THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nobody knew definitely two days after the election whether President Wilson or Mr. Hughes had been elected for the next four years, or even when it would be decided that one or the other had been elected. The election of the President is not determined by the majority of votes cast, but by the majority of electors chosen.

Each State has a certain number of electoral votes, according to the number of representatives it has in the Senate and the House. The lowest possible number of electors for any State is three, since every State has two Senators and at least one Representative. New York has the largest body of electors, namely, forty-five; while New Mexico, Delaware, Arizona, Wyoming, and Nevada have three each.

Twenty-four hours after the polls had closed it seemed that of the 531 electoral votes President Wilson was fairly certain of 251-fifteen short of a majority. The States whose votes seemed then most uncertain were California, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and (much to the general surprise) New Hampshire. It then seemed certain that President Wilson would win by gaining either California or Minnesota and any one of the other three States; while Mr. Hughes would need either both California and Minnesota or else one of these two and all the other three. At one time it seemed possible that the result might turn upon the three votes of New Mexico. Very narrow pluralities in several States suggested

that the final decision might be reached only after an official recount. When on Thursday at midnight California was reported as giving President Wilson a majority of over three thousand, his re-election seemed assured.

DAYS OF UNCERTAINTY

When the sun set on election day in the East, it was still shining in the western part of the country, and in some Western States the polls closed at a later hour than in some of the Eastern States. Consequently, when the returns began to come in from New England and New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and the other States along the Atlantic, voters in California were still casting their ballots. Indeed, between the closing of the polls in New York at five and the closing of the polls in California at seven o'clock there was an actual difference of five hours. The East was known to be Hughes territory, and when the early returns began to come in showing big pluralities for Hughes there was no particular cause for surprise. But what did surprise and mislead, not only the ordinary citizen, but the trained observer of political matters, were the large Hughes majorities in the precinct returns from such a State as Illinois. When it began to be known on Tuesday night by nine or halfpast nine o'clock that Hughes had not only carried most, if not all, of the North Atlantic seaboard States, but had won in the great Middle Western States of Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and even Indiana, it seemed to many impossible that there was any chance

for the President's re-election. Indeed, the New York " Times," an ardent and consistent supporter of President Wilson throughout the campaign, flashed from the top of its tower the red light which it had adopted as the signal for the election of Mr. Hughes, and kept that red light steadily burning until midnight.

That Ohio had gone for Mr. Wilson was no surprise. To the supporters of Mr. Hughes, however, the silence of Minnesota, which was not heard from, seemed ominous. And those who had been prepared for signs of the President's strength in the West were waiting for later information concerning the Rocky Mountain States and the States of the Pacific coast. Early returns from California seemed to indicate safe pluralities for Mr. Hughes, but these reports proved misleading. By the next morning the returns coming in from the States that had not been heard from seemed to be almost overwhelmingly favorable to President Wilson. The Western and Rocky Mountain States of Idaho, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, Washington, all fell into the Wilson column. These, with Maryland and Kentucky, the Southwestern States of Arizona, Oklahoma, and Missouri, the Middle Western State of Ohio, and the "solid South," comprised the unquestioned Wilson territory.

The spirit of Nationalism, as indicated by the Republican pluralities, reached higher levels in parts of the Middle West than some expected. Illinois, with its great body of newly enfranchised women voters, did not yield to the counsels of caution and " safety first." Apparently the women of Illinois were as ready as the men to regard National duty as paramount, whatever hardship might come with it. On the other hand, the other so-called suffrage States seem to be predominantly for President Wilson and the Democratic ticket. But it is plain that if that vote indicates a yielding of duty to a desire for comfort and tranquillity, the men well as the women share the responsibility. As a matter of fact, the Democratic vote of the Far West is an indication that the people of that region are less responsive to the spirit of Nationalism than they are responsive to the spirit of democracy. They may be forgetful of the duty that this Nation owes to other nations or to its own citizens on the high seas and in foreign lands, but they have a lively sense of

as

social justice. To them the dangers of the reaction that might come through a change in parties seemed to be more imminent than any danger of neglect of duty on the part of the Nation toward the rest of the world or toward its own citizens in foreign parts.

We discuss the significance of this election at greater length on another page.

THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Though the Democrats apparently remain in control of Congress, the elections have somewhat changed its complexion.

The upper branch of Congress, the Senate, has a membership of 96; the necessary majority is 49. The lower branch of Congress, the House of Representatives, has a membership of 435; the necessary majority is 218.

The present Senate stands 56 Democrats to 40 Republicans-a Democratic majority of 16. According to latest returns, the future Senate may have 54 Democrats and 42 Republicans-a Democratic majority of

12.

The present House has 229 Democrats, 198 Republicans, 6 Progressives, one Socialist, and one Independent-a Democratic majority of 23 over the Republicans and the members of the minor political parties. According to partial returns, the future House may consist in a practical tie as between Republicans and Democrats when final returns have been reported, but with indications favoring a very slight Republican majority.

NEW SENATORS AND OLD

In last week's election 33 United States Senators were chosen, but, in all, 35 new Senators will take their seats next March. The 35 include the two Senators elected by the Republicans in the September Maine election. The 35 also include the one-third increase of the whole number of Senators necessary every two years, and the replacements of those who died in office.

In the Senate the Republican gains have been in the States of Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, and West Vir ginia; the Democratic gains have been in the States of Delaware, Rhode Island, Utah, and later returns may disclose victories also in New Mexico and Wyoming.

Next to the choice of the President probably the most notable result of last Tuesday's elections is the new Republican blood in the

Senate, for the Republican Senatorial gains are more significant not only in quantity but also in quality than are the Democratic. Most noteworthy is Hiram Johnson, of California, Republican, succeeding to the seat of Senator Works, Republican. Mr. Johnson is known throughout the whole country as a man of compelling force, and especially an executive who has made of California the most progressive State in the Union. He has always maintained the qualities which distinguished him when he was one of the prosecuting attorneys in the San Francisco cases involving leading city officials and almost all the public utility corporations. He was one of the founders of the Progressive party, and was its candidate for Vice-President. A portrait A portrait of Senator-eléct Johnson appears on another page.

Frank B. Kellogg, of Minnesota, succeeds to the seat of Senator Clapp, a progressive Republican. Mr. Kellogg is another famous prosecutor. He represented the United States Government against the Standard Oil Company; he was also special counsel for the Inter-State Commerce Commission in the action to dissolve the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger.

A well-known figure reappears in the person of Philander C. Knox, Republican, from Pennsylvania, succeeding Senator Oliver, a Republican. Mr. Knox was AttorneyGeneral of the Cabinets of Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt, and discharged the duties of that office with signal ability. He became United States Senator in 1904, and resigned in 1909 to accept the office of Secretary of State in President's Taft's Cabinet.

Another improvement in the personnel of the Senate results from the election of Joseph S. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, who succeeds to the seat of Senator Martine, Democrat. In no State occurred a more striking setback to a political machine than that resulting in the unexpected choice by the New Jersey primaries of Mr. Frelinghuysen over the Hon. Franklin Murphy, the machine candidate. Mr. Frelinghuysen is a man of strong fiber.

William M. Calder, of New York, is also a new man in the Senate. He has had a decade's experience in the House. Mr. Calder succeeds to the seat now held by the Hon. James A. O'Gorman, Democrat. There come also Harry S. New and James E. Watson, Republicans, from Indiana, in

In

575 succession to the seats now occupied by Senators Kern and Taggart, Democrats. Maine, ex-Governor Fernald, Republican, will appear alongside Colonel Frederick Hale, Republican, who won the seat now occupied by Senator Charles F. Johnson, a Democrat. The most surprising Republican victories, however, have been in the border States of Maryland and West Virginia. The first remains Democratic, and yet Dr. Joseph Erwin France, Republican, will replace Senator Blair Lee, Democrat, in the Senate; from the second State, which now becomes Republican, Representative Sutherland will replace Senator William E. Chilton, Democrat. These victories are plainly due to independent thinking.

