The bulk of the funds thus secured, the remainder comes in from office-holders, candidates for minor offices, contractors who wish to stand well with their party, and rich men who desire to see their side win or continue to win. During 1888 it is safe to say that district leaders as office-holders received from the city's treasury a sum not less than $242,000; while their captains and followers of all degrees must have drawn as salaries considerably more than a million.

Machine rule in New York City thus demoralizes the public service in two ways. By reason of the price it demands for a nomination, it excludes men of scruple and men of small means from candidacy, however marked their trustworthiness and ability. It places in office men who, from the circumstances of the case, can only give their official duties a divided attention, and sets a premium on the abuse of office by compelling the man who fills it to pay a large proportion of his total salary to secure appointment. Yet more, machine rule, by demoralizing the poorest among the poor, and massing the criminal classes in its support, makes politics in its tone and practices immeasurably beneath the average moral sentiment of the community.

On 6th November, 1888, the City Reform Club of New York, having reason to believe that gross violations of election law were likely to take place in the Eighth Assembly District, engaged a corps of detectives to watch the polls there and the premises surrounding them. One of the detectives, F. J. Perry, thus reported: "While in Smith's saloon at 7.15 A.M., on 6th November last, I saw one Isaacs go into the water-closet with a workman, and give him a bundle of tickets, and Isaacs promised this workman $2 for his vote. Isaacs put the man's name down in a book which he carried, and upon which appeared other names. About 2.40 P.M., I saw one Charles Jackson meet a shabbily dressed young man outside the polls, give him some tickets, and then bring him into the polls; I saw that he voted, after which Jackson brought him into Smith's saloon, where they separated.

Jackson went to Butler, Smith's cashier, who pulled out a roll of bills, from which he counted out some money and gave it to Jackson, who joined this young man and gave it to him.

"I saw Smith, the district candidate, give money to a man about 2 P.M., this man coming in a carriage, and I have no doubt he was canvassing other places for him. I heard Smith, the candidate, ask a man where all his men were, and the man replied, 'They are all here,' and Smith said, 'Well, I will give you $5 a vote.' I saw Butler, the cashier, give several men money in Smith's saloon, and at one time I saw him give Isaacs $10. Several of Smith's, the candidate's, workers had books in which they entered the names of the men."

This report is corroborated in its essential features by other witnesses, who give additional testimony of the same kind. A year previously the City Reform Club secured and published abundant evidence regarding gross frauds and abuses at the elections. Wholesale colonizing was disclosed, it was proved that voters were openly bribed and some of them led in a state of advanced intoxication to the polls by machine workers. This, and much more like it, not only with the connivance, but with the zealous aid of the police!

All these evils have sprung from machine rule, which, while utterly irresponsible to the people, consolidates and perpetuates its power with the people's money, by exploiting public offices. Possessing a monopoly of necessary organization for an election, it must be sought and employed by any one seeking nomination, and any levy imposed for the benefit of its exchequer must be paid. Other, although negative, evils created by it are that to conduct an election in opposition to a machine, a rival machine of much the same pattern and cost must be built up and operated. This means so great an expenditure not only in money, but in time and care, that only rare and imperative crises have ever given birth to independent machines. These evils, both positive and negative, have been canvassed and debated a thousand

times. Their remedy plainly consists in enactments which shall be abreast of current exigency and popular sentiment, not immeasurably behind them-enactments which shall incorporate in their provisions what is popularly known as the Australian Ballot System. This method of secret voting, which employs ballots printed by public authority, was proposed by Mr. Francis S. Dutton, member of the Legislature of South Australia in 1851; through his advocacy it became law during the session of 1857-8. A similar act was passed by the colony of Victoria in 1856, by Tasmania and New South Wales in 1858, by New Zealand in 1870, and by Great Britain in 1872, everywhere effecting a notable abatement in the corruption and intimidation which had characterized elections.

