The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-02-19
CITIZENS ARE HEARD
OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THE TWO
PRIMARY ELECTION BILLS.
/--
Prominent Indianapolis Men Appear
Before the Senate Elections
Committee.
THE SENTIMENT is DIVIDED
WITH THOSE FAvORING THE MN
TURN BILL IN THE LEAD.
Senator Joss's Measure Would Not
Prevent BOssism and Improper
Use of Money.

The Senate committee on elections held
ar open meeting in the parlors of the
lieutenant governor last night, at which
opportunity was given those interested In
the passage of a primary election bill TO
| express their opinions in regard to the two
measures now in the hands of the commit
tee, viz: the Minturn bill, which was passed
] by the House after being amended so
that it's provisions applied only to Indian
apolis and Marion county, and the Joss
| bill. which was introduced in the Senate
| last week.
| The meeting was attended by nearly one
| hundred representative citizens. among
4 whom were: r. o. Hawkins, A. L. Mason,
w. A Ketcham j. Z. Mccullough, Ed
ward Daniels. Judge Mcbride, t. E. Grit
| fifth, w. E. Fortune, Merrill Moores, Rep
resentative Minturn, Lieutenant Governor
| Gilbert. A A. Young, DR.. Franklin w.
| Hays, John Sherwood, r. M. Seeds,
| Charles Martindale and many others.
| The discussion which began shortly after
8 o'clock lasted until nearly midnight.
some of the speakers favoring the Joss
bill and others expressing preference for
! the Minturn bill, the latter being some
| what in the majority.
THE JOSS BILL.
The gist of the argument directed against
the Joss bill was that ii clearly failed to
| meet the present needs in two very essen
| tial particulars-the prevention of bossism
and the abolition of the improper of
money in elections Some of the opponents
OF the measure characterized the bill be-
| ing the very incarnation of bOssism itself
and said that it's passage would mean a
step backward instead of forward. 1t was
also openly charged by some of the speak
ers that the Joss bill had been introduced
with the sole intention of killing the Min
turn bill and dying itself in the act
The chief objections urged against the
Mlnturn bill were that it does not apply
| uniformly to the various counties of the
| State and that Ii is too cumbersome.
Senator Matson, chairman of the cleo
| tons committee, announced that the meet
| Jig had been called with the express pur-
| pose of ascertaining which bill the people
| wanted the Legislature to pass: He urged
| The speakers to talk as conciSely as posi-
| bic and to say which bill they would vote
| ior IL they were on the committee. The
| first to express himself was Fl. S. New.
| lie said there had been great deal OF
general discussion throughout the State
about primary election legislation and
without attempting TO particularize he sug-
gested that the conditions in the State at
large and in Indianapolis especially were
not what they should be- 1t was on this
superstition, he said. that the committee
| that drafted the Minturn bill had acted in
formulating the measure which was in
| trOduced in the House. He spoke OF the
provisions of the bill and sail 1t had not
been drafted in the interests OF any pros
pective candidate nor with the intention of
casting reflection upon any one. 1t was
the consensus or opinion Of those WAC
drafted the measure. he said, that it was
the best bill that could be prepared to meet
present needs
| CHARLES MARTINDALE SPEAKS.
Charles Martindale, the next speaker,
stated that If he were a member of the
General Assembly he would not vote Tor
any law that was not uniform throughout
the State. Such bills he thought repug-
nant to the spirit, If not to the letter, of the
Constitution. The difficulty in making
primary election law, he said, was inherent
in the natures of the members of the Gen.
eral Assembly. and not in the subject mat
ter of the bill. He urged that the Min
turn bill did not fulfill the pledge made
by the two chief political parties in their
platforms during the last campaign He
expressed himself, however, as being too
much of a partisan to be in favor of any
primary election bill, as he believed ii de-
stroyed party organization. He thought
the Minturn bill was also objectionable in
that it would permit a minority party to
nominate weak man in the majority party
who could be easily defeated at the cleo
ton. Direct nominations, he concluded,
would disrupt the organization of any
party.
A L. Mason said the demand was uni
versal for a primary election law of some
kind. The people at large, he said, were
not permitted, under the present system to
take any part in the nominations of their
own officers The slate was absolutely un-
der the control of party organization and
the cry had gone forth for a new system
which would allow the voter a larger par
ticipation in the administration of munich
pal. county, State, and national affairs
IMPROPER USE OF MONEY
| w. A Ketcham said the time had come
for the enactment of some kind of pri-
mary election law which would stop the
improper use of money in elections The
time was. he said, when there was not
so much money used In elections, but it
had been growing until at the present
the amount demanded from candidate
was almost prohibitive He did not think
the evil was in Marion county alone, but
was to be found in every county of the
State in which there is a city of any size
Between the two bills he would be inclined
&c favor the Joss bill.
j. T.. Mccullough made a strong plea
In favor or the Minturn bill, saying that
IL was an imperative necessity in Indian
| apolis and Marion county. He contended
that the primary election law was not
| needed in counties having a rural popu-
lation such counties virtually had a.
primary election under the present sys-
tenn The people of these counties had a
1
didates, but in cities like Indianapolis the
nominations were absolutely dominated by
| the bosses. He urged numerous objec-
tions to the Joss bin. among them being
that OF the expense which the bill pro-
vides shall be borne by the political par
ties. He doubted very much if they could
be made to meet the responsibility.
Mr.. Daniels was in favor of the Joss
bill, because IL gave the voter a voice in
selecting his party machinery. The party
was necessary under republican form
of government and the bill more truly
represented this form of government he
said. than the Minturn bill, which was
more Democratic in its provisions.
r. o. Hawkins insisted that the Legis-
| lature would not carry out the wish OF
the people IL Ii enacted a primary cleo
ton law for Marion county alone
| William Fortune made a strong argu-
ment in favor of the Minturn BILL say
ing that no measure had ever had backing
more representative of the people Mer-
rill Moores made perhaps the strongest
argument against the Joss bill. by pointing
| out it's defects with relation 10 the pre-
vention of bossism and the improper use
of money. He declared that the bill would
| remedy neither evil. The committee took
action with regard to either BILL and
adjourned without naming time for the
| next meeting.
The Minturn Bill Favored.