Omaha daily bee., 1904-09-30
DIRECT PRIMARIES.
Objections of wisconsin stalwarts to
the Rule of the Many.

OHlCdko
The Milwaukee Sentinel. the main organ
| Of the Wisconsin stalwarts. thinks that the
Tribune underestimated the stalwarts
when It said that their way OF arguing
| against a direct primary law was to accuse
La Toilette of ambition. The stalwarts, II
appears. would be against direct primary
law even II La Toilette had never been
born. and they would know why they were
against H. Their reasons would amount
in number to at least fifteen. Here follow
those reasons with comment:
/. Because the voters cannot have per-
sonal knowledge Of the comparative fitness
OF the candidates with whom they are not
acquainted and are in danger of voting
| for persons unworthy OF trust and who
would not, IL known, command their con-
| f1dence and support.
Under the convention system the voters
have to elect delegates to the convention.
In case the delegates are pledged to certain
candidates the voters have to choose be-
tween those candidates. So even under
the convention system the voters may
| have to make the tremendous intellectual
effort Of which the Sentinel believes them
| incapable But in most cases. II is true.
| the delegates are not pledged Then the
voters have 70 form an opinion with regard
| TO the personal qualifications of each dele
| gate. This process is as much more diff
are more delegates than of1ces. Under
the direct primary system the voters NOM
mate one man for each ONCE. Under
the convention system the voters elect
many men to nominate the one man.
Which system demands more OF the voters2
2 Because the direct primary system
necessarily keeps out OF office everybody
but office seekers and tends to swell the
number of that class.
Pretense aside, the office doesn't seek
the man once in 1000 times. The man
seeks the office. Is II better that he should
seek 1t from a boss or from the people?
g. Because the expense of making a can
vass to secure nomination Is a practical
bar TO poor man.
on the contrary, money will buy boss
| far quicker than a whole electorate
A. Because II gives the rich an ad-
vantage over the poor.
See No. 3.
g. Because It authorizes nominations by
minoTties which, in case Of large num-
| only small fraction of the people
Is 1t seriously contended that boss nomi-
| nations are made by majorities? In Chi
cago the boss nominations in the senatorial
districts often so made that not a hun
dred people in the district have ever before
heard the candidates name.
6. Because 1t subjects the people to the
| instead Of one.
The bosses who at present relieve the
people of the annoyance and burden of
| going to the primaries have charged such
| an excessive price for their time that the
| people are driven now to doing their work
| themselves.
I. Because it secures to men in Office a
manifest advantage over new men and
| prevents rotation.
In other words II a man proves his ft-
ness the people will keep him in office
| The politicians will not be able to throw
him out because he would not play with
them.
g. Because 1t takes from the people the
| right to draft their own platforms and
corners that power on candidates, which is
| putting the cart before the horse. The
| people should never surrender the authority
70 make their own platforms and require
the candidates to stand on them and carry
them out.
If the people now made their own plat
forms and If the stalwarts of Wisconsin
had not repudiated several platforms this
argument would mean something. Under
direct primary system the candidates
! would have to announce their opinions ana
If they failed to live up to those opinions
their next appeal to the people would have
Its Inconvenience and embarra ssments.
g. Because the abrogation of the state
convention would mean the disintegration
and disruption of party organization.
1t would. OF the present kind of organ
ization. OF the slush-fund, padded payroll
| organization. But there would be q differ
ent and better kind OF organization. Peo-
pie with Identical opinions will always or
ganize.
10. Because 1t enables men who could not
get home endorsement TO seek office with
M tne same prospect OF success as men In
, In hn
A man is far more in need of home
endorsement" when his neighbors vote on
him than when he is picked by the boss
II. Because II legalizes and sanctions Of
fice-seeking and tends to increase the army
OF candidates, already too large.
Is office-seeking now illegal? And are
| there too many candidates in Cook county
for the legislature? Sixty for ffty-seven
places.
12. Because II practically shuts out busy
men who cannot and will not spend the
time and money required to secure nom
ina tions.
Those busy men who have time to consult
the bosses but haven't time to consult
the electorate will not be missed.
1S. Because system which makes NOM
nations expensive tends directly TO de-
moralize action and graft,
See 3 and T.
H. Because II lowers the standards OF
citizenship when nominations can be Sc
cured by the free use of money in hiring
workers to circulate petitions and in sub
sidizing mercenary newspapers.
See 8, and 13. To say that money
would count for more In appealing to the
people than II now does in appealing to
bosses shows more valor than discretion.
16. Because It is the absurd and fanaticaI
use of an agency which has undoubted
merit on the same principle as giving
the ballot to men. women and children be-
cause II is a good thing.
II the people are wise enough to elect
why is 1t absurd or fanatical to suppose
that they are wise enough to nominate?
The fact is, as the Sentinel clearly shows,
that the direct primary system cannot be
assailed without invoking and revealing a
distrust of democracy. The object of the
direct primary system is simply to give the
voters what they are supposed even by the
present primary system to have-the op-
portunity to make their will felt in the
selection of the candidates who shall rep
resent their respective parties.
Personal NOTES.