A

committee in 1869 said: 'Before the ballot was in operation our elections were exceedingly riotous. Of course our community had the rowdy elements as well as other countries, and on election days these troublesome elements came to the surface; and I have been in the balcony of an hotel during one of the city elections, when the raging mobs down in the street were so violent that I certainly would not have risked my life to have crossed the street.' Many men in Australia saw the dangers of open voting, and began to work to secure a remedy. The secret ballot was first proposed by Francis S. Dutton in the Legislative Council of South Australia in 1851. For several years no action was taken, but in 1857 Mr. Dutton became a member of the government, and made excellent use of his opportunity to advance his measure. bill embodying this plan was introduced, and, after some modification in the House, became a law in 1857-58. In Victoria the secret ballot was championed by Mr. William Nicholson, who, at the head of the government, secured the enactment of the law in 1856. The system spread very rapidly. It was adopted by Tasmania and New South Wales in 1858; New Zealand in 1870; Queensland in 1874; and West Australia in 1877. [See also SUFFRAGE, MANHOOD: British Empire: 1921.] In England, where the viva voce method was in use with all its attending vices, the secret ballot had been agitated continually since 1830. In that year it was proposed by O'Connell and received the support of twenty-one members. The ballot formed a part of the reform bill as reported to the Cabinet by Lord John Russell, Sir James Graham, and others, but it was not included in the act as presented to Parliament. During the next three years many petitions for the measures were presented to Parliament and debated. On April 23, 1833, George Grote brought forward a resolution affirming the expediency of its adoption and until 1840 this was yearly presented and affirmed by Mr. Grote. After the retirement of Grote, Mr. Ward and later Mr. H. Berkley became the champions of the measure. It was supported by such statesmen as Macaulay, Bright, Cobbett, Hume, and O'Connell, and was opposed by Lord Derby, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Palmerston. Although this movement was retarded by the revolution of 1848 and the opposition of John Stuart Mill, the long period of agitation finally bore fruit. In the Queen's speech from the throne in 1868-69, a recommendation was made that the present mode of conducting elections be inquired into and further guarantees adopted for promoting their tranquility, purity, and freedom. A committee of twenty-three, with the Marquis of Hartington as chairman, was appointed. This committee not only examined the English situation, but questioned witnesses from France, Italy, Greece, the United States, and Australia; and in 1870 it recommended that the secret ballot be adopted. The result was the ballot act which became a law in 1872. With the prestige gained by its success in England, the principles of the Australian ballot were soon adopted in Canada, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Italy."-E. C. Evans, History of the Australian ballot system in the United States, pp. 17-20.

1882-1916.-Australian ballot supersedes early methods of voting in the United States.-Evils of early methods.-Types of Australian ballots. -History of its spread in the United States."Although the departure from the English viva voce system of voting was begun in colonial times, it was not completed until late in the nineteenth century. Nine of the ten state constitutions framed between 1776 and 1780 required the secret

ballot for the election of certain officials, but the majority were still chosen by oral vote. 'As the voter appeared, his name was called out in a loud voice. The judges inquired, "John Smith, for whom do you vote?" He replied by proclaiming the name of his favorite. Then the clerks enrolled the vote, and the judges announced it as enrolled. The representative of the candidate for whom he voted arose, and bowed, and thanked him aloud; and his partisans often applauded.' In Kentucky, the last state to give up the system, the election for heriff consisted in ranging the friends of one candidate on one side of the road, the backers of the other on the opposite side. As in an old-fashioned spelling bee, the longest line won. The classe which strongly advocated the open vote were in America, as elsewhere, the propertied classes. The system naturally continued longest in the South. The conservatives dreaded the effect of secrecy upon the honesty of elections. John Randolph of Virginia said in 1839: 'I scarcely believe that we have such a fool in all Virginia as even to mention the vote by ballot, and I do not hesitate to say that the adoption of the ballct would make any nation a nation of scoundrels, if it did not find them so.' The ballot had been introduced in all the seaboard states but one by 1800. In that year it was adopted for the gov ernment of the Northwest Territory, and has since been the rule in states organized in the West But Arkansas preserved the ancient viva voce sys tem until 1846, Missouri and Virginia until the sixties, and Kentucky abandoned it only in 1800. By the middle of the nineteenth century, however some form of ballot was employed in most of the United States. The generic term was applied to a motley variety of voting papers, both written and printed. As there was no rule for the size and color of the ballot, each party sought to make its ticket recognizable by the ignorant voter by pe culiar marks. One Republican ballot had a flaming pink border, with rays projecting towards the center, and letters half an inch high. Ballots of colored tissue paper were common in the South Such pronounced differences made it easy to distinguish a Republican from a Democratic paper. as far as it could be seen. The use of the ballot conformed to no rules. If he chose, the voter could make his own and bring it with him, usually in his vest-pocket, whence the name of 'vest-pocket tickets.' The labor involved in this led candidates generally before 1825 to print their tickets to allure the indolent. When the party took over the ballot, usage varied widely as to how many names should be put on one paper; some states required a man to cast nine, ten, or more papers before be had voted for all the candidates. The ballot was entirely a party affair, gotten up, printed, and peddled on election day, by party workers, who hawked their wares so diligently as to be an unmitigated nuisance. Unregulated political heelers were given virtually complete control of an essential part of the electoral system. An unsystemati institution such as the above was prey to a multitude of abuses. Besides involving an enormo expense through the duplication of effort, the money spent did not insure the public. . . a cotrect ballot. The voter relied upon his party organi zation, and that often betrayed him. An irresponsible ring could 'unbunch' the party slate, remove a good candidate, and substitute one of its own with little fear of penalty. The machines of two parties sometimes agreed to compromise by trad ing certain places on each other's ballots, unknown to the party members, who took what the peddlers gave them without inspection. If the politicians did not agree, a party got out counterfeit ballots

