The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1885-02-06
OUR BOX.
Are We, the People, subject or sOVer-
ei&H?

FELLOW CITIZENs:-Immediately pre-
ceding the Presidential election four years
since, an association composed Of members
of all political parties was formed to pre-
vent the corrupt use of money at elections
in our county-an abuse which had grown
to such proportions that men inside the
ring" asserted that from one-third to one
half of the legal voters Of the county were
purchasable. Owing to the ateness of or
ganization no efforts were made to prevent
bribery that year, but warning was given
that thereafter it must cease. Since that
election, owing to the rewards offered by
the association for evidence that would
convict of bribery or attempted bribery, it
is believed that no systematic attempt has
been made tocorruptly influence the voters,
until the presidential election just passed.
As to the last election. no man in a posi-
ton to know whereof he speaks, and speak
ing truthfully, will deny that there was
money distributed throughout the county
by both parties for the purchase Of votes.
Ii one party in certain townships chose to
place their partyticket and a sum of money,
in envelopes and distributed their funds by
that and other like methods, trusting to
the honor Of the recipient to vote the ac-
companying ticket, it does not lessen either
the moral or legal guilt of the transaction.
On election day three arrests We're made.
These men were all of the Republican
party. the members Of which, if reports are
to be believed, were less adroit than their
political opponents: possibly the real lead
ers refrained from and frowned upon cor
rupt methods, and the minor workers. de-
prived of their counsel and executive abil-
ity, were less circumspect and wary than
otherwise would have been the case. At
the clearing of the Salem case there was
very little real evidence, but it was sufh-
Gent to impel some one to call the attention
of the court to the subject. Judge Reed in
a few words, fit and strong, called the es-
pecial attention of the Grand Jury to the
importance of the purity of elections, the
basis of the continued existence of republic
can institutions. When the case came be-
fore the Grand Jurors nc effort had appar-
entity been made to present to them other
and more sufficient evidence than was
brought out at the hearing. 1t has
since TRANSFERRED that it was testified before
them under oath or affirmation, that the
gentleman arrested was seen to vote a
voter. that he afterwards walked into the
street with said voter and gave him from
his vest pocket some substance. SO far
the evidence was very slight, but it was
ltlC LII " Cf lAltlltt ~ l4Aas lA1fS WIN
convincing as to the guilt or innocence OF
the accused, unless the witnesses commit
ted perjury. Why was not that clue fol-
lowed? Why did not the Grand Jury
summon before them the voter alleged to
have received the bride and place him I'M
der oath and ply him with questions such
as would elicit the truth? But two expla-
nations are possible. Either the Grand Ju.
rors did not know they had that power,
though some of them were men of large
experience in public affairs, or, notwith-
standing their oath and the charge of the
court, they were unwilling to exercise that
power. Until compelled by convincing ev.
idence. men will be loath to believe the
latter as the true reason. Though it stretch
the bounds of charity to the utmost verge,
they must believe, till proved otherwise,
tina the first supposition is the true one,
however derogatory that may be to the
experience, legal knowledge and Judgment
of the jurors.
But if this be true of the Grand Jury,
can it be true of the Prosecutor of the
Pleas? He is a lawyer, of ripe age, he has
occupied his present high and responsible
position for many years-a position upon
the faithful discharge of the duties OF
which, more than upon any other county
office, rests the good government and well
being of this community. The Prosecutor
must have known the evidence in his pos
session in all probability was not sufficient
to secure an indictment, even if the accused
were guilty. He must have known that
the one important witness who could have
established the guilt or innocence of the ac-
cused was the man alleged TO have taken
the bride. Why was not the name of that
man secured and given in the list OF wit
nesses to the Grand Jury? Why was moi
the man himself summoned and at hand to
appear before that tribunal, which. through
legal form, represents the honest, law-abid-
ing, conscientious, iustice-lovin9 mass OF
citizens? Has not the Prosecutor shirked
his duty? In this case no ~supposItions are
made. 1t is true, it was generally known
to those interested, many days before this
court term, that the Republicans were said
to have secured evidence by affidavits
which implicated men of high standing in
the opposite party; which evidence it was
inferred was used or was to be used as a
menace to the Democrats. 1t was sur
missed therefore that no real effort would
be made to secure damaging evidence, that
the effort would be all the other way.
Whether or not that surmise was correct
the Prosecutor alone must know, and the
Prosecutor alone can tell.
An awakened public sentiment will care
fully consider his answer. Upon his man
ifest honesty of purpose, demonstrated in
that answer, with convincing truth, de-
ponds the question of his fitness OF
unfitness for his present position. II
an unsatisfactory explanation is given,
or if no explanation can be satisfactory,
and therefore nom is attempted, then, act
ing in their sovereign capacity, the people
should secure the prompt removal OF a
public servant unfaithful to so grave a trust
j.. WALTER PANcoAsT.