increase of influence on the part of such instrumentalities will tend toward a more intelligent selection of candidates, and therefore should be encouraged rather than condemned.

DOES THE DIRECT PRIMARY INCREASE THE EXPENSE OF A CAMPAIGN? Another objection made to the direct primary is that it extends the campaign over an unnecessarily long time, and it is for that reason, and others, too expensive. It is probably true that in actual practice the direct primary extends the time of the campaign, although there is no limit of time that a candidate for office can spend in his campaign. He can put in all his time if he desires, whether he is campaigning for a nomination at a direct primary or for a nomination at the hands of a convention.

The advocates of the convention system claim that the convention is as representative of all the people as the direct primary. If this be true, then it will require as much time to secure a nomination at a convention as it would at a primary. If the convention is really representative of all the people, and carries out the wishes of the people, then the campaign in one case would be as long as in the other. The candidate, to get the nomination, would undertake to reach as many voters as possible, the difference being that in the case of the primary, when he had convinced the voter, he would have nothing further to do, while in the case of a convention nomination he would first convince the voter in order that the voter might select a favorable delegate, and then put in a lot more time to see that the delegate carried out the wishes of those whom he represented. The result, therefore, so far as time is concerned, would be favorable to the direct primary. Of course, everybody knows this is not what

actually occurs in the case of the convention system. The bosses who control conventions are the only ones necessary to secure the nomination. They manipulate the convention so as to bring about the desired result.

In actual practice it has been demonstrated that the direct primary is not expensive. The expenditure of enormous sums of money to secure the nomination deserves righteous condemnation, and there have been many glaring incidents where this condemnation has taken place. There is no doubt but that there are many cases both in the primary and under the convention system, and likewise at the election, where the expenditure of large sums of money has been instrumental, and in some cases the predominating influence, in securing nominations and elections. It is an evil that I do not believe can be entirely eliminated, but it is not confined to the primary. It applies equally to the convention and to the general election. The man with money has an advantage over the poor man. This is true in politics as it is in business. The remedy lies in the enactment of stringent corrupt practice acts. The law should limit the expenditure of money for the purpose of securing nominations either at a direct primary or at a convention. It should prohibit expressly the expenditure of money for some of the practices indulged in. It should provide for the most complete publicity of all expenditures. These publications should take place both before and after the election. The violation of any of these laws should make the nomination or the election absolutely void. Political advertisements should, in my judgment, be prohibited by law. Contributions to religious and charitable institutions should likewise be prohibited. Proper criminal penalties for violation of the

law should be provided. It should perhaps be made the duty of some specific official to prosecute violations of this statute, not only against the successful candidate if he is properly charged, but in the same way against any other candidate at the direct primary, before the convention, or at the election. One of the difficulties with this kind of statute has been that prosecuting officials have not been called upon to act especially against the man who had been defeated, and it sometimes happens that the defeated candidate, being as guilty as the successful one, is so anxious to cover up his own violation of law that he is therefore not in very good condition to prosecute his opponent.

It might be a good precautionary measure to provide by law not only that reports shall be made but that candidates, officers of committees, and managers of campaigns should be required to submit themselves to crossexamination upon the filing of such reports, with a view of uncovering any violation of law that might have taken place. One of the difficulties in the enforcement of such laws at the present time is the party spirit and party responsibility. Where both parties are guilty, it is difficult to get anyone to father the responsibility for a prosecution. If party responsibility were eliminated, and party regularity not considered almost a divine attribute, many of these illegal acts would be brought to light that are otherwise concealed and covered up.

Complete publicity will go a long way toward relieving the evil. The intelligent citizen revolts at the expenditure of large sums of money for the purpose of controlling election, of controlling election, either direct primary or general, and the people themselves will do a great deal toward punishing those who are guilty of the offense. The expenditure

