Evening star., 1912-11-10
PROUD OF VICTORY
West Virginia Republicans
OverWheIm the Democrats.
UNITED ON STATE ISSUES.
Division on National Ticket Loses
the Electoral Vote.
IN CONTROL OF LEGISLATURE
Majority, However, Obtained
Through Vote of Both Wings
of the Party.
Special Correspondence of The Star.

l
November 8, 1912.
| West Virginia republicans believe they
have cause for pride in. the showing made
last Tuesday. A democratic majority in
| the legislature was wiped out and a re-
publican majority on joint ballot of TWEEN
ty substituted, insuring a republican in
the United States Senate to succeed Clar-
ence w Watson The republican state
ticket was elected and the democrats got
only two of the six representatives.
whereas they have four members of the
lower House in the present Congress.
The certainty of a republican United
States senator was particularly pleasing
to the republicans in view of the close
ness of the next Senate politically, and
the first reports of democratic control Of
that body seem to have gone gimmering
when the latest returns from West Vir-
ginia were made public. The success OF
the republicans, or the failure of the dem
ocrats, whichever way it may be put is
due entire.y and absolutely to the fact
that the republican candidates appeared
also on the progressive tickets. Had
there been a separate progressive state
ticket in West Virginia the republicans
would. not have elected constable.
Thousands of West Virginia republicans
apparently the majority of their party
preferred Roosevelt to Taft. but they
head of their ticket. They are now claim
ing credit for the support they gave to
the state candidates and two of their
leaders, William Seymour Edwards and
Representative w. P. Hubbard, will
be pushed as candidates for the Senate
to succeed Senator Watson, while the
Taft supporters will back Isaac I. Mann,
Davis Elkins or possibly ex-senator \.
newspaper publisher of Wheeling and
one of the most prominent Taft advo-
Gates in this part of the country.
Striking the Average"
West Virginians generally believe their
delegation in the next House of Repre-
sentatives will average the best in the
| history of the state. John w. Davis, the
democratic idol. who pulled through over
George A. Laughlin in the first district.
after most interesting fight with the
tariff the ISSUE is expected to loom up
in his second term. Judge Moss, from the
! fourth who succeeds Representative
Il Hamilton, and Avis, who succeeds Little
page in the Charleston district, are young
/ republicans somewhat after the Davis
| mold, and Howard Sutherland the first
Observation-Disclosures, is likewise well
equipped mentally and a progressive al
ways.
West Virginia was voted dry by a three
/ to-one vote, the majority for prohibition
of the majority was a surprise to both
sides and distinct shock to the liquor
forces. Only two of the fifty-fve counties
voted wet. The drys had claimed the
state by 10000 and the vets by 10000.
The amendment to the constitution that
will debar the making or the sale of
I liquor in West Virginia becomes effective
: July 1, 1914. Since the result became
/ known the liquor men have done much
l thinking as to possible way out of their
/ difficulty. They have come to the con-
clusion that the amendment should have
/ been submitted on a separate ballot.
4 Other constitutional amendments were al
ways submitted on separate slips of pa
per, whereas this was merely footnote
on the official election ballot.
| Prohibition Leaders View.
| State Supt. T. NJ. Hare of the Anti
| Saloon League SCOTS at the dispute raised,
and contends that good legal advice was
secured before the legislature passed the
bill for submission to the people. He
likewise declares there is no standing to
the contention that constitutional
amendments effect cannot be deferred 10
a date as distant as indicated. The lat
| ter point hinges around certain thirty
day clause. and is more or less technical.
However, it is thought the vets will test
the matter out in the courts
| Another technicality raised questions
the election of Hatfield as governor and
of f. l.. Long state treasurer, 4. A.
Lilly as attorney general and NJ. Z.
| Shawkey as state superintendent of
schools, and probably two or three other
elected republicans. DR.. Hatfield ap-
| pears as Henry ID. Hatfield" on the re-
publican ticket and as H. d. Hatfield
on the bull moose ticket Similarly, the
respective ballots have e. Leslie Long
and "E. l.. Long" a. Armis,ead Lily
and a. A. Lilly and Morris Z. Shaw
key" and IN. p. Shawkey.'
Several years ago the state supreme
court of appeals Of West Virginia de-
c ared null and void the votes cast for
the late Judge James PAUL cast Tor him
N another party column where his name
had been printed as u. Paul. This de-
cision has been lecalled as precedent
for invalidating the bull moose votes
cast for Hatfield and the other nominees
ndorsed on the republican state ticket.
Should the question go to the courts
and be decided on the Paul precedent the
democratic candid ties instead of being
defeated by the combined republican and
third term vote to the tune of $1,000
| would be elected by majorities Of prob
ably $4,000.
Intention of Voter to Prevail.
On the other hand. the opinion prevails
that the courts would construe the in
tention of the voter. The tendency of
the cou IS to dismiss technical objec-
tons is cited further as barrier to
comp lea tions. There is nothing to indi-
cate that defeated democrats will make
a contest ong this 'ine The differen
destinations of the candidates on dual
tickets is being discussed SO far mel ely
as post-election gossip. originated by the
rec ling of the PAUL case, which seems
to have a pertinent application.
Aside from the third term-republican
combination being recognized as the main
cause 20 the failure of the democrats tC
hold the control they got two years ago
certain democrats here and there believe
that the Watson leadership was a serious
obstac to their success. The republicans
everywhere raised the cry that vote
for a democratic 'egis ature WIS a vote
for Watson and the democ attic retort
that this was not necessarily true be-
cause the democratic nominee would be
selected by a post-election. primary did
not app rently suffice.
This primary, which had been sched-
uled by the democratic state committee