The San Francisco call., 1907-01-06
Majority of Members
Ignore Great Issue
BY George A. Van Smith

Call furnished stamped envelopes and
paper for the replies. AS might have
been expected-and as was expected
by The Call-the Assembly1nen and
Senators who did answer stated, with
few exceptions, that they were in IA
vor of submitting a constitutional
amendment, and that they were in
favor Of and would support measures
providing for direct primary election
reform. From the silence Of nearly
two-thirds of either body, who failed
even to make evasive answers, there
is but one logical deduction: those
Senators and Assemblymen do not
favor direct primary reform, and will,
If given the opportunity, evade and
repudiate the pledges made to the
people who, relying on those pledges,
have elected them to Office. If,
touching some individual cases, this
deduction be an unfair presentation
Of the sentiments of the partisan
Senator or Assemblyman, the fault
is with that Senator or Assemblyman
and not with The Call, nor with the
people, who have the right TO expect,
and do expect, that the Legislature
which meets tomorrow will give them
an opportunity to express their will
in the matter Of direct primary cleo
ton reform.
SAN FRAECIScANS RETIcENT
That the San Francisco delegation
should preserve a dignifed reticence
on the subject of election reforms
gives rise to no surprise. In fact
the surprising thing about the San
Francisco delegation is that one mem
Der Of II, Senator T. ]. Kennedy, ad-
mits having given the subject some
thought and desire to assist In the
accomplishment of the reform. Sena-
tor Kennedy promises to vote for the
submission of a proposition for con-
stitutional amendment, If an amend
ment be deemed necessary, and advo-
Gates the enactment of a law similar
to and following the provisions of
the Wisconsin law.
Senator Edward l. Wolfe is the
third and last member of the San
Francisco delegation to admit even a
knowledge of the fact that the Leg
islature is pledged to direct primary
reform. Senator Wolfe is not salts
fed, he says, that a direct primary
election law will prove panacea for |
all the political ills from which we
suffer. He lodges entirely the ques-
ton OF submitting a proposition for
constitutional amendment. He is
not accustomed to the annoyance of |
submitting to popular advice or the |
popular will. But he remembers that |
his party is pledged to direct primary
reform, and rather than subject his |
party to the ignominy of promise |
evaded, he will be willing, he says, |
TO vote for a direct primary law ap-
plicable to municipalities as a trial /
of the new system.
SENATOR WOLFE'S LETTER
Space limitations may account for
the distinguished Senator's failure to
explain that he knows that even such |
a makeshift redemption of his party's 1
promise. as he pretends to be will |
ing to vote for, would not hold water
unless the way were paved for il |
through an amendment of the con-
stitution. That The Call may lie un-
der no imputation of bad faith or mis-
construction of Senator Wolfe's atti-
tude his letter in response TO The |
Calls inquiries is submitted verbatim. 1
He wrote:
i am not entirely satisfied that
direct primary law will prove a pana-
cea~ for all the political ills from
which we suffer. However, in order
TO live up to our platform pledges, / /
would be willing to vote for a direct
primary law applicable TO elections in
municipalities as a trial of a new sys-
TEN. In any event I am willing to
listen to argument on the pro and con