Delaware gazette and state journal., 1902-12-11
The Addicks Analysis of the 'Repub-
..-..-.. 49,. e.. a.. L iclatIIra

For week or more Boss Addfcks'
Wilmington newspaper, the Sun, has
kept standing table of what it termed
mn Analysis of the Republican Legis-
latiye Vote Of the State.'' This
analysis shows that of the Republi-
can vote for legislative candidates at
the recent election, the Addioks Re,
publicaus polled II, 1893 and the Regular
Republicans only 2,63s, a majority for
the Addicks Republicans of 10, 255
Why the analysis" did not claim the
sntire vote for the Addicks Republic |
cans, leaving nothing for the Regulars,
ls probably known only to those who
prepared it. Such acclaim would have
been just about as truthful as the
i'anslysis,' itself. i
Last Saturday Boss Addicks had an
interview with President Roosevelt
ct Washington, during which he pre-
sented the Union Republican situation
In Delaware With all his skill and
force. 1t is reasonable to presume that
this analysis figured conspicuously
In his arguments in favor OF the recog-
milton of the Union Republicans by the
administration, md therefore it is
proper and pertinent to show just what
this "analysis'' is worth.
Beginning with the First Repre-
sentative district, the analysis"
claims the entire vote for James
Kitchen, Republican, as the Union
Republican vote, notwithstanding the
\ fact, that Kitchen was voted FOR by
both Regulars and Unions. The vote
for William Michael Byrne Union Re-
publican candidate for Congress, in this
district, was 553, which represents the
actual Union Republican strength.
Hnre is deduction from the
analysis of the difference between
1919, the entire Republican vote. and
553, or G6G. at one fell ssoop.
For the Second Representative dis
triot it may be admitted that the
''analysis' is correct. for it only claims
the vote for Jones, Union Republican
randidate for Representative, as the
Union Republican vote Of the district.
The vote was 1,41S But it is signia.
rant that the vote for the Democratic
candidate in this district was only S27,
whereas two years previous it wal
], 451. The Democratic vote, therefore
Iell off 624. very surprising result
How much of this Democratic deoreas'
was due to the purchase of venal Demo
pratic voters with Addicks Republican
money the s'analysis'' could doubtles
explain, if it would.
The Union Republican vote of tn
Third Representative district is place
for James w. Robertson, Union Repuh
iican nominee for State Senator, i
that district, it may also be acoepte
as correct.
In all the other Representative dis
tricts of New Castle county save tn
Seventh and Thirteenth, the entir
Republican vote for Representative /
the General Assembly is claimed to b
Union Republican vote, notwitt
standing the fact that the candidate
were voted for by Republicans of bot
factions. In the two exceptions note
the Republican vote is evenly divide
and one-half claimed to be Union r.
publican. Why the entire vote was n,
claimed, as in the other districts, Il
'analysis' does not state. 1t coul
have "gone the whole hog' in the
two districts with Just as much trut
as in the others.
In the Fourth Representative di
trict, the total Republican vote W
B56, while the vote for Byrne, Unit
Republican for Congress, was only 81
Here We deduct 4s3 from the lanai
sis. Z"
II In the Fifth district the total Repu
lican vote was 1,25l, while the vc
for Byrne was only 543. This knoc
off a Jrife of 708 from the analysis
Il In the Sixth Representative distri,
the total Republican vote was 1853;
vote for Byrne was 161. The lana
sis.'' therefore, claims only 1877
much.
In the Eighth Representative d
: trict the total Republican vote was A
the vote for Byrne, 10. The analyst
is only 405 out of the way
In the Ninth Representative distr
the total Republican vote was 1873; t
vote for Byrne, 76. The analysis"
wrong by 257.
In the Tenth Representative distr
4 the total Republican vote was 4s6;
vote for Byrne, 2s7. Deduct from I
''analysis, therefore, 1893.
In the Eleventh Representative q
irict, tho total Republican vote =
R21; the vote for Byrne, u. 2
fanalysis, . is thus proved to be insc
rate to the extent OF 1l9.
In tho Twelfth Representative {
trict, the total Republican vote !
R66;. the vote for Byrne, So. !
''analysisn is ntruthful to the ext
of only 2o4.
In the Fourteenth Representative {
trict the total Republican vote was
the vote for Byrne, %. The "analys
lies to the extent of 219 votes.
In the Fifteenth Representative I
!. brict the total Republican vote
1853; the vote for Byrne, 81.
analysis fails Of being correct by
votes
Now, as to the two districts in wh
the analysis" very obligingly clair
only one half of the total Republi
vote for the UniJn Republicans.
ihe Seventh Representative distr
one half of the total Republican ,
was 292, while Byrne received but
showing tho analysis TO be incorrect
22l. In the Thirteenth representa-