OCR Text |
Show SEN. HEED SMOOT'S PLURAUTY IN THE STATE 3053 Reed Smoot carried Utah for United Unit-ed States senator over James H - Movie by a plurality of 3053, according accord-ing to the official announcement of . the state canvassing board yesterday. I after the members of the board had I checked thr abstracts or returns as furnished by the clerks of the various counties of the state. Little interest was taken in the state canvass, as the results had been so established that It was known that tlu-re could be no change in the I general results The closest contest was on congressman from the Second J district. The official report of the I state canvassing board confirms the) election of James H. Mays, Democratic Demo-cratic and Progressive candidate, by a plurality of 158. Some excitement was caused by a I clerical error in tabulating the Utah , count:, vote on congressman. The , first check made by the state board indicated that Mays received 219 less votes than he had been credited with in Utah county If this were correct it would have meant the election of j Leatherwood. However, a second I check corrected the error and the re-i re-i turns remained as thev were orig lnally. The state board of canvassers not only compiled and tabulated the returns re-turns on state and congressional offices, of-fices, but also on the seats In two sen- j atorial districts where the districts j are made up of more than one county In the Eleventh and Twelfth senatorial sena-torial districts the report of the board joonlirms the election of William Seeg-miller Seeg-miller and Don 13. Colton, both Republicans, Re-publicans, by small pluralities . The total vote in the state on the various offices follows: For United Sta'rs si nator Smoot (R), 56.281; Movie iD.-l), 53.128; I Parsons (S ). 5257 Smoot's plurality, j 3053. For Justice of the supreme court McCarty, R., 55,100; Stephens (D.-P.K 52,801: Scott S. 5721. Mccartys Mc-cartys plurality, 2290. For state superintendent Mathe-son Mathe-son ( R. ). 51,891: Gowana D-P. ). 55,-!9.r-9; Mr-Hugh (S i. 56G0. Gowan s j plurality. 4' 68 For congress, First district Howell ! (R.), 20,471; Uxtcm (D.-P.), 27.440. Jansen (S ). 2812. Howell's plurality, 2041. For congress Second district Leatherwood (R,), 25.459: May (D -P.). 26,617; Kempton (S .), 2881. May s plurality, 158 Certlflcaten o'f election filed by tho various counties of the stato confirm the unofficial reports that the lower house of the state legislature will stand twenty-three to twenty-three twenty-three Republicans and twentv three members of the combined opposition. oppo-sition. FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Howell Larson Jan6en (R ) (D.-P.) (S.) Beaver 843 833 81 Boxelder 2,108 1.779 25 Cache 3.369 3,921 59 Carbon 1,244 1.715 122 Emery 8S(i 972 137 Garfield 638 337 22 J Grand . 27 235 17! Iron 907 521 92 Juab l.L'97 1,414 110 Kane 437 14 '. 10 Millard 1.M6 1,190 75 Morgan 523 390 8 Piute L'78 216 78 Rich 371 342 San Juan .... 220 189 6 j Canpete 2,953 2,8$0 100 Sevier 1,758 1,451 136 Summit 1,414 1,270 171 I'lnta 656 1.032 101 Wasatch 2,009 1,448 593 Washington ... 751 812 5 Wayne 285 247 27 Weber 5T67 4,113 837 Totals 29,481 27.440 2,812 SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. Leatherwood Mays Kempton (R.) (D.