The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-10

Republican candidate for Governor Mir
 Hearst would have been elected by an
 overwhelming majority, in spite or his
 deniagogasm, in spite of his personal
 unfitness, In spite of his deal with Mur- , phy, in spite of everything. As 1t was,
 thousands of voters who had no respect
 for Hearst and none too much conn- dence in him voted fer him in the be- lief that 1t was time to resort to qras- tic measures and teach incorporated of<a club seemed better than no club
 at all. They, were not voting aeord-
 ing to reason, but they were voicing
 their wrath. and wrath IS 2 ua passtgn ,, that always has to pc conslnereo III The narrow defeat of Hearst and the
 election of Hughes Is plain notice both ! to wall Street and the Republican poll \ Iiticians. The people want new deal and a square deal. They want 2 Ihousecleaning at Albany, and they want l it to be thorough. The fght vas won n 1 World very much doubts if there was great difference of opinion yesterday
 in regard to the abuses of govern less is ezcesses of many great corpora tions, or to the alliance between hn1n- cial corruption and political eorrup- tion.
 of definite results in the way of re- form government and the restrlctto,n oL corporation abuses. IT the RepuDlican bosses thwart Mir. Hughes in hislwork of reform, or 4g Mir. Hughes Himself
 falters, it vii be useless to appeal again
 to Democrats to save the State from
 demagogues If ths peoplses s,, are N,,. o5lven as,
 agogy can sweep away the old order
 of things they will vote for demagogy.
 When that feeling comes 1t will be
 too late to appeal to reason.
 If the confidence of the people are
 again betrayed, and no effective effort
 IS made to remedy the evils of which
 they not unjustly complain, n may De
 something even worse than Hearst next
 time.
 Mir. Hearst Individually was the Issue.
 New York Herald.
 pleted election returns emphasize the fact that the Democrats would have
 had a sweeping victory in this state
 but for the milistoneLM.9hrpH9gr- .h 9s,--,, S9
 Tn this great Democratic city MT.
 Hearst Received only one-half the plu-
 the State ticket, and twenty-four hours
 after the polls closed was stil doubt ful whether these had not been actu-
 ally elected despite the Hearst welter-
 weight. It was not in thts state only
 that Hearst prevented the Democrats
 from electing Governors but also in
 Massachusetts and in California, be-
 sides
 defeat to the party in Illinois.
 Nothing could be clearer than that
 any honest Democrat could nave been
 elected Governor or New Aofk tnis
 year, and that the failure was directly
 due to Democratic dislike of MT. Hearst
 individually; resentment against the
 shameful bargain by which he obtained
 the nomintion and disgust with the demagoRic and mud slinging campaign.
 The man of mystery pictured for the
 public writers in Mir, Hearst's service
 when he appeared before the voters in
 dispelied dis the mystefy; and what they think of the real Mir. Hearst as reveal ed by himself is plainly expressive in
 the fact that he got only haif the piu-
 TT The bids made for the support of the police, and other large bodies of public
 employees were allurtng and doubtless
 won Imany votes from these men,. But the poor are not all fools and know
 that demagogic promises of shorter | hours at.d higher pay IF city employes ises of lower rents. The three pla- toOn system in the police force, for in stance, in order to secure equal ef1- would necessitate an increase of one | fourth in the force at cost of more | than two millions year, and as tne
 cost of government is incrsassd taxes | of toilers who are not In the city,s pay ! roll know that they must foot the bills. When it is considered that consiu- | erable proportion of the vote cast for Mr. Hearst was drawn from ordinarily | Republican sources 1t becomes clearer | that MT Hughes's election was due to | the negative influence of Democrats. who, disgusted with Hearst, refratned
 from voting at all. as well as 70 the positive effect of the vote cast Tor him | by the Independent Democrats who re- pudiated the Murphy Hearst deal and | openly supported the Republican cam | dldate as being not only an e0le and | honorable man, but a better tOe1iocrat | than the demagogic Buffaio nominee. | Srhs peopie believed MT Hughes when | he prornised reform of abuses, all the more as their confidence was vested in | the good work he had already done. | Democrats who voted for him feel that | he will be the Governor not of party | but of all the people of hisNState.
 With the rejection or Hearst and | Hearstism independent Democrats see | the way cleared for a rehabilitation of l their organization. The Democratic
 Party has been controlled by the mass | es who compose 1t, and it will be so | in future. 4 private political party, | trade marked and incorporated and J ovvned bW an individual is an anomaly | and the events of the campaign just l ended show that the people have no
 use for if. Thers Is gratifying proof | or this in the vigorous rejection on | Tuesday of Hearstism in all four States. A sOberlnG Victory.
 | New York Times.
 Heartfelt thankfulness that we have l ali n r,nu fra sgf