The midland journal., 1917-01-19


Journal
The problem of electoral corrup-
tion is one which is or has been
common to every state in the Union.
Nearly all have met 1t as Maryland
has, partially and .incompletely. One
or two have given it comparatively
radical treatment, as for instance,
Oregon and North Dakota. From
the experience and legislation of all
Of them, however, important lessons
are to be drawn in the respects as to
which our Maryland legislation is
defective.
A candidate for Office is looked
upon as fair prey pending election
for every entertainment going on in
his county or district, and expected,
subject to unwritten but certain pen
alties, to contribute to them in every
way. This situation is not m t a.
all by the laws of Maryland, b al
demands for religious purposes e
I cept those of a usual character an
pertaining to the church to whic
the candidate may belong, and Other
payments of social character are
forbidden by the laws of North Da
kota, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, West Virginia, Nevada,
Michigan, and Alabama.
have pointed out that the EN-
ployment of automobiles on election
day or primary day was a thin dis
guise for corruption in Maryland
Other states control the matter
| Conveyances may only be used to
carry the i'll or infirm to the polls
(usually those who can furnish a
physicians certificate), in Nebraska,
North Dakota, Wyoming, Ohio,
Michigan, Nevada, Texas, Arizona
and California. In number O
states expenditures for conveyance
are absolutely forbidden either in
express terms or by indirection, as
being omitted from the list of allow
able expenses. Among these are
West Virginia, Oregon, Wisconsin
Kentucky and Alabama.
I have called attention to the evil
of contributing to the party efgani-
cation in order to secure a nomi-
nation Contributions of this sort
are not permissible in North Dakota,
Massachusetts, New York or Nevada
among other states.
Let US turn TO the matter Of elec
tion day, expenses. By the laws Of
some of the states already referred
to such expenditures are not per
missable, not being among those
especially allowed. Certain other
states specifically forbid them. Aside
from laws prohibiting bribery, which
avs are common TO all the states
of the Union. Oregon, North Dakota,
and Wisconsin, among others, pro-
hibit any payment for loss in attend
ing the polls or in registering. In
Wyoming, no person may be employ
I'd to secure the defeat of another
in Wisconsin no payment may be
made for any service on election day,
md in Michigan, none for service on
or prior to primary day. In Flor d.
no money may be paid for ei9c-
pioneering and in Virginia Ell eI,
penditures, except those named in
he statue, which include none for
fornia prohibits any payment 70
coming to or staying, away from the
polls and election day expenses are
limited to the candidates proper
tionate part of compensation to be
paid to challengers. In Oregon. pay
ment is forbidden for loss of time in
attendance at the polls or in register
ing, and payment is forbidden of any
amount for personal services to be
performed on primary or election
day or for any purpose connected
Herewith tending in any way, direct
ly or indirectly, to affect the result,
except for challengers or watchers.
The most effective laws covering
corruption in elections are those of
Oregon, North Dakota and Alabama,
and they deserve some special at
tention.
In Oregon, election day becomes
as quiet as Sunday and interference
with the voter in the exercise of his
duty and corruption have become
practically unknown. the particular
sections in the Act prohibiting to
that end, being the following:
1T shall be unlawful for any per-
son to pay another for any loss or
damage due TO attendance at the