The San Francisco call., 1907-01-30
SHOWS MERIT Of
PRIMARY LAW
Albert johnson Makes Con
vincing Argument Be
fore Senate Committee
BLOW AT THE BOSSES


ment proposed by the Commonwealth
Club OF san Francisco and introduced
by Senator I3elshaw, was represented
by Senators Belshaw and Leavitt The
discussion was animated and went into
many real as well as unreal phases OF
the constitutional and primary election
law situations. One side argued for
simple. direct and unambiguous amend
ment-namely, the Held-Wright reso-
buttons: the other for an amendment
which, II IL is all that is claimed for il,
still points to CircuitOus road into
the courts.
The Commonwealth Club amendment,
II II is sll that is claimed for il. cannot
fail 10 shadow with doubt any direct
primary law enacted under IT. That its
sponsor. Senator Belshaw, is acting in
good faith in its advocacy goes with
out saying. It's ambiguous provisions
are in themselves ample explanation Of
the enthusiastic support IL has received
from sources not so open TO commenda-
tion is its sponsor. The machine does
not want a valid direct primary cleo
tion law. The people do want such a
law. Both political parties were
coerced into pledging their candidates
for State and legislative Offices to the
enactment OF such a law. Some sort
of direct primary election legislation
must be given the people. With con-
able managed Legislature to dodge
behind organic law in excuse Of alleged
mistakes direct primary law could be
given the people that would fail in the
courts, fal in practice and probably
result In popular disgust with a system
proved in other States but which In
California would not receive fair
trial.
BY POSTAL CARD VOTE
While the Commonwealth Club
amendment was undoubtedly drawn in
good faith, Il was drawn without a
full appreciation OF the wide gulf that
separates direct primaries from the in
termeoiary primary, which is an In
teger OF the delegate convention sys-
TEN. II was adopted by the member
ship OF the club, not after a free and
fun discussion OF a problem which a
majority Of the members OF that club
are admittedly unfamiliar with, but by
q postal card vote cast by the mem
bers, and in numerous known instances
by men who believed they were indors-
ing the direct primary system rather
than attempting TO pass upon the value
OF an amendment to the constitution
The Held-Wright amendment wipes
out ali the doubtful provisions OF the
present section 25a OF article 2 Of the
constitution, which was drawn 10 ft
NAAA ~ AAAAAVA AlN o. uEADkALlOu EOUNGU=
tion system. The Commonwealth Club
amendment is simply the interjection
OF direct primary election clause into
delegate convention section OF or
ganic law. The provisions are antago-
nistic, in that the section provides for
q law that may be optional with the
governing bodies Of political parties
and may be made obligatory In one
political subdivision and optional in
another. Under such provisions an in
termediary primary law IS possible
a direct primary law impossible.
JOnNsON BEsTs OPPOSITION
Senator Wright IN presenting the
Held Wright amendment TO the com
mittee compared briefly the provisions
OF his amendment with the measure
advocated by Senator Belshaw and
pointed out the weak spots Of the lat
ter. asserting that il was open TO doubt
and that the Legislature was pledged
TO give the people an amendment that
was not open to double construction.
Albert Johnson, the well-knoWn San
Francisco constitutional lawyer ar
gued for the Held-Wright amendment
as a proper and adequate change in
the organic law. His argument was
clear, his propositions direct and un-
ansWerable He met the objections to
the simpler form Of amendment clearly
and consistently. He was subjected to
q running crossire OF questions and
hypothetical objections, but when he
had done this and the committee de-
cided 10 meet for final action tomor-
row he had left but one peg upon
which the opposition hung.
The last ditch was the contention
that after the adoption OF the Held
Wright amendment. II the Legislature
old not enact a direct primary law, the
constitutional amendment would result
in wiping out the present legalized In
termediary primary. To a majority Of
the committeeman this argument
lacked logic, and Senator Leavitt said
that II this doubt could be removed he.
too. would Join the Helo-Wright forces
When the committee meets tomorrow
q wealth OF decisions sustaining
Wright. Held and johnson viii be sub
mitted-
IMPORTANCE OF SUBJECT
Johnson's argument, despite the in
terruptions he encountered, was far
fron the beaten path OF arguments
made before legislative committees.
Briefly prefacinE IL with a reference
TO the subject OF direct primary legis-
latfon. he congra atulated the committee
on preparing 10 take final action on a
question OF transcendent Importance
and congratulated the Assembly upon
its unanimous 1noorsement or the Held
Wright resolutions. He showed in a
few pointed sentences how the advo-
Gates OF direct primary reform were
making q fight for the people to the
end that the Government that had
been drifting away from the people
might be returned TO their control
For the Held Wright amendment he
showed how under its provisions the
Legislature might prescribe altogether
the delegate convention system, or
leave the law as II was. Against the
iengthier and more complicated Com
rnonweaIth Club amendment. he argued
that il in effect made the constitution
a statute. That IL was the purpose
OF q constitution to make organic law
purpose which the Held-Wright
amendment served--and which the
Commonwealth Club amendment would
not serve
Under the terms Of the Belshsw or
Commonwealth Club amendment he
showed how the Legislature might del
egste It's powers TO the political par
ties and decried giving any Legislature
the right to delegate its functions 70
political parties or TO any one, point
ing out with unanswerable oef1niteness
how this very delegation OF power had
rendered imperative the otherwise