The St. Louis Republic., 1900-11-28
Mr.. BLAIR ANALYZES THE
NESBlT ELECTION LAW,

In the letter which appears below Mr. Jane.
l., Elai: replies TO the criticism iereled by th:
G obe- Democrat against himself and other gen
t!emsn who took an active part in organizing the
aEt!-Legeni,cin movement In tho recent election
air. Flair tcnperatsiy discusses the Ncsiit elec-
ton law and the rea:j's N.!o!i suggested the
method Of nomination pursued by him and his
cc!l"arLes The letter addressed To- the
Gube-DemOcrat. but was not published by that
paper.
Editor of the Globe Democrat.
ST. Louis. Nov. 2G.-four editorial COM
merts on my interview of Sunday msiep-
resent me somewhat. especially where you
say that apologize for the Nesbit Law.
I do not apologize for II. I had nothing
to do with its passage and was opposed 'D
any change In the old law. except as TO the
supervisory power of the Circuit Court. In
my reference TO It l simply wished to point
out TWO things First. tina: your hJ's:ericdi
references to it tend 10 make the public
believe that 1t is far worse than it really
is. and that the defeat OF the Republican
ticket was due 10 the existence of that law
alone. and you very well know that this
was not the case: and second. that the
real trouble In the last election was not in
the law Itself, but III the fact that the rep
rescntatives of the Republican party. AZ
pointed under that law may nave been n
some Instances unfaithfu TO their trusG
that they betrayed their party.
the Judges of The Circui. Cour: their super
risory powers in the matter cf confirmation
and re lection of judges and clerks of etsc-
ton. the Nnsbit law was a distinct improve
mcnt over the old law. II was duty which
ought never % have been imposed upon
Judicial officers. because it necessarily
tended to make those officers part of the
political machinery OF the city Thus the
very officials who should be as far pos
:'iblc removed from party strife and poit-
tcal combinations, were compelled To pass
upon the qualifications of election officials
in the very midst of heated campaigns.
when political influence upon candidates for
judicial Office may he supposed to be most
powerful. Moreover. it is frequently the
case that these Judges are candidates for
reelection. In such event they might be
called upon to pass upon the selection OF
the very men whose duty it would be 10
count the ballots for and against them or
their associates upon the bench.
In your editorial of this morning discuss
ing the question you say, "One of the mem
bers of the former Election Board was n
city official chosen by Republican votes
This is not the fact. Under the old law two
of the Commissioners were appointed by the
Governor, and the third by the Mayor of the
city.
Again you say that under the former law
the Republicans had an equal share in the
control of elections" How could this be So,
under your theory of party domination.
when Democratic Governor had the right
TO appoint twc of the three Commissioners?
You say also, Under the Nesbt law the Re
pubcans have no share in elections except
that allowed them by Democrats" Neither
is this the fact. Under the NeSbit law, al
though all three Commissioners are ap-
pointed by the Governor, one must be of the
opposite party In politics from that of the
Governor.
You say also. "Under the former law the
Republican party selected its election judges
and clerks. Now they are all selected by
Democrats The fact is that under both
laws the provision is substantially the same
as to judges and clerks; four judges and