New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-09-13
Reunited and Invincible.

Much loose IedSOlllIS mas bNNii VIM $3.50
by the result in Maine. In measuring the
destructive effect on existing parties OF the
Progressive secession of 1912 many ordi-
narily competent observers were misled by
the parallel of the Wing party's disruption
between 1852 and 1856.
The Progressive secession Of 1912 was
the result of a family quarrel-a quarrel
over methods Of party government rather
than over underlying party principles 1t
did not. and could not, involve a radical re-
construction of the existing political order.
On the other hand, the Wing party col
lapsed and disappeared because 1t had
ceased to be an organization of positive
ideas, a capable instrument for the ex-
preston of vital policies in a period Of
national upheaval and reconstruction.
When the Republican party was formed
in 1854 it drew heavily on all the organiza-
tions then in existence in the Northern
states. 1t attracted Wings, Free Soil DEM
ocrats and members of the mushroom
American or Know-Nothing party. The
historic Wing party was crowded to the
wall in 1856, when it confessed bankruptcy
by indorsing the Presidential and Vice
Presidential candidates of the American
party. 1t disappeared entirely in 1860,
remnant of Wings and Know-Nothings
forming the Constitutional Union party.
which nominated Bell and Everett.
1t was obvious after the smoke Of the
1912 contest cleared away that no such
fate was in store for the Republican party,
notwithstanding the enormous popular
vote cast for Roosevelt and Johnson. No
real chaos in party alignments had fol-
lowed the schsm at Chicago. One group
of Republicans-the major group-had
supported Roosevelt, while the other group
had supported Taft. But very few Demo-
Gratis had become Progressives.
In California, where the Republicans
were not allowed to put the names of their
electoral candidates on the official ballot,
probably 100000 Republican votes were
cast for Wilson. This accidental Access
sion helped to balance Democratic defec-
tons to Roosevelt, so that the strength of
the two Republican factions in 1912 re-
NAMED practically equal to the united Re-
publican strength in 1908, and the Demo-
cratic vote fell only about 100000 below
the Bryan vote four years before. Mr..
Wilson's shortage was probably due more
to losses to the Socialist party than to
losses to Roosevelt. In the state and Con-
gress elections of 1914 the great mass of
the Progressive voters went back to the
Republican ranks. They were opposed to
Democracy and to Wisconsin, and the Re-
publican organization, far more stable than
that Of the improvised Progressive party
offered them the only chance to make their
protest against Democratic blunders and
ineptitude at Washington effective.
The uncertain problem in this campaign
has been the success or non-success of the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS amalgamation et.
fected last July. The two parties cast in
1912 1911 ,050 votes, while Mr. Wilson got
only $500, $40. He still has balance of
1,3lS,380 against him, if the Republican
Progressive reunion is complete-conced-
ing that changes in party strength due to
deaths and the appearance of new voters
equalize each other.
Now, what does Names vote show in re-
gard to the completeness of the amalgama-
ton? The Republican candidate with re-
turns nearly completely received 1902
votes-2,8l5 more than the combined Re-
publican and Progressive vote for Gov
ernor in 1914. The Democratic candidate
received 66,547 votes-4 ,508 more than he
received two years ago. Deducting the
Republican eXcess-due to a bigger poll
from the Democratic excess-due to the
same cause-leaves balance Of ], 500, rep
reSenting diversion Of Progressive votes
to the Democratic partly.
Let US work it out another way If the
Republican and the Progressive vote had
been united in 1914, the joint majority
would have been 15,O48. Mr.. Milliken's
plurality, as it now stands, is 1885, show
ing the same diversion to the Democratic
party OF ,693 votes.
That total is 90 per cent of Names
Progressive vote in 1914 and 81 per cent
of Names Progressive vote in 1912. Three
and four-tenths per cent of the Progressive
vote in the country at large in 1912 is
IA ZIP. Nine and two-tenths per cent Of
the same vote in 1914 is very much less
probably well under 100000. The conclu-
sion is unacceptable that if Names Septem-
Der vote reflects the drift Of sentiment
elsewhere (and it has nearly always done
30 with singular accuracy, there is no
hope that Mr.. Wilson can attract anything
like the percentage Of Progressive votes
wh ch he needs 20 overcome the great nat
Ural odds against him.
SIR. Hughes is proGting by strong,
silent popular reaction. The Barn Burners
and other dissatisfied Democratic elements
which defeated Lewis Cass for the Presi-
:. tlAo ..tt,rroI ait bouf rofgv dom