The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-10-21
VOTE TO Be CLOSE
Primary Question Appears to
Be in Doubt.
ID. R. Anthony Says Sixteen
Members Favor One.
NEED STILL
Several Members of the Com
mittee Did Not Reply.
Of Replies Published
by Mr.. Anthony.
STILL

ton. 1t is claimed that 16 members OF
the committee have pledged themselves
to vote for a direct primary next year,
and that one more vote will be enough
to constitute a majority of the commit
tee. Twenty-Five members have re-
piled, of whom 16 are for and six
against. Eleven members have got
been heard from.
The members of the committee who
announce themselves publicly in favor
of the direct primary are:
B. W. McFarlane, Lawrence; r.. P.
Rice, Fort Scott; J. S. Dean, Marion;
/ Cyrus Leland, Jr., Troy; w. Grea-
son, Paola; A. H. Skidmore,
A. T.. Ayers, Howard; A. T. uchanan
Arkansas City; F. r. Smith. Manhat-
tan; J. +. Jones, Grinnell; w. D.. East
man, Greensburg; G. A. Swallow, Oska-
loosa; A. P. Harris, lola; D. r. An
thony, LeaVenworth.
TWO more members sent word that
they will vote for the direct primary
plan, but do not care to have their
names published as favoring 1t at TINS
time because some politicians In thelr
n~eighborhood are opposing it and are
requesting them to hold off.
The six members who have sent let
tiers that they are opposed to having a
direct primary for nominations next
year are:
Thomas Evans, Neosho Rapids; ]. r.
Jones', Smith Center; c. j. Evans. Els
worth; ]. T. Moore, Pittsburgh; s: J.
Osborne. C~offeyville, and D.. w. Null
vane, Topeka.
Most of these six represent districts
wherein the present state officials re-
| side who are opposing the direct prl-
mary plan of making
T. E. Donnelan, Atchison; John s..
Gilmore, Fredonia; w. Y: Morgan
Hutchinson; w. w. Caldwell, Concor-
dia; C. A. Benkelman, st. Francis
Frank Larrabee, Stafford; Morton Al
hoIOh L[inOnan- q Il Peterson. KAN
sas City; R. NJ. Crawford, Hugoton; "A.
NJ. Rochester, Tribune: n. f. Shaw,
Plainville; w. H. True, ST. Marys, and
B. H. Downing, Wichita, have not re
sent word they would favor the primary
and could be counted for it..
Senator Charles Curtis replied that he
| was strongly in favor of the primary,
| while Senator Chester L. Longs reply,
was noncommittal. Representative
Charles F. Scott and Representative
| Victor Murdoch replied that they are
in favor of the direct primary. Repre-
sentative w. A. Reeder says he faVors
it for the nomination of congressional
representatives and county officers, put
not for state officers. Representative
P. P, Campbell says he favOrs it in his
district when it will be protected by
law Representative E. H. Madison
| writes that he believes in the primary
| system but is opposed to 1t under pres
emit conditions.
Representative w. A. Calderhead
and Representative j. NJ. Miller did not
reply.
All the state officers responded ex-
| cept w. J. Fitzgerald, lieutenant gov
ernor; C. w. Barnes, superintendent of
insurance, and G. w. Kanaval and G.
A. Ryker, railroad commissioners. %
the state officers who replied, Governor
Hoch and Railroad Commissioner
Ryan favored it, and the others are OPP
posed. Most of them oppose it on the
grounds of Expense
The summary of the replies from
the m of the state committee.
with the exception of Mr.. Mulvane,
which was published this morning, is
as follows:
S. ]. Osborn, Coffeyville-I am op-
posed to the primary system. 1t is too
expensive and unjust to the present
officers. 1 am opposed to it on general
principles.
proper safeguards, 1 see no reason why
the next state, county and judicial Off
GERS should not be nominated by a oil
rect primary. Allen county has had
such a primary system for twenty
| years, and il has been amended only
once in that time. No other method
of nominating county officers in this
county is ever thought of. 1t has given
entire satisfaction.
G.. A. Swallow, Meriden-I have
communicated with a good many of
the leading Republicans of my district
and the sentiment appears to be in
favor of a primary. My action in this
matter will be governed entirely by the
wishes of the Republicans of this dis
trict.
F. r. Smith, Marysville-It is my
| belief that a great majority of the Re-
publicans of this state are in favor or
a direct primary for the nomination of
all officers, or at least are in favor of
! giving it a trial. 1t is my personal De-
lief that it will be a cumbersome and
extensive method of making nominal
lions, but 1 am willing to give it a fair
trial, and l know of no better oppor-
| tunity to give it a trial before it should
become a law than in the nomination
of our officers next year.
r. P. Rice. Fort Scott will vote
| for and support a motion to provide for
the nomination of next years state Re-
publican ticket, the election of dele
| gates to the national convention, etc.,
by a direct primary vote
Thomas Evans. Hartford will say
in reply that 1 am not in favor of a
primary election until it becomes n
Charles j. Evans, Ellsworth am
for many reasons very much opposed
to direct primaries. First, because, so
they breed more discord within the
party than conventions; second, be-
| cause they never result in Distributing
| the nominees over the territory cover
penSe to the candidate, as he has to
make two campaigns, one against
members of his own party Tor the
| nomination and one against the Oppo-
sition party for the election.
w. D. Greason, Paola-It is gratifying
that this important matter has so
forceful and influential an advocate as
you, and I am pleased to assure you
| hat I am in accord with your views.
A. H. Skidmore, Columbus-My OBJ
S~ervation is that a great majority of
the voters of Kansas want a direct pri-
! mary law. and I believe they should
--z = - 6i-oot1x- oo1ao&