Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-11-08
BOARD OF WORKS
SPLIT IN VERY
CLOSE VOTE
Continued from First Page.)

Uncle Amos w. Harrison, OF LlVlnSs-
ton, with a vote of 1855, stood second
on the Republican side. Harrison ran
for the three-year term and will un-
doubtedly retain his place as chairman
of the finance committee in the smat
board.
otto b. Argast. running COR the three
year term, led the Democratic candi-
dates with a total of %, 30 votes. 500
less than Harrison. The successful can
dates are: Three-year term, Amos w.
Harrison, August l.. Lacombe am
Richard f. Malta; two-year term
Walter A. Evans, Seymour p. Gilbert
and Ernest u. Ryman: one-year term,
Christian Ahner, Ferdinand Rommele,
jr., and William S. Rosentrauch.
1t is expected that Walter A.
Evans, of South Orange, membe of
the present board and chairman OF
the committee on roads and assess
ment, will be elected director of the
first small board. He was elected for
the two-year term. and has been a
member of the board for a number of
years.
The vote on City Home trustee can
be taken as a fair criterion as to how
the votes were cast in the city. In
this Louis V. Republican, re-
ceived II ,045 votes against William III.
Barkhorn's 15,037, a majority for Aron-
son of zoos. This is indicative of the
straight votes cast by the two parties
in Newark. as very little splitting was
done in connection with this office.
The Council Democratic.
With the election of ten aldermen,
+h< n1-,Aas.at q r.f1l % la xra f111 anntrDl
of the 1912 Common Council.
While it had been secretly hoped
in both political headquarters to
gain a good foothold upon next
years Council. the Democrats were the
more successful. and will now have
% votes, the Republicans 8. Al
derman Elliot's death occurred too
late to have his successor named. The
new Council will thus consist of thirty
enc instead Of thirty-two members.
In many of the wards Fthe voting
was close, but in several instances can
didates on both sides won with over
whelming majorities. Several surprises
were sprung in the defeat of eandi-
dates which had been unlocked for.
A synopsis of the wards is herewith
briefly outlined, showing their relative
strength in their respective wards.
Mark F. Phillips. Democratic candi-
date of the First ward. was returned
a winner over his opponent, Horace c.
Grice, with a majority of sixty-eight
votes. In the nine districts of this
ward the polling was close, especially
in the fifth. where but four. votes sep
arated the rival candidates. This ward
had been looked upon az a doubtful one
Phillips, which was one of the first
wards to send in complete returns, was
looked upon as a good omen. When
word of Phillips's election vas an
nounced a band vas quickly procured
and, headed by the victor, marched
through the ward.
The Second ward looked with more
favor on its Democratic candidate and
gave him a majority of 80 votes. Ed
ward C. Eaton. the victorious candi-
date, received the grand support of his
w district and totaled 1913 to his
opponents 40. Edward T. Casebolt,
who had been looked upon by his Re-
publican colleagues as a formidable
opponent in this Democratic strong
hold, was much surprised at the re-
suit. Casebolt, in the Sixth district,
polled LOG, while Eaton had to be con-
tent with SIS.
Louis Semel. candidate for reelection
IL the Third ware on the Democratic
ticket, was victorious. Louis Reich, his
opponent. had worked earnestly. Reich
tailed 992, while Semel tailed 1,030. An
independent candidate, Alpert, polled AZ
votes.
Surprise In Fourth Ward.
The surprise of the evening was
the announcement that Robert Il.
Ducey. of the Fourth ward, had been
returned the winner over his Republi-
can opponent, Louis Schwartz, by the
small majority of 80 votes. The fight
ing In this ward was of the tooth-and-
nail variety. The friends of both can
didates We're III and doing all day,
using all the persuasion on hand to
influence voters for their respective
candidates. Ducey polled 1867, while
Schwartz tailed 1,019. In the Sixth
district of this ward Ducey had his
friends, for here he tailed 1876 against
AZ. 1t was this district that cinched
his victory.
The result in the Fifth ward was no
surprise, but the mighty vote polled by
John Fl. Donnelly came as a thunder
bolt to the Republicans. Here Dom
nelly, the Democratic candidate, re-
ceived 1000 votes against $3.50 polled by
Helvig, the Republican candidate. In
every one of the seven districts Dom
nelly slaughtered his rival and left no
room for doubt as to who was the can
didate of the "Ironbound" ward.
Thomas j. Lee, jr., of the Sixth
wand, was the victor over his rival
candidate, Thomas H.. Brown, on the
Republican ticket. The voting was
especially heavy here. Brown rallied
1.2i2. while Lee marshaled 1,4S2. The
Fourteenth district was very close, and
Brown won over his opponent by one
vote.
Democrats rallied nobly to the aid
of John j. McGovern and gave him a
grand total of 1874 votes in the
Seventh ward Eugene V. Dotto, his
Republican opponent. made a fair
showing in several districts, but ran
behind on the general ticket. This
ward, which had been conceded t. the
Democrats, made a great run for the
honors, and McGovern was the high
gun. His total, almost double tina. Of
his opponent, showed his popularity
and proved his right to the chair in
the Council.
Daniel Hopper, Republican, of the
Eighth ward. vas reelected. He