Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-11-04
BIG MARGIN FOR LEWIS
IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Triumph in Congressional Race Is
Pronounced-Smith for Senate
Falls Behind. !
Special Correspondence of TIE star.

Specal correspondence Of Ine Sfar
ROCKVILLE, Nd. November I'm
his contest for reelection Representa-
tive David ]. Lewis carried Nontgoin-
cry county by majority of l.023 over
his republican opponent. Fredericf y
Zhlman. and Senator John Walteh
Smith, also candidate for reelection.
was given a majority in the county OF
742 over Edward {. Darlington. repup-
lican, the total vote received by eaeh
being as follows: Lewis. 3.5.S. Zihi-
man. 1855: Smith, 1897; Carrlhsto"'
2.655.
The result in the county SO Tar a.
Representative Lewis was concerh'"
occasioned surprise. Not oniS "''
he receive the solid vote of his party
but he was given republican support
in every district. it is said.
Senator Smith. whose vote IN ihe
county fell about 900 short of that
given Mr.. Lewis, did not receive his
full party vote. He was cut IN idNof
of Darlington on an average or sor,e
thing like ten votes to district ine
progressive candidates received ohls
about twenty-five votes in TIE eo'''''
Unusually Heavy Vote.
For an off year, the vote was unusn-
oily, heavy about six-sevenths of the
IL
registered vote being polled. This WAS
due very largely to the activities ot
m, Peter brothers and their FRIENDS
who were intensely Interested in both
Smith and Lewis.
Ahout the only consolation the re-
suit in the county gives the repuplicailt
is that it proves the correctiie -
their contention as to the actudl us ~
cratic majority in the county MOI
withstanding that the recent genera
registration of voters showed the deni-
Gratis to be in the majority on paiss
utilization by about 1.45o. the repup
leans contended that practically an o.
the two hundred voters who decline"
to state their politics were repuhiieahs
and that something like 100 repuniicaHS
a ffiliated as democrats so as TO be anI'
to participate in democratic prlma'F
elections and for personal ana btSl
ness reasons Yesterdays vote seem
to Indicate that they had the situate"
properly sized up.
Figures in the Districts.
The total vote of each candidate by
districts was as follows:
I.aytonsville-Smit 2l2; CarrlnSf*n
49,; Lewis. go; Zihlman. Ia.
Clarkshurg-Smith. 265; carrington'
ISL: Lewis. 272; Zihlman. l13-
Poolesviile-Smith. ga; Darlington,
lie
Rockville: First precinct-Smlth. - :
Darlington. fs5: Lewis. 80; Zihlma u.
IL. Second precinct-Smith. w "a
rington, 1903; Lewis, 1853: Zihlmah. io'
Colesville-Snith. 2o1; carrinst"n :
1877; Lewis 209: Zihlman. 1s3.
Darnestown-Smith, 204: CarrinStoh.'
49,: Lewis, 212; Zihlman. i29.
Bethesda: First precinct-Smith. 2o3 :
Darlington. 81; Lewis. 2ls: Zihlman. 80
Second precinct-Smith. 100: Caring
tom 100 I.awiS 10. Zillman, VI.
olney: First preeinct.smisgh,; loa'
Darlington. 121; Lewis. ia: Zihiman,
Us. Second precinct-Smith. 10; car
rington 1876: Lewis. 125; Zihlman. 1874
Gaithersburg: First precinct-Smlth
15s; Darlington. t57: Lewis. los: Zihl-
man, 1855. Second precinct-Smith, IL. :
Darlington, 90; Lewis. $50: Zihlman, =:
Potomac-Smith. 124: Darlington, %
Lewis. 1876: Zihlman. SIS.
Barnesville-Smith. go: Darlington,
1872; Lewis. 302; Zihlman. 143.
Damascus-Smith, ia; Darlington,
14O: Lewis. 1872; Zihlman, 1872
Wheaton: First precinct-Snith. I'll.
Darlington. POS: Lewis, 229; Zihlman.
205. Second precinct-Smith, 273: Car
rington, 1870; Lewis, 299: Zihlman. 1ls