ePebiewe Avent bt abhi beh peasant WO A TEN phd Me oh! Adept 914 eae whpL ELI ace Sele aT orui-iper eee me erty AEP AES BA IG? £ errr ys ht anne be Monta babe Ree aes bbea a hay Pathe keh thet Seoee o ae ' Fehi atl acl hieed ei ade deed sheen bev ae alt silat ‘ Sys Se en Tt Maly eo de gh Mae tieiwow® ra ae el gegeg ion dg 8h) Re onset atmanpeegie 4 a etait hy i idope aus ar aac DotA * Jae" base aag 44 sd H aa aah any bp * soe bh it ol ras Ma) ee PAL ye rele ar ae ie PP DR pa dwer teed tad! or hed Halas 1 Begg ge Ae eee ek eA ' poatTR AO tiki g be baer ee tS) eed iss ety Ad TE ech: 253 y i i fiero Jin igehey Reta the tig Deo ae yrds ies mie) Re ¢ We ah arta etched: vi in vnngienhiisagat Weloniee thee ets Rata wean Twos fan arte Wi boda rhea, ein) Voebabs! Wedes ORL eer) iene ea Pan Says Mast oe itat Forvasih 1 Fath y Ais oaceayte ste he | Preyre ie ec lee fst pes 4, an aea ety watt 24492 paw ee btRe oa a isaht MEd ik’) ah Hh} “yet a i eaten baud ete 19% Hh nay +e ed 4 ” Beis a fh gata fis he it bi elt iy ‘. vat “ Beitr oe sda iy seks Tat sbey vad iy Kalareise Senor pos edt ore $i Pea bpeds pgs areaenl & eat UAH D1 ine rept F Le Petr ge Do Onh ae Fibee aia itity sb WUE UMTS Pap) snp, " pees be 6 te Didar peg} hod Pop dade Lampe enta ARE hati hak aN EE en 3] Ps wi Mote grb ebty Ad aear dae PUSS PED tet bbe a5) di) doe Gee hae ye AEs | WFD fr PTAs) Pas F te CL ee H WA beyidian hdc peaee (ren er Ctr g a M4 When Biglh At oe ea 3 ty eee pei bed bg, N 4 Lelie dts Ne? bY , Say tie aie ite Ae ae Lapa ate! itn ia hs hoa ps 4 ay iy Piao bs telat ; spies resis fob Lhe ay) grein ANGE La engi et ny ? i eh bed eds iiaihiord Nighy , tt ie es WANG ¢ ey ; / pe < y Bah icy: boty OLAV ae i Pik 1 ‘y! teh vt ? P} j hf auvatte ia ‘ + Pos aN eens ve ie Het swings Naot Th +9 WE Ae sade ara hare aie pe Ras rp emote wihiedie te 4 A 8 UE A ate tb. Cal 11h) (380 RA Lew aseete Haat fey recibir bhi he aes WF pea pre oP rveweee iF | gn be it Fieri detalii ticasiy POU ob Ue RT aC teens ay neh +s Up ah ve eae CD Mer ti Enea Ee aad hints m r Sdegbs Aube if ne | Wi% fd faptdasasdods qrqiaed wigrt ted Weer Seen EO 2 ort Pere es at Pearet el) Pisiness heeded ” iiaF Ad} va Hoty tad i a } $25 yids p44 tena ced in dy pa pay hate aes peiee ihe ary siak i Ruki nae 4 Bs Pada i ne va Y a ] Hart 1% ih p pe , Sereita. ae af ty) Hind rey sect: asian Wa Lata ile Gidget nara agit anne tHe is can rays dice Mh a ig weed vas * a loeedon tire? eae iD +4 Abe th gt 449 ag ry ey: aA “A? 4 7 Mecais PP ures Aes Payot PW (oc ere Sarpy 448 /" 1 “= i i ue fat sieht ¢ as ins hd gaa) ii UNS Sty ee is stata Mite i %, cian Seley +P bet Cie eed) ln YF 4 dea grad foisg Bilis EN pase) sages arya te Wea pt 23885 } Bane i at taepimoal fal Patty he a4 aM eae§ Hot a FE Nihale nag Retr sr wht re ie ares hoe ia at i] * AWA], aire! Eee a AN siti SEH ht Rade wearin 1 i Aon ; ; site elt ni ah We 4) “ie co oe! haa iy nea ue ee at i 1 Aerie! 9 t ed of wae Rieiea Nea Foal 4 gas lta te arses 4a atts ya aon AEE et anc rics aryhle Hr aE m iad savant 7} Ene vie eis L jedi ye Paige Aah bby te Yen sgitas ie Sey iea ty estat ah sey wh eaahs i oh ct Na freee ty i ania stasguhigs Dy eaeay ee 4 rs ae i eit iL 4 WAAe of Sse At aa bu , aia see ate Bia {ie te a: =) TiAtas Ne a at cs oi a6 59) 4 HEC tpt 4 eure: et aT at OTe tt Bn ¥ Fla paneer ane nity (iT iter Fi Mica runes et Brasrraghi sestd i beet ity} Meribethadabs fait a4 i: py pti nase bs enh 491 Le Pag ays Kil 8:4) 03098 i fair itera oan’ inesbsa a ‘ ‘ $444 ete rT igi fee f Betas a ie e 14545 of ial 1 hae PAs peli Redes ah sali@ieaaeastias {ut our Pepin ‘ nia i tat eaeae tiie aah ‘ ae a J = rad ? sas 5 . init Staite Le isi ye Sait) 34 SA ae Met adae tr att) eam vafietthad pti sates 1% Tee aie Hy TY i wi) ti i oe arise d eu lali ilels ne i e102) Bevis raves rite) At ih tan Secee Sette pCR MNES at goad age cite hy i tien ods Rie eat Gath iti vip att rate rare i patente at ae fi alae paaits) a of at x) haan it wher bes ee tGiedact Of ie iii bee Hat abe 4 y " ) tela rsine H ae He hee sh Me tt i Ta Wi pre tases Psi stneey 81494 Rossi i Hae zi ay it ati Lat HP ty agin: pik eae 3 midss laa. FEL Ue atria he 4 Hi neat y ith i : pride ah idd garth tad Yap stay} si ctr Tbh euant ts beak eat WU Aero raed 4G ba fred Libre tia isle regen ear hdtrman Ec nated adloae aii yee eeisecwsenies aries ta wetisadaa AIDE pees uene ATE NEE D360 arhneiin teabay ain 1a ae hh Beret Sha Piksca Lene aaisaleiag BS ean HeRonS a geeaepen TE is Natta nbestas uae el i Lee Ree ou one ane Hint ae pie Aude Dye faa th lorausent He laerhigsan te Warped siete | pestis Mi edly iy aie eh eae od ih Hee nati Spaeehtaed feast ri} Tt at 15 eee) Has wiper ty te FD en rape shan h eh aaeeit 1) siti} rials ShiMy ARHa4y, 44 i Cir Patt epkiiper res on tat alse iy! Par et) ( sited aie esas TER RGus be Rey Jit hiahsaaaed aia? - 8 ageerih fi Ph alahnns ite Hitt ied Bg coll i ul hides late 14 tha aay pate abd CAE allt eet ante a rr pipes bok bs bee, 4) abel 3 ; 5 Laas ety if (pram ae ion ad ie an tha! yeaah he ae Dai ty Ye geaedetske AUR EEE Le D is ; i a eatieie si Cre vies art A Wiatheeies Heat ab Pade aan iti ie i ‘ na ie distiates : i pean tte ees naaianate se ened seu Ne eon ieiiataetag ‘ i ’ ft te i id et Piano Hs ae A aect HME) et ar was ie tet iy ytd) he hie arity i atadetha nth vale beg eae tics alae fat ke Mata haat i t ae 1 a Lert ti'4 Igiiaieal atanaanes th ta te SH) baile rt gt ARS en ey hi 4 ed inate eee Havent ett ii on RNY i UB MAY ag + Hine iLbaveae 64 iat MOM PAT INES ANS wiekagaiey jaa ata Via stsit HORTA TAT TASER OTA ie $4. obit Hi thet nate Crappie 2) Tee AL ae et ea “eh raver tees hake ide M bret hae Uet ie en taey er te thea ge ba) agai “Wien ant Hisey ted nets eda ent iat nai ade Lisime say tial a Peery oe tere 04 4\¥< Ae ere-# teat ina Pe a 2 ee ‘ = wl a Vind ete ai ae Ls} a a ont arr LEA ee Sanath aiee Mantas sty “AL se ah ai asia eet Rahs shasta sataibentdent phattaie sae Pannier yt went Rent a oon ee a ie rene Tata 4) SAAB T TOM EASON eel adits eet bed sp ad tee dtea af wejahine' reek agp bat ae ar aed as eae $y. teil del) a} 18 bh fetamae tint AW Heo Casal titanate aaa. ete + esata oT atas ae sh itesta ie ATR sa1 i OMAR tir aan i" itiettaat i ‘tala aint: BBY 4 ate g hata a ie st ato us rit pgesinainiseni CHE ae Taiheb: ah 4 1 \engnaiqasary, H th i ; pA bs ae Sala? SGN ata es at 2) bet Wty eae ey Hts Hapeos VL AAT eae 4 at te Heat tue Hite we vee “ < re lente eh iff ditags Peete ately thy ee ae pi iabovaseenodt Ps apy toes pis otal UH at aie proaeonaminer un Vier Lap i 44 AMAT 14 iY, caine i eantareded tats pera et Man vas eT Lt te nl Me ah sean Sahai ay ore 4 he earl gay , uaa} ab Seat ita if ‘4 ae L ithe Lat cpinaae eer MIT ty: sq Waa Hie seit Li ae et Vai iS syteaat sities belie * or) , ft } Miaka , . "4 ayia need Aish n shina } ran at Waeaeae dia) ieee 3 ' LAR euie asta Cha te A Siaisharesy! anh PNA ae nS be H sae { AT Hay ishtten te toe er eat ne Webneiaites rote i st t basil Pd bes a F anit Ses aah islaneste . * “ae a ite i Tigh tbet a ata rf tae mitt ene 4 Pa "eae ee iehor eh po 7 HOP ari nia: Biber sasie; {tage fannie (eirata + ty ahs) Menai te pads 145 1) sah ae it tae atrantariere eae eae iat} : Vy bed ese i! Peat CH haut Pyyirin limba Stee tttan rind? recite aietatsat! ORCS ei > Wi banal | fut 4 4 4 was an 49 iS vik te) wae ieitoan ata vane fa pel erent fathers iii PS Avhen By ih we thy. EE Rape a] 42 bled ; paaea feet reg ana Uiteines ns - ib hte aay U i 1 Bias gt fchaes deed Wha PH Wits FH it ito net, ei a hin cue cH thay Eat iene Tas \ * rte rT i Racin Boag ae ae v capil ig cole a rey miss he Hey ae 1A 7 tele . a taieett acst Rims (24s asa} : Md gh tate da tay 4 Sha 93 vei ela oe, ia Perey) Bh te gat eye AP TERE ae ‘ cael sae vii} Ley ibaa ats oe peek ety autre vee fet nyt ery a = RYP re ay iy Passi NA LABVK Yr ve tT4 yates 414A Rte J « la vgmiedey eee tant" (yearery : Redwing Asati ae in ty a : yaad ny) Vsteany Asana a iy Ad th 9h be fy j Lee ke Heloraieiadiea! r i yan AR AED PLE Hite ot fyi tle : hy 124 Perret ener roe ieasaenee qe Viet ate aee 434 f "4 ih Ren AUT 44 Sila sisouatt ; tra resteatey Mpsreetise oH Pine Rutan tone tide jaaab ined SL EPEEM Hy sia ide } Ju ates AUT arta mikes POC HPC Me a ” 4 14944) 454 Ud degre Ans) eras x i hae iatnaant SLA SLR PRE Waa. of f 7 ea iis wchiQn, : 4 ” Tea ed Aa tnd Poi MRR Eg Sp VG Mae he cet ate Thyarne ite uy a ie Hadise welad: abet ie Bait aah, Wate ian LR shhagas nine PARA nasney Mt at: 4 4% Liat thea ol +e Y we i ae Beinn TyBiby Ad Rs Passi ef Hants th iM jan qeginy ab aiaRL Pile heads pen beh eit ned peat tige Tl PREM Eur ter arte nore t ry Veda roe ii irae he 94 haute ede Habis & re RSE as tag je hotbyyeta iit iinet ee Heb setae ete ee . { tha} } wis lei Vesela’ bits bibs RPE PANS Ure hee EE cies aH bias see tate, las Maelasep ere sig aed aye ty 330 44394 Kis epee bal te Ma walks tA hos ite it 1 beentine: bei REPRE E rae trey eer Haslet it , ibs ca pie ha tse aah sas aah Salen ates : Wie eels tae ji vis Master aties Bree Pir yt or i ‘ CORAL Wee gh yt aie * sa havens as High gies} My 32h: ihe ation reang ree ie Hi Hal et hgas yr teatiter ad A PAR aloe eae pte RU RAnN teakt a ar eg Ula Vise saevaiiagceeeetes oye vigid tims haha 3h che Meas eG bt raieas ih a nt ait! meee bhi) hoe ( ite sa tuelt ieeitdatt Dat " t i) aie hates ere Neataat he paprit aloe tet aed bt Vhirvetati een iehtelt iste (ieoa DMT Motsarta 4 ais ariale Mie st} ag Eta PD ANY Lijit; haya habe uM G That 45 fa AREA) Op ee > rat Fueetal-* Me Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. University of Illinois Library Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2021 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign https://archive.org/details/directorimaryOOunse_0O THE DIRECT PRIMARY Che Annals VoLuME CVI Marcu, 1923 Eprror: CLYDE L. KING Associate Eprror: J. H. WILLITS Assistant Eprror: J. T. SALTER Eprroruat Councm: C. H. CRENNAN, DAVID FRIDAY, A. A. GIESECKE, A. R. HATTON, AMOS 8S. HERSHEY, E. M. HOPKINS, 8S. S. HUEBNER, CARL KELSEY, J. P. LICH- TENBERGER, ROSWELL C. McCREA, E. M. PATTERSON, L. 8. ROWE, HENRY SUZZALO, T. W. VAN METRE, F. D. WATSON Editor in Charge of this Volume J.T. SALTER Instructor in Political Science, University of Pennsylvania J Tae American AcADEMY OF PotiTIcAL anD SoctaL ScIENCcE 897TH STREET AND WoopLAND AVENUE PHILADELPHIA 1923 Copyright, 1923, by Tue AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE All rights reserved EUROPEAN AGENTS ENGLAND: P. S. King & Son, Ltd., 2 Great Smith Street, Westminster, London, S. W. FRANCE: L. Larose, Rue Soufflot, 22, Paris. GERMANY: Mayer & Miiller, 2 Prinz Louis Ferdinandstrasse, Berlin, N. W. ITALY: Giornale Degli Economisti, via Monte Savello, Palazzo Orsini, Rome. SPAIN: E. Dossat, 9 Plaza de Santa Ana, Madrid. S -— HC Av2d. REMOTE STORAGE CONTENTS PART I—THE DIRECT PRIMARY PAGE NOMINATING SYSTEMS. . 1 Charles S. Merriam, Ph.D., LL. D. “Professor of Political Science, University bt Chicago. REE REE TREAT SVLA S81 Rey ooh cae clean ia aie aos fsbo v's Seay 6s sae olatela le ca ark Manages 11 Charles Kettleborough, Ph.D., Legislative Reference Bureau, Tides Indiana REMOVABLE OBSTACLES TO THE SUCCESS OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY........ 18 H. W. Dodds, Secretary, National Municipal League -WHY I BELIEVE IN THE DIRECT PRIMARY............. 22 George W. Norris, United States Senator from Nebraska ieee ee 1 DIRECT PRIMARY. 20... cee db Pe aia ds dic Hal J aidisla lee ota a Wapato 31 Karl F. Geiser, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science in Oberlin College THE DIRECT PRIMARY AND PARTY RESPONSIBILITY IN WISCONSIN.... 40 Arnold Bennet Hall, J.D., of the faculties of Political Science and Law of the University of Wisconsin OPINIONS OF PUBLIC MEN ON THE VALUE OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY.... 55 - William E. Hannan, Legislative Reference Librarian, New York State Library PART II—SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY | REFORM OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING METHODS....................... 63 P. Orman Ray, Ph.D., Professor Political Science, Northwestern University Pa eALvORMS IN ‘STATE POLITICS. 205i eek ieee cece sue neas samen 72 Ralph S. Boots, University of Nebraska NON-PARTISAN NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS..........................4.. 83 Robert Eugene Cushman, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota Paremeeeee MEY, COON V LGINCL LO) Noy etes ate as cele oa ated S civ vite Mie ile sos bs olla AION 97 Schuyler T. Wallace, Instructor in Political Science, Columbia University PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES. Its Spread, Princi- ples of Operation, Relation to Direct Primaries and General Results................ 105 C. S. Hoag, Secretary, Proportional Representation League PREVENTION OF MINORITY NOMINATIONS FOR STATE OFFICES IN THE STOP UGS TULA BALERS UGE 0 CIP AN Pe SD yi GR TE 111 Benj. H. Williams, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania PART III—THE OPERATION OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY IN PARTICULAR STATES Peter Ae DER BO LO PRIMARY 0.0 e oe ks ee cede we cost cecelmidnns 116 Victor J. West, Professor of Political Science, Stanford University THE DIRECT PRIMARY LAW IN MAINE AND HOW IT HAS WORKED..... 128 Orren Chalmer Hormell, Ph.D., Bowdoin College OPERATION OF THE STATE-WIDE DIRECT PRIMARY IN NEW YORK STATE 142 Louise Overacker, M.A., Fellow in Political Science, The University of Chicago THE WORKINGS OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY IN IOWA...................... 148 Frank E. Horack, Professor of Political Science, State University of Iowa, Iowa City V/THE OPERATIONS OF THE RICHARDS PRIMARY............................ 158 >> Clarence A. Berdahl cience, University of Htinors———______-~ THE ATION OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY IN INDIANA................. 172 Frederic H. Guild, Indiana University PART IV IGEST OF PRIMARY ELECTION LAWS Ab»! Se AR NRO AE AOU 2 Ac a CU EA MR 181 Charles Kettleborough, Ph.D., Legislative Reference Bureau, Indianapolis, Indiana OOK DEPARTMENT. a 274 PORT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ‘THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, YEAR ENDING DECEMBER, 31, 1922. 281 aR Le st io eae a ApaRle eaae MeN Oey, eas MOET oles aR 284 a "st ne 2 © oleh SE Ste sO ee eee vy, is en ONIN fia FE OLe ee Be, ‘i hep wha A, ue vr sp hy joel htt m” Fae , nN > Pe a mt nfl ¥ if 5 ne sate otthatets bad oasis it m B ih yy hy & gavee r LOL eta De eA AER 4, a Waray ‘ ¢ ‘ pi AY iy arias, OY) hay ae Beats) be \a sarerinth., Poe esi! ron th aa pee y ala ‘ cals 3 SE ORE OF SEER ; sane iA ae 7 moon ot it sie ae 1) CROW i hs ae Wee) NE TE. aye OF POS. 1.4 mo 44 J she WAP Sy4k BW LANE ‘poabsEe + Fok ae i as i ii iy Bases a Sey ot an Y x ay if Ce “ike Fate A , L ri 2 ) ogee Shay ia) f he ¥ ‘pd / wh Hes Hes is Sw (Pac ea me ha ie oe hab, spe Nominating Systems By Cuarwes S. Merriam, Px.D., LL.D. i. UR nominating systems have passed through many stages of devel@pment as various social, eco- nomic and political situations were encountered. The legislative and con- gressional caucus were evolved; devel- oped into the hybrid caucus; and later grew into the convention, under the pressure of Jacksonian Democracy. The originally shapeless convention gradually took form and order, but after the Civil War the new urban and industrial conditions forced a system of legal regulation of the delegate system. Later in many local communities the non-partisan primary, nomination by petition only, or proportional repre- sentation, supplanted the older meth- ods. The direct primary also sprang up shortly after the Civil War, later as a part of tife insurgent or progressive movement, and materially altered the nominating system in almost all parts of the country. Now comes the challenge of direct nomination with a demand for the abandonment of the system on the one hand, and for modifications ‘and further develop- ments on the other. The writer has been asked to review the present nominating system and cheerfully does so, expressing the hope, however, that his statements will be taken not as propaganda for a special system but as an effort toward a con- structive solution of a very vexed problem. We are groping our way toward the adjustment of popular control, political and governmental leadership, and technical knowledge and ability; and we find the methods of party organization and control a highly important part of the process. 2 Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago OLp CONVENTION SYSTEM The direct primary was established in the United States as a_ protest against the unrepresentative character _ of the old-time convention... The e delegate system had produced widespread dissatisfaction and a general feeling that the nominat- ing conventions did not reasonably re- flect the will of the party. It was be- lieved that the conventions were in many cases controlled by political bosses, and further that these bosses were either controlled by or closely allied with greedy and selfish indus- trial interests. (it was believed that the convention system was admirably adapted to management by the “in- visible government”’ of the industrial- political magnates. Numerous in- stances in which the public will was defied, cases of bribery and corruption of delegates, prolonged deadlocks, bit- ter factional struggles, bargaining and trading of offices for the support of delegates;—all contributed to the gen- eral conclusion that the convention was too remote from the party, and that its results did not fairly represent the judgment of the rank and file of the party. Among the specific evils arising under the old convention system were: 1. The limitation of the voter’s choice to a set of delegates committed to one candi- date, but uninstructed for others. In such cases the candidate “‘traded”’ his delega- 1 The history of this movement is traced in my Primary Elections (1909). See also my Ameri- can Party System, Ch. 9 (1922); Recent Tend- encies in Primary Elections in NatTIONAL Monicreau Review, Feb., 1921. 4 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Furthermore, the significance of the vote under the direct primary varies in different sections of the country or of the state. About half of the states are one-party states where the primary is of the very greatest importance, for here the election is practically decided. This list includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Loui- siana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Okla- homa, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin, and comprises more than half of the popu- lation of the United States. Many other states are preponderatingly Re- publican or Democratic. Of the 3,000 counties in the United States, it is safe to say that roughly half of them are one-party counties. Legislators, gov- ernors and United States senators in many parts of the country are prac- tically chosen in party primaries. In these instances, and they are many, the primary of the majority party is of the utmost consequence, for whatever its outcome, it is not likely to be over- thrown in the subsequent election. In such cases the majority primary often calls out a very large vote while that of the minor party is of less consequence and perhaps slimly attended. Of 67 counties in Pennsylvania, there are three that have been uni- formly Republican during the last eleven elections—namely, Delaware, Lancaster and Philadelphia. In addi- tion to these, there are eleven others that have been Republican in every year except 1912. In addition to these, there are sixteen others that have been Republican ten out of eleven times. Of Democratic counties, there is one that has been unbrokenly partisan’ since 1859—namely, Columbia County. There are four others that have been Democratic ten times in eleven elec- tions. The population of Pennsyl- vania in 1920 was 8,720,017. The population represented in the 35 coun- ties which are almost invariably either Republican or Democratic was, in 1920, approximately 6,500,000. In other words, approximately two-thirds of the primary nominations in Pennsyl- vania were equivalent to an election. The style of nominating system. in these counties and in this population is therefore a matter of fundamental interest, since the primary choices con- stitute the most significant agency the electorate possesses in the way of pop- ular control. In Indiana about half the counties are almost fixed in their party affilia- tions. In Illinois more than half are solely Republican or Democratic. In New York the bulk of the up-state counties are one-party counties. Fur- ther detailed analyses of counties show similar results. A Ay The direct primary is of special im- portance to women voters for a very definite reason. In conventions, the number of women delegates is very small, perhaps five or ten per cent of the total number. In the primaries, however, the percentage of woman’s vote is much higher—perhaps 40 per cent of the total vote. It will be some time before women are as fully repre- sented in legislatures or conventions as are men. For the present, their in- fluence may be much more effectively exerted under the direct primary sys- tem than under the delegate system. Curiously enough, it is proposed that just as women are given the right to vote, the system under which they might most effectively act shall be changed to one under which their influence will be less powerful. - It is not surprising that alert leaders of women are found aligned against the repeal of the direct primary laws in the states. NoMINATING SYSTEMS 5 Tue Drrect PRIMARY AND PARTY LEADERSHIP SY It is contended that the practical operation of the direct primary has been disappointing. Here we may schedule, however, two classes of dis- appointments. It may be said that the direct primary is disappointing in that the boss and the machine have not been overthrown; or it may be said that the direct primary is disap- pointing in that it makes responsible party leadership difficult or impossible. But of course these two disappoint- ments cannot be simultaneous. If the boss and the machine continue to con- trol as before, then it cannot be con- tended that there is any less leadership than there was before. If the same persons control the direct primary who controlled the convention, then these same persons must be in the same position of leadership in both cases. And it is interesting to observe that, generally speaking, although by no means in all cases, those who are most vigorously opposing the direct pri- mary on the ground that it makes im- possible concentrated leadership, are also found in opposition to measures designed to alter the structure of state or county government in such manner as to imsure really responsible and effective leadership. The significance and value of party leadership must not be ignored, but the lack of it can by no means be at- tributed to the direct primary system. After one hundred years of operation under the convention system, we may ask how well organized was the party leadership in the average state? How definitely and consistently established was it in actual practice? Was party leadership in the state found in the governor or in the half dozen elective officers associated with him? Or was it found in the House of Representa- tives? Or was it found in the state central committee? Or was it found in the numerous county leaders scat- tered throughout the state, whose number often runs into the hundreds? Or was it found in the congressmen of the state; or much more probably was party leadership found in the United States senator? Or was it perhaps to be discovered in some political boss who was neither governor nor senator? It is entirely evident that the polit- ical party in the states and that the state government itself is now and has been for many years badly organized on the side of responsible public leader- ship, and is in woeful need of reha- bilitation in order to keep pace with the progressive movement of organization elsewhere. As an effective organiza- tion for the expression of political opinion, the party is hard-pressed by many other agencies, whose efforts are potent in the making and enforcing of law, and are sharply challenging party prestige. But this situation was not caused by the direct primary, nor is it easy to see how the direct primary interferes with any legitimate function of party leadership. When it is said that the direct pri- mary stands in the way of more ade- quate leadership, it is pertinent to ask just what is meant by such leadership, and what stands in the way of develop- ing party leadership at the present time either by party rule or custom? Evidently the direct primary did not prevent the leadership of Cummins in Iowa, or Lowden in Illinois, or John- ston in California, or Wilson in New Jersey, or LaFollette in Wisconsin, or McKelvie in Nebraska, or Cox in Ohio, within the limits set by the form of the state government. My observation is that the prevalence of spoils politics, the lack of state issues, the form of the state government stand in the way of leadership, rather than the way in which the nominations are made. 6 Ture ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY ADVANTAGES The direct primary cannot guarantee the uniform choice of competent men any more than the elective system itself can ensure such selections. It opens an easier avenue of approach, but cannot carry us through to the goal. The primary will not automat- ically overthrow the boss or the machine, but it provides a way of approving or rejecting selections, or of ‘ introducing new ones: \The rank and _ file of the voters unquestionably act _ more readily and effectively through the direct nominating system, and the \ effectiveness of popular control is ) thereby increased. The selection of Pinchot in Pennsyl- vania, of Brookhart in Iowa, of Howell in Nebraska, of Beveridge in Indiana, are conspicuous illustrations of the effectiveness of the direct nominating system in enabling the sentiment of the voters to find expression in opposition to the party machine. In none of these cases is it probable that the successful candidate would have been victorious under the delegate system. The margin that spelled success came from groups of voters who would not have elected delegates, but who gave votes enough to Beveridge or Pinchot to turn the scale. If the party organ- ization fairly represents party senti- ment, it will win whether the nomina- tions are made directly or indirectly; but in case of serious conflict, the direct vote seems to give a better opportunity for popular success than the delegate method. Mr. Secretary Hughes says of the direct primary system, summarizing its advantages: (1) It places a weapon in the hands of the party which they can use with effect in 3 The Direct Primary in Two States (Indiana and Iowa) in NationaL Mounicrpat Review, Sept., 1922; Gifford Pinchot and the Direct Primary, Ibid., Oct., 1922. case of need. They are no longer helpless. This fact puts party leaders on their best behavior. It is a safeguard to the astute and unselfish leader who is endeavoring to maintain good standards in line with sound public sentiment. It favors a disposition not to create situations which are likely to challenge and test. (2) The fact of this control gives to the voters a consciousness of power and respon- sibility. If things do not go right, they know that the trouble lies with them. The importance of this should not be over- looked in any discussion of the apathy of the electorate. The return to the convention system would not help the political party. On the contrary, it would probably injure the party by causing still further loss of public confidence in its organization and methods. The parties have al- ready suffered heavily in public confi- dence and can ill afford additional losses. Wise and far-seeing leaders would move forward rather than back- ward. ‘They would endeavor to at- tract public interest and support by improvements in methods of transact- ing party affairs. Men and women are beginning to discover that they can influence governmental action without the agency of parties. The associa- tions of commerce, the labor unions, the farmers’ organizations, vocational and professional groups of all kinds, are tending to pass the party by. Party managers might well attempt to secure the sympathy and interest of these voters instead of closing the door of party activity to them, and making their effective participation in party counsels still more difficult. - SUGGESTIONS FOR POLITICAL ADVANCES The direct primary is a step in the evolution of the electoral system, just as the convention was an evolution from the legislative or congressional caucus. But there is still room for NoMINATING SYSTEMS q political advances. These, it seems to me, may follow three lines: 1. Non-partisan ballot for local officials and judges. 2. The short ballot. 3. The development of party lead- ership through the party conference. 1. Non-PartTIsaAN Bator The direct primary has not been demanded by municipal representa- tives, but the system of nomination by petition, or ‘some form of double elec- tion system, or some type of prefer- ential voting. Local elections do not follow national party lines closely, and the non-party ballot is more effective. The change to this system is being rapidly made in our cities, although much less developed in counties and other local agencies of government. National party influences and even party domination are not automatically excluded by these laws, but broadly speaking their significance is mini- mized and local issues and divisions are given wider scope for consideration. No one supposes, however, that the mere change in form of ballot or of nominating mechanism will eliminate national party influences from the domain of local politics. 2. Tue SHort BALLotT In a discussion of nominating meth- ods in 1909, I expressed the belief that neither the direct primary nor the convention system would work well in situations where a large number of minor administrative offices were elec- tive. I still believe that we will not make progress in the better nomina- tion of coroners and surveyors and county clerks and state auditors under any system that the combined ingenu- ity of the elder and junior statesmen together may devise. The main road is the short ballot with what it involves in the way of governmental direction. , In state and county governments ~ with which we are now concerned, there is manifest a slow but strong tendency toward fundamental reorgan- ization, somewhat resembling that which has been seen in the more pro- gressive city governments during the last generation. Vigorous and effective state and local governments are needed to offset the centralizing tendencies of the Federal government and are de- sired even by the most ardent nation- alists. A more modern organization of these governments would do much to clear up the difficulties surrounding the nominating system, and might change the whole character of the problem, as has happened in cities where non-partisan elections and pro- portional representation are now the chief centers of electoral interest. If counties were to adopt a commission or council-manager plan, how would nominations be made? Or if, as some day may happen, a state adopts a simple form of government, such as the council-manager, or one in which ex- ecutive responsibility is more strongly organized, how then will nominations be made? The short ballot will tend to con- centrate power and responsibility, and to focus attention upon the significant offices to be filled. If only the gover- nor and members of the legislature, together with one or two. county officials were chosen at one time, it would be far easier for the voters to concentrate their attention upon these key officials and to exercise their pow- ers of discrimination more effectively than at present. With the short ballot, the task of the primary will be made much lighter, while the degree of popular control will tend to be greater. Precisely here it must be recognized that with the development of greater 8 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY power in fewer officials, it will be all the more necessary to exercise effective popular control over them. ‘The larger authority conferred upon offi- cials through the process of consolida- tion and through the gradually in- creasing authority exercised by the government over social and industrial affairs, will be likely to require a bal- ance in more direct control. The counterpart to the short ballot may be the direct primary. But the short ballot is no more a pan- acea than is the direct primary, and we delude ourselves if we assume that the mechanical device of shortening the list of candidates will of itself cure all the ills the body-politic is heir to. Government is not more a matter of mechanisms than it is of values and attitudes, of intelligent discrimination, of sound sense and practical judgment on the part of the community. The fundamental attitudes of the people go deeper down than either the direct or the indirect primary, important as these are. We shall be drawn aside from the main purpose and needs of our time unless we recognize the vital importance of technical administration, applying the best results of intelligence and science to common affairs, unless we recognize the fundamental need of the broadest possible social and civic training, unless we recognize the signifi- cance of the spirit of justice which the state must strive to realize in the lives of men and women. It is important to consider other possibilities that may arise in the course of governmental development. It may be that in the reorganization of county and state government propor- tional or preferential representation will play a larger réle than in the past. If this proves to be the case, the methods of nomination would be materially affected, as is now seen in cities using proportional representation. Here again, of course, the question may arise as to how the primary or original selection of candidates will be made. 3. Party CONFERENCE It is not only possible but desirable to improve the organization of party leadership. There is nothing to prevent the holding of informal party con- ferences or conventions now, and in fact much might be accomplished by them in the way of developing party leadership. On another occasion I suggested the possibility of the forma- tion of a national conference, meeting annually.4| The same sort of a con- ference might be held on a state-wide scale, if desired. Such a conference might include the state governor, or last candidate of the minority party and their primary or convention oppo- nents; state officials elected at large, or minority candidates; members of the state central committee or executive committee if this is deemed too large; party members of the state legislature and minority candidates; representa- tive party members appointed by the governor, the state central commit- tee, and various party leagues, clubs, » societies—say a total of 100. This would make a total of perhaps 200 to 300 members. Such a body might meet for the pur- pose of considering and recommending candidates for office, subject to ap- proval in a subsequent primary. In fact a conference might do much more than that. It might consider questions of party policy, listen to party speak- ers, hear reports of party committees on matters of party importance, consider problems of party manage- ment. Its members, representing dif- ferent sections and elements of the state, might consult and confer on a wide variety of party problems. Al- 4See my American Party System, 298. NoMINATING SYSTEMS 9 most every other social grouping in a state, whether political, religious, com- mercial, agricultural, industrial, edu- cational, holds such sessions with great pleasure and profit to its members. What association is there in the state that does not hold such periodical conferences of its leaders? And why are they not held within the party? And why does even the suggestion of such a party conference seem a little, shall we say, impractical? Certainly there is nothing in the law to prevent them. In some cases they are held, but often privately and not in the open air of publicity, as Senator Platt’s Sunday School, or Mr. Lundin’s Heart- to-Heart talks. One difficulty is that parties do not often stand for definite issues in state elections; indeed they seldom do. Again, considerations of patronage are often regarded by party managers as more important than those of policy, and conferences might tend to empha- size the latter. The party organiza- tion does not always care to encourage real leadership in contrast to job- brokerage and log-rolling. A_ local boss having discontinued a very flour- ishing ward club where issues were wont to be discussed, said, when asked why: “Because I have too d——d many statesmen on my hands now.” Nor can the mass of the party voters escape responsibility for their frequent lack of continuing and persistent interest in party affairs, and lack of effective cohesion in crises. Responsible leadership in the party is of the very greatest importance, but it is necessary to study with care the nature and function of the party, in order to see just what leadership develops or is required in state situa- tions. Broadly speaking, the party leadership is national rather than state, and even in the national field the party does not do as much leading as is sometimes supposed. But it is impossible to enter into this larger field on this occasion.5 CONCLUSION In conclusion, it appears to me that, the Old Guard is now, as it was orig- inally, against the direct nominating | system, and would gladly return to the | old delegate plan, which they con- trolled more readily. ‘The mass of voters, however, while often disap- pointed in the results achieved under the new system and sometimes bored by the multiplicity of elections and candidates, are not ready to abandon the direct primary as an instrument of control, and are not likely to do so if given the opportunity to express them- selves directly in a referendum vote. The memory of the old conventions fades with time, but a little reflection recalls vividly the lurid pictures of misrepresentation and unblushing boss- control under it and gives us pause when we consider the return to the ancien régime. Many voters will con- clude that instead of going back to the earlier delegate system, they will endeavor to make more effective use of the primary system, and go forward to further improvements. There is likely to be much experi- menting with various forms of pre-pri- mary designation by party committees or conventions, and perhaps some form of party conference may be developed in the course of the process of trial and error. It is not unlikely that the party organization and process will be subjected to as severe analysis and extensive reorganization as are other forms of social and industrial groupings in our day. The existing party system does not hold by divine 5 See my article on Nominating of Presidential Candidates in Journal American Bar Association (Feb., 1921). 