Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1905-09-15
WHAT OF THE PRIMARY?
Comments of Leading Papers Dis.
COURAGE its Continuance.

One of the baneful influences of
the primary is the excessive cost q
candidate is put to. Receipts of the
Richmond postoffice alone increased
some five thousand dollars for the
month of August.
Uynchburg News.)
This paper has great respect for the
Richmond Times-Dispatch; but it
ventures to take the liberty of a friend
aud accuse that journal with a large
measure of responsibility for the rss-
cailty and fraud at the recent Rich
mond primary! An honest plan of
primary was provided by the party
authorities in the first place, under
which every voter was required to
walk IN the open like VirgInians
wereaccustomed to do for eighty years
and register his vote by word of
mouth. But the Times-Dispatch led
crusade against the viva voce sys.
tem, and now complains that the
chronic election thieves in Richmond
are at their old tricks again. No
man who feels that he is properly
entitled to the ballot ought TO be-
afraid to exercise that right openly.
particularly when by so doing he is
safeguarding elections against fraud.
Moreover the News does not believe
the rank and life of Virginia Demo-
Gratis objected to the viva voco plan.
The sentimentin favor of the change.
to which the politicians cheerfuily
surrendered, was not natural or
wholesome, but manufactured.
tStaunton Dispatch.)
One swallow does not make a sum-
mer; one state primary does not settle
for good and all the democratic meth
od of choosing candidates. This
paper has been a consistent advocate
for years Of the primary method of
choosing candidates, all except Unit
ed States senator's, our objection to a
senatorial primary being that it in ter
feres with the prerogatives of men,
bers of the legislature. We do not
believe In the popular election of SEN
ators, directly or Indirectly, but be-
lieve In the old constitutional method
adopted by the fathers. Excepting
as to United States senators, the pri-
mary method of selection has had our
earnest and steady support. But we
cannot say that we like the primary
plan we have just used throughout
the state. The plan is seriously de-
tectlve in one important particular,
and falls short, it seems to us, in
some Others. The feature to which
we object is the one that imposes OIL
can didatesthe cost of conducting the
primary. Until this feature is
charged, and some other plan devised
for meeting the expenses; we shall op-
pose the whole primary as earnestly
as we have heretofore favored it.
One other weak point in the pri-
mary method of selecting candidates,
1T seems to us, is the tendency to con-
centrate all interests in the candidates
for the chief places, and to show in
difference to all the other candidates.
In the recent primary nobody seemed
to care who ran or who were elected
to positions under senator and COVER
nor, except as to members of the leg
isletnre, in which some local interest
was taken. While we favored the
change, we are inclined now to feel
that mistake was made when the
new constitution made the treasurer,
auditor, superintendent of public in
struotion and commissioner of agri-
culture election on a general state
ticket instead of by the legislature.
The general assembly, We are inclined
to think, would give more attention
to the merits of candidates. than the
people at large are giving.