Los Angeles herald., 1910-04-17

4 T the general election of 1908 thu
"a electors of california by over
- whelming vote made manifest
their wish that the old convention
method of nominating candidates foi
office be abolished, and nomination by
direct primaries substituted. So de.
cisive was the vote that the machine
element, ever alert to the trend OF
public opinion, recognized the neces-
sity of putting q direct primary law
on the statute books. The reform ele'
ment was, of course, for the passage
| of an effective direct primary measure
As a consequence, both houses of the
legislature of 1909 was unanimous fol-
the passage of a direct primary law
The division came over the charac-
ter of the law that was to be passed
The machine element. to make nom
nations difficult and complicated
, planned that the measure should pro
vide:
% That nominations should be as
partisan as possible, that the free
choice of candidates by the people
might be prevented.
CD That a majority, or at least q
high plurality, vote should be required
to nominate. With such a provision
by putting many candidates into the
primary that no one of them Woulo
receive q majority or even high plur-
atty The selection of candidates
would then be thrown into a nominal
ing convention-the same sort of con-
Vention which the people, through the
medium of the direct primary, were
seeking to Danish. The state would
thus have had a direct primary law
without a direct primary.
The machine carried its first point
because those who had chorge OF the
direct primary bill permitted extreme
partisan features TO be Incorporated IN
the original measure.
On the second point the machine was
defeated only because Senator Cutter
of Humboldt pointed out that, under
the state constitution and governing
court decisions a mere plurality vote
is the only constitutional vote that
can be required The machine retreat
ed before Senator Cutten's convincing
presentation of the issue. and as q
body made no further effort TO force
the majority vote or even high plur-
ality vote provision into the bill.
But the machine did succeed in bur
dening the measure with a number OF
partisan features which have in prac-
tice given the machine element de-
clded advantage over anti-machine OPP
position.
Most plausible arguments are, how
ever, advanced for the extreme parll-
san features of the direct primary law
and the registration law upon which
it is based. 1t is held that If the Dem
ocrats can be registered as such and
the Republicans as Republicans, and
confined at the primaries to their party
ticket the old plan of the ma
chine to employ blocks of Democratic
votes at tho primaries to nominate its
Republican candidates, and vice versa
will be done away with.
But in practice the reputable Re-
publican has registered as a Republic
can, and the reputable Democrat as a
Democrat, thus dividing the anti-ma-
chine element into two groups. The
machine has then massed its strength
I'm one party, nominating whom il
would.
For example: At San Francisco last
year it was a foregone conclusion long
before the primaries that p. II. McCar-
thy would be the candidate Of the I'm
ion Labor party for mayor The ma
chine element was faVorably inclined
toward Mccarthy. Their plan was to
prevent the nomination of q strong man
against him. The reform element, re-
gardless of party, had decided upon one
of several gentlemen, all of whom hap
pened to be Republicans, for their may
orally candidate. But the reform Dem
ocrats could vote for none of the gen
tlemen whom they wished to see nom
mated for mayor because they were
obliged to vote the Democratic primary