10 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY right, but is subject to challenge, test and improvement, as are other human institutions. The growing responsibili- ties of government are placing increas- ing burdens upon the party and with greater complexity of social and indus- trial conditions it may be presumed that the effectiveness of the party will be sharply scrutinized and its methods materially modified. In the end it will be found that the dissatisfaction with the delegate sys- tem and with the direct primary is a symptom of troubles that go deeper down than any method of nomination. The frequent lack of a real basis of party unity must be considered. Party and governmental organization adapted to democratic responsibility and effi- ciency are involved; social and indus- trial maladjustments are related; our political mores, the level of popular interest and intelligence, human capac- ity for social organization, are inter- twined in the fabric of the electoral issue. Light rather than heat is needed in the present stage of our party devel- opment, and the forward look of con- structive intelligence striving to find the better way in our advance toward genuine democratic association and organization.® 6 On a previous occasion the writer suggested and again urges the great importance of a thoroughgoing, objective study of nominating systems in the United States. This would re- quire the collaboration of a number of persons and the expenditure of considerable amounts for detailed investigation of specific situations, but it would prove the necessary basis for a constructive future policy or alternative policies. Direct Primaries By CHarLes KetrtesoroucnH, Px.D.? Legislative Reference Bureau, Indianapolis, Ind. S an agency for the nomination of candidates for elective offices, the direct primary has been adopted and is now in use in 45 states. Connecticut, New Mexico and Rhode Island are the only states which nominate candidates exclusively by other methods. More- over, in most states the party machin- ery as it now exists is created and regulated by provisions which have been incorporated in the direct primary laws. ‘The direct primary laws vary in their complexity and wealth of detail from those which have _ virtually adopted and legalized existing party methods of making nominations to the law of South Dakota, which is con- spicuously detailed in its provisions. In its ideal form, all candidates who obtain office by election are nomi- nated at the primary, but there are few, if any states in which the primary is as inclusive as that. Such tendency in the evolution of the primary as may be observed by an inspection of the laws, seems to be in the direction of restrict- ing the primary to the nomination of local candidates, but even this tend- ency is not marked. The various types of primaries now in use fall rather logically into two classes: (1) The mandatory primary and (2) the optional or permissive pri- mary, with which latter may be in- cluded the so-called preferential pri- mary. By the terms of the mandatory primary, all, or certain designated candidates for elective offices must be nominated by a primary. By the terms of the optional or permissive pri- mary, all, or certain designated candi- dates for elective offices may be nomi- 1 See Digest of Primary Election Laws, p. 181. ll nated by a primary, the determination usually being vested in the governing authority of the party of the jurisdic- tion in which the primary is to be held. The laws in either case are substantially identical, but in the optional primary states, the law must be invoked, while in the mandatory states it operates under its own power. MANDATORY PRIMARIES There are 39 states which have man- datory primary laws and in which pri- mary elections are required to be held every alternate year for the nomination of candidates for public office. The mandatory primary states include Ari- zona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massa- chusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mis- sissippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Ver- mont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. OpTriONAL PRIMARIES There are 6 states which have the optional primary plan, by virtue of which the governing authority of the party in any jurisdiction may invoke the primary prior to any general elec- tion. The optional primary states include Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky and Virginia. In addition to these states, however, the optional primary plan may be used in the mandatory primary states under 12 Tor ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY certain circumstances and upon the happening of ‘certain contingencies. In several of the mandatory states, vacancies which happen between the regular primary and the general elec- tion may, in the discretion of the party committee, be filled by a nomination made at a special primary. In Ala- bama and Arkansas, the use of the pri- mary to fill such vacancies is optional. In Michigan, the question of nominat- ing candidates by the primary in cities of less than 70,000 may be submitted or re-submitted to the voters at any bien- nial primary election, on petition of 20 per cent of the voters; villages and townships, under the general law, nomi- nate candidates at a caucus, but on petition of 10 per cent of the voters of any village, the question of nominating village officers by means of the primary may be submitted to the voters, and if approved by a majority thereof, candidates are thereafter nominated at a caucus in which ballots are used as in a primary. Any village adopting the primary-caucus system may at any time revert to the system provided by the general law. In townships, the primary-caucus plan may be adopted by the township board on its own initiative, or on petition of 25 per cent of the voters the adoption of the plan is obligatory. In Minnesota, in cities of the third class operating under a home rule charter, elective officers may be nominated at the primary on the adoption of a suitable resolution by the council. In North Carolina, county election boards may hold primaries for the selection of candidates for township and precinct officers. The Ohio pri- mary law does not apply to township officers or officers of municipalities of less than 2,000 population,. but the voters of such jurisdictions, by petition signed by a majority thereof, may establish the primary therein. Mas- ters, magistrates and supervisors of registration in South Carolina are not nominated at the primary, but the respective county committees are au- thorized to order a primary for such officers. In West Virginia, the pri- mary is applicable to municipalities, but any city or borough having a popu- lation of less than 30,000 may adopt other methods of nomination in lieu of a primary. In Florida, the primary is optional in all cities. In Massa- chusetts, the question of adopting, con- tinuing or discontinuing the primary in municipalities is submitted at every city and town election. Except as otherwise specified, the governing au- thority of the party in the jurisdiction affected decides whether a party pri- mary shall be held. The North Caro- lina primary law does not apply to 39 counties as to county officers and mem- bers of the lower house of the legisla- ture, but on petition of one-fifth of the voters, the question of holding pri- maries therein may be submitted to the voters and if a majority vote fa- vorably, the primary is_ thereafter operative. Dates OF PRIMARIES The dates of the primaries at which candidates are nominated for the gen- eral election are scattered from January to September of the even-numbered years. ‘There is one general primary held in January, one in March, 7 in April, 8 in May, 6 in June, one in July, 16 in August and 14 in September. Owing to the fact that presidential pri- maries are held separately, there are two general primaries in California, Maryland, Montana, West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Nebraska and Ohio. These dates, of course, take no account of special and municipal primaries, which are timed to occur from 3 to 8 weeks before the election for which they are held. Direct PRIMARIES 13 PARTIES TO WuIcH APPLICABLE The primary is designed to apply only to the larger parties and only those parties which cast a certain des- ignated per cent of the vote at the last preceding election are obliged to con- form with the primary law, although this restriction is conspicuously liberal in several states. The criterion is the total vote cast for governor, or for Secre- tary of State or for the candidate receiving the highest vote at the last preceding general election. In some cases the state vote is used and in others either the state vote or the vote in the political sub-division affected. The primary is applicable to parties which cast at least 1 per cent of the vote in Maine, Nebraska and Wisconsin; 2 per cent of the vote in Illinois and Iowa andin Pennsylvania for state officers; 3 per cent of the vote in California, Massachusetts, Missouri and New Hampshire; 5 per cent of the vote in Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minne- sota, North Dakota and Vermont and in Pennsylvania for county offices; 10 per cent of the vote in Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Wash- ington, West Virginia, Wyoming and Delaware; 20 per cent of the vote in Oregon and Kentucky; and 25 per cent of the vote in Alabama and Virginia. In New York the act applies to parties which polled 15,000 votes and in Texas 100,000 votes at the last election; In Kansas, Georgia, Arkansas, South Dakota, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Montana the law ap- plies to all parties. In California, where joint candidates are allowable, the percentage is double that of single party candidates. In addition to cast- ing 10 per cent of the vote, Idaho re- quires that the party must have had 3 nominees for state office at the last election. OFFICERS TO Wuicuo APPLICABLE Primaries, whether mandatory or op- tional, do not necessarily apply to all elective officers. The application is more generally uniform as to policy-de- termining officers than to those whose duty is more ministerial. Among the policy-determining officials to which the primary is applied, either by its own mandatory provisions or by preference provisions which may be invoked by the electors are: President and Vice- President, United States senator, con- gressmen, governor, and members of the state legislature. Of the local government officials, those having charge of the management and in- trusted with the expenditure of the funds of counties, townships, cities, towns and parishes, are generally in- cluded. The nomination of local judges, states’ attorneys, justices of the peace and constables is frequently, but by no means always, made at the primary. The chief division of local sentiment as expressed in the primaries is over the question of the nomination of state as well as local offices. The theory is that the primary has a more practicable application to local govern- ment units than to the state as a whole. Obviously this theory has not gained very wide acceptance as the only states in which the primary is applied to local officials only are the following: Indiana, which excludes all state officers, but affords a preference primary vote on governor and United States senator; Idaho, which, by an act of 1919, re- stricted the primary to local officers exclusively; Maryland; New York, which abandoned the state-wide pri- mary in 1921; Utah and Florida which apply only to municipal officers; and Kentucky, which is optional as to state officers and mandatory as to local. In addition there are a certain number of officers which are specifically excluded 14 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY from the primary. These include, in California, municipalities and counties under special charters, cities of the fifth and sixth classes and district officers not for municipal purposes; in Colorado, town officers, delegates to the national convention and presidential electors; in Illinois, to presidential electors, trustees of the State University, school and township officers; in Kansas, local school officials and officers of cities of less than 5,000; in Kentucky, school officers, presidential electors and of- ficers of towns of the fifth and sixth classes; in Massachusetts, cities and towns whose charters otherwise pro- vide; in Michigan, to commission-gov- erned cities or those having special charters; in Minnesota, to towns, vil- lages, third and fourth-class cities, members of school, park and library boards in cities of less than 100,000, to presidential electors and county sur- veyor; in Missouri, to school, town and village officers and to city officers not elected at a general election; in Neb- raska, to cities of less than 25,000, villages, precincts, townships, school districts and boards of supervisors; in Nevada, to city officers and officers of reclamation and irrigation districts; in New Hampshire, to city, town and school district officers; in New York, to town, village, school officers and presi- dential electors; besides, unofficial pri- maries may be held, but not at public expense; in Oregon, to cities and towns of less than 2,000 inhabitants. SINGLE SHOT BALLOTS Alabama has a provision in the pri- mary law which eliminates ballots on which buta single name is marked. The law provides that ballots commonly known as single shot ballots shall not be counted. Where two or more can- didates are to be nominated, the voter must express himself for as many can- didates as there are offices to be filled. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES It frequently happens that the voters desire to nominate independent candi- dates for office subsequent to the pri- maries. There is a tendency on the part of party managers to discourage the practice of nominating independent candidates, and certain safeguards, some wise and others foolish, have been devised to insure party integrity or permit a free expression of opinion. In Arizona, candidates may be nominated by petition, but such petitions must be signed by voters who did not sign petitions before the primary and who did not participate in the primary. Arkansas permits nomination by peti- tion without restrictions. In Cali- fornia, only those persons who did not vote in the primary or sign a petition for the particular candidate may sign a petition and no person is eligible for the office who was defeated at the primary. In Colorado and Idaho, petitions for independent candidates must be signed by voters who did not vote at the pri- mary for any candidate for the office for which the petition is filed. In In- diana, no person can run as an in- dependent candidate unless he files a petition 30 days before the primary. In Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana and Minnesota, a candidate who is defeated at the primary cannot run during the same year as an independent candidate. Non-PARTISAN CANDIDATES In California, all judges, school, county, municipal and township of- ficers are nominated on a non-partisan ballot; in Iowa, all supreme, district and superior judges; in Minnesota, all judges of the supreme, district, probate and municipal courts; members of the state legislature, county officers and city officers in first and second-class cities; in Nevada, all judges of the supreme and district courts, justices of Direct PRIMARIES 15 the peace, state superintendent of pub- lic instruction, university regents and school officials; in North Dakota, county officers, judges of the supreme and district courts, state and county school superintendents. REGISTRATION In practically all states which require registration for general elections, voters are also required to register for the primary. In California, any voter in registering may declare or decli declare his party affiliation ” vote both a party : nd vote only a me Florida, ie rates" party affili entered yon the vevighe which are preserved fo use at the next ensuing primary, and no voter can change his party affiliation except by filing an applic&tion in writing 60 days before the primary. In Maryland, any voter who declines to state his party affiliation cannot vote at the primary; a voter cannot change his party affilia- tion except by giving notice 6 months before election. In Massachusetts, the registration roll showing the party affiliation of the voters is kept for 3 years and no voter can change his party affiliation except on written ap- plication and the change takes place 30 days after the application is made. In Minnesota and Nebraska, the day of the primary is the first registration day. SAMPLE BALLOTS In California, a sample ballot, con- taining all names in the same order as they will appear on the official ballot must be mailed to each voter at least 5 days before the primary. PRE-PRIMARY CONVENTIONS There are two states, Colorado and Minnesota, which hold pre-primary or Ee. 70 He. | orga a cP goatee eee we ste) may endorsement conventions. In Colo- rado, these conventions are composed of delegates selected in any manner provided by rules of the party. The convention takes only one vote on each candidate and every candidate re- ceiving 10 per cent or more of the vote of the convention must have his name printed on the primary ballot. The names of the convention candidates are placed on the ballot in order of the number of delegate votes each received the convention, the one receiving largest number of votes being placed. first. Candidates may also enter the primary by filing a petition, — but petition candidates have their names entered on the primary ballot after the names of the convention can- didates. In Minnesota, a delegate election is held on the second Tuesday of March of even-numbered years to elect delegates to a county convention. Each election district is entitled to one delegate and such additional delegates as it is entitled to on the basis of the voting strength. At least 15 days before the convention, persons who desire to be candidates for delegate file a declaration. Within 10 days after the delegate election, a county conven- tion is held to elect delegates to a state convention and to a congressional dis- trict convention. The congressional district convention endorses district officers. ‘The state convention consists of 3 delegates at large from each county and such additional delegates as the voting strength of the county may entitle it to. The state convention endorses candidates for state office, United States senator, presidential electors and delegates at large to the national convention. The fact that a candidate is endorsed is printed on the ticket. The State Central Committee consists of 2 members from each con- gressional district elected at the state convention by the delegates represent- ing such district; each candidate en- 16 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY dorsed by the convention and each candidate for congress selects one mem- ber and the candidate endorsed for governor is chairman. If any endorsed candidate is defeated, his selection is annulled and the successful candidate selects one. OprEN PRIMARY Colorado seems to be the only state having the so-called open primary. All tickets are on one ballot. Any voter may vote one and only one ticket, and those tickets not voted are de- tached from the voted ticket and only the latter is deposited in the ballot box. LocaL COMMITTEES In addition to the precinct, county, congressional district and state com- mittees, which are the usual and pre- vailing committees in the party or- ganization, other local committees are either created by law or the creation of such committees is authorized. In Colorado, there may be ward and sub- division committees and if such are formed, they consist of the precinct committeemen and women resident therein. There are also judicial, sena- torial and representative district com- mittees which consist of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the several coun- ties composing such districts, together with the candidates for office resident therein. In Florida, in addition to the statutory committees, party authorities may create any number of committees they desire. In Kansas, there are judicial, senatorial and representative district committees, composed of each county chairman of the district and one additional member chosen by the coun- ty committees for each 1,000 votes in excess of 1,500. In Louisiana, there are ward, town, plantation and repre- sentative class committees; in Michi- gan, judicial and representative district committees; in Mississippi, judicial district, flotorial, senatorial and other district committees; in Missouri, sena- torial and judicial district committees; in New Hampshire, there may be town and ward committees. No Opposition In the following states when there are just enough candidates for the office or offices to be filled, the candidate’s name is printed on the general election ballot and no election is held: Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, and Minnesota. PouiticAL PAMPHLETS Several states provide for the pub- lication of pamphlets designed to afford information to the voter as to the char- acter and political opinions of the several candidates. Provision is made for the distribution of these pamphlets so that every voter may obtain a copy. A fee is charged to each candidate to defray the cost of publication and distribution. ‘These pamphlets con- tain the portraits of the candidates; a statement about the candidacy of any candidate or of his opponent. Run-Orr PRIMARIES In several of the southern states, the laws provide for run-off primaries in which only the two candidates having the highest votes participate. There may be one or more of these run-off primaries, depending on the event of the vote therein. Run-off primaries are held in Georgia, Louisiana, Mis- sissippi, South Carolina, ‘Tennessee and Texas. County Unit Vorr In Georgia, candidates for United States senator, governor, state officers, judges of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals whoreceive the highest popular vote in any county, are considered to have carried the county and are entitled Direct PRIMARIES ily to the full vote of the county on the county unit basis, which is two votes for each representative the county is entitled to, in the lower house of the legislature. Tying candidates divide the county unit vote. County unit votes are consolidated by -the chair- man and secretary of the state central committee of the party holding the primary and published, and the can- didates who receive a majority of the county unit votes are declared to be the nominees by the state convention. If two candidates tie on county unit votes, the one receiving the highest popular vote is declared nominat- ed. If no candidate for United States senator or governor receives a ma- jority, a second primary is held in which the two high candidates only compete. CUMULATIVE VOTING In Illinois, any voter may cast three votes for any candidate for the lower house of the state legislature, or dis- tribute them among either 2 or 3 candi- dates. Removable Obstacles to the Success of the Direct Primary By H. W. Dopps Secretary, National Municipal League URING the past two years the _f direct primary has again survived an assault none the less threatening because the deed was planned and was being executed in secret. Some re- formers and practically all politicians were dissatisfied with it, and the reac- tion following the war seemed an opportunity to revert to the convention system. So it came about that beginning in 1919, but more particularly in 1920 and 1921, a number of primary repeal bills were introduced in state legislatures. These were unsuccessful with the ex- ception of New York, which returned to the convention system for the nomi- nation of all officials elected on a state- wide ticket. Again in 1922 definite plans were under way to re-introduce the convention in a number of states when the legislatures meet in 1923.1 It is yet too early to know whether such plans will be carried out. The con- spicuous success of insurgent candi- dates in the primaries of Iowa, Indiana and Pennsylvania, plus the results of the November elections, indicates that this winter will not be the opportune time to start a successful raid. The League of Women Voters can always be relied upon to defend the direct primary with energy. They reason, and not without justification, that a device opposed by so many professional politicians may not be without profit 1 For a comprehensive statement of the move- ment to repeal or modify direct primary legisla- tion see article by Prof. R. S. Boots, The Trend of the Direct Primary, American Political Science Review, August, 1922. 18 to the people, and are not distracted by phrases about greater party re- sponsibility through the convention system. Some Otp Frienps Now Cynicau And yet, many early advocates of the direct primary are frankly cynical now. Obviously it has not lived up to expec- tations. Inferior candidates are still nominated, The ‘“high-minded”’ ele- ment in the party is still flouted with seeming impunity. The new type of candidate so ardently awaited has not arisen. Has nothing been accom- plished? A sense of failure, we submit, is un- warranted although a natural con- sequence of too great expectations. It arises first from a lack of realization of the necessity and function of the “or- ganization,” which Mr. Hughes has consistently emphasized in an appeal for a more general participation in party affairs and the enforcement of tighter responsibility upon party lead- ers. But vastly more important has been the neglect of public opinion to com- prehend that the condition to be treated did not arise from the party convention and its abuses. Instead of viewing the convention as a cause, how much wiser it would have been to have looked upon it as an X-ray photograph of a complex political system. The direct primary has been disappointing because it was designed to counteract a symptom, a manifestation. In a sense, therefore, the agitation over the primary has been harmful because it REMOVABLE OBSTACLES TO THE SUCCESS OF THE Direct PRIMARY 19 has diverted the public mind from more fundamental reforms. Thus the avail- able supply of nervous energy has been consumed in superficialities. Fortu- nately, displeasure with the primary is beginning to energize a more scientific attack upon the boss. How tHE Lone Batitot AFFECTS THE Drrect PRmARY There remain today at least three outstanding reforms necessary of ac- complishment before any system of nominations will be satisfactory. In the order of their importance they are the short ballot, the merit system in public employment, and the reorgani- zation of county government. These indispensable reforms are not separate and distinct. They react upon each other and their mutual purpose is the abolition of government for entrenched, selfish politics by entrenched, selfish politicians. Now that the short ballot doctrine has become so generally understood and accepted, it is almost incredible that it should have had so little atten- tion from the fathers of the direct primary. Given a system of elections theoretically and practically wrong, what can seriously be expected from any system of nominations? For at least twenty years students of election methods have been telling us that we have too many elections and too many officials to elect. Any campaign, pri- mary or election, is a failure from the standpoint of popular participation unless it is vigorous. A vigorous cam- paign is the people’s safety. Yet during 1922 Chicago voters were sum- moned to the po'ls five times. They were compelled to register twice. Ex- clusive of the primary they were com- pelled to pass judgment on candi- dates for about fifty different offices. .n the St. Louis primary last summer, candidates were nominated for thirty- three offices. The Republican ballot bore 103 names and the Democratic 54. Primaries elsewhere are frequently as bad or worse. Naturally, but a few are conducted with sufficient vigor to arouse a real popular opinion regarding the candidates. When official opinion, pro and con, with respect to the direct primary is for the most part so shallow, it is refreshing to discover two state governors defend- ing it by daring to inquire why it has not fulfilled early hopes. In 1921 Governor Dixon of Montana told his legislature that The most plausible argument advanced against the present primary law is that the voters cannot know the personal qualifica- tions of the long list of candidates for the various minor offices. Of course they do not, but they do have an opinion regarding the merits of the principal candidates. The same year in his message to the legislature, Governor Cox of Massa- chusetts noted the vocal sentiment against the primary and said So many candidates seek the many offices to be filled at a state-wide primary, that it is extremely difficult for even the careful voter to learn of the relative merits of the various candidates. The chief ob- jection to the present system of direct nomination in Massachusetts would in my judgment be removed by the adoption of the short ballot. The adoption of the short ballot of course implies administrative consoli- dation and reorganization. Fewer of- ficers elected, more appointed. As a consequence of short ballot propaganda, public attention, focused on the ap- pointing power, is being taught tq demand a higher type of appointee. Thus we are gaining a new concept of administrative fitness and function. It involves a wider application of the merit system. 