The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-03-16

a convention of delegates from several states has recently been held in Iowa
 on the invitation of it's general assem-
 ply to consider how best to bring about
 that result. It has permanently or sanized as ''The Interstate Senator ial Amendment Convention
 It is not improbable, however, that
 direct primaries will first solve the problem.
 OBJECTIONS RAISED.
 The principal objections made to a
 direct primary law are four in num- Der.
 First That it would give the news
 nominations.
 Second. That it would impair a right of the country towns.
 Third. That it would end party or ganization and efficiency.
 Fourth. That it entails an expense
 which would deprive poor men of the
 opportunity to run for office
 We are at a loss to understand why
 the influence of the press upon nomin-
 ations by direct primaries should be feared. Nothing else in the world es-
 capes that influence, and nominations
 as made at present certainly do not
 That the press should be free to praise
 or blame or be silent has been thought so desirable a thing in all enlightened countries that the laws eusuring that freedom are the most jealously guard ed of all upon the statute books. A newspaper has no more influence than it's habitual readers learn that it is worthy of, and these readers are the citizens whose right to nominate the candidates of their individual choice is sought to be secured.
 Newspapers never blindly follow one another in mistakes, nor often in any direction, and it is not public and open
 talk, but private suggestion that is
 really dangerous. If the arguments | ltxyI,i ich iof7 a.
 tions could be made as public as the attitude of the press is, the objection to them would largely disappear. If a candidate dislikes the statements or the silence of g. newspaper, the remedy is far nearer to his hand than when what is said or not said to delegates determines his fate. When the peo- pie can effectually express their indi- tinguished from private discussion. the political millennium is near at hand, even if some of that discussion, so long as it is public, is mistaken.
 The second objection is oftenest heard from persons who are not resi- dents of small towns and whose req son for making it can be easily ex- | plained upon other grounds than inter est in town welfare. Therefore, we are not sure whether the towns them
 selves will think the objection has | their real interest at heart or not. l Most of those who talk in favor of d1- | rect primaries are citizens of country | towns and intelligent defenders of town preroeatfves and these men scof at | the idea, that the country town has
 anything to fear from direct primar- l ies, and claim that it has everything
 to gain: that in no other way can 1t
 so well defend itself against all efforts
 to exploit it. The Connecticut town
 is naturally jealous Of it's unusual pre- negatives, and we know that nothing causes greater alarm than a claim of danger to them, whether that claim be prompted by a disinterested and genu- inc interest or not, and so we address | ourselves very briefly to it's considera- | ton.
 | The claim, of course, means that the nomina tions which are to be accom- pliShed by a direct vote will no longer be the product of conventions, where each town of the district involved has hitherto had a voice with every other town. These voices, however, are not | equally potent, because nearly half of the towns in this State have in the principal conventions but half as many delegates as the other towns, although ] the first named towns are often the largest, and representation by popula- ton is to a certain degree allowed also, while, in addition to all of this, Sena- sented, that the towns cannot at present be said to have really equal | influence upon nominations. Some 1 times quite the contrary is true. But the alarm cry by which effective op- position to direct primaries is sought ! to be created is that through them it i would be possible for the thiclxly pop
 ulated places more easily to nominate | candidates not desired by the thinly
 populated places, or, to put the claim
 into language more familiar, the cities
 can out-vote the country towns. This is of course theoretically true
 but let us consider first, whether it is
 something which ought not to be even possible, and second, whether if pos sible, it probably would ever happen. In the first place the right which is claimed to be imperiled is merely a
 political practice differing materially
 in the different parties and under it
 the different towns as already stated
 do not as betYeen themselves have
 equal or anywhere near equal influence | in the principal conventions.
 The real town right which has a le- gal guarantee is a right to representa- l tion in the lower house of the General Assembly and as sincere friends of | town representation there we shall be
 surprised ana sorry if the law deter
 mining power which that right gives
 to them is deliberately used to keep l State the right themselves to decide 1 for whom they shall vote, provided in l the light of modern ideals they now
 want that right and if this is doubted
 1t can be very easily made certain. l Are we not Justified for instance, in | respectfully suggesting that state sen- 1 ators. who constitutionally. and pur- | posely. and actually represent people | as distinguished from towns, would
 most fairly be nominated by the in-
 dividual people whom alone they repre- | sent?
 But in the second place. whether
 what we have just said be true and ! of consequence or not. would the thing | objected to ever really happen? CITY VS. TOWN, NEVER. | The centers of population have never | in the history of the state lined up | against the smaller towns in the mat | ter of nominations and there is no l possible reason why they should here l after They have no community of in 1 terest in such matters and no reason 1 whatever simply as populous olaces to | stand together. They are far more | try towns are and have never yet been able even to approach agreement about 1 a Candidate when there was any