New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-01-28
HATS OFF.

A member of the Connecticut Legislature mas
introduced in that body bill requiring that
every elector shall remove his hat when ne de-
posts his vote In the ballot-box, Precisely
what motive actuated the mover Of this bill does
not appear. He not having explained 1t, 1t Is
open to conjecture. Possibly the purpose OF
the Connecticut law-giyer may be to clothe the
serious business done at the ballot-bo1 with
solemnity suited to its high responsibilities.
1t may be that no takes the proper view that the
act of voting, being an exercise OF the highest
privilege known to civilized man, tO-wit, that OF
selecting his own rulers and making his own
laws. should be entered upon with dignity and
discharged with q degree of f0rmahty and cere-
mony commensurate with its Importance. 1t Is
fair to presume that the author OF tho Dill had
this in mind in introducing the measure, and 1t
is easy 10 see that the proposition ID based
upon the highest ideal of pure democracy and
the most elevated conception of the worth OF
citizenship. He has discerncd the fact that the
citizen mt the ballot-b box stands in the presence
of Lis sovereign. that His Majesty The People is
represented there before him In the most con-
crete form attainable, and that it is only de-
corous and proper to stand uncovered in 30
august a presence.
Perhaps. too, he imagnes that the average
voter will recognize the fact that when he I'M
covers to the Majesty of the People he some
he W, In faint, vague way. does fractional hon.
age 10 himself. And it ia safe to say In gen
eral sense that no one revOlts from contributing
10 his own self worship. Oar Connecticut legisla-
tor has accOrdinglv-if our presumption Is safe
the assurance that the ordinary voter Is not un-
willing to take his hat of to himself; that he
will not kick IL ordered TO uncover in an act OF
alteration of which he is in part saint and alto
getheT woIshipper. There remains, however,
the question whether the voter in a pure demOc-
racy, whose greatest Joy is not 30 much III the
abstract idea of the sovereignty of the people
as In the concrete notion that he can go as he
pleases without dictation, will calmly submit
to the direction of any body of law-makeIs
which cOntravenes his right under the C0nstl-
tuition to cast his vote covered or uncovered,
clad or unclad, so he comes to tho polls without
offending decency or violating law. 1t VIII not
he disputed that it would greatly add to the dig
njty OF the elective franchise II every voter
shOuld, without any requirement OF law, but
simply from his own sense Of propriety, come
uncovered to tho exercise OF his highest and
most sacred right az a citizen in n republic II
Is not improbable that such practice would,
to degree, tend to purify politics by attaching
to tho functions Of citizenship certain cere-
monial and formality that would actually in
duce thoughtfulness and reflection on the part
Of the voter and compel him to think seriously
about It..
We are very much disposed to favorable
consideration Of the motives of the COnnecti-
cut legislator. But after all, the fact remains
that our National and State constitutions have
erected an insuperable bar to such legisla-
ton The citizen can no more be required to
uncover at the ballot-boI than he can be TO
come in a drcss-coat to deposit his vote. The
Hebrew performs his highest acts of worship
covered. and the Quaker is bound by his creed
to do no Difference to sovereign or mortal man
by uncovering. The spirit Of the proT osod law,
IL not its letter, would practically disfranchise
both these classes. There is no statute law
that We know OF requiring court witnesses or
spectators TO be uncovered. But in court. rs In
legislative bodies, Ii IL the unwIiten law OF
custom and precedent. Il Hats Of " would be n
good rule at the polls, but II can only be estab-
lished by the wholesome effect of good exam
pie and persistent practice, and not by positive
law.