Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1900-10-22
QUAY AS A REFORMER.
He Talks Fairly, But History
COntradiCtS His Claims.

The speech Of ex-senator Quay made
at West Chester on Monday evening
sounds very plausible, and would con-
vince any Sne not acquainted with the
history of Pennsylvania that Mr.. Quay
is devoted to reform, and only requires
that better election law than we now
have shall be submitted to him before
issuing orders to the legislature and
the governor to have 1t enacted into
law, says the Philadelphia Ledger. He
treats Mr.. Guffey as the father of re-
form election laws, and offers to pass
a Guffey law in place Of the Baker
law, which, he says, was known as
reform measure"
But Mr.. Quay's apparent frankness
and honesty disappear when the his
tory of ballot reform legislation is re-
viewed
The first ballot reform bill was in
troduced in the session of 1889. 1t was
a genuine reform measure, modelled
after the Massachusetts law Mr.. Quay
was in control of the legislature which
defeated the bill. In 1891, Mr.. Quay
still being in control, a ballot reform
bill was passed after being amended
by Mr.. Quay's friends so as to ma
terially alter it. To correct the work
of Mr.. Quay's friends the Ballot Re-
form associations bill was again intro
duced, but it was again emasculated,
the Baker bill being substituted, which,
as ex-senator Quay knows very well,
Is not reform measure, and never
had the sanction of the recognized re-
form element. Proof of this Is to be
found in the fact that the Reform as
sociation's bill was again introduced
fp tn ND ;,, Nd oi,,
defeated by Mr.. Quay henchmen. At
the last session the house, which
was not under Quay rule, passed the
bill, but the senate, which was obedi-
ent to him, killed it. At six sessions
of the legislature bills drawn by re-
formers have been defeated outright
or emasculated, and yet ex-senator
Quay has the effrontery to say:
"As yet the gentlemen who are agi-
tating ballot reform as their speciality
have not presented their proposition
by bill or otherwise to the public"
That Mr.. Quay is not fit to be trust
ed with any reform movement what
ever may be judged from the treatment
he accorded to the platform declara-
tions of 1895, which he presented in
person to the Republican convention of
that year. He and his friends have
controlled the legislature ever since
1895 except that they did not hold the
house in 1899, but even then they could
have passed any reform measure they
might have chosen to present.
In 1895 the Republican party, at the
instigation of Mr.. Quay, who was then
United States senator, resolved:
I'VE decry the growing use of money
in politics and the corporate control Of
legislatures, municipal councils, politi-
cal primaries and elections, and favor
the enactment of legislation and en-
forcement of laws to correct such
abuses"
What has been done in this direc-
tion? Senator Quay is responsible for
the neglect to carry out the party plat
form, for he has controlled the gov
ernment of the state since 1895.
The platform also contained the
strongest civil service plank ever
adopted, but that also has been COM
pletely ignored.
The most grotesque of the Quay
planks in the platform Of 1895, view
ed retrospectively after the primary
elections of 1900, was this:
1--WE demand that public office shall
be for public benefit, and its term in
subordinate positions shall be during
good behavior. No public employe or
officer should be permitted to influence
primaries or elections, nor upon any
pretense be assessed upon his salary,
and all unnecessary positions and SAL
aries should be abolished and expendi-
lures and taxation reduced"
If Mr.. Quay had taken effective
measures to bring about this reform
he would have been defeated as can
didate for United States senator in 1899
instead of being simply held in check,
and there would be no need in Phila-
delphia for Independent nominations
for members of the state senate and
legislature in 1900.
In short Mr.. Quay's record as a re-
former and more especially as a bal
lot reformer, is that of a man who
says nice things in platforms and
speeches, but whose henchmen, acting
under his direct orders, defeat any at
tempt at reform.
That he has wholly misrepresented
the movement for ballot reform Is
proved by the records. 1t is not new
movement, but has been active for ten
years, and would have been success
full long ago but for the opposition of
Mr.. Quay and the malign and sinister
forces of corrupt and venal politicians
that he controls.
Tn Dc fofA hn1 t..