The New York herald., 1876-01-18
Spring Elections.

Although this subject has been under dis
cussion for several weeks we have yet to
meet with the first argument of any force or
substance against the change. The separa-
ton of municipal from general elections is
so accordant with common sense that there
are but few deviations from the rule either
in this State or the other States of the Union.
A large majority of the American cities, in
cluding majority of those of the State of
New York, hold their municipal elections on
different day from the general election, and
the same usage prevails in the rural town
ships in the choice Of their local officers.
We have more than once stated this broad
and instructive fact, but no opponent of
spring elections for this city has made
any attempt to meet it. To dispute
it is impossible. and to parry its force
is hopeless so the opponents of spring
election find no course open to them but to
ignore it. But it is a fact which has SO close
bearing on the controversy that it cannot
be put out of sight What are the reasons
which have convinced so many State Legis-
latures that a separation Of municipal from
general elections is expedient2 Those
reasons, which have received so wide an as
sent, which have the sanction Of experience,
are entitled to be considered as valid until
somebody shall be able to point out their fall
lacy. Until this is attempted we may regard
them as unassailable, and if they are sound
as applied to other cities 1t is incumbent on
those who oppose spring election to show
why they are not equally applicable to the
city of New York. The natural presumption
would be that the separation is more neces-
sary here, because our municipal interests
are so vastly more important that they have
q stronger claim to separate consideration.
The origin and history of blending the two
elections in this city furnish a strong pre-
sumption against its wisdom. The two cleo
tions were fixed on the same day by the
Tweed charter passed by the infamous Legis-
lature of 1870, which Tweed controlled. Who
believes that Tweed himself or that corrupt
Legislature made the change for the purpose
of promoting good government in the city
Nothing was more distant from their thoughts
than to secure greater purity in the elections
Their sole object was to diminish election
expenses by making a common corruption
fund of the contributions of State and city
candidates. The act was passed to serve the
interest of trading politicians. Its purpose
was so obvious that Mr.. Tilden went to
Albany to oppose it, and in his
speech before the Senate Committee on
Cities, of which Tweed was chairman, he
strongly advocated the transference of the
municipal election to the spring of the year.
Was Governor Tilden mistaken? Was he
blind or short sighted in supposing that
the holding of both elections on the same
day would promote the corrupt designs of
the Tammany RingP The opponents of
spring election are as careful to ignore the
action of Governor Tilden on that occasion
as they are to keep out of sight the great fact
that most of the municipal elections in the
United States and in this State are held on a
different day from the general election.