The Labor enquirer., 1883-03-17


most stable, and the voters are in larg-
est proportion of native American"
stock. There is, so practical politicians"
say, more buying of votes among the
rural population Of Long Island-the
descendants of the settlers Of the colo
nial times-than there is in the city of
Brooklyn; and in sheer and fragrant
corruption there are many agricultural
districts of the state of New Y ork that
outdo the city.
The thirteenth congressional district,
composed of Duchess, Putnam and Co.
lumbia-Iong- g-settIed agricultural coun-
| ties-has been notorious in this respect.
Not long since a candidate for con-
gres8 spent $l5O,O00 in his election,
beating a competitor who spent $75,-
IOOO. In this district substantial far
mers. the owners Of even five and six
hundred acres of valuable land, men Of
position in their neigh borhoods, are said
habitually to sell their votes, and the
prevalence of the custom IS siIluStrated by
a story of a candidate who, going into
a country village, asked: How many
voters have you in this township ?"
" Four hundred" was the reply. How
many of them are tOaters ?"-i, e, mer-
chantable voters-cOntinued the candi-
date. -Four hundred" was again the
answer. Thanks to the efforts Of the
civil service reform association, a branch
of which has recently been started in
this district, such a stand was made
against this corruption in the recent
charter election in POughkeepsie, that
the money spent in buying votes, it is
said, reduced One-naIf, and four persons
(of whom one was deputy sheriff and
two were policemen were arraigned for
bribery. They were tried before judge
who is reputed to have spent $4,000 in
getting his place, prosecuted nominaIly
by district attorney of the same kind,
and counsel for the defense made no
scruple of asking how many there were
in the court room and in the jury box
who had not been concerned in like
practices. The men ere acquitted,
though nobody seems to have doubted
their guilt.
Illustrations might be given from other
parts of the Union, but it is not neces-
sary to accumulate illustrations of no
torious fact. What shows most signif-
cantIy how deeply the virus of corrup-
ton is eating into our political system, is
that it is only occasionally that the use
of money in elections excites comment,
and even then the comment can hardly
be called reprobation, at least effective
reprobation. The prodigaI expenditure
first alluded to exCiteS some attention, |
but that mainly because it was by-eleC
ton, when there was no other struggles
to distract. And no one dreamed of
sending either of the candidates to the
penitentiary. On the contrary, as a re-
ward for the spending of a fortune in
influencing the voters of his district, the
loser was sent to repreStnt the American
republic at an European court, just as
another New York man, who had him
self contributed moderate fortune to
the republican corruption fund in the
last presidential election, and had in
duced others to contribute, had been
previously rewarded by being made our
national representative to the French
republic. So the republican who, IN the
country district to which have referred,
spent $4,000 in losing struggle with a
democrat who spent $l5O,OOO, was given
an opportunity to "recover his useful
ness" as commissioner of the District Of
Columbia while his brother got a con-
tract for soldiers tombstones.
This is natural. SoIong as money is.
necessary for the carrying Of elections,
the spending of money will be deemed
laudable, and those who furnish money
may claim what successful parties have
to give. AS to where the money comes
from, that will not much matter. Beg
gar8 cannot be choosers." When Mr..
Garfield wrote the my dear Hubbelp'
letter, he of course knew that he was
asking a ring engaged in swindling the
government to contribute to his election;
when Mr.. Arthur went down to gather
in an hour the last $5OO00O needed to
carry Indiana, he of course applied to
those who we're pecuniariIy interested in