Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-12-02
WERE TOO CONFIDENT
,auocnsr1c ArArnf DIcnEAs-
,,RctyIA,s VOTE 1so.s1s.
coH, LETS OFFICIAL RETURNS.
- elimination of Negro Vote
,,ant IN ncp.h,icans-Not n Coan-
-ia!and. OF sonthsldc OF State.

.,fa!and. OF sonthsldc OF State.
~, o~l,f returns fro7, the ctert.on. ct
.,-s=rnt7-ivcS IN Cores. on S.,.erni".-
~ are fall Of in c-es, to tie political
,.r5.rt md PRESIDENT puhlicis-. berg The
t-s. etaaon held under the Operation If
~, rev. Ca7stlmecn and wiz nov
;, .a.ae frc-n which tho s.ea; hulk IF
y, negro vote had been eliminated.
me re vote of tbs SAFE for mca.-
,s-s NJ Congress. including the indepcn-
,,r aad seattle, ms vote. was bu, 1cs ga.
.a-na-.a with total OF e6alI2 in the
cszs oral elections CT 1850. a decrease
n :N compared with the figures I'M
6s- t-e al8 sun sc law. The Democratic
VOC ihs car was bat S2.5l6. compared
Nh a3 TWO Years ago Il decrease OF
So The Republican vote WIS 50 ei7,
compared with $3.50. a deere ase of u.s.
vcTF ~ THE NINTH
re Ntr.h D:siIi>.. .olied The largest
Democratic vota ~ likewise Tie lars-
rs, r i}toan We. that for Rhea Dem
or~aa beng 1886, While S,e-np II. publ
can MSS elected. receiving 1905 total
50 II sc dist1iet CT c7l.o or mcrc than
twe-ty per cent OF the entire VOC of the
an twice the p oport on of tie
fls 1t is Significant that the Only
ds rrt car ed by the Republicans was
that iu Which tllerc are fewest negroes
en- in Xviii i practically ncne are now
-.lis sreA THIS WIS the only strict
IN which the Republicans 1naGc q real
contest ana where that party was UNI Ell
AM 7d a-np'e campaign funds. Even
ran tkoy would not have Won but for
Da~gc-atic apathy and over-confi ience
pie the Democratic cana'aatc. two
w. rs 40 ~cceived n-o~e than 10000 vo' es
VI the Republicans. with General
Wal,sr IS their nominee. received is 412
TINS viii be seen that The Democrat
y9e fan eff CESS wil:lc the r. publicon
vote feu off but AIS. showing that u.
Re?uhGcsns polled larger proportion of
thar st~e~s Il this year than the Demo
c-a,s. This IS accounted for in warriors
n-vs. rUt over-co d5cnce a-one GecrcasAi
The party strength sufficiently TO nl"r.'
III =. accent fer Sierps piuralits
IN lee Te2th District tie tcia, vote
ToI.e} was 10 ;: 4, or more than lis portion
al Ia eat.ce vote of the Sta.c. Here
thz Democrats had Republican oppos;-.
tioa. though rot so strcns and u:ited
as In The Ninth District. Floods vots in
Ia vas but 9ll9. compared Wit, IS o;1
II 1870, Il decrease of 5@45. or nearly sew
cr-s Xtconths. The Rcpub,ican vote VIZ s
hrt a-35 in 1872. conpared with 1878 in
l@tl 4 decrease of S,6.S. or more than zoo
PEI cent.
REPUBLICAN SHOWING IN FIFTH.
Tie district in which. rext TO the Ninth.
the Republicans mace the most fornida-
W showing of strength was the Fifth
who're Mr.. 3. a. Davis. Republican. rorled
f;,4 votes. compared with 10 sa2 fer The
G7puhlican nominee in 1890. Mr.. Swanson
p=1lorrato received 10 3G3 votes. compared
w5th i 80 in 1890. a decrease OF but 900
,e~pared with 1900. Mr.. Davis, the Re-
D.h can candidate. received ISIS votes
fswer Than the Republican nominee in
l9t7 The total vote Of the district Was
iT0.; or nearly one seven Of the entire
yola Of the State. Tie E.publican vote
was ABOUT cne-sixth Of that in the entire
Wherever TIE Republicans had resular
nominees in the field thy received the
largest woes. those endorsed or fusion. or
INDEPENDENT nominees or candidates re-
ce.Yrg but a small part of the Repubi-
can rgt5. In the Fifth. Seventh, Ninth.
ara Tanth Districts, the Republicans re-
cevla to'2l {: IS 9j5 Of the total in
the Safe of $751; or more than two
,tirs.
In ctr words. the anti-Denocratic
vote in the First. Second. Third. Fourth.
Sixth, ana Eighth Districts Uhree-ff
Of he Statel was less than a t;lird Of the
er.int Ecw.blican. or anti-Democra tic
ro II the State. being but 10 SS4. out of a
'o;ai Of g "a. TIE NEST piiful showing
n7[a by the r publicars was in the
Fourth District, Vice the total anti
Democratic vote was but G2t. divided be-
wceH two car7idatcs. This S one of the
}laCk-belt districts. which in former years
!lea'Cd a negro. Joan NJ. Langston. 10
-org-oss and which has frequently elect
ID Republicans.
II IS CT interest TO note that thc Re-
3a''it7rs did net carry q coCGtN or city
he First. Second, Third. Fourth Sixth.
E2h,h. or Tenth Districts. and they car
Tel b-t two IN tn" Fifth, three in the
S've~fh, md Faven il the Ninth. In the
Etaath The Democrats carried every
county. Tut IN Stafford the plurality was
THOSE snARSE MAJoRITIEs.
The Republicans carried FLOYD in the
FJh br a naato~ity CT AS. and Carroll
81 r~icr ty of but ZIG
In the Sey nth District the Republicans
c1Tre3 Creme by majority; Page by
~ majority; SHENANDOAH by 20 majority.
In me Ninth District the Republicans
caTr,e2 Flana by II; Pulaski by !; Wyti.e
~ 0. Smyth by 81; Lee by Isl; Tazewell
o. i3. ana w Sc by los.
~ VIII he nod that every county car
rso br The Republicans is. and has al
WIS been a White county. hav.Tg very
lew re-Foes therein. even under the old
elaoioTat in Fic.d there arc but s
hls'o 70 ,oi6 whites. according 10 the
etAsnS e 800. IN CaTTo,l there, are but
y heroes 10 393S whites.
u G'ocne here are bnt 20 negroes to
gus whites: IN Page .99 nccrocs TO eos
"h IS, ana in Sacnancoah l6o negroes to
So VII es
hla ord. in the Et-h-h District. VIII c:l
,Ae smocrats carries but by six major-
NV ms but 500 L. c-oes TO 1856 whites.
sssn Under the ccnsI,s figures.
"a l5e y nh Dis'.ict farewell county
h&s negro vo'inr p population. ACCORDING
- TIE census of 1872 Of 9-i 80 1870 whites.
"rse r2s Si2 negroes TO 4.S9S whites; Lee
70 y sroes 10 oH3 whites: Srvtl1 has
80 nagroes e 3...4 whites: Wv:he has !56
''fhGs 10 1 Qi5 whites: B!ard has IS No.
s'EsF 10 l,'SG w-hl'cs. and Pulaski has rs
H,-..oes O ET@l whites. !,
ron thcsq f-l,res il wi he seen tint
very county carried by the Republicans
-" "stie colntv and n mountain COUNTY.
=, ~ : u Northern Piedmont. Southwest
.aFa