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)