Evening star., 1921-05-10
Editorial Digest
The Unprotected Primaries.

Aue ouPIOVeCtco fT1m8f1SS.
Inc decision Of the United States
supreme Court that Congress has no
power over state primary elections.
ana mat therefore Senator Newberry
OF michigan cannot be tried in a fed
eral court for alleged misuse of
money in securing his nomination, re-
sulted Immediately in an almost uni
'ersai demand in the press for a
constitutional amendment which will
eoiier that power and establish fed
erai regulation of primaries. Most
writers regard the personal element
IN me Newberry case as of little
siliicance. The important point, as
enese papers see it, is that in de-
Sarins the federal corrupt practices
act unconstitutional, and in denying
the federal government control over
sLate primaries. the Supreme Court
opehs the door TO the corrupt use of
money IN primary elections of United
states senators and representatives"
IN the words of the Newark News Gin
dependenD.
Ihere is. of course, some support
1or the principle that primary cleo
I,ons must be state matters which
congress cannot control, and a num-
per OF papers. with the Providence
Journal (independent). welcome the
aeclsion' as a victory for Senator
Newberry "on the merits of the case"
me majority comment, however. is
vigorous protest against a hair
splitting decision" which. as the
MuskeSon Chronicle independent
says: does not alter the moral status
OF the case in any manner whatso-
ever"
tn" only conclusion the Des Moines
Register independent republican,
can draw from the diverse opinions
which the court gives is that they
all wanted to free Newberry. but had
trouble in agreeing on a reason" The
result is, according to the Sioux City
Tribune independently, strictly
iegalistic' decision which. the Char
lotte Observer independent demo-
quittal for Senator Newberry." Among
the many papers holding this view
are the St. Louis Star independently,
the Philadelphia Bulletin Gndepend-
ent republican, and the Baltimore
American (republican).
However, from the senator's own
state the Detroit Free Press (inde-
pendent) feels that the decision has
revealed "the whole attack upon Sem
ator Newberry as a mares nest" and
1t consratulates the senator and the
state on the removal of the un-
Standard (republican). the Detroit
Times independently and the New
York Tribune (republican) agree that,
as the former maintains. the vindl-
cation is complete" and the Port HUI
ron (Michigan) Times-Herald Gnde-
pendenD thinks that the majority OF
the people of Michigan will be pleased
with this verdict"
But entirely aside from the specihc
case involved the decision eStabllsnes
principles which most editors consid-
er dangerous. What the Grand
Rapids tMichigan) Herald (republic.,,
am calls an electoral saturnalia'
remains CONTRARY to good public
policy, the Cleveland Plain Dealer
independent democratic) declares.
even though the court holds that II
is not contrary to federal law, and
while to the Brooklyn Eagle Gnde-
pendent democratic) it is OF little
moment whether any one in Michigan
was guilty of wrongdoing. lit matters
a great deal that no federal law is
in existence to govern the conduct
of primaries
This splitting Of hairs" amounts
to declaration, as the ST. Louis
post Dispatch GndependenD inter
prcts II. that "the money-bag can
didate is safe and the door OF Con-
gress is open to the corruptlonlst,
and, the Nashville Banner tnde-
pendenD adds. they are privileged to
discovery" to the Rochester Herald
GndependenO that Congress cannot
protect itself against corruption,
but the effect Of the decision is TO
leave Congress unprotected. since
obtain. II money is to be corruptly
employed. is the nomination: The
election follows az a matter OF
ton. independently does not agree
to a continuation Of the practices
Of" since existing state
laws, which have been Upheld times
with out number, provide penalties
for what society has always recoe-
tion campaigns" But from expert
ence in it's own state the milwaukee,
Journal independently Is convinced
of "the futiiity Of state regulation.
and the Oklahoma City Oklahoman
(democratic) thinks that tnere
tices acts" throughout the country.
which would be difficult to secure
Except through a federal law.
But il this distinction between pri-
maries and elections ae "resides N Ii,d dne
pendent republican, points out that
sthe court is not to be criticised for
finding II there" and the New York
Mail 7independent) feels that 1T Is
the Limitation or the CONSTITUTION,
rather than the courts action. that
must be called unfortunate.
To this position most writer's an
swer unequivocally. with the Wheel |
ing Register (democratic). then the
should be Immediately
amended," and the Baltimore Sun Gn-
dependent democratic) inslsts, with
"an explicit amendment which VIII
be lawyer-proof and court-proof."
But the Memphis Commercial APP
peal (democratic) objects to such q
whenever 1t is con-
ceded that Congress may interfere in
party primaries in state. then the
entering wedge viii be driven which
will finally lead to complete federal
control Of all elections"
The Richmond News Leader dnde-
nendent democratic), from the
of the state rights doc |
trine, asserts that the federal cor
rupt practices act, now declared un-
constitutional. never has infringed
on tho rights Of the states to control
their elections" and, in view OF the !
manifest necessity" for federal reg
ulation the decision Of the court vir-
tualty sanctions CROOKED primaries"
Tho Coal Deadlock.
II the American Coal Journal is
correctly informed, "there has been
no appreciable demand for coal for