Evening star., 1928-04-29
DIVISION OF PENNSYLVANIA'S
DEMOCRATIC VOTE IN DOUBT
Incomplete Primary Returns Fail to Re-
veal Lineup of Convention Delegates.
46 Seen Smiths.
sn.,,s, D,.,,,oh 20 TIL. s,,r

Special Dispatch to The star.
HARRISBURG, Pa, April 2s-
Incomplete returns from Pennsylvania s
presidential primary Tuesday leave
the ultimate division of strength in the
rs Democratic convention votes in
doubt Complete official returns may
be needed TO determine the actual re-
suits of balloting for Democratic dele
gates-at-large, although Smith is cey-
tain of half of these votes.
The most conservative analysis of the
~ district delegate votes, conceding
nothing where there appears to be the
slightest doubt, shows:
Favorable to Smith. As,
Opposed TO Smith, g.
In doubt, II.
The II votes in doubt include those
in districts which have not reported.
as well as delegates whose attitude on
the presidency is uncertain.
National Committeeman Joseph r.
Guffey, Smith manager, at the time
polls closed Tuesday night, claimed 66
night he increased his claim to 69is
votes Senator Reeds managers claim
ed Il. The anti-Smith movement head
ed by former National Chairman Vance
c. Mccormick claims from IL to 26.
and this number includes some votes
known to oppose Reed as well as Smith,
Lineup Predicted.
Four delegates are claimed for both
Smith and Reed. and one Is claimed for
both Smith ana Gov. Donahey. Ignor-
ing these disputed votes, the best
guess as to how the II others
will line up is Smith. Sd; Donahey, /;
Huston Thompson, /, anti-Smith. but
not committed, II, and in doubt, 4.
The outstanding surprise of the pri-
mary is the size of the vote polled by
the four anti-Smith candidates for
delegate at large The ballots called
for election Of eight delegates at large
four men and four women. each with
half a vote The four women for Smith
were unoppoSed Five Smith candi-
dates and four opposed to Smith con-
tested for the four places assigned to
the men.
Unouestionably the fact that the
anti-Smith quartet had the first four
places on the ballot contributed TO their
large vote. Returns from more than
two-thirds Of the State showed two of
the anti-Smith men among the four
high candidates, one being John A.
McSparran. the nominee for governor
against clifford Pinchot IN 1922: the
other being Norris Hoover. whose name
was first on the ballots. Anti-Snith
managers claimed that as the unre-
ported districts were largely in rural
counties of the interior. the two other
anti-Smith candidates. Foster. running
sixth. and Mccullough. eighth. will also
be elected when the final returns are
compiled after the official count, A
factional row among Philadelphia DEM
ocrats. resulting In defeat of State
Chairman Haggartv as a Guffey dele
gate at large. contributed to split vot-
ing and aided the anti-Smith candi-
dates.
May Influence Delegates.
II is possible that in some of the in
terror counties the size of the vote
polled by the anti-Smith delegates at
large may influence some Of the dis
trict delegates who have not declared
their stand The Guffey organization.
however. is planning TO prevent any Of
these men slipping away from Smith.
1t is just as likely that noncommittal
delegates regarded as opposed to Smith
viii turn TO him at the convention be-
cause Of the influence Of delegation
with q large Smith majority
In contrast with the vote polled by
the anti-Smith candidates for delegate
at large is the preponderance Of prefer
entail vote for Smith as reported by
such counties as have tabulated the
vote written on ballots The written
IN" vote was not included in unofficial
returns from most districts. however.
Another oddity was that in one dts
rrict which elected two delegates labeled
as Smith men. the only votes reported
as written In were for Senator Reed
Senator Walsh ran second TO Smith in
the written-in vote in Philadelphia, but
no candidates definitely pledged 10
Walsh have been chosen
In addition to the four votes claimed
tor both Smith and Reed. Reed is re-