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 of Senator-elect 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

575

In

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.

Rep

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. resentatives 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, Repub lican, 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,

transferred itself to the "dry" column. Kansas City, Missouri, is next door to Kansas City, Kansas, and has had an excellent opportunity to study the experience of its "dry" twin across the State line.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE AND
THE WOMEN'S VOTES

As we write, it seems sure that woman suffrage has been definitely defeated in West Virginia. A victory for suffrage is claimed in South Dakota, but a final decision on this point has not yet been made.

The most interesting conclusion in regard to woman suffrage seems to have been that the women did not vote as a class but that they divided practically on the same lines as the men.

In Illinois the women cast slightly less than forty per cent of the total vote of the State. They voted rapidly and in a businesslike manner. Previous to the election in many districts schools of instruction had been maintained for several days. Women who had never voted before went to these schools to learn the proper way to mark their ballots, a statement which shows how seriously they took their new responsibility.

THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF
THE EMPIRE STATE AND CITY

The interest in the New York State election centered in the labor situation in Erie County, to which we have already referred, and the contest between Governor Whitman and exJudge Seabury for the Governorship, and such portents as were displayed of the reelection of the Mitchel administration in New York City one year hence.

Governor Whitman won his contest by a large majority, a fact which can be accounted for both by the large up-State vote for Hughes and the fact that Judge Seabury made an unexpectedly weak campaign. After his defeat in the Progressive primaries he permitted himself to make bitter personal recriminations which did not aid his candidacy. He also took a stand in regard to military preparedness and military training in schools which evidently lost him votes.

Much interest was manifested in New York City in the contest between Mr. Curran and Mr. Dowling for the presidency of the Board of Aldermen. Mr. Curran, the candidate of the Mitchel administration, was defeated by Mr. Dowling, the Tammany candidate, by perhaps 30,000. This vote, like

that which President Wilson received in New York City, is much below the normal Tammany majority. In the city the fact that Judge Delehanty, candidate of the Republicans and Independents for election to the Court of General Sessions, failed of success by a very narrow margin is also taken as a hopeful sign that New York's reform administration may be returned for another four years at the next election.

THE ELECTION IN CUBA

Although the Presidential election in Cuba took place on November 1, there was some slight doubt as to the result even a week later than that date. The strong probability, however, is that the complete returns of the election will show that President Menocal has been re-elected by the Conservative party for another term of four years.

The delay in deciding the result is largely due to the slowness with which the popular vote is counted and returned from the fardistant rural districts in the eastern part of Cuba. It was a foregone conclusion that the Liberals would carry Havana and some parts at least of the neighboring districts. When, therefore, the returns for Havana. Matanzas, and Camaguey were made public the day after the election, the Liberals jumped to the conclusion that the considerable majority obtained in these places by their candidate, Dr. Alfredo Zayas, indicated his complete success. Later reports showed that the three great provinces of Pinar del Rio, Santa Clara, and Oriente had a more than correspondingly large Conservative majority. The more radical and aggressive of the Liberal politicians at once (and apparently without any sound basis of evidence) declared that Menocal's administration had "doctored" the returns in his interest, and at once resorted to the usual threat of an unsuccessful political party in Cuba, namely, that a revolution would ensue unless an appeal were made to the United States to intervene under our agreement with Cuba by the Platt Amendment. The mere fact that in time of trouble and impending danger Cuban parties thus incline to lean to the United States for sup port is not without significance.

President Menocal is a business man on a large scale, is unquestionably an efficient and calm executive officer, and he and his party are solidly in favor of industrial and economic development in Cuba. Dr. Zayas, his oppo