In New York City

The polls opened and the polls closed, and New York City had chosen the candidates from which she will pick her next mayor. The great event of the primaries was the excision of Mayor John F. Hylan, who long has held sway over Manhattan under the aegis of Tammany and with the support of his friend, Mr. William Randolph Hearst.

Mr. Hearst as a politician has not been notoriously successful. His father, who went West in 1850, made a few millions in mining and became a Senator from California. William Randolph has made a great many more millions, out of paper and ink, but he has had no great success as a politician. In 1896 and 1900 he backed Bryan. In 1902 he took boss Croker's nomination from Tammany and was elected to Congress from the 11th New York District. He served two terms (four years) and it has been said that he did not appear in Congress more than 25 times. In 1904 he wanted the Democratic Presidential nomination and was reported to have backed his pretentions heavily with cash, but failed. In 1905 he ran for Mayor of New York City on an anti-Tammany ticket and lost by a small margin. In 1906 he took the Tammany nomination for Governor and then broke with Tammany. The Demicratic ticket was elected-- all but himself. In 1907 he backed his campaign manager for sheriff --as a Republican. In 1909 he ran again for Mayor of New York and lost. In 1910 he ran for Lieutenant Governor and lost. His ventures were attended with worse and worse luck at the polls. He has never been able to get the same circulation on the ballot that he got for his papers.

Of late years he has been a consistent supporter of Mayor Hylan and, in so far, successful. But this year Tammany broke with Hylan and Mr. Hearst stayed on--and lost.

On the election day one of his Manhattan papers published a full page editorial in support of Hylan:

"Your predecessors risked their heads at Runnymede. Your forebears risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor beneath the Liberty Bell.

"The call that summons you is no less sacred.

"It is a call to decide for your city between John F. Hylan, clean and honest servant of your interest and yours alone, whose record of deeds contains no blemish, and "Little Jimmie Walker, slick and pliant politician, Broadway butterfly; advocate in public of mothers' pensions and paid in private for easing the sale of putrid and dis- eased meat to those mothers . . . etc."

And in its "news" columns declared:

"Walker's personal character, when it has been submitted to minute analysis, is such that his opponents mark him unfit to sit in the Mayor's chair. The opinion is general that a man of Walker's strip is unthinkable for the chief magistracy of the greatest city in the world.

"Mayor Hylan has succeeded in so humiliating Walker during the comparatively short period the primary campaign has been under way that the prospect of his ever surviving another six weeks of excoriationtion is entirely remote."

The results next day were brief:

James J. Walker....250,000 votes.

John F. Hylan 155,000 votes.

Mr. Hylan announced that he was "happy." Mr. Hearst ran his picture with that word over it. "Mayor Hylan was the victim of as brutal a bludgeoning as modern politics ever devised. Way back last winter the plans for it were laid in the inner councils of Wall Street." The Mayor let it be known after a conference with Hearst representatives that he would not run on an independent ticket in the coming election--on Nov. 3.

The Republicans nominated Frank D. (Fountain Pens) Waterman without any todo, giving him 114,000 votes to 17,000 and 5,000 for his two opponents. The Socialists nominated Norman Thomas.

The comment of Manhattan papers seemed almost to revert to the great screeding days of the giant editors who are no more.

The New York Times: "Mayor Hylan was originally a Yellow Hero created by the Yellow Press. He has openly appealed to the basest motives. But now the idol goes down together with its builder in political ruin. New York may breathe more easily this morning. It has got rid of a vulgar and debasing tyranny."

The New York World: "It has been a dirty campaign. That is certain. But if any one thinks that Messrs. Hearst and Hylan can be fought with a cool and dignified appeal to reason he has failed to understand their power and their methods.

"Mr. Hearst fights without any scruples to hamper him. He will say anything and do anything to win. There are no rules of the game for Mr. Hearst. There is no code of honor. Truth is of no importance to him. The only reason he did not make the campaign even dirtier than it was is that he did not dare face the reprisal which Senator Walker could have inflicted. Not fairness, not courtesy, not truth, restrained him, but the fear of what Smith and Walker could have done if they too had gone the limit."