Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1902-10-08

tive safeguards. that govern our cleo
tons.
The Question of Cost.
How indefensible the argument
against a primary election law that it
would be an expense to the state Elec-
tons are an expense to the state. What
50 expensive to the state as the NOM
nation of bad men, or the nomination of
men by bad metheds-which place them
under obligations. under control OF other
interests than those Of their constituents,
subject to the influence OF other claims
than those CT public duty me rail-
roads of this state could Wen anofd 10
pay large sums to defeat the nomination
of candidates opposed TO them, and Tor
the nomination Of candidates favorfng
them, il thereby they save million o.
dollars in taxes annually.
The assertion that a party IN power,
an organization of any kind, or any
kind Of a candidate would be able 10
entrench themselves for all time under
primary elections, is quite unworthy or
credence. 1t is an argument tit to keep
company with the assertion that any one
could maintain a political machine uli,
der a primary election law. II II woulo
be so effective for that purpose, why
are not the Quays and Platts and Crok-
ers for it,: why is every machine poll
tician and corporation lobbyist III WIS
consin and elsewhere, so generally
against it, the people so generally for It!
No Contest for Particular Bill.
It is not true that the friends Of pri-
mary election in Wisconsin are contenu-
ing for any particular bill, Ihey are
contending for the principle or direct
nominations of candidates by the people,
under authority of the state.
stood asking the assistance of every man
| in framing the best law that can be
| given the state The friends of the prin-
! ciple have welcomed discussion. Ihey IN
vite the cooperation or all u IraInihs
an act that shall meet honest objections
and shall improve upon proposed proyis-
! ions for carrying out the principle OF
! primary elections.
/ All that can be asked of legislation in
a new field is that it shall be sincerely
! for the principle; that it shall be framed
| by the best ability that can be obtained;
| that it shall receive the. most careful
consideration of the Legislature.
Hon. E. Ray Stevens, who undertook
| the work of framing q bill in conformity
! with the Republican platform pledge, IN
/ the last Legislature, brought to 1t a thor
| ough sympathy with the principle, high
| legal knowledge, a judicial temperament
| and earnest willingness TO meet all hon
! est objection, a conscientious desire TO
| keep faith with the people. In its prep
! aration more members were probably con-
| suited than in the framing of any other
| bill ever brought before the Wisconsin
| Legislature. After it was prepared pub
| lie hearings were given. Discussion by
| members was invited. and an reasonable
! time spent in its consideration before
| the Legislature.
| Opposition Refused All Concessions.
| In absolute contradiction of the public
record the opponents Of primary cleo
! tons assert that the friends of the Ste
| yens bill would not consent to amend 1t,
| but insisted upon its being passed as
! drawn, to the dotting Of the is and cross
| ing of the t's;" and that no compromise
! was offered, no amendment considered
! by the friends Of primary elections IN
| the last Legislature. The reverse of this
IS the exact truth; Every suggestion Of,
| fered was carefully considered. The bill
| before the Legislature was repeatedly
! changed TO meet the suggestion of men
! in both the Senate and Assembly. 1t
was the enemies of the primary election
| principle who rejected, one after another,
| the compromises offered by the friends
| of the principle. They would have moth
| ing but the finally vetoed Hagemeister
| substitute, which was plainly drawn to
| bring the operation Of the law into dis
repute, and was as plainly unconstitu-
| tional.
The public record is open to all the
| people of the state, and they should
| read it.
after the Stevens bill had been defeat
| ed in the Senate Senator Hatton, friend
of the principle offered a compromise APP
| plying the principle TO the nomination Of
| county officers and members of the Legs
lature only. This was beaten by vote
of 10 to IA. Senator Miller, friend of
| the principle, introduced as a compromise
| a provision that the Stevens bill should
not go into effect until it had been in
| dorsed by a majority of the voters of
. II .A.z
| 1902. This was defeated by vote of
10 to IA. Another compromise was pro-
posed by Senator McGillivray, a friend
OF the principle, and was beaten by n
vote of 20 to 10. Further effort at com
promise was made IL the Assembly by Of
fering a bill, under which city, county
| officers and members Of Senate of As
sembly were to be chosen by direct vote.
This also provided that the bill was not
to go into effect until sanctioned by q
majority of the people at the spring cleo
ton in 1902. Again the friends of pri-
mary election had expressed their faith in
| the people. Without a word of debate,
it was killed in the Senate by enemies of
| the principle.
All Reference to People Refused.
When it Is asserted by any one that
there was disposition anywhere mani
fest to force primary election bill
through the Legislature, let the record
answer; Twice bills were offered which
| were not to go into effect unless ratified
| by vote Of the people. Twice did the
| opponents of primary election by their
votes in the Legislature refuse to allow
the people to speak for themselves. IL
| this was not the bill demanded by the
| people, then the people should have been
given an opportunity to say SO at the
polls.
By their conduct and by their votes
throughout this contest, 1t was plain that
| these opponents Of the Stevens bill and
the compromises offered did not trust the
| Poop e. They not only did not want to
| give them the privilege of making their
nom nations directly, they did not want
| to give them the privilege of saying
| whether they would like TO do this or not.
| Plainly they did not believe in the princi-
| pie of the bill. 1t is fair to assume that
| Their course would have been the same,
no matter what the details or special pro-
visions of the bill.
IN accepting the nomination two years
| ago, | said: The test of experience
| W II doubtless be required to perfect all
the working details of primary election
| law. 1t would be strange, indeed, il 1t
were not So believe the same now.
In the light of the experience of Min
nasota and other states, the Legislature
may be able to improve on any bill yet
offered. l shall be very glad il this
proves to be so. But TO postpone indefi-
nitely legislation that must be finally
tested by experience, TO demonstrate its
adaptation TO every circumstance aud
situation, is to have pressing demands
for practical legislation wait always on
theory. Pursuing such policy We
A