-P ) (S.) Dais 1,634 1,286 10 Salt Lake 16.699 17.525 2,170 Tooele 1.120 911 280 Utah 6,006 5,895 401 Totals ...25,459 25.617 2 861 ELEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT. Seegmiller Wilkins (R.) (D.-P.) Beaver 674 1,168 Iron 946 499 Kane 458 129 Washington 784 787 Totals 2 762 2.583 TWELFTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT. Colton Redd IR (D.) Carbon 1.214 914 Emery 87') 1,003 Grand 175 298 San Juan 78 357 j L'inta 1,027 674 Totals 3.364 3.14b . SENATOR SUPREME JUST SUPT. SCHOOLS SJ g B op x t -5 m 3 W 4 K 05- r a a ft 7 v s h s 5 a e o g S - 5' 7T JT w b K' !F 2 00 p c o m R v OB bd U 5 . 2, 5 Counties. 8 2 . r 3 S : " 88 5 2. & o 5 O - m ' Bp S ; 3 X - 3 P - -ft -2 3 O j j : j f" I j ' j Beaver 839 860 80 861 805 79: s?7 Mli 79 iBoxelder 2,248( 1,6651 26. 2,lU 1,704 26' 1,926 1,952 26 j Cache 3,52513.8081 67 3.490i 3.862 6lj 3.313 3,953 66 pnrbon I 1.286' 1,716 112;; 1.2151 1.749 124 1,185 1,778 119 ''' 1,680 1,284 8", 1.644 1,268 10 1,491 1 422 11 I Emery 857 1.011 129 ! 882: 968 187 876 977 134 Garfield 6751 298 22 6591 315 21 641 327 22 Grand 227 243 16l 228) 236 1711 2311 2291 18 I Iron 95li 513) 90 917 516. 9011 9511 478 86 ''l!ab 1,280 1,463 99 1.358 1.3531 ins! 1,254 1.457 101 !Kane I 453 127 10 467 112 10 444 139 10 Millard ' 1,174' 1.205' 65 1,1761 1,156 771! 1.116 1,219 76 Morgan 560 367) 7j 612 398 8 4431 468 7 Piute 274) 224 77 1 310 188 78 283,' 207 77 Rich I 381 j 388, I 3691 33fij I 369' 343' Salt Lake 10, Ml 17.017 2U0 lC,4(u 17,786 2,165' 15,602 18.560 2 156 Ssn Juan I 234 2011 5! 187 223 5 l 133i 274 7 Sanpete 3.096 2,780; 86,! 3,001i 2.861 97, 2,804 3,066 95 Si vier 1,790 1,489 111 1,889 1,107 138 1.588 1.606 139 Summit 1.473 1,271 159l 1.400 1,273 1761 1,382 1,2931 179 Tooele l.HO, 990 251jj 1.1091 884 297,' 1.001 1.017 294 t'inta j 698 1.030 881 637 1,044 105 631 1,054 99 Utah 6.032, 5.965 370(1 6.051 5.843 410 i 6,887j 5 994 404 Wasatch 1.164 1,426 554 1,963 1.451 615 ' 1 7r6 1616 6'7 Washington .. 7891 779 Slj 741 j 819 5 765 806' 5 Wayne 2881 247 26 1 290 243 26M 272 2591 7 Weber 5.360; 3.980) 792 5.171 4.109 8361 4.683 4,624 826 Totals ... 56,281 53,128 5,257' 55.100j52.80l 6,72l 61,89156,959; 5.660 THE AMERICAN POTTERY I INDUSTRY. The American demand for several minor mineral products will be stimulated by the changes in trade with Europe, with the result of Increasing In-creasing materially the production for 1014 and following years. In the case of pottery this movement toward to-ward a stronger hold of the domestic market Is already well under wav. The production In 1913 was the largest In the history of the industry-. The underlying cause of this prosperity pros-perity is no doubt the improvement in the character of the American product in texture, finish, color, I decoration and the prevention of crazing, the higher grades of American Ameri-can pottery equaling If not surpass ing some of the best Imported ware. For many years the value of the imported im-ported pottery exceeded the value of that made at home, but about the close of the nineteenth century domes- I tic production caught up with Imports, Im-ports, and sine that time It has greatly exceeded them, the production produc-tion In 1913 being nearly four times as great In value as the imports. There was. however, last year a con- j siderable decrease in exports of pot-tery, pot-tery, a record which should now be reversed by reason of the changes In the world's commerce that have be |