The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-02-20
THE BYRD BRIBERY BILL.
A Strong Argument in Favor or It's
Passage.


Passage.
To The EnIroR-Sir: Now that the Andrews
election bill has passed the senate and seems almost
certain TO pass the house want to call attention to
the necessity of passing the election bribery bill No
Z, introduced in the senate by Senator Byrd. The
latter bill is designed as a substitute for the present
criminal statute Acts 1885, PIP. 193-l9D making
vote-buying and selling 4 crime. All criminal
statutes that subject have proven dead failure.
Though the present statute cited above is an i'm
provement all previous statutes on that subject
because it reduces the crime from a felony punish
able by confinement in the penitentiary, to a mis-
demeanor, punishable by fine of not less than $40
nor more than $500 and acknowledgements and in
capacity to hold ONCE, yet no prosecution. much
less conviction, has ever taken place under it, 1t
should therefore be repealed and the Byrd bill sub
stituted.
This bill is nsossIsy, IN addition to the Andrews
bill, to make TING remedy against election bribery
complete. IL deals exclusively with visiting retri-
button on the vote-Duyer, and makes it morally
certain that he will he so visited II simply renders
the buyer liable to the seller for $500 and attorneys
fees, whether he hires him TO vote not TO vote;
and pFoviIas that the defendants iGG s stand stand
committed 70 the county Jail until the judgment is
paid or secured 1t applies TO many things that the
Andrew bill or the Australian system cannot apply
to, to-wit; Hiring hoaters to vote not vote. at
any election held pursuant TO law, at any primary
election or convention OF any political party at any
time alter its passage. II also applies the same La
bility to the intimidation of voters by EMPLOYERS
ana a OtherS ana all other tricks by which voters
may be hindeTed either from voting their sentiments
OF expressing them pending the election. The only
protection the secret ballot give the employee is
10 enable him deceive his dOmineering employer
and when he gets In behind the screen, vote as he
pleases. This is not sufficient protection. The
plOye must be protected in the open honest, deca-
ration of his principles to his employer, while
the employer dares not hinder, modest or make him
afraid in so doing. This is fully accomplished by
the Byrd bill.
1t is also impossible, under the Australian sys-
tenn proper, which is the central idea OF the An
drews BILL TO prevent hiring voters to vote The
hoaters being about equally divided between the
two parties, one party can, without the Byrd bill,
hire all the hOaers OF the opposite party to
That would accomplish the same thing as If half of
them had been hired to vote the ticket OF the party
hiring them, which would be equal the direct
purchase OF one quarter of the whole floating vote
TO vote the ticket Of the purchasing party. Such
nOaters, as Dudley says That is the fact that Dud-
ley would be buying or hiring democratic hoaters
not 10 vote would atiront the repub-
lican half OF the hOaters II they we're offered
no money, and they might take a
ton, of pure spite, to vote the democratic
order along the line again-"that Chairman Huston
will certainly furnish you the necessary funds to
hold our hOaters and get enough of the other kind
etc" And so they purchase the republican half of
the Oaters HON they can trust to 60 in behind the
screen, under the Andrew bill and vote republican
the republican half OF the floating vote to vote the
republican ticket and hire the democratic not 10
vote az all notwithstanding the secret ballot OF the
Andrew bill. Tho Byrd bill admirably meets these
difficulties and prevents these practices. The two
bills II passed into law will make the remedy COM
pete but II the Byrd bill is not passed the old fight
against money will only be partially prevented.
indianapolis, Feb IL J. MCCABE.