The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-01-21
THE JERsEY oITY NEWS. TUESDAY. .JANUARY q. 1890

tlutAAEttiEE a tQiCt ny tttflE AtlON ltAiE0 Ol
his ballot, than would the official oath of
a dishonest election officer prevent hin,
from tampering with the ballot box OF
knowingly receiving fraudulent votes.
These election officers wonld become
the political agents OF the different par
ties, and every voter who accepted their
intervention. would feel that there was
no secrecy as to his ballot, and that such
election officers might expose to others
how he had exercised the right of suf-
frage.
IN districts where there were dishonest
election officers, men might be bribed to
vote q certain way and be instructed to
Such an official could inform the bribe-
giVer how the elector voted, and thus
practically nullify the law.
It would be an aid to bribery and would
destroy the secrecy of the ballot. 1t wouid
be much safer to trust to the iliiterate
voter, or the voter physically disquaii-
fed, to ascertain some mode of express
ing his choice, than to destroy the essen
tiaI feature of such a system of reform,
by making the secrecy of the ballot de
pend, not Upon the law, but upon the
conscience of the election officer. In some
States these extra election officers mark
the ballots. Any such marking by them
is a destruction of secrecy. When
a ticket is marked, the mode of marking
it and the place where it is marked can be
so controlled by dishonest election officers
that the ballot can be traced, and the ac-
ton of the voter ascertained. The voter
may be practically inundated by his fear
of Just such illegal action. These extra
election officers might exercise a danger
Gus power which would affect the secrecy
Of the ballot and intimidate the voter.
Their employment would also entail
heavy expenses upon the localities called
upon to pay for their services.
The law in some of the States restricts
the distribution of official ballots to the
polling places through such extra election
officers. / do not see any good that can
be accomplished by such q provision. /
fail to see the danger in the distribution
of official ballots before election, if voters
desire to obtain them and mark their bal
lots at their homes. / cannot see any
danger in this, because every official ballot
should be made absolutely void if any
mark or designation were placed thereon
by which it would be possible to identify
such a ballot or distinguish one ballot
from mother
The extra official ballots required for
such distribution would not entail a
more expense than would the printing of
duplicate ballots, which it would be
necessary to use for the instruction of
the voter. to enable him to marx his
ballot in the secret compartment in the
enclosure surrounding the polling place.
Such a distribution prior to election
would not affect the final and indepen-
dentaction ofthe voter, because. although
he might have an official ticket which he
had marked at his home, he would still be
required, before voting. to enter the pri-
yate election booth, within which he
would find other official ballots ready for
his use, if he desired them, and which he
could mark there as he pleased. No other
person than himself could know after he
entered that booth whether he used the
official ticket which he had prepared be-
fore he entered it and shown to others, or
whether he used another which he had
found in the booth. 1t might be q wise
precaution to require some distinctive act
on his part while he was inside the private
election booth, which would take some
appreciable time, SO as to obviate the OBJ
lection which has been made, that
he might enter and Immediately come
out, so that it would be known
that he had not changed his ballot.
The provision which, in my Judgment,
would meet this objection to the right of
the voter to mark his official ballot away
from the polling place, would be to insert
in the law a provision requiring him to
enclose the ballot he intended to vote in
az official envelope, which should be
found only in the election booth. The
enclosure in the envelope of either the
ballot which he brought with him to the
booth, or the Il which he found therein,
would require an independent act on his
part, which would secure the absolute
secrecy of the ballot. 1t seems to me
that with such a provision the voter
might safely be entrusted with
an official ballot which he
might mark at his home il ne
desired so to Go. l know that this is oD-
jectedto by many sincere friends of ballot
reform, on the ground that there is dan
r.1r - ~ a<us1.,Fsn ~ 1f9af.1 - 1-A-
before election, and that many of them
think it absolutely necessary to compel
the voter to exercise his Judgment only
within the election enclosure, either by
himself o through the assistance oil sworn
election officers. After the most careful
thought l cannot see the dangers which
they a%pprehend from permitting the voter
to mark his official ballot away from the
polling place, provided it is done under
the safeguards suggested herein.
Although my W convictions are clear,
/ shall cheerfully yield them on this point,
if the Legislature shall deem it wise to
limit the distribution of official ballots to
the polling places,
The wholesale bribery of voters is the
most dangerous evil that threatens free
institutions. The secrecy of the ballot
will not appreciably prevent the use of
money to purchase voters. The bribe
giver will confidently and safely rely
the promise of the elector 10 vote
the ticket agreed upon. The claim made
that there would be no bribery where the
ballot was secret, because the bride
giver would fear that the voter would
cheat him and vote some other ticket,
rests upontheoretical speculation and not
practical knowledge of the class of
men who sell their votes. There is an
old adage that there is ''honor among
thieves'i-the same kind Of honor would
III nine cases out of ten, deliver the pur-
vote as promised.
The provision of law for limiting cleo
ton expenditures, and permitting the
to know by verified statements the
thereof, with were penalties for
violation of the law in these particulars,
is of vital consequence if real electoral re-
form is to be secured. only a certain
amount of money can be honestly spent
in an election; such expenditure needs no
.concealment. Under the present system
of large wealth, who are often pecu-
interested in the result of an cleo
tion, secretly contribute large sums of
money for election purposes. 1t Is impos-
sible to prove that these men know that
money is to be used illegally, but the
moral sense of every one is convinced
that such u contributor is willing that it
should be so used. If these contri
were no longer secret, but known
by every one, an aroused public senti-
would oon ostracise such men and
find means TO prevent their acts, or pun
ish them criminally. The result of rails
ing large sums by one political party is
certain to lead the others to at
to do the anne thing. In such a
caSe it becomes q contest of money on
each side, where candidates are sought