Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1906-02-08

VIC CDuStAbubiOus BIG Ch0ENS vi pit1
mary" provided for by this law, il, TO
all intents and purposes, an election. \
His citation of opinions already given
by the supreme court of California,
where the situation il practically the
same as in this state, would alone be
nearly conclusive. This portion OF
hisdiscussion he sums up we'll asfol-
lows: 1.-THE law looks to the SUBJ
stance rather than to form. Whether
called caucus, primary, or by any
other name, a proceeding provided by
Law for the election of delegates to u
nominating convention 10 part of our
general system of self-goyernment and
is On election within the constitutional
meaning, and II voter possessing the
qualifications prescribed by the con-
stitution should be deprived of the
privilege OF participating In good faith
at the caucus OF his party in the choice
of men and measures for which he de-
aires to yoteat The subsequent election,
he Is denied a substantial privilege
conferred upon him by the constitu-
tiOn, and deprived OF a full and free
exercise of his right OF suffrage
This is admirably stated, but it re-
fers TO only one side OF the matter.
The difficulty with most ''insurgentn
lines OF argument is that they start
with the assumption that every ''ma-
chine" position has for its aim the
eternal undoing Of every thing Gin
suggent' and is therefore. TO be dis
missed without further consideration
Admitting the force OF Attorney Gen.
eral Halls statement as quoted above,
what about man in bad faith seeking
In the primary" to saddle weak can
ildates upon party In order that the
party heis really trying to assist may
the more easily defeat men or measures
he Is underhandedly trying 10 injure?
This is the situation the so called
''honest caucus" or primary law
seeks to remedy. This possibility is
one OF great danger and the vulner-
able point in all primary legisla
tlon. We insist that an attempt to
obviate this danger Is worthy of care
ful consideration and should be met
with betiecepirit thar the suspicion
or charge that Its only design is an
Interior one
ATTORNEY General Halls summary
above quoted carries with it the as
sumption that 1t 10 some provisions OF
the .sprimary law that may prevent
. person from taking part in the .'cau-
Gus" of his party and so, since the
, 'scaucus" Ii an selec lion, are re
sponsible for practically disenfranchis-
ing him. But this Is not the case
The law is designed 10 prevent Lad
faith and under all rules OF law and
logic is entitled 70 that presumption.
1t is the voters own act or the act Of
his party, rather than the restrictions
OF this law, that is leading 10 the pro
per and rightful Observation-Disclosures"
of such voter under such circum-
stances. AS Nj. Hall 80 forceably and
clearly states, the voter Of good faith
may not BY any law be deprived OF i
fall aud free exercise OF his right oil
suffrage. but The opposite Is equally
true of the voter OF bad faith. Mr.. Hall
has given absolutely no consideration
whatever toeven the possibility 81 this
phase Of the question and this contains
/ ip q nutshell The whole force Of the
machine" contention.
Some OF our local attorneys have held
that while the Australian ballot Law
now prohibits voter from writing in
d name on d ballot not certified 10 to the
proper county official, as provided By
llaw, the broad general principle Of i
free and unlimited right of suffrage
| w0uld justify higher courts In allowing
| This freedom. Mr.. Hall cites decis
| Ion 0f our supreme court 10 opposed II
| this tChamberlain W. Wood. is 3. d.,
l2l6). n like manner, he argues. !