The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1909-08-28

side, especially, it has selected the
most unfit. The interests
behind Fickert (for District Attor-
ney) conducted one of the best organ
lied and costliest campaigns ever
made in San Francisco for a candi-
late. They must have spent $4,000
to 100000 to secure yesterdays
Pyrrhic victory for a man on whom
they rely to discontinue the graft
prosecutions"
The great bitterness of soul from
which the Bulletin suffers may be IN
derstood when it is said that it has
long been the special champion Of the
graft prosecutions, and it interprets
the success of Fickert over Heney for
the Republican nomination as direct
policy. The San Francisco Chronicle,
which has a somewhat more moder-
ate liking for Mr.. Heney than the
Bulletin, has the same opinion of the
primary's meaning-so significantly
and carefully expressed that an arti-
Gle on the election from the Chronicle
is reprinted elsewhere. 1t may be
taken for granted that the Chronicle
correctly interprets San Francisco's
present frame of mind.
But, to the observer of primary
laws and their operation, there were
striking phases of Tuesdays election
aside from the issue over the graft
prosecution that deserve attention.
Three important parties were in the
field-the Republican, Democratic
and Union Labor; but there seems to
have been and was the greatest posi-
BILE confusion among the several par
ties, and the least possible effort to
restrict the voter to the ticket of his
party. Democrats voted freely for
Republican candidates, Republicans
for Democratic. The bars were let
down everywhere; inquiry as to party
affiliations were prefunctory, and
partisan requirements were only NOM
inally enforced. Yet the spectacle of
the elector going where he pleased
and voting for whom he pleased at a
party primary was not the most con-
spicuous feature of the helter-skelter
way of conducting the election; the
candidates themselves had only the
slightest regard for party obligation.
We find, for example, that Charles
M. Fickert sought the nomination for
District Attorney on all three tickets.
So did Mr.. Heney. Mr.. Fickert
emerged from the general scramble
with the nominations of the Republic
can and the Union Labor parties in
his hands; Mr.. Heney with the Dem
ocratic.
Is Mr.. Fickert Republican or a
Democrat? Is Mr.. Heney Democrat
or Republican? If Mr.. Fickert is a
Republican, and not Democrat, what
business had he to contest for the
Democratic nomination at party pri-
mary? If Mr.. Heney is a Democrat,
and not a Republican, why should he
be permitted to strive for the Repub-
lican nomination? Does Mr.. Fickert's
nomination by Republicans make him
a Republican? Does Mr.. Heney's
nomination by the Democrats make
him Democrat? If it does, then, of
course, neither knew his own politics
till the polls were closed and the
votes counted, for Fickert might have
got the Democratic nomination only,
and therefore have been officially
classified as a Democrat, and Heney
the Republican nominee, and thus in
this easy way have found himself to
be a Republican.
All this emphasizes the disastrous
juggle by the primary with party and
party names. How can party be main
tanned if the methods followed in
California, in Oregon, everywhere,
shall be followed? How can party or
ganization be supported or made effec-
tive if the immoral practice of per-
hitting one man to run for three nom-
nations, with the expectation of ae-
cepting whichever one he gets, or all
of them, and of permitting the voter
to enter Unfortunately whatever
party booth he may happen at the
time to fancy, shall be followed? Is
it worth while to have party? Is 1t
worth while to strive for anything in
government through party? II 1t is
not, let US abandon the humbug and
pretense in the Oregon primary law
that political parties are useful and
necessary" and that the purpose OF
this law is better to secure and pre-.
serve the rights of political parties
and voluntary political organization,