Among Republican Senators replaced by Democrats we have to chronicle three unexpected disappearances of well-known figures, two of them from States hitherto considered by Republicans as "rock-ribbed," namely, Utah and Rhode Island. From the first the Senate will lose George Sutherland, who has been in that body for sixteen years, his successor being William H. King. Mr. Sutherland has been justly regarded as one of the foremost lawyers of the upper house. From Rhode Island, Henry F. Lippitt, an expert in tariff schedules, is to be replaced by Peter Goelet Gerry. From Delaware, Colonel Henry A. du Pont, an authority on military matters, is to be replaced by Josiah O. Wolcott. The Republican defeats in two of these three States may be attributed to factional disputes. In Wyoming the election of the Democratic Governor Kendrick to succeed United States Senator Clark seems to be confirmed at this writing.

Of the Senators re-elected, Mr. Lodge, of Massachusetts, Republican, looms largest. For many years he has been rightly regarded as the Senate's intellectual leader. Other notable Republicans re-elected are Senators Poindexter, of Washington (though the State "went " for a Democratic President and a Democratic Governor), La Follette, of Wisconsin, McLean, of Connecticut, and Page, of Vermont. Mr. Poindexter has been a Progressive and is now a Republican, whereas Mr. La Follette, who has been a Republican, has now become really an Independent. although still rated a Republican. At al events, he has espoused some of the Wilson policies, and in the campaign had nothing to say in support of Mr. Hughes; despite

this, he was re-elected, owing to his large personal following.

The following well-known Democratic legislators have been re-elected: Senators Williams, of Mississippi; Reed, of Missouri; Myers, of Montana; Pittman, of Nevada; Culberson, of Texas; and Swanson, of Virginia.

SOME REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTED AND DEFEATED

In the House, according to present returns, the Republicans have gained Representatives from Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. The Democrats have gained Representatives from Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and have won back the one North Carolina seat held by a Republican.

Among new men in the House is Medill McCormick, of Illinois, who went into the Progressive party but returned to the Republican party before the Progressive Convention in Chicago last June. Thus far no one of the familiar "war horses" of either party has been defeated. The House, therefore, will still have the presence of such Republicans as Hill of Connecticut, Gillett and Gardner of Massachusetts, Cannon, Mann, and McKinley from Illinois; and of such Democrats as Speaker Clark from Missouri, and Representatives Sherley of Kentucky, Kitchin of North Carolina, Moon of Tennessee, and Glass of Virginia.

Certain defeats should also be chronicled. One is that of Representative Bennet, of New York, Republican, whose unwarranted attack on Frederic C. Howe, Immigration Commissioner at the port of New York, reacted to the Congressman's political injury. Representatives Frank Buchanan and Clyde H. Tavenner, of Illinois, Democrats, were also defeated, we are glad to say. Mr. Buchanan had attempted to unite in a common cause his labor constituency and professional pro-Germans. Mr. Tavenner has been known as the extremest sort of a "little navy man. Another notable pacifist, Warren Worth Bailey, Democrat, of Pennsylvania, has also lost his seat. Mr. Bailey, an ardent supporter of William J. Bryan, has been regarded as Mr. Bryan's spokesman in Congress.

The vote of the National Guardsmen now on the Mexican border will determine the Congressional contests in two Pennsylvania

districts and may in some others as well. In Pennsylvania, William H. Coleman, Republican, seems to be elected by a majority of only twenty votes in his district, and A. J. Barchfield, Republican, appears to be defeated by only nineteen votes in his district. Hence, as members of the National Guard from these districts are at the border and voted Tuesday, the fate of Coleman and Barchfield will not be known until the soldier votes have been officially canvassed.

THE ELECTION AND THE STATES

It is difficult, after any general election, for a reader of the American press to form definite conclusions as to the issues and results of the State elections. In the first place, the first returns from the States are almost invariably inaccurate. In the second place, the final returns are too often unpublished because they have, in the eyes of the daily press, lost their news value.

But even while the National elections were still hanging in the balance, there were, however, certain definite tendencies clearly shown by the result of the polls of the votes of the States on their internal affairs.

The most interesting facts demonstrated are the growth of prohibition and the disintegration of Nationalism within the Republican party. The questions of Socialism, woman suffrage and the use which the women have made of their growing power to influence Presidential elections, the attitude of the labor vote and the socalled hyphen vote, are also features of importance. With regard to these last two factors, if the State elections show anything, they show that there has been no marked labor or hyphen solidarity, certainly not to the degree which had been forecast before November 7.

