The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-02-13
AT LONGS DOOR.
Continued from Page one.l

ballot
]. W. Holdren, author of the 'Hol-
dren primary BILL" objected to the Ham
amendment on the ground that it was
the same as the rejected Thompson
amendment.
The chair ruled that the Ham amend
ment was i'll order
Archer of Brown moved that the
arate parts.
Chairman Kirkland ruled that the
motion of Archer was out of order, on
the ground that the amendment should
NIT be divided. Archer said he would
present his appeal to the speaker.
Cyrus Leland made a strong speech
In favor of the amendment. You gem
tlemen should pass a primary law, the
kind of a law the people want you 10
pass: no humbug law. This motion 10
divide this question is made by the en-
emies of the law, for the purpose OF
beating the law
]. w. Holdren then got the floor and
said: Il am just as much for a primary
election law as the gentleman from
Doniphan who has done so much IN
this state by his work in caucuses and
conventions to bring about this demand
from the people for primary election
law. La Toilette did not favor this
secret ballot plan in wisconsin,; he
drafted a bill for an open ballot and the
committee changed it. The Wisconsin
law is not La Follette's plan under
stand that there has been a summer
sault turned by some of the advocates
of this bill, in order to get the support
of the minority"
w. r. Stubs then said: lust
word here about the position of Senator |
La Toilette" Mr.. Stubs then read
the telegram from La Toilette printed
yesterday.
Archer of Brown then made a pow
erful speech against the Stubs bill In |
general and the Ham amendment In
particular He declared that by pass
ing the Ham amendment the house
would strike at the heart OF the DILL |
He declared that Stubs was trying to |
amend the bill for some Interior mo-
tive.
STANDARDS Sensational Speech.
c. A. Stannard said he questioned |
the statement of Mr.. Archer that Mr..
Archer was trying to preserve the
best part of the Stubbs bill from
amendment. He said the two prin-
cipal features of a primary law should
be to do away with the state conven-
ton, and to secure the nomination or
United States senator by direct vote
of all the people. II believe, he con-
tinued. that the fight being made on
this bill is being made in the interests
of one man and that man an of1ce
seeker. (Cries of Name him. will
name him. Senator Long is the man.
Senator Long has had a chance for
his life and has seen fit to attempt po-
litical suicide. His only chance is TO
beat this primary election law am
amendment, but I am in favor of a
primary law of some kind"
Cunningham Reads the Law.
W. r. Cunningham of Cowley said;
81 think this body made serious mis-
take a week ago when it changed the
method of nominating United States
senator. Now the question is. how
ever. on the motion of the gentleman
questioned the constitutionality of the
Ham amendment. He said that the
supreme court of California had held
such a provision as invalid, because 1t
realty. Mr.. Cunningham read the
opinion of the California supreme
court. He added: 1.-The people want
a primary election law, but they don't
want a delusion and snare.
"One- of the men. who drafted this
bill. Mr.. Larimer of this city. tells me
that the amendment such as proposed
by Mr.. Ham, will render this law nun
and void. and 1 am informed that ].
A Troutman, who assisted in the
preparation of the bill thinks so, too"
A C. Mitchell of Douglas then came
forward and made strong speech
against the Ham amendment. He de-
clared that the doctrine in the Califor-
MIA decision is the correct interpreta-
ton of the law. He said that the pri-
mary law as first presented to the
house by Mr.. Stubs was drawn on the
correct line There's no reason why
and minority should dictate to this
house what should be the provision or
the bill We can carry through this
bill regardless of the minority"
How do you know you can?" in {
ouired Stannard of Lyon.
How do you know you can carry !
IT through with this amendment" re-
torted Mitchell. 81 simply express my
]. D. Flanagan. Democrat of Deca-
tur, make a speech for the Tam
amendment.
preme court of California" he said ,
s'Whatis good enough for LaFollette
is good enough for me- What the /
Democrats want is a good primary law {
and not partisan measure" I
E ]. Fisher of Chautauqua said
that the legislature should put in the
THE supreme court will ,
not dare to knock it OUT said Fisher. s
w. r. Stubs then said: while 7 J
like the provisions of the bill as orig :
inally written, believe there are good I
features in the Ham amendment. The t
testimony of LaFollette is the testimony
of man of experience We had better S
have the law with this provision than c
no primary law at ALL" f
Favors Partisan Law.
Parks Helmick of Neosho said:
''This law is a partisan law and that is
the kind of a law we want Partisan
ship is essential in this country. If we T
are going to compromise we might as 9
we'll compromise with the Republicans :
or with the Democrats 1 am in favor 8
Of the Stubs law as originally drawn"
William Wells of Graham spoke in
favor of the amendment. He said that
he believed LaFollettes experience was
right and that the Democrats of Ora I
ham county who participated in the t
primary voted for the Re- II
publican ticket r
]. H Briefly spoke against the Ham 2
amendment, and made his customary s
humorous remarks. He wound up by
saving that he would vote for the bill "
whether the amendment was put in or 1: