East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1908-02-17

The East Oregonian is pleased to be
the first paper in Oregon to publish
Judge Stephen A. Lowell's reply to
the open challenge from w. S. U'Ren,
TO debate statement No. from the
platform. Since Judge Lowell has
become one OF the leading opponents
to statement No. In the state. his
answer to Mr. U'Ren will be read with
much interest. 1t is as follows:
Pendleton, February 17.-(To the
Editor I'm view of your vigorous
espousal Of the cause OF that politl-
cal nondescript known as statement
No. 1, the recent publication In your
columns OF Mr.. U'Ren's letter direct
ed to me through the Portland Tele-
gram. and the editorial comment
thereon with which you honored me.
I assume that my answer to him may
be of interest. Here II is:
February Is. 1908.
Mr. w. S. URen.
oregon City. Ore.
Dear Slr:-My attention is called
to your open letter recently publish
ed IN the Portland Telegram. contain
ing a challenge to discuss publicly
with you the now famous supplement
to the direct primary law, known as
statement No. /.
You and went over this matter
thoroughly two years ago, you Will
recall. at the rooms OF the CONNER
cial club in Portland, and later In
conference with Mr.. Bourne at
Kruse's restaurant. We were not
then able to agree even upon the
premises and we are certainly just
as wide apart now. Hence. a debate
could avail nothing, as a debate is
impossible unless an agreement can
be reached as to the basis OF the dis
cussion.
The difference between You and
me upon this question Is fundamen-
tai. I believe that the government
was established and must continue as
representative government. and
that It has always been and always
will be a government OF parties. You'
on the other hand, regard ideal pop |,
ulaT government as essentially
pure democracy and would eliminate :
all parties. I
A public discussion, therefore, |
would be as frutless as the private |
discussion which we have already had
upon the same subject Neither you !
nor / nor the few people who might |
gather to hear us would be In any
manner enlightened by q debate such |
as you suggest Those who accept |
the historic idea of party government
would probably agree with me at the
beginning, and at the end, and those |
who entertain your views Of party
elimination would agree with you at
the beginning and at the end
Primary Law InviOlate.
We are in accord upon one thing,
I trust and that is the necessity Of
sustaining the integrity of the direct
primary law. We labored together !
many years for its establishment, ana
stil believe that It Is the law OF the
people and the only method of avoid
ing the corruption and political job
berry which attach to the old primary
system. but permit me to say to You
that / am thoroughly convinced that
the people who are so strenuously
insisting upon statement No. l may
possibly be poisoning this safeguard
of the people to its death.
The great mass of men, both DEM
ocrats and republicans, are party
men, and they adopted this measure
and desired It to be enforced solely
as a matter OF party regulation, and
If It shall ever happen that state
ment No. /, which is no essential
part Of the primary law. shall compel
a. republican legislature to elect a
democratic United States senator or
a democratic legislature to elect re-
publican United States senator, there
will be such revusion OF sentiment
that the whole law will lose popular
support and will be stricken from the
statute books.
Party Is Superior.
1t seems to me, and, ] say 1t with