The agitation for electoral reform in New York culminated, during the winter of 1887-8, in the action of the Commonwealth Club. This Club, whose membership represents all shades of political faith, appointed a committee of eminent lawyers and public men to draft a bill for presentation to the Legislature embodying measures whereby public officers should print and distribute ballots, and the absolute secrecy of voting should be insured. After months of careful study a bill was drawn, which, after approval by the Commonwealth Club, the Reform Club, the City Reform Club, and the Labor Party, was presented to the Assembly about the middle of the session of 1888 by Mr. Yates. This bill, on being referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, was amended by a few provisions adopted from similar bills presented by Mr. Saxton and Mr. Hamilton.

Its main provisions were that any party which at the last election had polled three per cent. of the total vote could nominate a candidate whose name would be placed on the official ballots by the election authorities on the certification of the proper officers of the party convention; a candidate could also be nominated for a State office on the signed requisition of 1000 voters, or for an office in a county or smaller di

All

vision or district on the signed requisition of 100 voters. ballots, in addition to names and party designations of nominees, were to have space for the addition by a voter of the name of any person for whom he desired to vote. Ballots were to be printed in New York City and County by the Chief of the Bureau of Elections, in Brooklyn by the Board of Elections, elsewhere in the State by County Clerks. Ballots were to be furnished voters on election day by clerks engaged by the authorities mentioned. These ballot-clerks were to write their names or initials upon the back of ballots, to prevent others being used. Voters were to be provided with ample space, time, and facilities to mark their ballots with absolute secrecy. This bill passed both houses of the Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Hill.

Let us briefly review his chief objections. He asserted that "according to the existing law any elector may present whomsoever he pleases as a candidate.' The only way an elector may now present a candidate is in a party convention or public meeting, the law leaving him to spend a fortune in printing and distributing tickets and competing with the machines; so that practically all candidates but those of the machines are excluded from the field. Were the Yates-Saxton bill enacted, the elector would find on one ticket all nominees, however presented, so that discrimination would be removed and equality established. Governor Hill went on to say that the bill "vested the ballotclerks with the exclusive privilege of providing electors with ballots." Not so; the ballots are to be printed by public officers, not by the ballot-clerks. In further criticism he said: "It is apparent that a party which did not appear at the last election, or if appearing did not poll three per cent. of the entire vote, cannot nominate a candidate by convention." The bill contained an alternative clause which provided that even so small a fraction of the State's citizens as 1000 voters might nominate a candidate by signing a petition in his behalf; at the same time establishing a

safeguard which now does not exist, whereby any qualified voters shall be competent to present a candidate. In the bill as amended, this alternative has been remodelled, Section 5.

Another objection of the Governor's was "that only such ballots as ballot-clerks please to deliver to voters can be cast and counted at an election." Not so; the ballot-clerks are to have no choice but to deliver one ballot for each office or class of offices, which ballot is to contain all the candidates' names.

The Governor found the bill unconstitutional on the ground that it made "provision for a compulsory disclosure of their votes by illiterate electors." True! blind and illiterate voters are obliged by physical inability or lack of education to state their preferences to some one; the bill provides that the person so trusted shall be a responsible servant of the State, under oath not to violate the confidence reposed in him. The Governor further said: "Under this bill any person who can procure 1000 names to his petition can become a candidate for a State office, and compel all his tickets to be printed at public expense." To this the reply is, that as one ticket will contain all the candidates' names, the expense will be the same no matter how many names there are. He also objected that the "bill will not of itself prevent the assessment of candidates in their voluntary contributions, because there are other legitimate expenses (than those of printing and distributing tickets) to be provided for." In answer, let it be said that existing law places welldefined and narrow limits to legitimate expenses at elections, other than those mentioned. It is upon the plea of expenditure for printing and distributing tickets that the bosses base their justification for collecting assessments. That plea removed, the excuse which is used to establish their fund for bribery and corruption will disappear.

Since the Governor's veto message was sent to the Legislature the public discussion regarding its objections, and the bill concerning which they were lodged, has resulted in the movement