The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1914-11-27
POLITICAL STATISTICS

1906 brings out the cold, true fact that
the Republican party has decidedly
retrogrcsscd in Missouri ard no longer
is as powerful as it was when the pop
ulation of the state was less than at
present. The recent election being
one held IN an "otf" year, it is no more
than fair that comparisons should be
made with the results of other of
years. In the review the vote Of the
prog"a stvc party is considered only
SO far rs the decrease in two years
has benefited Rcpublicaulsm, there
10y Giving the latter party full credit
for a strength it once possessed, a
portion Of which it recently rcgamcd.
1t is probably fortunate that in each
Of the elections Of the "of" years
1914. 1910 and 1906 Supreme Court
Judges were voted for and elected,
a contest each time high class enough
to draw out 4 full party "otf" year
vote for the Democratic and Republic
can nominees. Official state figures
cannot be disputed since they repre-
sent actual returns from both Demo
cratic and Republican precinct cleo
ton officials
In 1906 Kcnnish, the Republican
candidate for Supreme Court receiv-
ed 2s3,i46 votes; in 1910, when the
prohibition constitutional amendment
brought out a tremendous "oiT" year
vote. especially in st. Louis, Brown,
the Republican candidate, policd $685.
GA votes, and in 1914, Robertson, a
lawyer as prominent and capable as
the others, dropped down to 2j9,272
votes, which is now the accepted Off
ciaI strength Of the Republican party,
especially so since Republican organs
all over the state few days ago
used these figures to emphasize the
gains the party had made since 1912,
when Taft received only ,S2l votes,
which, to be magnanimous, it car he
conceded ulu NOT S'"hu ior inc lu''
party strength Inc "l"e aihercaces
in the Republican vote for Supreme
'"u.' Judge pet"ee' 'he EeaF" l'iV
ana ''it' II u',a LOT comparative puI-
N"'''' "'u'" 'auSt hcp"l''"h' 10 gasp
''f "Iea'h ana In''' announce 'h"'
'"'h c''"paf'7o" was ul'IalI lot 'he
reason ''a' lhc wei ana Dry ISSUE
III 5laA' III I'l' brought ou' LOT '"e
wv" 'y'",''E parties VI "'S'"u'' "
vote when VIII NOT l"r years 10 'o'ne'
w p''''" again Il, an y" ICa'
'>''.h'' "'"'" 1t Nv IAN - ''' nv
PuoIcah party 10 compare 'n,'' S'll"''
4'i- '''' WI" ','' VI INV ''''y' ne
l'""l''"'' W F'"' nap, p'eN ''.
- "a '''"' ''S 90 '''' u W 81 NV" VI
'"''' par w.
4 comparison of the vote Of 1906,
an of" wear, with that of 1914. seems
to be the only way open to give the
Republican party the fair showing to
which it is entitled. In 1906 kennish,
the Republican choice for Supreme
Court Judge, received 293.4lG votes,
and eight years later. Robertson was
given only 259,272 votes, n clear Re
publican loss Of 2l,l7I. The show
ing Of the Democratic party in the
same period stands out in vivid con-
trast. in 1906 Woodson. for Su-
prcmc Court Judge, received 2o2 .523
votes, winning over Kinnsh, his Re
publican opponent by 9,O77. In 1914,
Blair. Democratic nominee for Su-
prcmc Court, drew 3ll.3s2 votes, and
Robertson. his Republican opponent,
but 25g.272. n clear pulrality Of 81
10 Williams. the Progressive as
pirant for the same position, received
votes. Over both Williams and
Robertson. Blair had a lead Of &c.
1873. or nearly three times the plural
ity Woodson in 1906 had over his Re-
..,I1;,,,, o,,,,onor, Eo,risb