chester then moved that the bill be amended by striking out that part which required that complaints be "verified in the same manner as pleadings are required to be verified in the Code of Civil Procedure." This amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The bill was then placed upon its

final passage, and was passed without a dissenting vote, by 85 affirmative votes.

New York City members voted as follows:

AYES.-Messrs. Byrne, Conkling, Connelly, Dinkelspiel, Drypolcher, Duffy, Farquhar, Foley, Hahlo, Martin, McManus, Mullaney, O'Dair, Roche, Sohmer, Southworth, Stein, Sulzer, Walker and Wissig.-20.

NOES.-none.

NOT VOTING.-Messrs. Hoag, Sullivan, Webster and Wells.-4.

The bill was then sent to the senate for concurrence in the amendment. It was received the same day, the amendment concurred in, and was passed by a vote of 18 to 6. All the New York City members voted in the affirmative, except Mr. Brown, who did not vote.

The bill was then sent to the Governor in the usual manner, and by his signature became a law upon the 9th of April.

THE "BLANKET BALLOT” BILL.

Assembly Bill No. 1335. Introduced by Mr. Conkling of New York.

Senate Bill No. 291.

Introduced by Mr. Saxton of Wayne
County.

Did not become law.

Of the good measures which were introduced in the last legislature, and rejected by that body, perhaps none was of more importance to the people of the state than the

"Blanket Ballot" Bill. The attitude assumed toward that measure by both houses showed plainly the indifference felt by the majority of the members to the public welfare.

The bill was designed to remedy the defects of the "Ballot Reform Act" of 1890. For the separate ballots required by that act for each party making nominations, the bill proposed to substitute a single "blanket ballot" to be printed and distributed at public expense, containing the names of all of the candidates to be balloted for at the election; thus diminishing the expense of the election; rendering it impossible to ascertain the manner in which any particular voter had voted; and sweeping away those defects of the earlier act which had made it possible to effect a wholesale disfranchisement of electors, as in Onondaga County in 1891. It prohibited the use of "paster ballots," thus rendering it unnecessary for political parties to have an army of workers to distribute "pasters" at the polling places, and destroying the pretext upon which they had mainly relied in levying enormous assessments upon candidates. In order to preserve the rights of the "illiterate voter," concerning which the machine politicians have always been so solicitous, it provided that the candidates of the several parties should be distinguished upon the ballot by printed emblems or devices.

Of the bill as introduced it may be said that a more carefully considered measure has rarely been laid before the legislature. It had been drafted by a non-partisan committee composed largely of eminent lawyers, who had given the matter careful study. It had been submitted for criticism to the press, and suggestions had been invited from hundreds of political leaders and others all over the state, none of which, when made, were allowed to pass unconsidered. Nevertheless, the provision that no voter should be permitted to write anything upon his ballot, is

clearly indefensible. It was inserted against the judgment of many who were interested in the preparation of the bill. This provision would deprive the voter of his fundamental right to vote for anyone who is eligible to the office to be filled. The voter has a right, of which the legislature cannot deprive him, to make his choice of a candidate at the moment of voting. Immediately before an election, circumstances might give rise to the strongest popular feeling against candidates whose names were printed on the official ballot, and in favor of candidates who were put forward at the last moment, and whose names were not upon the official ballot. The bill proposed to prevent the expression of any such popular feeling. The bill might well have been opposed because of this provision; but the opposition did not take this ground. Every vote against the bill was cast as a vote against the general principle of the blanket ballot, and without reference to the one serious defect in the bill. If the majority had opposed the bill because of this defect, an attempt would have been made to correct the bill in this particular. The vote may, therefore, be regarded as a test upon the general question.

The bill was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Saxton of Wayne County on February 4th, and in the Assembly by Mr. Conkling of New York on March 16th.

In the senate it was referred to the committee on judiciary, and in the Assembly to the committee on general laws.

A hearing was had upon the measure before the senate committee on March 2d, at which the arguments in behalf of the bill were fully presented. The committee failed to report the bill.

At a hearing before the assembly committee on general laws on March 17th, the friends of the measure warmly advocated its passage.

Upon the 7th of April, the committee having failed to make any report on the bill, Mr. Conkling of New York 'moved to discharge the committee from further consideration of the bill, but this motion was defeated by a vote 61 to 60. The effect of Mr. Conkling's motion, had it prevailed, would have been to bring the bill before the house for consideration and action. A vote against this motion was a

vote against the bill.

New York City members voted as follows:

AYES.-Messrs. Conkling, Hoag, O'Dair, and Wells.-4.

NOES.-Messrs. Byrnes, Connelly, Dinkelspiel, Duffy, Farquhar, Foley, Hahlo, Martin, McManus, Mullaney, Roche, Southworth, Stein, Sullivan, Sulzer, Walker, Webster, and Wissig.-18.

NOT VOTING.-Messrs. Drypolcher, and Sohmer.

The fate of this bill is a striking illustration of the indifference of the last legislature to the public welfare. It was devised to remedy serious defects in the statute of 1890. It was warmly supported by the best newspapers of both parties. No single voice was openly raised against it in the committees, and no argument was advanced against it. But the bill had incurred the silent hostility of the worst class of professional politicians. Under its provisions bribery and deals would have been more difficult; the secrecy of the ballot more inviolate; the pretext for assessments less plausible, and the "machine" less essential to political success. was, in short, a reform measure, and for that reason it was killed by the gang of political freebooters who controlled the majority in the past session.

It