New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-10-31
FRUITS Of MURPHY|SM
Continued from first page.

ernor Dix and now Murphy candlda'e
for election to the Supreme court -
was masterpiece--for the protection
and furtherance OF Murphyism. u com
bined the creation OF a huge patronage
~,achine with vicious assaults on anu
.furphv voters in New York city ana
upstate territory.
It created three State superintendent
Of Elections-one for this city, one for
upstate cities and one for rural districts
upstate. II created bipartisan election
boards in each county TO handle WORK
which in most instances had been han
died easily and satisfactorily az a part
OF the regular duties Of the county clerks
II established four registration days all
over the state where before that time
/ 400 election districts had had only two
registration days-and needed only two
Ei1 Expense to Taxpayers.
The increased expense 10 the taxpay-
ars from these features OF the law, for
salaries Of officials and deputies, Office
expenses and the Ike. has been figured
ont in great detail The Brooklyn Young
Republican Club. for instances, places II
at S971.55o. The New York World a
Democratic newspaper, recently placed
IL at about s650,o00
Besides this. the bill compelled a state
wide personal registration. II provided
that a candidates name could appear
on the ballot only once. II extended TO
upstate districts the Identification law
applying TO New York city, where II
was made necessary by the huge lodging
house foater vote. thus placing the aver
age upstate citizen on plane with the
Eovcrv bum. whose vote is purchasable
for 81 or 50. All these provisions were
directly I'm Murphv's interest He fig
.ured that the personal registra ton feat
Ir.e would so inconvenience upstate Re
publicans that they would throw away
| their votes rather than 90 10 the trouble
Of registering He intended 70 cripple
or prevent fusion against him in New
York CITY By his ballot provision. The
/ fusion Of 1909, which took control Of the
Board Of Estimate Of this city away
! from Murphy and deprived him Of some
Of the county Offices. showed him that
ne had 10 DO something 70 prevent a
repetition OF that fusion
Murphy's crude. row way OF going
after what he wanted with a club wasn't
exactly suited to the job Of changing
tho election laws. however Voters who
resented these brutal. scarGalous attacks
on their constitutional rights soon saw
that this Murphy law was attacked on
two features-the anti fusion one pre-
venting Endorsement cf a candidate BY
limiting his right 10 have his name on
the ballot more than once and the one
compelling personal registration Of vot-
crs i'm the rural districts upstate.
Legislature Exceeded Powers.
on October 10 the Court OF Appeals
handed down its decision on both cases
Judge Vann held that Murphys Legis-
lature had exceeded its powers in tho
restrictions it tried TO put on the right
q upstata voters in the rural districts
TO have themselves registered without
appearing personally. Chief Judge Cul-
len wrote tho opinion IN the case re-
cardng the validity Of the ballot. His
words showed clearly the extent Of Muir
phys assault on the freedom OF citizens
10 cast their ballots as they liked
. Among other things, his opinion said:
The constitution. by providing that cor
tain officers shall be chosen by the cleo
I tors. does guarantee that each voter snail
3 have the same facilities Us any other voter
/ I'm expressing his will al the ballot box. &c
. far as practicable. Any ether principle
( iu oUt opinion would be destructive OF
/ fair elections.
/ We therefore hold the statutory pro-
/ visions challenged 70 be unconstitutional
. because they unnecessarily and subs stan
/ tally discriminate between electors i'm the
/ opportunities and facilities afforded for
/ voting for candidates Of their choice. II
. the discrimination We're trivial our de-
Z civi0n would he difficult. but we know
/ from the election iitisations that have