New Britain herald., 1926-07-29
COST OF ILLINOIS HECTIC PRIMARY

| SAu pat ly ACNSPapCl6 d1 z 1 perhaps justified in being irritated
 about the nefarious workings of the
 state primary systems. Once more
 they can tell their readers that it
 is a rich mans game game
 something like blind mans buff.
 Again they can say such methods
 of choosing candidates are undemo-
 cratic and a snare.
 That they will do 1t cannot be
 doubted. Primaries which took
 so much power away from state
 bosses-must be walloped at every opportunity; and here is a chance
 to point with alarm. as was the
 case after the Pennsylvania pri- mary.
 But what rankles most, we imag- inc, is the fact that the candidate l who spent the most money didn't win. And the fellow who spent the most happened to be the grand old party's regular candidate. First this was the case in Pennsylvania and now in Illinois.
 There must be something good in primary if the victory does not i necessarily go to the chap with the | most money to spend. But this is something the g. 0. p. organs will not care to admit.
 1 Senator McKinley's primary ex- l penses were around s225,000 in ex- cess of what Frank L. Smith spent; yet Smith won.
 Nobody wants the retention of system under which primary vic tories can be obtained by the high est bidder. But that didn't happen in either Pennsylvania or Illinois. In both states the biggest cam paign fund failed.
 But there can be no doubt that all sides in both Pennsylvania and Illinois spent too much in their primaries. A method must be found to prevent such expenditures, and if human ingenuity cannot find a way to achieve this then democracy must be regarded as at a low ebb in at least some states.
 The primary is suited to some states better than to others, and the requirements of the political life in various states should deter mine its use. It is not entirely in- consistent to favor it for some states and oppose it for others. It has been pointed out that in state such as Texas to abolish the primary would eliminate the only real election the people have; to eliminate it in such a state would leave political interest dead as a door nail and would hand over the states politics to a small oligarchy of ruling politicians. The same holds true of any other state in which politics are one-sided; and in this connection something could be said about Connecticut.
 Connecticut has as effective one party rule as Texas and lacks the statewide primary to choose it's major candidates. The candidates picked at convention usually win. Whether we have a small oligarchy of ruling politicians as result can be ascertained by the naked eye.
 The convention system, at least in some states, is just as susceptible of objections as the primary sys- tenn, with this important difference that the power of money is more likely to rule, or gain the nomina- tions.
 It does not pay to be dogmatic upon the primary question. It is a development that cannot be de- ] tended or opposed without con- plete information about both the i primary system and the convention 1 system. Those of us who were not | born yesterday can well remember i the days when the convention sys- i tenn - and not the primary was under fire.