New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-08

Democrats we're supposed to show their
full voting strength in Manhattan.
Smiths popularity insured a strong
complimentary vote from the local
Democratic organization. Besides, IL
was a clesn-cut fight between him and
his Republican opponent, Frank X.
Bowers. Smith received a majority of
46,20l. He polled 1871 votes, as
against 1880 for Bowers.
The Republican predictions on the
Wilson vote in New York County
Manhattan of only 25,000 majority
were remarkably accurate. with eleven
districts missing out OF the total of
$50 Hughes got 109,273 and Wilson
1902. lead Of abou; $4,000. The
Democrats carried all the boroughs for
President, outside OF Manhattan, ex-
cept Queens, on small margins. With
five election districts missing out of
sixty-four in The Bronx the vote stood:
Wilson. 46,775, and Hughes, 39.475. In
Brooklyn, with 33 election districts
missing out Of 7S6. Wilson received
120,577 and Hughes 1851. Hughes
carried Queens by about 5000 votes.
Wilson's plurality in Richmond was
l,511.
The Republican leaders had predict
ed that Brooklyn would give Hughes
5000 majority. They expected about
an even split in Queens, and figured on
the possibility of carrying Richmond
by small vote. President Wilson's
low plurality in Manhattan was due to
the Murphy followers. who did not give
him within thousands Of what the
Tammany sschems had expected.
Charles +. Murphy, Thomas F. Smith
and other Tammany chiefs who were
81. - h. q
Street wigwam admitted early in the
evening that Wilson would not get
more than 10000 lead in the city. About
10000 was the figure they fixed for the
Presidents plurality in Manhattan.
The Republicans cut materially into
the strong Tammany vote in several
Assembly districts in Manhattan, nota-
bly, in the 10th. 18th. 26th and 2Sth,
on all the tickets. The Hughes vote
was fairly close to that of Wilson in
these districts. The old Bowery dis
trict. the Sd, was claimed by the Re-
publicans for Hughes.
Strong on West Side
Hughes and Governor Whitman car
ried all the Assembly districts in the
Republican belt on the upper West Side
by unusually large pluralities. The
Republicans carried all but three of the
districts in Manhattan which
Chairman Samuel s. Koenig, Of the
County Committee, declared
they would The Democrats succeeded
in polling a larger Wilson vote than
expected in the 10th, the Esd and the
31st.
Queens went Democratic in last
years election by almost 5000: Rich
i ,Ar a O l.
most double the numoer of votes last
wear tina. President Wilson received
Yesterday. The Bronx did better for
Wilson than she did for the local Dem
ocratic candidates in 1915.
At the same election Edward Swami,
the Tammany candidate for District
Attorney in New York County, was
elected by 37,062 over District Attorney
Charles A. Perkins, who ran on the
Republican ticket. Frank Moss, on the
Progressive Independent ticket. cut
into the Perkins vote considerably, re-
ceivNg. in Manhattan, 24,O16.
Brooklyn went Democratic IN the
1915 election by 1865. The Bronx gave
q Tammany majority in the election
last wear of 1865, that being the inquire
for the election of justice Of the Su-
preme Court in that borough. queens
went Democratic in the contest for
Sheriff by 5.727, and Richmond gave
Calvin d. Van Name, the Democratic
candidate for Borough President, ma
iority of 4,233 over George 5. Scoheld,
the Republican candidate. That repre-
sented a vote of about two to one.
These figures are interesting Tor
as they represent the most
recent Tammany majorities IN the city
The Republicans conceded mneh
larger Democratic majority IN Inc
Bronx than they show.
Two years ago, in the election for
Governor, Martin II. Glynn, Governor
opponent, received major
ity in the greater city OF 53,o4o. MS MS
total New York City vote was ZSZ,0So'
against 23S,245 for Whitman. flah
Bill" Sulzer polled 34,035 votes IN the
city, cutting into the Glynn majority
with a large part of that vote. Glyhh
carried all five boroughs, with plural
ity in Manhattan of 1880. HIS plural
ity in The Bronx was 6,26L; IN Brook
lvn. 1884; in Queens, 6,2o8, and IN
2,144.
Seabury Did Well in 1914
Samuel Seabury, the Democratic nom
inee for Governor, when ne ran LOT
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals
in 1914. with the Tammany and Pro-
cressive Endorsement, polled an I'M
1snallv large vote in New York City,
which was 335,626. He swamped ms
opponent in every borough
hv more than two TO one. But that was
when he was a hero in the Progressive
camp. The Republicans expected W per
cert of the local Progressives to vote
for Whitman this time.
The New York City vote for Presl-
dent in 1912 gave President Wilson
about 5000 votes fewer than the COM
hinsd vote of Colonel Roosevelt and
William II. Taft. The figures were
Wiison 3l2,986, and Roosevelt-Taft,
9i5z7s Colonel Roosevelt received
IsS 900 votes in the city, and ex-Presi-
dent Taft l26. 5s2. The combined Repub-
Progressive vote was 10000 larger
~ Rrookivn than the Wilson vote, and
within 600 of the Wilson vote IN Man
MIR Taft, in 1908, upset ali the local
Tammany precedent by carrying 'he
Greater city by 9,378 over William D.
Brvan. His plurality IN the state at
nat time was l95.997. Governor
J,,ebes who was running for reelec-
ION the same year. came down to Inc
prony with 136,125. His Democratic
onnonent. Chanler, had majority IN
he greater city Of b9,37l, leaving Gov
eInor Hughes a plurality in the state