Newspaper Page Text
HISTORY AND
ANALYSIS
Os the Primary System.
Abuse of the Elective System, by
the Democratic Party, Under
the Party Whip Lash,
In the Hands of the
••Men Who Con
trol.”
We, tbe people, in this State, in the
very season of the year when busy
men would rather be undisturbed in
their usual vocations and pursuits, are
now in the confusion and contests of
political schemes of the managers of a
political party. These “bosses” of the
Democratic party do manage so as to
keep up a continual run of excitement.
Why should our people of the city,
the county, and all over the State,
have to be subjected to so much un
necessary political discussion, simply
for the promotion of the personal in
terests of a few professional politi
cians, of a party that is dominated by
lings and cliques of tin-horn states
men, or Democratic demagogues, who
have the presumption to style them
selves “the men who control?” Why
should this condition be so?
We say “condition,” because it is
truly a condition that gives unrest and
unnecessary disturbance of our people,
at a time when they would prefer to
be, and when they should be, in a
quiet condition. Wherefore is the ne
cessity for all this political racket we
hear every day about who must or shall
be chosen for various official positions?
The time for choosing or electing offi
cers for national, state, county, and
city is away ahead of us yet. Several
months yet before the general elec
tions. Cannot the great body of the
people, the honest yeomanry, be trust
ed and allowed to make suitable selec
tions from candidates who may appear
just before the regular elec.ions.
National issues are not yet definitely
formed or joined for special considera
tion. In local matters there are no
special issues of politics. In some
few cases there may be some personal
preferments or commercial interests to
be considered. Os essential political
principles there is no general diver
sion or division of sentiment. Then
we say, why should we have all this
undue agitation and political pertuba
tiau about a “Democratic ptimary.”
We have some pertinent opinions of
our own on the subject, and we pro
"pose to express such opinions in our
own way. We are not of that class or
contingent of time-serving men who
are afraid to utter a word or write a
line of independent thought, for fear
that it may be said by some party
whip-snapper that we are “not a good
Democrat,” or not faithful to the sen
timents of our Confederate cause and
its memories. Our Democracy is of
the true and correct standard, and our
love for our Confederate comrades and
the memories with them is sincere
and unselfish as any one who may dare,
in any censorious or covinous manner,
to impugn our motive in uttering an
independent opinion. We insist that
we are aloof from any picayunish
quibbling, and we care but little about
the foolish criticisms of those who
have no thoughts or opinions of their
own, with no higher aspirations or
broader scope of mind, than to simply
follow the dictation of designing dem
agogues of a party.
“Purity of motive and nobility
of mind shall rarely condescend,
To prove its rights, or prate of
wrongs, or evidence its worth to
others,
And it shall be small care to the
high and happy conscience,
What jealous friends, or envious
foes, or common fools may judge.”
As we stated before, we have some
opinions of our own about the primary
system of the Democratic party, and
we will print them.
The history of “primary” elections
in this state is rather peculiar, in the
manipulation of “machine” politics.
Primary elections are of comparatively
recent origin or invention. There
used to be a condition of affairs, when
politics did not demand any primary
election for a suitable candidate. After
the civil war, and after the en
franchisement of negroes, when Re
publicans could run for office, in some
counties there were more negro voters
than white voters, and so it became
necessary to have the whites, or Dem
ocrats. as called, to concentrate upon
some one who might be the most
available to stand as a candidate.
Court house nominations were the
usual method, but eventually some
men, who thought they were improp
erly ignored in the court house con
ventions. began to protest, and there
came a period for independent candi
dates. They appealed directly to the
people. In such appeal the candi
dates, of course, were willing, and not
only willing but glad, to receive votes
of independent voters, and negroes,
and Republicans, and it became an
active contest between the court house
ring nominees and the the independ
ents, to secure the negro votes, which
were generally the balance of power.
Many of the “independents” were
successful at the ballot box, by the in
fluence of theory of "fraud,” and “court
house cliques,” and this influence was
augmented by the natural spirit of in
dependence and fair play in many of
the white voters. “Independentism”
seemed to bring about a new political
condition. It engendered new schemes
of trickery, bribery, intimidation, and
gullibility upon the ignorant, dishon
est and purchasable and corrupt
voters. Such new schemes were not
confined to the “independents,” but
tbe “regular nominees,” and their
friends and supporters of the Demo
cratic party, engaged iu the tricks and
schemes with as much energy and ac
tivity as any of the “independents.”
