The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-12-15
Voting N

There was very little said by either repub-
licans or democrats, after last election, in re-
gard to fraudulent voting. and the silence
of both parties on the subject is open to two
interpretations. Either the elections were
conducted with exceptional purity, or else
each side was guilty OF such dangerous i'm
positions that it feared to provoke investi-
CATION by making charges against the oppo-
site party. 1t is not too much to say
that a general impression prevails through.
out the state that the latter Interpretation
is the true one. People are convinced that
our election laws are so constructed as
almost to invite fraud, and, consequently,
they argue that fraud does not hesitate to
walk in through the door that has been left
open for it.
1t is not. of course, possible to secure alb
solute purity of elections; but it is certainly
easy enough to surround the ballot with
such checks and counter checks as shall rem
der fraudulent voting extremely diff
cult. OF course there is no dam
ger that this generation will again
see such a scene of fragrant out
rage as occurred in this city in 1864, when
a Massachusetts, regiment took possession of
the polls and employed little boys to pass in
ballots by the handful but more insidious
means of defeating the popular will may be
employed. The peculiar danger in Indiana
lies primarily in the fact that a residence in
any voting precinct can be so easily acquired
while its bona fide character is so difficult to
test. A repeater may make his appearance
at the polls or election day, and there is no
criterion by which the validity of
his pretended residence can be
tried. He may ave acquired the only res
idence demanded by law, and remained In
known to the inspectors and the challeng-
ing committee. A new face is not prima
facie evidences of guilt. even when a new
face is detected. Without making any in
sidlous iDsinuation, it may be said that in
wards where the majority of the voters are
colored, the difficulty of deciding who has
voted and Who has not, and whether a voter
is a new conner or an old res
ident, is very perplexing. Out in
the country where the n~eighDorlng farmers
are thoroughly acquainted with each
other, fraud is, of course, scarcely
possible; and nc precautionary measures are
needed to secure purity of elections. The
simplest machinery for balloting serves the
people of such regions best. But in cities
where the voting precincts are large, and
where a good citizsn often lives in profound
ignorance of his next door neighbours NAME,
the purity of elections has scarcely any
guarantee other than the integrity of politi-
clans, and in this era of corruption such a safe
guard is weaker than a broken reed. Neither
the leaders nor the rank and file of parties
would make use of fraud to secure a victory;
but the subordinate managers vino ply be-
tween them seldom hesitate at any method
that offers success.
There are two measures suggested as REM
dies. One of them is that obvious means OF
relief, a registry law. 1t has many consid-
erations to recommend 1t. II honestly car
ried out, it would secure an orderly and fair
election. It's provisions can be evaded, of
course, but only by a great deal OF care and
good management. The mere fact that
every voters name is set down beforehand,
with the place of his residence, and that
he comes forward and votes and is
checked of the roll, affords a great
deal of security. 1t is only by filling
the registry with false names and residences,
as we'll as procuring repeaters to p%ersonate
the fictitious citizens that the fraud can be
accomplished. Such a complicated piece of
rascality ought to be very easy 10 detect,
and has not been carried out successfully in
very many places. Perhaps the election Of