Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1911-03-23
RICHARD PRIMARY LAW
JUDGE HANEY OF THE ST.
PREME COURT SAYS 1T
us AVERY ABLE MEASURE
He Also States That it Would
Have Been wonderful I'm
pfovement Upon the Present
Primary Law of this State.

Have Been wonderful I'm
pfovement Upon the Present
Primary Law of this State.
The following legal opinion in regard
to the Richards primary law which was
defeated in the South Dakota house of
representatives during the session just
closed, written by Judge Haney of the
supreme bench, throws favorable
light upon the law, and should tend to
promote more thorough consideration
by the voters of the state, whose decl-
sion will be called for at the next gen.
eral election, Judge Haney says;
"Mr. Richards proposed primary act
evidently was prepared with great care.
1t affords abundant evidence of arduOus
labor and exhaustive research. Its
phraseology is exceptionally clear,
definite and consistent In its prepa-
ration Mr.. Richards had the assistance
of two able lawyers, Mr.. Hanten, of
Watertown, and Mr.. Fairbanks, of
Huron. There is not in South Dakota
another lawyer better qualified than
Mr.. Hanton to revise such a measure,
he having for years given the subject
close attention and being familiar with
similar legislation in other states. Mr..
Fairbanks is lawyer of fire ability,
studious. Industrious, and especially
well qualified to properly express the
terms of any proposed statute.
1.-The Richards bill is comprehensive;
it is consistent in all its details, and
calculated to secure the objects desired
by the advocates of the primary system.
''These are some of its principal
features:
Il. If enacted it would enable a
person of moderate means TO present
his claims to all the electors of the
state, district or county in which he is a
candidate without involving him in
financial obligations which are almost
certain to embarras a public officer,
thus removing one of the serious
objections to the present law.
''2 1t would remedy an existing evil
by preventing one man or a small
group of men from selecting party can
didates.
80. 1t would prevent electors of one
party from participating in the selec-
ton of the candidates of any other.
ii. 1t would prevent self consti-
tuted leaders of bosses from controll-
ing appointments in furtherance of
their own personal ambitions, reserv-
ing to the members of the party, or to
the organization itself the right to
make recommendation in the interest
of the party itself.
80. 1t is designed to safeguard in
every possible manner the rights of
the minority faction and the rights of
the worthy individual without any poll
teal pull.
SO. 1t properly relieves candidates
for the higher judicial offices from the
embarrassment of declaring their views
upon issues foreign to the duties of
their positions, and to which they have
had no opportunity to give attention.
81. 1t would provide party recall
which is the only one permitted under
our constitution and one which probably
would be effectual as if it were absolute.
Finally, it is designed to place
principles above candidates; to secure
public officers who are in sympathy
with and who will have every incentive
to faithfully carry out the platform
declarations and principles of the
organization they represent; to give
the members of each organized party
power to select its candidates and con.
troll its policies; and to eliminate the
political boss Its enactment woulc
tend to preserve, not destroy party
organization. Every citizen wht
believes in the primary system should
give this measure careful consideration
for the sake of the measure itself. Ii
nv opinion whatever may become o
Mr.. Richards bill, if its essential fea
lures are not sooner or later enaclet
| into law. statewide direct nomination
will be abandoned in this state.