The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-01-08
The Objections to a Spring Election.

The Objections to q Spring Election.
Readers of the muItitudinous interviews
with Senators and Assemblymen, which we
have been publishing by instalments dur
ing the week, will find it difficult to recall
any objection made by any member of the
Legislature to the contemplated change. 1t
may, indeed, be said that as nearly oil the
gentlemen interviewed expressed themselves
in favor of spring election it would be
absurd to seek for the objections to the
measure in the reports of their converse
tons. But it is because there are strong
reasons for the change and none of any
force against it that the expressions of
opinion have been SO entirely one-sided.
There are, nevertheless, two objections
which have been made to the change
and we will attempt to state them
fairly. One is founded on the alleged
convenience of the people 1t is as
serted that citizens will be put to adj
ditional and needless trouble if they are re-
CURED to attend two elections in the same
year instead of one. This argument will not
bear examination. If it can be supposed to
have any weight it applies with tenfold force
to the rural towns, where the supervisors
and town officers are chosen at separate
election. In the country citizens have to
travel several miles to reach the polling
places over roads which are converted into
mud by heavy rains. In this city all the
voters in an election precinct reside within
a block or two of the polls and bad weather
has little effect on the stone sidewalks. The
inconvenience to city voters bears no
comparison to that experienced in the
country, and yet the rural voters are
firmly attached to the system which
separates their local elections from
the general election. But how trivial are
their local concerns compared with those of
q great city like New York If the advan-
tage of separate election in their small af-
fairs is more than sufficient to counterbal-
ance their greater inconvenience, how idle is
the argument founded on that point when
applied to this city
The other objection is founded on the in
terest of politicians, and, from their point of
view, it has more substance. 1t is alleged,
and alleged truly, that choice of municipal
officers in the spring would increase the cleo
ton expenses of candidates, if full vote is
brought out in either the municipal or the
general election. 1t is the usual practice, in
our mode of conducting elections, to levy
contribution on each candidate in proper
ton to the value of the Office for
which he is running and when the
two elections are blended larger fund can
be raised with less expense to each contribu-
tor. Hence it is for the interest of the whole
strengthen each others canvass by having
both elections held at the same time. But
the voters brought to the polls by the ex-
penditure of money are the lowest most unin-
telligent and least public spirited class who
are led to the polls like cattle, and vote as
belong to the supporters of an Alderman he
pledges them to vote for particular Assem-
blyman, and rice versa The candidates for
State and county Offices procure the nomina-
ton of such city candidates as will bring
them the greatest strength, with little regard
to their fitness for the local Offices The
consequence is that city candidates are nomi-
mated to serve the ends of State politics and
elected by corrupt influences We do not ex-
pect that spring election will be a complete
remedy for political corruption, but it will
be easier to fight a divided than CONSOLE
dated army of politicians and corruption
lists divide and conquer" is sensible
motto.