Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1909-1911, 1910-04-08

selves at an election, and that other
things which were done by conventions
must now be done by the candidates
nominated for office. 1t would be rather
far-fetched to say that, because some
acts were performed by aSsemblageS be,
fore the constitution was adopted, per-
petual right is guaranteed thereby that
these particular acts must for all futurd
time be performed in the same manner,
There is no curtailment of the right
guaranteed by the constitution"
Merely a Substitution.
AT best there is but a substitution Of
methods by which the selection of candi!
dates is to be made. The right of any
political party to assemble in convention
and consult for the common good is I'M,
impaired. Since the Australian ballot
has been adopted and is printed and dis,
tributed at public expense it is entirely
proper for the Legislature to prescribe
reasonable regulations governing the
manner in which names may be placed
on that ballot
On this same point the court con-
cludes that the bill of rights was
framed to meet grave abuses of d vera
different character.
Such intention says the court
would entirely ignore those altered con-
ditlons which the mutations of time
bring about, and would be tantamounr
to an egOtistical declaration that when
the constitution was framed the millen,
MUM had arrived and progress had
reached its ultimate goal"
View on Nomination.
The court does not agree with the
argument that Il condition for nominal
ton on a party ticket to be voted for
at the primary is Disseminated against
because restricted as to the number of
signatures he may procure to his petit
ton. Such candidate, says the court,
lis seeking the nomination of his party,
and, if successful, secures the manifest
advantages that follow therefrom, while
the Independent candidate is a free lance
who usually depends upon his individual
efforts to secure his election. Unless we
have similarity of conditions, there is
no discrimination"
Regarding the objection that the law
permits a voter to vote the ticket of a
party to which he does not belong and
which he does not intend to support at
the general election, the opinion says:
THAT this has been done, or will be
done in the future, to any greater ex-
tent under the primary election law than
was practiced under the caucus system
that existed before the adoption of the
primary law, may well be doubted. That
any considerable following of one po-
litical creed will deliberately desert their
own party at the primary to foist an I'M
worthy set of candidates on rival
party, pre-sunposes a degree of moral
turpitude that we cannot presume to eX-
list We agree with the supreme court
of Washin gtOn that the objection is po-
litical rather than judicial and should
be remedied by the Legislature instead
of by the courts The law certainly pre-
sents an anomalous situation in this re-
gard, if the Legislature considered it i'm
portant that party integrity should be
preserved
Electors Have Rights.
1.-THE contention that to require a can
didate to declare that if nominated and
elected to an office he will qualify adds
a qualification not required by the CON
stitution, we regard as untenable,' says
the court. THE electors have Il right to
know whether he will or not; otherwise.
if he should decline, their votes would
be thrown away. They ought to have
the right to express Il choice as between
candidates who are willing to assume the
duties of office if elected"
The last contention, attacking the law
on the ground that it provided for the
nomination of candidates for United
States senators by the people, is treated
by the court in one-fOurth Of the VERDI
age in the entire opinion.
1t is apparent, declares the court, that
the clause of the constitution which it is
claimed the law transgresses in this re-
gard was framed through fear of popu-
lar government in its broadcast sense, and
that the Legislature would be more COM
petent to select a desirable class of sen
ators than would the people," Reference
is made in this connection to the debates
in the constitutional convention and to
contemporaneous history as supporting
this theory.
Guarantees Privileges.
Abiding to the fact that the consti-
tuition guarantees to citizens the right of
petition, the court asks: ''Wherein does
the primary nomination Of United States
senators differ of the exercise of the
right of petition? The legislative can
didate is thereby informed of something
that he has Il right to know and of
something that it is his duty to heed
He may not regard the verdict as obiiga.
tory, but should treat it as advisory II
is not apparent how our primary law
can be held to be so coercive as to de
stroy judgment and discretion Oh the
part of q member of our Legislature
when he comes to perform the duty of
electing United States senator. When
the majority for some candidate is large
great difference should, and no doubt
will be accorded to its voice.
"Construing the law as imposing ne
legal obligation on the part of any mem,
Der Of the Legislature to vote for his
party nominee at the primary, we must
assume that the legislators will vote ac,
cordlng to their cOnsciences and cOnvic |
tons, giving due weight to the advisory
vote of the people, and that therefore
neither the letter nor the spirit of the
constitution has been transgressed."
Originates IN Dane County.
This test of the Wisconsin primary
law was brought in the circuit court fol
Dane county in the form of a suit tc
restrain Secretary of State Frear from
publishing notice of the coming primary
election and to prevent State Treasurer
Dahl from paying out the necessary eX. /
penses therefor. The five allegations |
upon which State Senator J. Elmer Lehl |
of Appleton-as counsel for Van Alstine
relied to oyerturn the law were the !
following:
The act is unconstitutional and mas nc |
validity unless it is in force and effect by |
virtue of legislative power delegated Dy the |
Legislature to the voters of the state.
Because The act in question is Il genera |
law and vas never published after It's fra /
APPROVAL by the voters of the state.
Because the act in question abridgeS the |
right OF the people to peaceaby assemble |
and consult for the common good.
BecausG the act ~ r,h+ un ia and I'm
Office In securing support from voters tt
participate IN the selection Of candidates |
for Office.
Because the act operates to coerc, |
the Judgment and discretion of tbe I,eoisla'
ture in choosing United States senators anG |
unlawfully regulates the manner of choosing /
such senators and operates to secure theI /
election by popular vote.
All the grounds were predicated upon the |
unlawful expenditure of public moneys |
from the state treasury by the operation
of the act in question
State Demurs.
In the circuit court Attorney General