The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-09-17
a PRIMARY EXAMPLE.

A striking example Of the effectiveness OF the
/ legalized primary has just been afforded by the
] nomination at a special primary OF H. L. God-
win. Congressman from the Tth. North Caro-
4 lima District. The primary was held as fhe re-
suit of faetionsl split IN an attempted con-
,eufion wherein coalition OF several candidates
made the nomination of Goodwin impossible and
resulted in the withdrawal of the Congressman 5
forces into another convention. With two can
3 ,iidates and divided District, the State Com
mittec investigated the situation, declared that
no one had been nominated and ordered the
prinarv which has Just been held TO determine
The nominee by popular vote. Congressman God
wins victory came to pass, as stated, by an over
whelming majority.
The lesson of this incident lies in the fact that
without a primary Godwins nomination would
have been absolutely impossible. The conven-
ton to which his cause was put would have rotted
away before it would have named him. Yet the
result shows that he was the clear choice OF the
Democrats of the District. Whatever Importance
should be given the claim that many anti-Godwn
men stayed away from the polls In order TO avoid
pledge to support his candidacy, it remains true
that they would never have stayed away had 1T
not been apparent that Goodwin would be noml-
mated by the people. And it is equally clear that
,lnder convention system the choice of the peo-
pie would in this instance have been defeated
The North Carolina primary referred to was,
Il of course, in no sense "legalized' primary, AS
the primaries in Virginia not legalzed. 1t
was open to the abuses nearly always incident to
more or less informal polls of the popular vote.
Iii was clear makeshift, but even a make
shift IT was far better than the convention for
which it was substituted. Had the primary been
held in the beginning, much bitterness and many
. anmities would have been avoided, there would
have been a reasonably speedy determination Oh
q the relative strength of candidates, and there
would have resulted united party front, In
I stead Of an embarrassed Democracy.
s The analogy between this primary and that i,
Norfolk is, it is true, not exact, but clear enough
I for all that In either instance the objection i
1 the suspicion that political advantage took tn
place of the popular will. In the North Caro-
lima instance this result was obtained by the part
isan strength of several candidates, neither on
4 Of whom could have come anywhere near carry
ing the majority of the people; in the Norfoll
case, there is great doubt whether the wishes o
the people were taken even IN this superficial
manner.
We're the political millennium impending, th
ideal method Of nomination of candidates wou
no doubt be through convention selected of reI
resentative men chosen as unbiased Jurors. The
would meet with high sense of their response
bilitv, take counsel of their hearts, and choos
\ such man as would command the respect all,
confidence of their every constituent. But tn
4 millennium is just trife farther away from poll
tics than any other line of endeavor, and not
withstanding the fact that the question of tn
cost of popular nominations is about as grave
one in the case of primary as in the case of
h convention, it would seem that fraud would b
most nearly eliminated and the popular wisl
most nearly met by system which would, Will
giving the people the nominal choice, give then
B protection, also, in the manner in which tina
choice would be expressed.