Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1901-03-07

1
| in his vote shall be detrimental to
that declaration, and Notwithstanding
all Of those things, he shall be de-
cIared elected. That is the provision
of your law upon the subject that has
stood there for years. 1t may be an
answer to your Australian ballot sys@
TEN. 1t may be that that ought to be
wiped out because a man who has less
than a majority can be elected, but if
it is not an argument against that, it
is not an argument against the pri-
mary election bill. Do you know how
many men who have been elected gov
ernOr of this state have been so
elected by minority? Do you know
that Jerry Rusk was twice elected by
minority that fell short I think some
5000 of a majority? Hoard was so
elected. Mr.. Smith was so elected.
Rusk was elected twice, Hoard and
Peck were elected, all Of them by
from 10000 to 100 short of a
majority, and yet the gentleman who
last spoke was particularly Mortified.
I thought he would move out of this
state if this bill passed, just on that
account, that man under this bill
could be elected by a minority vote.
He can be elected by a minority vote
now, if he can get more votes than
any other fellow can for the same
Office, and it is utterly impossible to
provide to the contrary. Where there
are three or four men running, it is
very seldom that one will have
enough votes to embrace a clear
majority over all. All the presidents
Of the United States since Grant,
saving alone Mckinley, were elected
by the minority vote. The two
Adamses, Polk, Taylor, Buchanan,
and Lincoln in 1860, were likewise
elected by minority vote It is in
our system, it is the fundamental
principle of it, and there is no reason,
there is no good reason, why any
sound objection to the passage Of this
bill can be alleged upon that ground.
It has been urged here as another
reason why this bill should not pass,
that the farmer would not be pro.
tected-that the poor farmer boy
would have an opportunity to exploit
his oratory and discuss political
questions. That objection comes
from two lawyers. We all know that
the lawyers are the very best and
most devoted friend to the farm that
he has. I was very much struck by
the proposition, coming from these
two gentlemen, and it occurred to me.
although | doubted it very much. that
perhaps, that perhaps they had shown
their devotion to this farming in
terest by some act of their past life:
that some one or other of them had
stood up in some state or other con
vention and asked for the nomination
of some farmer for a high office. |
looked in vain for the last ten years
in this state, and those two men who
urge that objection were both of them
prominent in politics every day Of
that ten years, and l find that not y
single republican who was a farmer
was placed on either state or con-
gressional ticket during that time
Yes, I went back twenty-five years, a
quarter Of q century, and | found that
during that time not republican had
been placed upon ticket and elected
on a republican ticket who was a
farmer, and it struck me that these
men who were advocating the inter
ests of the farmer were talking
through their hats; that under the
caucus and convention system which
they uphold and which they say ought
to continue to exist, the farmer that
they are talking about has had NO
rights at all. I went further into the
subject and I found this: L found
that in the year 1860 there were Sc
men who were farmers, members of
the assembly and ten members of the
senate, and | find that in ten years
from that time. or 1870, there were rs
men who were farmers in the as
sembly and eight in the senate; and
coming down to 1901, by a steady de
crease, there were but q farmers in
the assembly and only four in the
senate; and yet these men, both of
them, have been standing up and pro-
tecting the farmer during all these
years. Under that showing, if I were
q farmer, | would say, God deliver
me from such help" l would say to
him, if I were a farmer. For Gods
sake, let me take care of my own in
terests." In 1860 the caucus and con-
ventiOn system was not strong It
grew powerful in this state, and while
| the representative capacity of the
| two, those who live on farms and
| those who live in the cities, have
! been somewhat diminished, today
there is So per cent. of the population
of this state living upon farms. and at
the same time there is but AZ, or
! slightly less than At per cent, who
| live in cities and villages. And here
| is the representation 81 and 4, or 81.
out Of 1873 members of the senate and
assembly are farmers. That is no
| argument why this bill should not
| pass. l think it will commend itself
! to you somewhat as a reason why the
| bill ought to be passed. 1t will GER
! tainly suggest to you that when these
| men were talking in the interests Of
| the farmer, and that this bill would
! emasculate these interests, that they
were talking for effect and not on the
fact.
Men of the People Elected in Spite of
Caucus and Convention Methods.
NOW, l do not stand here to say
that there is not something good in
the caucus and convention system;
that is, that something good has come
out of it during the time that it has