of the opposition with its own candidates on them, so skilfully contrived that detection was difficult even on close examination. Grosser frauds were practiced as well, because of the fact that the ballot was really hardly secret at all. This had two important results: bribery and intimidation. When a candidate had paid for a vote, he was naturally anxious to see that what he had bought was delivered. A better system than the old-style ballot for stabilizing this traffic in votes could hardly be conceived. Watchers stationed at the polls could tell, even at a distance, what ticket a man voted. The tissue-paper ballot even made it possible to deliver double or triple the value of the bribe, by folding smaller ballots inside a blanket one, and shaking them out as the ballot was dropped into the urn. Intimidation was probably not so common as in England, but it was carried on to far too large an extent. Men were transported to the polls in their employers' carriages. They were then given ballots and told to keep them in sight until the moment when they dropped them into the urn. If the voters stayed away from the polls or did not obey orders, they were thrown out of work, and, in mill-towns, out of the company's tenements as well. . . . [See also CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS: United States.] The essential parts of the Australian system as employed in the United States are the printing and distribution of the ballot, the choosing of the names which shall appear upon it, and the regulation of the method in which it is cast. After its introduction the Australian ballot became the only one which the voter might cast. It is prepared by the state at public expense, so that in a sense the state guarantees the authenticity of the nominations on it. As it is necessary to restrict the size, the law provides that only names proposed by parties of a certain numerical strength, or by petition of a large number of electors, shall appear. In effect this is state recognition of parties, or of the party machine. The ballots are marked in a secret booth, from the neighborhood of which all but the voter are excluded. The system attempts to shield him from all outside influence from the moment he receives the ticket until he drops it into the ballot-box, and to keep his vote entirely from the knowledge of any one but himself. The Massachusetts ballot. is the nearest approach to the [Australian ballot] system in its entirety. Upon this the names of the candidates are grouped in alphabetical order under the offices for which they stand, with the name of the party following that of the nominee. Such is the general style of the ballot in fourteen states. It has been urged against the Massachusetts ballot that the amount of marking required discourages the voter and leads to neglect of all but the leading offices on the ticket. On the other hand, it diminishes laxness in the shape of straight ticket voting by demanding separate consideration for each nominee. That the system does actually favor independent voting was shown in the election of 1904. . . . It is claimed, however, that the arrangement of names on the ballot constitutes a literacy test, and some twenty-five states use the party-column type, the other main style of the Australian ballot. The entire ticket of each party is printed in a single column with the party emblem at its head to enlighten ignorant voters. The artistic taste of the political parties is most diverse and catholic. The Socialists come nearest to uniformity, two hands clasped before a globe being their insignia in seven states. The Prohibitionists employ a hatchet in Alabama, a house and yard in Delaware, a phoenix in Kentucky, an armorial device in Michigan, an anchor in New Hampshire, a fountain in New

York, a rose in Ohio, while the only picture on which two states agree is the sun rising over the water, used in Indiana and Kansas. These superficial differences merely reflect deeper variations on more important points. The size of the ballot varies from a huge blanket, four or five feet square, to a narrow strip three inches wide and thirty-one inches long, in Florida, or the note-paper size used in Oregon. Of more importance is the relative ease with which a man can vote a straight ticket or can exercise intelligence in picking the best candidate of several parties. A simple cross in the circle beneath the party emblem casts a straight ballot. In many states the independent voter is put to twenty times as much trouble even though he would vote for but one officer outside of his own party. Here is a serious matter for there is no doubting the American voter's proclivity to choose the easiest way in marking his ballot. The party column system often places a direct penalty on an effort to smash the weak spots in a party slate. To be sure the illiterate voter would be at sea without the party emblem; but it is a question whether haphazard or hidebound voting is the lesser evil. It would seem practicable to add the party symbol to the party name on the Massachusetts ballot and thus to avoid both Scylla and Charybdis. At any rate the problem deserves at least as diligent attention as our great corporations give to the efficiency of their advertising.