20 Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Tue Merit SysteEM DECREASES MacuHiInrE ContrRoL Historic civil service reform in this country began with the lower grades of employees and in many jurisdictions has never extended beyond them. In so far as it has succeeded in making them no longer mere pawns in the spoils game, it has helped to make the direct primary possible. Granting, for the sake of our argument, that the merit system has been haltingly and half-heartedly applied in many Jjuris- dictions, that under the guise of civil service regulations political pull stil works and party service is still de- manded, the indisputable fact remains that it has weakened the “rings” and increased the efficacy of the direct pri- mary as an instrument of revolt. Suppose that the large army of public employees, estimated at almost 3,000,- 000 for the national, state and local governments, were still in the grip of the spoils system as our fathers knew it. Each one would have to be a faith- ful, if not willing, worker in the party vineyard. Picture them added to the already large body of ward and county workers. The thought appalls one. A suggestion of what would result is found in those countries where not even lip worship is paid to the merit system, and where the whole public personnel, civil and military, are political serfs of the dominant party. The chance for spontaneous self-development of public opinion would be nil. But while civil service reform has aided the direct primary as an engine of democracy, further progress is indis- pensable if the latter is to work well. The merit system in the lower grades has been obstructed by our failure to apply it in the higher grades of admin- istrative appointments. Whether or not the higher executives can be selected by competitive examination is debatable but does not concern us here. The important thing is that they be selected on the basis of executive ability and not as beneficiaries for party service. Until the higher ad- ministrative offices are amenable to the merit system, politics will continue to infest the lower grades; and so long will the organized army of the professional politician stand mobilized against a really popular nominating system. Thus the short ballot idea, involving as it does more direct executive respon- sibility, reénforces and accelerates the merit system. And only through the merit system can we attain to the clear air in which the issues, about which public opinion crystallizes, can have free play. A well organized state machine backed up by a few thousand faithful municipal and county employes is too great an opponent for any form of direct primary successfully to with- stand. PRESENT CouNtTy GOVERNMENT SUB- VERSIVE OF PopuLAR NOMINATIONS County government is the last refuge of old-fashioned, selfish politics. In it survives, more than in any other governmental unit, the antiquated political organization. It typifies in the pure state the evils discussed above, unaffected by efforts towards change. It knows not civil service reform; it is untroubled by administrative reorgan- ization. Its spoils have been aptly termed the base of political supplies. The state machine is a ganglion of which the county machines are the cells. The county court house is the primary unit of the state machine. The vast expenditures of county government in the United States are considered as rightful spoils for the dominant party. Party good feeling and camaraderie are never disturbed by considerations of efficiency with the administrative discipline which it en- REMOVABLE OBSTACLES TO THE SUCCESS OF THE Direct PRIMARY Q1 tails. Its functions being of a routine nature and its subject matter never dramatic, the county is allowed to drift on undisturbed. Activities in which it fails conspicuously may be taken away; the county itself is never reformed. If the county primary had succeeded, it would have been nothing short of marvelous. The best argument against a return to the convention system is that such a system is based upon county organizations which feed at the court house. Tur “OrGANIZATION’’ Must Have No Unrair ADVANTAGE The thesis of this article is that the direct primary will never be what we want it to be, until our form of govern- ment is so changed that the political organization as such, is deprived of its unfair advantage. The long ballot and the spoils system (administration for political purposes) are the principal constituents of this unfair advantage. The field in which they operate today with greatest profit and least inter- ference is county government. De- prived of this unfair advantage, we have nothing to fear from political or- ganizations, which are necessary and useful. We can then view the pre-pri- mary slate made up at the pre-primary convention, as urged by Mr. Hughes, with equanimity. If popular elections are beneficial, there is nothing illogical about the direct primary. It ought to have a fair trial. Why I Believe in the Direct Primary By Grorce W. Norris United States Senator from Nebraska UR government is founded upon the theory that the people are sufficiently intelligent to control their own government. The argument I shall make is based upon the truth of this assumption. The direct primary is simply a method by which the will of the people can be ascertained in the selection of those who shall make and administer the laws'under which all of the people must live. There is nothing sacred about it. Ifa better method can be devised I would not hesitate to abandon it and throw it aside. Neither will I claim that it is perfect. It has many weaknesses and imperfections. Until we can find a better system we ought to devote our energies toward its improvement by making whatever amendments experience demonstrates are necessary, always having in view the fundamental principle that we are trying to devise a plan by which the people will come as nearly as possible into the control of their own govern- ment. We must not expect perfection. We cannot hope to devise a plan that will make it impossible for mistakes to occur. We cannot by law change human nature. Selfish, designing, and even dishonest men will sometimes be able to deceive a majority of the people, however intelligent and careful they may be. Every government, what- ever may be the system of nominating candidates for office, ought to pro- vide by law for the recall of its officials by the people. If the people should make a mistake they will cor- rect it. If a public servant has been faithful and true to his trust, it will not be necessary for him to seek the approval of party bosses and machine politicians for his own vindication. The direct primary is in fact a part of the system of our election machinery. It is just as important, and often more important, than the official election which follows. A people who are quali- fied to vote for candidates at the general election are likewise qualified to select those candidates at the direct primary election. It requires no more intelligence to vote at that election than it does at the regular election. To deny to the citizen the right to select candidates and to confine his suffrage rights solely to a decision as between candidates after they have been selected is, in reality, at least a partial denial of the right of suffrage. It very often means that the voter is given the right only to decide between two evils. The right, therefore, to select candidates is fundamental in a free government, and whenever this right is denied or curtailed, the govern- ment is being placed beyond the con- trol of the people. ) OBJECTIONS TO THE Direct PRIMARY “ No better defense can be made of 22 the direct primary than to consider the objections that are made to it. In doing this, it must be remembered that up to this time we have had but two systems. One is the old convention system and the other is the newer and more modern system of the direct primary. ‘Those who are opposed to the latter, advocate the return to the convention system, and in doing this they point out various objections to the direct primary, which, they argue, are sufficient reason for discarding it. It is my purpose now to consider some of Way I Beuteve In THE Direct PrRimMAry 23 these objections. Some of them, in- stead of being objections to the direct primary, are in reality arguments in its favor. Other objections made are only partially sound, while some of them are untrue in fact. If we are seeking better government and have no ulterior motive whatever, we ought to be constructive in our criticism. This I shall try my best to be. I am seeking to find the best system of nominating candidates. The defects of the direct primary system, even in its crude state, are so much less than the wrongs and evils of the convention system, that an intelligent people will not hesitate to adopt it rather than the long used and universally condemned convention system, and devote their energies in a fair and honest way to the enactment of laws that shall, as far as possible, eliminate the defects of the primary. Dors tHe Drrect Primary LOWER Party RESPONSIBILITY AND DE- CREASE THE Party Spirit? One of the objections that is always made to the direct primary is that it takes away party responsibility and breaks down party control. This ob- jection is perhaps the most important of any that are made against the direct primary. Politicians, political bosses, corporations and combinations seeking special privilege and exceptional favor at the hands of legislatures and execu- tive officials, always urge this as the first reason why the direct primary ‘should be abolished. But _this objec- tion {thus given against the direct primary—1-frankly—offeras_oné—of the Pee a wetention: The rect primary will lower party respon- sibility.{ In its stead it establishes in- dividual emai Tt y: It does lessen allegiance to party and increase in- dividual independence, both as to the public official and as to_ ublic official and as to the private citizen. It takes away the power of the party leader or boss and places the responsibility _fo for control _ upon the individual. It lessens party spirit and These are decreases partisanship. should be retained ate extended. A party is only an instrumentality of government. Whenever, through party control, a public official casts any vote or performs any official act that is not in harmony with his own conscientious convictions, then the party spirit has become an instrument of injury to the body politic rather than a blessing. Laws enacted through such influences not only do not express the wishes and the will of the citizens, but it is in this way that bad laws are placed upon the statute book and good laws are often defeated. A public official should in the performance of his official duties be entirely non-partisan. . Whenever he is otherwise, he is in reality plac- ing his party above his country. He is doing what he conscientiously believes to be wrong with the people at large, in order that he may be right with his party. The country owes most of its progress to the independent voter, and it is a subject of great congratulation that his number is increasing at a wonderfully rapid rate. Partisanship blinds not only the public official but the ordinary citizen and tends to lead him away from good government. In a Republican stronghold, the machine politician deceives the people by assert- ing that he is an Abraham Lincoln Republican, while in the Democratic locality, the same class-official seeks to earry public favor by claiming a politi- cal relationship to Thomas Jefferson. It.is the party spirit that enables these men to cover up their shortcomings. t is the party spirit on the part of the voter that causes him to be moved by such appeals. Party allegiance and Q4 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY party control if carried to their logical end, would eliminate the independent voter entirely; and incidentally, it ought to be said that the independent voter is always condemned by the politicians and those in control of political parties. The direct primary is comparatively new. The one circumstance more than any other that brought it into life was the evil in our government that came from the spirit of party. This evil grew from a small beginning and gradually increased until it pervaded and controlled our government. The means through which this evil spirit could most successfully work was the party convention. Its danger was seen long before it had reached a point where its evil was felt. Its demoraliz- ing influence upon popular government was forcibly predicted by George Washington. He warned his country- men in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. In speaking of party spirit in his Farewell Address, he said: It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has per- petrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism, The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an _ individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able 6r more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. He declared it was not only the duty but tothe interest of a wise people to dis- courage and to restrain the party spirit. Again he said: . and in governments of a mo- narchial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warning, it should consume. The direct primary does not seek the destruction of party, but it places its control directly in the hands of the voter. It lowers party responsibility, and to a certain extent takes away party government by placing country above party. If the primary had done nothing more than the one thing of substituting individual responsibility for party responsibility, thus doing away with party control, it would have given sufficient reason for its existence. Dogs THE Direct Primary GIVE THE Newspapers Too Mucu Powrr? Another objection made to the direct primary is that it results in giving control over nominations to the newspapers. ‘There is no doubt that the direct primary increases the in- fluence and power of some newspapers. The newspaper that is true to its name, gives first of all, the news—unbiased, uncensored, and unprejudiced—and one whose editorial policy is open and fair will have its influence in political matters increased by the primary. This, however, is a good rather than a bad thing. The newspaper that pub- lishes the truth and gives a true report of political news ought to have its power and its influence increased. The Way I Beuieve In THE Direct PRIMARY 25 increase of influence on the part of such instrumentalities will tend toward a more intelligent selection of candi- dates, and therefore should be en- couraged rather than condemned. Dors THE Direct Prmary INCREASE THE EXPENSE OF A CAMPAIGN? Another objection made to the direct primary is that it extends the cam- paign 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, al- though 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 hl tial 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 candi- date, 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 repre- sented. 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 con- vention system. ‘The bosses who con- trol conventions are the only ones necessary to secure the nomination. hey manipulate the convention so as to bring about the desired result. In actual practice it has been demon- strated that the direct primary is not expensive. The expenditure of enor- mous sums of money to secure the nomination deserves righteous con- demnation, and there have been many glaring incidents where this condem- nation 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 instru- mental, and in some cases the predom- inating influence, in securing nomina- tions and elections. It is an evil that I do not believe can be entirely elim- inated, but it is not confined to the pri- mary. It applies equally to the con- vention 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 advertise- ments 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 26 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 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 onl that reports shall be made but that candidates, officers of committees, and managers of campaigns should be re- quired to submit themselves to cross- examination 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 prosecu- tion. 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 ex- penditure of large sums of money for the purpose 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 as been instrumental in putting more poor men into office than the convention system. I have no doubt of the truth of this statement. farses oa 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-haye no doubt if the truth weré really known, that candidates s for office. have spent more money ney under the convention ‘system t ‘th an under th the direct_primary. But that is not ‘the only recommendation of the direct primary nor the only objection to the convention method. The public offi- cial who has to be nominated at a convention knows very well that in order to retain his place he must be- come a part if not. the head of a politi- cal machine. He must keep this ma- chine 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. Ap- pointees 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 pay- ing the salaries of incompetent men Way I Beuieve In THe Direct PrRmary 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 en- tirely 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 Repre- sentatives 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 handi- -capped on account of mqney. In look- ing back over it now, I do not see where I could have legitimately spent more than I did. : Dors THE Drrect Primary LESSEN DELIBERATION AND INTELLIGENCE IN THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES? Another objection made to the direct primary is that it takes away the de-} liberation which the convention system affords, and that therefore the primary does not give the proper opportunity for an intelligent selection of candi- a QT 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 numberof ondidates s to be nominated, a candidate having behind him the delegates of a county or_a group of counties will throw these votes any- where, t any candidate, for any office, excépt the one for which he is a candi- date. e candidate who secures the nomination is the one whose ynanager has been the most successful in making thesetrades. This manager doesnot 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 impossibil- ity, even if delegates were seeking men with particular qualifications for par- ticular 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 delibera- tive 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 28 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 in- telligent selection. The citizen im his own home has weeks of 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 in- form himself. The direct primary tends to educate the people. They get together and discuss the qualifica- tions 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 con- stantly improving itself, and while improving itself, is improving the government by selecting better candi- dates 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 ae to the convention system, and yet the same objection applies to the convention system. 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. a Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 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 nomi- nee 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 con- vention and to the direct primary. By what logic can it be urged therefore, that the primary should be abolished and the convention reéstablished? 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 proba- bility 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 pro- vision 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 in- tention 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 conclu- sion that it is not practical, that good results are not obtained therefrom, and Way I Beuieve In tHE Direct PRIMARY 29 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 con- vention system. Again our opponents are unfair, again they tell only half of the truth. In the state of New York, the legis- lature repealed the direct primary law insofar as it related to state and judi- cial 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 reéstablish the direct primary if they were successful at the polls. The result was an over- whelming 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 peo- ple spoke with no uncertain voice at the very first opportunity and over- whelmingly defeated those who were responsible for the repeal of the pri- mary 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 reénactment of the law were successful, and the new legislature of Idaho is pledged to reénact a primary law. South Dakota has had a very pe- culiar primary law. It has been re- pealed, modified and reénacted several times, and as I understand it, they still have a primary law with some modifications providing for a conven- tion 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 ma- chinery, 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 off- cials. 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 repu- diated by an overwhelming and crush- ing 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 conven- tion. The fight for the direct primary has always been a bitter one. Those 30 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY who advocate it have at every step had to contest the way with political machines, and all of the power and resourcefulness of these machines has been used to defeat the direct primary. Where they have not been successful in defeating the law, they have some- times succeeded in keeping in the law objectionable features, placed there often for the sole and only purpose of making the law objectionable. CONCLUSION It can be safely stated that the great majority of the American people are in favor of the direct primary, and that politicians, men seeking a selfish ad- vantage, political machines, and com- binations of special interests, constitute the vast majority of those who are opposed to it. It has some objection- able features, but upon examination it _is found that practically every one of these applies with equal force to the convention. Many of these objections can be entirely eliminated as far as the direct primary is concerned, and prac- ‘tically all of them can be partially eliminated. The direct primary re- lieves the party and party machinery of a great deal of its responsibility, and places this responsibility upon the individual voter. The intelligent Amer- ican citizen assumes this responsibility with a firm determination of performing his full duty by informing himself upon all the questions pertaining to govern- ment. It therefore results in a more intelligent electorate, and as this in- telligence increases, it results in better government. Experience will bring about improvement as the necessity is shown to exist by practice. It will not bring the millennium and it will not cure all of the defects of government, but it will relieve many of the admitted evils and act as a great school of educa- tion for the common citizen. The artificial enthusiasm created by the convention system which makes it easy to deceive the people will give way to the enlightened judgment of reason that will pervade the firesides and homes of a thinking, patriotic people. A citizenship that is sufficiently intelli- gent to vote at a general election will never surrender to others the right to name the candidates at that election. Defects in the Direct Primary By Karu F. Getser, Pu.D. Professor of Political Science in Oberlin College HE most significant fact revealed by a study of the direct primary is that one cannot carefully view it in theory and practice from its various angles without a hesitating skepticism as to its merits and defects. Concern- ing no political question is thoughtful opinion more divided. Though this great experiment in popular control has been in operation under our very eyes for three decades, the conclusions concerning its virtue vary from a faith which sees in it the near approach of the political millennium, to a pessimism which foreshadows the end of the present form of democracy. Neither has public opinion nor have legislative bodies come to any definite conclusions concerning the value of the primary as an agent to bring government nearer the people. New York, one of the first states to adopt the direct primary idea, has re- turned to the convention system for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate, for elective state officers and for justices of the Supreme Court; while representatives to Congress, to both branches of the state assembly, to county and city offices are still chosen in general at the direct primaries. Opinion as to the wisdom of this change is as diverse as the methods of nomina- tion itself. Idaho has tried the direct primary, found it wanting and has returned to the convention system for | state officials with apparently general satisfaction in the return to the simpler method. Limitations upon space for- bid an extensive account of the recent changes in the states, but it is safe to say that at present in most of the states 31 where the direct primary has been state-wide and applying to all elective offices within the state, there is a general movement to return to the convention system either for general state and judicial offices, or for a modification of the law in some form toward a deliberative process such as a convention affords. Nor can it be truly said, as many writers assert, that the opposition to the primary comes almost entirely from the politicians or machine men of the party. It varies with the state and the interests affected. In South Dakota we have perhaps the best ex- ample where the politicians and the machine organization have attempted to defeat the will of the people. ‘There a struggle of eighteen years against the machine resulted in what seems to be a victory for the politicians, for during that period four direct votes of the peo- ple in favor of areal direct primary were as often set aside by political manipula- tions of doubtful methods and even by court decisions. But to say that opposition to the direct primary al- ways or even generally comes only through sinister influence, is to simplify the problem beyond recognition and come to conclusions that a study of the undercurrents of the movement does not justify. REASONS FOR OPpposiITION TO PRIMARY IN CALIFORNIA A summary of opinions collected last summer from some of the most repre- sentative and thoughtful men and women in various parts of California, where the primary idea in some form 32 THe ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY has been in operation for half a century, stated in general terms, bases opposi- tion upon the following facts: (1) that it lowers party responsi- bility; (2) that it breaks down the party- government principle; (3) that it is too expensive; (4) that the campaign extends over too long a period of time, thus taking too much time of candidates seeking reélection that should be devoted to the duties of their office; (5) that it results in government by newspapers, and, (6) that it creates a ballot that makes intelligent voting im- possible. All of the above are valid reasons for opposing the direct primary; and, it may be said in passing, too little attention has been given by those interested in good government to these phases of the problem, for they in- volve principles that are fundamental. Moreover, one may readily admit that opposition to a defective device or system, adopted to secure popular control of government, does not imply a desire to return to a former system equally bad. But the first essential to any improvement of present con- ditions is a recognition of the terms involved in the problem; With this in mind, I shall attempt in this paper to deal with principles rather than with statistics of votes, employing the latter only by way of illustration. WHEREIN THE Primary Has FaILep But whatever the defects or merits of the primary have been or may be in securing party responsibility and through it government responsible to the people—a sine qua non to all good government—it is not likely that the present primary laws will be generally repealed and the convention system in its old form adopted in its place. Of some things, however, we may now speak with comparative certainty. The primary has not fulfilled the ex- pectations of its early advocates; it has not brought forward better candidates in general; it has made elections more expensive; it has’ not increased the popular interest in elec- tions to the extent that was antici- pated; it has not rid our political system | of the boss; it has made it easier for the demagogue; it has degraded the press; and most important of all, it has, by adding a long list of names to the ballot, made it impossible for even the most intelligent and conscientious citizen to express a discriminating choice at the primary polls. Tue Primary BALLot IN CLEVELAND Why, one is inclined to ask at the outset, even discuss the question of party responsibility or quality of candidates, or any other question per- taining to popular control of govern- ment, when the chief agency through which the voter has access to his political institutions is so cumbersome that he cannot operate it? Why theorize concerning the results of a system which in fact cannot be applied to the purpose for which it is intended? For example, in the last Ohio primary (August 8, 1922) the voter of Cleve- land who received the Republican primary ballot was asked to choose candidates for 43 offices from a list of about 175 names. The choice included: one candidate for governor out of a total of nine candidates; one lieutenant-governor out of eight candi- dates—in these offices not an im- possible task; but it also included a selection of six senators out of twenty- four candidates, and sixteen repre- sentatives out of eighty candidates; and in both of these cases obviously DEFECTS IN THE Direct PRIMARY 33 an impossible task was imposed, when one considers the total number of names on the ballot and the five- minute time limit that may be imposed upon each voter in marking the ballot. While the illustration here given is taken from the largest city in the state, similar situations present themselves in Cincinnati, Toledo, Columbus and Dayton; and in village and rural com- munities the difference in favor of a more intelligent vote’ is one of small degree. IN THE VILLAGE OF OBERLIN A somewhat extensive personal in- quiry among the voters in the village of Oberlin, having a population of about 5,000, revealed the fact that not a single voter who was asked whether he had been able to make a discriminating choice for every office on the primary balldt answered in the affirmative; not even the members of the party committee, though their knowledge of the candidates was more extensive than that of the average voter, could give adequate information concerning all of the names on their own party ballot. These are facts that must be faced in every considera- tion of the question of party responsi- bility, and in every attempt to bring government more directly under popu- lar control; for the conditions imposed. by these facts must be overcome before even the most enlightened electorate can gain access to those who control and administer the institutions and laws of a community or state. Party RESPONSIBILITY Party responsibility seems to have been lessened by the fact that in destroy- ing the power of the machine it has taken the core of the party. This is shown by the practical disappearance of the Democratic Party from Wisconsin, where the political contest is now waged 4 between the Progressives headed by LaFollette and the old-time Republi- cans who were defeated in the last primaries. It has also lowered party cohesion and therefore responsibility, by taking from the organization the power of selecting candidates, thus causing a general loss of interest in the final outcome of election. When every one may easily become a candidate, interest wanes by the mere fact of numerous names of uninteresting and commonplace candidates who appeal neither to the imagination nor the intelligence of the average voter. The professional politician who runs: for office makes an appeal to party loyalty through methods which, how- ever unethical or degrading they may be, at least make for party spirit and devotion to the cause of an historic tradition connecting itself with Lincoln or Jackson. EFFECT ON Party ORGANIZATION The very idea, in fact, of the primary is based upon a revolt from the or- ganization. In the very nature of the case, where the organization does not select the candidates it does not and cannot be held responsible to the voters for the quality of candidates selected, nor for their faithful per- formance of duty while in office. From an extensive inquiry among practical politicians, from those who favored and those who were opposed to the primary, I have found a general agree- ment to the effect that the primary tended to break up parties, weaken the party organization and therefore to dissipate responsibility. That this is true may be seen from the fact that where a candidate is strong enough to get himself nominated against the wishes of the party organization, he invariably appeals not only to the voter of his own party, but also to the independent and even the opposition 34 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY party. Thus in the last election in Ohio, a candidate for the General Assembly who received the nomination on the Republican ticket at the pri- mary, sent one of his workers to a Demo- cratic political meeting to appeal for votes. The fact that such a candidate is refused the endorsement of the party leaders in the machine organiza- tion necessarily makes for non-co- operation. Is tur Party System Doomep? An important question then, in view of actual operation of nominating methods, is whether party organization and the party idea of government still have that sustaining virtue claimed for them which enables the average voter to get access through the party to the political institutions of the country, which in theory he is supposed to control. There are those who frankly say that the party system in the old sense is doomed and that some other institution or system will take its place. Nor is such a_ position without reason. There are evidences at hand to support this view in every country where the party system pre- vails; and while a general discussion of party government in foreign coun- tries would lead us too far afield, it would be interesting and instructive to analyze the causes and motives for the formation of “blocs” and “coali- tions” on the Continent and in England today. There may be nothing ab- solutely new under the sun, yet it may be seriously doubted whether a mere “post-war”’ allusion explains the mo- tives that underlie the fall of dynasties, the quick change of ministries and the disregard of the representative idea of government as manifested in Soviet Russia. It is, of course, not strange that many of the governments of Europe could not long survive the cataclysmic crises of the Great War. But the careful student of current politics, while he may be unable to explain, cannot fail to observe in the chaos of the political world today something very foreign to the old political order, whether for good or ill history alone can tell. EVIDENCES OF Party DissoLUTION Confining our observations to party responsibility in America, it may be instructive to examine the motives or forces which under normal conditions unite men into a political party. Aside from the general tendency to react to a common stimulus, which may be in many cases neither more nor less than a desire to be on the winning or popular side; or aside from the inability to overcome the fatalistic trend of the multitude so difficult in all popular governments, what has hitherto kept a party together? Professor C. E. Merriam, in his excellent work on The American Party System summa- rizes the motives of party action as “habit, response to leaders, personal or group interest, economic or other- wise, the sense of community responsi- bility, the response to the appeal of the formula, specific gratification of desire for political-social contacts.” DISREGARD OF Party BY CERTAIN CANDIDATES But even if we accept these varied motives as the cohesive power that makes for party unity and party spirit, — the reason for adherence to a particular party is still unexplained; for similar motives might be urged as a cause for a break or revolt from a party instead of adherence to it. Why, for example, in the recent primaries in many states, have Republican or Democratic candi- dates at primaries rebuked their re- spective parties by the advocacy of principles which in no way, other than name, conformed to the tradi- DEFECTS IN THE Direct PRIMARY 35 tional views held and advocated by the party leaders? Beveridge of Indiana, Pinchot of Pennsylvania, LaFollette of Wisconsin and Brookhart of Iowa, while accepting the Republican name in aspiring to office, were to all intents and purposes independent of the Re- publican tradition and might have called themselves more accurately, leaders of a Liberal Party. To what extent is the Republican Party, in any of the four states men- tioned, responsible for the action of these men either in the chair of gov- ernor of a state or in the United States Senate? That is, after all, the question that requires an answer if party re- sponsibility is to be properly estimated. The difficulty in answering this question will become more obvious if we remem- ber that Brookhart of Iowa made his campaign for the Senate on three main issues: (1) the repeal of the Esch-Cum- mins Transportation Law; (2) an attack on the Federal Reserve Banking Sys- tem which he blamed for many of the farmer’s financial troubles, and (3) “for laws to encourage codperative control of production, credit, marketing, and buying by organized agricultural and industrial labor.”’