Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1902-05-31

| was changed by doubling the number of
| votes allowed to committeeman at meet
| ings of central committees; that is, for
the city, county Of Assembly each men,
Der might cast 'one vote for every fifty
| votes or major fraction thereof cast by
| his party in his precinct at the last gen
| eral election, instead of twenty-five
| votes, as provided in the original bill;
and for the state 'one vote for every 25O
ballots or major fraction thereof cast by
his party in his county at the last pre-
| ceding presidential election, instead of
100 ballots, as provided in the original
| bill
"The substitute bill departed from the
| Stevens bill in the following section:
Section 81 The platform of each DO
| litical party shall be formulated in such
| manner as the state central committee
| of each party shall determine
| Instead of leaving the making Of the
platform in the hands Of the voters of the
party, where it belonged, the right to say
how the platform should be formulated
was vested in the state central committee
of party. The Stevens bill, it will be
remembered, required the party candi-
by the chairman and secretary of the
| state central committee, to make the
platform. Both provisions were, in my
judgment, at variance with any proper
theory of primary election, out of har-
mony with all the captivating phrases
that we heard in the Legislature in ia
Yor of the primary election principle,
and of all the usages Of all the bodies
with which we are acquainted-churches,
| lodges, labor organizations, associations
OF business men, educators, Or reformers
Destroyed Party Interest.
"One would like to ask how long inter
est could be sustained among the mem
bers of any other organization, if all of
its functional activities, or of it's policies,
or of its plans for its growth and useful
ness, were left to committees or officers
elected at long intervals, and if no gener-
al meetings were held from time to time,
in which the individual members would
be brought together and given an oppor-
| tunity to look into the affairs of the body
and impart to it the vitality which it
would constantly be required to possess
IN order to retain it's members. These
bills relegated to the hands, first, of the
| candidate, and then, Of Committeeman,
all sense Of party responsibility to the
public and all provisions for and control
of party activities. Nowhere is there a
line or word in either of the bills looking
to any method of calling the committee
to account for any report of committees
or ocffiers, excepting only the routine du-
ties as election officers, already comment
l n6 md h., 1o4
| form.
1.-THE very important party function Of
declaring it's own principles, its platform
upon which it appeared before the pub
lie, its propositions relating to public
| policy, which it proposed to carry out if
| placed in power, was placed in both bills,
| beyond the reach of the voter. The state
central committee had been evolved by
, successive eliminations, in the way
| have shown in a former communication,
and the method of its selecting was a
| striking illustration of the delegation and
| redelegation' of party authority, a pro-
cess pertaining to the caucus and con-
| vention system, which presented, to the
| eyes Of the friends of the supporters Of
the Stevens bill, an insuperable objec-
| ton to the preservation Of that system.
| This provision of the substitute bill re-
lating to the platform illustrates one of
the many difficulties which certainly con-
| fronted the trainers Of the bill, and it
| would clearly seem to have been adopted
arbitrarily, as offering an answer to the
! question 80 often asked: If the party
| meetings be discontinued, how can the
party platform be promulgated? I can
see no justification, upon and ground
| advanced in behalf of either of the bills,
| for the legislation of this character. The
| main argument used in behalf of both
bills was the necessity of destroying the
caucus and convention system as the
| source Of all political uncleanliness, but
| how any political chicanery could have
| resulted from the silence of the bill with
respect to making party platform was
not shown.
Had the Legislature assumed that the
caucus and convention system was char
| acterized by trickery and fraud at every
| step, and that the candidates brought for
| ward were all of inferior character in
short, that every charge made against
! the caucus and convention system by the
! friends of the bill was well founded,
nothing appeared to make it clear to
! the Legislature that there was any rela-
ton of cause and effect between such
evil conditions and the making of the
| party platform, or that in the bills, or
either of them, such certainty of relief
was assured that the Senate was justi-
! fed in designating the agents which
| should declare the party platform.
| Invasion of Rights.
"Both bills were an invasion of the
rights which the people reserved to them
| selves when they ordained constitutions.
+, Both bills showed the strange inconsist-
| encies Of the advocates Of this legisla-
| ton. They first sought to bewitch the
| legislators by their plausible talk about
| restoring lost political rights to the peo-
| pie, keeping all political power in the
hands Of the people, the exercise by the
| voters Of their sovereign right of choice
| in making nominations for Office by di-
rect vote, the honorable place of politi-
cal parties in our plan of government:
and then they deliberately undermined
the hold of the party upon its commit
| tees, took away from it's members the
means of supervising the party deliver
| ances, and instituted an enforced repre-
sentation to declare party policies. No
| excuse therefor was given, except as in
| ferred by a student of the bills, that
| when caucuses and conventions are done
away with there would be no party spirit
| left to move parties to hold any meet
ings.
| "The bills anticipated the situation of
\ nartv &c If would he when Marty rnoat.