The record-union., 1892-11-12
THE CHRONICLES, OBJECTIONS.

The San Francisco Chronicle pro-
nounces the new ballot law ga very bad
laws and demands its repeal. 1t has
been doing that for over a year, and will
probably continue Tor long time in a
like policy. 1t is unfortunate for the
Chronicle that about all the people who
wish a fair deal IN elections think the law
"a very good one,' and do not hesitate to
say so.
The Chronicle set out its reasons for its
assault the morning after the election
and Thursday. To be perfectly fair and
give both sides a hearing we state these
reasons in brief: There is too much
red tape about it, and it delays and an
noys the people,
It delays only the heeler and suffer
and the fellows who formerly monopo-
lized all the space next to the ballot-box
to the exclusion of the honest voters.
1T compels voter to crawl into a
booth like a boy sneaking under a circus
tent" That used to be the most delight
ful Of all stolen fruit boy enjoyed. But
the law does not require any such booths.
Those used in Sacramento do not require
anyone to crawl, or even stoop. ''The
ballot puzzled thousands" Yet they had
the ballot before them for ten days prior
to election. 1t puzzled very few here,
though our ticket was but little smaller
than that in San Francisco. sit took, on
the average. ten minutes to mark ballot"
The law ailots that time. We recall that
it used to take an hour to get within sight
of the ballot-box under the old system.
1.-THE booths were not large enough"
The law does not prescribe their size.
'The election houses were stufhy and
close" Build them larger. "The system
is too complicated for the average San
Francisco election officer to understand"
The REcoRD-UNIoN could well concede
that point. ''Voters complained that they
could not give that mature thought neces-
sary to mark the ballots so as to express
their will" What were they doing for
two weeks prior to election day with
published copies of the ballot before
them, and for ten days next before the
election with sample ballots at their COM
mand?
'One intelligent man spoiled three
ballots, and had stamped a cross opposite
the names of all candidates." If the
Chroptcle will send that Intelligent
man to Sacramento we will guarantee
him splendid salary. We want him for
q freak-hunter who is conducting a
museum of curiosities for an admission
fee. 'The Australian law is all right in
Australia, but not here"
Ours is not the Australian law. The
latter, in some provinces, refuses to illit-
crates an entrance to the polling booth,
which is a good rule; it requires the
judges signatures upon the back of each
ballot, and in some of the provinces the
poll list number is marked upon the bal
lot, thus utterly destroying the secrecy Of
the vote. Our system is Australian in
the matter Of the booths and few other
things, but not in regard to those features
to which the Chronicle finds most obiec-
ton.
Again, the Chronicle declares that "the
worst feature of the law is its attack upon
party" AS q matter of fact it does not
assail party. Party conventions nominate
and elechoneer as of old. 1t does prevent
party managers from spending good
deal Of money among ticket-peddlers,
and influence workers, and heelers and
roughs, who formerly obstructed access
to the polls. The only interference it
makes with party is in the enlargement
of the right of men, regardless of the
wishes of bosses, to become candidates
for Office.
''It is to be regretted that the most seri-
GUS defect of the law is found in the
counting Of the vote" adds the Chroaicle.
This is disingenuous. The law makes
no change in the counting. The count
proceeds precisely, identically as under
the old law. There is not so much differ
ence as it would be possible to express in
words. The judges and inspectors call
off the names and the tally clerks make
tally marks, and for each group of five