! Whatever the motives may have been that led the Iowa voters to cast 42 per cent of the total votes cast for six candidates at the primary for Colonel Brookhart, the cold fact remains that in his first mentioned issue he openly attacked a Republican measure; in his second, he scored an institution inaugurated by a Democratic administration now under Republican control; and in his third plank, he borrowed from the Non-Partisan League. All this in a state that had long been Republican and gave President Harding nearly 400,000 majority. Nor is Brookhart’s case an isolated example where party organization and party allegiance were 1 Nation, Vol. 115: 466, Nov. 1, 1922. disregarded by the successful candidate and an appeal made directly to the electorate. In municipal politics we already have a non-partisan system in both the primary and. the general election, and in many states the pri- mary laws have been modified to remove the candidates for judicial office from the party column. TENDENCIES IN ENGLAND That the tendency to revolt against the present party system as_ such, does not have its entire explanation in local or geographic areas but rather in the spirit and tendencies of the’times, whatever the cause, is also seen in recent political theories which break sharply with traditional methods of political action. And in some coun- tries practice has followed closely upon the heels of the theorist. Two years ago there was an attempt in England to return to the two-party system led by Asquith and the Cecils, but recent events in the United Kingdom give little evidence of a return to the party system of .Gladstone and Salisbury. Who knows but that in the not distant future, at least in the two great democ- racies of the world—England and America—candidates will disavow party organization entirely, and on the basis of issues alone, will appeal to an enlightened plebiscite in utter disre- gard of the present party system? In America, however, that will be possible only when the complex en- cumbrance now called the primary is abolished or so modified as to enable the voter to distinguish through a long list of names, the vital issues which he seeks to impose upon those who govern. Party Spirit IN AMERICA AND ENGLAND COMPARED At all events we need not consult election statistics to know that where primaries involve the nomination of $6 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY numerous non-political offices or of decisions which the masses are in- capable of making, it will fail to in- crease party responsibility. It is a question, then, of whether the party system under American conditions is more effective as a means of registering the popular will, than an irresponsible combination of fortuitous circum- stances, which place in nomination men whose chief claim to office is that they were the choice.at the primary. Un- fortunately, the significance of the party in America is so little understood by the average voter that the primary, which has done much to destroy party cohesion and party action, is extolled for the very qualities which should condemn it. It is still the fashion among a large number of the so-called “intellectuals” to stand aloof from party organization as something to be despised. This attitude is due in part to a con- fusion of two separate and distinct ideas designated by terms, which, on account of the similarity of sound, are thought of as conveying similar ideas. . The terms are party and partisan; and it is easy to ascribe to the party-man qualities of mind which permit his party to think for him, which he regards as aspersion upon his independence. This atti- tude of the American citizen toward the party stands in striking contrast ' to that of the English citizen, who is not ashamed to be identified with a party having able leaders. Nor are these two attitudes without reason. The English voter who follows a leader, usually follows an idea which may rise to the dignity of a philosophy of life as well as a real policy of state. If that leader be a Burke, a Cobden, or a Bright, adherence to his cause will be a mark of distinction capable of the best thought. We need only to reflect upon the history of the free trade movement in England to be assured of this fact. The political apothegm “when in doubt, kick Cob- den” had an entirely different signifi- cance in English political life than the accusations against Tammany Hall or the Philadelphia Gas Ring in Amer- ica, while a membership in the Ku Klux Klan would scarcely have quali- fied one for membership in the Cobden Club. Before any nominating system in America will enlist the interest of the average voter, the entire attitude toward parties as factors in govern- ment must be changed. No institution will command the obedience or respect of mankind that is not rooted in honor- able traditions, or does not rest upon a recognized moral principle of high endeavor. However low the actual range of political action may be, however dark the current of its daily life, the average voter will hesitate to identify himself with an institution which he feels is not approved by the best thought. ESSENTIALS TO RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT But aside from the complex or- ganization and methods of nomination, and the general absence of a party spirit to supply the necessary cohesive force to maintain party discipline, and reform the party from within the organization, there is no clear con- ception among the majority of voters of the essentials necessary to a govern- ment responsible to a political party; and without a common or popular conception as to the meaning, purpose and function of political institutions, leadership and responsibility in the true sense becomes impossible. Be- fore considering this phase of the question, however, it may be well to state in general terms what the essen- tials to responsible government are. They may be placed under three heads: DEFECTS IN THE Direct PRIMARY 37 (1) There must be, under whatever name or form it may appear, a political party comprising a majority of the electorate; (2) there must be means or devices adequate to a free expression and registration of the popular will; and (3) there must also be, on the part of the voter, a knowledge and an intelligence equal to the service he is called upon to perform, whenever he exercises the right of franchise. Of these three essentials it must be admitted that the first obtains only partially; the second to a still less degree than the first; while the third essential, because of conditions im- posed by the first two, is almost en- tirely negligible. There are, indeed, in addition to those here mentioned, other conditions necessary to a truly responsible party government; such as, for example, the complete absence of sinister exterior influences which tended to deflect the course to a free choice, and the presence of clearly defined issues. Passing over the minor conditions, however, and confining our attention to any one of the three major essentials mentioned above, we arrive at the conclusion that even the regular election, taken by itself, though usually less complicated than the primary, results in irresponsible government because of the confusion of issues with candidates; and the primary has aggravated the difficulty. It has raised high above the heads of the average voter a mechanism too difficult to comprehend and_ con- sequently too difficult to operate successfully. It has assumed the false premise that the problems of govern- ment depend for their solution upon a wider popular contact, rather than upon a deeper and higher intelligence. The cold fact that government is an extremely complex institution and that political intelligence is extremely simple, must ever remain as the anchor of political reform; and progress to- wards good government must always be conditioned upon the fact that the electorate, though honest and of good intentions, can operate through the electoral franchise only the simplest forms of machinery. Tue BurRDEN ImposED UPON THE VOTER IN CALIFORNIA Measured by these standards which express the theory of party responsi- bility, let us turn to the practical operation of these institutions which are to give us a government subject to popular control. Examples from two fairly typical states may serve as illustrations of the impossible burden we have placed upon the electorate. The general election laws of California comprise a volume of 283 pages of very fine type, and although intelligent voting does not require a thorough digest of the entire election code, the mere extent of the regulations from nomination to final election suggests the extent of the burden imposed upon the electorate. The arguments respect- ing the amendments to the state constitution and the proposed statutes submitted to a referendum of the electors at the election of November 7, 1922, form a pamphlet of 144 pages. The proposed amendments and statutes formed 30 separate propositions for the state at large, with four additional questions for the county of Los An- geles. These propositions appeared upon a single ballot, measuring twenty- two by twenty-eight inches, together with the names of forty-nine candidates seeking thirty-one offices. Nor was the difficulty confronting the voter fully expressed by the number of items to be voted upon. Many of the legal propositions supplemented or repealed former statutes and amendments, and an intelligent vote, therefore, implied a knowledge of law and conditions far 38 beyond the face of the ballot. Where or how was the voter to get this knowl- edge? If he depended upon news- papers, broadsides and pamphlets with which he was deluged, his con- clusions were in danger of being pur- chased by the highest bidder rather than by a dispassionate process of reasoning and observing. The Los Angeles Evening Herald of November 6, 1922, contained three very large advertisements against the so-called “Lawyers Bill,’ and the bankers were said to have spent $150,000 to defeat the measure. Primary LAws AND VOTING IN OHIO The election laws of Ohio as com- piled in 1920 make up a volume of 325 pages; and while here again in- telligent voting does not require fa- miliarity with the entire code, that part which in some form refers directly to the status and condition under which the right of franchise is exer- cised would by itself form about 100 pages. How intelligently this fran- chise was exercised at the last general election was shown in numerous in- stances; for the sake of brevity a single example must suffice. Of the three proposed amendments to the state constitution the one that attracted most attention, and the one upon which one would naturally expect the clearest expression of the popular will, was the liquor amendment, pro- viding for the manufacture and sale of beverage containing 2.75 per cent alcohol by weight. The ballot was so worded, however, that many a stanch prohibitionist voted “wet’’; and so far as I know, no one outside of a few tax experts is suspected of having cast a discriminating vote upon either of the other two proposed amendments, one referring to indebtedness and bond issues and the other to taxation. The official figures for the last Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY (August 7, 1922) Ohio primary also form an interesting commentary upon this method of voting. While many states have apparently modified their primary laws upon the theory that direct nomination is least objectionable for county and local offices, the last. Ohio primary election shows that in many cases county officials, to take a single example, were nominated by a large minority of the total votes cast. Thus in Lorain County, nine candidates running for the office of sheriff on the Republican ticket, received a_ total of 10,889 votes; but the successful candidate received only 3,064 votes, or about one-third of the total number of votes cast. Questions: the choice of the party? Upon any conceivable theory of responsible gov- ernment, what portion of the total voters of all parties in the county does he represent? CONCLUSIONS In conclusion I summarize the re- | sults of this study by saying that the direct primary has. decreased party responsibility because: 1. It has tended to break down party organization and destroy united ae action. . It has retained for ‘popular nom- ea and election both administra- tive and _ policy-determining offices, thus creating a still longer and more incomprehensible ballot than we had under the old system. 3. By assuming that all public offices should be open to all citizens, it has encouraged the fallacy that all citizens are qualified; with the result that so many run for office that the average voter cannot detect who are not qualified. | 4. It is illogical in that it accepts representative institutions and at the same time denies faith in them, by directing candidates elected to office, Was he’ \ DEFECTS IN THE Direct PRIMARY 39 instead of trusting them to their best judgment. 5. It assumes that the function of the elector is to govern, rather than to see that good government is enacted, by changing government from a Repub- lican to a Democratic form. o—“The spirit of democracy is cor- rupted,” says Montesquieu, “‘not only when the spirit of equality is extinct, but likewise when they fall into a spirit of extreme equality, and when each citizen would fain be upon a level with those whom he has chosen | to command him. Then the people, incapable of bearing the very power they have delegated, want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the Senate, to execute for the magis- trate, and to decide for the judges. When this is the case, virtue can no longer subsist in the republic.” The Direct Primary and Party Responsibility in Wisconsin By Arnoutp Bennett Hatt, J.D. Of the faculties of Political Science and Law of the University of Wisconsin HE difficulty with the investiga- tion of this kind of problem is the lack both of objective evidence and a scientific technique of approach. Po- litical science has been too much ab- sorbed in purely descriptive, historical, or speculative work, to develop a really scientific methodology. It is indeed rare even to find discussions of po- litical problems approached from a functional point of view. Most articles dealing with the direct primary, for example, have been merely descriptive of the laws involved, or systematic arrangements of a priori arguments pro and con. Rarely even has there been an attempt to analyze functionally the nature of the end to be attained, or to examine the appropriateness of the primary to the given task, or to check up its actual operation by objective evidence. There are, of course, con- spicuous exceptions, but in the main the above observation seems to be correct. In the present discussion the author has attempted to secure all available evidence, but there is little to be found. What we need is to begin at once the attempt to formulate a scientific tech- nique or methodology as a basis of a real science of politics. We need to know what facts and factors are pertinent in explaining our political experiences, and in seeking the methods of effective political control for the future. After we have reached some conclusions as to what facts and factors are important, we must then strive to develop a system for the observation, collection and recording of such phenomena, and we will then 40 have the basis of a constructive science. As Professor Merriam has recently ob- served, there are tremendous agencies already at work such as the state and federal census bureaus and_ other statistical bodies, which could be easily utilized in the observation and recording of pertinent phenomena, if we only knew what matters were pertinent, and could urge upon them definite and concrete requests. Until some such action can be taken po- litical science will not come into its own. We need not be surprised to find the statisticians or psychologists or some other learned group invading our field and rendering this constructive service to the public, which should be the special prerogative of the political scientist and in which he should find his fullest opportunity. These ob- servations were again emphasized in the writer’s mind by his experience in preparing this paper, and he submits them as a not entirely irrelevant ap- proach to the consideration of the present problem. As indicated by the title, the scope of this paper is limited to the operation of the direct primary law in Wisconsin and its relation to the doctrine of party responsibility. Only the state- wide primary will be considered and all aspects of the primary law will be ignored except those that directly affect the operation or organization of party government within the state. Party RESPONSIBILITY While there have been almost as many theories of party responsibility Direct PRIMARY AND Party RESPONSIBILITY IN WISCONSIN 41 as there have been writers upon the subject, nevertheless there do seem to be a few rather definite dogmas, one or another of which is generally accepted among recent writers as part and parcel of the theory. In the first place the discussion of party responsibility in America generally proceeds upon the assumption of a two-party system. While there are always minor parties of varying degrees of strength, the struggle generally rests between the two great organizations. In_ those states where there is only one party of any considerable strength, the struggle generally lies between two factions of the dominant party. Ex- cept in unusual emergencies, the prac- tical political instinct of the. average American seems to rebel at the ap- parently futile investment of time or interest in minority organizations. In the second place the doctrine of party responsibility is based upon the theory that the processes of popular government require certain extra legal activities on the part of the people, which the people cannot do directly as well as they can through the agencies of party organization. These activ- ities are principally the nomination of candidates for public office, the con- duct of the campaign, the promulgation of political issues, and the securing of harmony between the different de- partments of government. “Our state constitutions provided for the election of certain state officers, but made no provision for their nomina- tion. But popular election, unless restricted to a choice from a very limited few, becomes an obvious ab- surdity. When the author was attend- ing the public school, it was decided to have all the school children march to the cemetery on Memorial Day. The boys in the author’s class were asked to elect a captain to lead the march. A vote was taken by secret ballot, without any opportunities for the scholars to talk it over and de- velop any consensus of opinion. The result was that out of about thirty votes cast, most of the pupils received one vote, and the boy who was elected received four. He was the most cordially disliked boy in the group, and secured his election by exchanging promises with three neighbors to vote for each of them if they would vote for him, and then finally voting for himself. No one could possibly say that the election was an expression of the group opinion. If there had been two or three candidates from whom the voters could have made their choice, another more representative body would have been elected. Nomi- nations are thus essential to effective ‘popular elections. PoLiricAL Group ORGANIZATION “The people did not take long to realize that if they were to control the government of the state, they must organize into groups, according to political theories or prejudices, nomi- nate a candidate and place the party label upon him, in order that the public might have a basis of judging him and of holding his group accountable for his conduct. It was the only way public opinion could function in the control of state government. Political parties originated in this very obvious necessity. Likewise, it was. only through group effort that political issues could be formulated. The great mass of the people become articulate only when their leaders, seeking to interpret their thoughts and aspirations, formulate broad, general principles upon which they can vote with a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ “Moreover, the leaders soon ob- served a popular indifference and ignorance regarding political issues. If a group believing in certain political 42 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY concepts desired to cause them to prevail, it became necessary for them to carry on campaigns of agitation, education and suggestion to win ad- herents to their cause. This resulted in the development of much elaborate machinery for the purpose of winning popular support, while the waging of political campaigns became one of the important functions of the political party. sai Likewise, there remained the neces- sity of devising some means by which political harmony could be secured between the different departments of government. Ne _ constructive pro- gram is normally possible when the legislative department is controlled by one party and the executive by another. Likewise administrative friction of a very decided type is caused © among the different executive heads of the state government when they represent conflicting groups, which is quite possible under our anomalous state system of decentralized admin- istrative departments. These evils could be eliminated only by a system of party government, in which the voters chose between parties rather than persons, thus generally insuring the control of all departments of the government by the victorious political group, providing party harmony and making possible the achievement of any constructive program that the dominant party might be inclined and competent to undertake. Finally, the real importance of having political parties to carry on these func- tions becomes evident only when we contemplate the inherent nature of popular government. Real democracy is not assured by the establishment of universal suffrage. It is only when 1 Arnold Bennett Hall, Popular Government, pp. 66-68. Macmillan, N. Y., 1921. See also Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, pp. 193-253. New York, 1922. that suffrage represents a public opin- ion of the majority, and expressed within such limits of action as will secure the acquiescence of the minority that we have effective government by the people. For if the minority refuse to acquiesce, we have government by force and not by the people. This is dramatically illustrated by the present unhappy efforts of the Irish people to achieve democracy. Moreover, this public opinion which represents the majority must be a real opinion, with sufficient coherence, durability and vitality to exercise a controlling influ- ence, for the time being, over the affairs of government. Unless there is a public opinion that can accomplish this, there is no popular control. Democracy becomes a myth, while the actual sovereignty passes to some des- pot, dictator, oligarch or ruling class. “There are many instances in Central America where dictators have aroused tremendous enthusiasm in behalf of democratic government, but it has rarely continued long enough to estab- lish even a semblance of democracy. This popular manifestation was not real opinion, but merely a popular impression. Created by the authority and contagious personality of some dominant figure, there was no basic conviction of liberty, popular govern- ment, or orderly restraint with which the popular impression might establish a vital contact. ‘There was no founda- tion of national unity, philosophy, or character upon which an enduring structure of democracy could be erected.’*? NEcESSARY ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC OPINION FoR PoLiticaL CONTROL _ This brings us to a consideration of what are the constituent elements of a public opinion that has, to a sufficient 2 Ibid., p.8. Drrect PRIMARY AND Party RESPONSIBILITY IN WISCONSIN 43 degree, the elements of continuity and vitality that will enable it to achieve political control. Also what political problems come within its effective scope? President Lowell has given the best statement of the former. His theory is that public opinion that has the necessary qualities of stability to afford a basis for popular government, must, if it originate in the voice of authority or suggestion, as most opin- ions do, be in harmony with the estab- lished convictions and philosophy of the people. This does not guarantee the accuracy of the opinion, but it does insure for it a reasonable degree of permanence and power. But in order “that there may be a real public opin- ion on any subject, not involving a simple question of harmony or con- tradiction with settled convictions, the bulk of the people must be in a position to determine of their own knowledge, or by weighing evidence, a substantial part of the facts required for a rational decision.” ? It follows from the above that a popular election is significant only in so far as it registers a real public opinion. If an election does not do so it amounts to naught. It represents nothing more than caprice, fancy or the accidents of chance. It carries no mandate to those entrusted with official power. It gives the officers no assur- ance of support in the execution of their policies or direction in the formu- lation of their programs. Public of- ficers are judged by capricious and whimsical opinions, while the real sovereignty tends to vest in the hands of those most skilled in the art of dema- goguery and of exploiting the ignorance and cupidity of the people. With the vast development in the art of ad- vertising, with its capacity to control by suggestion, the hired makers of $A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, pp. 18-22. New York, 1913. publicity will yield a power almost impossible to conceive. Where, there- fore, there is no public opinion there can be no popular control. Doctrine OF Po.iticaL REsponsi- BILITY If this be true it seems clear that there should be no popular votes taken except on matters regarding which there can fairly be said to exist a real opinion. ‘This places rather defi- nite limitations to the questions and matters that may properly be sub- mitted to a popular vote. If the ques- tion is one upon which there is no established fundamental convictions or philosophy among the people and if it involves matters outside the popular range of information, ex- perience or thinking, there can be no real public opinion on the matter and a vote upon the subject will register only the passing fancies of the people and the accidental considerations of the moment. It is here perhaps that the doctrine of party responsibility occupies its strongest ground. For under our sys- tem of government many matters have been left to the people which involve decisions on matters in regard to which no public opinion can exist. It has been the business of the political party to take up these matters, assume the responsibility for their proper treat- ment, reduce them into such simple forms that public opinion may operate upon them, and then leave the issues so simplified to the judgment of the people. It requires no argument to show that there could be no public opinion to function upon the selection of public officers without the aid of some nominating method. If the peo- ple of the state were asked on election day merely to go to the polls and vote for whomsoever they might desire, without any prior nominations or 44 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY campaigns of publicity, ordinarily there would be such a babel of tongues and variety of opinions that the winning candidates would have back of them a very small minority of the voters. The result could not be said to rep- resent a true opinion. The decision as to who is the best candidate in the state is a question of fact, outside the range of information of the average voter, and not involving a question of theory or conviction that might harmonize or conflict with the voter’s beliefs. A public opinion on such a question, under such circumstances, is thus practically impossible. So with the formulation of public issues. ‘The desires or aspirations of the multitude cannot become articulate save through the voice of leadership. No other means has yet been devised by which the mass of the people can express an opinion. The political party meets these two problems by nominat- ing a list of candidates and promulgat- ing a party platform. This is done by both the great parties and the voter has a definite issue submitted to his decision. Which list of candidates is the best? Which political platform is most entitled to respect? Moreover, the two parties then pro- ceed to carry on a campaign of popular education, bearing on the relative merits of the two tickets and the two platforms. ‘These campaigns generally last for a number of weeks, with the result that the average citizen gains some ideas both as to the merits of the candidates, and the nature, meaning and value of the platforms. As _ be- tween the two alternatives the voter generally is enabled to come to some kind of intelligent conclusion, and the final results tabulated on election day then tend to represent a real opinion. Thus the political party takes the original problems upon which public opinion cannot exist, reduces them to specific proposals upon which the public may answer with a yes or no, places the public in possession of material facts, and thus subjects the ultimate question to the possibilities of decision by a true opinion. Since the great majority of voters vote straight for one party or another, this generally assures automatically that the different departments of the government will be under the control of the same party and pledged to the same program, which will insure po- litical harmony, the minimum of friction, and the possibility of working out a constructive pregram. NEED FoR HIGHER STANDARDS Someone will here object that under such a system, both parties may nominate worthless candidates, both may promulgate hypocritical platforms and their campaigns of publicity may be misleading and unworthy. All this must be admitted. It has frequently so happened. But there seems no relief other than a regenerated citizen- ship, eager and capable to compel the political parties to attain higher stand- ards of performance as the price of popular support. ‘These parties are usually managed by the most capable and astute politicians that their ranks afford. The first and controlling ambi- tion of every political boss is to retain his hold upon official power. He can do this only by securing a larger share of popular support than is accorded to his political foes. The organization that can most unerringly give a major- ity of the voters what they want is destined to control the government. The ultimate struggle for good govern- ment is thus necessarily wrought out in this competitive struggle between the opposing parties for political sup- port. If the results are bad, and they fre- quently are, it is not due to the system, Direct PRIMARY AND Party RESPONSIBILITY IN WISCONSIN 45 but to the tragic fact that our citizens do not force the competitive struggle for votes into the higher planes of civic ideals and accomplishments. So long as impossible, hypocritical and conflicting promises will bring in a majority vote, there is little likelihood that practical politicians will find it either expedient or safe to carry the fight to higher planes of constructive statesmanship. It is quite common for politicians to desire so to do, but to be forced to a lower type of campaign performance in order to secure the necessary votes. complished in the way of permanent reform until we face these uncompli- mentary but basic facts. ‘To salve the popular conscience and provide the public with moral alibis for civic short- comings by undiscriminating attacks upon politicians and parties is the most vicious type of demagoguery. For it prevents and postpones the only effec- tive remedy, viz., a real civic awaken- ing. Nor is this all. As long as human nature and the laws of psychology re- main substantially the same, popular government over areas as large as our states can be carried on only by po- litical parties. So far as one can see, the civic activities of the voter will be confined to activities for party control within the party, and to his final choice at the polls between contending parties. No one yet, in any age, has found any better way of making the hopes and aspirations of the multitude become effective in the forms of political con- trol4 The inherent limitations on mass movements and public opinion are such, that, without some form of party government, democracy cannot exist. For the public to face these facts, to realize the tremendous mission 4 Viscount James Bryce, Modern Democracies, Vol. I, pp. 119, 122, n. 1. 2 vols. New York, 1921. Nothing will be ac- . of the party, and to apply to the party in power the test of strict accounta- bility for its stewardship, are the first steps in the improvement of our system of party responsibility, and in the in- telligent approach to the solution of its problems. Tue Direct Primary LAw Having thus examined at some length the doctrine of party responsibility and its inherent place in the life of popular government, we are now ready to consider to what extent and in what way the functioning of this doctrine has been affected by the direct primary law in Wisconsin. This has been one of the hotly contested points in the whole discussion that was waged with some bitterness several years ago and that has not yet entirely abated. It is significant to note that the importance and value of party re- sponsibility has been admitted by both sides to this controversy.