The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-01-09
MIR. BYRD ON PRIMARIES.

L r
for discussion In Congress.
/ =-=-------------------..-----------7
MIL. BYRD ON PRIMARIES.
Speaker Byrd hits the subcommit-
tees primary bill from the shoulder.
Not word Is minced, not a phrase is
spared which will help to expose the
utter inadequacy Of this small frag-
ment of primary law. In particular
tho Speaker riddles that section OF tho
bill which puts the whole conduct OF
primary elections into the hands OF
the local committees. From the stand
point Of one practically familiar with
politics. he points out exactly what
this dangerous looseness may mean.
Our readers can do worse than to read
what he says. It Is idle to pretend. as
some upholders OF the laxesf possible
| primary do. that the enactment Of
nominations is reflection on the hon-
esty of Democrats. Democrats enact
laws furnishing frauds in elections with
no thought on anybodys part that they
are thus confessing their own weak
/ ness or guilt. There Is, Of course, no
reason why they should regard pri-
mary elections as on different and
moro delicate footing. There is, in fact
4 every reason why they should not. That
/ is what the subcommittee and others
seem to have failed to grasp: that
the demand in the party is for pri-
mary law exactly as detailed. rigid.
comprehensive and drastic" as a good
election law.
/ Mr.. Byrd takes occasion also to de-
fend his own bill. OF which only a sin
gle word has been subjected to any
thing approaching convincing criticism
!, This is the word SHALL" making the
primary compulsory. Upon this point
we think that the father of the bill
. takes exactly the right ground He
!, says that the compulsory feature IS
= partially academic in Virginia just
j now. and implies that 1t can be omitted
), without spelling the bill We agree
with him that 1t Is not necessary Il
insist on this feature to the sacrif1c
of others at present much more i'm
portant. But we agree with him. too
in wondering what Is the valids argu
rnent against It, Really. is there an.
argument except lack Of faith in thu
primary itself?
We have been told that the commit
tee was not free TO include in its bill
4 To
press Instructions of the Roanoke con
u vention, construed as narrowly ant
. literally as possible This argumen
's was promptly Kicked into q cocket
Z, hat by the committee itself. which
make provisions neither mentioned MOI
contemplated by the convention. BY
u no hook or crook could anything order.
I ed at Roanoke be stretched TO cover
y the committees remarkable provision
: empowering the State Executive
Committee of any party to determine
Sin any given case" between a prt
9 mary and q convention. If the com
: 1nittee Is thus free to ignore and pas
beyond the convention in one case,
las Tree III iii. g nave Deen sLolu, ~.
as an argument against compulsioI
$ that II Is an "unwarranted invasion
8 for the State to exercise any author1t
/ over the nominations OF parties II
j vasion OF what? II 1t Is meant, ana
: true, that the party's constitutional
4 natural rights are invaded, the cour'
d A would promptly throw out q compulso.
h primary. Yet 1T is q, fact that cour
all over the country have sustaine
: and upheld them. And how Is It TIL
the users Of this argument do not 8
!, that it applies. with equal force al
truth, to any form Of primary la
4 whatever2 There is no difference
Z principle between the States commal
AZ that all parties must use the prina
4 system and It's command that {
Z parties which use q primary must
8, 1t in such and such away.