Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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, the 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 subjec'el 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 bear 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 perturba tion about a “Democratic piimary.” 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 oi the true and correct standard, and out love for onr Confederate comrades and ' the memories with them is as sincere i and unselfish as any one who may dare,' in any censorious or covinous manner, 1 to impugn our motive in uttering a» ' independent opinion. We insist that I we are aloof from any picayunish quibbling, and we care but little about the foolish criticisms of those wh« 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 som; ■opinions of onr 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,” aud"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 uponjthe ignorant, dishon est and purchasable and corrupt voters. Such new schemes were not confined to the “independents,” but the “regular nominees,” and their friends and supporters of the Demo cratic party, engaged in 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 were 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 pas 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 the 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 man agement or illegal voting in such a pri mary may be punished in the same w-ay as if it were in a regular popular election. This law may be intended as away for obtaining purity in party politics, but it does not yet reach all the tricks of the trade. The primaries have come to be regarded of late as simply the scheme of artful aspirants 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 “the 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 a-bout 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 the Demo cratic primary. This is done, too, in view of the fact that a Democratic law has been enacted to prevent frauds in 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 ns be friends again.” Whose and what frauds are contemplated, in the law for the protection of prima- ries? Everybody but the “Simon pure, lily white, machine Democrats” are excluded from their primaries, so we ask, who is it that the law implies by its terms, as the fraudulent managers and voters? Republicans are excluded from the Democratic primary 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 here state them, and a "primary election” may bring out us 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 a 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 in 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 the 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 that it need not in any waPWpAforidisturb 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, i that a man can be a Republican in national elections, and a Democrat in local electrons? 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 es- ■ feet 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 the schemes for sinis ter demagogy more than for the pur pose of any sincere Democracy. They appear to be the contrivance of de signing politicians for preliminary preferment for personal advancement, rather than 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 “outs,” we do not care, and as a political movement, we think it cannot make much difference for the “ins” or the “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, so much as it was set as a primary of the 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. In the first and foremost consideration, it is not a constitutional law 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 in 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 should 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 or specified in and by the State Constitution. It is the State constitution, and not the “Atlanta Constitution,” that should be taken as the authority and 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, and 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 same candidate. Such repeating by the primary and secondary ballot is un fairly sanctioned by a special law, and 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 aparty, “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 and 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. Rodoebs. MANAGER MISSING. Court Petitioned to Declare Georgia Han dle Company Bankrupt. In the United States District Court at Atlanta, Ga., Friday afternoon, a petition was filed by Mrs. E. G. Coff man, W. D. Manley and C. S. Wrenn asking that the Georgia Handle Com pany be declared an involuntary bank rupt E. G. Coffman, general manager and chief stockholder of the Georgia Han dle Company, left the city Tuesday, ostensibly to go to Macon, but it was later ascertained that he did not show up in the Central City. Congressman Sparkman Renominated. The Democratic congressional con vention for the First Florida district met in Tallahassee Wednesday and re nominated Hon. Stephen M. Spark man by acclamation for a fourth term in the lower house of congress. Mr. Sparkman had no opposition. Beal Estate For Sale The tracts, lots, and parcels of land* as stated below are for sa|e, cheap for cash, or will exchange for available merchandise at reasonable prices. The land lots indicated will be sold with special warranty of title, with plat and grant, with the original "beeswax” seal: No. Diet. Sec. Acres. County. 942 2 3 40 Paulding. 124 7 2 40 Fannin. 90 1 81 Rabun. 118 26 2 40 Gilmer. 57 11 1 40 Union. 137 19 3 40 Paulding. 308 10 1 160 Union. 650 16 2 40 Cobb. 718 16 2 40 Cobb. 719 16 2 40 Cobb. 885 16 2 40 Cobb. 887 16 2 40 Cobb. 915 16 2 40 Cobb. 958 16 2 40 Cobb. 843 16 2 40 Cobb. 646 17 2 40 Cobb. 16 17 2 40 Cobb. 17 17 2 40 Cobb. 86 17 2 40 Cobb. 1090 17 2 .40 Cobb. 267 20 2 40 . Cobb. 1006 16 2 40 Cobb. 514 15 2 40 Cobb. 567 15 2 40 Cherokee. 584 15 2 40 Cherokee. 585 15 2 40 Cherokee. 638 15 2 40 Cherokee. 639 15 2 40 Cherokee. 640 15 2 40 Cherokee. 641 15 2 40 Cherokee. 642 15 2 40 Cherokee. 255 13 2 160 Cherokee. 10£ 2*l 2 40 Cherokee. 101 1 202} Troup. 731 19 3 40 Paulding. 72 3 3 40 Paulding. 501 3 3 40 Paulding. 880 2 3 40 Paulding. 1175 18 3 40 Paulding. 13 13 1 160 Pickens. 246 6 1 160 Chattooga. 708 18 2 40 Polk. 981 21 3 40 Polk. 7 26 3 160 Murray. 1012 12 1 40 Lumpkin. 314 11 1 40 Lumpkin. 697 11 1 40 Lumpkin. 573 5 1 40 Lumpkin. 830 11 1 40 Lumpkin. 148 8 2 160 Fannin. 629 3 4 40 Floyd. 643 18 2 40 Douglass. 8 3 490 Wayne. 95 3 490 Wayne. 96 3 490 Wayne. 151 3 490 Wayne. 200 3 490 Wayne. } 173 3 245 Wayne. 160 2 490 Wayne. | 75 2 245 Charlton. }x} 17516 25} Upson. }x} 111 12 25} Taylor. i 368 28 125 Early. i 113 16 1 80 Union. } 175 16 1 80 Union. 815 14 1 40 Forsyth. 398 5 1 40 Dawson. 157 11 202} Henry. 104 19 2 40 Cobb. 9QI £1 2 74 Cherokee. Three lots, 50x150 feet each, alto gether being Nos, 14, 15 and 16, on Mt. Zion avenue, in the village of Mt. Zion, Carroll county, Ga. One-lot, No, 114, in block 17, in Montrose Park, Montrose county Col orado. Si? acres on Satterfield Ford road, 5 miles from Greenville, in Greenville county, S. C. Three lots at Montreal, on G. C, & N. railroad, DeKalb county, Ga. 1,100 acres; 700 hammock, 400 up land, in Screven county, Ga. This is a fine place, divided by the Georgia Central railroad. 50 miles from Savan nah. Railroad station on the place; good location for country store. Splendid situation for factory for staves and cooperage works. Enough good tim- - ber on the hammock land to pay fox the place three or four times over. Investors are invited to examine this place. 1.149 acres on west bank of Savan nah river, in Effingham county, Ga.. grant of 1784, and descent of title to present owner. 1.150 acres on Satilla river, in Cam dem county, Ga., grant from state,, and deeds on record for 100 years back. Good title, by descent to pres ent owner. 1,150 acres on St. Mary’s river, in Camden county, Ga. Grant and deeds on record 100 years back. Good title,, by descent to present owner. 430 acres on west bank of Savannah river, in Screven county, Ga. Deeds on record since 1827. Good title, by descent to present owner. I desire to sell these lands as soon as possible, and they must go at low prices, very low for cash, or on easy terms and long time with 5 per cent., interest, as purchasers may desire and! prefer. Persons desirous of investing; money for future profits by enhance ments should examine these offers al once. I have other lands, which I will sell on good terms and low prices. In writing for information about any of these lands, refer to them by th* number, district, section and county,, and enclose two stamps, 4 cents, for reply. Robbwv L. Rodokbb, ts Attornev at Law. A'Hanta. Ga.