In the times of independent politics,
there came the suggestion for fair
play and honest dealings, with
united action and co-operation with
in the party lines, so that every
Democrat might feel assured that
honest methods w-ere adopted, to carry
out Democratic principles and policies.
The great mass of Democrats did not
desire to engage in, nor to succeed by,
any unfair conduct in the party, how
ever anxious they may have been to
have Democratic success. The idea
was then suggested for a “party elec
tion,” to have a “primary” within the
party lines, for the choice and selec
tion of a suitable candidate. That
seemed to be a fair suggestion, and it
was adopted in many places, though it
was not general at first. The party
primary was considered as just the
way to get good men for candidates.
For a while they ran along in this
way, apparently in a satisfactory man
ner, but eventually the wily politici
ans found out how to work their tricks
and schemes in the machinery of the
primary, and many times, the best man
was left out by a fraudulent defeat
in the party primary election, the peo
ple’s preference was ignored and over
run, and scheming political thimble
riggers came out as the winners.
Then in 1891 the legislature enacted a
so-called statute, or law to provide for
protection of primary elections and
conventions of political parties in this
State, and to punish frauds committed
in such primary elections. The i as
sage of such a law is sufficient evidence
of the fact that such frauds were com
mitted, inasmuch as a law to prohibit
and punish evil, is presumed to recog
nize the evil. The evil existed in tbe
fraudulent and corrupt practices in
Democratic primaries, and the party
leaders and legislators sought to make
a remedy by a law to protect them. So
that now a Democratic primary has the
sanction of law, and any illegal ipan
agement or illegal voting in such a pri
mary may be punished in the same
way as if it were in a regular popular
election. This law may be intended
as away for obtaining purity in paity
politics, but it does not yet reach all
the tricks of tbe trade. The primaries
have come to be regarded of late as
simply the scheme of artful aspiiants
to office, and of designing politicians
under pretense of Democratic integri
ty. We do not believe that the people
in mass have anything to do with set
ting them, or with the management of
them after being set. Primaries, in
the general affairs of State, have here
tofore given opportunities, for “tbe
men who control,” to bunch certain
districts or counties, for the influence
upon voters in other sections, and so
afford the “wire pullers” the chance
of dispatching “encouraging re
ports” to the weaker or doubt
ful points or precincts. So it has
come about that a Democratic
primary is now considered as the
highest development of invention in
the way of “machine politics.” The
invention is claimed to be operated by
the power or will of the people, but
the astute politicians seem to get the
advantage of official positions as the
product of "the machine.” Primaries
are strictly partisan, and as they are
operated in Georgia, they are denomi
nated and labeled as “purely Demo
cratic.” If any man may assert that
he is a Democrat, without running
with and carrying about with him the
the “machine” label, “the men who
control” will assert that such man’s
Democracy is spurious. At a Demo
cratic primary election, only such as
will carry the machine label as true
and tried and well known Democrats
shall be permitted to have the privilege
to participate in the voting, and this,
with the proviso that every voter must
affirm or swear that he will abide by
the result and support the machine
nominee. Colored Democrats, as vot
ers, are excluded from the primary, it
being generally assumed that all negro
voters are Republicans. Populists are
excluded from voting in a primary up
on the ground that they are “dis
satisfied Democrats,” and they have
deserted the Democratic party, and
so they must not be allowed to come
about the party ballotbox of.theDemo
cratic primary. This is done, too, in
view of the fact that a Democratic law
has been enacted to prevent frauds iu
Democrats primaries, and in view of
the fact, also, that the Democratic
party has adopted in its own platforms
nearly every important plank or prin
ciple for which the Populist party has
contended. The “machine” Demo
crats then say that they invite Popu
lists to "come back to the old party,
and let us be friends again.” Whose
and what frauds aie contemplated, in
the law for the protection of prima-
ries? Everyb. d v but the “Simon pure,
lily white, m...-hine Democrats” are
