The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-05-25
No Authority of Law For 1t,
Says Mr.. Crawford.
INTENTION OF FATHERS
Denies That the Democratic Platform
Endorses Primary Theory.
The Platform Declares in Favor Of Amending
The Constitution so That Senator'S Shall
be Elected by Popular Vote In
r. H., 4 .ci,t,,ro
stead IF by Leg stature.

To the Editor: 1t seems to me that
some Democrats are again becoming I'M
dulv exercised over the method of Sc
lecting United States Senator 1t
shcula he remembered. in the first place,
that there is no authority of law for
primary and no precedent for a cohven-
tion.and there can be none in legal sense
until the Constitution of the United
Statesfs amended SO as to give the peo-
pic the right to elect Senators by
direct vote. The States delegated to the
Federal government the power to pre-
scribe the method of electing Senators,
and ir the exercise of this power it is pro-
vided in Article /. section of the Con-
stitutien, that the Legislatures of the
several States shall elect the Senator's;
and so long as this provision remains in
the fundamental law, in my Judgment,
it would be violative, both of the letter
and sni1it of the Constitution to under
take. directly or Indirectly, to exercise
or resume this granted power. To do
SO would be reflection on the states
manship of the party, as 1 view it. il
Il
candidate for the Senate, either by pri-
mary or convention, and make the sup
pert of such candidate. test OF party
loyalty on the part of members' of the
LEGISLATURE, the constitutional right 81
the Legislature to elect Senators would
be destroyed. and the people through a
political agency would elect the Senator's
at the polls as effectually as if done by
authority of laws. For the edicts of a
political party have. the binding force
of law upon the adherents of such party,
and therefore, the dominant party could
by indirection, exercise a right which is
deried the sovereign State The sue
cessful candidate would be labeled. APP
proved and marked 20. X, and his
confirmation by thes Legislature would
be as perfunetory as the election OF a
justice of the peace by that body.
And, further it woald thrust a bogus
issue into the campaign which would be-
come z disturbing factor and lose the
party many votes while the sham battle
is being fought inside of the party
lines. 1t would seem that our experience
with a Senatorial primary in 1909 ought
to teach Us the folly of such policy. That
contest lost Iis.,a number of counties and
reduced the majority in other counties.
and finally resulted in the nomination or
Endorsement of the man the Legislature
would have elected. beyond doubt.
The real fight in 1900 was between the
friends of Simmons and Carr. and the
Democrats and Republicans were en-
gagged in picket firing on the skirmish
line. Nothing could please Pritchard
and his allies so much IS another Ssna-
torial primary. 1t would inspire Them
with hope, and Hanna could be relied
on for liberal Campaign fund.- and If
we should enter the fight with our lines
broken over issues in the party, the re-
suit might surprise us. We should en-
deavor to harnoniZe and solidify our
forces upon the issues between the par
ties The masses care nothing about a
primary and never did. Public senti-
ment did not demand of the State con-
vention the issue in 1900. and will ret
demand ii On 1902. unless I misjudge the
people To my mind there is no plausible
reason for such radical departure from
the time honored principles of the Dem
ocratic party. If the people desire Il
change in the method of ,electing Sena-
tors. let them go about it in an orderly
and legal way. by amendment to the
Constitution: and until that is done. |
mairtain that no political party has the
right to dictate to the Legislature the
man whom it shall elect to the Senate.
| contend that it is the duty and right
of the dominant party in the Legislature
to nominate the Senator in caucus, just
as ii has. always done. This duty and
right are imposed by the Constitution
of the United States upon the Legisla-
turc, and each member takes an oath TO
obey, and he has no right legal or moral,
TO surrender to outside influence, and he
ought not TO. be asked to do it.
Whether it would be wise to change