The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1902-12-06
SHALL THE PUkITY
OF ELECTIONS LAW
BE RE-ENACTKD?
mo- ths Ediror Of the srxr1NEL:

Since last election two Of the prominent
papers of the State, with the beat possible
intentions, have advocated the re-ensct-
msns OF sbe defunct Parity Of Elections
Law Of 1851, claiming suoh . course has
been made necessary BY the bribery and
corruption pracsioed OF said election. Ths,
bribery wss used by both the c%ontendine
parties goes without saying. bus that it was
more extensive In Nevada than in many
other States OF the Union 10 problemssiesl.
| That bribery should be by ell means pre-.
vented and its perpetrators punished also
goes without saying. but the question 10
| Will the re.enscsment Of the so-oslled Pu.
rity Law accomplish that object!
This State has had two trisls Of that Law,
aud the last trial. that Of 1898. proved it 70
be 90 inefhcacious that, by an overwhelm.
Ing vote, the Legislature Of 1899 repealed
il. This repeal followed the general out
CRY OF press and people against the law. and
for the reason that in operation ID did not
prevent bribery and corruption ct the polls.
but did absolutely prevent. nay. rendered
impossible, the election 70 Office Of oonscisp-
tious men who respected the Law and uni
| formly secured the election Of those who
unexpected and ignored IL. Such was the
result here, and doubtless was the case 10
every other county Of the State.
What chance has . good citizen, . candi'
date for an elective office, who. out Of con-
soientious scruplss and respect Tor . statute
Of the land, will conform bis candidacy
to the stringent restrictions Of the Purity
Law, against . corrupt opponent who will
secretly bribe votes and otherwise aid his
candidacy in disregard Of lite provisions!
As much chance as . cat 10 hadss without
claws. and no more.
To prevent bribery . provision OF the Law
required each candidate within . certain
time after election day TO file under oath .
ssatemsn. of .ll moneys. ETC.. ETC., expended
by him 10 his camp.ign. and provided .
heavy penalty for . false statement, etc.
But how many respected that provision :
Did Eve out Of one hundred candidates!
Would any successful candidate, who ig-
nored the provision, and thereby subject
himself 10 q loss Of Office, q heavy fine and .
term in she States prison. Why, people
and press. as almost with one voice, de-
uounced the last named provision % . pre-
MUM on perjury" and applied to IL other
equally forcibie epishets, and il was upon
such denunoistion that the law was re-
pssled.
That bribery and corruption are crying
evils, and tina. every effort should be made
to prevent the same is undeuiable, but the
method OF prevention should be such a. not
to aid the corrupt to the injury Of the con-
scientious.
The Australian Ballot Law, backed up by
. vigorous enforcement Of the present stat.
uses sgainst bribery should suffice. and In
time will.
Il is = notorious fact that in this town,
and perhaps throughout the State, men re.
on the fourth Of last month. who. never
theless, voted for the ''other fellow"-tbs
man Of their choice, aud a few more such
doses will have more effect in the way oil
limiting the expenditure Of money fol-
votes than all the sumptusry or purissnical
provisions that can be found 10 the sfore
said Purity of Elections Law.
II may be . wise thing in the line Of pre-
v~ention for the Legislature to add to oul
present statute on the subject . section
providing for . reward OF . substantial M.
sure TO be paid by the State TO any person
who should prove by two or more credi
BILE witnesses-or by one witness and 70
liable circumstantial evidence-that . csndi
date for office or other person bribed or 81
tempted to bride . voter or voters during
election times. Heavy pensltiestshould be
provided for the violation Of the law.
KANDDAT.
Eureka, Nevada. December 2. 1902.