HOW THE STATES VOTED

Coming from generalities to particulars, it is necessary to consider the States both in groups and as individual units. The States which lend themselves most easily to classification in a group are those which demonstrated their inability to think Nationally, which were ready to sacrifice National candidates and policies to local quarrels.

At the head of this group stands comfortable Kansas, electing a Republican Governor by a large majority and voting for a Democratic President, apparently chiefly from a failure to understand the chief issues of the elec

tion. In this group, too, belong Ohio, North Dakota, and Minnesota. It might seem proper to include California and Washington in this list, save that the ineptitude of the old-line Republican organization in these States has made it doubly hard for the Progressive element to join whole-heartedly in the National fight. Washington still bitterly remembers the theft of her delegates to the Republican Convention in 1912, and Progressive Californians have had little temptation to work in harmony with Republicans for the election of Mr. Hughes, except as they thought in terms of

the Nation.

Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana form a pleasing contrast to the political disorganization of the Republican States which we have already mentioned. In New Hampshire the factional antagonism to the Gallinger machine left its traces in the destruction of the oldtime Republican majority both in the National and State ticket. On the contrary, in Colorado the liberal Republican Governor Carlson lost to his Democratic opponent after carrying the primaries of his own party.

In such States as Ohio, Minnesota, and Montana, Democratic advance has been due to vigorous and efficient Democratic organization as well as to Republican disorganization.

THE SOCIALIST, LABOR,
AND HYPHENATED VOTE

It is difficult at this writing to tell at all definitely how successful the Socialists were in increasing their past votes. The National manager of the Socialist party, Mr. Carl D. Thompson, claims an increased vote of some three hundred thousand over that cast in 1912. How he arrives at this total we do not know, for the returns from the major parties are so incomplete that reports on the votes of minor parties are doubly uncertain. Mr. Thompson claims, too, that Socialists have elected thirty-five members of State Legislatures in twenty-one States.

Of perhaps greater significance than the Socialist vote is the evidence that the labor vote and the so-called hyphenated vote were very inconsiderable factors in either State or National election. The stronghold of organized railway labor in Erie County, New York, showed no signs of being excessively influenced either in the State or National election by the passage of the Adamson Eight-Hour Law. In Detroit, the home of skilled labor, and in Bridgeport, Connecticut, the center of the manufacture of munitions, the labor

577

vote divided much as did the rest of the electorate. In New Jersey, a State which repudiated President Wilson, Hudson County, a stronghold of German-American citizens, failed to manifest any unusual enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate for Governor, Mr. Otto Wittpenn, a citizen of Hoboken of German extraction. The Republican candidate for Governor, Mr. Walter E. Edge, of Atlantic City, carried New Jersey by a large majority.

THE QUESTION OF PROHIBITION IN THE STATES

If any one group of people can find solid comfort in the State elections, it is certainly the prohibitionists and the Anti-Saloon group. As a result of their efforts four more States have been made " dry by constitutional amendment and two States will probably be added to the "dry" " column during the coming year by legislative enactment. Michigan went "dry" by a majority now estimated at about 80,000. The city of Detroit itself seems to have voted against liquor. In Michigan, also, a local option amendment to the Constitution, advocated by the liquor interests, was defeated by about 100,000. Montana went dry by perhaps 20,000 votes; Nebraska went dry by approximately 25,000. South Dakota likewise joined the dry column with an apparently decisive plurality.

In California a proposition to abolish the manufacture as well as the sale of spirituous liquor was defeated. The fate of a second proposition to abolish the retail sale of liquor is, as we write, still somewhat in doubt. The present indications are that even the drastic first proposition carried the State outside of San Francisco. San Francisco, it is conceded, went wet by over 80,000.

The two States which are expected to go "dry" by legislative enactment during the coming year are Utah and Florida, both of which will have "dry" Legislatures and "dry" Governors. Mr. Sidney J. Catts has apparently been elected Governor of Florida, defeating Mr. W. A. Knott, the regular Democratic nominee. Mr. Catts was defeated for the regular Democratic nomination and ran on a Prohibition and Independent ticket.

It should be noted, too, that although Missouri voted "wet" at this election, Kansas City, Missouri, which not long ago voted "wet" by three to one,