Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1902-05-31

| ulZSO Tue CuSlOIu VI S1LldStS Sooo
enough to be let alone. There the bill
left the voter as it found him, free to ex-
ercise his sovereign right of choice by
direct vote in making nominations for
village offices, without necessarily be-
coming partisan in order to do SO.
Township Officers.
The township officers We're three su-
| pervlsors, one of whom was chairman
and member of the county board; the
clerk, the treasurer and at least one as
SCISSOR, one justice of the peace and one
| constable. These, eight in all, as in the
| case OF village officers, as a matter of
! course, had been nominated by direct
| vote, and often as nonpartisan candi-
| dates. This plan in towns had not been
| fostered by any statute. The voter in
| the town was left by the bill on an
| equality with the voter in the village,
! and was not bound to partisanship in
order to share by direct vote in the
| choice of candidates for the officers of
| his town.
"1n the school district there were the
| director, the treasurer and the clerk,
three officers, directly nominated, usu-
ally in nonpartisan meeting of the
| for educational interests, were excepted
from the bill and from party strife. With
| reference to these exceptions the bill
| was all that could be desired, and re-
| ceived universal approval.
Il need not go into the various provi-
| sionS Of the statute with reference to
| vacancies in office, nominations relating
to which are not provided for under the
| Stevens bill. They relate in general to
| congressman, members of the state
Legislature and county officers. If there
| were a vacancy the nomination Of a
candidate would have had to be made
| by such methods as the parties might
choose. A return to the caucus and
| convention in any such case might have
| been expected.
"The primary election system of the
| Stevens bill was made to apply to the
nomination of candidates for general
officers of cities. The aldermen and the
| city members Of the county board are
| ward officers and have usually been
nominated by direct vote in the ward
| caucus, which has not necessarily been
| partisan. The Stevens bill did not leave
| the city voter as free as it found him,
| nor as free as it left the town or village
| voter with respect to the exercise of
| his sovereign right of choice in making
ward nominations by direct vote. The
bill placed all city officers under the ban
of partisanship. To be sure, party NOM
| nations have been more common in the
city than in the town or village, but as
there had been no arbitrary rule making
| them such, it would seem unprogressive
| irrevocably to have fastened partisan
ship upon the city voter.
Had Been Tried.
''In this state in the way Of legislative
bodies, we have, first, the state Leglsla-
ture, with full legislative power, and vari-
Gus local bodies with limited legislative
powers; the county board, the city coun-
ell, the village board, the town board and
the school district board. All the mem
| bers of all the legislative bodies in the
state except the major part of the state
| Legislature, have been made up right
! along Of members who were nominated
by a direct vote Legislative nominees
in the largest city in the state have been
| so nominated for a number Of years.
| There are hundreds of towns, villages
and city wards i'll Wisconsin where the
voters knew how to nominate their Off
GERS by direct vote long before the agi-
tation for a primary election bill arose,
and where, when they voted for one
| candidate who was nominated by con-
| vention, they voted for four or FIVE 9TH
erS who had been nominated by direct
vote So that, when l said in the Sen
ate, in the course of my remarks on the
Stevens bill, that 4 did not wish to be
| understood taking q nnSitiOn ppoip CT
the principle of primary elections
| against nominations by direct vOte-that
1 believed in that proposition, in so far
as it was practicable and in SO far as
| machinery could be devised to put it in
successful operation l simply declared
my position to be that of the average
citizen of this state who had cast his
| eyes about him and seen for himself the
way in which candidates for offices, in
the majority of cases, had been brought
| out.
ut had not been a mater Of chance
that those officers, who were excepted
from the Stevens bill, had been nomi-
mated by direct vote nor had it merely
| happened that the offices included with
in the terms of the bill had usually been
filled by candidates nominated in con-
ventions. Our citizens, acting as individ-
| uals, had often nominated their local Off
GERS without regard to parties, and, act
| ing i'll and through parties by means of
| caucuses and conventions, had looked
after the larger concerns Of politics; in
either case they were the same citizens,
and their custom in either case had been
gradually developed out of the conditions
under which their communities existed
or their parties had been organized If,
on the one hand, there had been demand
ed q better way Of managing town or
village nominations, or, on the other
of adapting satisfactorily the town and
| village practice to the party operations
in a larger political field with reference
to a larger numbsf of officers, experience
would doubtless have suggested the way,
| and it would long since have been adapt
ed by parties to their nominating ma
| chinery.
'Ihe fact that such a way had not
| been found and that the bill which was
| introduced in the last Legislature was so
| cumbersome, so intricate, so arbitrary in
| its main provisions, so difficult to under
| stand. and so expensive in operation,
was to my mind proof conclusive that in
the past the people had indeed been
guided by their experience and that their
| noIiticoI methods had been wiser, better