The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-09-20
Those Amendments to the Australian Bal
lot Law.

EDITOR ADVOCATE: - Complaint has
been often times made by the demo
cratic newspapers that the ''Populists sold
them out on the Australian ballot law"
Lot us look at this matter a little. After
the bill reached the house and was called
up HOCh, speaker pro tom, moved It's in
definite postponement-the vote stood
yeas, 50; nays, so (see house journal,
page 659), only one Populist voting to
postpone, while fittY-One republicans
were willing 1T should die then and
there. OF course the amendment offered
by Mr.. Greenlee is the part objected to
by the democrats, and with some reason,
but were the Populists to blsmeS Every
republican present voted for it, every
POpulist and democrat against it. And
30, also, on the substitute for section 1,
offered by Mr.. Troutman. 1t has only
led to embarrassment and confusion, de-
claring that townships and cities shall
pay their own expenses incurred under
the law, while the second section pro-
vldss that everything shall be paid by
the county in the same manner ss other
election expenses, except for cities.
Now, IS to the seAsts's conourring in
the house amendments, it ls true that
the Populists of that body were in the
majority, and might have rejected the
Objectionable amendments, but it was
also well to count the cost. Those in
charge Of the bill were informed by Pop
ulist members Of the house that they be-
isved, from the heavy republican vote
to postpone consideration Of the bill,
that If we refused to concur in the house
amendments (which would, Of course,
leave the matter to be settled by q con-
ference committee from both bodies)
that the republicans would likely take
advantage Of the opportunity thus af
fOrded to kill the bill, and charge it to the
senate. So, with knowledge Of the con-
fusion created by the amendments, it
was thought best to concur and take
what was to be had rather than to haE.
zard sll by further venture.
Let us look at the amendment which
is 90 Objectionable to the democrats, viz.
HThRt when two or more parties holding
political views Numerically opposed 10
each other unite and vote the same
tickets, they shall be deemed and held to
constitute one party under the provi-
sions Of this act" Like many other
things, it looks worse at q distance. The
Populist party and the democratic party
cannot be said to hold views "dlRmetri-
cslly OppC sed." Nor did they in many
instances "unite and vote the same
ticket" from top to bottom. They might
on state ticket and in some places 90
farther. Then as to the punishment to
be inflicted. The democrRtic party, in
the days Of republican msjorities, and
under the old law, had no legal right 10
q single representation on the election
board, and under the new law, even if
they with the Populists were held to be
one party, that one party would be en-
titled to one Judge and one clerk, and we
believe that il 30 forced to unite by law
that the natural division and the one
that would take place would be to take
one each Of the two allotted to this joint
party. So that even at the worst the
division would be, republicans, 2; Popu.
lists and democrats, 2; prohlbitionist, /,
making the matter much better than
under the old law, when the political
party in the majority may elect the
trustee and two justices Of the peace,
who may, without restriction, select
clerks so that the msiOrity party could
hnvn nll Gr1polVy kho nav-, loVv 0honkp Ahmk