wealths as an ancient character arrayed in 18th century clothes which Gov. Biggs sponges and darns with fatuous deliberation and ceremony.

We have considered the utterances of four democratic govLet us now examine the republican messages.

ernors.

Gov. R. W. Waterman of California says:

The frauds and errors discovered in the recent election have demonstrated beyond question that it is absolutely necessary to throw more safeguards around the mode and manner of conducting our elections. Upon a fair ballot and an honest count rests the perpetuity of our government. . . . This is a matter that reaches above and beyond any party considerations; it is one in which every citizen who believes in good order and who favors a form of government like ours is deeply interested. The casting of a free and untrammeled ballot is the highest and proudest privilege an American citizen enjoys, and every effort should be made to surround the ballot-box against all possible fraud and combinations to defeat the will of the people in any particular, in any district, ward, township, or precinct. I desire to direct your attention to the fact that the laws should be so changed as to provide speedy and prompt modes for election contests for all state officers. . . . . The law should be so amended as to provide for a state board of canvassers; a time should be fixed for the board to meet, open, and canvass the returns for state officers, at which meeting representatives of the political parties should be permitted to be present to witness and examine the returns which are to be sent to the secretary of state and by him kept sealed and unopened until the meeting of the board. . . . The time and manner of registration should be clearly settled and should be as nearly uniform as possible in all the interior counties of the state. In some counties there is a re-registration for every general election; while in others additions only are made to the great register of new names, and it frequently occurs that the names of dead men or of persons who have removed from the county or changed their residence are carried on the great register for several years. This should not be permitted, as it opens the door to fraud and illegal voting. One of the greatest evils and faults of our system is the manner in which election officers have been appointed, especially in the city of San Francisco. Men totally unfit, either by intelligence, morality or instinct, have been named as officers of election without a redeeming qualification in them. Men have been designated to register in the precincts, receive, count and tally the votes and make up as they please election returns, who would not scruple to resort to all that is vile in human nature, to rob the respectable citizen of his birthright, either for a paltry reward of place or for a consideration to advance the interest of some scheming or debased politician. It may be said that the law now provides for the appointment of good and respectable election officers; but the fact that the

law has not been carried out in its full letter and spirit is the best answer that the laws should be so strengthened as to compel, under heavy penalties, the appointing power to name a class of tax-payers as election officers who can be compelled to discharge so high a trust and will not feel that the task is onerous or burdensome. Places should be selected in light and airy rooms, in as respectable localities as it is possible to secure, and where the ballots can be received and counted in the presence and full view of accredited representatives of all parties; where the caller of the ticket can be seen and if necessary closely watched as he reads off the names, and where the clerks who tally can be seen doing their work honestly and fairly to all. Most of all, adopt measures for a prompt and speedy canvass of the vote. It should be plain, simple, and correct. No delays should be permitted of waiting from two days to a week to know the result of any election either national, state, or municipal. . . . . With our present election laws (which in many respects are excellent) amended to meet the requirements and demands of the people, with honest, representative and intelligent election officers we can carry on elections in this state which will give all the people, whatever may be their political beliefs, confidence in our institutions and inspire them with a more zealous and earnest desire to come forward and participate in the affairs of our state for its well-being and continued prosperity.

This is in its way a model executive document. The evils are bravely stated and the language of righteous indignation is not emasculated by weak recommendations as to side issues. The election frauds of last autumn (in San Francisco particularly), both at the primaries and at the polls, the bribing, bullying, ballot stealing, and even bloodshed, followed as it all was by weary, not to say demoralizing contested elections, give point to every word Gov. Waterman has written, and his proposed remedies fit his diagnosis; while his final appeal to the better classes for participation in politics shows the genuine American instincts of the farmer governor of California.

Gov. Cyrus G. Luce of Michigan says in his message:

One of the most dangerous crimes that can be committed is to corrupt the ballot. Our laws against the use of improper means to influence voters are stringent and seem to be ample. Bribery by this use of money or other valuables is severely punished by our laws. And still rumors are current that those wholesome laws are violated with impunity. Whether this is well-founded or not, it is weakening the confidence in our system. And to avoid the injurious effects of this, it is hoped that the election laws may be amended in such a way as to render bribery more difficult and detection more certain. The open charges made in so many quarters that our elections are controlled by the cor

rupt use of money in glaring violation of law are painful to hear and alarming if true. If false, those charges are a gross libel upon our civilization. Unfortunate for state and nation will it be, if the fact is established that men are elected to positions of public trust because of their wealth or ability to use or command money for illegitimate purposes in securing place. What is known as the Massachusetts system is earnestly commended to your careful consideration. From that community we hear of little or no complaint against corrupt influences at the polls. To this important subject your best thought is invoked.

The objection to the remarks of Gov. Luce is that they are tentative and vague. He neither affirms or denies that bribery prevails extensively in Michigan. The inference is that in his mind something is wrong, because he recommends the Massachusetts ballot system. And yet he rather bewilders the reader by stating that under that system Massachusetts shows little or no sign of political corruption. What is known as the Massachusetts system is a modification of the Australian system, but as Massachusetts has placed it upon its statute books but not held an election under it, it is difficult to see what Gov. Luce means. He either has not examined the subject, or, having done so, finds no cause for anxiety.

