not unknown. The loyal party voter deposited the ballots provided
for him; the boss could have these arranged to suit his needs. It was
commonly supposed that in 1888, through an agreement between the
Democratic and Republican bosses of New York, Hill and Platt, many
Republicans were made to vote for Hill as Governor, while Democrats
voted for Harrison as President.

A secret ballot was so reasonable a reform that once it had been
suggested it spread rapidly over the United States. In 1888
Massachusetts adopted a system based upon the Australian Ballot Law,
while New York advertised its value in the same year when Governor Hill
vetoed a bill to establish it. Before the next presidential election
came in 1892, open bribery or intimidation of voters was rapidly
becoming a thing of the past, for thirty-three States had adopted the
Australian ballot, provided by public authority and voted in secrecy.
"Quay and Platt and Clarkson may find in this fact a fresh explanation
of President Harrison's willingness to divest himself of their
services," wrote Godkin in a caustic paragraph in 1892.

The Australian ballot enabled the honest citizen to vote in secrecy and
safety, but it failed to touch the fact that the nominations were still
outside the law. "To find the honest men," Bryce wrote, "and having
found them, to put them in office and keep them there, is the great
problem of American politics." So long as a boss could direct the
nomination he could tolerate an honest election. The movement to
legalize the party primaries was just beginning when the ballot reform
was accomplished. The most extreme of the primary reformers saw the need
for a preliminary election conducted within each party, but under all
the safeguards of law, to the end that the voters might themselves
determine their candidates. Direct primaries were discussed by the
younger men, who were often ambitious, but helpless because of the rigor
with which the bosses selected their own candidates. In 1897 a young
ex-Congressman, Robert M. LaFollette, worked out a complete system of
local and national primaries, and found wide and sympathetic hearing for
it. The movement had to face the bitter opposition of the machine
politicians because it struck directly at their power, but it progressed
slowly. In 1901 it won in Minnesota; a little later it won in Wisconsin;
and in the next ten years it became a central feature in reform
platforms.

The reforms of the primary