and
Worcester 295 votes.
In only six cities outside Of Boston
did the Prohibitionist party receive
more than 10 votes. Cambridge gave
104 and Lowell 106, Fall River PSI, Lynn
207, Worcester 167.