Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1899-09-23
THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF NOMI.
NATIONS.

NATIONS.
From the Annapolis record.
None can deny that the only
proper and right method of making
party nominations is by some system
which insures that those nominations
are the ones which the free and
uncoerced wish of the members oil
the party demand A system which
approximates this is good. One
which does not is bad, un- Democratic
and un-American. A system IN
which nominations are made by the
so called ''un-pledged" delegate
system 10 the County Conventions,
is almost always of this latter kind
The reason of it is plain. This
delegation goes as the instrument
of the boss and nothing else. In
stead of being singly bound to
reflect the best ideas OF the
people they represent, they 60 only
10 further the interest of the boss.
Instead of supporting those candi-
dates who have the support of the
people, they go against that wish
and make combinations at the
behest OF those that control them,
and consequently nominations are
made that are not only not desired
by the people, but such that hardly a
party man, not even the delegates
who voted for them can be found to
say that the nominations were advis-
able. These nominations are called
Democratic" and all the henchmen
boldly deny the Democracy of any.
one who does not take off his coat
and shout for ticket nominated in
this way. A ticket, with the making
OF which the people or party had
practically nothing to do, is hailed
as the test of Democracy, and those
read out of the party who protest
against such un-Democratic methods.
1t is a strange thing and indeed
a very pitiful thing that the
Democrats continue to deprive
themselves of the right OF self
government by handing over the
control of the party to those who so
badly represent them and who so
arbitrarily go against their wishes.
Can there be any doubt of this?
Let the Democrats OF Anne Arundel
think over the matter. Is there any
attempt on the part of the leader in
this city to really ascertain the
wishes of the people upon their
choice Of candidates. Does any one
remember having been approached
from that source and asked their
free preference for any position. II
so, the occasions are very rare and
in the far large number of instances
the efforts of those in power are
directed towards compelling the
nomination of some one already
determined upon for their own
interests. There is no objection to
leaders or bosses, or call them by
any name you please, when thier
function is what has been describ-
ed before, merely TO find out and
facilitate the expression of the
popular will and to make sure that
party machinery follows that popu-
lar expression. How foreign then
to their real places is the system of
determining months beforehand
upon nominations and then forcing
them through by deceit and all
kinds of corrupt and doubtful meth
DDS.
One of the strongest proofs that
nominations are made in this manner
Is the opposition on the part of the
leaders TO the Crawford system. BY
this system. as is well-known, the
members of the party vote directly
upon the names of the candidates
for Office. II would certainly seem
that true Democratic leaders would
welcome a method which decided
so plainly the wishes of the people
whom they claim they wish to repre-
sent, but they clearly show their
hand in this matter and bitterly
oppose any approach to this method
although none can bring a reason
able argument against it.
s'ZAe System" demanded now in
the Anne Arundel democracy TO
give it its true life. is legalized
primaries, the Crawford System of
nominations and the Australian
ballot with it,
Had this system prevailed in the
July primaries the democratic party
of Anne Arundel would not now be
in the deporable condition it is.