Morning journal and courier., 1881-02-11
Friday Morning, Feb. II, 1881.
ENGLISH ELECTION REFORM.

I | The corrupt use of money at elections is
 an evil which has grown to alarming propor-
 tions in England. It is bad enough in this country, but we do not yet suffer from it as
 the English do. In England it has reached a
 point where it is no longer bearable, and a
 stern and searching measure has been intro
 duced in Parliament by the Attorney General Henry James. As it is government measure
 it will be sustained by all the influence of the
 ministry and probably by the vote of the Lib
 eral party.
 This measure holds the candidate account
 able for all that is done in his behalf He
 must have but one agent to manage his elec- tion business and money used for election expenses must be expended by that agent and by no other person. If a candidate pays money to promote his election otherwise than through this agent, ors if any other person pays money for that purpose, the person who makes the payment, whether the candidate or another, is held guilty of Corrupt prac- tice," punishable by six months imprison- ment at hard labor. The candidate or his agent is forbidden to use more than a speci- fled sum fixed in the bill the amount vary ing according to the number of voters. He must report to a public officer the amount spent and for what purposes, rendering an exact and detailed account, under the pains and penalties of perjury. The 'colorable employment" of voters as canvassers, bill- stickers, and so forth, which has been one of the most common forms of corruption, is strictly forbidden. If such services are per formed they must be done freely, without payment, or the promise or hope of it. The only legitimate election expenses are specif- cally mentioned in the bill. They are the compensation of one agent, one clerk in each polling district one inspector, one messen- ger, and one committee room, not in a licensed tavern or victualling house, and none of these persons except the agent must be voters. No money must be paid for carry ing voters to or from the polls, and free drinking at the candidates expense is ex- pressly forbidden. For any payment outside of these the candidate is, on conviction, made ineligible for seven years, and any voter who makes the illegal expenditure in his behalf is disfranchised for seven years. .,
 With this bill a law it seems as if the Eng ish ought to have purer elections. The London Spectator is convinced that it's effect vii. be good. It says: "The whole business of bribing, so far as it is carried on, will fall into disreputable hands, those of untrust- worthy, esurient, broken attorneys, who will sell their clients very often, and still oftener go to lengths held by their employers to be unendurable. From that moment bribing will be bad form, and society, which at present resists the law, and. rather admires the man who has bought seat and fought a petition, and has still plenty of money left, will lend its influence to the support of the law. It will look coldly on the briber, who might, if matters were pushed home, be working on the tread-mill, and one first ob ject of bribing, which is social distinction as well as political victory, will disappear. Bribing may survive, but it will survive as any other crime survives, will be infrequeAt, will be readily punishable, and will be con sidered to deserve severe social reproduction.