New-York tribune., 1910-01-07
THE SHORT B4IIOT.

Our neighbor 1.-The Times" protests
that it cannot see the force of Governor
Hughes's logic in favoring reduction
in the number of elective officers and
also a direct primary election of candi-
dates for office. If the Governor chos-
en- by the people can be trusted to APP
point officials, why, it would like TO
know, cannot delegates chosen by the
people be trusted to appoint candidates?
Probably most persons will see enough
difference between a Governor and the
average delegate to convention to
perceive the reason why
But the two suggestions of the Gov
ernOr are in perfect harmony. The Gov
ernOr desires to have as nearly perfect
responsibility on the part of elected Of
ficials to the people as it is possible to
obtain. Two things now interfere with
perfect respOnsibility-one is the fact
that officials now owe their nomination
to Office more to political manipulators
than to the people themselves, and the
other Is that the same political manip-
ulatorS can count upon the peoples
paying very little attention to the minor
fetal will have a low sense of respon-
sibility to the electors when he knows
that they give little regard to his mer-
its or demerits and that he is pulled
through by the strength of the head
of the ticket. Mr. Hughes's theory is
that minor offices of this type to which
the voters pay no attention on Election
Day should be appointive offices.
There is nothing half way about the
Governor in his desire to increase the
responsibility of officials to the public.
He believes that offices which are prop
erly appointive offices because they are
not sufficiently important in the public
mind for the people to be really interested
in filling them should be appointive Of
fees And he would have only those
appointive, for he would leave room
for no appointment of candidates for
elective offices by the bosses. Have no
unnecessary elective offices, he says. to
cumber the ballot and confuse the voter,
and fill those that are necessary with
officials every process of whose choice
is directly in the hands of the people.
1t strikes us that is perfectly consist
ent programme.
The reduction in the number of cleo
tive offices. involving the appointment by
the Governor of a cabinet of state Of
ficials to correspond to the Cabinet ap-
pointed by the President, is not a
necessary but it is q logical part of Mr..
HugheS's programme for primary and
ballot reform. The strongest argument
for the retention of the party column on
the ballot is the number of nominations
contained on the ballot in this state.
Most voters would object to the labor Of
marking each candidate on the ticket
separately and few would seriously pre-
tend that individual marking would
greatly increase discrimination in voting.
Failure to discriminate in voting does
not proceed entirely from the present
ballot, but in part from the relative
unimpOrtance and the great number Of
offices filled at the polls.
Moreover to accomplish its best re-
suits, Mr. Hughes's direct nominations
plan would require a reduction in the
number of offices to be filled. SO long
as there are minor elective offices party
nominating committees called for by
the Governors plan will be inclined to
follow the old political device of nam
ing good man for the head of the ticket
and filling the rest of the ticket with
less acceptable candidates. In other
words, in direct primary election. as
in general election, to get the best
results there must not be too many of
fees to fill.