New-York tribune., 1896-11-23
PRIMARY ELECTIONS UNDER TIE LAW.

The energies of political reform have been
addressed in recent years particularly 10
amending the election laws. The chief effort
was to secure the adoption OF secret Dallot
II has been attended with remarkable success.
Almost every State and Territory now has the
Australian system or some reform method or
voting closely approaching it in practical opera
ton. Except in the South, where wholesale
intimidation Is still practsed, the general elec-
tions in this country are toleraby fair and hon.
est. Even in this rity, where formerly 20 per
cent of Tammany's vote conceded TO be
fraudulent, repeating. ballot-box stutfing and
other forms of Election Day chcanery have
passed into malodorous history.
But while the general elections have been
surrounded by statutory safeguards sufficient
10 insure an honest secret vote the primaries
still remain practically without the pale Of the
law There are several legal requirements in
reference to them and there are certain penalties
under the Penal Code for violating these but,
as every practical politician knows, in the hold
ing of primaries party organizations are law
INTO themselves. The constitution and bylaws
of the local organizations are considered, and
properly too, the law Of the State when fac
tional contests become the subject OF judicial
review. 1t is this fact that makes attempts
10 right primary wrongs by appeal to the courts
so barren Of results: not because OF any lack
Of svmpathy on the part Of the judges. but to
recognition by them that the laws OF the State
do not cover the workings of the primary cleo
tion.
Now. why should they not? Why should this
vitality important department of political activ-
ity be left entirely under the control OF mon?
For In many instances it is little more than
that In appeals for political reform the pri-
mary Is referred to as the fOuntan-head or
power, the handspring Of corruption In political
life. Attendance upon 1t by good citizens Is
urged yehemently; but the appeal. as rule. is
unheeded Why? Because the average citizen
dslikes the idea of taking part In the disorderly
scrambles incidental to this practical political
work and of having his vote. II he Is permitted
10 cast one nuliified by the cunning devices or
the machine. He does not like to waste his
time or his energy In futile striving after
that which would be denied him even II he
earned II fairly. TO illustrate these statements:
At caucus held at Waverly last summer six
ty.fve votes were cast against the machine
and nineteen for Its candidates. and yet the
machine delegates were seated In the county
convention. Protests. Of course, were laughed
at or unheeded, and appeals TO the courts were
considered out Of the question. Independent
Republicans In this city spent hundreds OF dol
lars last year trying to punish dishonest pri-
mary election inspectors. but the cases were
promptly ruled out of court by Recorder Con
as not coming within the scope OF the statute
The Recorders Interpretation Of law may or
may not have been correct, but his action fairly
illustrates the attitude Of the bench toward
these matters under the present law, or rather
lack Of law.
Such . state Of affairs should not continue
yt demands remedial action on the part OF the
IAGjslhxura We understand that several bills