The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-02-11

ever tSmply as populous places to stand
 together. They are far more jealous
 of cash other than the country towns
 are and have never yet been able even
 to approach agreement about a csndi- date when there was any competition.
 No more have the smaller towns as
 such ever stood together or cared to
 in such matters. Their theoretical
 ability to determine nominations has
 never been put to practical use, and
 in the very nature of things never
 could be. The fact is, as we all know
 that candidates are never selected and
 never would be selected because the
 centeRs of population want them and
 the other voters do not, or vice versa.
 A resident of Hartford would hardly
 for that reason alone be the idol of
 either New Haven or Bridgeport.
 And besides all this so far as State
 conventions are concerned the propos-
 ed bill only cOntemplates the removal
 of nominations for Governor, Lieu
 tenan$-Governor and Congressman at
 large from them. The conventions
 themselves are retained and all other
 State officers are still to be nominated
 in then just as heretofore. It is i'm
 possikle to conceive of a candidacy foI
 any one of the three specified positions
 which all the cities would favor or op-
 pose while all the smaller towns op-
 posed or favored it. The lines never
 have been and never could be drawn
 in any such way. as that. Therefore
 we believe that by permitting every
 electoe wherever he resides to have as much voice in nominating as in
 electing his officers the smaller towns
 will give up nothing which has been
 of aky real advantage to them or anything which has ever been con- sciousay acted upon, although under
 party rules they have had the purely theoretical, ability yby complete agree
 ment and combination to control the matter. We accordingly hope for the sake of the towns themselves that if direct primaries are in other respects
 desirable, they will not be denied on the grounds Just considered.
 ss In the third place 1t has been claim ed that direct primaries disrupt par ties ard impair party efficiency. This claim when traced to it's source has been found to have a purely selfish origin. The plan has been under ex- tensive trial now for several years and no such result is anywhere apparent. Entirely competent and disinterested observers emphatically assert that the contrary is true. On principle it cer- tafnly should be true, for whatever makes the rank and file more content ed with their participation in party action ought to make them better party men. Under such a law as we propose there is still enough work for party machinery to do to keep it as bright as ever. If these laws had
 wrought the party injury which is sometimes prophesied, they would have been repealed long ago, for nothing is ever more carefully attended to in Leg islatures than party interest.
 Governor Hughes in his recent in- augural we'll says that:
 Direct primaries promote true party leadership by making 1t less suscepti- ble to misuse and more in accord with general party sentiment. By increas- ing the direct influence of the party voters their participation in party af- fairs wiu be. encouraged. It will make the elective officer more independent for their selfish advantage, and en- able him to appeal more directly to his constituency upon the basis of faith fui service It cannot fail, in the main, to prove a strong barrier against the efforts of those who seek, by the selection of candidates, to pervert administration to the ser- vice of privilege or to secure inamun- ity for law breaking. It is a reform which is instinct with the spirit of our and it is difficult to see how any party man, however earnest in his partisanShip, can oppose the right of the voters of the party really to decide who shall represent them as 
 The fourth objection. that direct pri- maries will make nominations inapos- sible for poor men, can hardly be the result of much reflection. The mer- est tyro in politics. and every one who pays the slightest attention to elec- ton returns, know that to run for of- flee is a. prohibited pastime for poor men now Sums of money far beyond their command are confessedly spent in this State at every election as mat ter of course, and no one supposes that this would happen were it not rendered necessary by the already existing sys- tenn. The way to stop the appalling of the present day would be to prohibit by law anything more than very moderate payments, and then enforce the law: but the distribu- ton of the wealth of the ambitious is apparently looked upon as a desirable thing. Two years ago we proposed a law to prevent it which failed of pass age. It can be easily stopped if that Is really desired, and until then it ought not to be mentioned as an ob- lection to direct primaries. There is no known reason why these should make office holding necessarily more expensive than the present system. They really ought to make it less ex- pensive, and are believed so to do in oractice.
 We have thus sought to briefly an- ,wer the four principal objections made 10 direct primaries which have come to our attention. We doubt very much, whether the best law for any State can be born full grown and are disposed to recommend a conserva- i've beginning in order that familiar ty with it's use may be more easily acuuired and the advantages of the principle more certainly, appreciated. 1t is better that it should be added to rom time sto time than subtracted rom. We accordingly recommend the passage of a direct primary law which shall contain at least the following features:
 0l. It should apply to the whole only upon parties which polled more han a small per cent. of the entire yote at the preceding general election A question has been raised in some tates as to the legality of a provision uniting the primary act to parties polling a certain number of votes. Britton " Election Commissioners, 29 Cal. 337 (61 Pac. rep. 1115, 1900) States V. Jensen, S6 Minn. 19 CS9 N. W. rep. 1126, 1902) State V. Drexel "A Ieb. 776 COS NV. rep. 174, 1905.) States 7. Poston, 5S Ohio 620 qS98.) Kenneweg v Allegheny Co, 102 Md, 11s (62 At antic rep. 249 1905) DeWalt V. Bart ey, 146 Penn. St. 525 QS92.) Ransom V. Black, 54 N. J., Law, 445, Q892). We Ieem that 1imitatiO extremely helpfIli