Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1901-03-13

costs nothing. That practically all
the expenses of holding caucuses and
conventions are paid by public splr-
tied citizens, who are willing TO
voluntarily contribute the amount
required in the interest of good
government. This statement of the
cost has been disputed and it is
claimed by gentlemen who have In
vestigated, basing their figures upon
the cost of holding a general election,
that the holding of primary election
viii not cost to exceed thirty-one
thousand dollars per election. | do
not pretend to know what the fact is,
! but admitting for the sake OF the
argument, that the first sum named
| is approximately correcr, assert as a
fundamental proposition that the
/ people of great and growing state.
containing ut present orer two mill
ions of people. who are not willing to
pay whatever cum may be necessary
to insure at the hands OF the voters
the right to select candidates for
Office, whether that cost be one or
FIVE hundred thousand dollars, are
not entitled to be FREE, and the asser-
ton is made with confidence that if
we, as people, ever became willing
TO forego our right ind duties in
that particular; to turn over to any
class of men a duty as absolutely
essential to the maintenance of popu.
lar government. simply because it's
discharge by the voter will cost
money, and necessitate taxation,
when that point is reached, we shall
be at the end of the Republic. We
know that the attendance upon eau
cuses and conventions costs valuable
time and money, how much of the
latter cannot be accurately known. 1t
is safe to Fay, however, that alto
gether it means not less than one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars,
every two years and probably more
Can it be supposed for one moment
that the men who pay out this vast
sum do so from purely patriotic and
unselfish motives. To SO assume
would be to run counter to the teach
ings of experience and say that in
politics, Iuen act from motives diff
ferent from those which actuate them
in the ordinary affairs Of life.
Unequal Representation.
1t is asserted that another evil to be
feared as a result of the passage Of
this measure is, that different sections
of the state. or district as the case
may be, will not be given due con-
sideration and representation in the
selection of candidates and that diff
ferent nationalities will not be equit-
ably awal Jed places IN the make up
of the ticket. CONFESS that have
little patience with an argument of
that character whether applied to this
bill or otherwise If 1t be true that
political exigencies have constrained
politicians to base nominations for
Office upon locality, or worse yet,
upon nationality, it would seem that
the least said about 1t the better. The
only and supreme test that should be
applied, Ia the test of fitness and
competency for the discharge of the
duties of the Office to be filed. When
this is applied and all stand equal,
then it may be admitted that both To-
cality and possibly national lily might
be taken into consideration.
The Question: Of Platform.
But the browning iniquity of all is
yet to come The bill it is said takes
from the people the right to make
their own platform. Well. the people
then do make the platform under the
present system. Yes, that is | sup
pose they make them unless plank
is inserted which meets the con-
domination of the machine politician,
and when that occurs. why then the
obnoxious plank is the creation of
some individual who forces it into
the platform, in spite of the one
thousand representatives of the
people in the same convention who
are thus outwitted. But pardon the
depression. 1t is true the bill pro
vides that the platform shall be pro-
mulgated by the nominees for state
offices, the state senate and the as
sembly. Is this a defect or weakness
in the bill that should be changed or
cause its defeat? Does this method OF
making platform take the matter
further away from the people? ! say
no. Two years ago 1T the state con-
vention in Milwaukee, it was proposed
to nominate the state ticket before
the platform was adopted. The point
was then made and sustained, that
such procedure would Der contrary 70
custom; that the men who were to be
nominated had right to first know
what the principles to be set forth
were to be, for the candidates own
benefit, and upon the further ground
that after the platform was adopted,
nomination and acceptance by
candidate was an acceptance of the
principles contained in the platform,
and an implied pledge to assist in
carrying them out. Both reasons were
undoubtedly mertorious and entitled
to great respect. But are those rea-
sons, or any other valid reasons set
at naught by the plan of the proposed
bill? If so I cannot see it. 1t is pre-
sumed that the men nominated under
the new system will be known by rep
utation at least. II unknown when
| first announced, by the time the pri-
mary election is held, the record OF
each aspirant will have been pub
4