excluded from their primaries, so we
ask, who is it th.it the law implies by
its terms, as the fraudulent managers
and voters? Republicans are excluded
from the Democratic primal y on gene
ral principles, or else on particular or
special principles, as not being in any
way desirable or suitable to affiliate
with the machine Democrats in a local
primary. All of these things occur just
as we hare state them, and a "primary
election” may bring out as a nominee
some man who may not be suitable as a
candidate to any of these other politi
cal parties, and he may not be satis
factory to his own party, except to
those who control the machinery of
the party. His primary election
may be made by his personal
or corporation friends, or paid workers,
with less than one-fourth of the legal
voters of the district or county where
in the primary election is held, thus
making n minority nomination for all
voters, and maybe with a bare major
ity of the voters of his own party. If
there may be more than two candi
dates in the primary canvass and elec
tion, the nominee by the plurality
rule may be a minority nominee iu
his own party. Yet, as it may be so,
when the result of the primary ballot
ing is announced, it is expected of
every other candidate that he must
yell and throw up his hat in the air in
a “hurrah for tbe Democratic pri
mary,” and*swear allegiance and fidel
ity forever to such schemes and frauds
as have conspired and contributed to
bring about his own defeat. Then
every fellow who thinks or pretends
that he thinks "the party” is
of more importance than his
own principles, either personally or
politically, starts out on a canvass,
and goes about the matter to induce
all the members of all other political
parties, and the voters of the minority
in his own party, to abide by the Dem
ocratic primary and to support the
nominee. Colored voters are coaxed
and cajoled, and bought and sold, as if
they were the only important element
in the ensuing general election. Pop
ulists are importuned to yield and sac
rifice their own opinions, and to re
turn to the ranks of "the old party,”
and they are told that if they have any
grievances for adjustment, let it be
done “in the party,” and they are per
suaded that they can easily settle the
whole matter by simply voting in the
general election for “our man,” the
primary nominee of the Democratic
party. Republicans are either whip
ped or wheedled into voting for the
Democratic primary nominee, or as he
may be called “the local candidate,”
on the ground or pretext that it need
not in any way affejt or disturb their
allegiance to their] own party in the
broader expanse of national politics.
Have you not, our readers, already
heard the remark many times here,
that a man can boa Republican in
national elections, and a Democrat in
local elect ons? How about such a
politician when it comes to voting for
a United States senator by the legisla
ture, after a Democratic primary for
such senator? Or how about represen
tatives in congress, or for president?
Democratic primaries may have the ef
fect of getting some good citizen all
mixed up on general election day, or
may get the colored voters tangled and
troubled in their minds.
Primaries, as commonly conducted
now, seem to be tbe schemes for sinis
ter demagogy more than for the pur
pose of any sincere Democracy. They
appear to be the contrivance cf de
signing politicians for preliminary
preferment for personal advancement,
rather thlln the maintenance of politi
cal principles and the promotion of
popular rights.
We have thus given our views in
general as to “primaries.” With re
gard to the next primary which has
been setfor the 15th of May, we frankly
say that we do not approve it as or
dered, and we are not yet convinced
of the propriety of holding it at the
time set for it in the manner indicated.
Whether it was set for the "ins” or
the “ou!s,” we do not care, and as a
political movement, we think it cannot
make much difference for the “ins” or
tbe “outs,” as to the methods to be
practiced. We do not believe that it
was fixed as a primary election by the
people for the people, to much as it
was set as a primary of tbe politicians
for the politicians, amongst “the men
who control.”
We will now examine some of the
special features of the system and law
of primaries.
The law or Act about protection of
primary elections is not a salutary
law. It is obnoxious to constitutional
authority and legal propriety. Iu the
first and foremost consideration, it is
not a constitutional Jaw or Act. It is
the very worst or most objectionable
form of special or class legislation.
