The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1902-11-01

The Question of Cost.
How ndefensible the argument
! against a primary election law that II
! 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 methOds-w place them
| under obligations, under control OF other
| interests than those OF their constituents,
! subject 70 the influence OF other claims
! than those Of public duty. The rail-
/ roads Of this state could well AFFORD 10
! pay large sums to defeat the nomination
/ Of candidates opposed to them, and for
/ the nomination Of candidates faYoring
| them, if thereby they save million OF
| dollars in taxes annually.
| The assertion that a party In power,
/ an organization Of any kind, or any
/ kind Of candidate would be able TO
| entrench themselves for all time under
/ primary elections is quite unworthy or
/ credeuce. 1t is an argument ut to keep
! company with the assertion that any one
| could maintain O political machine I'M
! der a primary election law. II 1t would
| be So effective for that purpose, why
! are not the Quays and Platts and Crok-
/ ers for IL; why is every machine poll
/ ticion and corporation lobbyist in Wis
/ cousin and elsewhere, 50 generally
against it, the people so generally for III
No Contest for Particular Bill.
! 1t Is not true that the friends OF pri-
mary election in Wisconsin are contend
/ Ing for any particular bill. They are
/ cpntending for the principle OF direct
/ nominations Of candidates by the people,
/ under authority Of the state.
They stand today and have always
stood asking the assistance Of every man
/ In framing the best law that can be
3 Il. ~. frianIa pf rho npiQ-
I ciple have welcomed discussion, They IN
I yite the cooperation Of all in framing
an act that shall meet honest objections
and shall improve upon proposed proVls-
/ ions for carrying out the principle OF
/ primary elections.
All that can be asked Of legislation In
a new field Is that 1t shall be sincerely
| for the principle that it shall be framed
! by the best ability that can be obtained I;
| that il shall receive the most careful
consideration OF the Legislature.
Hon. Il. Ray Stevens, who undertook
the work of framing bill in conformity
with the Republican platform pledge, in
| the last Legislature, brought 10 it thor
pugh 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-
! NNll'l iuuD III tue ItdUlluE Oh duS Olutl
bill ever brought before the Wisconsin
! Legislature. After it was prepared pub
! lie hearings were given. Discussion by
members was invited, and al 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 it,
| but insisted upon its being passed as
/ drawn, 10 the dotting OF tho :. 5 and cross
| ing OF the ts," 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.
| lered was carefully considered. The bin
| 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 unconsttu-
! tOual.
The public record is open TO all the
| people OF the state, and they should
! read it.
After the Stevens bin had been defeat.
/ ed In the Senate Senator Hattou a friend
/ OF the principle, offered a compromise ap-
! plying the principle TO the nomination Of
/ county officers and members of the Legis-
/ lature only, This was beaten by vote
| of 10 70 II, Senator Miller, n friend OF
the principle, introduced as compromise
a provision that the Stevens bill should
not go into effect until II had been in
! dorScd by majority OF the voters Of
4 the state at tue spring election of April.
1902 This was defeated by vote Of
/ 10 to H. Another compromise was pro-
/ posed by Senator McGillivray. a friend
/ OF the principle, and was beaten by a
! vote of 20 10 10 Further effort at com.
| promise was made in the Assembly by Of
! fering q bill, under which city. county
officers aud members OF Senate OF As
| semhly were TO be chosen by direct vote.
| This also provided that the bill was not
| 10 40 into effect until sanctioned 10y q
! majority q 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
| II 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 a disposition anywhere mani
| fest 10 force primary election bill
| through the Legislature, let the record
answer: Twice bills were offered which
were not 10 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 peopl, to speak for themselves. II
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. il was plain that
/ these opponents OF tho Stevens bill and
/ the compromises offered did not trust the
/ people They not only did not want 10
| give them the privilege OF making their
4 nominations 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 Ii Is fair 10 assume that
I their course would have been the same,
/ no matter what the details or special pro-
/ visions " the bill.
| In accepting the nomination two years
! ago, ] said The test ~ experience
! will doubtless be required % perfect all
/ the working details OF n primary election
| law. II would be strange, indeed. If il
/ were NOT So | believe the same now.
In the light OF the experience Of Min
n"sota and other states, the Leg stature
/ may be able % improve on any hill yet
offered | shall be very glad il this
/ proves 10 be So But to postpone indef.
ute,y legislation that must be finally
tested hy experience 20 demonstrate its
adaptation % every circumstance and
situation, is % have pressing demands.
f'r practical legislation wait always ou
theory Pursuing such policy We
"a. IL.