CHAPTER X

POLITICS AND ELECTIONS

Most political news falls into one of the general classes of stories already considered. Party conventions, campaign meetings, political speeches, interviews with candidates and party managers, for example, are treated like similar material in other fields. Elections, on the other hand, require a different handling. Three common kinds of election stories are: (1) an analysis of political conditions preceding an election with or without a forecast of the result, (2) a description of election day conditions and events, (3) the results of the election.

Although some newspapers are sufficiently independent in politics to treat political news without partisan bias, many papers still present such news from the point of view of their editorial policy. There is a growing tendency, however, to present both sides fairly in news columns and to confine partisanship to editorials.

Election return stories consist largely of summaries of the most important results of the election, such as: (1) the candidates elected and defeated, (2) the majority or plurality of the successful candidates, (3) the effect of the election on the political complexion of legislative bodies, (4) causes of victory and defeat, (5) statements by candidates and party managers in regard to the results.

* * * * *

POLITICAL FORECAST

_Springfield Republican_

Estimates as to the relative strength of the three leading political parties are at variance, but some of the best informed politicians are of the opinion that the alignment this year will be vastly different from what it was last year. Local political workers are of the opinion that the republican vote for governor in this section this year will be much larger than it was last year. This contention is made by prominent republicans who have canvassed the western counties very carefully, and who have done considerable campaign work in this section. Their predictions are made on the ground that the republican candidate last year antagonized a large element in the party, who either voted for Gov Walsh or for Mr Bird or did not vote at all. The check lists in almost every town and city in Western Massachusetts, with the exception of a few places in Berkshire, showed that the average republican vote last year was about 75 per cent of the normal vote of the party.

The leaders figure that Mr McCall will command a large percentage of the republican vote that was lost last year. They likewise figure that both Joseph Walker and Gov Walsh will suffer serious defections this year. They believe that Mr Walker will not poll more than two-thirds of the vote polled by Mr Bird last year. They figure that Gov Walsh will lose at least 5 per cent of his vote of last year. If these predictions should come true, they say that Mr McCall would profit by the defections from the other candidates. This would mean a close call for Gov Walsh and possibly his defeat.

While the democrats and progressives express confidence that their respective candidates will be winners, politicians who are not showing any active interest in the campaign believe that the contentions made by the republicans deserve consideration. Figuring on the basis of last year’s vote, local republicans predict that Gov Walsh will be fortunate if he receives 175,000 votes. This would mean a loss of about 8000 from his vote of last year. Should the progressives poll 80,000, they would suffer a loss of about 43,000 on the vote for governor. These defections would probably go to Mr McCall, who then would come very close to defeating the democratic candidate. The figures submitted are not impossible, as the vote last year indicates. Mr Bird, then candidate for governor, ran far ahead of the other candidates on the progressive ticket. This in itself shows that the true strength of the party was more nearly represented in the vote cast for the other candidates on the ticket than for the candidate for governor.

Western Massachusetts may not prove to be such a tremendous factor in deciding the campaign this year, but if the signs of the times are read correctly, Mr McCall will receive an unusually large vote throughout this section of the state. It is quite probable that Mr Walker may command a sizeable vote, but his strength is not apparent now. The injection of prohibition into the progressive campaign is thought to have injured the Walker cause, not because the average progressive is opposed to prohibition, but because many of them believe that the cause of prohibition should be confined to the party that raised it as an issue. The enthusiasm which characterized the progressive campaigns in the two years past is noticeably absent this year. Try as the leaders will, they cannot raise the excitement of former years, and this is not a healthy sign in the opinion of those who have followed politics closely.

The progressives, however, maintain that they have not suffered any losses, and they again predict a large vote this fall. Richard J. Talbot, chairman of the progressive city committee, claims that one-third of the new registration will be found voting with the progressives on election day. Mr Talbot likewise goes on record as predicting that the contest for governor this year will be between Mr Walsh and Mr Walker. He believes that Mr McCall will run third, as Mr Gardner did last year.

The progressives and the democrats will follow closely on the heels of the republican spellbinders who will invade the city Monday evening. A big republican rally is planned for that evening when Mr McCall, Senator Burton and Congressman Gillett will be heard. The local republican city committee has planned a reception for the candidates from 7.15 until 8 o’clock. The rally will be held in the Auditorium. The democrats will hold their rally in the Auditorium on Wednesday evening, the 28th, and it is possible that the progressives will follow on the 29th or 30th.

* * * * *

ELECTION DAY

_New York Times_

The fair weather and the fact that the new modified Massachusetts ballot gave the voters little trouble made ideal conditions yesterday for rapid voting.

