Evening star., 1927-03-28
BY G. GOULD LINCOLN.

| The primary vote for Senator
| actually settled the general election
| in II out of the % States in which
primaries were held in 1926. This is
demonstrated in an analysis of the
votes cast in senatorial, primary and
general elections, made by Simon
! Michelet, president of the National
! Get -Out-the- Vote Club.
| Mr.. Michelet's analysis of the votes
| cast in the primaries and his COM
| pariSOn of those votes with the results
of the general elections is of par
| ticular interest because of the deter
mined drive of the Reed slush fund
committee, backed up by the Senate,
! to inquire into the conduct of primary
| elections.
Without doubt, at the coming ses-
sion of Congress, determined efforts
| will be made to write a new corrupt
| practices act. in the light of the
! revelations made by the Reed COM
mittee during it's inquiries into the
senatorial primaries in Illinois and
! Pennsylvania.
Two Battles Loom.
! Also, when the next Congress meets,
| Senatorselect William S. Ware of
| Pennsylvania and Frank l.. Smith of
, Illinois will present themselves to
| take the oath of office, and the right
| of these gentlemen to be seated will
be vigorously contested. In the case
| of Col Smith the whole contest
ranges around charges growing out of
| the primary investigation by the Reed
committee. In the case of Mr.. Ware
the attack will go both to the primary
and the general election.
The Importance of the primary In
determining the final result of the
al R11 ,.ir Il ,cy%y tod fhyy
Mr.. Michelet, will be an argument
used by opponents of Mr.. Ware and
Col Smith to prevent their being seat
ed At least one Of the supporters of
Mr.. Ware Thomas w. Cunningham of
Philadelphia, treasurer of the Repub-
lican State committee, declined to an
swer questions of the Reed committee
on the ground the Senate had no right
to inquire into a primary election.
Mr.. Cunningham has already been
cited to the Senate for contempt by
| the Reed committee and his case is
to come up when the Senate meets
in December.
Most Decided at Primaries.
Senators Of the United States were
elected in 81 States last year. In
20 of the States party nominations
were made by direct primaries, and
as MI. MlCilcleI pOlliIo oue' ih ~ u
the 20 States where primaries were
held. the contests were virtually de,
cided in the primary.
First said Mr.. Michelet, in his
analysis, 'let us consider the Demo
cratic States. Take eight Democratic
States-Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
South Carolina. In all of these the
primary vote was materially larger
than the final vote in November. In
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana and South Carolina. the
vote for Senator in the Democratic
primary exceeded the vote in the gen.
eral election by 100 to 500 per cent.
The aggregate primary vote for Sena-
tor in the eight States was two and
one-half times the total general cleo
ton vote for Senator. When the
primaries closed in the Summertime,
the elections were over.
"Similar in general result, though
not by so conclusive a margin, was
the. senatorial contest in the follow
ing nine Republican States-Califor
MIA, Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota, Ore.
gon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wash
ington and Wisconsin. The total vote
for Republican senatorial candidates
in these States was 4,741 $50 in the
primaries, against 3,369,17S votes for
Republican nominees in November.
Power of Primary Shown.
Reduced to percentages, the pri-
mary vote exceeded the general eiec-
ton vote by 40 per cent in nine Re-
publican States and by 140 per cent in