Perhaps it would be considered hypercritical to include Gov. Royal C. Taft of Rhode Island in the strictures of vagueness or indifference such as Mr. Luce has shown. The Rhode Island executive dismisses the subject with the remark: "The question of ballot reform, now being considered by a joint special committee of your body, will come before you for action. The subject is one now occupying the public mind and its importance demands your serious consideration." Rhode Island is passing through a crisis in constitutional and political matters, and the scandals at elections are notorious. It would not be fair to say, however, that he has done unwisely in refraining from discussing ballot reform after the Legislature has taken the matter up.

Gov. J. A. Martin of Kansas treats the subject in a terse, business like way, and tells the Legislature what remedial legislation is needed:

I again call the attention of the Legislature to the fact that our present registration law invites and encourages rather than prevents and punishes illegal voting. All good citizens of all political opinions

recognize the necessity of stringent laws to secure purity, honesty, and correctness in the exercise of the elective franchise. A free ballot and an honest count wrongs no one. Every legal voter should be protected in the full enjoymeut of his rights at the ballot box, and at the same time no one should be allowed to cast a vote who has not all the qualifications of a legal voter. A just, wise and adequate, registry lew will secure these results, and the Legislature should at its present session provide such a law.

Our third group of executive messages comes from "the four doubtful States,"-Connecticut, Indiana, New York, and New Jersey, the governors of which are, so it proves, two of them republican and two of them democratic. In these important commonwealths strung along through the very heart of our country the untoward elements of political chichanery were stirred to their depths. The most revolting and disquieting phase of venality at the expense of political conviction was that it penetrated the rural districts. We are accustomed to fraud in the low wards of cities, and are hardly surprised when we see the proof of it, because the proportion of foreign, unAmericanized, and ignorant voting population in our municipalities is so great. But in the country towns we have hitherto felt sure that no true American will sell his vote. But November 6 has undeceived us. In Connecticut the Yankee farmer drove a hard bargain for his suffrage in numerous instances. In some towns it is said the market price reached $50, and in isolated cases even a higher figure. "At individual sale," says one Connecticut boss, "the farmer is the best man to approach for his vote. Foreigners can be reached through a leader and not individually. The Connecticut farmers must be bought one by one." The scandalous scenes in some of the Connecticut towns at the November election were unprecedented. It was not a naturalized voters' raid for money; the foreign vote was bought, but Americans living upon land that perchance has passed down in the family from colonial owners, dickered with both republican and democratic heelers as though citizenship were a clover-lot to be harvested. Naturally Gov. Morgan G. Bulkeley's message was anxiously looked forward to by all good citizens, especially in New England. He said:

The policy and tradition of the state in all its legislation has been and, in the statutes as they now exist, is to provide that every elector shall

be permitted the exercise of the sacred right of the elective franchise, free from the control and knowledge of others as to their individual action or choice. The present provisions of the law fail in the minds of many to provide that absolute secrecy necessary for the fullest and freest exercise of the franchise: renewed demands have been made to successive Legislatures for relief in the belief that such legislation as was asked would tend greatly to the welfare of the state in the purity of its elections, and provide against imaginary or possible intimidation of the voter. Such measures as have been presented from time to time have failed to receive approval after careful examination as too cumbrous in their execution or suited to the needs of the intelligent people of the state. I would advise, however, that this subject should again receive the thoughtful consideration of the General Assembly, and that some law, simple in its character and at the same time effective in its operation, be enacted for the protection and secrecy of the ballot. The systems proposed to which my attention has been attracted as suggested and enacted in other states seem too extensive in their provisions and involve unnecessary delays to the elector and large expense to the public without compensating security.

The governor proceeds to recommend a modification of the registration laws and the adoption of a provision enforcing the reading of the constitution or statutes as an educational test for voters. All things considered, the words of the Connecticut governor are very disappointing. There is not a whisper of bribery;-while intimidation, which is not prevalent in Connecticut to any measurable extent, is denounced and the Australian ballot system unmistakably discredited.

In striking contrast to Gov. Bulkeley's ill-judged candor are the following words of Gov. David B. Hill of New York in his message:

It is believed that the recent presidential election was the most corrupt of any in the history of the country so far as the direct use of money was concerned in influencing the electors, and public sentiment is naturally awakened to the desirability of some relief. The peculiar causes which induce this immense corruption are apparent. It was adroitly proclaimed that the success of one of the great political parties would endanger certain of the manufacturing interests of the country which had theretofore been accustomed to receive the fostering aid of the government at the expense of the masses of the people. . . . The anxiety to subserve selfish and private advantage rather than the general interests of the public naturally led to the campaign being conducted upon illegal business principles, whereby it is asserted that electors were bought and sold like goods and chattels in the open market. It is claimed that at least $100,000 were expended in the 20th and 24th Con