MICROFILMED 1986 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - BERKELEY GENERAL LIBRARY BERKELEY, CA 94720 COOPERATIVE PRESERVATION MICROFILMING PROJECT THE RESEARCH LIBRARIES GROUP, INC. Funded by THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES ~ THE ANDREW W. MELLON FOUNDATION Reproductions may not be made without permission. THE PRINTING MASTER FROM WHICH THIS REPRODUCTION WAS MADE IS HELD BY THE MAIN LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA 94720 FOR ADDITIONAL REPRODUCTION REQUEST MASTER NEGATIVE NUMBER 26-02/3 AUTHOR: Phelan, James Duva.,/86!- (230. TITLE: Corruption and bribery a PLACE: San Francisco | DATE: 1924 VOLUME 10:7 £69 ca SH MASTER %6° NEG.NO.02/3 - CATR AGH MELEE | GM YEE aE Saf = HE SE WUE WA, ECE FL TNT JRA) 3 EG TR Sg Amn = iid Las L - ba 1a Lt F869 Phelan, James Duval, 1861-1930. S318 Corruption and bribery in elections, by James D, Phelan, v. 10:7 Ballot reform, by F. I, Vassault, San Francisco, Bacon & Co. , X Boole and Job Printers, 1889, . 4p. 23cm, [Pataphlets on San Francisco. v, 10, no. 17] Young Men's Democratic League, Pamphlet no. 1, Corruption and bribery in elections was issued originally in Overland Monthly, March, 1885, Vd 1394S 1. Elections = Corrupt practices. 2. Elections - San Francisco. 3. Bribery ~ San Francisco. 4, Ballot. I. Vassault, Ferdinand I, Ballot reform. II, Young Men's Democratic League, San Francisco, Pamphlet no,l. III. Tite. IV. Tide: Ballot reform. (Series) ’r ( CU-B 68 FILMED AND PROCESSED BY LIBRARY PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA 94720 JOB NO. 8/6 110|4]0 DATE 9 86 REDUCTION RATIO 8 DOCUMENT "SOURCE THE BANCROFT LIBRARY “22 fle Oo = 2 2 — ce 122 = le ll ILS fis fie I | MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL 1010a (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) 7| 8 OH 10] 11 >a YOUNG MEN'S DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE. CORRUPTION AND BRIBER _ IN ELECTIONS, JAMES D. PHELAN, Lr BALLOT R RY F. I. VASSAULT. ——— PAMPHLET No. 1. JANUARY, 1889. YOUNG MEN'S DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE. CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY IN ELECTIONS, JAMES D. PHELAN. BALLOT REFORM, —BY— F. 1. VASSAULT. SAN FRANCISCO : BACON & COMPANY, BOOK AND JOB PRINTERS, Corner of Clay and Sansome Streets. 1889. CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY IN ELECTIONS. By JAMES D. PHELAN. [Reprinted from Overland Monthly, March, 188s.] Electoral corruption has been aptly described a treason against liberty ; for the elective privilege, “ the right preservative of all rights,” is so closely identified with civil liberty, and so necessary to its preservation and defense, that any attack upon it, either from within or without, is regarded as an attack upon liberty itself. It may sur- prise many to be told that electoral corruption has become a very common practice in American politics. It is generally accepted that legislators, and even jurors, have been improperly influenced in the discharge of their duties. But to corrupt by bribes at general or local elections any considerable percentage of voters, will be re- garded by casual observers as highly improbable, even manifestly impracticable : and this, not because the people are believed to be better than their representatives, but simply because they are more numerous. It willbe asked: How is it possible to corrupt so great a mass of individuals? Granting its possibility, what candidate or cause would bear the necessary enormous outlay ? And finally, if it is done, why is it not detected, and the guilty parties punished ? It may be said in answer, that there is no need of corrupting a very large number in order to affect the result of an election ; that very often a candidate is not the party most interested in his success ; and that punishment has not been meted out to offenders, because public sentiment—on account, principally; of its ignorance of the practice and its effects—is not sufficiently aroused against it. But that electoral corruption exists, and is extensive in the United States, there is no doubt. That it leads to the gravest and most disastrous consequences is easily proven. The press of the country abroad, and the evidence of our senses at home, alike testify to its wide-spread existence. In fact, ocular demonstrations of bribery at the polls in the recent election in San Francisco suggested the topic to the writer of this article. 4 The “ Century” Magazine for November said editorially that the practice of bribing voters has reached a development in this country that calls for thoughtful attention on the part of patriotic men. « Harper's Weekly,” of November 18, 1884, said : * The election has recalled the country to the sense of a constant and rapidly grow- ing public danger—the use of money at elections. The sums of money spent at a general election are enormous, and the larger they are the nearer is civil disturbance and the overthrow of popular gov- ernment” ; and the facts force the conclusion, that “this kind of cor- ruption is one of the most pressing of present public questions.” But there is a class of people who contend, in the face of facts, and with some plausibility, that, where the constituencies are so im- mense as in the United States, electoral corruption can have no appreciable effect on elections. But slight reflection will show the contrary. Elections have come to be so closely contested that a few votes—aye, one vote—may be sufficient to determine the result. The change of a single vote in each election precinct in the State of New York would have been sufficient to put the dominant party elect into a minority, and given a different complexion to the gov- ernment and history of fifty million people for at least four years to come! And it will be recollected that in the Fourth Congressional District of California, after the election of November, 1876, the vote stood for Mr. Pacheco 19,104, and for Mr. Wiggington 19,103, OF one vote less. In cases like these, how efficacious corruption might be, and how great the temptation thereto! How valuable, too, the suffrage of even the humblest of citizens ! But it will be said that it is not often that elections are so close ; and, on that account, it may be answered, the public is subject to greater outrage. For then not one or two votes are diverted from their conscientious employment, but hundreds, and maybe thou- sands! The individual candidate may of himself only influence wrongly a few voters, but it is the political party and the combina- tion of interests which is able to corrupt, and does corrupt, on a magnificent scale.’ 