New-York tribune., 1909-03-22
Mr.. PARSONS on THE PRIMARY BILL

Mr.. PARSONS on THE PRIMARY BILL.
Representative Herbert Parsons's objections to
the Governors primary reform bill are offered
in SO much better temper than that exhibited
by the other opponents Of the measure that they
deserve 70 be seriously considered and to be
met. if they are valid Most of them, moreover
have TO do only with the details of the bill. It
could be modified, if need be, in such a way
that most Of them could no longer he raised. 1t
is not imperative. for example-perhaps 1t is
not even desirable-that primary nominations
should be made SO long before Election Day as
the bill requires. It Is not essential that mem
hers of nartv committees should be nominated
only by petition. though we fail to perceive in
that requirement any such hardship as Mr.
Parsons suggests There IS no good reason why
they should he required 10 be residents of the
election districts from which they are elected if
the bill does contain any such provision
The only criticism Mr.. Parsons makes regard
ing the bill which does touch more than some
detail of its practical working in Manhattan is
his objection that II would tend To make fusion
difficult in this city and to divide the Repub-
Hcans here into factions. With this criticism
we are not much impressed Whatever doubt
there was about the possibility of fusion ticket
II left entirely 10 the chance Of pure direct
primary has been removed by the Governors
recommendation to put the preliminary work Of
nominations in the hands Of a committee. Tn
der the Governors plan the Republican city
committee could prepare fusion ticket and
submit it TO the voters And there is every
reason to suppose that the party at large would
desire a fusion at least as much as would the
organization itself and that therefore the fusion
ticket would he accepted. Moreover, there would
be the possibility Of a fusion when the machine
was opposed TO one. We have only to go back
to 1897 for an occaSio when the party machine
rejected fusion but when the party at large
would have effected one had it been free TO do 50.
No doubt such combination that entered
into with the Hearst party two years ago would
be impossible under the primary plan urged by
the Governor. vidavers and Ibmsens would
have little chance in a Republican primary. The
moral is that under the Governors plan party
committees would have To be particularly careful
what names they put upon a combination ticket.
This would be a great public gain. If fusion
should not have enough strength 10 carry
rarfv primary. it might as well he defeated
there. for il would have such inherent weak
hess that there would be little hope for 1t on
Election Day.
Now. in regard to the danger Of introducing
factionalism in the Republican party. Mr.. Par
sons aludes to what happened in Illinois, when.
after bitter primary fight, Governor Deneen
was barely reelected. Perhaps without the di-
rect primary Governor Deneen might have failed
of denomination and his inferior opponent might
have been the Republican candidate And there
might have been factionalism in any event.
FactionaIfsm has been active under direct pr-
maries but SO has it been where there were
conventions In any case, il usually breaks out,
as in Illinois. in the majority party. So the
argument of the opposition to primaries ordi-
narily is that direct primaries disrupt the party
i'm power Without any admission Of the truth
of this contention. it is safe TO say that what
ever factional tendencies might develop would
be at least as likely 10 affect TGmmany as
the local Republican party.