Omaha daily bee., 1909-08-31


crease. The Enterprise is a friend Of the
primary and to repeal the entire law and
return to corrupt convention practices
would be a step backward for Nebraska
But we want no more Of the blanket ballot
like that inflicted upon us by the late lesis'
lature. The man who Is ashamed to de-
clare his party affiliations before par
ticipating in the party primaries Is not
the man to be OF material aid to any party
and there will be little objection IL he re-
mains at home on primary election day,
Expense cannot be considered as an argu-
ment, against the law. 1t costs money to
hold conventions and this expense is neces-
sarily borne by the few. Primary expenses
are met by the many. and the cost to The
Individuals too small to compute.
O'Neill Frontier. The primary method
Of nominating candidates has never been
very warmly commended since it was first
tried In this state. This year open con
domination of the system has developed. In
this county about one-sixth of the voters
showed an interest in the nominations by
attending the primaries. The election will
cost the county about S1,4OO. The objection
to the primary system is the cost. 1t is
argued that the little interest in the non,l.
nations is not worth the price. However,
this is not the fault Of the system, but of
the voters. 1t has some commendable fea-
lures. There were eight republican candl-
dates this year for the three supreme Judge
nominations. The primary was a good way
to settle IL.
Fairbury News: There seems to be a
vast difference Of opinion among our eX-
changes over the state as to the efficacy
of the open primary. While 1t seems to
have been true that old party lines were
deserted everywhere in the selection OF
candidates, If this was done for the puT-
pose Of selecting the best men for the
various positions, it would be an argu-
ment in favor Of the law. On the other
hand, If it was done for the purpose Of Sc
lecting weak candidates who could easily
be beaten, the result would be anything
but salutary. Until it can be determined
to what purpose the privilege was exer-
cised, it will be a hard matter to gain a
correct estimate Of the law.
Albion News; The fundamental principle
needs to be emphasized, that the primary
election is designed by law to give the DIFF
ferent political parties, and all the mem
bers thereof, a fair, orderly and lawful
manner Of naming their party candidates
for all elective offices. The man who be-
longs to a party should not be permitted
to help govern any other party, and the
man who belongs to no party should not
be permitted to vote in the primary cleo
ton. Consequently the open" primary
which permits a man of one party to vote
at all in the primary, is not an exemplifica-
ton of honesty, fairness or justice. The
direct primary is the best scheme yet de-
vised for the nomination of candidates, but
the attempt to depopularize it made by the
last IeRislat tire must he corrected.
Neigh Leader: Within the last month
the writer has made considerable effort to
obtain expressions from the public regard
ing the primary election law. With but one
exception there has been open and en-
phatic condemnation of the law, and espe-
cially as It is amended by the last legis-
lature. The next legislature viii do wisely
to repeal the law in it's entirety, This
action is limos univerf ally demanded, and
will lessen n aterially the expenses of the
counties and state, which are becoming
butdensome. The Leader cannot be charged
with other than good motives in condemn
ing the law, which has been a source of
cor siderable revenue, averaging from 500
to $500 yearly. This could pc increased
Enormously by a holdup of the candidates,
such as is practiced in some localities, and
is another and not insignificant objection
to the present primary system. OF course,
If the law is repealed this paper and others
would lose the legitimate profit on this
business. Yet it should go to the scrap
heap, with other impracticable measures.
The theory Of the law is right, but in prac-
tice it is condemned by more than nine.
tenths Of the voters and taxpayers. If
there is a difference, democrats condemn
the law with more vehemence than the
republicans.