274 
Gregory—Political Corruption. 
Our first serious attempts at legislation on these subjects, 
somewhat on the English line though with much less elabora¬ 
tion and thoroughness, appear in a law of Colorado (p. 167) for 
1891, and No. 100, Public Acts of Michigan for the same year. 
These are full and precise against bribery and require return 
of expenditures from the candidate, and also, the Colorado law, 
from the chairman and secretary of every state, county and city 
central committee, the law of Michigan from every chairman of 
a state, district or county committee. 
The Michigan law forbids the furnishing of any money for 
procuring the attendance of voters at the polls or contributing 
money for any other purpose intended to promote an election of 
any particular person or ticket except for defraying the expense 
of printing and the circulation of handbills and other papers 
previous to any such election, or for conveying sick or infirm 
electors to the polls. 
The Colorado law makes its violation a misdemeanor. 
The Michigan law makes its knowing violation a felony pun¬ 
ishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not ex¬ 
ceeding two years or both 'at the discretion of the judge. 
Of these laws the Michigan seems the more complete and 
efficient, but certain named committees being alone required to 
report, other committees could always be organized for objec¬ 
tionable or secret work and no reports from them could be com¬ 
pelled. 
Chapter 693, Laws of New York, 1892, provides a penalty 
for bribery, intimidation, coruption or political assessments, 
and requires further that candidates but not the committees 
shall file sworn statements of all moneys contributed. 
The defect of the New York law is obvious, and Dr. Jenks, in 
the Century for October, 1892, says of it, with justice, that 
though good, as it stands alone, it is of course of little influence, 
for the candidates pay large sums to campaign committees that 
are irresponsible. 
J. B. Bishop in the Forum of April, 1893, says: The weak¬ 
est of our American laws to restrict the spending of money for 
election purposes is that of New York, and Hon. Josiah Quincy 
justly calls any statute like it wholly abortive. 
