The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1917-01-12
ANOTHER LETTER FROM MR..
RALSTON.
To the Editor of the Prince Georges
ENQUIRER

| To the Editor of the Prince George
Enquirer
The problem of electoral corruption
is one which is or has been common to
| every State in the Union. Nearly al
have met it as Maryland has, partially
and incompletely. One or two have
given it comparatively radical treat
| ment, as for instance, Oregon and North
Dakota. From the experience and
legislation of all of them, however, i'm
portant lessons are to be drawn in the
| respects as to which our MARYLAND leg
| islation is defective.
A candidate for Office is looked upon
as fair prey pending election TO" every
entertainment going on in his county
or district, and expected, subject to
| unwritten but certain penalties, to con-
tribute to them in every way. This
situation is not met at all by the laws
of Maryland, but all demands for re-
ligious purposes except those of U.s.
ual character and pertaining to the
church 70 which the candidate may be-
long, and other payments of social
character are for b dden by the laws of
North Dakota, Wisconsin, Massachus-
etts, West Virginia, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Michigan, aud Alabama.
l have pointed out that the employ
ment of automobiles on election day
Or primary day was thin disguise for
corruption in Maryland. Other states
control the matter. Conveyances may
only be used to carry the Ill or infirm
to the polls Usually those who can fur
nish physicians certlficate), in Ne
braska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Ohio,
Michigan, Nevada, Texas, Arizona and
California. In number of states ex-
penditures for conveyances are abso-
lutely forbidden either in express terms
or by indiraction, as being omitted
from the list of allowable expenses.
Among these are West Virginia, Ore
gon, Wisconsin, Kentucky and
Alabama.
| have called attention to the evil of
contributing to the party organization
on order to secure nomination. Con-
trlbutiOns of this sort are not permiss-
able in North Dakota, Massachusetts,
New York, or Nevada, among other
states.
Let us turn to the matter of election
day expenses. By the laws of some of
the states already referred to such ex-
Denditures are not pernissib e, not be-
ing among those especia ly allowed.
Certain other states specifically for bid
them. Aside from laws prohibiting
bribery, which laws are common to all
the states of the Union, Oregon, NuItu
Oak )ta, and Wisconsin, am ,ag others,
prohibit any payment tor loss in attend
ing the polls or in registering. In
Wyoming, no person may be employed
to secure the defeat of anntueI; In "
consin no payment may be made for
any service on election day, ald in
Michigan, none for service on or prior
10 primary day. In Florida no money
may be paid for electioneering and
Wig lnia all expenditures, except those
named in the statute, which utlude
none for electi II day, are unlawful
California prohibits any payment for
coming to or staying away from the
po'ls and election day expenses are
mt, to the candidates proDOrtionate
part of compensation to b. paid TO
chaIlengers. In Oregon, payment is
forbidden for loss of time in attendance
at the polls or in registering, and pay
menl is forb dden of any amount for
personal services to be performed on
primary or election day or for any put
pose connected herewith tending in
any way, directly or indirtc lV, to at
feet he result, except for challeDgers or
watchers
The most effective laws covering cor
ruptinn IN elections are those of Ore
gon, North Dakota and a Alabama, and
they deserve some special attention.
In Oregon, election day becomes as
quiet as sunday and interference with