Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 17, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 May 1892 — DEMOCRATIC GAINS [ARTICLE]

DEMOCRATIC GAINS

IN THE RECENT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS THROUGHOUT INDIANA. A Democratic Victory—Not a Bay of Hope in the Returns tor tba Republican Party. It is certainly true that the city and town elections are to a large extent governed by local conditions and issues and that their results cannot he regarded as an infallible index to the direction of the political current. But there is a certain ass? iation of the party name by which the ticket is designated with the well known general principles of that party in the general mind, and that association very largely influences the vote of a great majority of people. Only to this extent are the results indicative of the drift of sentiment on strictly party lines.

The returns have been carefully compiled from dispatches to the Indianapolis Journal and Sentinel the gains made by the two parties in the town and city elections last week. It would be positively unfair to take the returns in either paper as absolutely accurate. In the following table, however, reports to both papers have been used and cities and towns have been placed in the column to which both reports agree in assigning them. The table shows also the previous or natural political complexion of the cities. Not all the cities in the Democratic gain column have gone Democratic, but the Democrats have in each made gains either in officers or total votes. So with the Republican column. In that will be found a number of places which have in the main gone Democratic, but in which the majority has been reduced or certain officers have been lost. The showing is pleasing to Democrats for the advantage in the week’s balloting rests with them. In the table the name of the city is followed by “D” or “R” to indicate the natural or previous political complexion of the place:

DEMOCRATIC GAINS. REPUBLICAN GAINS. Anderson, R. Auburn, D. Brookville, R. Argos, D. Bloomington, R. Attica, R. Bedford, R. Brownstown, D. Bloomfield’, R. Batesville, R. Charleston, R. play City, R. Claysburg, D. Dana. D. Clarksville, D. Darlington, R. Columbus, R. Delphi, D. Cambridge City, R. Frankfort, R. Columbia City, D. Franklin, R. Cicero, D. Fort Wayne, D. Danville, R. Greensburg, R. Dublin, R. Kentland, R. Greencastle, R. Lawrenceburg, D. Greenfield, D. Logansport, D. Hammond, D. Michigan City, D. Hartford City, R. Monticello, D. Jeffersonville, D. Madison, D. Knightstown, R. New Albany, D. Knox, R. Rochester, EL Kokomo, R. ' V Scottsburg, D. Liberty, R. Shelbyville, R. Ligonier, R. South Bend, D. Laporte, D. Tipton, D. Mishawaka, D. Vincennes, D. Marion, R. W. Indianapolis,R, Muncie, R. Washington, R. North Vernon, R. Total—2B. New Castle, R. Oakland City, D. Port Fulton, D. Plymouth, D. Portland, R. Rockville, R. Sullivan, D. Shoals, R. Seymour, R. Terre Haute, R. Union City, R. Valparaiso, D. Winamac, D. Warsaw, R. Wabash, R. Williamsport, R. Xenia, R. Total —45. It will be seen that the Democrats made gains in twenty-nine Republican and fifteen Democratic cities and towns, while the Republicans made gains in fifteen Democratic and thirteen Republican localities. In the following places there was no marked advantage to either party, each holding its own: Democratic Montpelier, Linton, Haughville, Boonville, Bluffton, Decatur, IJuntington, Bloomfield, Pern, Waynetown, Elwood, Sellersburg, Lafayette, Geneva, New Harmony, Poseyville. Republican Winchester, Edinburg, Spencer, Farmland, Elizabethtown, Pendleton, Fowler, Morristown, North Manchester, Martinsville, Rennselaer,Frankfort, Rushville, Goshen, Richmond, Noblesville, Mt. Vernon, CrawfordsviPe, Lebanon, Brazil, Orleans, Roam, Andrews, Warren, Butler and Sheridan.