The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-13

The Journal has already commented on
some features of the Democrat-Populist
deal in Missouri by which the name of the
Populist candidate for judge of the st.
Louis Court of Appeals was withdrawn
from the ticket and that of the Democratic
candidate for the same office substituted
in consideration of his paying $1,000 and
agreeing in the event of his election to APP
point the Popuist candidate reporter of
the court. The evidence of the deal is con-
elusive, consisting in part of letters writ
ten by Judge Bland, the Democratic can
didate, and the chairmen of the respective
committees disclosing the whole transac-
ton So scandalous a proceeding on the
part of any candidate for office would in
vite severe censure, but in the case of
judicial candidate it is shocking. Such polit-
ical deals are bad enough in any case, but
there is something peculiarly revolving in
the idea Of a judgeship being put up at auc-
ton and banded about in that way. In the
present case it is likely to lead to an in
vestigation that may result very seriously
for Judge Bland Missouri has law entit-
led IAN act to prevent corrupt practices
in Elections" which makes it felony to
give, procure or promise any office, place
or employment to influence voter in cast
ing his vote, or to pay any money to be
expended in bribing voters. 1t specifically
states the amount each candidate may ex-
pend or contribute. by himself or through
Others to secure his election, the amount
being graded according to the number of
voters, and prescribes that every candidate
shall, within thirty days after the election,
file with the officer empowered by law to
issue certificates of election, an itemized ac-
count of his election expenses. Under the
grading of the law a candidate for the Office
of judge of the st. Louis Court of Appeals
could legally spend between 81, 700 and $780,
The report which Judge Bland filed showed
that he spent less than this, but the recent
disclosure shows that he considerably ex-
ceeded the legal limit and did not include
in his statement of expenses the 81 900 paid
for having his name placed on the Popu-
list ticket. The case is SO scandalous in it's
details and presents so many serious fea-
lures that there is likely to be an investi-
cation under the corrupt practices act. The
st. Louis papers, irrespective of party, rec
ognize the gravity of the case. Judge Bland
was elected as a free-silver Democrat-Pop-
ulist candidate, but the Post Dispatch, a
free-silver organ, says:
If Judge Bland or any agent COM
mittee acting for him paid money to j. W.
North or to an agent or committee for his
withdrawal, the fact should appear in
the sworn statements of Judge Bland
and the treasurer of the Democratic
committee If it does not appear in the
statements they are liable to prosecution.
If the money was paid to the Populists
payments or promises were made to Mr..
North, Judge Bland and the committeeman
and all who participated in the deal must
be prosecuted. Judge Bland is liable to be
ousted from office by the candidate secur-
ing the next highest number of votes.
The st. Louis Republic joins in the de-
rnand for an investigation, and public senti-
ment will doubtless insist upon it. When
political corruption invades the judiciary it
is high time to call a halt.