The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-03-18
FRIDAY. MARCH IS. 1898.
AS OTHERS SEE Us.

There is no better way of presenting a
fact than by comparison. We have tried TO
show Up the inlqulty of the Virginia cleo
ton law. but a free silver organ in Ken
lucky has, unwittngly, emphasized the
iniqutous features Of the Virginia law
by comparing it, item by item, with the
Kentucky law.
The Louisville Evening Post had said
that the Goebel election law Of Kentucky
was Infamous. and had reduced that State
20 the level Of Virginia. But the Louis
Vile Dispatch. the free silver organ afore-
said, protests. The Kentucky law is bet
Ter than the Virginia law, SAYS the Dis
patch. and then proceeds TO point out
the difference as follows:
under the new law in Kentucky the
party out Of power has decidedly more
advantage than the party out of
power in Virginia. For instance, there
IS no provision in the Constitution of
Virginia requiring equal representation
Of the two leading parties in the officers
for holding the elections. The Virginia
law does not provide for a State COM
mission, the Legislature exercising d.
ractly the power OF appointing local
boards. which in Kentucky it has dele
gated to three commissioners. IN Nir-
einia the local electoral boards are all
Democrats. The registration officers
are all Democrats. The clerks Of the
elections are all Democrats. Two Of the
three judges are Democrats. and the
only Republican judge is named by the
three local election commissioners who
are appointed by the Legislature The
minority party organization has no voice
or influence whatever in the selection
OF any Of the election officers. The
canvassing boards are selected by the
local boards from the Democratic judges
Of election. In kentucky under the new
law the election officers will be equally
divided between the two parties. in
Virginia a single judge out Of three is
the only representative Of the minority
party. and 1t is within the power OF the
election officers for this man TO be the
most ignorant and incompetent. or cor
rupt Republican at his voting precinct"
Hear, We men OF Virginia. This is no
Republican, or gold bug or mugwump
talking 10 you. 10 is the regularly or
dained organ Of the Bryan party in Ken
lucky. Surely this paper would not do
its brethren in Virginia an injustice. This
paper is telling as the truth. Let MS hear
more Of what II has TO say
Thus it will be seen," the Dispatch
goes on that SO far as the cleo
ton officers themselves are con-
cerned the minority party IN Kentucky
will have q distinct advantage over the
minority party in Virginia. But this IS
a small part Of its advantage. In Nir-
glnia there Is no emblem on the ballot.
The names OF the candidates arc printed
in plain Roman type, and the man who
cannot read must ask assistance from
the judges in the preparation OF his bal
lot In this event one OF the judges Sc
lected by the majority that is one Dem
ocratic judge, goes into the booth with
the voter and reads 70 him the names of
the candidates, leaving the voter to
mark the ballot himself a straight
line must be drawn more than half the
distance through the names of the cam
dictates other than those for whom the
voter desires 10 have his ballot cast, or
the ballot IS thrown out. When there
are half dozen candidates for single
office, all but one must be marked In
this way and II the line does not go
more than half the distance through
the names the ballot Is thrown out. Tn
der the Virginia law II is certainly much
more dificult for the ignorant to vote
than under the new system in Kentucky.
The opportunities in Virginia for abuse
Of power by election officers are un-
doubtedly much greater than they pos
sibly can be under the new law IN this
State. and both in the organization Of
the election machinery and IN the man
ner OF preparation and casting OF the
ballot. tho minority party will have
much more chance IN Kentucky than in
Virginia. provided that in either state
the election officers are disposed to be
corrupt and unfair.'
xsst US see ourselves as others soc US.