1 Mr. Dorsey, in an interview with the New York ‘ Sun,” thus shows how great popular verdicts have been assisted. Referring to the election of 1880, he says : « I thought our sole chance lay in concentrating all our powers on New York and Kings counties (that is, in the two cities of New. York and Brooklyn). Well, we did so. We cut down the Democratic majorities more than 75,000, and the 0 So it is not the size of the constituency which makes corruption impracticable ; it is the size of the majority. It would be difficult to force the election of a Democrat in Kansas, or of a Republi- can in Texas. It would be easy to do either in Indiana, Ohio, or New York ; hence such States as these are the selected battle-fields where the sinews of war are most employed. In England, before the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, corrup- tion had taken a deep and ineradicable root. But the evil was recog- nized, and a remedy sought. The advocates of the bill then argued that the extension of the suffrage provided for would ameliorate and perhaps cure this national disease. Were their predictions verified by time ? After half a century, and after frequent extensions of the privilege, we are confronted with the obstinate fact that the general elections of 1880 were among the most corrupt on record. In many cases they gave rise to some remarkable inquiries. The committee which sat at Macclesfield reported that they were “ much struck by the open, fearless, and confiding manner in which corrup- tion was practiced on both sides.” They went on to say that “though it seems doubtful whether a contested election has ever been fought in Macclesfield on really pure principles, the corruption at the late election was far more widespread and far more open than had been the case at any previous Parliamentary election.” They also gave it as their opinion that out of 6,000 voters, more than 5,000 had been operated on by bribery. The same state of facts existed at Sandwich, Chester, Gloucester, Oxford, and so on. (History of the British Parliament, pp. 388, 389.) It follows from these premises that the immensity of our poll is in itself no preventative, and that electoral corruption is not only possi- ble, but practicable and actual. The time is ripe for the reform movement to embrace this question : a political danger of the most radical character to the American form of government. And the present moment seems State was carried by 20,000. You want to know how this was done,” continued the Senator, smiling. ** Well, we had a big campaign fund, but as to the way it was spent, I would refer again to Mr. Stevenson. He handled the money. There was spent in Indiana about $400,000, not a nickel of which came into my hands. The Republican organization there was as good as it could be, and the credit of it is due to John C. New and Colonel W. W. Dudley. All of this money was paid out by Mr. Stevenson and Mr: Dillon. They live in New York. There can be no difficulty in verifying from them my statements. I do not think they will deny them.” 6 auspicious for pressing its consideration, inasmuch as the circum- stances of late elections showed that the independent voters of the country, ignoring other questions of seeming importance, made legislative corruption the paramount issue. It goes without proving that bribery is, both in morals and law, an offense at once serious and contemptible. It alike affects him who gives and him who takes. And when employed to induce men to betray public trusts, it vitally affects the State, and should be pun- ished in an exemplary manner. The ballot is such a trust ; but some ignorant persons look upon it as theirs, to do as they please with, even as with a piece of merchandise ; and the law, as now laxly adminis- tered, makes a tacit admission of the claim. They hold the ballot, think they, as a constitutional right coeval with their citizenship, and flowing from it ; whereas, it is a mere privilege granted by the State, which may be forfeited for abuse. In the * Compendium of Ameri- can Criminal Law,” Sec. 70, c, is this concise statement : “ Citizenship does not of itself give the right to vote, nor the want of it prevent a State from conferring the right. The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage on any person. The electoral franchise is not a natural right or immunity, and a State has exclusive power to regulate the right of suffrage.” When it is understood that the tenure of the franchise by the voter is not absolute, but granted by the State for a wise purpose, and for- feitable under certain circumstances, then the people will become more respectful to the State, more chary of their rights, and more scrupulous in exercising their electoral privileges. First, and above all, a man is expected to vote conscientiously, ac- cording to his best judgment as to what is right. He may, justifiably and acceptably to the theory of our government, have either of two ends in view when determining his choice, viz: first, the common good, and second, his individual good. In the first instance he would act patriotically, and in the second selfishly. But in voting selfishly he would not necessarily antagonize the general interest. For, if each citizen cast his ballot for that cause and that candidate which is really most in accord with his interest, the common interest would thereby be subserved ; that is, the greatest good of the greatest number would be attained. But the ballot is given to men as mem- bers of the State for its beneficial political use, and its sale for imme- diate pecuniary gain is entirely repugnant to its object and end, and indefensible. But we have a historical instance of a stern moralist defending bribery at elections on the ground of necessity. The example is profitable, and serves to show that, once admitted to creep into the State, corruption becomes contagious, and free elections are impossi- ble. The facts are these: Lucius Luceius and Marcus Bibulus were contesting the consulship in Rome, when Cesar intervened and stood for election. He joined issues with Luceius, on condition that he would give money to the electors in their joint names. But Bibulus, not to be outdone, offered as much as his opponent and was elected. It was on this occasion that Cato, who feared the ambition of Caesar, said that bribery committed under such circumstances was for the public good, But what effect had this practice and this speech, but to precipitate that general demoralization which paved the way to Cesar’s later usurpation? The patriot was here the unconscious traitor to the republic as much as Caesar. That corruption which he condoned had put his country beyond all surgery, and it per- ished. . But it will appear to most people that if the liberal ethics of democracy allow such a wide latitude to voters in the matter of mo- tives governing their choice, drawing the line only at dishonesty, there should be little trouble in attaining satisfactory government. Let us consider it. In the most recent attack on democracy, in the “ Quarterly Review” for October, the writer takes the ground