New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-10-16
As TO "YYT1MIDATION."

There is the usual wall from the ballot Do4
stufing syndicate on Fourteenth-st. over INC
intimidation" OF voters by election ohceIs. a
really touching soIicitude for the purity and free
dom oe The polls is exhibited by the direct poIu-
cal and moral successors of those IanmShS
statesmen who used TO hold back the city eIeV-
ton returns until returns from the SlAS "e!S
in, so that they could see how big DenOcI"'lo
majority below the Harlem River 1t was neces-
sary to manufacture We shouldn't wonder II
those sentiments were shared also by David b.
IIill. who. as is well known, wouldn't steal an
election any quicker than cat would oFlnA
cream All Of which was TO be expected. Johh
Trumbull reminded the world long ago uat lo
man e'er felt the halter draw with good opln
lion of the law" But men whose necks are III
no danger of the halter regard the law WIN re-
spect and confidence We have not heard OF
any vast multitude of honest voters complain
ing of intimidation"
If ANYBODY is planning to vote this year upon
the name OF a man who used 10 be Legal voter
but who is now dead, he would better look out
There is trouble in store for him. If anybody
means 10 vote In the name Of some one who
used to live here but has moved away, be is run
ming a grave risk Of intimidation" and some
thing worse. II some hired 'heeler' thinks he
can get In an extra vote by imperSonatinG his
pal" who is serving time at Sing Sing, he would
better think again before he tries that familiar
little game. II anybody has IN mind to adopt
for voting purposes the name of some immi-
grant whose naturalization papers have been an
nulled for fraud. we unhesitatingly assure him
that he is likely TO find some ''intmldatOrs"
camping upon his trail Is there anybody in
this city who dares 10 say that intimidation"
of such rascals is wrong? Does any one con-
tend that 1t is oppression" 10 challenge the
vote or the registry Of a man who is not legally
entitled 10 vote?
AS for the honest voters, everybody knows
perfectly well that there is no thought of IN
timidating them and that all the talk about
such intimidation is insincere rubbish. There
can be no such thing as such intimidation" 1t
should be easy for any legal voter to establish
his right to the franchise; but it is not even
required Of him to do so. Any man who knows
himself TO be a legal voter can easily meet aud
overcome a challenge at the registry books or
at the ballot box by making an affidavit that he
is a legally qualified voter. That will throw
upon his challenger the onus OF proving that he
is not qualified. The man who does not know
whether he is qualified TO vote or not should
make sure Of the fact before he tries TO register
If any man, having made sure of the facts in
his case, is unwilling 10 make affidavit that he
is qualified TO vote. the natural assumption IS
that be is trying to vote dishonesty.
What would be thought OF a bank that should
cash checks for all corners without recurring
proof Of their identity? What rational man
charges hank with oppression" and ''intimi-
oauon because it refuses TO pay him money on
check until il is assured Of his identity? Il
the sovereign franchise of the Republic of less
value than money. that it should be less carA-
IuIIy safeguarded: 1t would be deplorabe 10
have a single citizen debarred from the fran
chlse which he is legally entitled TO exercise:
but so Is II deplOrable and pernicious 10 have
the franchise exercised by single person who
Is not legally entitled to il. Happily. II IS NOT
necessary to debar honest voters in order IN
smut out the fraudulent ones. The present vigj.
lance OF the election officers Is directed AGAINST
I Ine fraudulent voters. and against them alone.
The honest voter has nothing 20 feo, -, ~;
talk OF 'intimldating" him IS eitbo- 81. an
foolish, and is generally both. u