It was specially enacted for partisan
purposes. It is uncertain or indefinite
iu its terms or specifications as to who
shall put it in force, motion, or opera
tion. It simply provides for “any
political party” or convention to
spring it into action or call for an
election, without designating any
person or officer who may make such
call or be responsible for such elec
tion. It sets forth a general power
that may be exercised by one political
party, or more parties. It seeks or
pretends to give authority to
managers of the political ma
chinery of parties, which should
pertain only to the proper po
litical regulations of the State, to be
prescribed by and operated under gen
eral law. It gives the power to “any
political party,” and there may be one
or more, two, three, or four, each with
its own rules, and each may be differ
ent from all others, with inconsistent
and antagonistic doctrines and rules.
It gives occasion for discord and strife
where the policy of the State shonld
be for the promotion of harmony and
peace. It gives power to a few to con
travene the will of many. It is special
legislation for purposes which are pro
vided for by the general law. The
general law provides for elections by
the people, and not for parties of the
people, on certain fixed times and
places as designated in a lawful way,
and prescribes the qualifications for
voters as electors, and is inclusive
of all who may be legally qualified
as electors of the people, while the
Act for the “primary” is uncertain
as to the rules or managers, and it is
limited as to its electors,and exclusive
of all who do not come up to or within
the uncertain rules which may be cov
ertly prescribed by uncertain persons,
who may specify or prescribe such
regulations as may be at variance with
the public policy of the State,and with
the political liberty and freedom of
conscience of the legal electors or
voters of the State. The Act to pro
tect party primaries is uncertain in its
provisions for rules, and seeks or
assumes to give authority to uncertain
parties or persons to fix the plans and
times for public elections,and tends to
allow for the control and governing of
the elective franchise by uncertain and
various parties or persons, and seeks
to confer on such uncertain parties or
persons the power to prescribe
additional and extra oath or oaths
for electors, not prescribed 01
specified in and by tbe State
Constitution. It is the State
constitution, and not the “Atlanta
Constitution,” that should be taken
as the authority aud guide for fixing
rules, regulations, and oaths for elec
■tors.
So much now for this view as to the
unconstitutionality of the act for the
protection of Democratic party prima
ries from the frauds of its own party
managers and its own party voters.
In another view, or from another
standpoint, this law for primary elec
tions gives occasion for “repeating,”
or voting more than once by a portion
of the electors who cast ballots in such
primaries. The voters who may cast
the majority or plurality of votes, get
their candidate as the nominee. Those
who may be in the minority of course
do not obtain their choice of candi
dates, and are bound by the rules made
by the managers, aud are expected to
support the minority nominee in the
ensuing election, so that it comes
about that the majority or plurality
voters may vote twice for their nomi
nee, while all the others vote for him
only once, when their competitors are
voting the second time for the sama
candidate. Such repeating by the
primary and secondary ballot is un
fairly sanctioned by a special law,
aud approved by the managers and
manipulators of party machinery,
while those who may refuse to go into
any such primary, and simply prefer
to wait for the general election, are
denounced as politically derelict, and
are proscribed by such party managers*
Such schemes of political management
are not likely to promote the harmony
that should prevail amongst the peo
ple.
In a local view, we present the fol
lowing suggestions:
In 1898, in a primary election, a vote
was taken “For” and “Against” elec
tion of Judges and Solicitors of City
Criminal Court “by vote of the peo
ple.” The “For” such election to be
“by vote of the people,” received a
large majority. Now the “managers”
of a party, “so-called,” propose to limit
the people who shall vote in a political
primary, and will then assume to dic
tate that such vote under such limita
tions and restrictive rules as the
bosses dictate, shall be considered
aud declared as an election “by the
people.” Such presumption is ridic
ulous.
We deem this article as sufficient for
this time on this subject of the party
primary election system. We may
have something more to say later .on.
ts Robebt L. Rodgers.
THE DELAGOA AWARD.
Portugal Must Pay United States and Eng
land 15,314,000 Francs.
A dispatch from Berne, Switzerland,
says: According to the Delagoa Bay
railroad award, Portugal is condemned
to pay 15,314,000 francs. The award,
which is unanimous, was given its
loug-expected announcement late
Thursday afternoon. The first clause
of the decision is ns follows:
“1. The Portuguese government, as
the defending party, is condemned to
pay to the government of the United
States and to Great Britain, the claim
ants, altogether, in addition to the
£28,000 paid on account in 1890, the
sum of 15,314,000 francs in legal
Swiss money with simple interest on
this sum at the rate of 5 per cent per
annum from June 1, 1889, up to date
of payment of said sum.”