that, if voters in a political community would only use their power for their own interest, we ought to have an approximately perfect rule. But he contends that democracy is a failure, because the people do not know their own interest, and consequently do not vote their interest. He thus turns the principal argument in favor of democracy against itself, provided his premises be correct. Now, do the people know their own interest? Let alone, they certainly do. Do they vote ac- cording to their interest? They do not always. The friction is here: They are bribed or intimidated into voting for somebody else’s interest, and thus the whole scheme of democracy is undermined. So it is not on account of ignorance, as the writer quoted contends, that democracy will fail or has failed, but on account of corruption. For instance : Corporations controlling the means of subsistence of a large body of people, regulating the prices of the necessities of life, exercise a political power dangerous in the extreme to the liberty and happiness of the people at large. Every attempt to restrain this power is met with corruption at the polls and in the legislature. Yet 8 many of these corporations are invested with a public use, and sub- ject to the jurisdiction of the State. Where is the relief? Punish the corrupter ? But the men who bribe others to abandon their judg- ment and patriotism, and vote against their own interests, are not better nor worse than the slavish and mercenary electors who sell their American citizenship, won by the blood of heroes, for the money of the powerful. Vet it is heard now on every side that the poor men, and men of moderate competency, are losing their political equality, on account of the large contributions levied on candidates for election purposes. Legitimate political outlay is no burden—the illegitimate is. And it is within the power of men of this class to cleanse our politics and re- store their own equality; for it is the needy alone whom the corrupter approaches, and, in almost every instance, it is their poverty, and not their will, that consents. A bribe is never offered ina good cause, and it should be remembered by those who accept money be- cause they are poor, that their ballots are sold to men who will keep them poor. The most despicable of all governments is that in which a noble form is used simply to shelter iniquities, and generous privileges are made the facile instruments of wrong. In a democracy there is no appeal from the judgment of the people, unless it be from Philip drunk to Philip sober. Hence the despotism of a corrupt democ- racy is more galling than that of a monarchy, because there is no rem- edy. But, unless pure, « democracy” is a misnomer, if a minority, holding the balance of power, sell it, as has been done and will be done, then the democracy has ceased and the plutocracy begun. It is the free and honest judgment of a majority of voters that is supposed to determine the policy of the republic and select its officials. Because this is implicitly believed, the defeated minority acquiesce in the decision. If that judgment is not free and honest, the government is subject, after each recurring election, to such a strain that, even under favorable circumstances, it cannot long endure. Every independent citizen looks upon a fraudulent or cor- ruptly gained victory as a personal wrong to be avenged, and liberty suffers for the crimes that are committed in her name. To bribe voters, then, defeats the fundamental principles on which our system is based, and destroys it. Therefore the offense should be in law, as it is in its nature, treasonable, and punishable by the severest penal- ties. 9 It is difficult to underestimate the effects of electoral corrup- tion. For of all the forms of bribery, weighed by its results, it is the most fatal to the rights of the people and the well-being of the State. Bribe a legislator or a juror, and you affect only an agent of power: bribe the voter, and you corrupt the source of power itself; you poison the well from whose supply free government subsists. Again, bribe a voter in a wrong interest, and you practically disfranchise the honest man who holds his ballot as a sacred trust. Let profes- sional politicians, public corporations, and self-seekers buy and sell votes, then the privileges of citizenship lose their title to respect, and have no value which is not expressed in dollars and cents. Under such a condition all good men will keep away from the polls, or, if interested in issues and debased by environment, they may contrib- ate the value of their votes and deem their duty done. The orator will be silent, for reasons will have been superseded by other con- siderations, and the “political agent,” or ‘money captain,” as he is called in England, with a following of enfranchised mercenaries, will alone remain to voice “the sentiments of the people.” But if bribery, as every other offense against the purity of the bal- lot, is made infamous by law, by punishment, and by public opinion, the dignity of the theoretical conception of universal suffrage would be maintained, and the foundations of the Republic strengthened. Universal suffrage, by which every male citizen has one vote to be freely cast and fairly counted, should, if kept undefiled, make a State immortal. By liberty of conscience, speech, and press, together with fair elections, treason, rebellion, usurpation, despotism, turbulence, the common destroyers of States, are all disarmed. But the most subtle enemy of free government must be recognized as corruption, which preserves the form while it consumes the substance ; and, unless it is overcome, a reactionary feeling against Republican in- stitutions is inevitable, with anarchy and absolutism as alternatives. II. Now, as to the remedy, which must be found in the law and its enforcement. It is within the competency of the legislature to make effective laws on this subject ; hence, it is not untimely to glance at the present condition of the statutes, and see wherein they may be amended to advantage, and how enforced. The basis of the law of the United States is the common law of 10 England except in the State of Louisiana, which follows the Codes of France. And it may be said in passing, that the laws of Louisiana bearing on bribery are more severe than those of any other State. But even at Common Law, bribery or attempt at bribery of a voter at any governmental election is an indictable offense ; and it matters not whether the person bribed voted or not, or even that he had not the right to vote. An attempt to bribe is likewise a misdemeanor. The Penal Code of California, under the title ¢“ Of Crimes against the Elective Franchise,” Sec. 53, provides as follows : ‘“ Every person who, by force, threats, menaces, bribery, or any corrupt means, either directly or indirectly, attempts to influence