The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1902-09-13

duly registered, will simply, and with
out again being sworn, say: Il am a.
Republican Ca Democrat, or POpulist)',
or "Give me Democratic Cor Repub-
lican, or Populist Ticket" or other
simple statement of like nature; and
the level-headed judge of election will
promptly hand him the ballot he calls
for, unless challenge is interposed.
A challenge! Aye, there's the rub If
a challenge is interposed, on the ground
that the elector is not a Populist, D o.
crat or il Republican, as circumstances
may suggest, the judge must admins
ter an oath to true answers make"
and then ask:
QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED.
1. Which political party did you
affiliate with at the last general
election.
2. Did you generally support the
candidate Of such party at the last
general elction:
g. Is it your present intention to
generally support the candidate IF
such party at the next general cleo
ton:
While the form may be varied, no
other question can be asked. If the
elector satisfactorily answers these
questions-that is, in keeping with his
declaration--he must be allowed to vote.
The judges are not to indulge in doubts,
and while it is to borne in mind that
all false swearing on material matters
is perjury and punisha BILE as such, the
judges are to accept the statements as
true, for voting purposes. They nave
no right to enter into details, and can
not ask, "Whom did you vote for ."
did you vote for Mckinley, or for Bry-
an, or Lind, or Ames?" etc. That would
be inquiring too closely on 1.-THE Sec
recy Of the ballot" lines.
THE QUESTIONS EXPLAINED.
Each of the questions that may be
asked deserves a. brief explana ton, lest
electors and judges be misled. An cleo
tor may have "aff1liated'' with a poll
ticalparty, and yet not have been an
active member Of it. It is sufficient IL
he gave that party the preference over
another in a general way. AS a matter
Of fact, members OF the Peoples party
"aff1liated' with the Democrats, and
vice versa, just as many Republicans
affiliated with the: Proaibitionists, to
a limited extent, ON the mayoralty
question. '121@
The term 'tgenerally supported"
means "in the main The law does not
disfranchise an elector who saw fit to
''split his ticket" for governor or mayor,
Or one or several officers, If he voted
for more candidates Of one party than
Of another he generally supported the
candidates of the first named party.
present intention" means what it
attempt to deprive man or woman Of
the right to "ehange his own mind" If
on the 18th Of September an elector ''in-
tends at the general election to vote
for the candidates Of his party, it is
sufficient. When he finds out who they
are 1t is his privilege, as an American
citizen, to "kick'' as much as he
pleases-and take the stump for an
other party, if he SO desires.
Personally I am not a believer in the
efficacy Of the primary election law, as
1t no wstands, as the political cure
air. has been recommended to be, but
its underlying principle is all right. Its
best feature, to my mind, is in prevent
ing Republicans debating Democratic
nominations, and vice versa. But, be
it good or bad, 1t should be given 3
fair trial, and no elector should be de-
prived of a vote by reason Of miscon-
ception of it's provisions. It should not
be COMPOUNDED with the primary cleo
ton law in force two years ago, since
many of it's vital provisions have been
radically changed.