The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1883-09-12
WELLINGTON, LoRAIN COUNTY, OHIO, SEPTEMBER r. 188s

There is nothing new in the clamor
just now prevailing about the influence
of money in elections. Partisans have
accused each other of corruption, and
the purchase of place and power and
votes, from time immemorial, and will
keep on doifg so, with or without
reason, for all time to come. It is prob
able that in most cases charges of this
sort are exaggerated, and occasionally
they are unfounded, but the truth Is
that money is an agency in nearly every
hotly-contested political struggle that
takes place, general and local, town
and ward, city and county, State and
National. Everybody knows it and ex-
poets it, and few if any persons who have
been concerned with the conduct of a
political canvass in managing capac-
tiles, or as candidates for office, can
honestly lay hands on hearts and affirm
that they have never collected, handled,
controlled or paid money, or its equiva-
lents, directly or indirectly. for the pur-
pose of affecting the result of an elec-l
ton. Money employed in the manage
ment of a canvass Is not always inn
properly disbursed. Numerous ex-
penditures covering loss of time, wages
of labor and cost of material. are legiti-
mately incurred, but funds contributed
for such uses are often misapplied,
wasted or embezzled, and we presume
that as q rule allowances for such
things are made, swelling the total
raised to the point of extravaganza.
Unquestionably votes are sometimes
bought. and other wrongful practices are
INDUCED in, and such misbehavior de-
serves severe censure and punishment;
but enough is known to render it certain
that represent ,tives of all parties are
equally guilty in those respects. Howls
of denunciation on one side are fairly
met by discriminating shrieks ON the
other. The balance OF blame is pretty
evenly struck.
The assumption of the Buffalo Cotsr-
ier that money has been more exten-
sively used in elections since the Re-
publican party came into being than 1t
was before is palpably absurd. Taking
into account the increase of territory
and of population that has been steadily
going on since the foundation of the
Republic, it is not probable that any
greater proportion of money has been
expended in partisan operations of late
years than was employed fifty or sixty
years ago. The imputatioE of pecuniary
corruption has always been rife in poll
teal controversies. Coming down to
period as late as 1856, in which year the
last Democratic triumph occurred in a
Presidential contest, those who are old
enough to remember what was said
then know that the October election in
Pennsylvania was almost unanimously
believed to have been carried by the
free application of money; and the
charge was made, with strong appear
ance of probability, that many thou
sands of dollars of the funds disbursed
were stolen from the public Treasury.
That October election decided the result
of the election in November and made
James Buchanan President. Nobody
doubts that the Democrats raised and
expended immense sums in trying to
defeat Abraham Lincoln four years
later. Tilden's campaign in 1876 was
notoriously the most UNANIMOUSLY cor
rupt in the history of elections in this
country.
Democratic journals, on the authority
of their newly recruited ally, Stephen
A. Dorsey, assert that great deal of
money was expended to carry the Indi-
ana election in October, 1880, as an i'm
pulse to the canvass of James A. Gar
field, Republican candidate for Presi-
dent in that year. But Dorsey himself
does not say that the outlay was cor
rupt, but only that it was. judic.ously
distributed where work was needed.
Much was used in the payment of cam
yaSsers, and sum of considerable mag
nitude was required to police the border
lines separating Indiana from adjoining
States from which Democratic reinforce
ments to the lawful vote were -appre-
hended. But did tie Democrats them
selves spend no money thenp Samuel
j. Tilden's friends claim that he con-
tributed $4,000 in one lump to the
campaign fund of his party, and other
Democrats were proportionately liberal.
The Democratic National Committee
made away with all the funds they could
obtain, in Indiana and elsewhere. Dor
sey says the Democrats discounted"
the Republicans in New Jersey and
Delaware. The intimation of Repub-
lican bribery in New York is wholly un-
sustained.
Great opprobrium is even now cast
upon William II. English by Democrat
ic politicians because of the stinginess
with which he responded to drafts made
upon him for cash. He was their cam
didate for Vice-President, and an In
Illtll, anu buGJ InCuOnl biitn anu
say now that it was his duty to con-
tribute any sum that might be deemed
necessary to carry his own State He
was assessed $4,000 to that end, and
the Chairman of the National Demo-
cratic Committee offered to give as
much more if English would honor the
demand; but the latter would draw his
check for only $4,000, and the scheme
was talked. But Mr.. English paid
out considerable money on his personal
account, without letting it go into the
hands of any committee. The proofs
are that the Democrats used large sums
of money in Indiana and other States,
and the disbursements of their National
Committee were limited only by the
amounts they could raise. These devel-
opments do not indicate that the Demo-
Gratis entertain any conscientious
scruples concerning the use of money in
elections, and the uproar they are max
ing on the basis of Dorsey's statements
is purely hypocritical and intended to
divert attention from their own cor
rupting operations.
On the whole, it viii appear that Dem
ocratic journals would exhibit ,Tr :
wisdom than they now display by OBJ
serving a discreet silence on the subject
of money expenditures IN elections. 1t
is unwise for pots to twit kettles with
blackness, lest the taunt provoke more
or less whitening retort.-Tr IN ~
Times.
"A New York paper, having savage
ly criticised Paul II. Hoyne for rhyming
honor and upon her, emotion aud ocean,
tender and splendor, wonder and thun-