Voters began to crowd polling places within five minutes after the polls opened at 6 o’clock. They voted in steady streams until 9 o’clock, when the first lull set in, and a tabulation of figures revealed the fact that nearly half the votes were cast.

It was a record for early voting for any election in recent years. By noon 65 per cent. of the total vote was in, and at 4 o’clock reports indicated that the late afternoon rush would be inconsequential, as 85 per cent. of the vote had already been cast. The total vote was recorded in several election districts more than an hour before the polls were scheduled to be closed.

Trouble had been expected from the new ballots, but as voter after voter emerged from the voting booths within a minute after entering, the watchers began to gain confidence that the day would pass without serious confusion.

In the districts near Columbia University some voters took as long as nine minutes to vote, their extreme deliberation indicating that they were splitting their tickets with much care. In the downtown districts political parties set up sample voting places as near to the polls as the law would allow. With sample ballots and the aid of instructors, they taught the voters who had not had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the new ballots earlier, how to vote in the normal amount of time.

The “place of stay” voters were conspicuous by their absence. Watchers for the Honest Ballot Association, who were employed in squads of 100 members each, scoured the city with warrants for the arrest of men who were suspected, but they went empty-handed for the most part, although they challenged a few suspects.

One young man became very indignant and wanted to fight when challenged. He rushed into the office of Supt. of Elections Voorhis, denouncing everybody in general connected with the election, and demanding that an escort be given to him to see that he got his legal chance to vote. He was asked where he voted last year and he said in New Jersey, insisting, however, that he had lived here a year since that time. Supt. Voorhis with a smile informed the young man that the election last year was on Nov. 4, so that if he swore in his vote this year he “would be taking a pretty long chance.” He changed his belligerent mood at once and left, with thanks for Mr. Voorhis’s warning.

The only serious quarrel of the day occurred at the opening of the polls in the Fourteenth Election District of the Eighth Assembly District at 180 Eldridge Street. A Democratic Captain objected to Joseph Strulowitz as a member of the Board of Inspectors. Strulowitz was supported by Misha Hymowitz, Chairman of the board, and a seventeen-minute argument ensued that sometimes grew so warm that bystanders had to separate the contenders.

While it lasted not a single vote could be cast, and it was finally settled by the protests of more than 100 voters, who urged that they had to be on their way to work and couldn’t afford to stand about just to see a row. Strulowitz finally was permitted to take his place. Supt. Voorhis had to send a Special Inspector to a Brooklyn election district on receiving a report from a Deputy that only three Inspectors instead of four, as provided by law, were on duty.

Mr. Voorhis sent out 300 Deputies in a search for election frauds. Upon receiving reports from them as to the speed and quietness of the voting throughout the city, Mr. Voorhis announced that it was the quietest and most smoothly working Election Day he had ever known.

The entrance of former football stars into the business of watching the polls provided in some districts an element of interest that almost overshadowed the voting. L. Bigelow, Jr., Captain of Yale’s football team in 1907, led the football forces that had volunteered as watchers. He was the centre of admiring throngs of boys when he visited voting places in lower Fifth Avenue. With him were Walter Logan and John Kilpatrick, ends on the Yale team in 1910; “Pop” Foster, a Yale tackle in 1908; Arthur Howe, an All-American quarter back, selected from the Yale team of 1910; S. D. Baker of Princeton, and “Big Ed” Farley of Harvard.

The football squad worked with 250 college men, who were registered as members of the Volunteer Watchers’ League and were under the direct control of Assistant District Attorney Weller. Some of them remained in automobiles at the Criminal Courts Building ready to respond on an instant’s notice to any call for help.

A bit of humor that enlivened the day in the upper east side was contributed by the fact that four Election Inspectors, a ballot clerk, a poll clerk, and a policeman had to remain on duty all day at an election district where the entire vote was cast at 9 o’clock and there was no possible prospect of getting any more votes through the long day’s wait. The voteless watch occurred at the Forty-seventh Election District of the Nineteenth Assembly District at McGowan’s Pass Tavern in Central Park. At 8:58 o’clock 50 per cent. of the district’s vote was cast when Max Boehm cast his vote, and the other 50 per cent. was cast when Max Boehm’s son Bertrand emerged from the booth two minutes later. They were the only two registered voters in the district.

Women from the Women’s Political Union visited the different polling places distributing suffrage literature. The women were on duty, some of them from 6 A. M., and they remained until the close. Hundreds of women passed in and out of the headquarters of the union at 25 East Forty-fifth Street during the day to get literature and directions for distribution. Mrs. Harriot Stanton Blatch, the President, was at 623 Columbus Avenue, her own district, with her daughter and little granddaughter, the latter distributing literature with her elders. Mrs. John Winters Brannan was at the polls in the cigar shop, 103 West Forty-sixth Street, and Miss Anna Constable, at 631 Park Avenue. Polling places on the lower east side were thoroughly covered by the women.

