168 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



verted sufficiently to support Porter McCumber for re-election to the 

 United States Senate. Officially, the League endorsed no candidates for 

 county offices or for the Presidency; secretly, according to report, it en- 

 dorsed Woodrow Wilson, although Lynn Frazier was for Charles Evans 

 Hughes. 63 



In the November election the League again achieved a thunderous 

 victory by capturing every elective state office but one and electing three 

 justices who had endorsed the League program for state-owned utilities 

 to the supreme court. 64 Of the 107,000 votes cast, Frazier received 87,000, 

 or 80 per cent. 65 The farmers, however, forgot to "remember Casey," the 

 League candidate for treasurer, who ran on the Democratic ticket. The 

 League gained control of every branch of the government except the 

 senate, the majority in the house being 85 per cent. North Dakota pre- 

 sented the anomalous situation of having elected a Republican governor 

 over the Democratic candidate by a vote of four to one and a Republican 

 senator over a Democrat by an overwhelming majority and yet having 

 given the Democratic presidential candidate a safe majority. 66 



The postelection comments were amusing. Nonpartisan leaders pro- 

 nounced the results as the beginning of "a peaceful revolution" that had 

 "found its place of incubation in the Northwest states." 67 One correspond- 

 ent pointed out that "ten months ago Governor Frazier was unknown 

 outside of his own precinct," and another queried whether "slopping 

 hogs is the right sort of training for anyone charged with the grave duties 

 of state's chief executive." The wonder of the election was that the League 

 had "dipt into its first political campaign," before it was a year old; "even 

 more astonishing" were the results when one considers North Dakota's 

 "magnificent distances." Well over 80 per cent of its population was 

 scattered on farms that could be reached for the most part only by a 

 personal canvass. 68 



63. The New International Year Boof(, 1916, p. 496; Non-partisan Leader, No- 

 vember 2, 1916, p. 8. 



64. Literary Digest, LIV (January 20, 1917), p. 115. 



65. Non-partisan Leader, January 18, 1917, p. 7. 



66. Ibid., November 16, 1916, p. 3; Literary Digest, LIV (January 20, 1917), 

 p. 115; The New International Year Boof(, 1916, p. 496. 



67. Non-partisan Leader, February 22, 1917, p. 3. 



68. Ibid., January 4, 1917, p. 2; Literary Digest, LIV (January 20, 1917), p. 115. 



