Arizona republican., 1922-06-19
BY Frederic J. Haskin

WASHINGTON, d. G., June IL
Primary reform with reverse English
may be the next movement in Ameri-
can politics. When the campaign. for
the nomination of candidates by 'di-
rect vote of the people was started
the strongest argument advanced by
its advocates was that 1t would elm
mate the excessive use of money and
machine control in political affairs.
II was accordingly broadcasted as a
reform.
Now, after a somewhat extensive
trial Of the new system, it is seen
that lavish expenditure of money has
not been eliminated and that ma
chimes are still doing business at the
old stand. Hence the champions OF
the old order of things are talking OF
inaugurating a reform movement
that will seek the abolition Of the pri-
mary and a return to the convention
system of nominations.
1t is not claimed that the primary
lends itself to the use of money In
corrupt ways. There IS no sugSes-
tion that candidates have been buy
ing nominations by purchasing votes
at the polls 1t is insisted however,
that the system has multiplied the
expenses of a candidate and his op-
portunities to spend money effect
lively. although legitimately, until his
chances are in direct proportion TO
the size of the fund which he or his
friends will provide. 1t is also con-
tended that machines can dominate
primaries as well as conventions. ara
that a well-oiled efficient organiza-
ton can put over its candidate or It's
slate at from one-third to one-haif
the cost to individuals.
Thus. the proponents of the new
reform say, the primary has put the
poor man out of politics, 1t is one
of the theories of our form of gov
ernment that the humblest citizen
can attain the most exalted office in
the land, if his constitutional quail
fications are all right, but that the
ory has been knocked into a cooked
hat by direct nominations. In fact,
it may be maintained with some con-
yincing evidence that a poor man has
even less chance in a primary than
rich man has of entering heaven.
Pennsylvania Cases Cited
Illustrations in point are cited in
the recent Pennsylvania battle OF the
ballots. Clifford Pinchot. the anti
machine candidate for the Republi-
can gubernatorial nomination, spent
something in excess of $120,00O to
win his prize. while George Wharton
Pepper, backed by the organization
for the nomination for United States
SENATOR expended 100000 or one half
the Pinchot fund, Pinchot won by
a comparatively narrow margin,
While Pepper was overwhelmingly
successful. 1t cost the former three
times the total salary which he will
receive in his four year term as gov
ernor, if he is elected, While the pri-
mary bill of the latter was on third
more than the salary of a senator
for six years.
This is urged as conclusive proof of
the prohibitive cost of primaries. 1t
shows clearly that no man who did
not possess a large fortune could
even contemplate being candidate
for either office. A moderately
wealthy man would be debarred,
while one who would be dependent
upon his salary for his living would
be utterly without hope. If that sort
of thing continues, it is argued de-
moeracy necessarily must give way
to an aristocracy of wealth.
On the other hand advocates of the
primary system find some comfort
in the Pennsylvania case. AS they
see it, Pinchot could not have been
nominated, except in a primary, and
since he was a reform and anti
machine candidate his nomination
was a thing greatly to be desired by
the people. Likewise they contend
that Peppers personal popularity is
such that the machine can CHM no
credit for his nomination. They ad-
nit that their system is too eXpen-
sive, but they say that a way will be
found to cure that evil while retain
iIApr oil laf 4 a 1htsf-
mary.
The rejoinder of those who favor
a return to the convention plan is
that conventions never dare go
against popular sentiment or de-
mand that has been clearly indicated,
and that Pinchot would in all pro-
liability have been chosen because il
was evident that the Republicans OF
the state wanted him. In any event
precedent would not have been es-
tablished that makes the governor
ship solely rich mans prize for a
convention can give the nomination
to poor man without the eNpendi
ture of a dollar on his part. AS to
the case of Pepper, they merely
point out that in spite of his high
place in the public esteem. and IN
spite Of the fact that the party or
ganization supported him. it cost the
senator 100000 to secure a nomina-
tion that otherwise might have beer
his without a contest.
Where the Money Goes
AS has been stated, no one is suS
gesting that money was used cor
ruptly in behalf either of Pinchot OF
Pepper. Every dollar of the i'm
mense sums indicated undoubtedly
was put to legitimate uses. and it i;
probable that five times the amounts