* * * * *

STATE ELECTION RESULTS

_New York World_

(Lead only)

By a change of more than 330,000 votes the electors of New York State yesterday brought about these results:

Swept the Democratic party from the control of the New York State government by electing Charles S. Whitman, the Republican candidate, Governor by a plurality of 129,642 over Martin H. Glynn, Democrat.

Elected James W. Wadsworth jr., Republican, to the seat in the Senate now held by Elihu Root, over James W. Gerard, by a plurality of probably 55,000. Mr. Gerard, however, ran many thousands of votes ahead of Mr. Glynn, not only in the City of New York but in the country districts. He received 132,000 plurality in New York City; Mr. Glynn 57,000.

Turned over to the Republicans the control of both branches of the Legislature, the next Senate probably containing 32 Republicans and 19 Democrats, and the Assembly 106 Republicans and 44 Democrats.

Reduced the Democratic representation in the New York delegation to the House of Representatives from 31 to 23.

Gave a surprisingly large vote to William Sulzer, the Prohibition-Progressive-American candidate for Governor, not only in the country districts, but in the Tammany stronghold of Manhattan. He carried Steuben County by 300.

Showed a slump in the Progressive vote in every part of the State, in some instances the number of ballots cast for Mr. Davenport, the Progressive candidate for Governor, being negligible. The total Progressive vote was apparently about one-fifth of the 393,183 given Mr. Straus two years ago.

* * * * *

STATE ELECTION RETURNS

_New York Times_

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 3.--Boies Penrose was re-elected to the United States Senate today by a plurality approaching 100,000.

Dr. Martin Brumbaugh, Republican candidate for Governor, was elected by more than 125,000, and the entire Republican State ticket was swept into office, according to latest unofficial returns from all parts of Pennsylvania.

This estimate is based upon the heavy Republican vote polled in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and the sweep of the Republican column in such Democratic strongholds as Lehigh and Lycoming Counties.

The commanding lead of the Republicans indicates that the Democratic delegation in the National House of Representatives will be reduced from twelve to seven, the Progressive delegation reduced from seven to two, and the Republicans increased from 17 to 27.

The Republicans will have a large majority in both Houses of the State Legislature.

Until late tonight, Democratic State leaders claimed the election of Vance McCormick, Democratic candidate for Governor, by 135,000, despite the all-apparent Republican victory. Progressive State leaders admitted defeat shortly before midnight.

A. Nevin Detrick, State Chairman of the Progressive Party, said tonight:

Returns indicate an overwhelming victory for Penrose and Brumbaugh. I attribute this vote to a revulsion against the Democratic Administration and the belief on the part of the electorate that the Republican Party is the instrument through which there will be a revival of prosperity.

State issues seem to have been lost sight of by the voters, and the entire result is apparently based on national traditions. Returns from over the State are too meagre to predict from as to the district, Congressional, and Legislative candidates, but there is little doubt that the returns for the head of the ticket will prevail throughout the list.

Gifford Pinchot, Progressive candidate for United States Senator, said:

During the campaign just ended, I made the statement that, win or lose, I would keep on with the fight for the conservation of natural resources for the use of the people, against the monopolies and special interests, and in particular against the kind of government that Penrose represents. I reaffirm that statement now.

A. Mitchell Palmer, Democratic candidate for United States Senator, ran second, with Pinchot, Progressive, third. Palmer commanded a much larger vote than had been conceded by the opposition leaders.

The four Republican Congressmen at large, Scott, Crago, Lafean, and Garland, were elected, and the Republicans in all probability have carried into office nineteen of the twenty-seven members of the State Senate.

Latest returns from this city indicate that Brumbaugh carried Philadelphia by a majority of 115,000 and Penrose by 100,000. Republican leaders in Philadelphia asserted that this sweep meant that the full Philadelphia delegation of six Congressmen had been won by the Republicans.

The vote throughout Pennsylvania was exceptionally heavy, and it is estimated that upward of 1,000,000 citizens went to the polls.

While no estimate of the complete Pinchot vote is yet possible, it is believed that Col. Roosevelt’s recent invasion of Pennsylvania aided little in bringing support.

* * * * *

CITY ELECTION RETURNS

_St. Louis Globe-Democrat_

The St. Louis vote in Tuesday’s election was a landslide for the Republicans.

The tabulated vote from all the 474 precincts shows majorities ranging from 3000 to 25,000. The St. Louis County vote also was carried by the Republicans.

The final count shows that the Democrats elected only one congressman, three members of the Legislature, four justices of the peace and four constables.

