The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-01-10
, Maine. He thinks it will have no effect

in Maine. He thinks 1t will have no effect on
bribery, because he believes there is honor
enough left in vote sellers to make it safe to
trust them to vote as they have contracted to
do. He admits that it would prevent ballot
box stuffing. provided the election officers
were honest. but he is evidently distrustful
on that point, in marked contrast, by the
way, to the confidence he feels in the honor
OF vote sellers. BE fears that the new sys-
tenn will lead to errors-it Is so compile ated.
Furthermore he thinks it an affront to our
forefathers to supersede their plan by a
method that was found necessary In wild
section Of the world that was largely settled
by the convicts and vomitings of civiliza-
tion." He winds mp his sereed with this
eloquent outburst:
that need to be corrected, but. as for our ballot
Dx, tne D-st thing we can DO is to trust 1t e. the
no non, .5 OF tne people Ia the future. as IN the
PAST, lney VIII be found ready to give a faithful
account OF their Stewardship.
LET it alone, it's safer
Summed up Mr.. Dow's objections are
these: 1t won't stop bribery; it is compli-
Gated; 1t is an affront to our forefathers; it
is copied from system first introduced into
penal colony. To the first objection the
answer Is that nobody has claimed that 1t
will entirely put an end to bribery. But 1t
Is reasonable to suppose that it will diminish
1t, inasmuch as it is inevitable that trade In
votes. like trade 10 everything else, must de-
crease as the chances of the delivery
Of the goods purchased diminishes.
Mr.. Dow may feel great confidence In the
honor OF vote sellers, but the vote purchaser
does not. He knows him. To the second
objection, that it Is complicated, the an
swer Is that 1t Is rot complicated, but ex-
tremely simple. as simple as our present
plan. In regard to the third objection-that
it is an affront to our forefathers-it is to be
said that 1t is no more an affront to them
| than the change In our constitution provid-
| ing for biennial sessions and election, or the
| change forbidding the manufacture and
sale Of intoxicating liquors. To the fourth
the answer is that 1t is not true When the
Australian system was adopted In Australia
that country had not been penal colony for
thirty ears, and South Au stralia, where it
was first introduced. never was penal COL
ony. IL Mr.. Dow will consult any good
cyclopedia he will find, what he appears not
now to know. that Australia. instead of be-
ing the wild region which he describes, con-
tains very large population, of the most en-
ightened kind, that it was not settled largely
by the 'vomitings of crime" but by free
men IN quest of the treasures of the country.
BE will find that twenty years ago the year
ly imports Of this wild region" amounted
to over $120. 0Oo. 900, and the exports to over
S125, 000.00c; that the yearly entries and
clearances at its ports amounted to 3.774..
900 tons, that education was compul.
sorry; that there were three large universe.
ties and thousands of public schools.
great many more facts he will find which he
1t would be well for him to introduce him.
self to before he repeats again that stale old
SANDER which was the product Of mind ex-
hausted Of arguments that the Australian
system Is the invention of penal colony.