St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1910-01-12
Direct Primaries.
E. w. Gibson Writes Instructive
Letter Regarding Conditions in
Vermont.
Editor of THE CALIFORNIAN

| 1OuI SACSl1GLl relative To Tue
! views OF DIR. Charles w. Eliot, president
emeritus OF Harvard University, on the
| primary election idea has been called to
my attention.
Either DR.. Eliot has been misquoted by
the press, or he is not fully informed as
to the history of primary elections in
| Massachusetts. The criticisms of his
attributed testimony by Massachusetts
! papers bears out the above statement.
1t is probable that DIR. Eliot has been
misquoted.
| The Massachusetts law is mandatory
as to certain localities and Offices. The
state has not now, and never has had. a
general law for the nomination of candi-
dates by direct vote. All candidates for
state officers are, and have for a. long
time been, nominated by the convention
system. A reading of DR.. E1iot's testi-
| mony before the already discredited New
York legislative committee leaves the in
ference that Massachusetts has been
under a mandatory general primary
election law, when such is not the fact.
1t has law applicable to certain Offices
in certain localities.
The only real change in the primary
system in Massachusetts has been in the
city of Boston, which goes step in ad-
vance, as it is claimed, of even nomina-
| tions by direct vote, and has abolished
nomination of candidates by vote
either through caucus or direct vote.
Candidates for city Offices are now NOM
mated by petition only. But there is no
disposition in any locality to return to
the caucus system. That system has
been discarded forever. Massachusetts, is
moving away from the caucus system,
i not back to it.
DR.. Eliot's statement that the primary
election system affords in Massachusetts
no means for resisting the bosses and
fails to prevent activity on the part of
| the machine must be very amusing to
anyone having a knowledge of political
conditions, and the system of party
| government in that state. It is motor
ious fact that both the republican and
| democratic machines have for years
maintained their supremacy through the
control of conventions by machine-made
delegates.
In your editorial you state that the
most serious trouble with our caucus
system is the Indifference of the general
public. That is one of the troubles. The
general experience is that the direct vote
system stimulates an active and intelli-
gent interest in the choice of candidates
for Office. The direct vote system has
| been in actual practice in Crawford
County, Pa. for the past thirtv-one
years, aud the average vote at the prim-
aries has been 1870 of the party
strength.
In Minnesota in 1902 the vote in the
Republican primaries throughout the
state was IS. 80 of the republican vote
at the election which followed. In
Minneapolis, Mimi, the primary vote
party strength. At the last New Jersey
primary election nearly 800 of the re-
publican vote was cast. In Kansas
nearly 1920 of the republican strength
was polled at the last primary. These
figures are instructive. In our state
under the caucus less than ten per cent of
the votes select our candidate at caucus
time and we ratify that selection at
election time.
Another trouble with the caucus sys-
tenn is that it is most cumbersome.
1t is complex Let US look at the way it
works out in presidential year. First,
there is a caucus in each town and city
tor the election of deleg ates to conven-
ton for the selection of delegates to the
national convention. Second, there is a
district convention for the election of
delegates to the national convention.
Third, there is state convention for the
selection of delegates at large to the ma
tional convention. Delegates travel long
distances, at an expense aggregat1ng not
less than SIS, 100000. Result, selection
of delegates by means of one caucus in
each town and three conventions.
Fourth, there are caucuses in each
town for the selection of delegates to the
congressional convention. Fifth, there
are caucuses in each town for the
selection of delegates to the state con-
vention. Sometimes these two caucuses
are combined in one. Sixth, have two
congressional conventions for the select
ion or nomination of congressman.
Seventh, the state convention to nomi-
nate state officers. The result up to
this time being at least two caucuses in
each town and six conventions at an ex-
pense of some $35, 100000 to the dele
gates, to say nothing of the expense to
the candidates. Eighth, caucuses in
each town for the selection of delegates
to the county convention. Ninth, four
teen county conventions throughout
the state for the nomination of county
officers. Result to this time at least
three caucuses in each town and twenty
| conventions at cost of some $50, OOO.-
90 to the delegates and the candidates.
Tenth, two hundred and forty-six
caucuses throughout the state for the
nomination of town representatives and
justices of the peace. Result at least
, | four caucuses in every town. at least
nine hundred and eighty four caucuses
throughout the state, and twenty differ
ent conventions all for the simple pur-
pose of determining who shall be the
choice of the people as candidates for
Office.
Could you, Mr.. Editor, with all your
knowledge of systems of government?
your kno Wedge of general affairs, your
acnmen and your brain force, sit down
and study out more complex, cumber-
some, expensive and absurd system of
party management? Could you devise a
system so full of opportunities for usur-
patton of political power?
The most serious trouble with the
caucus system is that it is wrong in prin-
: ciple. In our state a nomination is
equivalent to an election. It is. then, at
caucus time. that we actually determine