The home rule police and excise laws carried in St. Louis by a majority of 8400. The vote in the state, however, defeated the home rule laws.

The woman suffrage amendment received a hard blow in St. Louis, the majority against it being 57,135.

The total Republican and Democratic vote in St. Louis is estimated at 114,000. The vote of the Progressive party almost disappeared. Arthur N. Sager, the Progressive candidate for United States senator, polled only 1600 votes.

The Socialist vote, which has not been tabulated, is estimated at about 8000.

The Republican ticket was led by Howard Sidener, candidate for re-election for prosecuting attorney. His plurality was more than 25,000 over Walter A. Kelly, the Democratic candidate. The plurality of Louis Alt for license collector was over 25,000. He defeated Dennis P. O’Brien, Democrat.

Karl Kimmel defeated Glendy B. Arnold, who led the Democratic judicial ticket, by 3000 votes. George H. Shields, Republican, had a plurality of 15,378 over John J. O’Brien, low man on the Democratic judicial ticket.

By a majority of more than 14,000 over Edward A. Feehan, Democrat, Charles W. Holtcamp was re-elected probate judge. For each of the more important offices, the Republican candidates’ pluralities exceeded 12,000.

By the election of L. C. Dyer in the Twelfth District over John P. Collins, the Republicans will gain one congressman from St. Louis. Henry A. Hamilton, the Republican candidate in the Eleventh District, was defeated by William L. Igoe by a plurality of more than 1900. Collins lost to Dyer by 2100.

Jacob E. Meeker, Republican candidate, was elected in the Tenth District by a plurality over Francis M. Curlee of more than 14,000 in the city. Meeker, who will succeed Richard Bartholdt, had a large majority in St. Louis County.

The Democrats elected their representatives in the Legislature from the Third District only, the successful candidates being J. J. Moroney, Charles Rizzo and Martin Ward.

The Republicans elected three state senators and thirteen members of the House of Representatives. The election gives the Republicans of St. Louis sixteen votes in the General Assembly of the state.

A. C. Wiget, Jr., defeated Maurice J. Cassidy, the Democratic incumbent from the Thirteenth District, in the State Senate.

Four justices of the peace were elected by the Democrats--Edward Rice winning over Col. Dick Johnson in the Third District, Andrew Gazzolo and Rod Gorman being elected in the Fifth District, and James P. Miles winning in the Sixth District.

George Grassmuck, Republican, defeated Andrew Scully, member of the House of Delegates, for justice of the peace in the Eighth District by a large plurality. W. D. Moore, Republican, defeated Robert J. Carroll, Democrat, in the Ninth District.

Lawrence P. Daley, Democratic city committeeman in the Seventeenth Ward, was defeated for constable in the Fourth District. The Democrats elected only three constables. Daley led Turpin in the voting, but fell behind Floyd E. Bush, Republican, who was elected.

Republican majorities were piled up in the First, Second, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Twenty-first wards.

* * * * *

VOTE ON LIQUOR ISSUE

_Chicago Record-Herald_

Richmond, Va., Sept. 22.--[Special.]--Virginia will join the other dry states Nov. 1, 1916, a majority of the voters of the state having cast their ballots to-day in favor of state-wide prohibition. Anti-liquor forces carried the election by not less than 25,000.

The cities of Alexandria, Danville, Norfolk and Richmond were the only ones that gave a majority against state-wide prohibition. Richmond voted 4,287 for prohibition and 6,011 against. The vote in the twenty cities of the state was 21,726 for and 19,699 against state-wide prohibition.

Scattering returns from all the counties show heavy dry majorities.

The surprise of the day was the vote in Petersburg, 2,122 for state-wide prohibition and 1,123 against. The wets had figured on carrying that city as well as Newport News, which went dry by a vote of 1,024 to 761.

In Alexandria, the home of a large brewery, the vote was 387 for and 1,132 against. Bristol, which voted wet in the last local option election, voted 424 to 282 for state-wide prohibition.

Roanoke joined the dry column by a vote of 2,329 for and 1,226 against, and the vote in Lynchburg was 1,713 for and 973 against.

The counties of Amelia, Page and Greene are the only ones so far heard from that registered a wet majority.

Ninety of the 100 counties voted dry in previous local option contests.

The result of the election will cause the state to lose in revenue about $700,000 annually. It will cause all of the liquor manufacturing concerns to remove from the state. Only manufacturers at present engaged in the production of wine and its by-products, cider and beer, of not over 3½ per cent alcohol, can manufacture in this state after Nov. 1, 1916, and the product must be shipped outside the state and into territory where its sale is legally authorized.

The day was a perfect one throughout the state. No disorder was reported in any town or county.