of large sums of money in any honest campaign is not necessary, and the intelligent citizen knows this, and will condemn the man who indulges in it. From my personal acquaintance with public officials, I am satisfied that the direct primary has been instrumental in putting more poor men into office than the convention system. I have no doubt of the truth of this statement. I think the United States Senate is a demonstration of this proposition. There are a great many members of that body whom I could name, who would not be there if it were not for the direct primary, and most of them are poor. I have no doubt if the truth were really known, that candidates for office have spent more money under the convention system than under the direct primary. But that is not the only recommendation of the direct primary nor the only objection to the convention method. The public official who has to be nominated at a convention knows very well that in order to retain his place he must become a part if not the head of a political machine. He must keep this machine oiled all the time he is in office. He must obey the mandates of those above him in order to secure his share of patronage, and he must use this patronage to build up his machine. In other words, he trades public office for political support. It costs no small amount of both time and money to keep his machine oiled. He must either pay it himself or become obligated officially to someone who does. The result of it all is that the public gets the worst of the deal. Appointees are selected entirely upon their ability to control the politics of their communities, and not with regard to their qualifications for office. We have, therefore, poorer government at a greater expense. The public are paying the salaries of incompetent men

who use their official positions to keep the machine in control. On the other hand, the public official who depends upon the direct primary for election is responsible to the rank and file of the people themselves. He can defy the machine and take the question directly to the people, and if he possesses the courage of his convictions, he will not do this in vain. This relieves him entirely during his occupancy of the office from the taking up of a large portion of his time in looking after his machine. He can devote his energies and his abilities entirely to the welfare of the country and to the performance of his official duties.

It might not be out of place in this connection to relate my own personal experience. I have been nominated several times for the House of Representatives and twice for the Senate. Both times when I was a candidate for the Senate I had very active and spirited opposition. My nominations cost me, as I remember it now, less than five hundred dollars on each of these occasions. I know that if I had undertaken to secure a nomination at the hands of a convention, I would have been defeated had I not spent many times this sum of money, and probably would have been defeated anyway. In neither of these campaigns, so far as I was able to see, was I handicapped on account of money. In looking back over it now, I do not see where I could have legitimately spent more than I did.

DOES THE DIRECT PRIMARY LESSEN DELIBERATION AND INTELLIGENCE IN THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES?

Another objection made to the direct primary is that it takes away the deliberation which the convention system affords, and that therefore the primary does not give the proper opportunity for an intelligent selection of candi

dates. This objection is not true. The convention does not afford any opportunity for deliberation. It is a place where trades are made and not where judicious selection of candidates is indulged in. In a state convention, for instance, where there are a large number of candidates to be nominated, a candidate having behind him the delegates of a county or a group of counties will throw these votes anywhere, to any candidate, for any office, except the one for which he is a candidate. The candidate who secures the nomination is the one whose manager has been the most successful in making these trades. This manager does not ask the delegates behind some candidate for some other office anything about the qualifications of their candidate. He wants to know how many votes he can get for his candidate if he will throw his delegation in favor of the candidate for some other office. No question is asked on either side as to qualifications. Political bosses are often instrumental in having candidates get into the field for some office, not because they want to nominate the candidate, but because they are anxious to fill a particular office with a particular man, and they therefore try their best to get as much trading stock in the field as possible. The convention usually does its work in one day. It would be an impossibility, even if delegates were seeking men with particular qualifications for particular offices, for them to ascertain the truth within the short time in which a decision must be made. A political convention is anything but a deliberative body.

There are always, of course, many delegates in all conventions moved by the highest of motives and doing their best to nominate good men for all the offices, but as a general rule they are in a small minority. The convention system has been condemned by an

enlightened citizenship after a long and wearisome trial. This fact is so well known and understood by the people generally that its defense is almost a waste of words. The direct primary system, while by no means perfect, gives much more opportunity for intelligent selection. The citizen in his own home has weeks of time to inform himself upon the qualifications of the various candidates seeking the primary nomination. He does this deliberately. He has no opportunity to make a trade. He decides the question upon what to him seems to be the best evidence. As the citizen becomes used to the direct primary, he takes greater pains to inform himself. The direct primary tends to educate the people. They get together and discuss the qualifications of the various candidates at the meetings of different kinds of clubs and organizations. They do this in no partisan way, but in an honest effort to secure the best nominees. This means that the electorate is constantly improving itself, and while improving itself, is improving the government by selecting better candidates for office.

