Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1910-04-08

court. 'lle law uOeS pFoNlue lnat GER
tain things which are done at conven-
tions hv delegates representing the peo-
nle must be done by the people them
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. a per-
netual right is guaranteed thereby that
these particular acts must for all future
time be performed in the same manner.
There is no curtailment of the right
guaranteed by the constitution"
Merely Substitution.
AT best there is but Il substitution of
methods by which the selection of candl-
dates is TO be made The right of any
political party to assemble in convention
and consult for the common good is un-
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"
cludes that the bill of rights was
framed to meet grave abuses of very
different character
Such intention" says the court,
would entirely ignore those altered con
dtions which the mutations Of time
bring about, and would be tautamount
to an egotistical declaration that when
the constitution was framed the mllen-
MUM had arrived and progress had
reached lis ultimate goal"
View on Nomination.
The court does not agree with the
argument that 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 voter to vote the ticket OF Il
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 eN-
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-
litiaal creed will deliberately desert Their
own party at the primary to tolSt an un-
worthy set of candidates on rival
party, pre-SuppoSeS 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-
Htical rather than judicial and should
be rcmedied by the Legislature instead
of by the courts. The law certainly pre-
SCENTS an anomalous situation IN thus re
gard if the Legislature considered 1t I'M
portant that party integrity should be
preserved
Electors Have Rights.
THE contention that to require can
didatc to declare that if nominated and
elected to an office he Will qualify adds
a qualification not required by the con
stitution, we regard rs untenable, says
the court The electors have 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 rs 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 i'll One-tourth of the verdi
| age in the entire opinion.
| 1t is apparent, declares the court, that
| tile clause of the constitution which 1t 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 he more COM
petent to select desirable class of sen
ators than would the people Reference
| is made in this connection to the debates
| in the constitutional convention and to
Icoutemporaueous 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
fright of petition? The Legislative can.
Ididate 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 obhga,
| tory. but should treat ii as advisory 1t
! is not apparent how our primary law
can be held to be SO coercIve aS to de
stroy Judgment and discretion on the
mart of a member of our Legislature
when he comes to perform the duty Of
clccting a United States senator. When
! the majority for SomC candidate is large,
| great Difference Shou!d, and no doubt
will he accorded to its voice.
| "ConStruing the law MS imposing no
! legal obligation on the part of any mem
! Der of the Legislature to vote for his
party nominee ut the primary, we must
| assume that the legislators will vote ac-
cordng to their couScieuceS and convlc-
| 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 trauSgresSed. "
Originates in Dane County.
! This fast Of thN Wisconsin primary
| law was brought in the circuit court for
! Dane county in the form of suit to
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 Lehr
| of AFpleton-as counsel for Van Alstine
relied to overturn the law were the
| foIlpuinu.