® This leaves as the only matter of contention the question as to whether the direct primary law has in fact inter- fered with the normal and beneficent operation of the principle of party responsibility. ‘This question will be discussed in connection with the argu- ments that have been made, to show the evil effects of the primary law upon party responsibilities and which seem to fall into four general propositions. Evit Errects oF Primary Law The first proposition is that the direct primary law has placed directly into the hands of the people certain functions, viz., the nomination of state officials, upon which a public opinion 5 Robert M. LaFollette, Message to Wisconsin Legislature, January, 1903, quoted in Paul M. Reinsch, Readings on American State Govern- ment, p. 388. Boston, 1911. Emanuel L. Philipp, assisted by Edgar T. Wheelock, Political Reform in Wisconsin p. 83. Milwaukee, 1909. 46 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY cannot exist except occasionally in the ease of the candidate for governor. Where the governor, or a man other- wise equally well known, is a candidate for reélection and there is only one other candidate, the people will fre- quently have sufficient information regarding the relative merits of the can- didates so that the formation of a real opinion may be possible. But if neither of the candidates happens to be well known to the people, regardless of their ability or worth, or if there hap- pens to be a large group of candidates, the possibility of the primary vote for governor registering a true opinion is extremely meager. The chances of a real opinion are even more remote in the case of the candidate for other offices about whom the people are much less likely to be informed. The writer attempted to test this out by asking twenty-one audiences of about one _ thousand persons each in different parts of the state, how many of those present had any definite, authoritative information regarding the qualifications for candi- dates for state office at the last primary, not counting the candidates for gov- ernor or any candidate whose home might happen to be in that community. There were on the average of three to each audience, or one-third of one per cent. Surely no one would argue that such a vote could possibly represent true public opinion. What then, does the vote represent? Largely the fac- tors of fancy, caprice, suggestion and the like. If unworthy candidates are selected, unless they are notorious, the public would not know until it was too late, and then there would be no one to be held accountable. , Under the convention system, these candidates would be nominated by a state convention, composed of delegates elected by the party voters. This con- vention would be composed mainly of of party success. politicians, men who have made practi- cal politics a subject of major interest, who make it a business to know the various candidates for office, and who are familiar with the type of men the offices demand. The state leaders would be there and this body of po- litical experts—for that is exactly what they are—would confer, discuss, com- promise, and vote until a majority or two-thirds had agreed upon a list of candidates. There is one thing upon which all practical politicians do agree, and that is the all importance Consequently, in selecting the list of candidates, the consideration of first importance is to secure a ticket that will win the public favor and give such an effective administration of public affairs as to insure the party’s continuance in power two years hence. Lack oF Party RESPONSIBILITY Thus under the convention system party affairs are largely regulated by party experts, whom the people may hold to rigorous accountability for their conduct. A definite party re- sponsibility is thus established, for the people always have it within their — power to administer the stinging re- buke of political defeat, in case the party managers have abused their trust. But under the primary law no one is really responsible, for the work is not done by the group of party managers, but is attempted by the people themselves, who cannot be held to any effective responsibility, since it was a task for which less than one per cent were adequately prepared. On matters of this kind, objective evidence is very meager, but we are not entirely without it. As is gener- ally known, the main political fight in Wisconsin is not between the two great parties, but between the two factions of the Republican Party. One faction Direct PRIMARY AND Party RESPONSIBILITY IN WISCONSIN AT is generally spoken of as the LaFollette faction and the other as the Conserva- tive group. (In the last two years this latter group has been dominated by men who have chosen the name of Progressive Republicans.) In the in- terests of administrative harmony all the chief executive officers of state should belong to one faction or the other, and then that one faction could be held responsible for the state ad- ministration. Asa matter of fact, there has been but one election since the adoption of the direct primary in 1906 when the five chief executive officers have been elected by the same faction, and that one time was in the LaFollette landslide of 1922. Under such circumstances there is neither party nor factional responsibility. Moreover, experience has shown that it was too much to expect that the political antagonism between these officers would not find expression in many ways positively detrimental to the public service. Such phenomena have very rarely appeared under the convention system, for the interest of each officer is generally identified with the party destiny and it becomes the selfish interest of both the party . and the candidate to prevent friction and to give an administration that will please the public. Again, this same lack of party responsibility is evidenced to a more alarming extent in the failure to es- tablish a political unity between the legislative and executive departments, which is usually indispensable to a constructive legislative program. Dur- ing three administrations since the direct primary law was enacted, viz., 1909, 1913 and 1921, there has been a governor of one faction and a legislature of another. Where the hostility be- tween the factions is as bitter as it is in Wisconsin, the evil consequences of such a situation are apparent. In those years there was neither party nor factional responsibility for the control of government, and if there was really a popular government in Wis- consin it would have been difficult to locate. Except under extremely uncommon circumstances such a situ- ation would be impossible under a convention system. The author has been unable to find anywhere a parallel under the convention method of nomi- nation. Lack oF Focus BETWEEN ESTABLISHED PouitricaL LEADERS The second line of argument that has been suggested to show the evil effects of the direct primary upon party responsibility is that the direct primary tends to focus public attention upon contests between irresponsible factions or outstanding political leaders, rather than between established _ political parties with their continuing responsi- bility. The first question presented here is the question of fact; has the effect of the direct primary law in Wisconsin been to center interest as above in- dicated? This question is complicated by the fact that the Democratic Party in Wisconsin is decidedly a minority party, and was so before the days of the direct primary. Since 1890 it has elected only two governors (in 1890 and 1892) although there were a number of fairly close contests up until 1906, and only one close contest since and that one in 1912. In the last two decades the Democrats have carried Wisconsin once for the Presidency (1912) and elected one United States senator (1914). With so few hotly contested campaigns between the two great parties, it would be an easy matter for a spectacular contest in the Republican Party to overshadow the final election. So far as one is able to judge by the popular interest as it is 48 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY manifested during the campaign, such seems to be the fact, especially in recent years. But would it not have been the case likewise if the convention system had survived? There seems no way of obtaining objective evidence on this question. The evidence does tend to show that during the period before the primary law, there was relatively more interest in the election and less in the nominating contests than in the period following the abolition of the nominating convention. Moreover, some allowance must be made for the fact that the struggle for the direct primary was coincident with the strug- gle of Robert M. LaFollette for the mastery of the Republican Party. When a man of such tremendous popular appeal enters such a struggle, it is bound to attract an eager interest regardless of what nominating ma- chinery he has to use. Nevertheless, when all these factors have been considered, it does seem that since the advent of the direct primary there has been a well-defined tendency for popular interest to shift from parties to factions and to personalities. This seems to be accounted for by two rea- sons. Under the direct primary, it must be the business of the candidate to arouse the interest of the people, for they alone are to judge his case. Publicity becomes the passion of the hour, for unless a man’s name becomes known to the voters he cannot succeed. Under the convention system, how- ever, attention is generally centered upon the delegates and party managers, and the public takes little active in- terest save in the ultimate results. The second reason is the feature of the open primary. The Wisconsin law makes it possible for any voter to vote in any primary regardless of what party he represents. Moreover, this § Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. 5, Sec. 5.18. can be done without the knowledge of his party associates, since no one can know in what primary each voter cast his vote. This necessarily tends to arouse the voter’s interest in the outstanding individual or factional ° struggle rather than in the control of his own party. REsuULTS It is alleged in support of this argu- ment, that this has three evil results: In the first place, factional responsi- bility is generally impossible to achieve, since under the direct primary it has so frequently happened that different departments of the government were controlled by different factions. This we have already found to be the case. In the second place, even though it is possible to establish factional or per- sonal responsibility for the conduct of government, such responsibility is not organic or continuing, and does not have the momentum of organized responsibility which is essential to stable government and the working out of far-sighted reforms, and which is possessed by political parties under the convention system. Thirdly, when interest is focused on a factional fight in the dominant party, it tends to weaken the competing party until it is no longer an effective competitor, whereas real healthy competition be- tween two contending parties is essen- tial to the best conduct of government. The first one of these three alleged evils we have already disposed of. The second alleged evil will now be considered. Where there are such well-defined factions as are found in Wisconsin, and when one of them is led by such a phenomenal political genius as Senator LaFollette, the question may well be asked: Why will not fac- tional responsibility or the personal responsibility of the leader be suffi- cient to enable public opinion to func- Direct PRIMARY AND Party RESPONSIBILITY IN WISCONSIN 49 tion through them in the control of government? (This is on the assump- tion that under the direct primary Senator LaFollette or his faction, or some opposing leader or faction, could always secure the control of all departments, something that has hap- pened only once since 1906. It does look now, however, as if it might quite regularly in the near future.) FAcCTIONAL VERSUS PARTY RESPONSIBILITY This squarely raises the issue of whether personal or factional responsi- bility, if possible, is as reliable a me- dium for public opinion to function through in the control of government, as party responsibility would be. Again it is difficult to find objective evidence that is relevant. There are, however, some facts of evidential value. In 1922 the faction opposed to La- Follette held a state convention in Milwaukee, adopted a ticket to sup- port at the party primaries, went through the forms of setting up an organization and adjourned. Similar conventions have been held several times before on like occasions, but there has emerged from none of them a permanent political organization, capable of assuming the continuing responsibility of fighting for a pro- gram or of accepting the responsi- bility of one if entrusted with official power. Even when this group was successful in electing Governor E. L. Philipp to three successive terms, there was no definite organization to “carry on”? when Governor Philipp declined to run again. They tried to nominate as his successor an outstanding and able man, but they could not succeed. Governor Philipp succeeded by virtue of his dominant personality and ability, and when the personality was removed, what was supposed to be an organized political movement disappeared be- a cause there was no political organiza- tion able to carry on the policies for which he stood. The public opinion that approved of Governor Philipp’s policies had no means of self-expression, for there was no organization identified with those policies which they could seek to place in power. Suppose something had happened to Senator LaFollette at any time since 1906 up to 1920, were his policies and political activities so identified with a well-organized, well-disciplined _ po- litical organization covering the whole state, that public opinion would have had an immediate organization through which they could have continued those policies in control? The writer does not believe there was any such organ- ization prior to 1922. On the other hand, if Senator LaFollette had been working under a convention system, what would have been the probable results? He would have had to have controlled, organized, and worked through the regular Republican ma- chine, which he undoubtedly would have done. He might have had to make concessions here and there to hold his convention and prevent a bolt as public men must occasionally do. But in the unhappy event of his demise, under these circumstances, his policies and ideals would have been so identified with the Republican state machine that they would have carried on of their own momentum, so long as public opinion might desire. Senator LaFollette has been so popu- lar as a leader and so adroit as a politi- cian that he has needed no organization for his political success. But his followers will want to see his influence continue long after he has gone. It is not enough that the memories of his deeds will linger long in the hearts of his associates. If they are to become articulate in the control of government, there must be either some outstanding 50 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY political genius like himself or a real political organization of established strength and ability, like a regular party organization, through which his followers may express themselves. It is argued that an organization could be easily perfected, but such organization, disciplined and effective, cannot be organized over night. It takes years of association and common effort, under the stimulus of able lead- ership, to forge a party of sufficient strength and cohesive force to insure that harmony and continuity of action essential,to the constructive control of government. It is further argued that if either fac- tion needs an organization at any time, it merely means a political struggle between the factions to secure the Republican organization. But there is no Republican organization in any effective sense. The primary law pro- vides for a state central committee,’ but until the recent campaign it has not functioned for about a dozen years. The struggle has been between persons and factions, while party organization of an effective type has disappeared from the public interest. The writer believes that this has been a real loss to the cause of popular control, the real significance of which will not appear until the disappearance from political life of its dominant figures. INTEREST IN DoMINANT PaRTY ACCENTUATED The third alleged evil of diverting public interest from parties to factions will now be considered. This argu- ment is that the direct primary by making party nominations a matter of public interest and right, tends to accentuate the interest in the affairs of the dominant party to the injury of the minority party. This would be likely to take place only where one 7 Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch, 5, Sec. 5.20. party is already so dominant that nominations are generally equivalent to elections, as in the case in Wisconsin. Happily this is a matter upon which there is objective evidence. Taking the percentage of Democratic votes cast in presidential years, and in off years for a period of sixteen years be- fore and after the direct primary law, we get the following results: PRESIDENTIAL YEAR YEAR PrEr- Orr-YEAR PERCENTAGES CENTAGES LS83s wri cee 43 a ESOO? wer aiie aks ih 51 LO Zc caavencae 48 ag" T8042 suey. ee MS 37 LS9G Se oes ot ae L898 sr Aaa Sh 48 1900 eye ae 36 ar Ree hee os 39 LOU cit ae ee 39 19062 Pe eR a 32 LD08 ne eee 36 at 191034. .uMes at 34 fb? 8 pe Parad i! 42 ne [SSR eae adc e2 36 TST x nas 38 re 1GIS: OVE JS 33 BOZO Lea scone 30 ae Leeeie ay ety A 10 These figures while significant are not conclusive. They show the Demo- cratic Party to have weakened materi- ally, particularly in the off years. Especially significant is the Democratic vote in 1922, at the time when the Democrats were making great gains generally they all but disappeared in Wisconsin. The difficulty in draw- ing conclusions from these figures is that they may not be due entirely to the direct primary but to other causes, the most conspicuous of which was Senator LaFollette’s popularity which transcended party lines. It seems fair, however, to conclude that Wis- consin is rapidly losing a strong, Direct Primary AND Party ResponsiBILity IN WISCONSIN healthy, minority party, and that the direct primary is at least a contributing factor. Tue Open PRIMARY The third general argument against the direct primary as destroying party responsibility is based upon one of the peculiar features of our primary law, viz., the open primary. As already observed there is no party test in the Wisconsin law and there is absolute secrecy as to which party ticket one votes in the primary election.’ It is argued that by this device Democrats may vote in Republican primaries in sufficient numbers to determine the result; which means that there can be no party responsibility for the simple and sufficient reason that mem- bers of other parties may determine party action. Moreover, it is urged that Democrats in voting in Republican primaries will be tempted to vote for the poorest candidate in order to insure a Democratic victory. Mr. Victor Berger in 1920 asserted that the Socialists voted in the Republican REPUBLICAN VOTE IN PRIMARY Percent- Democratic VoTE IN PRIMARY 51 delegate election to the national con- vention and. that they claimed the credit for electing all of the LaFollette delegation save two. Such state- ments are difficult to check. An examination of the election figures showed that such might have been true in the case of several of the dele- gates but that it could not have been true of the whole delegation. To the extent that it may have been true, it made party responsibility for the dele- gates so elected nothing but a farce. The table below shows the total Republican and Democratic vote in both primary and election and the percentage of the whole primary and final election vote cast by Republican and Democratic voters. A survey of these figures shows that in every election save the exceptional one of 1912, there was a much larger percentage of the Republican vote in the primaries than in the election, while just the reverse was true of the Demo- crats, particularly since 1914 during which period the percentage of Demo- cratic votes in the election was gener- Democratic VoTE IN ELECTION REPUBLICAN VOTE IN ELECTION Percent- age of Soest Percent- Percent- YEAR Total Total Total Total Total age of Total age of Repub- | Primary| Demo- | Primary| Republi- Total Demo- Total lican Vote |} Vote of | cratic Vote] Vote of | can Vote Vote of cratic Vote Vote of . All Par- All Par- All Par- Sa ee te ties ties TOOG i. nee 170,526 82 29,842 14 183,558 57 103,311 32 2 ahh, 3 159,273 fas 41,114 19 242,935 54 165,977 36 FUi0. 190,967 75 48,270 18 161,619 50 110,442 34 LOTS FePrn 81,771 44 85,226 46 179,360 45 167,316 42 TH ets. 124,461 58 72,962 34 140,787 43 119,509 36 bE St ee ea 172,386 76 40,124 17 227,896 52 164,633 38 iN hs Pa aie 192,145 78 28,340 11 155,799 47 112,576 33 yy 48 lato Maan 368,263 86 22,435 5 $66,247 53 Q47 746 oo U1 Ay Se 500,620 92 19,108 3 367,929 76 51,061 10 8 Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. 5, Sec. 5.13. 52 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY ally several times as large as it was in the primaries. Does this show that Democrats voted in the Republican primaries and then returned to their own party in the election? Or does it merely indicate that a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats were interested in the primaries, there generally not having been such dra- matic contests in the Democratic pri- maries, and that a larger percentage of the Democrats than Republicans voted in the elections? There is no dis- coverable reason why the latter should be true. It would seem, therefore, that the most natural explanation is that many Democrats voted in the Republican primaries. While by no means conclusive, figures and reasoning seem to point definitely in that direc- tion. To just the extent that members of one party can and do participate in the primaries of the other, it is ob- vious that effective party responsibility cannot exist. COMPROMISE IMPOSSIBLE UNDER Direct PRIMARY The final argument regarding the evil effects of the direct primary law upon party responsibility is that ef- fective party-government requires a constant process of compromise be- tween the different elements in the party, and that the direct primary makes compromise impossible in the selection of a ticket, and extremely difficult in the formulation of party platforms. There are two reasons why com- promise is essential in the nomination of candidates. The first is that com- promise is necessary to majority con- trol within the party, in case there are more than two candidates. Under our primary law, there have been five primaries in the Republican Party in which there were more than two candidates for governor, and in each case the person nominated won by a minority vote. In 1910 the winning candidate received 43 per cent of the primary vote; in 1914, 35 per cent of the primary vote; in 1916, 49 per cent of the vote; in 1918, 39 per cent of the vote; and in 1920, 29 per cent of the vote.® Moreover, the figures for 1914 are more significant than they appear on their face. The conservatives held a state convention and agreed to sup- port Emanuel L. Philipp for governor, and he was the only conservative candidate. The LaFollette’ faction were not able to agree and while they controlled about 65 per cent of the votes, they could not nominate, with the result that while two-thirds desired a LaFollette candidate, their will was foiled. Under a convention system, balloting would have continued, gradu- ally eliminating the minority candi- dates, until all the LaFollette delegates would have centered upon one candi- date and the majority would have pre- vailed. It does not seem either rea- sonable or possible to hold a party responsible for its candidates when they may be nominated by a minority of the members. The second reason why compromise is essential in the nomination of can- didates is that unless there is such a spirit of accommodation and adjust- ment, the party will be driven upon the rocks of factional disaster, and party responsibility disappears. In a nomi- nating convention, the majority, while insisting upon a candidate that sup- ports their views, are generally careful to avoid candidates that are so ex- treme as to tempt the minority to bolt the ticket. In this way extreme candidates are generally avoided, and the coherent unity of the party is sustained. Under the primary system, ® The law in Wisconsin provides for plurality nominations. Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. 5, Sec. 5.17. Direct PRIMARY AND Party RESPONSIBILITY IN WISCONSIN 53 where there is no chance for confer- ence, adjustment and compromise, but where it is an individual scramble for votes, candidates representing the opposite extremes have frequently been nominated on the ticket. We have already seen how candidates of opposing factions have been on every state ticket since 1906 except in 1922. We have seen how the State Central Republican Committee has practically ceased to function for years because quite frequently the factional disputes between the committee and some of the ‘candidates made united action en- tirely impossible. However, it is not fair to say that the primary law has created the factional differences in Wisconsin, for they were started before the primary measure was sadopted. The most that can be said is that under the primary system there seems no hope of working out a definite Republi- can organization capable of assuming and bearing the full responsibility for the government, which every domi- nant party ought to bear. It is probable that Senator LaFollette will be able to control all departments of state government for some time to come; but that raises the question already discussed above, as to whether a personal responsibility really provides adequate means for the continuing control of government in the interest of a permanent and constructive policy. COMPROMISE AND Party PLATFORMS The remaining question for con- sideration is the effect of the direct primary in retarding the forces of compromise in the framing of party platforms. Under the Wisconsin law all the candidates for state offices meet on the third Tuesday of Septem- ber to draw up a platform and elect a state central committee.!® The ques- tion is presented as to whether such a convention is as favorable to a genu- ine and honest compromise as the old party nominating convention. It is argued that since these conventions are composed of representatives of hostile factions, already nominated, and frequently representing the more extreme representatives of the opposing groups, and with none of the general spirit of party harmony and tradition that found expression in the old nomi- nating convention, the spirit of mutual toleration, adjustment and accommo- dation finds little opportunity for ex- pression. The facts seem to justify the argument. Again, caution must be urged against charging the direct primary with entire responsibility for factionalism in Wisconsin politics. Strong personalities and fundamental differences in political conviction have played their part. But if a convention system had been in vogue, there is reason to believe that these differ- ences might have been mitigated in- stead of accelerated almost to the point of irreconcilable hostility. Regardless of where one’s sympathies happen to lie in this struggle, it seems clear to the author, that the interests of the state of Wisconsin would be better served if there were a greater spirit of mutual toleration and understanding between the opposing factions. The spirit of irreconcilable factionalism is not conducive to the clearest-sighted statesmanship, or the most disinter- ested public service. Moreover, it seems likely that had the convention system remained in force, the contest over conflicting political convictions would have found its ultimate expression in the readjust- ment of the lines of cleavage between the two major parties, and thus there would have been provided adequate machinery through which the public opinion of the state could have most 1 Wisconsin Statutes, 1921, Ch. 5, Sec. 5.20. *4 effectively expressed itself. 54 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY IMPORTANCE OF COMPROMISE This matter of compromise is a matter of prime importance in the opinion of the writer. The underlying assumption of democratic government is the capacity of the people to find a common purpose and a common aim through the agency of compromise. When a people has lost its capacity to accomplish that, it has lost its capacity for self-government. The Irish nation cannot achieve democracy until it has learned the genius of com- promise. Without such a spirit popu- lar control becomes majority-tyranny. Instead of an acquiescing, law-abiding minority, there develops a_ hostile, irreconcilable opposition. With a population like our own, divided into many groups as highly differentiated as they are, it is of the utmost im- portance to preserve and perfect the most efficient instruments of honest compromise that we have been able to produce. Some of the most con- structive service that political parties will be called upon to render, will be to frame effective compromises between otherwise irreconcilable inter- ests. This can frequently be better done in the secret counsels of the party than in the public debates of legislative halls. And when so formu- lated into specific proposals upon which a real public opinion is possible, they will then be submitted to popular approval or rejection. Students of the labor problem are agreed that no effective compromise solution of specific conflicts between capital and labor can be effected, save through secret negotiations in which only the final result is given publicity. The same reasoning may occasionally apply to compromise measures in the field of politics. Whatever be the merits of the other phases of the direct primary, some method should be devised by which party responsibility can be preserved and the party’s capacity to achieve effective compromises care- fully safeguarded and secured. In conclusion, there seems ample justification for the statement that the direct primary in Wisconsin has helped materially to break down the party system with its accompanying theory of party responsibility. It has done this by taking the functions out of the hands of the organization and plac- ing them in the hands of the people; by diverting public attention from parties to factions and individuals; by permitting outsiders to participate in the control of party affairs by means of the open primary; and by making more difficult the processes of effective compromise which are essential to party cohesion and solidarity. Opinions of Public Men on the Value of the Direct Primary By Witu1am E. Hannan Legislative Reference Librarian, New York State Library OR the purpose of arriving at the sentiment throughout the country upon the subject of the direct primary, four questions were submitted to the governors of the various states, to state political leaders in each state, to the ed- itors of the two leading newspapers of opposite political faith in each state and, to professors of political science in certain universities and colleges. The questions submitted were as follows: 1. Is the direct primary, in regard to state-wide officers, a success or failure in your state? 2. Would the direct primary be strengthened and made more effective by the adoption of the short ballot principle? 38. Is the party nominating con- vention, with delegates thereto chosen at a primary, preferable to the direct primary? 4. Is party responsibility, obtained through the party nominating conven- tion, of more value to our system of government than the direct primary with its great reserve power which the people may use if they wish? I. Is tae Direct Primary A FAILure OR A SUCCESS? Opinions of Governors With respect to this question, replies received from the governors of fourteen states show ten more or less in favor, and four opposed. The following gov- ernors sent favorable opinions: Thomas C. McRae of Arkansas, Democrat; Henry J. Allen of Kansas, Republican; Lee M. Russell of Mississippi, Demo- erat; Arthur M. Hyde of Hlinois, 55 Republican; John J. Blaine of Wiscon- sin, Republican; Robert D. Carey of Wyoming, Republican; Davis of Vir- ginia, Republican; and Albert O. Brown of New Hampshire, Republican, who takes a rather neutral stand. A summary of opinions received shows that Democratic sentiment es- pecially endorses the direct primary. Governor Russell of Mississippi, de- clares it to be “‘the only safe method.” The experience of Nevada is particu- larly illuminating. This state, in 1909, adopted the direct primary and in 1915 went back to the party conven- tion. Governor Boyle, a Democrat, says that the first convention held in 1916 so completely disgusted the people of Nevada that an immediate demand at once arose for the restoration of the direct primary. This was done in 1917. Other governors declare that the type of official produced by the direct primary is satisfactory, and that its favor with the citizens is indicated by the opinion that the great majority of voters consider it a better method of choosing candidates than the conven- tion system. It has also done much toward lessening the power of powerfu! political machines, and has rendered a satisfactory measure of service to the state. Four of the governors take a negative stand on the direct primary. They are: Oliver T. Shoup of Colorado, Republican; Everett J. Lake of Connecticut, Republican;' Samuel R. McKelvie of Nebraska, Republican; and Charles R. Mabey of Utah, Repub- lican. 