The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-06-03

Z
Democratic voters as to the ticket
they wish to vote for is to be paid by
the state, why should it not pay the
expenses of ascertaining the wishes
OF other citizens wAo are not Demo
Gratis. The law recognizes at least
two other parties among the citizens
of Florida. Therefore, the above
questions are pertinent. The state
cannot afford to pay the expenses OF
one class only of its citizens, at the
expense Of taxpayers who may happen
to differ in political opinions with the
favored class. The courts would de-
clare any such provision unconstitu-
uonal. Under the primary law any
party can hold a primary election.
The suggestions thrown out by our
contemporary and evidently intended
in opposition to the proposed change
whereby the state swil bear the ex-
pense of the primaries are Illogical
for two reasons
First, because it assumes that if
the state decides to pay the expense
of conducting a primary election it
must also pay the expense of hold
ing a convention.
Second, because it assumes that
there is a disposition to have the
state pay the primary election ex-
penses of the Democratic party alone,
to the exclusion of all other parties.
The Times-Union is wrong in the
first place, because there is no con-
nection whatever between primary
and conventional least so far as
the law is concerned. The cOnven-
ton has been discredited and aban-
doned by one party in the state and
the primary has taken its place. In
view Of the advantages of the pri-
mary and the general desire of the
people for having it conducted fairly
and honestly. the state has already
passed a law providing how it shall
be held. But in doing this, it was
not necessary, nor did the state enact
any law governing the conduct Of a
political convention. The latter is
separate and distinct and has no con-
nection whatever with the primary or
with the law which governs it. There
fore it is possible and constitutional
to legislate on one subject without
touching on the other at all.
The Times-Union is wrong in the
second place in assuming that any
intelligent advocate of a law pro-
viding for the payment of primary
election expenses by the state con-
templates combining the provisions of
that law to one party alone. The
present primary election law does
not recognize any particular party.
Under that law any party can take
advantage Of the laws provisions
and hold a primary, although thus
far only one party has done 50.
If the state decides to enact a law
providing that the expenses of hold
ing a primary election shall be paid
by the state, the only possible way
that it could legislate on the subject
of political parties at all, in eonnec-
ton with thatSlaw, 'would be to de-
fine what shall, in the intention of the
law, constitute a political party. The
state might provide that any party
which cast a certain number of votes
at the last general election should be
entitled to the privileges of the. pri,
mary election law, but it could not
discriminate against any particular
party.
The Journal believes that the pri-
mary election should be hedged about
with all the securities to both people
and candidates that the general cleo
ton possesses-that the nomination