The record-union., 1894-10-31
THE PURITY OF ELECTIONS Law.

A contemporary rails at the new purity
of elections law solely on the ground that
1t limits the expenditure of money by a
candidate for the purpose of advertising
his candidacy and promoting his election.
The question is asked, "How can a man
be corrupted simply because candidate
desires to properly present his claims be-
fore him" Then follows the expression
of belief that the law is premium upon
perjury. The mistake in all this is that
assumption that the intention of the law
is simply the protection of the voter from
corruption. 1twas never so intended, nor
does line in the law warrant such inter-
probation.
The purpose Of the law is not to make
men virtuous-no statute ever does that.
Honesty and virtue are not to be leg1s-
lated into men. But laws provide penal
ties for crime committed. In this case
the law complained of-which, by the
way. is no novelty-protects the candi-
date from the exactions of the leeches It
enables the poor man to run for Office
with some show of equality of condition
with his weather. neighbor. The man
who would swear to false return OF his
election expenditures under the law,
would also lie to applicants for coin if there
were no law upon the subject. But the
law issa restraint, because there are men,
and in greater number than pessimists
are free to admit. who have regard for
their oaths, who wish to and will retain
their own self-respect.
But the law is restraint also upon those
of easy conscience, since discovery of its
'Eiolation robsthe guilty of the fruit of
their electioneering. No man elected is
safe in his Office who is liable to discovery
that he has violated the expenditure
clauses of the law. The law does not.
of course, assume that all the men,
bers of all disbursing committees.
who have TO make returns of cleo
ton outlays, are dishonest and free to
commit perjury. The law is restraint
also, because it protects the candidate
from the exhausting drain formerly made
upon him, not only by election leeches.
but by political committees and by piece
clubs.
Where the need to expend money to
secure Office is reduced, the disposition to
administer the Office honestly is strength
en- ed. A well-known official in this city
not long ago said to us: at cost me 81, 800
committee levy and legitimate expenses
TO secure this office, the salary of which
is less than $1,000 year. Under the new
law it is impossible for any such sum. or
even a third of it, to be wrung from
candidate for the place. Under this law
could afford to take the Office for single
year-under the old system a whole
years salary was absorbed by the cleo
tion." This is he.testimony of hundreds
of candidates here, and in other States
where similar election laws obtain.
We are asked: "Can the strains of
brass band infringe upon the integrity of
the citizen, or a column write up in a
newspaper be considered as an assault
upon the personal honor of the voter ?p
No. But when the use of either is had
under the threat or fear of opposition and
defeat. the integrity of the candidate is
sssailed, and that is of Importance to the
citizen whose affairs under the law the
officer to be elected will administer.
Moreover, under the new law, neither the
band nor the newspaper can threaten the
candidate because of unemployment of
either, without taking the chances of
severe and penal punishment. So that
there is check protecting the candidate
in the very instance cited. All such
checks tend to induce candidacy among
good men. Under the old system it
was common to hear men whom the
people desired TO have in Office, decline
simply because they would not and
could not stand the "cinchingu that
candidacy invoked. Under the present
law they know precisely the cost of cam
didacy-at least after nomination. and if
defeated they need not be financially
ruined.
The very fact that there is on foct an