DEMOCRATIC 
 
 FRAUDS. 
 
 HOW THE DEMOCRATS 
 
 CARRIED PENNSYLVANIA IN 1867. 
 
 At the Pennsylvania election of October 7, 1867, the official returns 
 on the State ticket gave to the Democratic party a majority of 922 votes. 
 As Pennsylvania is everywhere recognized to be the political battle¬ 
 ground of the Union, and as the State had for some years given 
 moderate Republican majorities, this result was regarded as of great 
 significance. Throughout the United States the exultant Democracy 
 were stimulated to fresh exertions, while loyal men were correspondingly 
 discouraged. We heard from every quarter that the long expected 
 reaction had at last set in—that reaction so often prophesied which 
 was to restore the sweets of official plunder to those whose long career 
 of power had culminated in a desperate civil war, and in the narrow 
 escape from destruction of all our institutions. 
 
 Where success was of importance so incalculable it was worth every 
 effort to obtain. That the result should be the expression of the will 
 of the majority was a matter of absolute indifference. In 1861, the 
 Democracy of the South had refused to submit to the rule of the majo¬ 
 rity, and the Democracy of the North had justified them in their resist¬ 
 ance. The Pennsylvania wing of the party lacks the hardihood to 
 follow the example, and seeks to attain the same end by knavery rather 
 than by force. 
 
 The plotters of election frauds are the meanest of the human species. 
 Their tools may possibly be detected and punished, but the instigators 
 -—those who plan the cheating and reap all the fruits of success—remain 
 safely shrouded in mystery impenetrable to legal process. If they fail 
 they lose nothing, for of honesty and character they have none to lose; 
 the chances of success are all on their side, for in case of failure their 
 wretched instruments alone bear the brunt. Cunningly organized 
 
 % 
 
2 
 
 schemes of election frauds, moreover, when carried out to a sufficient 
 extent, are well nigh sure to succeed, for the task of a contestant is 
 difficult almost to impossibility. To grope blindly over lists of taxables 
 and tally-papers, and canvass whole districts to produce legal proof for 
 rejecting each fraudulent vote, is tolerably sure, even when it can be 
 done under the most favorable circumstances, to consume nearly the 
 whole term of office for which the election has been held; while the vote 
 by ballot renders it almost impossible to prove how each individual 
 vote has been cast by electors who can be shown to have been illegal. 
 Thus the law r can be wrenched to assist the conspirators who, assured 
 of personal impunity, combine to defraud the people of their highest 
 political right—the right of the majority to rule. 
 
 The Democratic Plan of Campaign. 
 
 Fully cognizant of these truths the Democracy entered upon the 
 campaign of 1867, resolved to win; and when all the advantages of 
 long experience in audacious fraud are considered, the only wonder is 
 that their apparent majority was kept within the limits of a thousand. 
 Their purpose and design were foreshadowed in a secret circular issued 
 to the faithful, September 18, 1867, by the Democratic State Central 
 Committee. The chairmen of the county committees were warned that 
 the struggle “is comparatively noiseless, but it should be made full of 
 activity.” This “activity” seems to have meant the liberal expendi¬ 
 ture of money. Thus, with regard to their sub-agents, they were told: 
 “Pay them for their time in warning the dilatory and for 
 
 ELECTION DAY, AND PROVIDE THE MEANS TO HAUL THE SLOW MEN TO 
 
 the polls. It is better to spend money in this way than by meet¬ 
 ings. ... In very slow districts I would suggest a special contract' 
 wdth active men, thus: in 1865, the district polled 100 Democratic 
 votes; in 1866, 120 Democratic votes; now, for every Democratic vote 
 over 110 polled, we will pay you a fixed sum the day after the 
 election.” . ... “See that your agents have all Democrats assessed, 
 naturalized, and their taxes paid.” 
 
 The fraud and corruption so cunningly suggested and veiled in these 
 carefully worded sentences were revealed more broadly than their authors 
 expected in the contested election case of Robison against Shugart. 
 Let us then see how the “active men” under these directions “hauled 
 their slow voters to the polls ;” how they obeyed the mandate to “ natu¬ 
 ralize their voters,” and how they sought to earn the bribe offered them 
 for an increased Democratic majority in every election district; the 
 whiskey ring, we may presume, supplying the enormous capital requisite 
 for the business of buying, selling, and manufacturing voters on so large 
 a scale.