The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-01-21
NO SECRET BALLOT.
CONTINUED from Page

Yeas-Beeson, Bergman, Bird, Boyle,
Cole, Cowan, Craddock, Cunningham
Giants. Gesner. Gordon, Helmick, Hol-
den, Holdren, Husey, Hutchinson, JET
fries. Johnson, Jones, Kiff, Kinnison,
lehman, McGillivray, Mayhem, Miller,
Milligan, Montee, Morgan Of Hodgeman'
Morgan of Reno, Myers, Policy, Pone-
roy, Ransom, Reynard, Rhodes, R1ch'
Richmond, Rochester, Ryan, Schmidt
Shepard, Sourbeer, Taylor, Umholtz'
Wheeler, Woodhouse, Simmons-5l
Nays-Adams, Archer Banks, Blaine
Boggs. Grandson, Briefly. Clark, Cot
tingham, Crumly, Davidson, Dawson,
Davis, Dennis, Fisher, Flanagan, 70
ley, Fraser, Grass, Guyer, Ham, Hart
Hendricks, ingalls,, Kirkland, Lancer
Leland, Lennen, Leydig, Martin, Mer-
GER Mitchell, Murphy, Neihart, Oshant,
Padgett. Peter. Plumb. Potts, Price,
Rockefeller, Roush, Saunders, Sherer'
Sipple, Skinner, Stannard. Stockton,
Stone, Stubs, Sweeney, Swope, Tan
nehill, Thompson. Tredway, Warren
Wells, White, Wilson'S.
The first mat erial amendment to the
bill in the Afternoon was proposed by
Cyrus Leland to Sec. 2. This section
provided for the selection of delegates
and alternates to the national party
conventions Mr.. Leland said:
I'VE have nothing to do with the
national committees. 1t is a partisan
measure. The national committee
this year merely gave the state COM
mittee the right to choose delegates by
primary. But we have no right to
pass law providing a way to elect
delegates to the national convention"
Mr.. Stubs said that he considered
1t one of the most important features
of the bill to allow people to vote di-
rect for delegates to the national con-
vention. He said no national con-
vention would dare to challenge the
right of such delegates to seats.
w l., Cunningham DrODOSed an
amendment specifically declaring
that delegates to the national coz
vention be nominated by primary.
Later Mr.. Cunningham withdrew this
election of delegates to the national
convention was stricken from the sec
ton.
w. L. Cunningham moved as an
amendment to section that the pst-
mary be held the first Friday in Aug
ust after 1908 instead of in May.
There was a long debate on this
proposition Foley or Rice favored
August so that the campaign would be
short. Leydtg Of Butler opposed
long campaign for nominations. Nor
gan of Reno said that it would be bet
ter to have a late primary than to
try to elect delegates by primary to
national convention
Robert Stone of Shawnee said:
''The real question is whether we want
to elect delegates to the national con-
vention. If we do, we must have an
early primary"
Flanagan of Decatcr said he was
a farmer and wanted a late primary.
White of Ottawa and Reynard of
Franklin both said they were farmers
and they both wanted an early pri-
mary.
DIR. BrierIey of Cloud said it didn't
make any difference to the farmers;
~ 0T11o in IA IL
the candidates anyway; that he had
fixed up lots of 'em.
Cunningham's amendment was
beaten on a rising vote of Sc to "a.
On motion of Robert Stone the time
for the primary was changed from the
third Tuesday in May to the first
Tuesday in May.
The committee then reverted to sec
ton and on motion of Morgan or
Reno decided to include delegates to
the national convention in the primary
scheme.
Mr.. Morgan then moved that the pri-
mary should not apply to delegates
elected in 1908.
that the state committee had already
made arrangements for choosing dele
gates and would not go back on. this,
regardless of what the legislature
might do.
Morgan's second amendment was
beaten by vote of 63 to SO.
Amendments to subsequent sections
up to section were not of an import
ant character.
On reaching section 9, it was about
$50 o'clock, and the house adjourned
till 1880.
The Topeka Capital, which is not US
usally lined up so strong against Gov
ernor" Stubs, came out last Wednesday
morning in strong editorial faVorlng
-v,li Y,1.ir11 nj
1.-THE advantages in dividing the SEN
ator question from the general issues
of the primary are evident and appeal
especially to the dominant party of
state. In a close district the candidate
for representative or senator in the
legislature is at a serious disadvantage
when his Intentions on the U 5. sena-
torship are known In self preserVa-
ton, the first law of politics as well
as nature, he sidesteps the question to
the best of his ability. Thus at the
outset he is driven to a somewhat cow
AIdly action, and not merely for his
own sake, for the nominee of a party
has a responsibility for the party to
run up as good a vote as he can. If
the party primary has already instruct
ed him on the Senatorshfp he is sad
died with whatever unpopularity the
candidate to whom he is committed Ia
bors under, and there is a danger that
a number of close districts would
thereby be lost in the election. If the
state itself is close, the senatorial pr1-
mary might easily lose the legislature.
This danger is avoided by the sug-
gestion of holding the primary on the
senatorship at the same time as the
general November election, and it has
another merit, in inSuring a large vote
on the important question of the sena-
torship for six years. Possibly this
primary could be held in the same
polling booths as the general election
and a part of the expense saved. 1t is
ho rfi an
peal to members of the legislature it
self. affecting their own candidacy as
it does. With such a plan the matter
of senatorial politics would be entirely
10 claAina Of nd 1T