The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-03-15
said that others thar, hiinsel ( ha ta.
vor4d 5the Bill even after Its amendment

or d tec9. lie feferred $40 uoHs
3iiilons Iii HIS home citye5ahd expressed
the opinion IthatjFit would he trohstrous
II permit the city COMMITTEES 70 cf ~ =,
the Officers utter the disclosures just
finnde itr tlio recent primary conducted Wy
d parssah committee. N u ta
N Mr.. Pl11egar for the Bill.
Senator Phlegar,s of Montgomery spoke
Oh Che uuestiOn Of construction o. the
rules when the matter ot the legal III
concurrence was under discussion 4p W, ene
did not have yan opportunity8to speak as
to tile merits or dement's Of the ainenueu
bill, II lie HAD desired to DO go. als .hgn.
to reach vote on the bill 3and me trehu
3pf several questions he asked Of other
speakers, Indicated that he WIS favor = o w
to the bill, even as amended. . ~ :.
e Nearly all the other seria tprs had lett
the city Saturday night or Sunday anu lls
40 their expressions could not De secureu.
III & is reported that Senator W ier, IS
( among those who EXPRESSED the opi ~ "
thaliih defects pointed out ny Mr. ray lN.
enner and others were serious II not fatal
to the bill. & N Is I, S
Senator Fulton's Attitude.
Senator N, a Fulton, OF Warren when il1',.
asked what he thought Of the defeat e 81
the fblll replied that he did not kno o
wta 81 opinion that the failure Of that
measure would be nutritious TO- those Who
opposed t. lie said that In giving the plll
his support no was supporting principles
and measures, and not men; thnt IN MS
section OF the State there was a strong
demand for party nominations ~ me ~ PSI p.
ple. and that they not only wanted 70 -
elect their cand idntes, but they wanted 20
eject them, He eaId that this lln q Deen
= iss,,e during his candidacy for no1nina-4
tio,1, and that he thought his success was was
largely DUE to his advocacy OF n ominatio
~ m rty candle ties directly BY the PEI pic q
s.rhe Ton ency Of the laws cnn cted fors
The past several years in Ylrg nia, "s sal 70
he 81, had been to place local Ell govern.
ment largely in the hands Of the c sa. y
courts, the Judges and botlrds ald y
nran teIsa, government OF Bureaucracy.
This "a q growing evil to be ckonod
With and the people OF Virginia are
awakenlng to che dangers that may no now
'ta1n my section Of the State" continued ed
ma senator. "the population Is almost
entirely white. and the people are !, 9. ~ Y!
| born and reared Virginians. me rig Z. a. "
Local enlightenment Is sacred 10 th en- /.
md. II would say that any one " 70 rs
a,,,,cr,aad q tho right OF these people to
,,,nIninate and elect their Candidates 10
making q serious and fatal pollt1cnlS
blunder.
Government by Bureau,
.1f8 II we're called on to name the evll
that threatens US most now. would
| say II was government BY bureaus aha
i4the control Of Legislative bodies through
| Ia flly. corpora tions. Tie failure TO enact
| q a primary law is simply withholding
from the people the right to legally ex-3
PRESS their preferences for the men they
want 10 serve them in public ONCE
5+5"Thet Machen primary election bill We
simply the outgrowth and eSpr esslo c'l ~
the sentiment in this State for the NOM.
nations OF candidates by the people y o.
the people and for the people The prin'
olnles underlying the bill were mani.
festly lust and proper ard In the Interest
a. the people. The bill was introduced
| n theg senate and passed that body ~ 9
good ma jorty. 1t went to the House ana
passed that body by q good ma1ority {.
| with some amendments added. = The Din
thenacame TO the Senate for It's concur
i rence or non-concurrence IN the HOUSE 10Y. =.
1 nm ndments 5 The opponents 3ssg q .n D.,
m eis ure ma ton to pass sth VI, ulil
| by. The motion vas deie aye. =,
! a 81 1yoto 4, OF # 10 to- is. Then s *
waa that the opponents OF the
,,lea s,re undertook to defeat 1t bS
i snaalting. against It until the Senate 40,
/ iourned. and i'm this they succeeded pu'
i the voting clearly demonstra Qe,a ina. !.
4 majority OF both branches of the Gen. !.
erai Assembly favored the prime piles o.
! nrirna ~ election, and thus while the ~.
1. was defeated by, being tailed 70 e oeh = .
BY the minority, the entire llght was
victory for the people and lot primary
!! elections.
What the Journal Shows.
Gan examination Of the Senate journal
Z! will show that the same men VINO led the
\ eght and spoke against the HOUSE
amendments to the Bill on the srouNa
against the bill on It's passage BY the
Sonata before the House amendments
4 were added &, y, /,
4 "Ttg was unfortunate that the leading
4 Montague men IN the Senate should have
4. favored the bill, while the leading Mnr
4 fin men 4 were opposed to It, and Ina MAJ
q the matter should apparently have thus
taken political turn. In THIS conn "
4 deem 1t proper to. say that ref araiass
a Of men or candidates q favor leg ", llziEa
4 urinary elections, so that whena primary
4 Ia held II can DO regulated and con-
si9t,oIled by a uniform Jaw as other elec.
9i3tlong are. and that we ca have q 4 lnl
II and free EXPRESSION OF the Will OF the
Il people. :. .6s ~ Il, ~
81 Ma chen & primary bill was the very Wors
81 that could have happened to those o y
posed to primary elections. and tha. ttlei.
will thus be accontua l teu' 0'.e
Viii result In The people takln 6 this mat
ter In their own hands and In q y1e -,
a FOR the principles underlying the Ne' pill
Vote on the Bill.
u Among these who voted for the Ma : !,
Al bill when 1t came up In the Senate on ~ :
passage werq Mr., a. g Harmon q s,hls
81 city; Mr.. Mann, Mr.. Mcli'yalne, ~ MI !,
= sadler@ ana Mr.. Sale. who are generaliiy
Il regarded as supporters Of Senator Martin
81 for reelection, # =, I,
Here is the full vote on the measure as,
when 1t came up in the Senate on on vYea,
nesday on its passage; ],
4 Greear, Gurter. "A. G. Hnrmar, Iiutche'
son, Machen, Mann. h1c1lwalne, Phlegar
Reyercomb sadler, Sale, Sears, shands
4 Thomas, Turner and Walker-l9, 2,
Noes Mcssrs, Barksdale, BryanI sy
I, -, ,,hall Grammar Cromwell .f' G r.