PRIMARY SOMETIMES RESULTS IN

MINORITY NOMINEE

Another objection sometimes urged against the direct primary is that sometimes the nominee does not receive a majority of all of the votes. This is true. It is a defect that ought to be remedied, but those who urge this objection give it as one reason for abolishing the direct primary and going back to the convention system, and yet the same objection applies to the convention system. Who is able Who is able to say in any case that the nominee of a convention is a choice of the majority of the members of a party? There is no machinery in the convention that will disclose whether or not this is true.

Why is it that those who are opposed to the primary will not be fair in their argument? If the direct primary

should be abolished because the nominee is sometimes voted for by only a minority, then likewise, the convention should be abolished because there is no way of telling that the nominee is favored by a majority of the party. This objection applies both to the convention and to the direct primary. By what logic can it be urged therefore, that the primary should be abolished and the convention reëstablished? As far as I am able to see there is no way of relieving this objection as far as it applies to the convention, but there is a way of at least reducing the probability of a minority nominee in the primary. If the primary law provided that the voter could express both a first and a second choice we would have gone a long way toward the elimination of this objection. If the law provided that in case no one received a majority of all the votes cast, that the second choice of the voters as to all candidates except the highest two should be counted, this would in most every case give the expression of a majority of the voters. In my judgment such a provision ought to be included in every primary law. Even without this provision this objection is no greater against the primary law than it is against the convention, but with it, it gives the primary a great advantage over the convention in this respect.

PRIMARY ABOLISHED IN SOME STATES

It is alleged that the direct primary has been abolished in several of the states after giving it a trial. The intention seems to be to convey to the public the idea that those who have given the direct primary a fair and honest trial, have reached the conclusion that it is not practical, that good results are not obtained therefrom, and

that the people have voluntarily gone back to the convention on the theory that this system is after all superior to the direct primary. Those who offer this objection boastingly refer to New York, Idaho, South Dakota and Nebraska as instances where the direct primary has been discarded and the people have returned to the old convention system. Again our opponents are unfair, again they tell only half of the truth.

In the state of New York, the legislature repealed the direct primary law insofar as it related to state and judicial officers. The repeal was urged very strongly by the governor. This repeal was an issue in the last election. The party that was successful in that election incorporated a plank in its platform promising to reestablish the direct primary if they were successful at the polls. The result was an overwhelming defeat of those who were instrumental in repealing the primary law. The governor, at whose instance this action was taken, was defeated by one of the largest majorities ever given to a governor in that state. The people spoke with no uncertain voice at the very first opportunity and overwhelmingly defeated those who were responsible for the repeal of the primary law.

In the state of Idaho, where the direct primary law was repealed by the legislature, the matter likewise became a leading issue in the next campaign and as a result those who favored the reënactment of the law were successful, and the new legislature of Idaho is pledged to reenact a primary law.

South Dakota has had a very peculiar primary law. It has been repealed, modified and reënacted several times, and as I understand it, they still have a primary law with some modifications providing for a convention as well as a primary. In my judg

ment it is far from being a workable and practical law. It provides for a great deal of useless and unnecessary machinery, brought about from the fact that the law still retains the convention. Its weakness is that it does not get entirely away from the convention, but every vote that has been had in South Dakota indicates that the people are favorable to a direct primary, and that they will without doubt eventually secure a fair and workable law.

In Nebraska the legislature at its last session repealed the direct primary as it applied to part of the state officials. In that state, the constitution provides for a referendum, and when this law repealing the direct primary was passed, the proper petitions were circulated and filed by which the repeal was stayed until the matter could be referred to the people at a general election. When this general election was held, the repeal of the direct primary by the legislature was repudiated by an overwhelming and crushing majority, so that the direct primary in Nebraska still stands.

I know of no state that has given the direct primary a fair and honest test that does not consider it far superior to the old convention system. These cases that are cited by those who oppose the direct primary to show that the people are dissatisfied with it. and have repudiated it, are in every case, so far as I know, completely answered by the people themselves. They have in every case repudiated the action of the legislature. While the people may not always be satisfied with a direct primary, they are nevertheless much better pleased with it than with the convention system, and there is no danger after having once tried a fair primary that an intelligent people will take a step backward to the convention. The fight for the direct primary has always been a bitter one. Those