returns is a very simple performance as shown at recent elections in this State. Fractions being always attached to whole votes on the tickets may even be disregarded in scoring down votes upon the tally-paper and be added at the end of the score. For instance, when two candidates have been voted for as follows:

John Jones, 14 votes,

William Brown, 14 votes, the first ticket drawn from the box may be copied upon the tally-paper, (omitting the word “votes,") and then that and succeeding tickets marked down in scores of five toward the right according to the common practice. To the sum of the scores for a candidate fifty per centum will be added at the end of the line. Thus if 80 such tickets have been voted, the count for each candidate will be carried out-80 + 40

120 votes. In this case the figures “14” attached to a candidate's name become a sign of value for the strokes which follow, and may be conveniently enclosed in a circle with a pen. If whole votes alone shall be voted on other tickets for the same candidate, they should be scored on a separate line above or below the other and be carried out and added at the proper place on the right.




Upon a careful reading of speeches made by John Bright in 1867, at Manchester, at Birmingham, and in the House of Commons, in hostility to cumulative voting and to the limited vote as embodied in the Cairns amendment to the Reform Bill, I became thoroughly convinced of the utter weakness of all

possible objections to minority representation, (as it was then called.) A first-class man, laboring with great earnestness on repeated occasions, was unable to make good a single objection to reform, and was compelled in the final debate on the 8th of August, to plant himself upon purely conservative ground and insist upon the novelty of the proposition before the House. So far as I can remember, there was but one point made by him which reached the dignity of appearing plausible, or which seemed to call for explanation or reply. That was that the new plans were defective in regard to the filling of vacancies that might happen pending terms of official service. Supposing, for instance, that the seat of a member of Parliament from a triangular district, a district of three members--should become vacant from any cause pending his term, neither the cumulative or limited vote could be applied at a special election to the choice of his successor. I admit the fact in the case supposed, but I deny the objection based

upon it. That objection is wholly misconceived and will disappear upon being submitted to examination. Mr. Bright did not desire the third member for Birmingham to be taken by the Tories, and therefore opposed reform ; but his best point, like all his others, was unworthy of his genius and his fame. Party interest misled him as it has often misled other men of equal distinction and mental power.

Now as the question of filling casual vacancies, under reformed voting, has never been discussed in this country, nor, so far as I know, been examined abroad, (unless in connection with schemes of repre

sentation which do not come within the



my present discourse,) I shall proceed to speak upon it briefly, and shall incidentally dispose of the Bright objection just mentioned.

In the first place I have to remark that if hereafter casual vacancies shall be filled by popular election and by the majority vote, we shall be in no worse condition than we are now; we shall simply continue, as to such occasional election, the existing rule. In the next place it is to be considered that whenever two or more vacancies shall exist at the same time, the free or limited vote can be applied to an election held for the purpose of filling them. Again, it is evident that most vacancies that will happen, will be of majority members or officers, and that the application of the majority vote to the choice of successors will be perfectly proper and in complete harmony with our plan of reform. But I will take the comparatively rare or unusual case of a minority vacancy standing alone, or the still rarer case of two or more such vacancies (without majority ones) existing at the same time. How shall such minority vacancies be filled ? I answer, they can be filled and filled properly either by election or appointment. In many if not most cases appointments may be made for unexpired terms, but whenever possible in any case an appointment should be made from among the voters who shall have voted for the officer or person whose place is to be filled. As an illustration I will read the provision concerning the filling of vacancies contained in the County Commissioner bill introduced into the Senate of Pennsylvania at its last session. After

providing for the election of three County Commissioners and three County Auditors, respectively, for three year terms, the fourth section provides as follows:

"Sec. 4. Vacancies in the office of County Commissioner or County Auditor occurring otherwise than by the expiration of a regular term of service, or occasioned or continued by a failure to elect under this act, shall be filled by appointments to be made by the Courts of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of the several counties in which such vacancies shall occur, which appointments shall be for the remaining part or time of any unexpired term to be filled. In the filling of any such vacancy the following rules of selection shall be observed, to wit: First, The appointment shall be made from among the qualified electors of the county who shall have voted for the Commissioner or Auditor whose place is to be filled, and Second, The Judges of the Court by whom the appointment is to be made shall receive and consider any respectful petition from qualified electors of the county who shall have voted for the Commissioner or Auditor whose place is to be filled, and shall appoint such fit persons so recommended as shall, in their opinion, be most acceptable to the greater part of the electors by whom the Commissioner or Auditor whose place is to be filled was chosen."

The power of appointment for the filling of vacancies may be variously lodged according to the nature of the case or the character of the office to be filled, but no matter where lodged it should always be exercised under a rule of selection similar

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to that contained in the bill just cited, so that the just division of offices between parties shall be at all times maintained.

But when an appointment cannot well be made to fill a vacancy on account of the magnitude of the office, the long duration of the unexpired term, or because it is difficult in the given case to select a proper appointing power, a popular election to fill the vacancy may be provided for. In such case I would call only upon the voters who had previously voted for the officer or person whose place is to be filled and would confine the right of choice to them. The other voters of the constituency or district ought not to participate in such election for evident reasons and should be excluded. But at this point an objector may say that it will be difficult to distinguish the proper voters from others and to confine the electoral privilege to them. I do not think so.

The party position of most men is fully known in their own election districts, and in doubtful cases the right of challenge will guard against improper votes. The official lists of voters taken down at a former election can be referred to for the prevention of fraud, and any one offering to vote may be called upon to prove by his own oath or by other testimony that he voted at such former election for the officer or person whose place is to be filled. Besides, as there will be no struggle between political parties for a majority at such elections, the most fertile of all causes of fraud will be wholly excluded from them. In fact where there shall be but one candidate at such an election, (which will be the ordinary case,) there will be no

« ForrigeFortsett »