A partial remedy for the evils of the present ballot has been secured by the use of the voting machines, which combine relative simplicity with ease in splitting a party ticket. Absolute accuracy in counting the returns is assured. Their cost is perhaps the main obstacle in the way of their universal adoption."-C. Seymour and D. P. Frary, How the world votes, v. 1, PP. 246-254.-The New York state ballot in recent years has combined the party emblem and the Massachusetts arrangement by officers. This makes it as easy to vote a split ticket as a straight one and at the same time aids the illiterate voter.-"At first this new reform in Australia and England does not appear to have created much of an impression in this country. According to Mr. John S. Wigmore, it was first advocated by a member of the Philadelphia Civil Reform Association in 1882 in a pamphlet called English Elections. The following year Henry George in the North American Review advocated the adoption of the English system as a cure for the vices arising from use of money in elections. The first attempt that the writer could discover to secure the passage of the reform was made in Michigan in 1885. A bill modeled on the Australian act was introduced into the lower house of the legislature by Mr. George W. Walthew, but it failed to pass. A bill similar to that of Mr. Walthew's, advocated by Mr. Judson Grenell, passed the House in 1887, but was lost in the Senate. In Wisconsin a compromise measure applying to cities of fifty thousand or over was adopted in 1887. Under this law the party organizations printed the ballots and the state distributed them. But the honor of enacting the first Australian-ballot law belongs to Kentucky. This measure was introduced by Mr. A. M. Wallace, of Louisville, and was enacted February 24, 1888. The act applied only to the city of Louisville, because the state constitution required viva voce voting at state elections. The ballots were printed by the mayor at the expense of the city. Candidates had to be nominated by fifty or more voters in order to have their names placed upon the ballot. The blanket form of the ballot was provided, with the names of the candidates arranged in alphabetical order according to surnames, be

right bank of the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia (New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them (a difference so great as to lead to their permanent separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish element was quickly absorbed by the mass of GalloRomanism by which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German element was wholly predominant. The import of the word Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its widest sense it was used to denote all the countries incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in subjection to it, in which the German language and population prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest [southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and

Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above Arcis."-W. C. Perry, The Franks, ch. 3.-"The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike, Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first occupied by the Ripuarian Franks, and where they still lived the most compactly and in the greatest number. . . . This was, in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence, while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not it-ne-osterrike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of the Salian Franks in Gaul.... To such an extent had they been absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as the merest untutored barbarians."-P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, bk. 3, ch. 13, with note.-See also FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): 511-752; GERMANY: 687-800; SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8th-9th centuries.

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, Historical geography of Europe, ch. 5, sect. 5.

Introduction.-Singularity of Austrian history.-A Power which was not a national power. The peculiarities of Austrian and Austro-Hungarian history down to the outbreak of the World War are set forth in the following quotations: "The very first fact with which any student of Austria-Hungary is confronted is that he is dealing with a state and not with a nation. Nationalities are plentiful within the limits of the empire-more nationalities and more languages than in any other European state except Russia-but there is no Austro-Hungarian nation. When the emperor wishes to address a manifesto to his subjects it is not 'to my people' that he speaks, but 'to my peoples.' Nor have these nationalities anything in common except their government. Race, religion, all that tends to make nationalities different from one another are present. And so whether we apply to it the terms of one of its severe critics, 'a ramshackle empire,' or describe it, as its friends do, as an exceedingly hopeful experiment in racial federalization, we are necessarily brought back to the conclusion that the Austria of to-day is not a nation but a government functioning over a group of struggling nationalities each differing from the other in race, religion and methods of life. Nor does the Austrian difficulty end there. In their struggle with each other the nationalities look not merely to their own strength for aid but also to their brothers outside the borders of Austria-Hungary. The German looks to Germany, the Slav to Serbia and Russia for assistance in their hopes of strengthening their position within the Dual Empire. The result is that this question has been too often regarded by the Austrian statesmen as a question of foreign policy to be settled with these outside powers rather than an internal question to be settled within the empire. Moreover, the Austro

