The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-09-20
POLITICAL INTIMIDATION.

We publish elsewhere, this morning, a
communication, called out by Il letter of
inquiry from Wallingford and our COM
ments thereon, Monday, and purpoIting to
give the facts relative to the recent cleo
ton Of representative in that town. OF
course, we know nothing Of the actual
facts 10 the case, but assuming, until the
contrary is shown-and our columns are
open to reply that they are correctly
reported, have we not practical illustra-
ton of the danger which may come from
the practice of presiding officers disregard
ing the law, reading ballots before they are
placed in the box, aud throwing secrecy to
the winds There may have been no in
timidation in this case. We are sure that
none was intended--but what are the pro-
babilitiesP Here was man running for
office, and he the presiding officer receiving
votes. Objection was made to his recsiv-
ing the votes, on the ground that he was
a candidate but this was ovorruled
or disregarded, :. for the reason that
it was claimed the law made it
his duty to receive them, whereas The
law provides that, in his abaence-not
from the town or.meeling necessarily one
of the selectmcn shall preside in his place.
He opens the ballots, under a claim of right
and has, at least, the opportunity of read
ing them. Ills course is objected TO- but
he persists IN it, and is sustained by num-
Der of the by-stauders, one OF whom is said
to have been judge OF one Of our higher
courts. The election proceeds, and this
presiding officer is found to have been
elected representative, in opposition to the
regular candidates. He might, perhaps,
have been elected in any event, but does
not his course, whether so intended or not,
amount to moral Intimidation? We all
know, for the history of every caucus and
town and freenen's meeting shows il, that
men are elected onla Cj0a o0co v0te-anl an
open ballot is not much diiferent-who
reason is well understood. 1t is because
many voters lack the moral courage to
openly oppose man named for office. We
may regret that all men have not more
moral courage, but we must take things as
they are-and our election laws were franz
cd, among other things, to protect these
men in the unbiased expression of their
choice.
This, a3 we said the other day, Is repre-
hensible, not only because 1t is in violation
of law, but because it enables other parties
to make effective system Of intimidation
practiced in Vermont as well as at the
south, aud not IN Vermont alone, but in
the entire country. Intimidation does moi
necessarily imply bloodshed, or even force
of arms. The intimidation practiced al
the south Is not wholly, or in the larger
part, one OF force or bloodshed. 1t il
practlced by system of oppre 5sion, a re
tusal TO employ persons who do not vote
in a given way, threat to discharge sthen
from employ, and by actually discharginl
them. This is the .kind of intimidation
practced in Vermont-practiced we ar,
sorry to say by republicans as well by dem
ocrats. How many times have we know
of employees brought into primary meet
ings and voting at their employers dicta
ton Howlmany nominations have beef
forced upon the party in this way2 How
recently is it,that workmen absented them
selves from the polls, because they coul
not conscientiously vote for their employe
and dare not vote against him?
The practice is not confined to Vernon,
We see it reported that wealthy republ
can landlord of Belfast, Maine, threatene