Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1909-11-18
LOOSE SCREWS SOMEWHERE.

Some thousands of Virginia Demo-
Gratis who voted in the Gubernstorial
primary failed to vote in the general
election. while some thousands of Dem
ocrats voted in the general election who
did not vote in the primary. Bristol
Herald Courier.
This is apparently but not necessarily
true. 1t is more probable that the dis.
crepancy between the vote cast at the
primary and at the subsequent election
may be accounted for by the fact that
in some localities the first was a go-as-
you-please affair, conducted by parti-
Fan sppointees, while the other was
held subject to the State law and was
superintendent by officials representa-
tive of both political parties. Where
the votes cast for the successful candi-
dates fell far short Of the number re-
turned for them in August, as was the
case In some precincts, the falling off
can not be explained by assuming that
the primary supporters of the opposi-
ton candidates failed to vote at the en-
suing election for the nominees; be-
cause if all this class has abstained
from the polls that would not have re-
duced the vote below that cast for the
successful candidates at the primary.
provided that there was a legal voter
behind each vote then returned. The
most natural solution of the seeming
puzzle Is that persons were allowed to
participate in the primary who were
not in political affiliation with the
Democratic party, and in other locali-
ties more votes were counted than there
were persons voting. We do not mean
to open old sores simply for the sake of
seeing the blood flow, but the looseness
with which the primary plan was ad-
ministered-in spots, if not generally
must be called to public attention in
order to strengthen the demand on the
Legislature for enactments that shall
legalize and safeguard the methods of
making party nominations. If this is
not done, there are thousands of Demo
Gratis in Virginia who will neither take
part In any future primary nor be bound
by its result. Norfolk Virginian-Pilot.
Yes, there were loose screws in the
recent elections held in Virginia, both
primary and general And these loose
screws are always utilized by the vir-
ginia Democracy when necessary to
elect their candidates or swell the vote
of the party. Here is an admission bv
the Norfolk Virginian- Pilot that ballot
boxes were stuffed in the primary with
illegal voters or that the count was pad
ded- The peculiar circumstances sur
rounding the returns and the count es-
tablish the admission of our Norfolk
contemporary that the primary was "a
go-as-you-please affair." If the pri-
mary was such an affair, why could not
the general election be made also "a
correspondence AFFAIR."" If the in
centive at the primary was sufficient to
make it a fraudulent affair, it was
doubly 80 at the general election. At
the primary the Machine had only the
independent or anti-machine element
to deal with and defeat. At the gen.
eral election it had an aggressive Re-
publican party to defeat and the anti
machine forces of its own party to re-
buke. A largely diminished vote for
the Machine ticket or a greatly reduced
majority would have been a terrible
blow to the State organization of the
Democratic party. 1t WAS a critical
time for the Machine, and no effort was
spared and no method abandoned to
maintain its prestige. This same or
ganization had frequently stuffed ballot
boxes and manipulated returns to defeat
the Republicans. Why presume and
claim that the organization will not
now and continuously do these things
when it is in peril? There were GER
tainly ''loose screws" at the recent
general election, but they did not oper-
ate on the lines suggested by the Bristol
Herald Courier.