lute there is need that the name Casus Pendens should have been mentioned as another name of the same construction. This designation is the only one which is strictly accurate.

In the general arrangement of matter two suggestions are made: first, that the first general subject treated in any syntax should be the sentence as a whole, for this is the unit of thought; second, that in Hebrew Syntax the verb occupies the place of first importance among the parts of the sentence. Two errata have come to the eye of the writer. Under Sec. 22-3-a and 26-2-a cross reference to Sec. 24 is given which ought to be Sec. 23, again the statement in Sec. 29-2-a, Rem. d is disproved in Ruth 2.9. See also Müller's Hebrew Syntax, Sec. 116, latest issue. There are four indices to this book, of which the first three are excellent and adapted to enable a solitary student to master the book and Hebrew Syntax at once. The fourth index might well have been modeled on the Hebrew index in Prof. Harper's Elements of Hebrew. Life is too short to look through 19 references in the vain hope to find a reference to the frequent use of Lamedh after the passive verb. It would be unjust to dwell on these minor defi. ciencies in such a way as to obscure the reputation which this book deserves to have, namely, that of being at present the most serviceable compend of Hebrew Syntax which can be put into hands of the student.

F. B. DENIO.

ARTICLE I-THE JANUARY “MESSAGES" ON ELECTION BRIBERY.

TWENTY-THREE of our State Legislatures began their first annual or biennial sessions during the month of January and listened to messages from newly elected or retiring governors, or from both. No less than fourteen governors treated bribery at popular elections in a serious manner, a few made passing reference to the matter, and the governors of Massachusetts, Nevada, Nebraska, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina ignored the subject. Prominence is given to election bribery by the governors of Oregon, West Virginia, Tennessee, Delaware, California, Michigan, Rhode Island, Kansas, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Indiana. These States are here divided into three groups. The governors of the first four are democratic; those of the second four are republican; while the last group are known as the four doubtful States, of which two have republican and two democratic governors. No

January message contains a refutation or denial of the charges of extensive election bribery. We propose to analyze these twelve executive utterances with special reference to the remedial legislation proposed.

Gov. Sylvester Pennoyer of Oregon says:

Thoughtful persons of all political parties cannot but view with deep concern the increasing systematic bribery of voters at nearly all of our general elections. It is one of the most dangerous portents of the times and one of the most formidable menaces to the perpetuity of our free government. Our statute laws now hold both the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker as equally guilty. This is wrong. The great crime is the crime of the bribe-giver, and the poor man, who, impelled perhaps by the necessities of his family, accepts the bribe, ought rather to be pitied than punished. It is therefore recommended that section 1844 of the laws of Oregon be repealed, which section provides for the punishment of those who accept bribes, for the reason that with this unjust menace removed, the punishment of the bribe-giver will be rendered more easy and certain.

Gov. Pennoyer raises here a close question of political ethics. The degrees of moral turpitude in bribe-giving and bribe-taking are difficult to measure. There are however rough tests to be applied. Accuse a man of selling his vote and he resents it as if you had denounced him as a thief. Accuse him of buying a vote,—that is, bribing a man to change his politics, and the chances are that he will not lose his temper. Certainly thousands of men consider vote-purchasing legitimate electioneering. By the test of an appeal to a man's conscience, therefore, it seems to be more wicked indeed to sell than to buy a vote. The public always loses respect for a man who accepts a bribe; but partisans do not always lose caste by paying money for other men's votes. Gov. Pennoyer quite unconsciously yields to the vogue of a dulled moral sense in political matters, when, assuming that the bribe-taker should be "pitied rather than punished," he undertakes to make the bribe-giver more odious before the law by expunging the selling of one's suffrages from the list of punishable crimes. He at least might have graded crime by increasing the punishment of the bribe-giver. When the United States constitution had been formulated by the convention of 1787, and was being discussed by the various commonwealths, John Dickinson, the Pennsylvania statesman, said in a pamphlet that if our liberties were ever subverted it

would be "by the licentiousness of the people" as well as by the "turbulent spirit of some of the States." Noah Webster at that time called attention to the fact that in ancient Rome the king and consuls were elected by the body of the people and that "this circumstance paved the way for such excessive bribery and corruption as are wholly unknown in modern times." The more familiar passages in "The Federalist" turn upon a deep, serious distrust of democracies. The federal argument was that popular governments die by suicide. The first duty of the American lawmaker is to reduce the purchasable vote. The decay of morals as indicated by a citizenship that may be sold like pelts or a day's wages is appalling to every lover of his country, and Gov. Pennoyer's pity for the poor man who finds a statute interposed between him and the bribery market is born of a false system of ethics.

The message of Gov. E. W. Wilson of West Virginia contains 338 lines, of which 149 are devoted to corrupt politics. After declaring that our whole country is exposed to the perils of political debauchery, his Excellency says in particular:

Reproach has been cast upon our own State as never before by illegal, fraudulent, and corrupt voting in almost every county within its borders. This is so palpable that he who runs may read. The capitations of 1884, were 133,522, and the entire vote, after the most active political campaign ever made in the state, 137.587. The capitations for 1888 were 147,408, and the entire vote 159,440. The difference in the capitations and the vote in 1884 was 4065; in 1888 it is 12,032. This shows an increase of votes in four years of 21,853, which if legitimate would indicate a population of 900,000 and an increase in four years of much more than 100,000. It is certain that no such increase has taken place. The purity of our elections imperatively demands a revision of the election laws. . . . I recommend that a registration law be enacted and that our election laws be amended so that bribery and fraudulent voting may be prevented and the purity of the ballot-box preserved.

No one need dispute Gov. Wilson's facts after the scenes at Charleston, on the 4th of March, when the republican governor elected upon the face of the returns, the president of the State senate, and Mr. Wilson himself all claimed the executive office while a fourth man, the democratic candidate for governor, gave notice of a contested election upon grounds of bribery in November perpetrated by republicans. It concerns us more

;

especially here to note the completeness of Mr. Wilson's confession of wide-spread bribery as against the barrenness of his recommendation. Any registration law that the Legislature of West Virginia might pass would be subject to the following provisions of the State constitution:

No citizen shall ever be denied or refused the right or privilege of voting at an election because his name is not or has not been registered or listed as a qualified voter.

The Legislature shall never authorize or establish any board or court of registration of voters.

What good public purpose could be served by the ordering of a registration if the registration list could not be used as a voters' check list? Illegal voters in West Virginia can be challenged now, and nothing more could be accomplished under a registration law with the limits set by the constitution. If Gov. Wilson favored registration, why did he not recommend an amendment to the constitution that will permit it?

Gov. Robert L. Taylor of Tennessee says:

While our laws are in most respects adequate, yet it seems that the rapid growth of our cities has made more prevalent an evil that is not sufficiently provided against by the law. Many men vote more than once, and it is impossible to fully prevent it, hard to detect them, and more difficult to punish them. In my opinion a well-devised registration law would meet the case. I recommend also that your honorable bodies pass an act more clearly defining the composition, powers, and duties of the board of canvassers of election returns. Much complication has recently grown out of the lack of accuracy with which the existing statutes can be construed.

The only observation to be made here is that Gov. Taylor's recommendations go directly to the source of the trouble in his State, although he elected not to spread the information of gross election irregularities before the public. His suggestions have been adopted, and the Legislature has already passed an Australian ballot act for the larger cities of the State, as well as a general registration law.

Here are three passages taken from the message of Gen. Benjamin T. Biggs of Delaware:

The use of money at elections is alarmingly on the increase. That use has in this state become so great as to call forth a protest by all who favor the purity of the ballot. The present law upon the statute