The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1910-01-27

| or some papers on the authority OF the
state executive committee to with
draw the choice Of judges and state
attorneys from primary election, be-
cause it expected no better Of them,
but 1t does confess its panied surprise
at the manifestations of similar ignor-
| ance by such paper as The Pensa-
cola Journal, usually so clear-headed
and well-posted On questions of state
law and party privilege.
The Journal asks someone to ex-
plain ION what authority the state ex,
ecutive committee proceeded to take
the positions of state attorney and cir
cult Judge out Of the primary"
For full and authoritative explana-
ton, The Journal need go no further
| than the state primary law, which pro-
vides (Section 255, General Statutes),
that whenever the state executive
committee or standing committee of
any political party in this state shall
decide to take by primary election the
sense Of the members Of said party as
to the proper persons to be made dele
gates to any convention
or to take the sense of the members
of said party as to their choice for
United States senator or as to the
voters Of the state as
given,' etcetera.
In other words the propriety of call
ing a primary election for any office
or elective, is ABSOLUTELY IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE "EXECU-
TIVE OR STANDING COMMIT
u ~ Ia u or In ~,
law rs mandatory only in the event a
primary election is called Dy party
authority, and, in that case, only so
far as prescribing stated regulations
for the conduct of such primary. The
| executive or standing committee of
party is the authority of that party
and, as stated in the law above quoted,
has the right and the sole right to in
woke the primary method of selecting
party candidates\ Once invoked, the
| state law provides for the conduct OF
the election-but whether or not there
shall be a primary is entirely with the
| executive committee
| The Tribune is not discussing here
whether or not this is a satisfactory
state of affairs-but only giving the
| law of the subject, with which surely
every newspaper editor In the state
ought to be fully conversant. And, as
| the executive committee has the
authority to call for a primary for
ANY OFFICE, it surely has the right
to call for it for SOME OFFICES and
not call for it for OTHER OFFICES,
as the committee, in its wisdom or it's
unwisdom, may determine.
1t may be urged that the party and
pyarnfiva COmn1lttRa
have the authority-that is a matter
OF party usage, with which the statute
| law has nothing to do. The executive
committee is selected by the vote OF
the party and, thus elected, is sup
posed to represent the majority Of the
party. By vesting the committee with
this authority the party virtually says
to It.: You constitute the organiza-
ton of the party, you represent all OF
lus, you are privileged, as such, to ex.
ercise your judgment in all matters of
party policy" If the executive COM
mittee is at fault. the electors Of the
party are responsible-they chose the
committeeman the only recourse they
have is to vote the committee out and
vote in a new one next time. Under
the present system, or lack of it, in
the Democdatic party of Florida, the
only party organization is the execu-
tive committeeman the party organ
ization, the executive body, is the only
thing recognized by the state primary
law as having authority to invoke its
operation.
The Pensacola Journal goes on to
say:
IF the committee had the authority
to eliminate the Offices Of circuit Judge
and state attorney from the primary
provisions, then it had the authority
to eliminate any or all of the other
appointive or elective offices. II It
had authority to do that, then it had
authority to abolish the primary be-
cause, with the offices eliminated,
there could be no primary. No one
of course will contend that the COM
mittee had authority to abolish the pri-
mary. Therefore, where does it's au-
thority exist for aboiishing any part
primary"
+ Regardless of The Journals excla-
nation of astoundment, the executive
committee does have the power to
abolish the primary, if it sees fit. This
may be regarded as high-handed, but
who gave the committee that author
ity? Who but the electors of the
party? For instance, If the executive
committee, at it's recent meeting, had
decided not to ask for a primary at all
this year. how does The Journal sup
pose the party could have proceeded
to hold one? Surely. number of the
voters could not invoke the state pr1-
mary law, when the statute says dis
tinctly that such motion must come
from the executive or standing com
mittee''-and surely the party or any
portion of it could not by any known
process establish another executive
committee with the duly elected and
constituted one already in existence
and holding It's authority by vote OF
} the party.
1t may be that the committee acted
unwtsely in eliminating certain otf1ces
from the primary call for this year
. The Tribune holds the opinion that
judges should not be subject to popu
: lar election and its firmness in that
opinion cannot be shaken by the sort
Of alleged argument that some papers
are bringing to bear on the subject.
1t scarcely needs argument to snow