Treason Against Liberty, Chapters I-II [pp. 269-276]

Treason against Liberty.
think he will not mind if Salome shares the
fortune he gave me. He will know I could
not be happy otherwise."
She was looking down at Old Ben's shaft,
in the mandrake thicket. "Salome always
hated the spot," she mused. "She declared
the odor of death hung over it. Strange!
for after all, it was the key to unlock our fortune."
She turned her eyes in the other direction.
The sun, rapidly sinking, left a thin line of
red on the low-lying hills, nearer the river.
The old Indian trail was in shadow. The
windows of the new house shone redly in
the departing sunshine.
"See," cried Richard, pointing to it.
"My omens are brighter than Salome's.
We are going into the sunshine!"
"Yes," echoed Hester, "into the sunshine —together."
Half way down the narrow path, she halted once again. The thin red line had faded
from the hills; the glow had died out of the
window panes. Twilight was closing in over
river, forest, and valley.
"Richard," she murmured, half under her
breath, "perhaps we are going into the
shadows."
"Perhaps," assented her husband cheerfully: "into the shadows-together."
Ada Langyvorthy Collier.
[THE END. J
TREASON AGAINST LIBERTY.
ELECTORAL corruption has been aptly described a treason against liberty; for the
elective privilege, "the right preservative of
all rights," is so closely identified with civil
liberty, and so necessary to its preservation
and defense, that any attack upon it, either
from within or without, is regarded as an
attack upon liberty itself. It may surprise
many to be told that electoral corruption
has become a very common practice in
American politics. It is generally accepted
that legislators, and even jurors, have been
improperly influenced in the discharge of
their duties. But to corrupt by bribes at
general or local elections any considerable
percentage of voters, will be regarded by casual observers as highly improbable, even
manifestly impracticable: and this, not because the people are believed to be better
than their representatives, but simply because they are more numerous. It will be
asked: How is it possible to corrupt so
great a mass of individuals? Granting its
possibility, what candidate or cause would
bear the necessary enormous outlay? And
finally, if it is done, why is it not detected,
and the guilty parties punished?
It may be said in answer, that there is
no need of corrupting a very large number in order to affect the result of an election; that very often a candidate is not the
party most interested in his success; and that
punishment has not been meted out to offenders, because public sentiment-on account, principally, of its ignorance of the
practice and its effects-is not sufficiently
aroused against it. But that electoral corruption exists, and is extensive in the United States, there is no doubt. That it leads
to the gravest and most disastrous consequences is easily proven. The press of the
country abroad and the evidence of our senses at home, alike testify to its wide-spread
existence. In fact, ocular demonstrations of
bribery at the polls in the recent election in
San Francisco suggested the topic to the
writer of this article.
The "Century" Magazine for November
said editorially that the practice of bribing
voters has reached a development in this
country that calls for thoughtful attention on
the part of patriotic men. "Harper's Weekly," of November I 8, I 884, said: "The election has recalled the coufftry to the sense of
269
1885.]