ROW IN COMMITTEE
Sensational Climaxes In Wardner
Investigation Proceedings.
FISTICUFFS WERE NARROWLY AVERTED
The Lie I* Passed and Threats and Dem
onstrations Galore Are Made
Ou Both Hides.
The fifth day of Governor Stennen
berg’s testimony in the Cceur d’Alene
investigation began at Washington
Wednesday morning. Representative
Lentz continued the cross-qv.estion
ing.
The climax was reached when Chair
man Hull was denounced by all tbe
Democratic members of the commit
tee, particularly by Mr. Lentz. Time
aud again the two men clashed during
the hearing.
The governor detailed a number of
visits from San Francisco, Spokane
and elsewhere, during which he si.id
he met officials of the various mines.
At a meeting at Spokane he told the
mine owners there would be no modi
fication of the permit system. The
mine owners were opposed to this sys
tem, and wanted to employ any men
they chose. But tbe governor said
he informed them that the state of
Idaho would not permit the employ
ment of criminals. He had made no
statement as to how long the permit
system would continue, but he said
he intended to enforce it as long as it
seemed to insure order.
Mr. Lentz asked if this meant that
the governor would do as he pleased
on the subject, to which tbe witness
replied that he would do as his judg
ment dictated. If the permit system
had resulted in a loss to the miners of
$500,000, as Mr. Lentz stated, the
governor said he did not care for that,
as it was a necessary recourse by the
state.
“Like Louis XIV, you are the
state,” remarked Mr. Lentz.
Mr. Lentz’ allusion to Louis XIA'
caused a prolonged discussion.
A sensational episode occurred at
this point. Representative Lentz as
serted that some of the state deputies
were living with disreputable women.
Mr. Cheney, the attorney for the state
of Idaho, interposed a protest and
said:
“I hurl back at you that statement.
The deputies are reputable men.”
Mr. Lentz indignantly resented the
interference of private counsel, and
addressing the attorney, said:
“You ought to be kicked out of the
window, and you would be if you had
not the majority of this committee be
hind you.”
When Mr. Lentz attempted to read
from previous testimony concerning
the improper conduct of deputies,
Chairman Hull overruled this course.
This further nettled Mr. Lentz, and
addressing Mr. Hull, he exclaimed:
“I want to say iu your teeth that if
you are a party to protecting this at
torney in a lie, you are a party to it.”
Amid much confusion, Chairman
Hull declared that Mr. Lentz had in
sulted the committee and its members
as far as he could and it would have to
stop. Representative Hay, of Vir
ginia, arose to say that the attorney
had better not give the lie to him and
Representative Cox, of Tennessee,
said:
“If any man insults me, I’ll hit
him.”
Mr. Cox said that when the attorney
accused a member of the committee of
falsehood he forfeited his right to ap
pear.
“If he says that to me,” added Mr.
Cox, "either he or I go out of the
window.”
Representative Jett, of Illinois, said
that as a means of protecting the com
mittee, he would move that the attor
ney be expelled from the committee
room.
Many members were on their feet
trying to secure recognition when Mr.
Jett made his motion. Before taking
action the committee gave Mr. Cheney
an opportunity to be heard. He ex
plained that he did not intend to say
that Mr. Lentz had told a falsehood,
but simply to deny the statement that
Idaho deputies lived with disreputable
women. He apologized for any mis
apprehension.
Mr. Cox remarked that a man must
either “fight or apologize on such oc
casions, and the apology settled it.”
MOYSE IN COURT.
Mai} Who Potted ils Captain Clark find
Won Bride Arraigned at New Orleans.
Julius Moyse, the bogus Captain
Clark, who married Bertha Wornken
several weeks ago, appeared for trial
before Judge Parlange at New Orleans,
Thursday, on the charge of imperson
ating a government officer. He was
unattended by counsel, J udge Whita
ker having withdrawn from the case.
The trial went over until Monday, and
the court appointed a lawyer to repre
sent Moyse.
There was a large crowd in court
when the case was called. Moyse
looked worried and apparently realized
that he was up against big trouble.