Omaha daily bee., 1909-09-16
DIRECT PRIMARY POINTERS.


Elsmere News. Exchanges generally are
speaking rather disrespectfully of the pres
ent primary system. especially as regards
the expense to taxpayers. Aside from this
feature, we are stil Of the opinion that 1t
is an Improvement over the convention
plan. OF course our remarks don't amount
TO much, its the great / ANS, democratic
daiies and big republican weeklies, they
know. We fail, however, 20 discern tho
opportunity for corruption. which Is claimed
now exists, and would like to have an
explanation as to how It Is accomplished.
York Times: The open primary" is a
hotch-potch notion, without sense, rhyme
or reason. II a primary is to be held At
all It is to nominate party candidates.
What possible sense can there be In allow
ing the men Of one party to nominate can.
didates for the other party2 That is In
reality all that is to be gained by the open
primary. The result of all this monkey
work is liable to be the abolition OF the
primary altogether by the next legislature.
The Times was in hopes a reasonable and
sensible primary system could be inaugu-
rated and given a fair trial and we stll
have bopes this may occur some time, but
the experience of Nebraska has not been
such as to encourage further efforts In
that direction.
Aurora Republican,: Much is appearing In
the country press concerning the good ahc
bad features Of the direct primary. Some
editors are condemning the primary in
strong terms and branding its as a failure.
While there is cause for some disappoint-
ment that the voters are not making fun
use of the privilege Of nominating their
officials direct, afforded them by the direct
primary. there is no cause for discourage
ment. The great number of votes cast IN
the recent primary is ample evidence OF the
fact that q far greater number OF people
are participating in the primary thar ever
had a hand in making nominations under
the old convention system. And since the
purpose Of passing the primary bill was to
increase the number Of participants In the
making of candidates, the mark has not
been missed. The Republican did not be-
lieve at the first that the primary would
prove an immediate success, but 1t has al
ways had faith in the final success Of the
best plan ever devised for taking the nom
mating power out Of the hands OF a Few
and placing 1t in the hands of many. The
time for passing judgment has not yet
arrived.
Grand Island Independent: Since in one
or two remote and thinly settled precincts
Of the state the cost of a primary ballot
has been as high as S. per voter, oppo-
nents of the primary system Of making
nominations point to the expense. 1t Is
more expensive than the caucus system-in
first cost; there can be no doubt about 1t.
An electric washing machine costs con-
siderably more than the old fashioned tub
and ~washboard. What will the result be?
IWil It be worth the cost, will Il save more
than It costs in the long run and thus, in
the end, be the more economical? These,
1t seems TO us, are the questions. The
primary system has not, so far, worked
out as satisfactorily rs some Of those
most earnest in its advocacy had hoped,
but that has been partly due to defects In
the original law, and, more recently, to
defects added to 1t with the improvements
made by the recent legislative assembly.
The law ought to be given a further trial,
as II no doubt will be. In this county,
by the way, the primary election cost
about S600-or about 60 cents the vote. In
many counties, a greater per centase OF
voters took advantage Of the privilege Of
assisting In making nominations, the cost
was much less. The local cost was not
materially more per vote than that for
voting the paving bonds and yet It was
n good thing to have the special election
for that purpose. @ at -7.
Central City Nonpareil: TheYe are some
features about the primary OF nominations
that are not exactly satisfactory and the
voters have yet to be encouraged to take
a deeper interest in public affairs before
the system will secure the best results.
But any method that secured tho partici-
patton of $1,000 voters in an unlmportant
election like the one Just held In Nebraska
is worthy of retention. Under the con-
vention system it Is safe 20 say not one-
tenth that number would have participated
and out of that one-tenth a little
coterie of perhaps a dozen leaders would
have dictated the nominations The chief
fault with the primary In Nebraska lies
I'm the fact that the voters lack the infor-
nation necessary to the selection of the
best candidates, particularly when the
nominations are for places on the supreme
court or for subordinate state officers.
The primary, however, is a great edu-
Gator. 1t may result in n poorer grade Of
candidates for a time but after the voters
have been called upon to exercise their
own judgment a few times, when they dis
cover that the responsibility for the
selection OF good officials rests upon them
and not upon some party leader they will
begin to inform themselves and intelligent
voting will follow. The great fear, so
sedulously fostered by former beneficlarles
of the old machine. that the primary will
destroy party organizations is not as seri-
Gus as they would have us think. A little
less party organization and a little more
independent thinking and voting will be
better for politics and better for govern
ment. We can sacrifice a great deal in the
matter Of party organization II we can
remedy the evil of party manipulation by
self-seeking politicians and corporate in
~terests. There are a number Of improve
ments to be made in the present law,
among which is the eradication OF the per-
~niclous "wide-open'' feature, but the prln-
clpie Of the system is all right and is
here to stay.