The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-01-07
rMrorrANcE or NrW .yoRx.

The Portland Oregonian, stauuch Re- publican though 1t is, Is not SO optimis- tic as are General Grosvenor and others who can so easily figure out to their sat isfaction that the Republicans can easily elect their President without the vote Of New York ITO concede that the Repub- lican party may lose the State of New York next lthis) year and to treat that possible loss as light matter is not pe- ritical good sense." is the way The Ore gonian expresses 1t, and it is correct.
 To look on one State of the Union as the '.pivotaP' State. and to argue that Q President cannot probably be elected without the electoral vote of that State Is narrowing the two great parties down to a fine point, but past experience justi- fies the argument. for as New York goes so goes the Presidency, has been pret-
 ty general experience since the wal. True. Grant failed to carry the State in 1888 but he was elected largely by the soldier vote of the North and on account of the Acknowledgement of the Southern
 white vote. Greeley lost the State n
 1872 and was defeated. Tiiden carried
 it in 1876 ana was elected but cheated
 out of the office. Hancock lost the State in 1Sso Blaine in 1884, Cleveland in 1SS3,
 Harrison in 1892, Bryan in 1896 and 1900. and all of them were defeated.
 These examples show the importance of the great States three dozen electoral votes. and justify The oregonian's con tention that it is mot political good sense" to lightly consider the loss of the State. It is rossible. of course, for the Democrats or the Republicans to cleo. their candidate without the Empire staie. but neither party can afford to contem- plate it's loss with satisfaction. An abso- lute assurance of these 30 votes will mak either candidate sleep more tranquiiiy, as the certainty of losing them will make him have bad dreams. The Oregonian has persuaded itself that the Republicans will surely carry ,lhe State but its arguments plainly indicate that it would feel better if it were surer. And in view of the facts it would be little better than opeE-eyed suicide for the Democrats not to put forth all legitimate efforts to make 1t one of the sure States.
 The New York Commercial tries 10 brace up itself and its party by com parison of conditions in 1899 with those now apparent It calls to mind that Cleveland was nominated in that year under almost similar, only far more un- promising. conditions. Not only was his nomination bitterly opposed by the solid Democratic delegation from his State. but the members of that allegation among whom were such powerful Demol cratic factors as Richard Croker, .Ros- well P. Flower, former Senator Edward Murphy and Bonrke Cockran71signed a public statement to the effect that cleye- lands nomination meant certain and crushing disaster for the Democratic par ty in the Empire State"
 It adds that Mr. Cleveland in spite of this opposition, swept New York State by nearly 5000 plurality" That is not the point. Roosevelt might be nominated against rfhe influence of the politicians of hisf own State and might carry New York and be elected, just as Cleveland was. but that isn't where the danger Hes. It is not the nomination but the electoral vote of New York that Is needed. True, Cleveland would have been elected in lssl If New York's vote had gone to Harrf- son; but if Blaine had secured that vote in 1884 he would have beaten Cleveland and been President. So. too. if Cleveland had secured that vote In 1888 he would have been elected. These figures show the importance of New York 39 votes.