The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-05-11
How Republicans Fought Ballot Re-
form in Indiana.


In discussing the platform of the Indi-
ana democracy, which it indorses, the
New York Ereninq Post recently said
The whole nation has reason to rejoice
over the wisdom of the Indiana demo
Gratis, under the leadership of THE INDI-
ANAPOLIs SENTINEL, in insisting upon the
adoption OF the Australian system and
carving through the reform in the face of
bitter opposition from republican organs
and politicians. Indiana has long been a
close and doubtful state, and for good
many years past its elections have been
notorious for their corruption. The scan
dial cul minated with the notorious "blocks-
of-five" campaign in 1883, when HARRISON
secured his narrow plurality OF 2,34S in a
total poll of 536, S99 by methods which
dsgraced his party and his state. This
wear for the first time Indiana will nave
presidential election in which bribery and
intimidation cannot be practced. 1t is
the misfortune of the republicans that
every candid observer thinks their
chances of carrying the state much in
jured by the adoption of the secret ballot.
To this the Indianapolis Journal excerpts,
saving that the Post probably got its in
formation from the editor of THE SEN
TINEL. and denying the assertion that the
republicans opposed the enactment OF
the Australian law.
We do not know where the Post got its
Information, but we do know that it didn't
get it from the editor of THE SENTINEL or
anybody connected with THE SENTINEL.
But, nc matter from what source it came,
the Posts information is correct. The
Australian law in Indiana was enacted
against the very vigorous opposition of
the republican party under the leadership
OF the Indianapolis Journal The files OF
the Journal furnish ample proof of the
truth Of this assertion.
At the legislative session of 1889 the An
drews bill-now the Australian law-was
introduced and passed without material
amendment. The Journal opposed it as
cumbersome" complicated" ''expen-
sive." etc, and predicted that mo good
would come of it," When this bill was
reported TO the senate Jan. %, 1889. the
Journal put these headlines over the an
nouncement of the fact: Andrews Eec-
ton Bill-Democrats Propose to Have
Voting Done by Strictly Com plicated
| System-Restriction That Place the Hit
crate Elector at the Mercy of Party Heel
ers Who VIII Undertake to Manage Al
] faire-A Safe Method of Registration Does
| Not Meet with Democratic Support"
Feb. 4, 1882 the Journal again turned
! its attention to the Andrews bill, sneering
ut the democrats for proposing to pass an
election bill based on the Australian
system on the ground that it is
a reform measure" and reproduced,
with approving comments, a state
ment by New Jersey senator
denouncing the Australian system
as too complicated to be under
stood" and as scheme which would
enable the election officer to carry an
election by the deception of ignorant
voters" The Journal added:
Advocacy of the Australian system is a
convenient subterfuge, since il is usually
classed as a reform measure, but as the
Jersey senator saws, it offers sample op-
portunities for fraud. In New jersey
popular sentiment in that direction is
somewhat less urgent. and as the demo
cratic majority is satisfied with the oppor-
tunities for fraud afforded by the existing
I law they prefer not to change.
/ In referring to the Australian system on
Feb. 8, the Journal said ut does not
follow that because 1t originated in Aus
trslia it Is the perfection OF human wisdom
or that it embraces everything that should
be included IN an American law" II
charged that the Andrews bill would dis.