Year: 1875




in an exterminating war against Tammany
politics are not quite sound on the impor-
tant point Of separating the municipal from
! the general election. We are anxious that
I the assailants of Tammany shall march IN a
\ solid, unbroken phalanx (for they have
| no strength to waste and can afford no
diyisions), and we do not yet despair Of per-
feet unity of purpose on essential points
We have great confidence in those of our
allies from whose views on one point we feel
bound 70 express our respectful dissent
| They have given such constant proofs OF
energy, zeal, fidelity and indomitable
courage in their assaults on Tammany that 1t
is with sincere reluctance that we differ from
them in any particular relating to the plan to
be adopted by the incoming Legislature. We
fear that they have too lightly given their as
sent to the representations of politicians.
We appeal to their candor and ask them to
weigh the reasons which may be urged in
favor of separating the municipal from the
State election We have never expected that
the trading politicians of either party would
assent to change so calculated to cripple
their influence but we hope other citizens
will indorse our purpose to wrest power
from the politicians and restore it to the tax
payers.


Before going into the merits of the ques-
ton we invite the attention of our respected
allies in the war against Tammany to certain
matters of fact in the legislative history of
the State which have a close bearing on this
controversy. 1t is a fact which nobody will
undertake to dispute that during the greater
part of our municipal existence the charter
election has been held on a different day
from the State election. This is matter Of
record and cannot be controv verted. 1t is
fact which everybody must admit that the
municipal election and the general cleo
ton were made coincident by the
Tweed charter passed in 1870, when
Tammany was at the he ght of its in
fuence. 1t is no valid answer to say that
this change was not made in the Tweed
charter itself, but in a separate act passed at
the same date. The Tweed charter and the
accompanying election law were parts of the
same scheme. They were passed by the
same corrupt Tweed Legislature they were
signed by the Governor on the same day
they had their twin birth in the same crafty
cabal. 1t was Tammany influence and Tam
many power that shifted our municipal cleo
ton to the same day with the general election.
On this point we are on the secure ground
of facts, and nobody will impugn the accu-
racy of our statement. Nor will anybody
1ta hat ha al ot wi oh
panied the Tweed charter and bore even
date with il was passed in the interest Of the
Tammany Ring which then controlled the
Legislature. What was the motive Of this
change? Considering its source nobody can
doubt that, in intention, at least, it was part
and parcel of the scheme for insuring the
ascendancy of Tammany in city affairs. The
foes of Tammany, who are bent on undoing
its work and demolishing its influence,
should hesitate long and consider well be-
fore indorsing this part of the old Tammany
programme.


We also call attention to the fact that, as
a general rule, municipal elections are sep
arated from the general election through
out the State. We stand on impregnable
ground in making this assertion, because
an examination Of the statutes of the State
will show that we are correct People who
have not the statutes at hand to refer to
will be satisfied of our correctness when
they recollect that they are accustomed to
read III the newspapers the results
of town elections and city elections in
all parts Of the State at seasons of
the year quite remote from the State election
in November. The Legislature must have
had some reason for separating municipal
elections from the general election, and it is
incumbent on those who regard this as a
mistaken policy to point out wherein the
Legislature was in error. The Legislature
must have proceeded on some reasons which
convinced it Of the expediency of separating
the municipal elections from the State cleo
tions, and if the theory was wrong those who
impugn it are bound to show wherein it was
faulty. We suspect they will find ita task be-
yond their abilities to prove that separation
which is expedient in the State at large is not
equally applicable to the city Of New York.
They are logically bound to show either that
the system is fundamentally wrong or else to
point out some valid ground for making this
city an exception. Either the town elections
Of the State and the municipal elections Of
the interior cities should be held on the Same
day as the State election, or the same
separation should be maintained in New
York city which prevails in other parts
Of the State. Nor is it in New York State
alone that municipal elections ard the
general election take place on different days.
A large proportion Of the city elections
throughout the United States are held at a
different date from the general election Of
the States in which the cities are located.
Those who oppose the application Of the
same rule to New York must give some ra-