Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-03-29
Continued From Fifth Page0

the direct primary. It is an evil that,
like the poor, is with us always. It has
been with us since democracy subSti-
tuted itself for the divine right of kings.
It is the destructive parasite of re-
publican form of government. Men do
not despair when science is only able
to curb the boil weevil in the cotton
fields, the black rust germ in the
wheatstem, or the borer in the corn
They do not demand that the entomol-
ogistS give over their efforts because
they have been unable to exterminate
these pests and that we return to the
old non-resistant methods. Rather
they are happy that these evils are
held in check.
But your politician in the pay and
employ of any powerful interest, can
be seen publicly wailing in the market
place because the direct primary has
not eXterminated the corruption that
shocks the stainless soul. At its very
lowest estimate and power the direct
primary makes his control less easy
and secure. 1t makes the boss job
more difficult, for he must make public
where he got the money and what he
did with 1t. His life becomes filled
with embarrassing moments.
Leaders in Struggle.
The most active figures in the fight
to abolish the convention system and
adopt the primary were naturally the
great progressive leaders of both the
Democratic and Republican parties.
Theodore Roosevelt, william Jennings
Bryan, Robert NJ. La Toilette and
Woodrow Wilson all used their influence
and their oratorical powers to secure
its adoption. Not only in their own
States, but throughout the Nation they
campaigned to destroy the convention
M ~ If af-
fective primary laws which would give
the people a direct voice in the nom
nation of candidates for public Office.
The primary system has, however,
had as its spokesman and advocates
men who are today regarded as among
the leaders of the conservatives,
The practical value of the primary to
the rank and file of the voters was
never more strongly stated than by
Charles Evans Hughes. now Chief
Justice of the United States. He said !:
1T places q weapon in the hands OF
the party which they can use with
effect in case Of need. They are no
longer helpless This fact puts party
leaders on their best behavior. 1t is a
safeguard to the astute and unselflsh
leader, who is endeavoring to maintain
good standards in line with sound pub
lie sentiment. 1t favors disposition
likely to challenge and test.
THE fact Of this control gives to the
voters a consciousness of power and
responsibility If things do not go right,
they know the trouble lies with them.
The Importance of this should not be
overlooked in any disclosures OF the
apathy of the electorate"
Many authorities could be quoted in
support of the primary system. But in
the face of them all in any age of
reaction there are men to take up the
cause which would send us back to
the easily boss controlled convention
system in which the people are de-
prtved of a fair chance to have their
wishes respected. From time TO time
men who have been regarded as popu-
lar leaders have been induced to attack
the primary system. The most recent
of these attacks is that delivered by
Gov. Alfred E. Smith in connection
with the meeting Of the Democratic Ma
tional Committee called by National
Chairman John j. RaSkob to consider
the proposals for repeating the anti
trust laws and incidentally giving the
power trust, for example, unreStrained
opportunity to complete its monopoly.
without questioning the motive which
led former Gov. Smith to attack this
instrument of democratic government
Of which he was once so strong an
advocate. it is only fair to note the
trend of the times. In any event, Mr..
Smiths attack upon the direct primary
is perhaps best answered by quoting
} from the message Of Gov. Alfred z.
Smith to the New York Legislature in
1925 in which he strongly urged the
restoration Of the Statewide primary
and said:
Asks Smith Question.
at Is a fundamental policy that no
one can question, unless he is prepared
to make the charge that the people who
elect are incapable of nominating"
Under the circumstances one is forced
to inquire of Mr.. Smith, Have the
people become incapable since 1922"
Since principal criticism of the pri-
mary is based upon the disclosures of
the great amounts Of money expended
TO secure primary nomination, I want
to return to that phase. AS chairman
of the Committee on Senatorial Cam
paign Expenditures have had an OPP
portunity to observe at close range
the enormous amounts Of money that
have been expended in certain Of our
States in securing or attempting to
secure senatorial nominations I have
seen individual candidates pouring out
more than half a million dollars Of
their money to secure the primary
NOMINATION. 4OI oil O1IlCe WHICH pays
only $4,000 a year, and have seen
great political organizations expending
more than a million dollars in secu4-
ing the nomination and election Of a
Senator whom they regarded as salts
factory to them.
I do not believe that the American
people can ignore or be Indifferent TO
these huge political expenditures. They
constitute, in my judgment, one Of the
most serious problems with which we
are confronted today and one with
which +'1e next session Of Congress must
deal by the enactment Of a corrupt
practices act that will have real teeth
and provide proper restraints upon ex-
cessiye campaign contributions and ex-
penditures Nevertheless, I am con-
WINGED that the evils growing out Of
such political expenditures are much
less today under the primary system
than they would be If we still had the
old convention system With the
primary the money must be spent
more or less in the open and in a
more or less legitimate way. Under
the old convention system, on the other
hand, the same amounts Of money
would be expended either in electing
or bribing delegates and 1t would be diff
flcult, If not impossible, TO trace this
corruption to its source.
Many Voters Concerned.
Under the primary system the money
y1affet no pxneudpd IN influence the VOTES