Page images
PDF
EPUB

individual candidates. In fact, it is claimed that in New York the greater difficulty of independent voting operates to discourage it to some extent. But, if a voter is intelligent and willing to exercise care and discrimination, he can make his will accurately felt. The Australian ballot does not prevent Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire from going regularly straight Republican. But under it, in exceptional circumstances, Republican States like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, and others have chosen Democratic governors. The possibility of such a reverse is a power to hold the dominant party to high standards of good government.

A fair ballot law should permit the man who wants to vote a straight party ticket to do so with ease and dispatch, but it should also afford to the voter proper facility for making independent selections when he desires to do so. The aim should be to get as nearly as possible a true expression of the will of the electorate. As has been well said of the Australian ballot, "It is not designed to give aid and encouragement to any particular kind of voting at the expense of others, but to secure absolutely fair, secret, and easy voting for all."

The South did not adopt the Australian ballot system as readily as the other sections of the nation. But the system finally made its way into most of the Southern States. Today, about twenty years after the beginning of the reform, the only States in the Union which, according to the World Almanac for 1909, do not have the Australian ballot, or a modification of it, are North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, with the territory of New Mexico. The writer has not had opportunity to verify the exactness of this statement. In any event, the situation is not creditable to the States above named.

The South's reluctance to adopt the Australian ballot was doubtless due to the embarrassing problem of negro suffrage. It is true that this very system might have been so used as to bar out illiterate negroes. That fact might have commended the Australian ballot to the South, if it had not been for the large percentage of white illiteracy. It was desired to allow white illiterates to vote while excluding ignorant negroes. The Australian system did not lend itself to racial discrimination. So, for a time, the white illiterates were allowed to vote, while the negro vote was gotten

rid of by methods which were illegal, often violent, and exceedingly harmful to white integrity, morality, and respect for the suffrage. The South yet suffers from the blunting of public sentiment as to the danger of dishonesty and fraud in elections. Happily, through the adoption of the constitutional amendments in the Southern States, the ignorant negro vote has been excluded by legal methods which have proved effective, and the political supremacy of the white race has been assured. The fear of negro suffrage now affords no valid argument against giving the voters of all the Southern States the fairest possible form of ballot. If it is considered wise and right to continue the ballot in the hand of the illiterate white man, a form of the Australian ballot can be provided, similar to that used in New York State, which will place no undue obstacles in his way. Thus the advantages of ballot reform can be secured for all the white voters, and the fairness and honesty of elections can be assured. Nor need there be any fear that the Australian ballot will be an obstacle to the political solidarity of the South, if the South through conviction and principle desires to remain solid. The adoption of a good voting system would give every man a chance to express his conscientious conviction at the ballot box, free from coercion or intimidation, and would give him assurance that his vote would be truly recorded and would exert its due influence upon the conduct of public affairs.

Just before retiring from office, Governor Glenn included a brief recommendation of the Australian ballot system in his last message to the North Carolina legislature. There were a number of favorable expressions of opinion in the press of the State. It is especially worthy of notice that Senator Elliott introduced into the upper house of the legislature at its recently adjourned session "An Act to Provide a Uniform Ballot for General Elections." This was not a proposition to introduce the whole of the Australian ballot system. It simply provided for an official blanket ballot to be printed and distributed at public expense for use in all general elections. The ballot was in practically the same form as that which has been described as used in the State of New York. None of the other features of the Australian system were included in the bill. While public opinion has not yet become sufficiently aroused to secure positive action, such bills as Senator

Elliott's undoubtedly have an important educative effect. It is to be hoped that during the next two years the best citizens, irrespective of party, will become actively interested in this needed reform. Then some forward action may be taken by the legislature of 1911. It should certainly be a cause for general regret that North Carolina is one of the States of the Union with the poorest election laws. Let the Australian ballot system be included in her program of progress!

The Tariff and the Revenue*

By D. A. TOMPKINS

Formerly Member of the United States Industrial Commission

The United States Congress is now in special session to prepare and enact a new tariff law to take the place of the Dingley Act which has been on the statute book since 1897. This important work is being done at a time of deficiency in the public revenues. Hence it would seem that the character of the new legislation should be greatly influenced by the necessity of providing adequate funds to pay the expenses of the Government. Every year about a billion dollars must be raised for this purpose. Some of the principal items are:

[blocks in formation]

The above are estimates in round numbers. The actual Government estimate of expenditures necessary is $968,387,508.01. The Government exhibit of receipts is:

[blocks in formation]

It will be observed that the Government, allowing something

*This article was written by Mr. Tompkins before the Payne Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives.-THE EDITORS.

for Forest Reserves, is running about $160,000,000 short of meeting its expenses; therefore, if ever the man who believes in a tariff for revenue only is to have an opportunity to stand for his own tariff, now is the time for him to do it. Years and years ago I stated that the so-called "free trader" and the so-called "high tariff people" were at opposite extremes of the tariff question and both were wrong. I have divided the population of the United States upon this subject as follows: Free traders, ten per cent.; supporters of a tariff for revenue which incidentally protects, forty per cent.; supporters of a tariff for protection which incidentally raises the revenue, forty per cent.; prohibitory tariff men, ten per

cent.

It is the militant element of any cause which gets the following. The free traders and the stand-patters are both militant. It is they who divide the remainder of the people into two parts of forty per cent, each. If the two forty per cent. elements would only recognize the fact, they are really together on this question. The above figures show that the tariff for revenue men would be compelled to examine well into the tariff list with a view of getting more revenue. The tariff for protection men would have to look out to see that additional duties, in so far as it was possible, protected home industries, and the honest tariff man would have to see that the home industry was no more than protected. At the outset we discover that free trade is impossible. We equally discover that to lay tariff for revenue, entirely ignoring the protection feature, would be the consummation of folly. We equally observe that, where an industry does not need protection but has it, then all the protection makes opportunity for graft in that it gives the people of that industry the opportunity to agree upon prices and use the tariff to extort unnecessary amounts. Europe has been put out of the competition, and the home industry instead of being protected is put in a position to tax the people by the excess tariff.

We are not alone confronted at the present moment with the matter of revising the tariff to eliminate these dishonest, excess duties and to protect the industries of the country which need protection, but we are also seriously confronted with the problem of revenue. It may be argued that lowering of some of the duties will increase revenue by the increased importation. We could

« PreviousContinue »