Hungarian Empire has been constantly endeavoring to expand either its territory or its influence, at first in Italy and Germany, and more lately in the Balkan peninsula. And these attempts at expansion have brought it into acute conflict: in the first case with Italy, France and Prussia: in the second case with Russia. So the Dual Empire, whether on the defensive or offensive, has always made foreign policy its chief aim, and has given far too little attention to the pressing questions at home. There are some nations which suffer from too little attention to foreign policy; Austria seems to have suffered from giving it too much. Finally the Austro-Hungarian Empire shares the fate of all empires on the borderland between two civilizations. 'Asia,' says a Viennese proverb, 'begins on the Ringstrasse,' and there seems to be an element of truth in the saying. The traveller who goes from the Tyrol to Bosnia or to northwestern Hungary passes into a different world. One is European, the other is Oriental, and all the efforts of the rulers to Europeanize their subjects and to mitigate this difference have only partially succeeded. And this difference has increased still further the dissension within the Dual Empire and prevented the formation of a united nation. "This is Austria, a state, a foreign policy, an army, a ruler, but never a nation. How did such a state come to be formed? To answer this question we must go back into the late Middle Ages, to the period when the old Holy Roman Empire of the Germans was struggling with the non-German races on its borders, Slavs and Magyars. To provide for defence against these races was formed the so-called East March-the kernel of modern Austria. Originally purely German, it extended to the south to take in the Slavs along the northern Adriatic. But the genesis of modern Austria begins with a certain Ferdinand, brother of Charles

V, whom Luther faced at Worms in 1521. By a fortunate marriage and by equally fortunate deaths he acquired Hungary and Bohemia. But he acquired something in addition to these territories, he acquired a Turkish war among his possessions in Hungary. And for the next two centuries Austria waged almost unceasing war against the Turks. At first the struggle went rather against them; in 1529 and again in 1683, the Turks nearly captured Vienna and settled the problem of Austria in a But after 1683 the war went steadTurkish sense.

She gradually extended ily in Austria's favor. down the Danube and into the Balkans, taking under her dominion large numbers of Slavs who welcomed her armies as deliverers from the hated oppression of the Turk. In 1914 they were singing in the streets of Vienna a song commemorating the exploits of the great Austrian general, Prince Eugene of Savoy, who had led the Austrian armies during one of the most successful periods of these

wars.

Formerly many a Slav has joined in this song because he realized that it was this Prince Eugene who had delivered his race from the Turk. But these voices have long been still. Because they have discovered that they have merely exchanged one set of bonds for another, the cramping rule of the Ottoman for the equally cramping rule of the German and the Magyar, they have ceased to celebrate these Austrian victories over All the opportunity that Austria has

the Turk.

enjoyed, all the tragedy of her failure to realize it, lies in this situation. And thus was formed a state which never was the expression of a nation, a mere machine, a thing in which the breadth of national life has never really stirred. It was given the great opportunity to reconcile Slav and Magyar and German, East and West, and, on the whole, it has failed. Opportunities countless it has had; some it has utilized-enough to tantalize yet not to satisfy; but the great majority it has

left unutilized.

It has, at best, but partially fulfiled its destiny and now it comes for its accounting before the judgment-bar of the nations." -W. S. Davis, Roots of the war, pp. 289-291.

It is not easy "to tell the story of the various lands which have at different times come under the dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by itself, and the story of them all in relaon to the common power. A continuous narrave is impossible.

Much

mischief has been

se by one small fashion of modern speech. It das within my memory become usual to personify Tavus and powers on the smallest occasions in a we wich was formerly done only in language mr less solemn, rhetorical or poetical. We Now at every moment of England, France, Ger

Asa. Italy, as if they were persons. And xt is only England, France, Germany, Na o kas of which we talk in this way, no Charm is done; the thing is a mere ques

For those are all national powers. aben we go on to talk in this way of kev.' direct harm is done; thought x ousted, and tacts are misrepresented. ... he words 'Austrian national honour;' we dek jove people who believed that 'Ausand habited by 'Austrians,' and see the Austrian' language. A It is to be presumed # Austria' means something more the archduchy; what is comis the whole dominions of People fancy that the the dominions have a common ineret. like that of the people or Italy.... There is no Austrian nation; therefore

W

to one

there can be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the English or French government carries out the will of the English or French nation. . . . Such phrase. as 'Austrian interests,' 'Austrian policy, and the like, do not mean the interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling family. which may often be the same as the interests and wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can never represent any common interest or common wish on the part of the whole.... We must ever remember that the dominions of the House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies, etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common feeling, no common interest. In one case only. that of the Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only parts of nations, having no tie another, but having the closest ties to other partof their several nations which lie close to them but which are under other governments. The only bond among them all is that a series of marriages wars, treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign. The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count of Tyrol. Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is all.... The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of Austria is one of the most remarkable phenomena in European history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps, with no natural connexion brought together by the accidents of warfare, marriage, or diplomacy. Now why is it that both these powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria has lasted so long' Two causes suggest themselves. One is the long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were elected Emperors 25 to make the Austrian House seem something great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar nation. It thus gets something of th. strength of a national power. ... The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with known boundaries which have changed singularly little for several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of Austria and the kingdom of Bohemu is now of long standing. Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called 'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is constantly forgotten. . . . A smaller point on which confusion also prevails is this. All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people, if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria.'