The record-union., 1894-01-18
SECRET OR OPEN VOTE.
The Two Sides to the Question Under
Debate.
How Should the Trustees Vote in
Confirming or Rejecting
Nominetionsf

At first blush the expression of more
citizens is adverse TO the method OF the
new Board of City Trustees by which
they vote by secret ballot upon contirma-
ton or rejection of nominations submit
ted by the Mayor.
The RECORD UNION has been at pains
to ascertain the arguments pro ana con as
expressed by those on either side OF the
controversy, and the following is clear
statement of the points citizens make VINO
debate the question, which is one OF con-
siderable local importance and creates no
little discussion.
In most cases, it is observable, the de-
felders of the method adopted by the
Trustees cause the other side to hesitate
and modify Judgment and frequently to
abandon their ground and change their
views. The two sides, as presented by
their advocates among the people, may
thus be summed up, the affirmative being
briefer and the defense more explicit
and argumentative.
The opposition to the secret ballot say
that the Mayor has to openly name his
appointees; the Trustees should, there
fore, openly confirm or reject.
The secret ballot is representative OF
cowardice; a Trustee ought to have the
courage of his convictions and vote IN the
open.
The people have the right to know how
their representatives in the board vote.
The secret ballot enables a Trustee to
break his pledges and shield the dishonor
of treachery.
To reject a nomination by secret ballot
and without giving reasons for the reJec-
ton is to snub the Mayor, for common
decency demands that the assailants OF a
man nominated by the Mayor shall stand
out and not do him up in the dark.
The elector in a ward votes Tor candl-
date for Trustee in the belief that he best
represents him and his views; he has,
therefore, the right to know how the
Trustee votes on all questions, that he
may Judge whether he has justified the
confidence reposed in him and IS worthy
of its continuance. These are all the ar
guments advanced IN opposition To the
system the Trustees have adopted
But the responses TO each OF these points
are vigorous, strong and must command
respect, and they may be thus summed
up.
In the nature of things the Mayor has
to name his nominees IN open communl-
cation, but the charter authorizes the
Trustees to vote as they choose on the
question OF confirmation. On all passage
of laws, however, there must be vote by
roll-call. The charter therefore contem-
plated precisely the method of the Trus-
tees, if they choose to adopt 1t.
1t is neither snub nor discourteSy to the
Mayor TO ballot on his nominations. No
one contends that there is any law or
rule compelling a legislator to give MS
reasons for vote. lie discharges his
full duty when he votes.
The very reason advanced against
secret ballot that it shields pledge-break-
ers, is strong argument for it, since the
charter, decency and good government
forbid the making OF pledges, and il they
are made the independence OF the Trus-
lee is 10 that extent crippled, If not de-
stroyed.
The question is not how one votes, but
whether the method Of ascertaining the
Will OF the board best cOnserves the pub
lie good. The people not so much as the
deieated candidate desire to know how
Trustee votes. Why? That be may pun
ish him; that is ''get even," or set his
friends on him to worry him into a
change. II not these, at least to spot
the men who dared to ''spot' him.
The Mayor is protected by a salary; the
Trustee receives but tritle. He is in or
dependent upon business or employment;
he may be punished by those he rejects,
or cowed or prosecuted, and II he is, his
usefulness is destroyed. The secret bal
lot, therefore, conserves independence;
the whole election system of the State is
based upon that theory. SecreSy of the
ballot is, in politics, societies and the
United States Senate, adopted where
personality is involved, to protect the in
dependence OF the voter and make him
perfectly tree in action. The same reason
obtains with the Trustees.
As it is agreed that 1t is the right of the
Trustee to be silent as to his reasons,
-haf &c at Nv L iQNn Of
the fact as TO how any one Trustee voted?
\ Trustee may have moral conviction
of the unfitness of a nominee, impelling
him to vote no" But he may not be
able to establish the facts of his convic-
ton before the public. Publicity would,
therefore, hamper his right Judgment.
When il Is said that fear to vote openly
is cowardice, the reply made is that it is
prudence and protection, because human
nature impelS men TO punish those who
refuse to confirm them.
Suppose three vote no." and six vote
s'aye" The candidate is confirmed, but
knowledge that \, B and G voted mo-
tends to make the confirmed officer
their antagonist and the public service is
thus injured.
But, say the friends of the secret ballot,
if is insisted that secrecy is cowardice,
the question still remains, does not the
secrecy best conduce TO public good, be-
cause it leaves even the tinid free
from assault, persecution and threat, and
thus enables him TO act with better judg-
ment?
Let one, it is urged, place himself in
the place of q Trustee in business, or en-
ployment, or liable to annoyance by
those having ability to hamper his free
dom of action. If he knows that his vote
moi is liable to subject him to all this,
he will probably by selfish interest be
prompted to vote aye" when placed be-
tween conscience and pressure he cannot
in self-interest resist.
Men ought 10 have the courage of their
convictions; but how many have not, or
are so placed that they will in public
interest face trouble and annoyance and
take punishment? Human nature is
what it is, not what it ought 10 be.
The man dependent by reason OF busi-
ness, employment. debt, threat of boy
cou, or the power of wealth or station, is
not wholly free man when by an open
ballot on matter OF personal fitness he
is compelled TO antagonize interests or
persons choosing TO pursue him. The
freedom Of the trustee as such, TO vote
his conviction as legislator and admin
istrator for the city is, therefore, in the
public interest, and whatever Will pro-
mote that freedom is i'll the direction of
public good, and whatever irees him
from liability Of annoyance for his action
on confirmation or rejection, or from as
---------------------------