Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-09-27
WHAT is THE RIGHT WAY
TO CHOOSE A PRESIDENT?
Some Chronic Critics Are Stirring Again,
unmlndfuI as Ever Of the Meaning
Of Federal Constitution

- Plttsburgh, has prepared bill providing
for a national primary system to be substi
tuted for the partisan presidential convention
machinery. Hiram johnson intimates that
he will bring a somewhat similar scheme be-
fore the Senate, and linked with these pur-
poses is reported revival Of agitation
among liberals for the abolition of the
! electoral college.
In principle, the affiliated movements are
NOT new. Conventions are regularly de-
plored by politicians who fail to control, and
as inevitably as the quadrennial election sea-
son rolls around the political misfortunes of
Samuel J. Tiden and Grover Cleveland are
cited horrible examples
In 1876 a plurality of votes cast in the
nation went to Mr.. Tilden. Mr. Cleveland
in 1888 achieved similarly barren ''vic-
tory" But failing to secure majorities in
the electoral college, these candidates were
defeated.
There is a type of American-and he is
seldom reticent in parading this distinction
who is appalled, by "reminiscences of the
Tilden Hayes and first Cleveland Harrison
campaigns. Is this a free government or
isn't it? Are we to be limited in our choice
by partisan conclaves and then debarred from
bene6ting by the verdict of all the people?
The Kelly johnson mood is expressed in
| these queries. 1t is perhaps we'll -intentioned,
| but exhibits rather meager knowledge Of
the explicit nature of the government of the
| United States under the constitution.
This misinterprctation is fundamentally
| due to wrong impression of the basis Of
| the republic and encouraged by a peculiar
| trend of legislation during the past decade.
| Since 1913 three constitutional amendments
have been ratified which clash directly with
the original conception of a federal republic
composed Of sovereign states. This legsla-
| tion concerns the election Of United States
| senators by popular vote, prohibition and
equal suffrage. The virtue in these meas
| ures is a subject apart from their bearing
on the intent of the constitution.
The makers of this instrument were ex-
ceedngy mindful Of the political entity Of
| the respective commonwealths In the Sen
ate. for example, the representation was in
theory state rather than popular. For this
reason the election of senator's was intrusted
| to the state Legislatures and the represen-
tation of each state was made equal. regard
| less Of population. From what had been
already accomplished it is obvious that the
states themselves were fully authorized to
| adopt their own woman suffrage and prohi-
bition laws. The amendments taking away
this original privilege were in the spirit Of
regulations in a centralized republic such,
How far this nation desires to go in that
direction is an interesting question sug-
| gested by the Kelly Johnson ambitions and
| the resusctation of the oft discussed pro-
gram of electing Presidents by popular vote.
! 1t is well known that the electoral college
has functioned in a way altogether different
from that anticipated by it's inventors. The
electors have become automatons, and it is
a point of honor to remain such.
Nevertheless, ,the theory of the constitu-
| tiop makers has been preserved. PrPsi-
dents are elected by states. and when this
principle is kept in mind it cannot be said
that Cleveland or Tlden was cheated Of Office.
majority of the electoral votes of the
commonwealth with voting privileges based
on the sum total of representation in Con-
gress chose the rival candidates.
1t is significant to note that the would be
constitution tinkerers were anticipated by
considerably more than a century. Gouver-
! ncur Morris stoutly championed the popular
vote method. Against his proposals il was
urged that the probable ignorance of the
people as to the comparative merits of can
ddatcs would result in such a confusion of
"favorite sons each from different state.
that the large states would absolutely control
elections. 1t was also declared that the
The last argument is unpopular now. but
the validity of the first unquestionably
endures. A popular vote scheme could
hardly be soothing to the state pride of
| Delaware, Rhode Island or Vermont. II
their conjectured sentiments provoke amuse-
ment, it is well to remember that repudiation
of the state principle is 10 less than a CON
tradiction Of the intrinsic nature of the
great constitutional compromise, the original
framework of the nation.
The same objection does not Of course
apply to proposals to abolish national con-
ventions These prctentious and on the
whole, effective gatherings function under
what may be called the political common
law. The constitution says nothing about
them. and in consequence the presidential
nominating machinery has changed three
times since 1889.
With the formation of rival parties was
born the system Of nomination by congress
sional caucuses. Their rulings were not
seriously questioned until the end of the first
quarter of the nineteenth century saw the
development of the democratic idea carried
far beyond the original notions of the
fathers. The exclusiveuess and intrigues of
King Caucus" then came to be regarded
almost as a national scandal. and after a
few unsatisfactory experiments with nomi-
nations by state Legislatures. which ex-
plotted John Quincy Adams and Andrew
Jackson, tho national convention process
began operating
The first venture a considerable scale
was made by the anti Masonic party. which
assembled its delegates in Baltimore in 1881
sought to nominate Henry Clay for President
aud ended aCrmoniously in naming William
Writ. The Jackson machine, however, took
readily to the idea, and in the following year
was held the first Democratic national con
vention, which named Van Buren, for Vice
President adopted the celebrated two thirds
rule and rapturously indorsed the admins
tration Of Andrew Jackson.
BY the time the Wing delegates jubilantly
convened at Harrisburg in 1889 the conven