The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1912-05-20
CURRENT COMMENT
King Caucus and King Primary.

About three. quarters of the voting
precincts of California give Roosevelt
10000 votes, Taft $4,000 La Toilette 40
900. The balance of the state apparent
ly will not greatly affect the proportion
ate support of the three candidates.
The delegation from California, how
ever, will, in virtue OF. its primary law,
be solid for Roosevelt, unless the Taft
men can wage a successful fight for the
two delegates from the fourth congress
sional district, which was carried by
them. Under the provisions of the Cali
fornia statute it is hard TO see what
chance there would be of Taft winning
in contest over the fourth district
delegates. By the actiol Of the voters
of that district they belong to him, but
by the law they belong to Roosevelt.
This injustice to Taft is incidental
to the operation of California's presi-
Dental preference primary, which, like
some other primary laws, has the effect
of completely menacing the minority.
Under the old caucus regime so loudly
denounced by the advocates of primaries,
Taft and La Toilette would each have
secured a representation in CALIFORNIA;
delegation. 1t would have been simply
impossible for 100000 voters to have
had no voice in the choice of the nom
inee of their party. Taking the 1856
precincts from which returns were re-
ceived up to last night, Roosevelt had
only 10000 majority, and yet this ma
iority controls the whole delegation
which California will send to Chicago.
Taft's $4,000 supporters are voiceless,
and so are La Follettes 10000
WHARF l. tho i,,cfina IF ut,oh
fangement? The injustice is obvious
Suppose that the people of any one
congressional district gave a majority
Tor Taft or La Toilette. Is not their
action, from the point of view of equity,
is emphatic declaration of preference
Tor president as could be made by writ
ing their choice on a line set apart on
The ballot? If a voter casts his ballot
Tor delegate pledged to this candidate
pr that, can there be any doubt of his
Intention or desire? Yet by the system
followed in California the marking of
the preference in the specific place on the
ballot by majority nullifes the minor
lty completely, and, as we have seen,
renders at least 100000 California voters
30 many eiphers.
Maryland's experience is in the same
une. a majority OF delegates favorable |
to Taft were elected to the Republican |
state convention, which chooses the SOL |
Id delegation OF the state. What is the |
results Maryland is misrepresented be- |
cause, while the preference marked on
the ballots was for Roosevelt, the nm
challenged preponderance of opinion in |
the convention was for Taft. The con-
vention elected delegation of eight !
Taft men and eight Roosevelt men. The /
whole sixteen, if they comply with the
requirements of the Maryland law, must |
vote for Roosevelt as long as they can
eonscientiously consider his nomination
probable. Could any more ridiculous
outcome of system be imagined? Eight
of the Maryland delegates are com
manded to do "conscentiously" the very
thing that their conscience rejects. The
command may not be of great duration.
but if such is the case so much the
worse for the Maryland primary system.
King Caucus" had faults, but king
Primary has developed fully as many
Boston Transcript.