New-York tribune., 1910-09-04
LITTLE PROOF Would HELP,

To his latest pronunciamento on direct
nominations Mr. Barnes should have
appended a few footnoteS furnishing the
facts on which his argument was nased-
The Albany statesman describes tine
agitation OF the hour as the cause OF
the palsy overhanging the business
world to-day" aud says;
The agitation behind the direct system
OF nom nations IS worse than direct nom
ination:; themselves. bad as they are anu
have proved TO be by experience Wher-
ever they have been put into operation
II would have been more 10 the point
if Mr.. Barnes had produced some
proof that the direct system Of nom
inattcnS has afflicted the business
world with palsy in the states III
which il has been tried or that any
state WHICH has adopted 1T has tried 10
overcome the palsy virus by abandonlhS
the direct method and returning To Inc
convention system. The direct metnod
has been used in many states long
enough 10 disclose its merits anu ue-
merits Undoubtedly It has developer
faults, Just as the convention system
deveIored faults. but where is the state
which. having tried both methods, has
been willing To exchange the new order
e,e, the old The direct method IS now
in use in these thirty states: New
HAMPSHIRE. New jersey. Pennsylvania,
MARYLAND. Virginia, South Carolina,
Georgia. Florida. Alabama, MISSISSIPPI,
Louisiana, Texas. Arkansas, tennessee,
Kentucky, Missouri. Oklahoma, Kansas,
Nel,ras ska. Michigan, Wisconsin. Iowa,
Minnesota. North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nevada. Idaho. Oregon, Washington and
California. In q modified form It has
been adopted in Illinois and Ohio. Thir-
ty-rSvo of the forty-tYe states have,
wherefore, found it practicable TO employ
2 procedure which eliminates the mid
dlerran in politics and makes the candl-
date the choice at first hand of the
voters. whose wishes under the old sys-
TEN gre supposed to he reflected at sec
ond hand by delegated agents.
Has palsy attacked the business
world in alI these states. constituting
OYER two-thirGs Of the Union? If it has.
the peoEle of those con1monWealths do
not seem to have recognized the symp-
toms of that dread disease. Our pros
porous neighbor. Pennsylvania, has
urinary election law which goes much
further than the Cobb bill, defeated in
the last Legislature purposed TO go. 1t
REQUIRES the nomination by direct vote
IF all marty candidates for Congress and
the state Legislature and for, county and
municipal offices. Have the business in
M lix-zn
since the primary law went into effect:
Few people in Pennsylvania seem TO
think so To add a little cogency TO his
argument Mr.. Barnes ought to show how
allowing the voters of a party to do d.
rectly what they row do indirectly has
crushed enterprise and demorallzed busl-
ness III the states in which the direct
method has been tried
The people Of these commonwealths
NAV be willing 10 admit that the busi-
ness interests Of the politicians have
/ been injured by the introduction of the
primary system. which has shorm the
middleman in politics of most of his
! power His opportunities are narrowed
and the value OF his services as 60
( between in the disposition of offices and
the moulding Of legislation is impaired.
His functions may be "palsied,' and in
/ his resentment at the agency which has
/ struck him down he may imagine that
/ tie, whole world about him Is suffering
from the effects Of the unhappy shock.
/ Mr.. Barnes may justly voice the tndig-
nation of the class 10 which he belongs.
But he IS clearly straining his fancy
when he argues that limitation Of that
class's activities would mean widespread
disaster 70 business, commerce and in
dustry. whose dependence for security
and progress upon the perpetuation Of
the convention system is arbitrarily as
! Sumed.