The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1911-08-24
BENNINGTON, VT, AUG. "a, 1911
The PRIMARY BILL

us Oh ulItCl PRIMARY law INC uup-
bing OF a legislature a Mutton head
club" is not altogether inappropriate
The reason that called forth the APP
pellation is probably the stand taken
i'm the legislature when the primary
elections bill was considered. This
had reposed in the body for weeks.
one day it was called up and passed
by a large majority No member
said it was vicious in principle or bad
legislation. There was no proposal
that we heard of for an amendment
to cure its defects, il it had any. The
next legislative day it was picked up
and killed by a larger majority than
passed it on the previous day. There
was no defense of the measure and no
serious assaut-theTe was only feel
ing among the members from the
small towns that the bill was aimed
at them. On the other hand, the bill
was especially desired in the large
towns and the cities. From such ac-
ton in the next legislature, deliver
us.-Belows Falls Times.
The Banner dislikes to keep harp
ing on this subject, even though it is
an important one, for the state for
it does no good apparently However,
having been the first in the state to
editorially espouse the primary cleo
ton plan, it is perhaps to be expected
: that The Banner will continue TO up
hold its side of the case. even though
the discussion prove profitless.
In working for a reform of this
kind one of the hardest 'hings to
contend with is the comment Of
newspaper writer's who mean to be
fair and truthful but through lapse
LOT memory and lack of time and OPP
Iportunlty to look up matter, make
the grossest sort of miscellaneous
land thereby befog the issue, arouse
resentment and delay accomplish
ment
In the matter above quoted from
The Times purporting to discuss the
action OF the legislature on the dir
ect primary bill not one statement
made by The Times is correct or any
where In sight of the Truth.
TIE primary bill did not repose for
weeks. 1t was in the hands OF one
OF the abtst, most active, earnest and
careful of the House committees who
worked early and late to make the
bill measure above all reasonable
reproach. ana they succeeded. The
Pill came along in due course with
unanimously favorable report from
The committee. showing that those
who had studied the matter fully and
carefully without prejudice were In
favor of it.
When the bill anne up for passage
t was thoroughly debated. 1t was
brilliantly and cleyerly attacked and
extensively but less ably defenied
The Times says mo member said II
was vicious in principle and bad leg
islatlon." This is precisely what Mr.
Burbank Of Cabot, Mr. Cory of Mont
pelier. Mr.. Martin OF Brocklne an'
Others who opposed the bill said, bn
the bill passed by a substantial ma
Iority OF those present.
Three days later the bill came "a
on a question of reconsideration. Il
the meantime the lobby, the polite
lans and, we regret to say, some o
the state officials and Office holders
got busy in opposition to the bill an
every effort was brought to bear I
XIII the bill The thing that turhe
the trick was the cunning claim tina
II would in some way be to the &c
vantage OF the large towns and Il
the injury OF the smaller ones. ANY
body who will take the trouble t
inquire in states where a primar
election law has been in force, as
has In some OF them for many years
can learn that these claims are With
out foundation They can find Il
every case that the rank and file o
the people everywhere like 1t and tina
the opponents are the machine pol
tlcians. the corporation agents an
those who make money out OF pol
ltlcs.
The second debate on the bill wa
even warmer and more extended tina
the first. The Times to the contrar
4 Notwithstanding There we're sewers
amendments TO remedy real or fai
cicd defects. The assault on the bi
was serious and aggressive and mad
hv eloquont and brilliant debater
The defense was as active and earl
est as the friends of the bill coul
put up. but the members from tn
small towns. who in the main defea
ed the bill. preferred to believe tn
opponents rather than the friends {
the bill. The Times is wrong agai
i'm saving that the bill was defeate
by a larger majority than that whlc
passed Il in the first instance IL
hin was passed on Friday by majo
liy of AZ while II was defeated o
Tuesday by majority of ~. In Tia
connection however, it should I
borne in mind that when the bill WI
voted ON ON Friday there were only II
members OF the House present viii
ON Tuesday there were 200.
The Times Is unkind In referring
len, t,rt.iaturp In the contemptuoi