The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-03-16

The first direct primary election Of any importance in the United States was held in Crawford county, Penn sylvania Gin which is the city of Meadville), as the result of a vote to that end passed in the Republican County convention there in 1860.
 This was of course purely voluntary and determined the nominees of the Republican party only.
 Several attempts were made to re- turn to the convention system, but the electors having had taste of free dom refused to return.
 This voluntary system of direct nomination spread slowly in the coun- try and mostly through the South, but did not become the subject of man datory laws until 1899 when, after a study of it's beneficial results as prac- ticed elsewhere, the County of Henne- pin, Minnesota, in which is the city of Minneapolis, secured the passage of law making the nomination of county officers by direct primaries ob- ligatory upon the principal parties.
 Similar local laws were enacted in other states. but it was not until 1902 that we find a state wide law appli- cable to practically all elective officers from governor down. This was passed 1n Mississippi in that year. There after direct primary legislation has quency in a rapidly increasing mum Der of states until two-thirds of the states of the Union now have the di- rect primary In some fOrrn MANDATORY LIN THESE STATES.
 l. States having mandatory laws covering practically all officers:
 Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Da- kota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin.
 2. States having optional laws cov- ering practically all officers:
 Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Michi- gan. Tennessee. CThe Michigan law has most localities for local of6cers.)
 3. States having mandatory laws covering practically all except state officers:
 Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania.
 4. States having mandatory laws covering certain localities or officers:
 California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Tennessee. -ering certain localities or officers:
 California Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana. Maryland, Maine, Massachu- setts, Michigan, New York, North Car olina, Rhode Island.
 In addition to these practically all of the southern states have party rules providing direct primaries for nearly all nominations.
 union containing about one-half of the population of the country employ the direct primary system for most of their elective officers.
 
 party rules require direct nominations about one-haf of the states are using the direct method. Almost one-third of the states either legally require the direct primary for certain localities or make the system optional
 In another third no provision is made for nominations by direct vote.
 The movement Is sweeping the coun- try with rapidity almost incredible when the opposition which it has inev- itably met is borne in mind.
 NEW ENGLAND LAGGARD.
 New England lags behind with no tancy, but the reform will as surely prevail as did the similarly opposed secret ballot laws of recent yeaEs.
 That the voter should individually nominate as directly as he elects his public servants is too fundamentally right to be long without expression in the statute book after the voter stops to think and he is stopping for that purpose in ever increasing numbers daily.
 No state after once trying the meth cd in any form has, ever taken sin gle backward step, except Mont ana; Montana in 1907 repealed a law passed in 1905 which provides an optional d1- rect primary for certain county off1cers and delegates to county conventions
 While it is always possible and ire quently easy to find persons who know any amount of fatal objections to direct primary law it should be borne in mind that equally intelligent ob1ec- tors to the present method are rather numerous and quite as plain spoken. The best test of the popularity of law is that while constantly criticized II still remains upon the statute books and this is pre-eminently true of d1- rect primary laws everywhere.
 1t is not claimed that they always nominate the best men. No law or practice ever did or ever VIII. The present one certainly does not always accomplish that nillenial result. It is only claimed that with direct primary law every single elector may more cer- have as much voice as any other cleo tor in nominating his ocers. The fun damental principle of Democratic gov ernment is that the government shall he not the ideally best attainable but that which the most people want. This direct primaries bring about more surely than any other method and that is their object They let the people into the kitchen and living rooms Of their political house instead of conf1n- ing them to the top story and the at tic.
 BELIEVE IN PEOPLE.
 The commission desires to go on rec ord as having supreme confidence in 4be electorate of the State of Connec- ticut and as desiring to make it as easy as possible for every one of them to have as much voice as every other one in selecting it's officers.
 An officer or a representative nom- mated in this way is answerable only to tre people and not to a nominating machine.
 The attempt in many of these pri- mary laws to modify the constitutional nrovision for the choice of U. s. Sen ators is one of their most interesting features and an eloquent sign Of the times.
 Referendum votes have been taken ,,non the subject during recent years in inc states of California, Nevada and illinois. In each case the proposition bv the people has prevailed by an en- orrnous majority.
 IT s. SENATORS DIRECTLY.
 Senators are now practically nomln- ated by the people in Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florlda, AIapana - rralpa.saa Kent,IckY Oregon. H.