The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-06-26

rage ollS.
the Republican state central COM
naittee and legal counselor of the
Nonpartisan league, and at the same
time he advances the theory that If
cenventions govern. then the court
should recognize the executive COM
rnittee of the Republican state COM
nlittee as the agency for making such
nominations.
Trace History of Law.
SIN support of the district conven-
ton held at Grand Forks, counsel for
O. B. Burtness. the nominee, traced
the history of primary laws in North
Dakota, from the time of the passage
Of the first measure in the assembly
OF 1905.
I'm the primary law, provision is
made for the holding of general pri-
naries every year that a general cleo
ton is held, and the further provision
IL contained:
= For special election of the Of
Ulcers enumerated herein, nomina-
.stions shall be made as otherwise
1provided by law.
5The last amendment of the primary
law was made in 1915, and the meas
ure appears in the session laws of that
| YEAR as Chapter $50. and the provis-
ION as to special election appears also
! ID Section $50, r. c., 1918. 1t is
adapted from the 1905 law, which has
been handed down from session to
! session without modification.
4 Laws in Force.
The laws otherwise provided" in
/ 1905, when the primary law was first
| placed upon the statute books. are
Yaund in the Revised Code of 1899,
4 are known as Sections 497, 49S,
and 500, providing for the nom
ton OF candidates under the eau
and convention plan.
I Whose sections, 1t is held, are not
r&pealed by the primary election law
at any stage Of the development Of
the present laws OF the state, down
through the period Of twelve years.
The repeal clause carried in the first
primary law, and which appears from
time to time as the measure has been
amended. is as follows:
q "All acts or parts of acts in
Econflict with the provisions of this
sact are hereby repealed.
1T was held by Messrs. Spalding and
! Pollock that that repeal does not do
away with the caucus and conven-
ton laws ir existence at the time the
primary was passed because such
caucus and convention laws are not
in conflict with the provisions for a
special election as carried in the
Urinary act but still govern.
ESection sol of the 1899 Revised
Codes. and which has been handed
down to date, provides for individual
nominations by petitions of candi-
dates of parties that failed to cast five
per cent of the total vote for con-
gresham in the last previous election.
It is under this individual nomination
section that the attorney general has
held nominations must be made in the
First district special congressional
election.
Parties Maintained.
The supreme court, in several de-
oisions on the primary law, has re-
peatedly pointed out that the primary
was intended as a measure of con-
rather than being aimed at their
destruction and elimination, as
Messrs. Spalding and Pollock con-
tend the special election provisions
Promulgated by the attorney general
and accepted by the secretary of state
tend. .
In support OF the convention held
at Grand Forks, the records of the
convention, as we'll as. copy of the
cali issued by the committeeman for
the district, were filed with the SUI
preme court.
THE first step in the call for the
convention, ii was pointed out, was
taken at q conference neIQ In Fargo,
when recommendations to the COM
nlitteemen that they call the conven-
ton were made.
e Call For Convention.
THE county committeeman in the
First district did issue such call for
oaucuses. county conventions and dis
tFict conventions. Each committee
member is the elected representative of
the Republicans of his legislative dis
trict:
lin each precinct of the district,
c0ucuses were held, at which caucus
delegates were elected to the county
cenventions. The county conventions,
ID turn, elected delegates to the dis
tlct convention at Grand Forks, so
that, as the counsel for Mr.. Burtness
pointed cut, the convention was truly
representative of the wishes OF the
Republicans in the district.
THE plan whereby the district con-
yention was called was contrasted to
the proposal by Mr.. Lemke, that the
Executive committee. only four MEM |
bers Of which reside in the First dis |
6Nict, name candidate.
The attorney generals ONCE, advo- |
eating that the supreme court recog- |
gaxe the method promulgated by the |
apartment. insisted that the primary /
INV intended the destruction of the /
caucus and convention system In its /
entirety.