any elector in giv- ing his vote, or to deter him from giving the same, etc., is guilty of a mis- demeanor.” And it, Sec. 61, prescribes the penalty thus : “ Every person who wilfully violates any of the provisions of the laws of the State relating to elections, is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in State prison not exceeding five years, or both.” The State Constitution, Art. xX., Sec. 10, supplements this with the following section : “ Every person shall be disqualified from holding any office of profit in this State, who shall have been convicted of having given or offered a bribe to procure his election or appointment.” The penalties, then, are fine, imprisonment, and disqualification from holding office. The law, on its face, appears satisfactory, but in view of the peculiar character of the offense, it is deficient in several particulars, which the English law on the same subject supplies. (1) In defin- ing what constitutes bribery (§ 7), it lacks in definiteness and detail. (2) Its provisions are not such as will reach both agent and principal. (3) There is no incentive held out to those privy to the offense to give information. The English law is more elaborate, on account of the frequency of bribery in Great Britain, and the science to which it has been re- duced. It may be that we can profit by briefly considering the English statutes. By the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854, the following persons were deemed guilty of bribery : 11 (1.) Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person in his behalf, give, lend, etc., or offer, promise, or promise to pro- cure, etc., any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter, or any other person, in order to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting, or shall cor- ruptly do any such act, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election. (2.) Every person who shall make any gift, loan, promise, etc., to any person, to induce such person to procure the return of any person to serve in Parliament, or the vote of any voter. (3.) Every person who shall, in consequence of gift, procure or engage, prom- ise, or endeavor to procure, the return of any person, or the vote of any voter. (4.) Every person who shall pay any money with the intent that it should be spent in bribery, or who shall pay money in repayment of any money wholly or in part expended in bribery. Persons so offending are guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to forfeit the sum of £100 to any person who will sue for the same, together with costs, and also be struck off the. list of voters —that is, disfranchised. The explicit statements of this statute are due to the complexity of corrupt practices. As the duty of the “political agent ” is to devise ways and means whereby considerations may pass without offending the dignity of law, it is extremely difficult to detect and punish brib- ery. But the policy of the law in holding out a substantial induce- ment for third parties to sue on information they may have, seems wise. Bribery is done in secret, but the law can not see in secret. A person, therefore, who has been approached, may, even for mercenary motives, take advantage of the law, and, by suing the corrupter of elections, render a service to the community. Here the statute makes the “ money captain’s ” business precarious. But in 1868 a change was made in the law of a decisive and revo- lutionary character, viz., the partial transference of jurisdiction from the House of Commons, whose committees theretofore tried all cases of bribery, to the judicial tribunals. The report of a judge was there- after to have the same effect as the report of an election committee under the old law ; and if he report that corrupt practices have pre- vailed extensively, a commission of inquiry may be issued. Candi- dates held by the judge to be guilty of bribery shall be incapable of being elected to the House of Commons for seven years, and during the same period may not be registered as voters, or hold certain spec- ified offices. Other persons suffer the same disqualification after hearing. Again, any person who has been guilty of bribery or undue 12 influence, and has been convicted criminally, is liable to perpetual disqualification. This advance of the law takes the consideration of this important matter to some extent out of partisan hands, and makes bribery at elections a question for judicial determination. At present in the United States all legislative bodies possess the right to pass on the qualifications of their own members, and on this account many illegal and criminal practices go unpunished and un- exposed. The public gives credit of charge and counter-charge, no matter how damaging, to partisan malice, and the real offenders against pure elections are never brought to justice. If the jurisdic- tion of the courts were extended over contested elections, a better result might be had. But the English have a drastic remedy for corruption when all others fail. If the election commissioners report that corruption is particularly active in any constituency, bills may be brought in for its entire disfranchisement. Itis done by simply voting down a new clection writ, or by resolution. Bridgewater, Beverly, Sligo, and Cashel were disfranchised in 1870 the boroughs of Tontes, Reigate, Great Yarmouth, and Lancaster in 1867. But this is an exercise of power forbidden to legislative bodies in this country. Parliament is omnipotent, and hence, while it can act with greater freedom and promptness, it is apt without limitations to commit injustice, as the disfranchisement of a whole constituency undoubtedly is. Such leg- islation punishes the innocent and guilty alike, and is besides impol- itic, for it naturally reacts in favor of corruption. Thus, when a com- munity is ‘n danger of being wholly disfranchised, no member there- of will feel encouraged to make complaint ; on the contrary, corrupt practices will be allowed free charter, and be concealed from courts and committees. In 1883 another law on this subject was passed, slightly differing from the others. It limits election expenses—a SWOIn account of which must be returned—to £3,000, in constituencies of 70,000 voters. ‘This is on the presumption that any money expended over that amount is used illegitimately. And the presumption is a safe one. But to follow out the remedy : Disqualification and disfranchise- ment of the individual are not repugnant to our constitution. They are the logical penalties for crimes against the elective franchise. Disqualification from holding office is a penalty prescribed by the State Constitution itself, in an article already quoted. The same in- strument (Art. XX., Sec. 11) further provides : 15 ¢¢ Laws shall be made to exclude from office, serving on juries, and from zie right of