BALLOT REFORM.

HE necessity for protecting the purity of the ballot has been recognized in New York State for many years. Beginning with the downfall of the Tweed ring, when changes in law were made in the direction of an "honest count" of the vote cast, the tendency has been in the direction of improving the method of voting itself, so as to prevent, if possible, bribery and intimidation of individual voters. The experience of Canada and Australia has shown that if it were made impossible to insure the delivery of a vote as agreed upon, bribery at elections would practically cease. It followed, therefore, that if voters were required to select and cast their ballots in secret, the person bargaining for a vote would have nothing but the word of the voter bribed that the contract had been carried out. It was very generally agreed that the manner in which best to accomplish this result was to require the printing and distributing of all ballots at public expense, the preparing of such ballots by each voter, screened from the observation of others, and the depositing of them folded so as to conceal the voter's choice of candidates. It is around these provisions that all "Ballot Reform " measures have been prepared.

It is not the purpose of this article to go into details upon a subject which is so generally understood, but to present a brief history of the course of such legislation in this State, with an explanation of the most recent adaptation of the Australian ballot, which has been adopted by the Good Government Club system of New York City.

During the session of the Legislature of 1888 three "Ballot Reform" bills were introduced in that body: One by Lieutenant-Governor Charles T. Saxton, then Assemblyman from Wayne County; one by the late Robert Ray Hamilton, Assemblyman for the Eleventh New York District, and one by Austin A. Yates, Assemblyman for Schenectady County.

All of these measures had been prepared with care, as a result of a very general discussion of the subject. The Yates bill, which had been prepared by Messrs. William M. Ivins, James W. Pryor, Lewis L. Delafield, A. C. Bernheim and Charles E. Lydecker, acting as a joint committee of the City Reform Club and the Commonwealth Club of New York City, was introduced during the latter part of the session of the Legislature. The Judiciary Committee of the Assembly incorporated most of its provisions in the Saxton bill, then in an advanced position on the calendar.

In general this bill contained most of the provisions of the so-called "Ballot Reform bill, which became a law in this State in 1890, but its most vital provision, which required a single ballot only, upon which the names of all candidates of all parties were to be arranged in alphabetical order, according to offices, was not accepted by the Governor, David B. Hill, who vetoed the bill

in 1888, and again in 1889. Most of the original advocates of the reform then abandoned the crusade, as the Governor's term of office would not expire for several years. In 1890, however, the bill was modified to meet the Governor's objections, by amendments providing for one ballot for each party, or group of citizens, making one or more nominations, and a further provision allowing the use of an unofficial blanket paster, which might be attached to any one of the official ballots. In this form the bill became a law. It was believed by many who had made a study of the subject that this law would result in curing but few of the existing evils, and particularly that the blanket paster was practically the old form of ballot, and that the arrangement of names according to party would tend to discourage independence in voting. These beliefs were strengthened in this city at the election of 1893, when the ease with which the law was "beaten" resulted in sending many offenders to prison, while in 1894 the delay and consequent loss of thousands of votes, due to the multiplicity of ballots, out of which a voter was required to make his choice, has shown the imperative necessity of a change in the form of ballot.

There have been introduced in the Legislature already this year (February 1st, 1895) several blanket ballot measures, each providing for a single ballot only, with names of candidates arranged in parallel party columns, with a distinctive symbol at the head of each group, the whole ballot presenting somewhat the same form as if the ballots provided for under the present law were attached to each other, side by side. To vote such a ticket the voter would be required to make a mark thus (×) at the head of a party column in case he wished to vote a "straight" ticket, or by making the same mark opposite individual names for the combination he desired to vote.

The Good Government Clubs, believing that public sentiment has been aroused to the pitch where a more complete reform can be secured, favor a blanket ballot arranged as provided for in the original measure of 1888, and as in force now in various States. They have accordingly adopted the form of ballot illustrated herewith, which was created by Messrs. Horace E. Deming, Boudinot Keith and George W. Miller. It is believed that the arrangement of symbols provided for, which has been referred to as the "time-table" arrangement, will present no trouble to the illiterate, but, on the contrary, will materially aid him in the selection of the candidates for whom he desires to vote.

In advocating this ballot the Council of Confederated Good Government Clubs says:—

"Ist. This form of ballot follows the policy of the State Constitution in assisting the voter in municipal elections to vote without reference to national "parties.

"2d. It creates for all candidates, as nearly as possible, precisely the same "conditions, and makes the process of voting the same for all voters. There is no helping out of weak candidates by the strength of the other names on the ticket, and therefore there is every incentive for parties to put good men in "nomination. There is no room for a caveat provision in a law providing for "such a ballot.

66

"3d. It presents reasonable facilities for the illiterate voter to split his "ticket, if he so desires.

66

"4th. It affords but slight opportunity for fraudulent alteration. The 'marking squares are small, and the arrangement is such that an extra mark

"would invalidate the ballot for one office only, and not necessitate throwing "out the entire ballot.

"5th. It offers great facilities for a speedy count of the votes.

"6th. A ballot in the Massachusetts form is cheaper than a blanket ballot "with any other arrangement of names. The name of a candidate can appear "but once on the ballot, and titles of offices with blanks beneath do not appear, "so that much printing is saved.

