The weekly Butte record., 1867-11-23

THE CoSr OF THE LATE ELECrIoNs.-We have
not the exact figures, bat understand that the Sep
tember and October elections. cost the county of
Butte about s4,5oo. The county polled less than
200 votes, and, OF course every vote poed entail
ed tax upon the property of the county of more
than two dollars. The election expenses in this
county much less than in many other coun-
ties. The expenses of Nevada county were nearly
double that of Butte; and the cost to Plumas
tip. where only some 500 voters were registered,
Judging by partial expenses as published in the
Plumas papers must have been greater than in this
county. But taking this county as a criterion, the
recent elections have cost the people of this State
over two hundred thousand dollars. This i, a large
to expend for annual, or even biennial cleo
tions, and ought to be reduced. Under the Registry
law, the pay of clerks and judges of election, has
amounted in this county 10 over one hundred dol
lars fer each precinct One precinct cast as low as
as ten votes thus costing the county ten
dollars for each vote. Various precincts cast from
twenty to thirty and from that TO ftts votes, thus
requiring the taxable property of the county to pay
from SO to S. per vote. This is certainly an ex-
travagant method of ascertaining the popular will,
and should be remedied. Supposing the present
registry law to continue. (and We have no objections
to it, if shorn Of some of its more cumbersome, ex
travagant and oppressive features and the expen-
ses of a general election in this county NAV be re-
duced TO about thousand dollars, by making
but single precinct in each township. This would
inconvenience some voters but is il not preferable
to tax of s. 500 or 50 900 upon the property of
the county. that election precinct may be estsb-
lished at every four corners? How many voters
are there in the smaller precincts of the county,
who does not spend the entire day at the polls
And would il not be spent more protitably to the
voter il be were required to meet the people Of
his entire township at the polls, and claim fellow
ship and community of interest with them? Sup
posing it should him to lose the day and cost
him two or three dollars Is not the day lost to
business in any in any event, and the cost absorbed
in taxation. if the voter happens TO possess few
hundred dollars worth of property? The cost of
enrolling would he no greater for q township than
il is now for precinct. Clerks could be paid for
their services and the returns be made correctly.
1t is farce to suppose that au election board is
going to sit all day required by law, and keep
the polls open for fifteen or twenty men to vote
And If they do not the vote is liable to be thrown
out of the official CANVASS Chico township is one
of the largest and most populous in the county, snd
residents from nearly every section of that township
enrolled 3. the September election to vote at Chico
precinct, in preference TO voting at precinct
er home. Should the present election law continue
in force. the question IS to the number of precincts
there shall be in the county, is with the Board of
Supervisors, and with the present light before Us.
we are in favor of reducing their number 10 = sin
gle precinct for each to~nship, and shall urge them
to exercise such economy another year. We should
be pleased TO hear from those who entertain objec
tons.