Gunnison news-champion., 1906-08-24

ksVSsss =" s%e eA~ot aa shtStt -tUS
..s,e. of the union and q by the
increasing demand for its aiopssou
cy the remainder of the states. -
veil - for Iis sxtenssss ~ all elec-
tive s;acss in those states whcre j,
nos ex,-ta.
Whese Is no necesssty for ssAt,ng
say the direct primary has broxgkt
ont more vo.ess 10 the PRIMARIES. ex
why 1t has sscceedsd in g,vias tie
!reople t'rsser government by destroy
ing machine dominatioa and by
mskiae the oshcisIs F~~pon.,ble 10
the vo,ers instead 81 the boss aud
the ring a. ~ the case under the
Caucus sv-tem Sufficient proo of
these statements can he gotten bv
reference to those places where the
direct primary has been tired
In Minneapolis. uader one Of the
best legalize3 caucus systems ~ the
United States. little more than S
per cent II the voters took part iu
masking the nominations. Since the
intrndsction uf tue iiroct PRIMARY in
1900, m1rs than 30 per cent 5f the
people nov nominate their party
candidates In ST. Paul at the 1895
spring primaries more than ~ per
cent of the voters attended the
primaries The Pilaesr Press 81
chat city said. March H.. laJ5 "Ta-
der the ca1eas and convention sys-
TEN the vote would not have been
one tenth Of What n was TUESDAY.
la Crawford county, Pennsylvania
where the direct primary first orr
ginated, an average of 33 per cent
Of the voters have come out To the
primaries held from 1865 To 1900
later hgares are not obtainablel.
the average ia the 25th congress
lonal district Of the same state for
the ten years preceding 1900 being
- per cent. Experience with the
direct primary has shown that the
people will turn out and that they
will manifest an interest in the
government if they are given an
opportunity 10 do SO.
When such large number of the
voters take part IN the primaries it
is impossible for the machine or
ring to dominate the political arena
They cannot control 60 per cent or
80 per cent OF the voters under the
primary as they do the 20 per cent
which attend the caucus. 1t is not
to he wondered. at, therefore, that
the machine politician has always
fought its introduction. From all
over the country comes the convinc-
ing proof Of actual results that the
boss and the corruptionist have been
abolished and that as rule bet
ter candidates have been nominated
bv means of the direct primary.
The people want good government
and good officials.
Q. But does not the direct prim-
any give the rich candidate an ad
vantage over the poor one.
A. The demand for the primary
has come from the poor. II has
been opposed by the rich. Under
the caucus system, what advantages
has the poor man? He cannot
afford to pay the expenses Of run
ming for Office, of buying delegates,
etc, unless he is backed by the
purse of some corporation.
q Is not the direct primary
cumbersome?
A. 1t has proven itself to be very
simple in operation, indeed, much
more simple and inexpensive than
the caucus system
q. What is the tendency Of leg
islation dealing with the nomination
of candidates?
\. Wisconsin, Cregon, Florida,
Mississippi, and North Dakota have
direct primary laws, statewide in
scope. 1t is also in partial use in
twenty-seven other states. In 1905
fourteen legislatures considered
It's adoption. Corporate influence
and politicians are fighting hard for
the retention of the obsolete and in
efficient caucus system. But its
death knell has been sounded. 1t
is no longer representative Of the
wishes of the people 1t has be-
come the tool Of corporate influence.
1t has made the delegate the main
shaft of the political machine. The
people are demanding voice in the
government and in the selection Of
their party candidates. The move
ment for the adoption Of the direct
/ primary Is sweeping over the coun-
I try like wave. This agitation will
not cease until its application and
use have become universal and as
comprehensive as its worthy prede-
:. - =. - -.