The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1906-10-12
s0MEDIsTINcTIoNs.

SOME DISTINCTIONS.
The Pembina Pioneer Express thinks
that for various reasons the old caucus
system is better than the di-
rect primary. This has always been the
opinion Of Editor Wardwell, and he ar
CUES the question in saner manner
than do most of those who stand for the
old system. The. Herald comedies to
Editor Wardwell the right to believe as
he thinks right on this or any other sub
ject, and to- support his views by argu-
ment, notwithstanding the declarations
of anybody else. But some of the pa
pers who have been insisting all along
that the voice of the party convention
is the voice of God ought to take steps
for disciplining the Pembina editor for
flying in the face of the declarations of
at least three republican conventions in
this state and seeking to discredit law
which is now on the statute books,
placed there by republican votes. If,
as has SO often been preached to us,
party action forever quashes the right
of private Judgment, Editor Wardwell
ought to be read out of the republican
party, and as the democrats have also
declared for the direct primary he will
have to flock by himself. But, SO far as
the Herald is concerned, it is, pleasing
to see the doughty champion of a past
system stand by his guns, though he is
in the minority.
Thanking the Herald for it's left hand
ed compliments with due courtesy and
referring to the insinuation that we
cannot oppose the primary law and still
be partisan republican; we may say.
that the Herald answers its own insinu-
alton when it admits that both political
parties have declared for the primary
and therefore it is not party question.
Again, it refers to the editorial opin-
ions of other papers, but if there is any
other paper except the Pioneer Express
that has editorially opposed the primary
law to any extent, we have not been
fortunate enough to see it. We have
felt to be very small minority on this
subject.
Personally, in conversation with edi-
tors, politicians and many others famil-
lar with the workings of organized par
ties, we have found hardly one who
favored the primary law, or thought it
to be of any value in correcting the
evils of the caucus law, but few of them
say SO in public.
The Herald seems to fail IN getting
the distinction between party fealty
and personal opinion. Accepting the
fact that parties are necessity, then
party fealty is necessity, and party
fealty necessitates obedience to the ma
jority opinion.
Thus in the present example, if the
primary law were party question, in
this case we would if called upon to act,
say as q legislator, we should not act
on our personal opinion, but would as
far as possible support primary law,
because we believe a large majority of
the people desire such law.
On the other hand, whenever the per-
sonal opinion becomes SO strong that the
individual feels it necessary to
oppose the party by act and vote against
the wishes Of the majority o. the party
then, SO far at least, he is no longer q
member Of the party. When q man
votes against q measure or candidate
advocated by his party, he is trying to.
defeat that party. For the defeat Of
any one; or more candidates of the party
is . blow to that party. Il
Il is also true every man has al
perfect right to his own opinions, and to-
vote g he pleases. But he is some
thing else than republican when he
votes against the candidates Of the re-
publican party. He cannot be ! repub-
lican and a independent. He may be
one or the other hut not both. He may
he's hybrid, but 3 mule Is neither .
horse nor n 90 though in many cases
Eof political origin They very much re-
semble ths r. terns aide of their ances-
and there siis not thing more absurd
than to sea y biz DIN papsr attempting
to ppa 9 81 ainde ndant republican,,
[NMle mp demos ticket
ma still his fn1i flii |it = 81
- s.