The record-union., 1891-03-14

ballot form. In the second place there is
no need for such printing at this time.
The officers who are to order the printing
of the ballots are named in the law they
will study the Act and determine what
their duty is. Thirdly, the paper is not
yet manufactured upon which the ballot
will appear when official, and that has
much to do with presenting fair idea of
what the ballot WILDE.
Moreover, the proposition emanates
from the enemies of the law, and no one
ever before heard of conceding to enemies
the construction of the lines of defense.
There are friends of the bill upon the
committee to print, but we repeat the
statement that they have not the time to
give the matter the deliberate attention it
deserves, or to examine ballots used un-
der similar laws elsewhere. In the pres
ent status of the State Printing Office with
the legislative work on hand, and the
push attendant upon the close of a ses-
sion, it is not possible for the foremen to
study as they should the typographical
matters necessary for the proper printing
of the first ballots, and which are to be
sent out as guides for the various County
Clerks.
The whole scheme of printing the pam
phlets at this time is bad. If the Assem-
bly, wants to deal fairly in this matter, let
it give the Senate part in the business.
It was the Senate's bill that passed both
houses, and common courtesy demands
recognition of Senate assistance in the
preparation of the pamphlet, if it must
issue at this time. 1t would not be OBJ
jectionable for joint committee to act
and at leisure to prepare a form such as
the law intends shall issue.
What we think unfair in this whole
business is the haste accompanying it,
and the placing upon the commission to
present to the people sample ballot a
legislator who roars it loudly that he
wishes to make the sample ballot mon
strosity, or to show that it is, as he claims
it to be, ''monstrosity." Now it may
be as well for Mr.. Dibble and all the op-
position to understand that, if the ballot
were as long as he is and as broad as is
his vanity, it would still be infinitely su-
perior to the present ballot, by the use of
which the element that applauds Mr..
Dibble's opposition is enabled to buy
votes and insure the delivery of the goods.
The enemies of the reform appear to be
carried away with the notion that large
ballot is out of the question; that it is all
sufficient to defeat election reform to
show that ballot to be used under it
may be a few inches shorter or longer,
wider or narrower than that conven-
tionality has deemed the proper thing
heretofore. The true test of the matter
will be the ability of the voter to read his
ballot and understand clearly what he is
TO do to vote for his choice. 1t makes no
sort of difference whatever if the new
ballot is two feet long or two inches, so
that it does not cheat the elector.
Suppose that the voter is-as he never
will be-given a ballot as large as the
first page of the RECORD UNION, would
that be an insuperable objection to ballot
reform? Would not the voter be able as
intelligently to select his favorites from
the clearly printed lists therein as he
would be to handle as many distinct
tickets on separate sheets as there are
parties represented on the single sheet?
If the enemies of ballot reform think
they have discovered loose joint in its
armor in this matter of the size of the
ballots, they are woefully mistaken. For
this battle of the ballot has been fought
out in nine States of the Union, and in
every one the enemies of the reform sys-
tenn have been worsted.