The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1900-09-26
DIR STANDARD-BEARERS.
THE PRIMARY SYSTEM.

respondent OF the News ana oOu-
rier, has begun a war against
the State primary system for
State Offices. Colonel Kohn is
not far wrong when he says the
system is humbug. The can.
didates are limited in then
speeches, and can do little more
than exhibit themselves; they
certainly cannot discuss an issue
in the limited time given them.
We favor the primary system,
but we believe there should be
some changes in the rules, so
that candidates for State offices
can arrange their own meetings
and take the chances for audi
ences. There should also be
changes made in the rules re
garding the county primaries,
because the managers are be-
coming more lax every election
wear. There has not been a
strict compliance with the party
rules, in a number of years, and
unless something is done to
check this laxity, the rules might
as we'll be suspended altogether.
We do not believe there is any
dishonesty, nor do we believe by
the non compliance strictly with
the party rules that single vote
is lost or gained to candidates,
but the fact Of the rules not be-
ing carried out leaves room for
complaints, which create dissat-
isfaction and BODIES no good to
the party's interest.
The rules of the party require
every voter to be sworn, and the
oath is prescribed, yet we know
that it is a common practice for
managers to neglect this require
ment, and permit voters to cast
their ballots without being
sworn. We have also known
where managers neglected to
certify to the returns, and where
they permitted men to vote at
one box when their names were
enrolled at another box, all OF
these things are irregular,
but with no dishonest motive.
The man who voted without the
formality Of taking the oath,
would not have voted differently Y
had the oath been administered
to him. The returns of mana
gers would not have been differ
ent had they certified the returns,
nor would those men who were
permitted to vote away from
their home clubs voted otherwise
than they did, had they voted
where their names were enrolled.
AS we before said, we do not be,
lieve there is dishonesty, but
that the elections are conducted
in an irregular and slip-shod
manner, and in order to prevent
confusion the State convention
at it's next meeting should dc
something to remedy this grow
ing lax tendency.
We have been intimately con
nected with the primary system
ever since it started, and we
have no knowledge where there
has been a candidate cheated out
of a single vote since 1890; we
have a recollection of charges OF
fraud before 1890, when it was
alleged that the names of dead
men appeared on the poll list,
but since 1890 we have heard
nothing of the kind; the only
complaints being that men were
permitted to vote without com
plying strictly with the rules.
Then again, the party's constitu-
ton and rules conflict, the con-
stitution requires man to vote
where his name is enrolled. and
the rules permits man to vote
if his name is on a club list. The
managers are provided with the
rules, and we are told that at
some boxes this rule permitting
a man to vote if his name was on
"a club list was discussed, and
construed to mean that any en-
rolled Democrat had a right to
vote at any precinct, provided he
only voted once. We are salts
fed there is a mistake in the
printing of the rules, because we
know that it was the intention of