The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1912-10-24


ours. F,a35e1. Porter. 4eolineol. 'suns
ders, shock, Scass. steele. Taom1s,
ThrOeEraorton. Van1Eeter. WiIdman,
and Wys6ng.-SS.
Against the ReSolut5on = Wetzel
CSpeaker), Be1eheT. Carr, Carroll.
CLIFFORD, CuFFfe, Dice, GilhesOn'
Goode. Haeer. Hays. Hubbard, Ice Of
Marion, Kane, KefSter, Kidd. Lacy,
Ararcunl, Norris, lfeCanley. Nelntire,
ogden, owens, PaTsons. PembeFtOn.
Pence, Pueh, seibert. shaver, Smoot,
Sperov. sStrother, symma, FerriEl.
VfckeEs, walton. Wells. whitman, ana
williams
Absent and not voting Courtney,
IDOvis, Edwards, Epling. Hudnall,
Jeners, Kennedy. NuttalI and Pendle-
tons.
For the second time In the special
session the House OF Delegates made
direct and frank statement that It
was against a primary law For the
nomination OF candidates for public
ONCE.
on the same morning the Gilkeson
resolution came before the house for
adoption or rejection. For several
hours it was discussed, and the most
bitter criticism Of the Gilkeson scheme
to defeat a primary law, came from
Democratic Delegates who were not
controlled by Watson and Chiffon and
who were possessed OF courage in
abundance to fight the resolution
Judge C. w. Campbell, Democrat
OF Cabell county, whose advocacy Of
direct primaries cannot be questioned,
exposed the fanacy Of the resolution
and admonished the Democratic mem
bers that they. could AFFORD to do right
and trust the consequences. The
speech Of Judge Campbell, is the ex-
preston OF an honest advocate Of DE-
rect primaries on the Gilkeson reso-
luton. Judge Campbell said:
Speech of Hon. C. W. Campbell.
81 oppose the adoption Of this res
olution. In view OF the State Demo-
cratic platform of 1908, regard this
resolution as party perfdy-a subter-
fuge, a scuttling of the Democratic
ship-a thing worse than cowardiee.
It's adoption cannot be JUSTIFIED on any
good or just grounds. It is dictated
by blind craftsmanship was inspir-
ed by an appeal to party prejudice. It
confesses ignorance and incompetent
cy on the part Of the Democrats of this
House to draft an act for primary.
It attempts to cast doubt and ancer-
.tainty about the propriety Of any pri-
mary election law. notwithstanding
the fact that about one-haR OF the
states have laws that are Statewide
in their operation, mandatory in
character and fairly complete in their
provisions. 1 refer to the States Of
Arizona, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Missis-
sippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas,
washington and Wisconsin In Colo
RADIO, Delaware. Indiana, Maryland.
New York and Rhode Island, there has
been legislation on the subject but
local in application but nevertheless
man datory in character.
The Cooper bill, so-calfed, passed
the House last winter by vote Of a
to 5. The same bill had before that
time passed the House OF Delegates
twice at separate sessions OF the West
Virginia Legislature. Have we lost
our cunning since the regular session?
The general subject of nominating all
candidates for public Office by direct
primary election has been before the
public for discussion for many years
last past. and there is, therefore, no
excuse for the many learned lawyers
CT this body or for the experienced
lay members to cast OF the duty that
rests on them to draft an act and to
pass it for enactment
1T is no excuse to say that the
Governor has called US here in hot
Instead Of cold weather to legislate
on this subject. We have already been
here long enough in the heat of the
weather (and in the heat of dodging)
to have passed a primary election law.
1t is not for those who believe that
party platforms are pledges Of good
faith rather than badges OF fraud and
deceit, now that we have a golden OPP
portunity to pass a general Statewide
mandatory primary election law, to
say that the extraordinary occasion
did not exist, justifying the Governors
-n,,I No o1o1o is Tho i,Idpo If fhe