Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1851-03-22

The relative merit OF voting by ballot or Tiut
uoce in the election of Representatives has engaged
occasional attention in this country, and is a ia
vorite topic of discussion among those of more ma
ture age well in college debating societies, in
which it claims frequently an importance hardly in
ferior to the renowned question whether Cesar was
great man. A recent proceeding of the Senate Of
Massachusetts seems to show determination, as
far as that body can control the subject, to set de-
cided example in favor OF the mode which it en-
phatically terms the secret ballot system. Not
content with the plan adopted in other States in
which the vote by ballot prevails, where the name
Of the preferred candidate is simply written or
printed on piece of paper and dropped into the
box, the Massachusetts Senate ordains that each
ballot shall be sealed up in an envelope before the
voter deposites it.
Apart from the cumbrousness of this proceeding,
it may be doubted if that mode would be eficacious
in securing greater freedom and purity in elections,
and whether the opportunity afforded for the in
diligence of bad faith and the concealment Of du-
plicity may not well counterbalance any disadvan-
tages supposed to arise from an open declaration of
preference, such as want OF Independence and
fearlessness of opinion, or the dread of opposing
oneself to an influence which might be hurtfnl TO
the interests of an adverse voter. We believe the
day has passed when such reasons should have
the ballot has been thought necessary, we appre.
bend that the danger Of undue influence over the
electors under theoral voting has been exaggerated
and though, doubtless, many cases Of corruption
have occurred, yet they have tended to work their
own cure. Take the case Of Sadler's election in
England, in 1929, in which the Duke Of Newcastle
turned out all his tenants because they would not
support his candidate; a fragrant injustice, which
was characterized as borough-mongering by an
indignant public, and had probably no little part in
bringing about the reforms which soon after follow
ed. So in France, where the power and patron
age of the Government are far more openly exer-
cised to control important elections, it has happened
that the independence of the elective franchise has
been asserted, as in 1927, where in spite Of all the
threats and persecution Of the Minister Villele the
people decided the elections in favor of their own
candidates, and the Government was left in mi.
nority. The revolution Of July may tell the rest.
1t may be from early prejudice, but we cannot
help thinking the UirG U0ce voting, as practiced in
some of our States, more manly and simple, and
more in accordance with the genius and general
practice of our country. In Virginia, for example,
how is the machinery of elections managed Can
any thing be more plain, more fitted to encourage
the straightforward, fearless conduct of freeman,
and to defeat hypocrisy and timid malice! An
elector presents himself in view and hearing OF all
who choose to be present, and demands to vote.
The Sheriff of the county asks his name, and what
right he has to vo,e Being satisfied on these points,
he asks for whom he votes, and then proclaims in
a loud tone: A. B. votes for G. D., and the vote
is recorded. Let any one visit an election precinct
and he will see how little the sturdy citizens care
whether they are in majority or not or who is by
to hear the declaration Of their preference Laughs
and tests are freely poured out and as frankly re-
turned; but no shame is seen for having openly
avowed his preference, though the voter stand in
minority Of one to twenty.