The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-01-09
HOW 70 supprcss EIection Brlbcrr.

---------L
How TO Suppress Election Bribery.
There are some supplemented persons
who suppose that bribery at elections can
be suppressed merely by the enactment of
stringent laws against il. This is a de-
fusion, as all experience shows. Nearly
every state has a stringent law against
bribery at elections, yet successful prose
cutiOn under such lew is seldom or never
heard Of Bribery is practiced extensively
in New York, New Jersey, and some of the
New England states, as we'll as in Indiana,
but bribe-takers as we'll as bribe-givers
are never punished. Evidence in such
cases is hard to obtain; public sentiment
is wofully lax on the subject; and the diff
Guilty of securing a conviction, owing to
the political considerations that are always
involved, is, in ninety-nine cases out OF a
hundred, insurmountable.
The following provisions have been on
the statute book of New York since 1912,
and, according to the Ereailg Post, have
been practically a dead letter since the
hour Of their enactment:
1t shall not be lawful for any candidate for
any elective Office, with intent 10 promote his
election, or for any other person, with the in
tent to promote the election OF any such candi-
date, either
]. To provide or furnish entertainment at his
expense to any meeting Of electors, previous to
or during the election at which he shall be
candidate; or
:. TO pay for, procure, or engage TO pay for
any such entertainment; or
3. To furnish any money or other property
to any person for the purpose of being expend-
ed in procuring the attendance Of voters at the
polls; or
4. To engage to nay any money, or deliver
any property, or otherwise compensate any
person for procuring the attendance of voters
at the polls; or
.. To contribute money for any other pur.
pose intended TO promote the election OF any
particular person or ticket, except for deiray-
mig the expenses OF printing and the circulation
of votes, handbills aud other papers previous
to any such election or for conveying sick,
poor or infirm electors TO the polls.
There are, however effective methods
Of dealing with this evil OF bribery. The
best is preventive in its Characteristic
adoption of system which will destroy,
so far as possible, the inducements and
opportunities for bribery by a secret bal
lot and the printing and distribution of
tickets by the state. An additional safe
guard would be afforded by law impos-
ing penalties only upon the vote-buyer,
and offering the vote acknowledgements
to inform upon him, such as has been adj
vocated by Judge MCCABE and others in
these columns.
But there is other legislation which
may be had whose potency in purifying
elections has been fully demonstrated in
Great Britain. The capital defect of Judge
HoLMAN's bill, recently introduced in
congress, is, as already pointed out by THE
SENTINEL, its failure to define what shall
constitute the Legitimate" and ''neces-
sary" election expenses which it author
ICES, and to require a sworn account of all
campaign expenditures to be published
after every election. Without such pro-
visions it is improbable that much good
would follow the enactment of Judge
HoLMAN's bill. The New York Ereaing
Post, in discussing this subject, says:
The English corrupt practices act is an excel
lent guide TO follow on this point, for it has
worked most successfully from the moment of
going into operation. After defining and for
bidding and fixing the penalty for every form
OF bribery, undue influence, treating, etc, the
act goes on TO specify what are necessary ex-
penSes of election, and 10 Tx the limit to which
they can be carried. The maximum amount of
expenditure which each candidate can make is
named, proportionate to the size OF his con-
stituency. This sum mustcOver all expenses,
printing, postage, room-rent, k-hire-every-
thing. All disbursements must be made by
one person, either the candidate himself or his
agent. If he employ an agent 70 disburse the
money, he cannot disburse farthing himself,
but must leave il all 10 the agent. An account
with vouchers must be kept of all expenditures
and returned under oath to the proper officers
after election. Any person found guilty of an
illegal practice is liable TO a fine OF fl00 and
five years incapacity for voting, while candi-
date guilty by himself or his agent loses his
seat and is disqualified for sitting for the same
constituency in the former case for seven
years, in the later during the existing parla-
ment. Minor ofenses of Illegal payment etc,
are liable to a fne OF flOO. Any candidate
whose expenditures exceed the maximum
limit loses his seat.
When this law went into effect it was the
general belief that the maximum OF expend-
lures which had been set was too low and
would have to be raised. In the last election
which had been held before the law went into
effect, the total expenditures were about $751;
100000. At the first election held under the law
the total dropped to S3,9O0000 At that cleo
ton il was discovered that in the English con-
stituencies the total of expenditures had been
over one ana nail mnllOn OOilarS less IMAM
the maximum allowed by law. At the same
time all charges of bribery had disappeared,
and there have never been any heard since.
The requirement OF publication OF expenditures
had done what the most stringent prohibitory
measures against bribery could not do and
never can demolished the corrupt use of
money Immediately. The secret ballot had, of
course, aided greatiyin the work; but the dead
ly blow was given by the requirement of sworn
public accounting TOR all the money spent.
III congress would pass such a law as the
English corrupt practices act to regulate
national elections, and if the several states
would pass similar laws touching all
other elections, in addition to laws pro-
viding for a secret ballot and the print
ing and distribution OF tickets by the
state, the power OF Doodle in American
politics would be permanently destroyed.
\ Meritorious Measure.