The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-10-08
State Auditor Nation Opposed
to Primary in 1905.
Replies to Suggestions Made by
d. r. Anthony.
CAN'T AFFORD OUTLAY
First Term State Officers Dis
like the Plan.
Gov. HOch Thinks Primar!
Would Be All Right.
General Discussion of "HOrna'
day Plan" Now On.

James M. Nation, state auditor, To-
day made public his reply to the sug-
gestion of Congressman D. r. Anthony
that the Republican state committee
call a primary election for next year.
Mr.. Nation is opposed to the plan ana
sets forth his reasons as follows:
Hon. D. R. Anthony, jr., LeavenWorth
Kansas.
Dear Sir: I have your favor OF Octo-
Der 2G. and will say that 1 shall op-
pose the nomination of state ofhcers
by direct primary next year. Ihe[e Is
no law on the statute books Wh1ch
would apply to or govern primary
election for state officers. The present
law applies only to districts, countles
and municipalities. This pelng true'
if a direct primary were adopted the
following conditions would arise:
First-It would be necessary for the
state central committee TO aoopt tno
rules to govern in holding sucn prl-
mary. This committee would hx the
date for holding the primaries, dec!oe
where they should be held, determine
the requisite qualifications OF tne
voters therein, pass on all 1rregularltles
and questions of fraud and corrupt
practice, say whether majority or a
plurality should nominate, receive ana
canvass the returns. be the Judges IN
case of contest and decide Wnat quan-
fcations any aspirant for office shoulo
have in order to get his name on the
ballot to be voted at the primary. IN
fact, this state central committee act
ing in a legislative capac!ty, NO Wouin iT,
enact a primary election law; actlng In
an executive capacity. 1t would put
such law into effect, and in 1uolciai
capacity, it would have sole ana con-
elusive jurisdiction over questlons drls
ing in relation thereto ! am opposeo
to a few men constituting the state
central committee usurp1ng the power
heretofore exercised by much larger
percentage of the people.
Second-Almost the entire expense
of conducting such primary -Wouio
have to be borne by the candidates Tor
state office. If the state committee
calls y urinary to nominate state ofn-
cers 1t would not follow that the COM
,nittees in any considerable number OF
counties would call primaries Ior the
nomination of county officers. Ihose
that did might not hold tneir pri-
maries for county officers on the day
fixed by the state committee for noml-
mating state officers. In every county
where the state primary was heid IN
dependently and alone, tne e1, enHtnse 1,littae
There is only one way for the state
committee to meet TINS expense a,,l Iho
that is to assess the candidates: The
expenses incident to state VIDE prl-
mary are estimated as follows:
II Publicatfon of notice of primary
election in 420 Republican news .oo
papers at $500 each h-....--...--:s = looo
rs5fl'fnS s5n fos each county ........... $3.50
g. Distribution of ballots, sl.W Tor . ooo
setting eafn pruedd up and preparing booths, .no
81 90 for each precinct: Z,Ao
.. Fusntsn1rs 9nh rrecinct net ............... LOO
g. Pay aierte fer at tnr ssso i Gnu 1880
Z. Renqernsi iqtaa e 90 for each precinct. 200
g. Cost of swearing in Judges ana tn
o Posting notices of primary, so
cents in each precinct. t........ LOO
Making a total expense Off,. .$45, $50
IT NAV be that some of these services
will be performed gratis. 1t is con-
ceoed that in all cases where primaries
for local officers are held conformity
with the state primaries, the ex-
nenses will be materially reduced, but
Il must be understood that at the time
the state committee fixes the entrance
fee for the candidates, neither the COM
mittee nor the prospective candidates
will know either the extent OF the pos
sihIe donations, or the number OF can
didates that will enter for the various
offices both material FACTORS IN oe-
termining the cost per capita Tor the
candidates To proceed safely, the
COMMITTEES would be compelled to
! assess the minimum number of candi-
| dates on the state ticket, which would
he dfteen with the total probable ex-
pense, which would be S4o,Ooo IN rouno
i
Suppose that the state committee
should proceed On the assumption that
| nine-tenths Of the actual cxpcr Sc would
| ha covered by donations, does any one
| think that the state officers should be
conpelled to paw over $500 out of sal
arv of s2. 800 for the privilege of being
| = candidate for denomination? In addi-
| tion 10 this. IL nominated he would be
axnected to pay from $3.50 to $500 cam
naien assessment. These two items
| ~ expense. added to the other cam
| Daien expenses, would make the office
! nrohibitive to Il man of ordinary means,
and am therefore opposed to it.
| You call attention to the primary hello
| in the First district last year and your
| exnerience there seems to lead you to
is a mere bugaboo. You certainly 10
not mean to compare the expense of
| this primary with only one office to be
voted on and only one candidate for
that office when primaries were held IN
only ore-ff1th of the precincts Of the dis
trict with the expense of state primary
| in which there would probably be four
| or FIVE active and aggressive candidates
for governor, each with personal fol-
| lowing in every precinct Of the state.
| will close by suggesting that you ad-
dress a note of inquiry to Charles Scott
! and Henry Allen to learn IL they found
the expense of a primary election for
| congressman in the Second district a
mere bugaboo and that you publish
their replies in the columns of your
paper. Yours very truly,
JAMES M. NATION.
Mr.. Anthony's Letter.
C. E. Denton, secretary Of state;