suffrage, persons convicted of bribery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes. The privilege of free suffrage shall be supported by laws regulat- ing elections, and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence thereon from power, bribery, tumult, and other improper practice.” This section empowers the legislature to act, but as yet nothing beyond what has been cited has been accomplished. Disfranchise- ment would serve, if made a part of the penalty, as a brand to stig- matize the traitor against liberty, and keep him from association with loyal citizens, who desire to be faithful to the discharge of a public duty of first importance. From this incomplete survey of English law, it appears that our own might be made more efficient by adopting some of its provisions. For instance : (1.) The courts might be given a larger jurisdiction in election cases. (2.) What constitutes bribery, given very minutely in English stat- utes, might be stated in detail in ours, so that no evasions could be easily made. : (3.) The liability of principal for the acts of agent should be par- ticularly defined, with a view to reaching the former. (4.) Inducements should be offered for information, as a money reward might offset the temptation of a money bribe, and cause con- victions. And finally, (5.) Candidates should make oath before election that they will not, directly or indirectly, by themselves or through others, use cor- rupt means to gain votes; and after election candidates-elect should be required to swear that they have not done so. Thus a man would be put upon his honor, and liability for perjury be added to that for bribery. This is as far as the law can go. But there is one question more : How may the law be best enforced ? We may take a lesson from the manner in which the law is violat- ed. It is a matter of history that in Athens, bribing associations, called synomasies, were formed and conducted for the benefit of members. Is there no trace of this in the politics of today ? Do we not know that there are such associations in the United States, formed for the same purpose, and known generically as syndicates ? They raise funds at election times to defeat candidates and elect others, or to cast their fortunes with a political party. The great 14 corporations have learned the advantages of united action, and find that combination is more profitable than competition. No individ- ual can cope against such powers; therefore, organization is neces- sary to stem the current of corruption. As Edmund Burke has said : “When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” There should then be established in every American community a patriotic association for the prevention and punishment of corrupt practices at elections. It should see that stringent laws are enacted by the legislature, and have an agency for the detection of illegal conduct, and for the collection of evidence to be used against of- fenders. It would be an association to which the wronged candidate could appeal and expect redress. Its usefulness is manifest. If the English idea were adopted, by which the penalty is paid “to any person who shall sue for the same,” it would supply an active asso- ciation with sufficient revenue, and at the same time create an incen- tive to exertion. Among various bodies throughout the country there might be correspondence and codperation ; and properly con- ducted, setting out with patriotic purposes, such an association ought not to fail. It must be recognized that electoral corruption is essentially des- tructive to free government. The ballot is the medium which mate- rializes liberty ; without it, free government is an impossibility, but without its being pure, free government is an imposture. The simplest method is to make the voter honest ; the most prac- ticable is to make the law efficient and enforce it. The struggle of the legislature is with the hereditary tendencies of human govern- ment ; and as the history of republics has unhappily been their con- quest by corruption, the legislature, to fulfil its duty in this new land, must prevent history from repeating itself. l » {i 1 0 rs sy Yer m= ( AW 1 AY ad AV 5] i RN ~Y 4 COX N\ \ 2 7 Fry Al + , § Saf N Net Nara a SS Nom bo BALLOT REFORM. By F. 1. VassauLT, The problems that confront the citizen desiring to improve our elec- tion machinery are of two classes. The object of the election—to ob- tain an honest expression of the will of the people—is defeated by two forms of abuse. First, the individual elector is bribed, by the payment of money or by the promise of office, to abandon the high- est duty of the citizen, and to vote according to the dictates of sive political boss ; and, second, the will of the people as expressed at the polls is defeated by the corruption and dishonesty of those who are appointed to count the vote. To prevent the bribery of voters and frauds in counting, are the two objects which any reform of the pres- ent abuses must aim at. It is the first of these problems — the prevention of bribery—that I desire to consider at present. And in confining my attention to one abuse, there is no intention of ignoring the serious nature of the other. They are, perhaps, equally dangerous to our institutions, but any useful consideration of them must be attended to one at a time. The audacity with which voters were bribed on the open street two years ago in this city, is painfully familiar to all. The sense of disgrace was so acute as to lead a number of our citizens, voluntarily banded together under the name of the Committee of Public Defense, to offer a reward for the arrest and conviction of any person guilty of offences against the ballot at the last election. This activity resulted in compelling the bribery to be done in a more secret manner, as shown by the fact that only one conviction was obtained, but it did not put an end to the bribery. In the same precinct where such gross frauds had been committed at the previous election, purchasable vo- ters were seen to be led to the polls by henchmen of the boss, and, hav- ing deposited their ballot, to retire under the guidance of the hench- man to a small room near by, where the price agreed upon was un- doubtedly paid. 16 This is an application of what is known as the Delaware System,” as described by a writer to the ©“ New York Post.” Under this system, the corruption fund is placed in the hands of a treasurer who orient his headquarters in a back room near the polls. The ¢ worker, hav- ing purchased his voter and having seen the goods delivered, leads his chattel into the headquarters where the agreed price 1s paid. The treasurer, as a voucher for the disbursement and as a directory for the party at future elections, enters in a book the name of the voter, the name of his purchaser and the price paid. This would, of course, be dangerous evidence should it fall into the hands of an honest man, but care is taken to prevent such a catastrophe, and 1t furnishes most valuable information for the pecuniary conduct of futare elections. The familiarity with which politicians of a certain class have come to treat the subject, and the matter-of-course manner in which they take the bribery of voters, is shown by the following extract from a letter of instructions sent by an officer of the National Committee of one of the two great parties to the local committee in Indiana. He says : “Divide the voters into blocks of five, and put 2 trusted man with necessary funds in charge of these five, and make him respon- sible that none get away and that all vote our ticket—your committee will certainly receive from Chairman Houston the assistance neces- sary to hold our floaters and doubtful voters.’ In other parts of the United States the same methods obtained. The danger of such a state of affairs scarcely needs to be pointed out. It gives to the dishonest elements in our midst an importance out of all proportion to their numbers. They, and not the honest and patriotic citizens, are the effective workers of such a system, and they are enabled by its manipulation to climb to the high places In the councils of both parties. Having once obtained control of the party organization they become autocrats, and sell the party nomina- tions to candidates whose ability and willingness to pay the assess- ment is more closely scrutinized than their fitness for the office to be filled. In New York, where abuses always attain the highest 1ntens- ity, the assessment for a regular party nomination 15 quoted at ol ooo to $20,000 for a judgeship, $25,000 to $30,000 for the mayora Of course, this is the «boss ” system, which we all condemn, an would do away with. The “boss ” is assisted in his growth by every- thing which encourages corruption, while a blow at corruption nec essarily hits him. : These assessments are levied upon candiates nom inally for the 17 payment of legitimate expenses. That there are such expenses is un- doubted. But the vicious element in the system is, that the money is to be collected for distribution by a committee, upon whom rests no duty to account for their disbursements. After the candidate has paid his money, his interest in it is at an end. He does nct know what it is used for ; he may be contributing to the rent of halls, to the payment of clerk-hire, or to the corruption of voters. Asto its use he has no choice ; if he does not wish to run the risk of having it improperly used, he need not become a candidate. REMEDY PROPOSED. The remedy proposed for this evil is a change in the system of balloting, which has three principal features. These are (1) the printing of ballots at public expense; (2) a change in the methods of nomination of candidates; and (3) a change in the method of balloting, securing increased secrecy. I shall describe these in their order, taking no particular bill as the basis of the exposition, but rather selecting from each the provisions which seem most applica- ; ble to the conditions of this state. PrINTING BaLLoTS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. The ballots are printed by the proper state officers, each ballot containing the names of all candidates that have been properly nom- inated, arranged alphabetically under the designation of the office for which they are nominated. In this state, convenience, simplicity, and accuracy and rapidity of count, would be gained by the adoption of the feature of the New York law which provides for separate ballot boxes and separate tickets. Under the New York law, there are nine ; in this state four would be the most desirable number. With this divis- ion the tickets would be designated respectively: ‘ State,” * Coun- ty,” * Municipal,” and “ Judicial and Educational.” Where the city and county governments have been consolidated, the county and municipal tickets would be combined. The state ticket would con- tain the names of all candidates to be voted on by the voters of the entire state—except judicial candidates—and also the candidates for congress ; the county ticket would include all county officers—except judges and boards of education—and candidates for the state senate and assembly; the municipal ticket would include all city officers, except judges and boards of education ; and the judicial and educa- 18 tional ticket would include all candidates for judgeships and for local boards of education. The printing of ballots is made the duty of the County Clerk, and he must advertise in two papers, before the election, the names of all candidates, arranged in the form in which they will appear on the ballot. He prepares a sufficient number of ballots for each precinct in the county, and furnishes them to the election board before the opening of the polls. REAsoNs FOR PUBLIC PRINTING OF BALLOTS. The primary reason for having the ballots printed at public expense is to reduce the amount to be disbursed by the irresponsible party, committees. The larger the amount of money to be raised to pay le- mount that can be added for ille- gitimate expenses, the larger the a dd $1,000 to a collection of $10,- gitimate expenses. Itis easier to a ooo, than to a collection of $3,000 ; and it is easier to hide improper disbursements in the larger amount. public expense withdraws the expense O The printing of the ballots at f printing and distributing from the party committees. During the last election, a non-partisan ticket was run in this city, under the direction of a committee of business men of experience and ability. I take their figures of expenses rather than those of either of the other parties, because they show more distinctly the purely legitimate €Xpenses. Furthermore, their expenses are cut down to the lowest possible figure, for their management was marked by a wise economy. ; Their total expenses amounted to $3,800 ; of this sum, $3,100 was expended for the printing and distribution of ballots, and $700 for other expenses, such as rent, etc. The expenses of the regular parties for these purposes were undoubtedly higher. For instance, the Non- partisans paid only $700 for ticket peddlers on election day. Each of the regular parties had at least two ticket peddlers at each of the polling places, which would amount to $1,760. It is safe to say, there- fore, that each of the regular parties paid about $5000 for the print- ing and distribution of tickets. This expense with the Non-partisans, as we have seen, was three quarters of the total expense; with the regular parties the other expenses Were undoubtedly higher; but more than half of the legitimate expenses of the election went to the printing and disbursement of tickets. 19 This expense, for the entire city, could not have been less than $15.- ooo—$10,000 for the two regular parties, $3,000 for the Non- oo sans, and $1000 each for the Prohibition and Labor eens thi expense fell exclusively upon the candidates. The proposed rt reduces the total expense for printing and paper, there being but one set of ballots to be printed, and takes away the expense of distribution entirely. It has, therefore, the merit of economy. It has the further merit of Justice, because the expense is evenly distributed over the community, and does not fall on the candidates alone. This is just because the election is for the benefit of the entire community. i THE METHOD OF NOMINATION, Nominations under this system are made in two ways. The first plan recognizes the present system of party nominatiens by conven- tions ; the second provides for independent nominations. Under-the first plan, the convention nominates its ticket, and then the chairman and secretary of the convention make out a certificate of nomina- tions, which they sign and acknowledge before a notary public, and then forward to the proper officer. Nominees from the State at Yt e are certified to the Secretary of State ; nominees from a i division are certified to the clerk of that division. Independent candidates are nominated by petition. The petition is signed by qualified electors residing within the district or political division for which candidates are to be presented, equal in number to one per cent of the entire vote cast in that division at the last preced- ing election. But in no case are signatures required in excess of 1,000, when the position is to be filled by electors of the eufiie State, or 100 when the candidate stands for some political division of the State. The certificates and petitions are filed with the officer to whom they are sent, and the Secretary of State certifies to count clerks the names of all candidates presented to him. The mo clerk then prepares the ballots, and the name of every id nominated candidate must appear under the designation of the id for which he is nominated. The advantage of this system is that it decreases the evil effects of the present system of nomination. A ‘‘regular” nominee now is oe only one who has any chance of election. Independent candi- oi may be put up, but their chance of success is almost infinitesi- al. This results in the struggle between the honest and corrupt ele- 20 in which the corrupt element generally tri- ‘ments at the primaries, n, and its resort to methods, umphs, because of its superior organizatio which an honest citizen will not adopt. our present system is admitted to be the method of nomination. When the primary organization has been captured and the conven- tion stuffed, the honest voter is helpless. He may disapprove of the nominee of the ¢ boss,” but he cannot make his disapproval felt, for he is unable to vote for a better candidate. - The proposed system cures this evil. When the regular nominees are good men, there is no incentive for the running of an independ- ent candidate. When they are not good men, an independent nom- ination may be made, and this nominee stands upon precisely the same footing as the nominees of the regular parties. His name is printed in the list of candidates, and the voter has simply to indicate his preference. The number of petitioners required prevents the un- necessary multiplication of candidates. An advantage closely allied to this is the encouragement of intel- ligent and independent voting. The habit of voting the “straight ticket,” is one which can have no valid excuse. Parties are divided in this country on national issues. The questions of state policy are distinct from these, and comparatively few of the state officers have any direction of the state policy. By far the larger number of officers have purely ministerial duties, and the qualifications of the man be- come more important than his party affiliations. It is convenience, the advantage of the organization which is found within the party, and the impossibility of having distinct state and local organizations, which have led to the extension of national party lines into the small- er political divisions. But it is a convenience which has decided disadvantages, and we should encourage anything which, while not impairing party organization, encourages independent voting on these minor offices. The ballot, under the improved system, contains the names of all candidates grouped under the designation of the office. The voter is thus encouraged to make a choice on grounds higher than those of party affiliation. TuE METHOD OF VOTING. nt at which the citizen comes most An average citizen might f system until he went to vote. Any The method of voting is the poi closely in contact with the new system. know nothing of the change 0 > The most serious defect of 21 ~ charge of complexity of the system or difficulty to understand it must, therefore, be considered at this point. The new system would make certain changes in the appearance of the polling place. A voter going to vote would find the window where the ballot box was placed enclosed by a railing, so arranged that he could not get within six feet of the ballot box without going inside the railing. Inside this railing he would also see four or five booths or compartments, with doors which prevented his seeing what is going on inside them. The ballot box and compartments would be in plain view to him from outside the railing, but the policeman on guard would not permit him to go inside the railing except for the purpose of voting. Desiring to vote he would go to the window, where two ballot clerks have charge of all ballots, and announcing his name and resi- dence, one of the ballot clerks would repeat it after him. This would enable challengers to object to his voting if they knew any sufficient reason for doing so. The second ballot clerk has in the meantime found his name on the precinct register, and announcing it, checks it off. The two ballot clerks then place their initials on the back of a ballot and hand it to the voter. So far the voter has had no reason to be confused. Instead of going to the tables outside of the roo- foot limit, he has gone to the ballot clerks for his ticket ; this is the only change so far as he is concerned. Having obtained his ballot, he is allowed to enter the railed enclos- ure, and, going into an unoccupied booth, he finds a shelf and pencils to mark his ballot. Posted up before him is a card, intstructing him how to mark his ballot, and how to proceed in case of the emergen- cies which may arise. He marks his ballot by placing a cross (x) after the name of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote, and as a precaution he may draw a line through the names of all the other candidates. After marking his ballot thus, the voter folds it in such manner that the initials of the ballot clerks that have been written on the back shall appear on the outside of the folded