56 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY These men cite several significant facts as reasons why the primary is not satisfactory. First, it is cumbersome and expensive, and has failed to im- prove the calibre of the candidates. Furthermore, the system makes it impossible for any but a wealthy man _ to seek the higher state offices. That it is not practical, is indicated by the fact that the voter fails to give proper consideration to the selection of able minor officials, his attention being entirely absorbed by the major offices. Opinions of Chairmen of Political Partves Coming now to the opinions received from chairmen of the state central committees of the two dominant po- litical parties, one finds that the bulk of sentiment holds the primary to be a failure. Opposed to the primary are M. H. McCalla, chairman of the Demo- cratic State Central Committee of Arizona; Arthur Lyman, chairman of the Democratic State Central Com- mittee of Massachusetts; J. E. Van- Horne, executive secretary of the New Jersey Republican State Committee; J. A. Harris, former chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Oklahoma; J. N. Fisher, chairman of the Democratic State Executive Com- mittee of Tennessee; Park H. Pollard, chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee of Vermont; R. F. Dunlap, chairman of the Democratic State Executive Committee of West Virginia and T. Blake Kennedy, chair- man of the Republican State Central Committee of Wyoming. Mr. McCalla of Arizona declares that the direct primary often results (1) in the nomination of incompetents; (2) in the nomination of the entire ticket from one locality; (3) in the vio- lation of the principle of majority rule. Further expressions of opinion em- phasize the fact that the direct primary is a means of choosing men of doubtful integrity and only moderate ability; that it destroys party organization and encourages bitter campaigns among members of the same party. The voters, either through ignorance, ir- responsibility or indifference, are not capable of making choices of as intel- ligent a nature as would be made at a nominating convention. Also, it is” averred that the state-wide primary of- fers the demagogues the opportunity to stir up strife in party ranks and gives the unscrupulous newspaper a chance to poison the minds of voters against the leading candidates thereby furnishing campaign thunder fortheuse of the opposition in the regular election. Favorable opinions are far in the minority. Burt D. Cady, chairman of the Republican State Central Com- mittee of Michigan, says that the direct primary applies only to governor and lieutenant governor, and has proven a success. The other state officers are nominated by party con- vention. Alfred T. Rogers, a member of the Republican National Committee from Wisconsin, states that the primary law has been a great improvement over any other method used in that state. He believes that it would be impossible to take away from the voters this privilege of registering their individual choice for nominees. Opinions of Newspaper Editors The editors of prominent newspapers throughout the nation who replied to the questionnaire are quite evenly divided in sentiment, for and against. Those in favor are: Will Owen Jones, managing editor of the Nebraska State Journal; John H. Kelly, editor of the Sioux City Tribune; Harvey E. New- branch, editor of the Omaha World Herald and the Hon. Josephus Daniels, president of the News and Observer of North Carolina. Opinions oF Pusiic MEN ON THE VALUE OF THE Drrect Primary 57 Mr. Jones of the Nebraska State Journal, favors the direct primary be- cause it has given the people more con- trol of state governmental affairs, increased the feeling of responsibility of office-holders to the people, and has broken down powerful political ma- chines. Mr. Daniels declares it to be a partial success. Other expressions of opinion point out that the direct pri- mary is better than the system that it displaced, and that its claim to success lies in the fact that the voters have a greater opportunity to select the can- didates than formerly. Four editors are opposed. They are: Samuel S. Sherman, general man- ager of the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Times; Milo M. Thompson, editor of the Idaho Daily Statesman; Charles B. Cheney, managing editor of the Minneapolis Journal, and Gra- ham Sanford, managing editor of the Reno, Nevada, Evening Gazette. These editors who oppose the direct primary do so on the ground that the majority party is the only one to use it, the other parties making back-room nominations and centering their efforts on the nomination of inferior opposition men; that under the system dema- goguery flourishes and there is little chance to locate responsibility. Opinions of Professors of Political Scrence Of the twelve replies received from the professors of political science, seven favor the primary. They are: Victor J. West of Leland Stanford University; Allen Johnson of Yale University; P. O. Ray of Northwestern University; John A. Fairlie of the University of Ulinois; Chester J. Maxey of Western Reserve University; Frank J. Laube of the University of Washington; and the professor of political science at Wil- liams College. They take their stand on the ground that the direct primary is a decided advance over the old convention sys- tem. ‘The officials secured under the direct primary are of as high a type, on the average, as under the old system, and in general they are of a better type because they are more social-minded, more representative of the people, and less representative of the special in- terests. Argument in opposition is offered by Professor Robert Phillips of Purdue University. He holds that in Indiana the primary is less popular in its ap- plication to local offices than to state- wide offices. It is further unpopular because of the great expense entailed, thus barring the man without means. Professor Arnold B. Hall of the Univer- sity of Wisconsin, gives several reasons why he objects to the direct primary: (1) It has broken down party respon- sibility and developed factionalism, due to the open primary; (2) it has resulted in minority control; (3) it has tremendously increased the expense of candidates. Karl F. Geiser of Oberlin College, and Isador Loeb of the Univer- sity of Missouri, are also opposed to the direct primary. Il. WouLtp THE Primary Be BEnNs- FITED BY THE ADOPTION OF THE SHort BAaLuot? Opinions of Governors Of the ten governors replying to this question, six give an affirmative and four a negative answer. The affirma- tive replies are from Governors Shoup of Colorado; Allen of Kansas; Hyde of Missouri; Dixon of Montana; McKel- vie of Nebraska; and Boyle of Nevada. Governor Allen believes that the short ballot would strengthen the pri- mary. He states that the people will not take the trouble to become ac- quainted with the capacities of the candidates for the subordinate posi- tions, and the places requiring technical 58 capacity can be filled better by the appointive system. Other expressions of opinion favor the short ballot for the following reasons: Good government comes from concentrating admuinistra- tive power in the hands of the fewest number of persons possible, with the result that responsibility can be di- rectly located; also, as a business proposition, the governor, charged with the duty of efficiently administer- ing state affairs, should have the right to surround himself with heads of the cobrdinated departments, who would effectively codperate with him in what- ever administrative policy he might adopt. The negative answers are given by Governors McRae of Arkansas; Mabey of Utah; Davis of Virginia; and Blaine of Wisconsin. Governor Davis feels that the short ballot is a questionable remedy for the ignorance of the voters in that it would slightly, but not materially, strengthen the direct pri- mary. Others suggest the primary ballot is shorter than the election bal- lot, and therefore its adoption would not necessarily have a good effect. Opinions of Chairmen of Political Parties Five of these officers oppose the short ballot. They are: Mr. Cady, Republican; Mr. McCloud, Repub- lican; Mr. Fisher, Democrat; Mr. Pollard, Democrat; and Mr. Kennedy, Republican. These men give as reasons for their opposition to the adoption of the short ballot the fact that to give to the chief executive power to appoint sub- ordinate state officers, is contrary to the spirit of our government and would further tend to destroy our organization; and also that there is difficulty in arousing the interest of the voters in the primary as well as the regular election, and there is no guar- 7 co Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY antee that the short ballot would arouse this increased interest. Those favoring the short ballot in- clude Mr. VanHorne, Republican; Mr. Hurley, Democrat; and Mr. Dunlap, Democrat. Mr. Hurley says that the short ballot principle would simplify the task of voting and make it much easier to locate responsibility, thus enabling the discerning voter to act more. intel- ligently in the selection of candidates. Mr. VanHorne cites the case of New Jersey, in which state the governor is , the only officer elected by state-wide vote, the minor state officers being appointed. Opinions of Newspaper Editors Of the eight editors replying to this question, seven favor the short ballot, and one opposes it. ‘The editors who sent favorable opinions include Mr. Sherman of the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Times; Mr. Thompson of the Idaho Daily Statesman; Mr. Kelly of the Sioux City Tribune; Mr. Cheney of the Minneapolis Journal; Mr. Jones of the Nebraska State Journal; Mr. Newbranch of the Omaha W orld-Herald and Mr. Daniels of the News Observer. The reasons given by the above men for their favorable opinion may be summarized as follows: Inasmuch as there would be fewer candidates to consider, there would be less confusion due to the injection of many personal fights. Not one voter in a thousand knows who all of the candidates are or what principles they represent, and he therefore votes the greater part of his choices in absolute ignorance. The people can think of only one thing at a time, and when they are called upon to elect a score of officers the miner positions become merely a “ grab-bag.”’ The lone negative amongst the edi- tors is Mr. Sanford of the Reno Evening Gazette. He states that the short ballot Opinions or Pusuic MEN ON THE VALUE OF THE Direct Primary 59 would not help the primary in Nevada because the population is small, the elective state officers not many and the candidates are personally known to a very large number of the electors. Opinions of Professors of Political Scrence In answer to this question, eight favor the short ballot, and three oppose it. Those who are in favor are: Pro- fessors West, Ray, Fairlie, Loeb, Maxey, Geiser, Hall, and Laube. Pro- fessor Maxey maintains that the direct primary will never be effective until we eliminate the long ballot which causes blind voting and is responsible for many of the alleged defects of the direct primary system. In addition, another points out that the short ballot would limit the operation of the pri- mary to those offices where public opinion exists and where caprice, accident and irresponsible publicity would not control. The short ballot would permit a more intelligent vote by enabling the electorate to concentrate on a few political offices. Professors Phillips, Haines and the professor of political science at Wil- liams College are in opposition to the short ballot. Professor Phillips takes a rather neutral stand. He says that while the short ballot would probably make possible a more centralized, responsible and efficient government, the same gain might be made by the adoption of the short ballot under the nominating convention system. The short ballot principle, therefore, is not an argument for or against the primary. Ill. Is tHe Party Nominatine Con- VENTION WITH DELEGATES THERE- To CHOSEN AT A PRIMARY, PREF- ERABLE TO THE Direct PRIMARY? Opinions of Governors Eight out of the ten governors replying believe the direct primary preferable, ‘They are: Governors Allen of Kansas, Russell of Mississippi, Hyde of Missouri, Dixon of Montana, McKel- vie of Nebraska, Boyle of Nevada, Davis of Virginia, Blaine of Wisconsin. Governor Hyde of Missouri, declares that the direct primary is the people’s answer to the abuses of the convention system. Other of the governors hold the convention less preferable because the people are opposed to it on account of the fact that it is favored by the corporations and money interests and because the delegates to the convention do not represent their will. Governor Blaine states as his reason for favoring the direct primary that it is easier to vote direct for a candidate than to reach the same result through an agent. Governor Carey favoring the con- vention in preference to the direct pri- mary, believes that under the conven- tion system the delegates would be practically pledged to the candidate, the general ticket might be better balanced, and the various parts of the state better represented. Opinions of Chairmen of Political Parties The various political party chairmen are practically unanimous in favoring the convention system. Seven of the nine replying favor, and two oppose, the convention system. The officials replying favorably are: Mr. Lynch, Democrat; Mr. Lyman, Democrat; Mr. Cady, Republican; Mr. McCloud, Re- publican; Mr. VanHorne, Republican; Mr. Fisher, Democrat; Mr. eae Republican. Mr. VanHorne, Rabe ee states that, as a newspaper man, he has seen the “Boss”? defeated under the con- vention system more times than he won. It is further observed that the candidates selected by the direct pri- mary are not of as high an order as those selected by the party convention. It is believed that the convention plan should be used in the nomination of 60 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY minor state officers and the direct pri- mary in the selection of the chief ex- ecutive and lieutenant-governor. ‘The fact that. the direct primary adds additional expense to an already over- burdened political machine is used as argument in favor of the convention. Mr. Dunlap says that in theory the primary is the ideal manner of nomina- tion, but where there is no enforcement of the laws and its penalties are full of loopholes, the direct primary becomes impotent and but a shadow of what it really should be. If there could be awakened a determination to enforce our election laws, then the direct pri- mary would be best. Opinions of Newspaper Editors The opinion of the editors is a tie upon this question. The following editors are in favor of the convention: Mr. Sherman of the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Times, Mr. Thomp- son of the Idaho Daily Statesman, Mr. Cheney of the Minneapolis Journal and Mr. Sanford of the Reno Evening Gazette. According to Mr. Thompson, under the convention plan, the undesirable candidates can be eliminated for the good of the ticket, and, further, there are men who would accept a conven- tion nomination who would have noth- ing to do with a direct primary. He also believes that a platform cannot be brought into harmony with candidates and candidates into harmony with the platform except by a convention. Opinion is also expressed that under the convention system it is possible to eliminate personal antagonisms and bring about harmony and draft a good man for office. In the convention the party’s policy can be determined, instead of leaving the task to an indi- vidual, as in the case of the primary. The result would be that the people of the state would vote intelligently on issues and locate responsibility. The fear of control through combina- tions is given as a reason why the direct primary is preferable to the convention. The Hon. Josephus Daniels of the News and Observer of North Carolina, believes that the direct primary gives a better chance to the people than the state convention. He holds that the primary fails only when the people lack interest, or when the party ma- chine is so powerful that the people feel that there is no opportunity to win against the bosses. Opinions of Professors of Political Science The instructors in the science of government by a majority of one favor the party nominating convention as against.the direct primary. Professor Phillips favors the former, as does the professor of political science at Williams College, Professor Loeb of the University of Missouri, Professor Maxey of Western Reserve University, Professor Geiser of Oberlin College, Professor Hall of the University of Wisconsin. Professor Hall says that in his judgment the convention plan is de- cidedly preferable because: (1) It pro- vides for majority control; (2) it makes for party solidarity and responsibility; (3) it places a premium upon leadership of the party, rather than upon irre- sponsible newspapers, and the caprice of a popular election where no public opinion canexist. He holds that many excellent candidates have been chosen upon the advice of party leaders, who never would have been candidates under the primary system. Professor Geiser of Oberlin College, is inclined to favor the convention plan if the long ballot is retained, but only if it is. Five professors favor the direct pri- mary. They are: Professors West of Leland Stanford University, Ray of Northwestern University, Fairlie of the University of Illinois, Haines of the OpINIoNs oF Pusiic MEN on THE VALUE OF THE Direct Primary 61 University of Texas and Laube of the University of Washington. Opinion is expressed that if the old convention system was restored, fewer voters would take the trouble to go to the polls to choose delegates than go now to the primaries to directly nomi- nate their candidates. People must not be allowed to forget the rottenness of the old convention system which is now being lugged forward by the political machinists as a substitute for the direct primary. It is pointed out that the party nominating convention has notoriously delivered the state into hands of special interests and their party agents. IV. Is Party Responsisiniry Opn- TAINED BY MEANS OF THE Party NOMINATING CONVENTION OF More VALvuE To Our System oF GOVERNMENT THAN THE DrREcT Primary with Its Great Re- SERVE PoWER? Opinions of Governors A majority of the governors replying to this question consider the direct primary of more value than the party convention. The seven who oppose the convention are: Governors Russell, Dixon, McKelvie, Boyle, Davis, Blaine and Carey. They suggest the following reasons why the primary is preferable: The state’s business is not the party’s busi- ness, it is the people’s business; it is not possible to have representative government through any method other than the direct primary, and if the method of making nominations under the direct primary is hedged about with the proper safeguards, it is still possible to maintain party respon- sibility, and yet put the work of nominating candidates more directly in the hands of the people. Governor Shoup of Colorado states that the direct primary has failed of its purpose, and should be revised or modified. He favors the convention system. Governor Mabey of Utah is the other who favors the convention as against the direct primary. Opinions of Chairmen of Political Parties Of the eleven chairmen of political parties giving their opinions upon this question, eight favor the nominating convention and three oppose it. The following favor the convention: Mr. Lynch, Democrat; Mr. Lyman, Demo- crat; Mr. Kennedy, Republican; Mr. Harris, Republican; Mr. VanHorne, Republican; Mr. Fisher, Democrat; Mr. Pollard, Democrat; and Mr. Dun- lap, Democrat. Mr. Pollard is of the opinion that the party, whose tag all the candidates bear, can claim no responsibility for the action of the candidate under the primary law. Mr. Fisher believes that the best government is composed of two strong political parties, each watching the other and each ready to go before the people and lay bare the record of each, therefore allowing the people to choose the party giving them the best government. He says that the difficulty with the direct primary in Tennessee is that many people will not vote so as to be free to vote as they desire in the regular election. This tends to destroy party unity and when party unity is destroyed, the govern- ment has been struck ‘a tremen- dous blow. Opinion is also expressed that the party responsibility obtained through the party nominating conven- tion is more valuable to our system of government than the primary with its reserve power. Three chairmen oppose the nominat- ing convention. They are Mr. Cady, Republican; Mr. Hurley, Democrat; and Mr. Rogers, Republican. It is maintained that party responsibility is 62 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY secondary to the responsibility of the officer to his constituency, and that party responsibility is as often avoided through the convention as itisassumed. Most of the trouble from political evils is due to the general inertia on the part of the public and to the great energy and astuteness on the part of the pro- fessional politician. Opinions of Newspaper Editors Four of the editors favor party responsibility of the convention, and three favor the direct primary. Mr. Sherman of the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Times advocates a combina- tion of party responsibility with the initiative power of the direct primary. He holds that the worst feature of the primary is the fact that the voters are so poorly informed regarding the can- didates. The result is that we often get worse candidates than we would through the old party convention. - The convention is also held favorably by Mr. Thompson of the Idaho States- man, Mr. Cheney of the Minneapolis Journal and Mr. Sanford of the Reno Evening Gazette. It is maintained that party responsibility is much to be desired, and that through the primary system the public loses the services of men who are unwilling to offer them- selves as voluntary candidates, but whose candidacy could be obtained through convention nominations. Mr. Sanford believes that a sense of respon- sibility prevails in a convention which is not to be found to the same extent in a direct primary. Mr. Jones of the Nebraska State Journal, Mr. Newbranch of the Omaha World-Herald, and Mr. Kelly of the Sioux City Tribune take the opposite point of view. Mr. Newbranch main- tains that popular power is a bigger thing than party responsibility. Ac- cording to Mr. Kelly, party expediency always overrules responsibility and pledges, and party personal respon- sibility is not so binding as personal responsibility. Opinions of Professors of Political Science Of the eleven instructors in political science giving their opinions, eight consider the reserve power secured by the direct primary of more value than party responsibility. Those who favor party responsibility through the con- ventions are, Professors Phillips, Loeb and Hall. They hold that the party is a specialized institution, and ought to take care of the function of nomina- tions better than the people. Further- more, any method other than party responsibility imposes too many bur- dens upon the elector, presupposes too much continuous interest and observa- tion of his representatives, and too intimate a knowledge of the details of the various offices which are now filled by popular election. Eight of the professors favor the reserve power of the direct primary. They are: Professors West, Ray, Fairlie, Maxey, Geiser, Haines, Laube and the professor of political science at Williams College. Professor Ray believes that the party responsibility which went with the convention system is a good deal exaggerated. The politician realizes that the term “Responsibility” is a good talking point in trying to “sell” again to the public the old convention system under which bossism and ma- chine rule flourished as under no other system. ‘The opinion is expressed that party responsibility is of less than no value where the responsibility does not run through the party to the electorate. The party nominating system in prac- tice destroyed the responsibility by delivering the agencies of government into the hands of political corrup- tionists, Reform of Presidential Nominating Methods By P. Orman Ray, Pu.D. Professor Political Science, Northwestern University HE nomination of presidential candidates has given rise to some of the most baffling problems in the whole field of American government and politics—problems which challenge the ingenuity of party leaders and professional politicians, on the one hand, and of disinterested political scientists, on the other. Unfortu- nately, however, little has been at- tempted and still less has been ac- complished in an endeavor to reach a solution which is consistent with twentieth century ideals of democracy. HAPHAZARD MerrHops Without serious deviation from the truth, one may say that our methods of selecting presidential candidates, like Topsy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, have “just grow d.” Not even in the hey- day of the old congressional caucus; nor later when the delegate convention was hailed as the ideal organ for ex- pressing the vox populi; nor in the last dozen years, which have witnessed the grafting of the direct primary upon the convention system, has there been united and sustained effort on the part of press, politicians, or publicists, to develop a rational method for the selection of candidates for the highest office within the gift of the Ameri- ean people. Until very recently each party has been, and in the main still is, a law unto itself in the matter of nominating its candidates; and that law, as reflected in the rules and pro- ceedings of the national nominating conventions of the major parties, has been more largely the result of haphazard growth than of a conscious or deliberate effort to provide means 63 for full and free expression of the senti- ment of the mass of party voters. IGNORANCE OF THE VOTER Popular ignorance and indifference regarding presidential nominating proc- esses are astonishing and would be almost incredible were it not for the fact that, as things now are, the ordi- nary voter’s influence in the winnowing of the aspirants for the presidential nomination is almost nil. Certainly, taking the country by and large, it can scarcely be. gainsaid that Mr. Average Voter has practically no direct influence in determining the presidential and vice-presidential nom- inees of his party. That is all done for him by an extra-legal and _ irre- sponsible national convention com- posed of delegates who are personally unknown to him, for whom he may have had no opportunity to vote, with whose presidential preferences or political views he may be wholly unacquainted, and whose organization and proceedings in national convention are governed by no law, state or na- tional. As a result the only real in- fluence which the average voter has in the choice of President and Vice- President is exercised on presidential election day. Even then, all that he ean do is to indicate his preference between the candidates which the Democratic and the Republican na- tional conventions have seen fit to submit for his formal approval; or, if dissatisfied with these, he may exer- cise the inestimable privilege of ‘‘throw- ing away” his ballot by voting for the candidates of some third party whose running probably will not have 64 Tar ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY the slightest influence upon the result of the election. PRESIDENTIAL Primary LAws The national convention system, however sound in theory, as an em- bodiment or application of the repre- sentative principle to the selection of party candidates and as supplying a certain kind of leadership in party affairs, has, nevertheless, in actual practice, become thoroughly dis- credited and is today an object of very general suspicion. Asa protest against the relegation of the electorate to the ‘position of a mere ratifying body, and as a repudiation of the tacit as- sumption that although the voters are admittedly competent to elect their President and Vice-President, they are incapable of nominating them directly, nearly half of the states have enacted during the past twelve years what are called presidential primary laws. Though varying greatly in de- tails, they all have this in common: they are attempts, crude to be sure but on the whole sincere, to give the rank and file of party voters a more direct. voice in naming presidential candidates than they have previously enjoyed. Underlying all the presi- dential primary laws are two definite principles: first, that delegates to a national convention shall be elected as directly as possible by the voters; and, second, that the voters shall be given an opportunity, as directly as possible, to impress upon the delegates their choice for presidential candidates. Many supporters of the national convention system who concede the | desirability of a more direct method of choosing delegates than has prevailed generally in the past, nevertheless are unalterably opposed to the presi- dential primary because, as_ they claim, the people are incapable of choosing wisely among the various presidential aspirants; and because better selections can be made for them by a “deliberative” body, like the national convention, representing all parts of the country. To this contention advocates of the presidential primary reply that the people are rather more likely to choose wisely their candidates for President and Vice-President than their candi- dates for the less conspicuous state, county, or local offices, to which the direct primary method is very gener- ally applied. Indeed, so runs the argument, “there is no other political office which the people watch as closely as they do the contest for the first place on the national tickets of the great political parties every four years; the result is that in no other phase of political activity is the average voter better qualified than he is to choose candidates for President of the United States.”! The voters, to be sure, may not always choose wisely their candidates for President and Vice-President, any more than they always make wise selections for state and local offices. But those who claim the presidential primary ‘is sound in principle, insist that it is better that the people should make their own mistakes than that they should be required to endure the mistakes which a handful of convention manipulators may make for them. They reiterate that if the voters can be trusted to choose between candidates for office, they can be trusted to choose between candidates for nomination. “Grant the blunders and confess the disappointments, the true question is whether the presidential primary prop- erly safeguarded, is not better fitted than the old way to satisfy the people that their wishes are respected in the election of their rulers. To create such a feeling of satisfaction is one 1 Outlook, C, 164 (1912). ReEForM OF PRESIDENTIAL Nominatinec Mernops of the great ends of democratic govern- ment.” VARIATIONS IN Primary Laws In order to enhance the influence of the rank and file of the party, which is the immediate objective of the opponents or critics of the old conven- tion system, several different methods are set forth in the presidential primary laws which have been enacted since 1910. In some states the laws merely require that all delegates to the national conventions be elected directly by the party voters, instead of indirectly in district or state conventions, over which the ordinary voter has been able in the past to exert little or no direct influence. Standing alone, such requirements of course give the voters practically no more direct voice in naming candidates than they had previously. Still less direct influence is granted in those states which do not require the election of delegates in with the state party committees to adopt the direct primary or adhere to the older convention method of choosing delegates. Another group of states, in order to give the voter some idea respecting the presidential preferences of those who are seeking election as delegates to the national convention, permit such candidates to indicate on the primary ballot’ their preference, or lack of preference, among the several aspirants for the presidential nomination of their party. A fourth group of states have gone, much further in their efforts to enable the desires of the rank and fileto become articulate. Not satisfied with giving the party voters an indirect opportunity to express their own preferences, these states permit the voters both to choose delegates directly and to record directly their preferences as between the several presidential aspirants; and have at- 6 65 tempted, usually with disappointing results, to make the outcome of such a presidential preference vote binding upon the district delegates or upon the delegates-at-large or upon both. Recent ReEsuutts DIsAPpPorIntine Any criticism of these presidential primary laws must begin by admitting that the new system at least seemed to promise to afford some real improve- ment upon the old. Whatever de- fects may have developed, and they are numerous, most of these laws at least compel a fight in the open; from the very start candidates and their supporters are under public observa- tion, so that “gumshoe stalking of delegates”? and the secret buying of convention votes are at all events made more difficult. Conceding this, as well as the sound- ness of the principle upon which the presidential primary system is based, . one nevertheless is compelled to admit a direct primary but leave it optional. in all candor that it proved thoroughly disappointing in the campaigns of 1916 and 1920. Indeed, in the pre-con- vention contest of 1916, the circum- stances were such as to render the presidential primary next to useless. In the Democratic Party there was no contest whatever: President Wiul- son’s renomination was a foregone conclusion. On the Republican side, due consideration of the proprieties prevented the submission of Justice Hughes’ name in a primary contest; and Colonel Roosevelt had forbidden any primary contest to be made in his behalf. Other presidential possibilities had only a local and relatively insig- nificant following, so that the primary voting was reduced to complimentary expressions for “favorite sons,’ no one of whom developed any real strength outside his own state. ‘The presiden- tial primary thus gave no aid and pointed to no conclusion in the nomi- 66 Ture ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY nation of presidential candidates that year. Scarcely more can be said for it in the pre-convention canvass of 1920; and today, mention of the subject evokes but slight interest and _ still less enthusiasm among laymen and politicians alike. Despite these _pri- mary laws, the national conventions continue to be a law unto themselves and to have the last word respecting the choice of nominees. The experiences of the last three presidential campaigns thus appear to justify the widely held opinion that the presidential primary is not likely to be of real value, so far as the direct choice of presidential candidates is concerned, except at a time when there is a real contest which grips the rank and file of the party; or when there is a single issue, or a limited number of absorbing issues, together with candidates big enough to fill the horizon of the popular mind. Under any other conditions, that is to say, under normal conditions, it may well be doubted whether a presidential primary, operating under widely di- verse state laws, will ever give the sank and file of party members that in- creased weight and influence in select- ing presidential candidates which the early advocates of the system con- fidently predicted. REASONS FOR FAILURE How are we to account for these disappointing results in practice, of a system which, in theory, has so much to commend it? The explanation is to be looked for either in certain defects which characterize the existing presidential primary system as a whole, or in defects which appear in one or more of the laws of the several states that employ the system. What- ever may be said against the old con- vention system, it possessed’ at least the merit of being nation-wide in its operations and of securing substantial uniformity throughout the country in the manner of choosing delegates. Our presidential primary laws, on the other hand, are as diverse as our divorce laws. Not only are they restricted to less than one half of the states, but they do not operate with uniform efficiency even within the range of their limited possibilities. Their differ- ences in important details are so great as seriously to impair the value of the system as an index of party sentiment. Indeed, lack of uniformity, not merely in minor details but also in essentials, sums up perhaps as well as can be done in a single phrase, the salient and serious short-comings of state presi- dential primary laws. For example, the time for choosing delegates is strung along all the way from March to early June; thus lend- ing encouragement to migratory cam- paigns from state to state in the interest of various aspirants, which have been not inaptly likened to the peregrina- tions of a circus troupe. Lack of uniformity likewise appears in the way in which delegates are to be gov- erned by the direct or indirect prefer- ential vote cast in the primary. Of the numerous variations in this particular only two’ need be mentioned here: some laws give to the preferential vote of the state at large the effect of instruc- tions binding upon all delegates, thus introducing a species of unit rule; others permit the preferential vote of the congressional district to govern the action of the district delegates, although the state-wide vote may have registered a different popular choice. Furthermore, no state has devised a satisfactory, or even workable method of determining how long and on what preliminary questions in the convention the delegates must act in accordance with the expressed preferences of their respective states or districts. _Numer- RerorM OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING Metnops 67 ous other more or less serious points of variation have been catalogued else- where,? but the foregoing are unques- tionably the most fundamental defects of the existing presidential primary system, if system it can properly be ealled. And it may be added that their elimination, without destroying the system itself, presents a problem unsurpassed in difficulty by none other in the wide range of prattical politics. And, finally, to defects that are at- tributable to diversity in primary laws should be added the criticism that the system is extremely cumbersome and inevitably costly. No man can run effectively for the presidential nomina- tion in all, or even in a considerable number of the state primaries without the expenditure of large sums of money. Granting that this all goes for per- fectly legitimate purposes, such ex- penditures none the less, are bound to give rise to disquieting rumors and suspicions, and thus tend to undermine that popular confidence in the primary system which is essential for its suc- cessful operation. PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENT Confronted then on the one hand by an unsatisfactory and discredited national convention system and on the other hand, by an equally faulty and distrusted presidential primary system, where are we to look for escape from what seems to many to be an inescapable dilemma? Can these two institutions be made to work together effectively so as to give clear and unmistakable expression to the will of the majority, or are they so mutually incompatible that one or the other of them must go into the discard? The debacle of the convention sys- 2 See F. M. Davenport, ‘“‘The Failure of the Presidential Primary,’ Outlook, CXII, 807 (1916); R.S. Boots, ‘‘ The Presidential Primary,” Nat. Mun. Rev., 1X, Supplement, 608-610 (1920). tem in 1912 led many people then to suppose that its day had passed for- ever, and to give hearty endorsement to President Wilson’s recommendation, made the following year,’ that the national convention be radically re- organized and cease entirely to function as a nominating body. If recon- stituted in accordance with this recom- mendation, the national convention of each party would consist of nom- inees for vacant seats in the Senate, the senators whose terms have not yet closed, the national committees, and the candidates for the presidency themselves; and the sole work of the convention would be the adoption of the party platform by those persons responsible to the people for carrying it out. The actual nomination of candidates was to be vested in the rank and file of the party membership and determined in a uniform direct primary regulated by national law, the enactment of which the President urged upon Congress. Following this message, a number of bills were introduced into Congress in 1914, designed to carry out, in whole or in part, the President’s recommendation. Nothing came of them, however, for the movement to obtain a national presidential primary law soon ran against the stone wall of unconstitutionality: no grant of power, express, or implied, can be found in the Constitution to Justify Congress in enacting any of the pro- posed legislation. After this dis- covery, agitation for a federal presi- dential primary law subsided; and since then, both lay and professional interest in the subject seems to have been com- pletely overshadowed by the World War and its aftermath. But with 3 First Annual Message to Congress, Decem- ber, 1913. 4These bills are summarized in American Year Book, 1914, pp. 68-71. 68 Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY the campaign of 1924 rapidly drawing near, is it not time for a revival of discussion of the merits and defects of the national convention system, of the state presidential primary system, and of possible substitutes therefor, in the hope that a sufficient public interest may be roused to secure a genuine re- form of our presidential nominating procedure in the near future? LAUNCHING THE REFORM MOVEMENT If the major parties and their candi- dates for national offices are not ready to bring forward on their own initiative a constructive program of reform, perhaps they can be impressed with the importance of so doing by means of systematic and contructive agitation fostered by disinterested non-partisan bodies. Why should not the initiative in bringing about a dispassionate review and analysis of the various problems involved in the selection of presidential candidates and in starting agitation for reform be assumed by such organizations as the Academy of Political and Social Science, the Ameri- can Political Science Association, the National Municipal League, the National League of Women Voters, and perhaps other non-partisan groups? Can any good reason be advanced against the appointment by each of these organizations of collaborating committees to make an intensive study of the problems involved in this re- form movement; to enlist the active interest and codperation of party leaders; to outline desirable and prom- ising lines of procedure for the achieve- ment of thoroughgoing reforms; to rouse public interest and assist in creating an intelligent public opinion; and to formulate drafts of constitu- tional amendments and _ legislative measures which, serving as starting points, may eventually lead to real and important and permanent im- provements? Perhaps a national con- ference on the reform of presidential ' nominating methods might be called by joint action of such committees. The present writer is unwilling to be- lieve that the difficult problems re- ferred to in the preceding pages are beyond the possibility of solution within the lifetime of most men and women now living, or that the in- genuity and resourcefulness of American political scientists and party leaders are bankrupt or even exhausted. SEPARATE STATE ACTION OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Those who believe that the presi- dential primary has not been given a fair and thorough trial and are there- fore unwilling to concede that it cannot be made to work satisfactorily, are urged to organize and to renew agita- tion for the adoption of a more perfect presidential primary system than we now have. Their activities may be _ directed toward one or the other of two possible objectives, each of which is going to be extremely difficult of attainment, and for that very reason should constitute a stimulating chal- lenge to those who are dissatisfied with things as they are. In the first place, a national committee on a uniform presidential primary Jaw might be organized, which, after thor- ough study, should draft a “model” presidential primary law and seek in all legitimate ways to secure its enact- ment state by state. Obviously such a committee would function after the manner of its prototype, the National Child Labor Committee or through the Commissioner on Uniform State Laws. Its progress will inevitably be slow and perhaps discouragingly so; and for this reason many supporters of the 5 See F. W. Dickey, “‘The Presidential Prefer- ence Primary,” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., UX, 467-487 (1915). ReForM oF PRESIDENTIAL NomiNAaTING Mernops presidential primary may feel that it is hopeless to expect much relief in the near future, if ever, through separate albeit uniform state legislation. Such persons no doubt will find the alterna- tive line of action more to their liking; namely, an organized movement to bring about the adoption of a federal constitutional amendment empowering | Congress to regulate the methods of | nominating candidates for the_presi=~ dency and vice-presidency./ This sec- “ond line of action, in the opinion of the present writer, appears far more likely to result in fundamental and _per- manent improvements than can ever be expected to follow an attempt to secure uniform presidential primary laws in forty-eight different states. If this view is correct, the friends of reform should be rallied and organized for a vigorous and sustained and in- telligent drive to obtain a federal con- stitutional amendment. There must be an impressive demonstration of re- form sentiment of course, before the major parties and their congressional candidates will pledge their support to the submission of the necessary constitutional amendment to the sev- eral states. But with public séntiment sufficiently aroused, parties and candi- dates will find it expedient to act. The proposed amendment should be so worded as not to restrict Con- gress to the choice of any particular plan governing presidential nomina- tions; on the contrary, that body should be given unrestricted freedom to adopt any system: of regulation. Agitation for a federal constitutional amendment, however, will inevitably be accompanied by wide discussion of possible lines of legislation which Congress might adopt in acting under the broad grant of power just indicated. Here, of course, sharp differences of opinion are certain to develop, as in the case of other important questions 69 of public policy. Some will advocate the direct popular nomination of presidential candidates and the radical reorganization, perhaps the virtual abandonment, of the national con- vention, substantially along the lines recommended by President Wilson. Others will be content merely to pro- vide for the direct election of delegates — to national conventions in a uniform / manner on a uniform day throughout the country, for a more equitable basis of representation in those bodies, and for legal regulation of their pro- cedure, especially in the case of con- — — testing delegations; but, in all other essential respects, they would prefer | to leave the present national conven- tion system unchanged. Between these two extremes, numerous other plans are certain to be advanced in one quarter or another. The plan favored by the present writer falls in this middle class. He 1s fully aware of the shortcomings, the sins of omission and commission of the national convention; neverthe- less, he finds it hard to believe that, in a country three thousand miles wide and having more than fifty million potential voters who represent the most diverse economic, social, and political interests, we can afford to abolish, or even emasculate, the na- tional convention and substitute direct popular nomination of presidential candidates even under a_ uniform national primary law. As Senator Davenport of New York has so truly said: ‘‘A leaderless democracy is a delusion. The need in a vast country, like our own, of a genuinely repre- sentative national convention to de- bate and sift out policies and candidates is becoming more and, not less certain. We ought never to give up the na- tional convention for a_ leaderless national primary.” 70 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY RESPONSIBLE CONVENTION LEADER- SHIP But if we are not to abandon the national convention, its organization and procedure must be regulated by national law, and it must be made to function in such a manner as not to defeat or override party sentiment, but on the contrary, furnish the open, responsible, and official leadership in the selection of candidates and de- termination of party policy which is so much needed. Genuinely responsi-. ble leadership on the part of the con- vention, however, implies that the last word in the selection of presi- dential candidates must reside with the rank and file of party voters, and not with the convention, as at present. To insure that this leadership shall be a truly responsible leadership, there- fore, a uniform, nation-wide, direct primary is indispensable; but the log- ical time for holding it is not previous to a national convention but subse- quently. Its function should not be to elect delegates and seek to control their action in convention by more or less futile instructions or preferential votes; on the contrary, the sole func- tion of the primary should be a far more important one, namely, to make the..final...choice..of..candidates for the presideney...and..vice-presidency from a list previously selected and submitted by the national convention. In other words, both national convention and presidential primary should be _ re- tained, but their relations should be exactly reversed. With the final de- cision as to nominees in the hands of the mass of party voters, expressed through a nation-wide primary held a month or so after the convention has met to sift the various aspirants and formulate a platform, the present danger of the ultimate control of nom- inations falling into the hands of con- vention manipulators would largely disappear, and popular confidence in the presidential primary—now fast waning—would be restored. Under such an arrangement, the new role of the national convention would be restricted to drafting the party platform and to the selection of not more than five or six names to be submitted to the party voters at the ensuing primary for final decision. The aspirant receiving the highest number of votes in the primary would thereby become the candidate for the presidency, and the one receiving the next highest vote (unless he were already President or an ex-President) should be bound to accept the nomi- nation for the vice-presidency. Not the least of the advantages claimed for such a system is that it is almost certain to result in the selection of vice-presidential candidates of uni- formly higher grade than has pre- vailed in most periods of our history.® Space does not permit elaboration, of the advantages which may reason- ably be claimed for such a nominating method over existing practices; nor even outlining the details that should be provided for by congressional legis- lation in order to make such a scheme workable, further than to say that undoubtedly the composition of the national convention needs to _ be changed in order to make it a more wieldy, a more deliberative, and a more representative body; but the precise method of determining its membership becomes of secondary importance. If the final decision re- specting nominations is to be placed in the hands of the party electorate, there is much to be said in favor of limiting the national conventions to 6 Substantially this plan is set forth in some- what more detail by H. T. Pulsifer, ““The Pig and the Primary,’ Outlook, CXXVI, 19-21 (1920). RrEForM OF PRESIDENTIAL NoMINATING Mernops ya national committeemen and state cen- tral committeemen from the several states. At any rate, however con- stituted, voting power in the conven- tion should obviously be based upon party voting strength in the several states; and the present illogical ap- portionment of votes on approximately a population basis should be abandoned into the discard. Sine Qua Non or REFORM However numerous and however diverse may be the plans which are brought forward to improve our presi- dential nominating procedure, nothing but good can come from the discussions and comparisons which they are cer- tain to provoke; and the writer is optimistic enough to believe that they are likely to result in something far superior to the system with which we have been muddling along for ~ so many years. ‘The one thing needful for all friends of reform to remember is that they must avoid becoming so closely wedded to their own pet reform projects. as to lose sight of the fact that the first important objective is not the enactment of any particular one of these plans; indeed their re- spective merits are, at present, of quite secondary importance and will remain so for some time to come. The principal thing to stress now is ‘the need for complete unity and harmony and tireless energy, in creat- ing a public sentiment favorable to a federal constitutional amendment, em- powering Congress to regulate the method of nominating candidates for President and Vice-President. ‘That amendment is the sine qua non for the success of any plan of reform, however meritorious and however widely sup- ported. Party Platforms in State Politics By Raupxy §. Boors University of Nebraska HE occasional efforts of the courts to determine legislative intent for the purpose of interpreting some obscure enactment are now and then amost ludicrous, especially in view of certain not unusual procedural practices among law-making bodies. How much more is the private in- vestigator prone to err in attempting to understand the meaning of a law in some distant state with the local conditions of which he is quite un- familiar. It is related that a com- petent student of political science once engaged in conversation a fellow rail- way-passenger from another section of the country and commented on the significance of a recent change in the organization of a large city. “‘“Oh, we did that only to get rid of So-and-so,”’ was the reply. ‘To assure reasonable accuracy, at any rate in details, it is almost necessary for a writer on the law governing parties and party ac- tivities to confine his observations to a field in which he possesses personal acquaintance with men and measures, and a knowledge of the history of local politics. Argument in support of this proposition will be superfluous to those who are familiar with the frequent inadequacy of the indexes of the volumes of state statutes, or to those who have tried to puzzle out the import of a long amending clause by comparing it with the original act. In the cause of merely learning the phraseology of the law, it is un- fortunate for the investigator and others, not only that the rule of a few states that “amending bills shall be so prepared and printed as to show the 72 new matter proposed, old matter to be retained, and old matter to be omitted from the statutes,” is not the rule of all, but also that the same rule is not everywhere employed in the printing of the statutes. Perhaps a lobby of the aggrieved. could be organized. If one were to judge the importance attached to the party platform by the references to it in the indexes of election laws, or even by the space devoted to it in such laws, he would conclude that it is a matter of little moment. ‘There is reason to believe that such a conclusion would be correct. We seem to be witnessing the passing of the platform. It is reported that in reply to a recent inquiry from a friend in New York who had wired: “Did the in- dustrial court play any part in the recent election results?”’, William Allen White epitomized the situation in the following telegram: “Industrial court played important part in election. Was vigorously supported in Republi- can platform and violently denounced in Democratic platform and_ issue hotly contested in election. People voted for Democratic governor pledged to repeal the law, and elected Republi- can legislature pledged to sustain law. Tune in, and when you pick up vox populi vox dei wire me col- lect.” Recent Errorts to REGULATE PLATFORM CONTENT Yet there are indications that plat- forms are not passing without protest, and several recent efforts to restore Party PLATFORMS 7 he- convey an their vitality may be noted. store’’ may, of course, unwarranted implication. The efforts of the Republicans in the national campaign of 1920 may hardly be asserted to denote a concern over the meaninglessness and | in- adequacy of platforms. They were, rather, a bid for popular support on the basis of apparent willingness to consult the country regarding its needs. Probably everyone will agree that the net effect of those efforts was nil. There is an _ interesting ‘story of the substitution at the last moment of an off-hand paragraph, hurriedly penciled by a well-known party leader, in lieu of one over which the experts on platform had labored long and assiduously. The most ambitious plan to revive party conflicts on lines of principle was no doubt that of the Richards law in South Dakota, 1918. Local “proposalmen,” for issues and candidates, were to select state “‘pro- posalmen” who, after deliberation in assembly, could submit issues, “‘para- mount” and otherwise, to the voters at the primary. Proposed candidates must sign the proposed issues. A system of debates between aspirants for the presidential nominations, or their proxies, and between candidates for gubernatorial nominations and nominees, was intended to bring the issues home to the voters. In 1921, however, these features of the law were in the main repealed. A bill before the Texas legislature in 1919 forbade any political party to embody in its state platform a demand for specific legislation, unless the sub- ject should have received a majority vote at the primary on its submission at the petition of 10 per cent of the party voters, and authorized the sub- mission of questions to the voters by petition for the purpose of instructing ot to state and county con- 7 IN State Pouitics 13 ventions, who were to be governed by these instructions. This was very similar to the provisions of the Terrell law of 1908, which seem to have been held unconstitutional. In Washington, 1919, a bill appeared providing that candidates for nomina- tion might have propositions which they had advocated for three years submitted on the ballots with their candidacies. An elaborate process of elimination was designed to reduce the number of propositions in case it should exceed twenty-one. Further, groups of one hundred signers each could present ten-word propositions, and those receiving one-third of the votes cast at the primary, and a plu- rality, were to be placed on the general election ballot, and if similarly ap- proved at the election, it became the paramount duty of the legislature, county commission, or city council to enact them into a proper and con- sistent form of law. An act of 1921 made provision for advisory state platform committees to hold public hearings during the state conventions, which were admonished to make a clear and concise statement of the party principles and legislative pro- gram. A prominent Republican of the state writes that his party has in practice followed a course almost identical with the requirements of this law. He says further, “Platforms have been given careful attention in this state. . . . In this year’s Republican convention two very important planks were the subject of extensive debate on the floor of the convention, the com- mittee being sustained on one point and reversed on the other. . . . I am certain no really important bit of legislation, that is, one involving a change in state policy, has been enacted without having been previously pro- posed in a political platform and sub- jected to state-wide discussion.” 74 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY PLATFORM MACHINERY GOVERNED BY ELEectTIOoN Laws The election laws of most of the states will be found to define the formal process by which the party platforms are to be drafted and pro- mulgated. Perhaps a majority of such states allow a state convention to perform this function, and of this majority the greater part provide for the election of the delegates to the state convention by subordinate con- ventions, nearly always for the county area, and the delegates to these county conventions are ordinarily elected at the primaries which nominate the party candidates. These state con- ventions are usually numerous bodies, often of approximately a thousand members, although in Maryland there are only 129 and in Arizona 213, the latter body being a party council. The party council in New Hampshire, on the other hand, contains about 800 members. In Nebraska, at the regular primary election, delegates are selected to the county conventions, and delegates are selected by and from the county conventions to the state conventions which meet in every even year the third Tuesday in August, except in the years of presidential elections, in which they meet the third Tuesday in May. The original primary law of 1907 provided that the county nomi- nees of each party should select the del- egates to the state conventions. In 1908 a Republican convention thus constituted refused to endorse the principles upon which the successful aspirant for the gubernatorial nomina- tion had conducted his campaign. Party leaders disapproved the influ- ence which the plan gave to the county nominees. Also, it was argued that the party should formulate its program before the primary for the guidance of the aspirants for party nomina- tions. So the old caucus and con- vention system of party government, pre-primary, was reéstablished but forbidden to take any action regarding nominees. An act of 1919 established the present arrangement as described above, while an act of 1921, rejected at a referendum this year, restored the ante-primary caucus and convention. The considerations back of these later changes involved the nomination of minor state officers by convention and the recommendation of aspirants to the primary voters rather than the merits of pre-primary or post-primary platform making. Likewise in Michi- gan, delegates to the state conventions which formulate the platforms, which strangely the election laws seem not to mention, (and nominate minor state officers) are elected at county conven-. tions. The same rule holds in Iowa, and since 1921, in Minnesota, where the convention exercises the function also of proposing primary aspirants. In Idaho the members of county committees, elected from _ precincts, choose the delegates to the state con- vention which here possesses nomina- tion powers. Nominees for county offices may adopt principles if they wish. In Illinois also the county con- vention consists of the county com- mitteemen and sends delegates to the state convention. In North Dakota the state committee, chosen by county committeemen, makes the platform. Indiana seems to require the election of delegates to the state convention directly by the primary voters. This is true of New York, where the as- sembly district is the unit of repre- sentation, and of Ohio. In a number of these states the names of aspirants for the position of delegate do not appear on the primary ballot but may be written in. Nevada in 1920 placed the state convention before the pri- Party Puatrorms IN State Po.uitics 15 mary. Maine leaves the basis of representation, time, place, and call for the state convention in the hands of the state committee, as does Washing- ton, where the committee could ap- parently constitute itself the platform agency. In practice the Democrats have elected their delegates in county mass conventions and this year they adopted a still broader plan of recogniz- ing any person who appeared at the state convention as a delegate, and as- signed him to the proper county, which was given a proportionate vote, the strength of which in the convention he did not affect. PRIMARY NOMINEES CONSTITUTE PLATFORM AUTHORITY In many states the nominees of the primary, associated. usually _ with a larger or smaller.group of party officials, constitute the platform au- thority. In Wisconsin” the candi- dates for state offices and for. state senate and assembly nominated by each party at the primary, and the holding senators whose term extends beyond the first Monday of the ensuing year, frame the platform. California admits also the candidates for con- gressional office and allows the elec- tion of delegates from districts to which no holdover senator belongs. New Hampshire includes ad hoc or regular delegates elected at the pri- mary. Colorado adds the state chair- man. But there are really three platforms in a Colorado campaign. The state assembly of each party which has power to designate aspirants for the various state nominations, drafts a platform in general terms which most aspirants for nomination endorse, in order to secure votes in the primary election; then there are the personal platforms of the primary nominees; and finally the official plat- form adopted as above stated.1 The party council in Kansas consists of the same candidates as in Wisconsin and in addition candidates for United States senator and_ representative, holding United States senators, the national committeeman, and the chair- men of the county committees. In Kansas also, at least in presidential years, it seems that a preliminary convention, unofficial, offers sugges- tions to the party council and per- haps to the primary voters. This year such a Democratic convention proposed from one to eight candidates for the several state offices. The Arizona plan, and also the Montana and Missouri plans, are almost identical with the Kansas scheme, except for the inclusion of the state committee- men instead of the county chairmen. New Jersey includes the state com- mitteemen but not the candidates for national office. Moreover, state committeemen are directly elected at the primary, one from each county, only twenty-one in all. The election law compilation of Minnesota for 1920 still carried the provision for a party council which included the nominees of each party for the state legislature, although non-partisan nomination had been provided for members of the legislature in 1913. What the practice was under this law is not known to the writer. Although the Maryland law provides for a state convention it makes no reference to a party platform. Dela- ware and Connecticut, without the direct primary, apparently make no mention of a platform agency, nor was any law on the subject found in the Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, or Arkansas _ statutes. 1Hale Smith, Assistant Professor of Econom- ics, University of Colorado and Secretary of the Democratic State Committee, and to the governor-elect. 