The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-01
VIEWS OF w. D. FOULKE
HE SUGGESTS LAW PROVIDING
FOR A TRAVELLING AUDITOR.
A Primary Election Law. He Indi-
Gates, Is n Good Thing I'm
Some Respects.

William Dudley Foulke, of Richmond.
who was here last night attending the
Columbia banquet, is hopeful that the
Legislature will this year enact the law
which was defeated two years ago, pro-
viding for a special or travelling auditor
to be Connected with the state auditor
office whose duties will be to examine
the books Of county and township officers
at any time he may see fit to do so. This
SORT of law, Mr.. Foulke believes, would
save thousands of dollars each year in the
way of irregular or reckless expenditures.
A law of this kind would provide for a
uniform system of bookkeeping, which
would simplify the duties of the special
auditors deputy. Mr.. Foulke thinks this
deputy should have the power to go
through the books of any county or town.
ship officer at any time.
Mr. Foulke has views concerning a pri-
mary election law. Asked as to his opin-
ion along this line he said: II think a
primary election law a good thing. If 1t
does not attempt to do too much. The
mere fact, however, of holding a primary
election by popular vote is not going to
lead politics into paradise. We have pop
ular nominating elections In Wayne coun-
ty. / think they are better than conven-
tions, but there is still a good deal in
them which very unsatisfactory. The main
thing, as it seems to me, to be secured
by primary election laws is to prevent men
buying votes and this also ought to be Sc
cured in regular elections, by much strong
err provisions than the law contains at
the present time OF course the Australian
IN dc hrff
there ought to be heavy penalties both for
giving and taking money for votes at all
elections-primary as well as others. Inc
next thing of greatest Importance is to see
to it that none vote except those who are
entitled to and that Is particularly dihi-
cult in a primary election law, because IN
such a law there must be some provision
for determining who is Republican and
who is a Democrat. 1t is not always easy
to say what mans polltics Is, especiaiiy
to scratching a ticket i thing 1t Is very
bad thing TO let the voter decide this for
himself or even to swear in his vote by at
fidavit if his affidavit is to be taken as con-
elusive A mans affidavit does not count
for much more than his word III he Will
lie he will not hesitate to swear falsely.
1.-The result of letting men swear In their
votes conclusively would be much like that
Minnesota law for primary elections, which
has become a laughing stock among those
who understand 1t. In some places 1t
worked in this way: Inc democrats, VINO
were in the minority, went in large num-
bers to the Republican primaries and voted
Naturally they voted for the worst Repub-
lican candidate possible. so as to beat him
the more easily when the regular election
should come around. AS politicians get to
learn this game, that will be the plan every
time, and the result will be the nomination
OF the worst candidates possible by the
party which is in the majority.
Il would say that the election inspectors
ought to settle the questions whenever
there are affidavits or statements on both
sides. There are evils connected with that
method also, but they are less than the
other. The authorized representatives of
each party ought TO have the final power
of deciding who are members of that party
in case of contest. and 1 should suppose
that the inspectors at each poll would be
those representatives"