Audubon Republican., 1904-10-27
Reply to A. n. Edwards Communi.
cation.

| SatoH.
We publish this week a communi.
cation from Hon. A. II. Edwards
against the adoption of the biennial
election amendment IL deserves
careful reading. In its introduction
it asks that the voters give careful
consideration to the question but
that II be voted against. 1t would
scarcely be necessary to give careful
consideration to the question IL we
determind how We shall vote at the
outset. We should prefer to hear the
arguments and determine how to vote
afterwards.
We acknowledge the educational
value of political campaigns, but we
dissent from the opinion that the aver
age voter does not inform himself on
public questions except during cam.
paigns. This is a new age. Things
are not as they were. In this time of
daily papers and rural deliveries and
telephones and telegraphs intelligence
spreads with rapidity. We contend
that annual elections are not necessary
to prevent our people from lapsing
into ignorance. The idea that we are
depriving people OF their opportunity
OF studying public questions by doing
away with the off year campaign, Is
prepOsterOus. Annual elections and
annual primary elections, and school
elections and town elections keeps up
| almost continuous entertainment
which partakes, in many of it's fea-
lures, OF unseemly scrambles for place
rather than of schools of instruction.
1t is evident that Mr.. Edwards
principal opposition to the amendment
is because of the "riders" attached to
1t, that Is that its adoption will give
another year to u few officials. His
proposition to have it take effect a
longer time after its adoption Is not
bad suggestion, but 10 Is not made
now at the right time. II we ever go
to biennial elections il will be neces-
sary to give some set OF officers d
three years term. Extending the
terms is temporary but necessary
eXpenient to bridge over vacancy.
There are men who do not look ahead,
or do not desire to, but allow them
selves to be ruled altogether by pres
ent conditions. Biennial elections
ought to be considered on its merits
and on the influence the plan would
have on the people Of the state for the
next ten or twenty or fifty years, and
not whether it would give this man or
that man another year in Office. Such
opposition, we submit, Is unworthy OF
consideration. In our own county
the officers whom the adoption OF the
amendment would carry over are part
republican and part democratic and
it Is Mr.. Edwards misfortune IL a
majority of them are not to his liking.
nninf no hu 4 a
that it would not be Just to those
counties opposing the amendment to
have the terms OF some OF their own
officers extended, necessarily falls
when we consider this is state and
not county question, and that we are
necessarily governed by ma jOrities.
Mr.. Edwards criticises the members
of the Legislature who are from coun-
ties that gave majorities against the
amendment four years ago and voted
to submit the question to the people
again. We should not lose sight OF
the fact that the legislature, In passing
favorably on the amendment, was not
passing on the merits of the amend
ment but was passing on the question
as TO whether 1t was q proper subject
to submit to the voters. There were
members who, while they were opposed
to the adoption Of the amendment,
very properly voted to submit IL to
the people. remembering it was not
a county but state affair, and that
four years ago the people had adopt
ed it by over 10000 majority and it
was thrown out by the supreme court
on technicality, we do not sec why
any legislator should have hesitated
as to his duty in passing the question
on to the people again.
If the REPUBLICAN considers its
financial interests only we presume we
would favor the defeat OF the measure.