The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-03-28
STEPHENSON VOTED IN.

Senator Stephenson of Wisconsin ad'
mits spending Sl07 900 in order to get
| the victory in the Senatorial primaries
| that were held in Wisconsin. Mr.. Ste
phenson enemies say that the amount
which he spent was several times as
much as he admits; but allowing that
he spent no more than he says be
spent, the expenditure was a scandal
Gus one, strongly savoring of corrup-
ton, The subcommittee of the Senate
Committee on Privileges and Elections
which investigated the Stephenson
case, found that the amount of money
expended by the different candidates
in Wisconsin was extravagant, saying
on this point:
The amount OF money expended by Mr..
Stephenson Mr. Cook Mr.. Uatton and
Mr.. McGovern in the primary campaign
was so extravagant and the eXpendi-
lures made by and on behalf OF these
gentlemen were made with such reckless
disregard of proprlety as TO justify the
sharpest criticism. Such expenditures
were in violation OF the fundamental
principles underlying our system of gov
ernment, which contemplated the selec-
tion OF candidates by the electors, not
the selection of the electors by the can
didates.
And still, the committee holds that
Senator Stephenson S title is not in.
validated for the excessive amount of
money he spent; that although these
enormous expenditures ''werc in viola
ton of the fundamental principles un.
DERIVING our system of government,
Mr. Stephenson is all right in making
such violation of fundamental princi-
pies, and must retain his seat, And
this is endorsed by the Senate.
The distinction as drawn, between
the money spent at a primary and the
money that might have been spent di-
rect in the Senatorial election proper,
is technical. The committee seems to
think that if Mr.. Stephenson had spent
this $lo7 900 on the legislature instead
of eIpcnding il to get the party nom
ination, he would have been due for
expulsion from the Senate; but, since
the primary was not a legal part of
the Senatorial election machinery, as
defined by the Federal law governing q
the same, Stephenson is not to be held
accountable under that Federal law
The report holds that the legislature
was not bound In any way by the Sem
atorial primary. and notes the fact
that some OF the Republican members
of the legislature refused TO be bound
by that primary This, Of course, is
true: but those Republican members of
the legislature who refused TO support
Stephenson were friends of other Re
publican candidates, and they held TO
their allegiance TO those candidates; (;
the fact being that Mr.. Stephenson did
not get majority of all the votes at
the primary lie WAS minority can
didate, although receiving more votes
at the primary than any other caudi.
date. This exhibits. as We have urged
heretofore, weakness of the primary.
As the primary gave Mr.. Stephenson
the highest vote OF any of the candi-
dates, but not majority oyer all, a
number of the Republican members OF
the legislature did not consider the Pri
mary binding upon them. 1t was a
case precisely similar TO that Of Hi
nois, where air. Hopkins got plural
ity of the primary votes for the Sen
atorship, but not a majority, and
good many of the Republican legisla-
tors OF Illinois refused TO vote for him,
claiming that he was not the party
nominee.
The Senate. in voting with the ma
pority of the, committee which inves-
tigated the case, agrees apparently
that although Mr.. Stephenson s act IN
spending sl07, ,793 ''was in violation OF
the fundamental principles underlying
our system of government, which con
templates the selection OF candidates
bv the electors, not the selection OF
electors by the candidate yet the