White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1916-07-09
Mr. Norcross to Mr.. Platt

Hon. Sam Platt,
Reno. Navada
My dear Mr.. Plat:
Your letter of June 10Th, address
ed to A. II. Howe, Esq, and myself.
as candidates for the Republican
nomination for United States Sena-
or, received | take this first op-
portunity to reply.
You make the following main
proposition:
That a separate ballot be handed
the voter at the Republican state
primary election containing each of
our names, so that the voter may
designate thereon a choice for Unit
ed States Senator and that the dele
gates to the state convention vote for
the candidate receiving the highest
vote at the polls"
Permit me to say that If any prac-
tioal means. which will protect the
rights of all concerned. can be de-
vised whereby such plan can be car
ried out. will most heartily approve
of the same.
| assume that you have considered
that your proposal not only involevs
the approval of the several candi-
dates and delegates who may be
elected. but to be successfully accom-
plished must require the co-opera-
tion oil thousand or more election
officers and public officials in no way
legally obligated to observe the con-
ditions of the proposal. and that you
are prepared to present a feasible
scheme to carry your proposal into
execution.
The statement in your letter that
The rank and file OF our party
are entitled directly to choose their
nominee for United States Senator"
not only expresses a political prin-
in hearty accord. but to establish
and maintain which l have taken
some active interest.
regard ii as regrettable that the
views you have recently expressed
were not made public during the ses-
sion of the last legislature and that
those who were opposing the passage
and approval of the present law.
which abolished the direct primary.
could not have had your active CO.
operation. have heretofore as
sumed that you favored the passage
of the present law. Such assumption
is based in part upon information.
which ! deem reliable, to the effect
that your partner Mr.. Sanford. urg-
ed the Legislature to pass and the
Governor to approve the act now in
force II am wrong in my assump-
tion, | will be glad 10 be corrected
state what. If anything. you did in
the way of opposing the passage or
approval of Substitute for Assembly
f,ill No. 8. which Is the present law.
That my attitude towards the
present law may be known, permit
me to state that l prepared the pro-
posed amendment to the bill intro
duced by Senaor Harrington and
which is published in full on pages
:25 and 32s of the Journal of the
Senate. and which. had 1t been
adopted, would have permitted an
expression of choice by the voters for
United States Senator as well as
other of the more important Offices in
which the public is most vitality in
terested, and would have permitted
nominations to have been mad} by
such means.
After the bill had passed and was
in the hands of the Governor. 7 pre-
pared and presented to the Governor
a written statement to be considered
in connection with the bill. (which
statement referred to facts which
deemed justified his veto. A copy of
such statement l would be pleased to
submit to any one desiring to see the
same.
am reliably informed that Sem
ators Newlands tnd Pittman. Justice
McCarran and others urged the Cor
ernor to veto tb} y, | now know
of no one other .-a4,.'... .ff law { M
ner, though dou PASS t.ere may have
been many oth<~s who urged the
Governor to approve the bifi. passed
BY the Legislature in its last hours
under q misapprehension. as be-
lieve.
While have grave doubt whether