The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1893-12-05
ARE OUR ELECTIONS HoNEsT7

NO'V0hCoO WIN DomOcraGlc party man
agement in this State, and the figures
OF the late election prove it to demon
stration. The vote in 1889, though but
an ordinary election for Governor and
Legislature, was 2s5, All, while the
vote cast a few days ago in one of the
most important elections ever held in
the State was only 216 GAL. How can
this immense falling off in the popular
vote be accounted for7 It can be ac-
counted for only upon the proposition
tnat the people have lost interest in
party government. This loss of inter
est has come on gradually during the
past fifteen years, and commenced in
In the use of money in elections, and is
now made universal through the con-
tinusd use of money and in general
belief amongst the people that our cleo
tlons are not fairly conducted. We are
not prepared to say that our elections
are dishonesty conducted. All that
We can say is, that there is a general
belief all over the State that they are,
and the recorded facts furnish only too
much evidence in support Of the belief.
Ia the election in 1889 between Malone
and Mckinney we saw results produced
in the counties where there is q heavy
negro vote that were altogether per
picking, and in the election just held
are likewise results that are inexplic-
able, For instance, in Norfolk city,
where there is aprodigious negro vote,
We find that Malone received 1,415
votes, while Cooke received only III.
In Princess Anne, where there is q
heavy negro vote, Malone received 1875
votes, while Cooke received only 112.
In Norfolk county, where there is
heavy negro vote, Malone received
1855 votes, while Cooke received only
397. We might point out many other
but we content ourselves with referring
20 enough to show that there is prima
Stcie -oason for the general distrust IN
the purity of our elections. Now we
want TO say, and we want to say it
with the utmost solemnity and impress
sivenesS, that the foundation stone
upon which free representative govern
ment must rest is honesty and purity
in elections. 1t is vain 10 talk of and
hope for good government if cheating
and fraud in our elections is winked at
or tolerated. If we commence in fraud
we must end in rottenness. If our cleo
tions are unfair, they must be made
fair whether it brings negro rule upon
us or not. Negro rule is more endur-
able than a condition which must end
in corrupting our people and turning
them into population of thieves, and
this must result if fraud is openly prac-
ticed and winked at and condoned.
We changed to our present election
law in 1884. Under the law as it
existed before that time, there was
so little complaint of dishonesty in
elections that our elections may
be said to have been almost
entirely pure, Our system then was
an admirable one, and there was abso
lutely no reason for changing it if the
negro population had been left out of
the account. But the experience we
had just emerged from under Mahone's
rotten rule inspired a change in the
election laws. If this change was not
made 80, that it might be possible to
stlfe the negro vote, it is hard to imag-
me a reason for the change. WHAT
was the change7 1t was only in one
particular, which is entirely tri1ing in
appearance, but one which constitutes
the difference between elections that
have safeguards for honesty, and cleo
tions that are open to fraud. Prior to
1884 the judges of the elections Chose
who have complete control over
the ballots and ballot box were
appointed by the judges of the county
and corporation courts, and were
always removable by the judges of the
courts at their own arbitrary will and
pleasure. This made the judges of
the courts the guardians of the ballot
boxes. There is something in the
judicial office that will make judge
an honest official in spite of himself.
A dishonest judge is one of the rarest
birds to be found. Having this arbit
rary control over the judges of the
elections and ballot boxes, the county
and corporation judges compelled
honesty in the elections, and for that
reason, We had little or no complaint
of frauds in the elections.
But the change made in 1884 was to
take elections from the control of the