The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-11-21
Money Spent in Recent
New York Campaign.


the somewhat opprobriously suggestive
head, Buying up an Election" dis
/ cusses Mr.. Hearsts expenditures in
the recent New York campaign as fol-
lows:
! There is a law in New York state
/ requiring public candidates who were
voted for in public political elections
TO furnish detailed, certified or sworn
tstatements of the money spent by
Them in such campaign.
In an account of his campaign ex-
ipenses submitted to the secretary of
Estate at Albany, William r. Hearst
,declared he had spent s256, 370.22, or
tmore than 80 cents for every vote
ihe received In the recent gubernator-
2fal election.
Governor-Elect Hughes pleaded
guilty to spending on his election
i$61S.55, or something like cents for
every 100 votes he received.
} Not since the law requiring candi-
dates for public Office to file list of
their expenses went into effect q num-
Der Of years ago has any one seeking
the favor of voters admitted spend
l:tng one-tenth of the sum for election
Purposes avowed by Dir. Hearst. The
ksum in magnitude is far and away
.5greater than any other recorded on
Ethe books of the state for that particu-
F1ar purpose.
OF the amount expended by Mr..
/ Hearst as reported to the Secretary
of State, he gave to John G.. Follans-
tbee. treasurer of the independence
fLeague, s19S,S70.22. and to William J.
FConners, chairman of the Democratic
Estate committee, $4,000. The re-
mainder, $500, he spent for travelling
seXpenses.
This vast sum of money was spent
lin an effort to secure public Office
! which pays only $4,000 a year. Can
there be more striking and hideous
picture of political corruption than
such an outlay to buy up votes in an
election Of an official to the chief
fmagistracy OF the greatest state of
the American Union?
! Why certainly, there is a more
striking and hideous picture of politi-
tcal corruption il the Picayunes cor
poration proclivities would permit
fthat paper to look at It.
One would imagine from the Plea
tyune's treatment of the subject that
Hearst spent all the money that was
Jdisbursed during the New York cam
tpaign. The Picayune would have it
tappear that the paltry little s61S.55
(Which Hughes swore that he himself
responded was all the money that the
opponents of Mr.. Hearst put into cir
iculation in order to beat him.
! No doubt that is all Mr.. Hughes
himself did spend-but how much did
sthe forces that were behind him
sspend7
! And why did they spend it?
How much and why did the gas
trust, the traction trust, the ice trust,
1.-THE franchise grabbers, the ballot box
tstuffers, the corporation corruption
lists, and the corporate powers gener-
;ally spend to elect Mr.. Hughes and
tdefeat Mr.. Hearst?
They did spend it-no one will
deny that-and they had reason for
spending it. Does not our New Or
leans contemporary think that this
constitutes a more striking and
hideous picture of political corrup-
ton" than that furnished by Mr..
Hearst, who expended simply his own
/ money and did not receive his support
from sources that will now claim pro-
lection in their crimes at the hands
OF the man whom they elected COVER
nor?
| We will grant that Mr.. Hearst spent
an enormous amount OF money in his
campaign-but the money was his
money, was II not? The money that
he spent in an effort to be elected
did not come from the criminal INFER
ests that furnished the campaign
fund for Mr. Hughes's election.
Had Mr.. Hearst been elected he
would have been under no obligation
to any of these interests-can the
same be said of Mr.. Hughes?
And as for buying up an election"
since Mr.. Hearst did not do it, who
did?-was 1t the interests which cleo
ted Mr.. Hughes? And if Hearst had
thought the election, wouldn't he, even
under those circumstances. have occu-
pied a much more laudable position
than a man whose election had been
bought for him?
| We have no sympathy with these
tpolitical pharisees who think it is all
gight for candidate to allow corrupt