"7th. There can be no demand from any quarter for a blanket paster in "connection with this form of ballot, as there is no unjust discrimination such "as calls for the blanket paster in connection with the party-column ballot. "These advantagés far outweigh the arguments which have been charged "against this form of ballot.

66

66

"The first of these is the inconvenience in making as many marks as there "are persons to be elected. The objection is trivial. In fact, a voter should be compelled to make an affirmative selection for each office. The difference, " however, in time, would be a matter of seconds rather than of minutes. It is 'contended, however, that this inconvenience is so great as to be the cause of a 'falling off in the vote for minor offices under the Massachusetts law. This is "not conceded. Admitting the fact that the candidates for minor offices in "Massachusetts receive fewer votes than the candidates for the more important 'offices, we should remember that a similar falling off is observed in New York, "under the law of which it is easier to vote a full ticket than to scratch the "minor offices. We contend that the returns prove that, in Massachusetts, "failure to vote for certain offices is preferential, and not the result of typo"graphical arrangement. Moreover, the decrease, whether preferential or otherwise, is equally fair for all candidates for the same office.

46

"It is also urged that the Massachusetts system is not applicable to a State "where the illiterate voter must be provided with a ballot intelligible to him.

66

"It may be admitted that the schemes of sample ballots heretofore prepared "and designed to assist the illiterate voter by symbols have not been satis"factory, but it is believed that the arrangement and form of party symbols now proposed makes it as easy for a person unable to read, as for an educated "man, to vote a straight ticket; while the 'independent illiterate' can vote for "the candidates of his choice more easily by this plan than by any party-column "plan, if both exclude the use of an individual paster for a candidate whose "name appears on the official ballot.

"These reasons demand that all who seek true ballot reform should favor "the Australian form of blanket ballot, do all they can to secure its adoption, "and oppose every form of party ballot."

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRIME.

HIS Society has occupied a unique position in the city of New York ever since the latter part of the year 1891. Since that time, under the leadership of its intrepid president, Dr. Parkhurst, it has maintained a continuous, persistent and uncompromising warfare with the Police Department of the city, publicly charging that it was not only in league with criminals, but was itself the chief criminal; and laying those charges specifically upon its highest officials, and pursuing them even into the criminal courts.

We say its position is unique, because it has occupied the field alone-other reform associations preferring to work in harmony with the Police Department.

The Society has claimed that its true course of action was not to do police work, but to compel the Police Department to dissolve its league with criminals and to do the work for which it is paid.

The thrilling struggle has been told from day to day in the daily newspapers, and yet with all that has been told, none save those in the inner circles of confidence will ever know the labors and difficulties, the dangers and plots through which the members of the devoted Executive Committee have passed.

The persistency of this Society through reverses and defeats revealed to the whole State the lamentable fact, that the departments of the city were so linked together in support of the corrupt combination between the police and the criminals that the citizens had no real means of redress in the machinery of the law, and so induced the appointment of the Lexow Committee by the State Senate.

The Society guided that committee through the uncertainty of its earlier days, and stimulated it and supplied it with ammunition and workers during the entire course of its proceedings.

When the Society began its attack on the Police Department its enemies predicted speedy disaster and downfall; its friends feared for its standing and for the safety of its guiding spirits; and the great mass of the community stood coldly by, unwilling to believe its startling accusations and criticising the methods which it adopted to demonstrate the truth of its charges.

When, in November, 1894, three years of persistent work were rounded out, the people arose en masse and voted their verdict of guilty against the co-ordinated departments of the city government on all the Society's charges and specifications.

Now when the Society declares that its work is not yet done, and that powerful influences must be overcome in order to reap the fruit of the victory, the people are listening and believing.

The Society was incorporated October 30, 1878.

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIME.

215

Its first Board of Directors was composed of Peter Cooper, Howard Crosby (its president for thirteen years), William H. Wickham, Benjamin Tatham, William F. Mott, Erastus D. Culver, William B. Merritt, S. Irenæus Prime, David J. Whitney, Frederick A. Booth, Oscar E. Schmidt, D. B. St. John Roosa, Henry Drisler, Alonzo Follett, William P. Prentice, George G. Wheelock, and John H. Hinton.

Its present Board of Directors is composed of William A. Harding, William H. Arnoux, Henry M. MacCracken, Edward A. Newell, Thaddeus D. Kenneson, Frank Moss, Lewis L. Delafield, Charles H. Parkhurst, William C. Stuart, Joseph N. Hallock, Hiram Hitchcock, Noah Davis, Abbott E. Kittredge, Henry V. Parsell, Francis E. Laimbeer, and Charles E. Bruce.

The Society has no membership outside of its Board of Directors.

The direct management of its work is intrusted to an Executive Committee, which consists of Charles H. Parkhurst, Thaddeus D. Kenneson and Frank Moss. This committee has acted during the whole of the campaign above mentioned. All matters of importance and questions of policy are determined by vote in the Executive Committee, which reports to the Board of Directors from time to time for approval and instructions.

The office of the Society is in the United Charities Building at Twentysecond street and Fourth avenue, and its field work is in charge of a superintendent. The present superintendent is Arthur F. Dennett.

All the directors and officers (excepting the superintendent) give their serv ices without compensation of any kind.

The Society is supported by voluntary contributions and legacies.

FRANK MOSS.