New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-07-07
ROOSEVELT SPEAKS OUT
Strong Editorial in Favor OF
Direct Nominations.
BOUND TO WIN, HE SAYS
People Will, in the End, Insist on
Larger Part in Naming
Candidates.

Candidates.
| In signed editorial in THE Outlook
for July ex-President Roosevelt writing
under the caption Governor Hughes, the
legislature and Primary Reform" gives
| fully his reasons for supporting the Gov
| ernors direct primary position and predicts
| confidently ultimate success for the move
ment in this state. The enemies of Gov
ernor Hughes and of direct nominations
| will find nothing to comfort them in the ex-
| Presidents words. He tells them frankly
| that they are mistaken If they believe
| that by their action, they have def1niteiy
checked the movement for direct popular
| primaries and that the people or Ne"
| York State will. in the end, insist on taxing
more direct part in the nomination OK
candidates Mr. Roosevelt says;
II believe that Governor Hughes mas
been supported by the bulk of the Tisest
and most disinterested public opinion as
regards most OF his measures and positions
and I think that this has been markedly
the case as regards direct primary non1lha-
| tons I know that many honest ana SIN
cere men are, on principle, opposed to Gov
ernor Hughes on this point, and kno"
also that the proposed reform will very
advocates expect: while I am we'll aware
as of course all thinking men must be, that
| the worth of any such measure in the last
resort depends upon the character of the
voters and that no patent device VIII ever
secure good government unless the people
| themselves devote sufficient energy, time
and Judgment to make the dsyics work
Finally I freely admit that here and there
where the principle of direct nominations
| has been applied in too crude shape or
wrongheadedly. 1t has. while aboiishins GER
| tain evils, produced or accentuated others
in certain cases for instance, putting
premium upon the lavish expenditure OF
money.
t But while I freely admit all this, new
| ertheless feel, In the first place, that OF the
| fundamental issue of direct primary noni-
nations the Governor is right, and, in the
second place, that, the measure nnally
came I'D for action in the state Legislature,
| f. was ueIinigh free from all objections
save those of the men who object TO It be-
cause they gre fundamentally opposed 10
arv change whatever in the desired dfrec-
ton.
The bill provided only for direct popular
| action IN the primaries in relatively small
geograrhics1 and political communities
| thereby making the experiment first "heTe
there was least liability to serious oo1ee-
ton. and avoiding or deferring the task OF
dealing with those big communities "hels
! the difficulties and dangers TO De overcome
would be greatest. Moreover. while guar
anteeins full liberty of individual act'oh' u
| also provided for the easy maintenance y.
| party organization. and THEREBY aNoiaeI
Some very real dansers-among them that
of ENCOURAGING the use of masses OF ths
minority party in any given district TO dlC-
| tate the actions of the majority party IN
| other words. the proposed DILL While -
marked very real step in ADVANCE WIS
! tentatively and cautiously framed, anu p'o-
| yided all possible safeguards against sous0a
IF in practice IT had failed 10 "ork III aug
particular there would have been no posi-
| bic difficulty in making whatever aiileio
nnents or changes were necessary
! s,rbA Renrh,icsn party was in the major
a.. IN hath houses of the Legislature which
-os,,-.a ~ Garry out the Republican Gov
ernor,s recommendations: and although IL
was only a minority of the Repuohcah
members which brought about this REFUSAL
the marty cannot escape measure OF re-
snonsibiIitv for the failure: but 1t IS ohly
inst 70 remember that a clear majority OF
tho Republican members of each house sup
norted the bill whereas three-fourtns OF
! over of the Democrats opposed it. inns IS
one Of the cases where it is easier 10 appor-
ton individual than party responsibility.
Those who believe that by their acton
thew have definitely checked the movement
for direct popular primaries are. III my
Judgment mistaken. In its essence, this IS
o movement TO make the government more
democratic. more responsive to the wishes
and needs of the people as whole
with our political machinery 1t is es-
santial to have an efficient party. but the
machinery ought to be suited 10 democratic
and not oIgarchic customs and habits. The
question whether in self-sovernlng re-
public we shall have self-governing parties
is larger than the particular bill. We hold
that the right of popular self-government is
incomplete unless II Includes the rlght OF
the voters not merely to choose between
candidates when they have been nominated,
hut also the right to determine who these
candidates shall be.
Under our system of party government.
therefore, the voters should be guaranteed
the right to determine within the ranks
of their respective organizations who the
candidates of the parties will be. no less
than the right to choose between the can
didates when the candidates are presented
them There is no desire to break down
the responsibility of party organization
under duly constituted party leadership, but
there is a. desire to make this responsibility
real and to give the members of the party
the right to say whom they desire to exc
cute this leadership.
I'm New York State no small part of
the strength of the movement has come
from the popular conviction that many of
the men most prominent in party leader |
ship tend at times to forget that in a |