ballot. The ballot being thus folded, the voter leaves the booth, and going to the window, votes in the usual manner. ADVANTAGES. The great point that is gained by this method of voting is the abso- lute secrecy which is secured. No person but the voter himself can 2 know how he votes. A bribed voter has no means of proving that he voted as directed, and thus the uncertainty of the contract renders bribery exceedingly unprofitable. We have been accustomed to ad- mire our law, which prohibits the exposure of the contents of a bal- lot within one hundred feet of the polls. But it does not prevent the briber from accompanying the voter to the polls, and seeing him vote the ballot that has been given to him outside of the limit. : The new law absolutely prevents any such proceeding, and thus strikes a most effective blow at bribery. The gain in the intelligent use of the franchise has been already pointed out. The advantages of the proposed system may be summed up as fol- lows : (1.) It tends to economy in printing the ballots, by securing one ballot in place of many. (z.) It withdraws a heavy expense from the candidates, and places it where it should be—distributed among the voters. (3.) It prevents the defeat of the voters’ wishes by the unauthorized issuance of bogus tickets, a result which is only partially accomplished by our © vignette law.” (4.) Tt leaves less money to be disbursed by irresponsible committees. (5.) I Dregks the power of the boss system, by weakening the effect of “fixing primaries, and controlling conventions. (6.) It enables any respect- able body of citizens to present a candidate representing their views. (7.) It encourages intelligent and independent voting, 8.) It renders the bribery of voters unprofitable. (9.) It makes the intimi- dation of voters impossible. OBJECTIONS. Some objections that have been raised may now be considered. The most common one is that the system is complicated. Any sys- tem of voting is complicated, when considered in its entirety. Our present system would confuse anybody who had not devoted con- siderable time to its study. But it is at the point where the system comes into contact with the voter that the complexity of the system might form a material objection. If the new system was sO compli- cated as to hamper citizens in voting this would be a valid objection. But we have seen that the essential difference is in requiring the voter to go into a closed compartment to prepare his ballot, and to mark with a cross the names of those for whom he wishes to vote. As he has printed instructions posted before him while he is doing this, 1t* surely does not require more intelligence than could reasonably be 23 expected of the average citizen, - A man who cannot mark a cross after the name of the person for whom he wishes to vote, is presum- ably not a very valuable citizen. There is one class of citizens who cannot do this : those who are blind or physically disabled. The laws that have been proposed meet this difficulty in two ways. One set provides for having the ballots marked by an election clerk under the supervision of another, in accordance with the directions of the voter. These clerks are sworn not to disclose the contents of the ballot. The other plan, which is contained in the New York bill of this year, provides that a physically disabled person, after swearing to the fact of his disabil- ity, may take any person of his choosing into the booth with him to mark his ticket. False swearing in this case would be detected easily. The ojection in regard to illiterates is met by the fact that such persons may cut a copy of the ballot from the newspapers in which it is published, and get any friend to mark the names of the candi- dates for whom he wishes to vote. This marked slip may then be used as a memorandum to assist him in marking the official bal- lot. Objection is sometimes made to the requirement for the endorse- ment of the ballot by the ballot-clerks. Governor Hill, in his veto of the New York bill, raised the point that, by the omission of one of the ballot-clerks to put his initials on the back, a voter might be de- prived of his vote. Such a danger is very remote. The two ballot- clerks belong to opposite parties, and there is not likely to be any collusion between them. Even should there be, the inspector is charged with the duty of permitting no ballot to go into the ballot box unless properly endorsed. Therefore, in order for this objection to be valid, there must be collusion between two ballot-clerks and the inspector, and extreme carelessness on the part of the voter. The object of this provision of endorsing the ballots is te prevent a shrewd scheme for defeating the secrecy of the ballot. By this scheme, a voter obtained an official ballot, but dropped a blank pa- per into the ballot box. The official ballot was then given to a po- litical worker outside, and having been marked by him, given to a bribed voter. This voter obtained a new official ballot, but voted the marked one, delivering the new one to the worker as a proof that he had-voted according to agreement. The official endorsement pre- vents this form of fraud. 24 The last objection is, that the scheme is inapplicable to our politi- cal methods. This is the objection most commonly heard. The an- swer is that it went into successful operation in this country last year. The City of Louisville applied the system, and, except for one defect, the testimony is unanimously in its favor. The one defect was the provision requiring the ballots to be placed inside of an envelope be- fore being placed in the ballot box. This permitted the scheme of bribery that has just been described. The other provisions of the law all worked admirably, and it is declared that the election was one of the quietest, most orderly, and most successful in every way ever held in that city. Wisconsin at the last election also applied the system in its essen- tial particulars, and the verdict was unanimously favorable. There is in reality nothing in the system that cannot be adapted to our re- quirements, and its advantages are undoubted. As showing the general interest which the subject is creating, it may be mentioned that last winter the scheme was considered by the Legislatures of three Eastern states—New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island—and three Western states— Kentucky, Wisconsin and Michigan. Though discussion of the system had not been general, three of these bills became laws, and a fourth—New York—was only defeated by the Governor's veto. This year three Southern states— South Carolina, Arkansas and Maryland—four Eastern states—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Maine—and among Western states—Indiana, Missouri, Michigan and Illinois—have been added to the list of those that are considering the subject. END OF REEL. PLEASE REWIND.