Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-05-14
stl15 2Isttel lipestrer.


Dsllss Reform h New Yerk.
q Gov. Hin has vetoed the bill passed
~ New York Legislature, providing
- Australian system Of balloting, the
Aief features Of which are the provis-
~ q the ballots by the state and their
'tGepafation by the voter while entirely
ocreened frunl observation.
\ We have not examined the New York
Ill, but uDdeptand that 1t carries out
Ne prominent features of the system,
md that It is to these that Gov. Hill
ehjects. He thinks that they are vicious
and impracticable and afford no pro-
lection against fraud. Admitting that
the system has worked well for many
years In Australia, he ascribes this to
the TACT that there are fewer candidates
to be voted for at elections in that coun-
try. Gov. Hill further declares the sys-
tim to be undemocratic and unconstitu-
ttonal, since IL is the Unborn right Of
every voter to bring his own ballot to
the polls and the proposed ballot, fur
nished by the state, with the names of
all the candidates upon 1t, is not ballot
within the meaning of the word in the
Constitution, and cannot be forced upon
the voter.
All Of which constitutional opinion,
which the New York San and perhaps
many other intelligent persons think TO
he sound, appears to us TO be silly. The
voter has constitutional right to declare
his wish at the polls, but the state surely
has right to say how he shall do II, In
pursuit of its duty TO secure fair en-
preston and record of the popular will.
The other objection of Governor Hill
70 the law, that II will be Intellectual,
may be good but the only way to test
II n to try 1t. II is an undenied fact
that elections to-day do not honestly
record the popular will ; and that the
greatest difficulty, In securing such
record, is the fact that the hired
agents Of parties surround the voter
abaut the polls, intimidate or buy his
vote, and see to its delivery according to
engagement. 1t Is this wrong which
the proposed system Of voting is certainly
calculated to remedy, securing as IL does
or strives to do, the secret casting of
the ballot.
Since secrecy IN now theoretically
granted TO the voter, and this law simply
proposes to try TO give II to him practi-
cally. Gov. Hill should rather complain
Of the present method of ofvoting that Il IL
unconstitutional in not securing q secret
ballot, than of the proposed method
which aims ut such procurement He
should see that It In the duty of the state,
when II provides for secret ballot, 10
take eniclent means tc secure IL. II may
be, - he says, that the proposed law
would not do the work in New York.
where means would be found to beat
Il but he cannot show that this will
be done until the system is tried
Hit fails, 1t may then he amended until
NO plausible suggestion remains to he
tried to secure fair elections. Mean
while we could hardly be worse off than
We are now, when voters stand around
the polls auctioning their ballots when
the country Is districted into "blocks of
five," and all purchasable material is
CLEANED out for the work of the Wana-
maker funds when the influence and
the money of the powerful and wealthy
are freely used in bribery, and the
honest vote Is submerged under
an avalanche Of soiled ballots.
Governor Hill knows how il was
when he was chosen, and one that
was greater than he was left. He is
an expert in ballots and, with a repu-
tatiOn and record that was not altogether
good, he swung himself or was swung
by others, into the governorship of New
York, while Cleveland, whose repute
was sweet, failed to obtain the electoral
vote Of the state. Gov. Hill may not
know how this was done. If he does
not, his opinion as to the inefficacy of
the law he has just vetoed will suffer with
bis reputation as an expert. If he does,
he should be ready to offer a substitute
Tor the bill he has vetoed, which
viii 10 act In elections that the worse
may not be taken and the better
left, when two candidates of the same
party appeal at the same time 10 the
Same constituency for their votes. Gov
HILL should see that, with this result no.
lore them, the people of the country ask
Tor no other evidence that the vote of
New York was not honestly east and
counted and that there is crying need
lor law reforming in some way the
methods by which the vote ofthe state
. taken. When Gov. Hill vetoes such a
measure, the duty clearly lies upon him
% propose another that il better,
When he does not do II, the conclusion
y that ne cannot, or does not want a
better.