in definite terms for punishment of bribery as a part of the penalty
in an election contest. In most cases proof of bribery does not throw
out the vote of briber or bribed, nor does an action to throw
out purchased votes in contest cases bring with it automatically
punishment of the purchased voter. This omission from the contest
provisions presupposes that these bribery cases would be separate
actions. Thirty-two states in clear terms disfranchise (or give the
Legislature power to disfranchise) bribers and bribed, but few make
provision for the method of actually enforcing the law, and upon
inquiry the Secretary of State of many of these states reported
that, so far as he knew, no man had ever been disfranchised for
this offense. This was true of states which have been notorious for
political corruption.

From Ohio alone has evidence been found of the actual enforcement
of the disfranchisement provision. In this state nearly 1,800 bribed
voters of Adams County were disfranchised in 1910 for scandalous
and well-remembered corruption but in 1915 they were restored to
citizenship. These cases reveal a disgraceful provision in the Ohio
law, by which the briber is given immunity if he will turn State's
evidence on the bribed; the vote-buyer may purchase votes by the
thousands with perfect safety provided that when suspected he will
deliver up a few of the bought by way of example.

With a vague, uncertain law to define their punishment in most states,
and no law at all in twenty-four states, as a preliminary security,
corrupt opponents of a woman suffrage amendment find many additional
aids to their nefarious acts. A briber must make sure that the bribed
carries out his part of the contract. Whenever it is easy to check
up the results of the bribe, corruption may reign supreme with little