76 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY ° Party rules may provide for platforms as in Arkansas, where the Democratic practice is almost the same as that established by law in Nebraska. The primary rules of the Democratic Party in Virginia refer to conventions but not to platforms. The Pennsylvania law makes no provision for state conven- tions nor platforms. Although the rules of the Republican Party provide for a platform promulgated by the state committee, the committee has never functioned in this respect. In some years the pre-primary platforms of the candidates are used and in other years the campaign is conducted under the national platform. Wyoming and Ohio statutes make no provision for platforms in “off” years, 2.e., other than presidential. In Ohio, party rules seem to call for a sort of party council in these off years. In Mary- land this year the Republican platform was not printed in pamphlet form, nor in Wisconsin the Democratic. The first state convention in ten years was held this year in Alabama. There have been no platforms in Tennessee since the adoption of the direct pri- mary. While the direct primary sys- tem in Oregon does not prohibit conventions for the making of plat- forms, the parties have not made them. Aspirants for nomination may submit with their designating petitions a one-hundred-word statement of princi- ples and select a twelve-word slogan to appear on the primary ballot. VARIED Forms OF PLATFORM AUTHORITY In summary, it may be said that the platform authority may be a conven- tion of delegates elected and meeting before the primary, or a convention of delegates elected at the primary and meeting afterward; the members may be directly chosen by the voters or indirectly by subsidiary conventions; and again these conventions may or may not have authority to propose can- didates for nomination at the primary, as in South Dakota or Minnesota; or may or may not have power to make final nominations as in New York, Michigan, Indiana and Idaho; or in Connecticut, New Mexico and other states which have never adopted the direct primary. Or the platform au- thority may consist of the candidates for state office, or these and also the candidates for national office, or either or both along with a number of party officials. It is next to impossible to learn much about the forces at work back of the formal platform-making ma- chinery attempting to influence or determine the platform content. It is probable that resolutions committees almost everywhere hear proposals from individuals and organizations outside the party. It is a matter of common knowledge that the platform drafts are usually prepared by one or more individuals before the meeting of the resolutions committee or party council and that the latter act only as more or less critical revising bodies. The leaders of the parties probably have little trouble as a rule in carrying out within limits their ideas. In the Democratic Party in Michigan, the state chairman through correspondence and interviews with prominent party men, gains a view of the probable position of the party on various ques- tions. His draft of a platform is hurriedly and superficially considered by a resolutions committee and only once in twelve years has an amendment to its report been offered on the floor of the convention. In Maryland the Republican state chairman follows much the same plan. In New Jersey the state chairman writes the skeleton of a platform after two conferences with leading citizens, which is elabo- Party PLATFORMS IN STATE PourTics hed rated after discussion by a larger group of men and women the day before the meeting of the state convention (coun- cil?) a committee of which conducts a hearing and usually secures the adoption of this platform as read to the convention just before its adjourn- ment. The Illinois Republican chair- man writes that ““many interests are present at conventions, urging, cajol- ing and sometimes threatening. These may be labor unions, iaienarect interests, teachers, physicians, fra- ternal orders, welfare societies and other organizations, some of which exist only on paper. They usually work openly and frankly and do not confine themselves to one party.” The writer does not recall any pro- vision of state law designed to prevent bribery or improper influence over the platform authority. It is conceivable, however, that the content of a party platform might determine the outcome of an election. In Iowa the party organization of 3,500 persons is thought to be the most important influence back of the official machinery. It is reported that the New Hampshire Republican platform was given to the newspapers in its final form twenty- four hours before the convention (council) met. The Democratic plat- form committee consisted of an ex- United States representative and mem- ber of the shipping board, five women, an ex-governor, an Episcopal rector prominent as the friend of striking textile workers, a state bank com- missioner, three farmers, a leading corporation lawyer, an official of the state federation of labor and a young French lawyer regarded as a leader among his people. It must be ad- mitted that such a group, so adequately representative of all phases of opinion, should be able to draft a platform that would look in all directions at the same time. Obviously in states where the direct primary has been adopted, but the party delegate convention retained as the platform authority, no attempt has been made to gear the candidates to the party principles. The degree to which the party or- ganization has in such cases been kept in the control of the opponents of the primary, even when the members of the state committee are elected directly at the primary, is remarkable. Nevertheless, in such cases the pri- mary nominees probably exercise great influence over the content of the plat- form. This year in Nebraska the Republican candidates for state offices met once or twice before the convention to consider the position they wished the party to take in the campaign. The convention was very receptive to their suggestions although it is said conventions have not always been so. Errect oF Direct PRIMARY ON PARTY PLATFORM The general effect of the direct pri- mary on the party platform may be considered at this point. In Alabama, platforms are said to have fallen into a state of mnocuous desuetude; in Illinois, the delegates are content to leave the platform—‘ superfluous and of no consequence’’—to the successful candidate at the primary; in Arkansas, the tendency is for the counties to | say, “the governor has been nominated and we will send his friends to the state convention,” which usually adopts his recommendations; in Kansas, the primary is said to have had no effect on the platform, nor in Michigan “except to permit candidates to dodge responsibility to their party’; in North Dakota, the platform-makers generally consult with the nominees and the primary has rendered the platform less “‘sacred’’; in Arizona the primary has beneficially affected platform making 78 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY (the platforms in Arizona this year seem to be quite adequately described, however, as composed of “glittering generalities”); in Maryland the pri- mary throws the initiative more into the party officials’ hands; in Colorado it has made at least the preliminary platform more general; in Iowa it has “somewhat destroyed it,” or has caused platforms to be ignored, since candidates define their own platforms and might as well officially frame them, or has caused platforms to be superfluous; in Washington plat- forms are simply “‘sugar to catch flies” (but see above) since as long as the candidate refuses to acknowledge party control there can be no platforms expressing a real conviction upon big vital questions. The advisory plan in Washington showed a weakness in that the state chairmen found difficulty in getting together a working com- mittee and when the advisory plat- forms reached the resolutions com- mittees of the conventions, one point only was kept in mind, “Will this get the voters, and what will the reaction be?” The platforms adopted read nicely but there was a similarity in all the platforms on all the general prin- ciples enunciated. From New Jersey comes the opinion that prior to 1911, the date of the adoption of the direct primary for state offices, state plat- forms were largely made for suckers, but that now the platforms made by candidates have meant very nearly what they said and a performance on the pledges is always brought forward by the party in power as an argument for its retention. This correspondent and another note that the Republican nominee for governor carried through the convention his personal platform on utilities in spite of some opposition from the party leaders. This quota- tion from an Oregon irreconcilable may be worth while: “. . . hence we have no organized body in a party which may adopt a platform. Each self-appointed saviour of the ‘dear peepul’ mixes up his own molasses when he becomes a candidate in the primary election; nominated, he usually runs his own campaign, the state committee and county committees trailing along behind, endeavoring to keep up some semblance of party organization; elected, he gives the people an individual responsibility and not a party responsibility in the administration of the affairs of his office, and upon the expiration of his term becomes the object of a cut-throat attack upon the part of other members of his so-called party who seek to defeat him for renomina- tion; in office, he builds his own per- sonal machine, and the regular party organization takes the ‘hindmost.’” This year a convention of nominees and members of state and county com- mittees was called and a platform adopted, all of which was so much time wasted because of a fight upon the K. K. K. and the school bill. The Iowa situation this year was in- teresting. Itseems that the party man- agers, convinced that Brookhart would not receive the 35 per cent of the party primary vote required to constitute a nomination, devoted their efforts to electing delegates to control the state convention, which they thought would be called upon to nominate. Consequently about 80 per cent of the convention was opposed to Brook- hart, the party nominee. However, one writer states that the platform was that of a minority of the party, and: Brookhart the nominee of a majority, although he received about 40 per cent of the vote and had four or five opponents. At any rate, the conven- tion did not endorse nor denounce Brookhart, and softened its platform in order to avoid an open party split. Party PLATFORMS Brookhart was opposed by six Iowa ex-governors, by which one sees that it takes more than the primary ap- parently to elect men free from control by the “interests,” if Brookhart is to be believed. One writer says that Brookhart accepted the _ platform, another that the people elected an extremely radical Republican on a conservative platform in preference to a conservative Democrat on a radical platform. One view is that the majority of the people of Iowa did not accept Brookhart’s program, but that he was elected because he had obtained the Republican nomination, which is equivalent to an election. Here, then, is where party regularity in action spelled progressive success. No doubt the Non-Partisan Leaguers owe something elsewhere to party regularity. It seems that 80,000 fewer votes were cast for senator than for governor, and that the Republican governor had a majority of 250,000 while Brookhart’s was only 150,000. PLATFORMS REDUCED TO INSIGNIFICANCE Granted that platforms ever meant anything, we have succeeded in re- ducing them in the main to insignif- icance,. although a strong statement comes from Arizona, which one cannot avoid thinking is either naive or parti- san: “Nothing was adopted in the platform that was not intended in good faith to be performed after election by the party and officers.” Some voices are raised in Washington, New Jersey, Iowa, New Hampshire, Con- necticut and Maryland to the effect that platforms carry considerable weight in campaigns. From _ three or four states comes the suggestion that platforms are of little moment when the parties are not evenly matched. An Iowa editor believes that since labor, farmers, and chambers IN STATE Poritics 79 of commerce have become so well organized, the platforms have more influence than ever before. But ma- jority opinion holds the platforms in slight esteem. “The voters in the general elections know nothing of the platform and care nothing about it,”’ from Arkansas, matches the following from Michigan, “I should venture to say that not one voter in a thousand in Michigan ever reads a party plat- form.” And is this not encouraging to the reformer? Is not an assumption of the meaninglessness of platforms and of party differences involved in ticket- splitting when practiced as to party candidates within the same field of government, and in the movement for the Massachusetts ballot? Else what consistency among the few hundred thousand Californians who in 1916 voted for a senator to make laws and a president to vetothem? Orin Nebras- ka this year, where Kansas’ position on the industrial court is duplicated on the “code”? If parties have not principles, how can voters be expected to read platforms which might not correspond to principles even if such there were? We seem to have fairly definitely decided to give up an attempt at party government for the present in the states,—several of them, at least,—as we have done in so many cities. If this is so, then any legal provision whatever for a common presentation of principles or program by two or more candidates would seem to be folly, whether by convention or by party council. Several party leaders—from Michi- gan, Maryland, New York, Washing- ton, Oregon, North Dakota and Ohio— oppose a candidates’ platform on the ground that the “party members” or “‘voters” or “people” should de- termine the principles upon which they wish their candidates to stand, 80 Ture ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY “Were each candidate to depend entirely upon a home-made platform the chaotic result is easily imagined.” “If candidates elected by the primary were allowed to make the platform we would have a_ hodge-podge of political opinion and political oppor- tunism impossible to handle.” It is, of course, natural that strong party men should find it easy to imagine that parties stand for definite principles. CHARACTER OF PLATFORM DRAFTED By DirreRENtT METHODS As between platforms made by candidates and those made by dele- gates, do the documents themselves show any difference in conciseness, consistency and applicability to state issues? Certainly a careful reading of any particular platform does not enable the reader to determine whether it is convention-made or council-made. Some of the platforms this year most seriously lacking in the ordinarily conceived desiderata were drafted by party councils. Perhaps the _plat- forms in Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Mexico—non-primary states —most offended academic taste in platform criteria, but only to a degree, if at all, more than several others. It seems a logical course either to try to have parties as responsible as they may be made for their candidates and principles, or to throw parties into the discard entirely. Perhaps we are doing the latter as rapidly as is wise. We can hardly. gain anything by maintaining a practice which cannot be made intelligible even to the careful student of politics. If official responsibility is to be individual, let the confusion caused by the reference to parties and the use of party names be ended. How, for instance, could platforms mean anything where the open primary permits voters of all so-called parties to mingle freely? It may be suggested at this point that perhaps the more frequent swings from party to party today than in the past century, due to what is commonly called the independence of the voters, may be rather the result of the shift- ing of parties or the meaninglessness of parties. It is a question whether primary candidates do not tend to sacrifice principle fully as much as nominees under the convention system, and it is hardly reasonable to expect a collection of such nominees to be able to give expression to a clean-cut position on really controversial ques- tions. Thus while the candidates strive more earnestly to appear to be what they think the people want them to be, 1t is doubtful whether another supposed function of parties—the pres- entation of conflicting programs to the voters—is not hindered. Do the platforms this year indicate any differences between the parties on state issues? It would seem not. One cannot readily tell whether he is reading a Democratic or Republican platform as far as the expressed at- titude toward government is concerned. “We believe and strongly urge... thatthe 18thamendment . . . bothna- tional and state, be strictly enforced,” runs the Democratic platform of Wisconsin, and, ‘‘We advocate the granting of the use of light wines and beer to the people... ,” reads that of Maryland. The Democratic Party in New York and probably in South Dakota favors the centralization of state government, while in Idaho, Nebraska, Michigan, and Missouri it opposes such reorganization. Of course the record of the party in office is the main basis of differing judgment among the voters or else economic conditions for which neither party has had much responsibility. The portion of state platforms devoted to Party PLATFORMS IN STATE Pouitics 81 matters of national control varies widely in the different states and parties, with a tendency to constitute one-half or one-third of the whole. Thus, one-half of the North Dakota, Vermont and New Mexico Democratic platforms discuss national affairs, in Nevada and Wyoming two-thirds, and in Maryland four-fifths, with hardly a single definite proposal, with the exception of that for light wines in the last, while in Idaho and Michigan there was no reference to national matters. About one-half of the Wash- ington, Ohio and Michigan Republican platforms were national in character. In Colorado, national and state ques- tions were confused and mingled throughout the Republican platform. Although some correspondents in New Jersey insisted that there were state issues involved in the election this year, such as a bond issue for roads and the regulation of public utilities, the best informed person seems - to have summarized the situation cor- rectly when he said, “There was not a great deal of difference between the parties on this point. ‘The final result is to be attributed to a protest against prohibition, with dissatisfaction with the national administration taking a second place.’ And in Jowa one writer comments, “The contest in Iowa concerned largely, if not wholly, the personality and political beliefs of Smith W. Brookhart.” IMPROVEMENTS IN PLATFORM-MAKING But it may be granted that even if the major parties in the states have no real principles, they may still be of some utility. If so, how may plat- form-making be improved? ‘The pres- ent condition is quite unreasonable, especially in states where conventions remain the platform authority. Con- tinual danger exists that platforms and 7 candidates will not harmonize. Little interest is shown in the election of delegates. In Michigan, the Demo- cratic county chairmen usually make up lists of delegates and pass the word around to the wheelhorses in each precinct. A conflict between would- be delegates on account of political issues is in that state unknown. The voters’ interest is in the candidates. In North Dakota not ten per cent of the voters write in the name of anyone for precinct committeeman. Then the conventions contain by far too many members, and in several states these delegates are indirectly elected. Per- haps the most objectionable feature of all, in the case of both conventions and councils, is the time at which the platform is made. In South Dakota the precinct caucuses meet the second Tuesday of the preceding November. In many states, especially in presiden- tial years, the state convention or coun- cil meets in the early summer. It would be preferable to have the pri- mary not more than six or seven weeks before the election. This would give the platform bodies an opportunity, if it would not place them under a greater necessity, of speaking to the question, for issues seldom take definite form’ until a few weeks before an election. It seems desirable that there should be some means of ascertaining the attitude of the voters at the pri- mary on the questions on which the party is likely to take a position. This is done to a degree, it is true, through the selection of candidates. The writer’s proposal that a group of party representatives be permitted to propose a set of candidates to the primary voters would apparently afford a means of more definite decision than is offered at present. And if state issues are to receive adequate attention there is quite as much need for the separation of state and national elec- 82 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY tions as for that of state and municipal elections. The recommendations offered are in summary these: state elections, if possible, in a year by themselves; platform-making not more than six weeks before the election, by a body greatly restricted in numbers, includ- ing perhaps several recognized party - leaders chosen by appointment; and the proposal to the primary voters of a set of candidates and issues by a preliminary meeting of responsible party representatives: The function of platforms as possible indications of public opinion, the eco- nomic interpretation of platforms, and the possible value to a state’s citizenry of political and partisan agitation and discussion, even when the outcome is the result of no real difference in policy, cannot be discussed here. Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections By Ropert EvGENE CusHMAN, Pu.D. Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota HERE is no phase of our recent political history which is more interesting than the vigorous move- ment for non-partisanship in state and local primaries and elections. It is a movement which has been heralded with glad acclaim by political reformers of many types and in many places; and it has been accepted with silent satis- faction by not a few shrewd politicians of the professional variety by reason of the advantages which, because of local political conditions, it has conferred upon them and their organizations. While there seems to be no general agreement as to the character or value of the results which it has accom- plished, the movement has continued to spread, although not without an oc- casional setback. At the present time, non-partisan ballots are being used to nominate and elect public officials of three rather distinct groups: first, the officers of cities, towns, and counties; second, both state and local judges; and third, in Minnesota, the members of the state legislature. In addition, the proposal to nominate and elect all state officials on ballots without party des- ignations has been submitted to the electors of California and North Da- kota, and has been in each case rejected at the polls. It is the purpose of this paper to at- tempt a survey and appraisal of the non- partisan primary and election scheme as it has been applied to the selection of these different types of officials. I. Non-PAartTIsSAN NOMINATIONS AND ELEctTIOoNS IN LocaL GOVERNMENT A. The Origin of the Movement There are a number of reasons why the non-partisan ballot should have 83 made its first appearance in municipal elections and why it should have been used in such elections much more ex- tensively than elsewhere. In the first place, party loyalty had not infre- quently been broken down by the numerous independent or reform move- ments which had characterized munic- ipal politics. Resentment and protest against the exploitation of the city by self-seeking and venal political ma- chines had on numerous occasions caused decent citizens of all parties to join hands.t In other words, the idea of non-partisanship received a powerful impulse from the general movement for political sanitation in city government. Then, in the second place, it became evident that national party labels on municipal ballots served to distract the attention of the voters from real munic- ipalissues. As has been aptly said, the use of the Republican or Democratic insignia in city elections served as a sort of “smoke-screen,”? behind which municipal spoilsmen and office-brokers could hide in safety. And finally, the comparatively recent demand for real efficiency in municipal Zovernment has brought with it a recognition of the distinction between politics and ad- ministration and of the fact that city government is largely a matter of ad- ministration. ‘The real issues in mu- nicipal elections are in the main, issues of administrative efficiency rather than issues of policy upon which political parties might be expected to differ. It has seemed desirable therefore, to rule 1 Party lines have never been so closely drawn in municipal politics and the stigma of irregular- ity has not attached to the man who has as- sumed an attitude of independence. For further elaboration of this see Merriam, American Party System, 89 ff. 84 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY out partisanship from the field of city politics as an irrelevant hindrance to business-like administration. Wheth- er or not the worthy ideals here men- tioned have been, or can be attained by the simple act of striking party labels - and emblems from the municipal ballot is a question however which can be answered only in the light of actual experience. B. Present Extent of Non-Partisanship in Local Government There is no easy way of determining the precise number of municipalities in the United States in which non-partisan primary and election ballots are used, and the value of such statistical infor- mation would hardly compensate for the labor necessary to acquire it. There are some states in which munic- ipal nominations and elections are re- quired by state law to be non-partisan.” In other states, towns and cities under home-rule or optional charter provi- sions, enjoy the privilege of dispensing with party labels and emblems if they so desire. An overwhelming majority of the cities which have adopted the commission and commission-manager plans of government have introduced the non-partisan ballot. In addition, there are a number of larger cities, among them Cleveland, Buffalo, Bos- ton, Pittsburg and Philadelphia, 2 In North Dakota and Wisconsin all municipal elections are non-partisan. Laws of North Dakota, 1913, Chap. 73; Laws of Wisconsin, 1913, Chap. 5, sec. 35-20. In Minnesota the non-parti- san ballot is used in cities of the first and second classes and in villages having 8,000 inhabitants or more. Minnesota Laws, Chap. 12. Laws 1921, Chap. 8. It is interesting to note that the first Australian Ballot law adopted in the United States provided for a non-partisan municipal bal- lot for the city of Louisville, Kentucky. Laws of Kentucky, 1888, Chap. 266. The text of the act is also found in Wigmore, Australian Ballot System, p. 138. The non-partisan feature of this law can hardly be attributed, however, to an appreciation of the problem under discussion in this paper. where the non-partisan system prevails, while Chicago has eliminated party designations in the choice of aldermen. The extension of the non-partisan system to county government has been much slower than in the case of cities. In California, North Dakota and Minnesota, all county officers are nomi- nated and elected on non-partisan ballots in accordance with the require- ments of state law. In other states the non-partisan principle has been applied to the election of particular county officers such as school super- intendents‘*and county judges.’ It seems probable that the considerations which have accelerated the movement in cities will lead to its gradual exten- sion in county government as well. C. The Results of Non-Partisan Ballot in Local Government [a.] The Difficulty of Appraising the Results. It is rather difficult for sev- eral reasons to estimate with assurance the results of the non-partisan ballot in local primaries and elections. In the first place, there is a sharp conflict of judgment as reflected in the opinions of persons who are in a position to know. In the second place, the non- partisan ballot has in many cases ridden into city government upon a wave of aroused public sentiment, which could hardly fail to drive out cor- ruption and mismanagement, regard- less of the type of ballot used. How much of the happy consequences are due to this reform spirit and how much to the non-partisan ballot, it would be somewhat hazardous to say. And finally, the non-partisan ballot has usually been merely an incidental fea- 3 California, Act of June 16, 1913; Minnesota, Laws 1913, Chap. 389; Laws of North Dakota, 1919, Chap. 117. 4 Nebraska, Laws of 1917, Chap. 37; Wyoming, Laws of 1915, Chap. 59; Wisconsin, Laws of 1911, Chap. 333. 5 See infra, p. 86. Non-PArtiIsAan NoMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS 85 ture of a somewhat radically revised form of municipal government, em- bodying some form of the short ballot, as in the commission or commission- manager charters. Here again it is hard to state how large a share of the good result comes from the elimination of party designations from the ballot, and how much from the increased simplicity and responsibility arising from the short ballot. [b.| Hasthe Non-Partisan Ballot Made Local Government Non-Partisan? Lack of space precludes a consideration of the many advantages claimed for the non-partisan system by its advocates, or the unsatisfactory consequences at- tributed to it by its opponents. We may, however, pause to inquire whether the system has really driven the na- tional parties out of municipal politics. It is probable that this has occured in the small towns and cities where can- didates are likely to be personally known to their fellow townsmen, al- though it must be admitted that the intrusion of national partisanship was never a very serious evil in such munici- palities. In the case of the larger cities however, the results are by no means so clear. It is probably true that the influence of the national and state party organizations in municipal affairs has been greatly weakened and in some cases practically eliminated, although it should be recalled that there have been several other types of municipal reform which have tended to ® An excellent summary of the arguments for and against the non-partisan municipal ballot is found in Capes, The Modern City and Its Government (1922), Chap. V. See also Arndt, The Emancipation of the American City (1917), Chap. VI. No attempt is here made to present an extended list of references on this point. See Munro, Bibliography of Municipal Govern- ment, 35-36. The matter has been widely discussed in the recent literature of municipal government and information relating to individ- ual cities is to be found in the volumes of the National Municipal Review. produce the same results.?. That this has been a desirable thing is conceded even by strong party leaders.’ It seems fairly clear however, that parti- sanship and not infrequently partisan- ship of an objectionable variety has flourished under the shelter of ano- nymity in our large cities. In some of the cities having the non-partisan ballot, the traditional party alignment between Republicans and Democrats has been replaced by a party division upon the lines of conservatism versus radicalism in respect to social and economic problems. Minneapolis, St. Paul and Milwaukee afford exam- ples of this situation. It seems safe to say that the elimination from the mu- nicipal ballot in large cities of party designations does not tpso facto elimi- nate municipal partisanship. Where the electorate is large, or where the ballot is long, or where both conditions exist, party organizations are doubtless inevitable and desirable. The voter can hardly do without some sort of guide in making his selection of candi- dates unless he is to resort to sheer 7 Among these may be mentioned civil service reform, centralized purchasing and improved regulation of municipal contracts. 8 Such is the testimony of such a staunch party leader as the late Senator Boies Penrose of Pennsylvania. Shortly after the enactment of the new charter for Philadelphia in June, 1919, he expressed himself as follows: “One general principle is clearly establishing itself; that municipal government increases in efficiency in the exact ratio in which it is divorced from partisan politics. In this connection I might state that in my judgment, party efficiency and capacity for general public service increases in the ratio in which it disentangles itself from municipal politics. For instance, party prin- ciples are not even a secondary consideration with the Democratic Tammany machine in New York, or the Republican contractor’s machine in Philadelphia. Each of them exists solely to promote selfish interests, and each of them is an incubus and a liability to the party with which it is aligned.” Municipal Reform in Philadelphia (pamphlet issued by Citizen’s Charter Committee), p. 1. 86 THe ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY guesswork. Whether he is better off under a system where the organizations supporting candidates must work un- officially and without the aid of party labels, than he is under a scheme where the party labels used are of necessity more or less irrelevant to the issues in- volved in the election, becomes a much closer question than many of the advocates of non-partisanship are will- ing to admit. The writer ventures the opinion that while the results accom- plished by the non-partisan ballot in local government have been far less salutary and revolutionary than was expected at the outset of the move- ment, those results have on the whole been distinctly wholesome.!! Il. Non-Partisan Nominations and Elections to Judicial Office A. Causes of the Movement Several factors have contributed to the extension of the non-partisan ballot to judicial primaries and elec- tions. In the first place, there has always seemed to be a certain in- congruity in choosing upon the basis of party affiliation, officials whose functions demanded the most rigid impartiality and the most complete ®See the interesting symposium upon the question of non-partisanship in municipal gov- ernment, National Municipal Review, VI, 201- 237 (1917). Nor have party lines been elimi- nated from municipal elections in England where the non-partisan ballot is used. Munro, Gov- ernment of American Cities, 158; Munro, Govern- ment of European Cities, 346-7. Lowell, Government of England, II, 151. 10 Dr. Charles A. Beard takes the position that this is a normal tendency which is bound to extend itself. He concludes that in view of such a definite and inevitable party division in munic- ipal politics, no gain will be had from the elim- ination of party problems from the ballot. See his article, Politics and City Government, National Municipal Review VI, 201-6 (1917). 11 Professor Munro is of the opinion that more is to be gained by encouraging the state parties to incorporate definite municipal issues into their platforms, thus securing party responsibility freedom from partisan or personal in- fluence. Secondly, it has been a no- torious fact that in numerous cases, political parties have not scrupled to use judicial offices as the spoils of party warfare, and have in some cases practically sold judicial nominations to men who would pay the highest price. Various methods had been devised to eliminate these grosser evils and to protect the independence of the bench. In one or two instances systems of election or appointment were adopted designed to guarantee bi-partisan courts.¥® It seemed but a natural and desirable step, therefore, to provide that judicial officers should be chosen on ballots from which all party designations have been removed. B. The Present Status of the Non- Partisan Judicial Ballot There are at present eleven states in which the non-partisan judicial ballot is in use for the election of Supreme Court, district or county judges.* There are in addition, nu- merous cases which need not be con- sidered here, in which municipal judges are chosen on non-partisan ballots along with all the other municipal officials. In Kansas, Iowa and Penn- sylvania the non-partisan judicial bal- in municipal affairs, than by adopting a non- partisan ballot. Government of American Cites, 160-1. See also Maltbie, Municipal Political Parties, Proceedings of the National Municipal League, 1900, p. 235. It may, however, be questioned whether the Republican and Demo- cratic Parties under normal circumstances would find themselves in disagreement upon municipal issues. 12 Beard, American Government and Politics (3d Ed.) 669, quoting from the hearings before the Mazet Commission (1899), “to investigate Public Offices and Departments of the City of New York.” Also Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, Il, 425. 13 Const. of Delaware, Art. IV, Sec. 3 (1897) provides in part that “the said appointment [by the governor] shall be such that no more than three of the said five law judges [of the Supreme Non-PartisAN NoMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS 87 lot has been abandoned.“ In Minne- sota the non-partisan system has been retained; but under the provisions of a recent law, political parties are allowed in party convention to endorse candidates for the Supreme Bench ™ and the Republican Party and the Farmer-Labor Party both availed themselves of this privilege in the 1922 election. C. The Results of the Non-Partisan Judicial Ballot [a.] Advantages of the System. 'The advantages claimed for the non-par- tisan judicial ballot may be stated as follows: First, it has made possible the election to judicial office of men affliated with minority parties. States which are dominantly Republican, for example, found that under the party system only Republicans were likely to be chosen as judges.” With a non-partisan ballot, Democrats and Republicans could compete in such states upon a practically equal footing. This consideration had weight at the time of the introduction of the non- partisan system in Minnesota in 1912.18 Court] in office at the same time, shall have been appointed from the same political party.” In Pennsylvania minority party representation on the Supreme Court is provided for by a system of limited voting as follows: “‘Whenever two judges of the Supreme Court are to be chosen for the same term of service each voter shall vote for one only, and when three are to be chosen he shall vote for no more than two.” Const. Art. V, Sec. 16. A similar scheme for judicial elections in Philadelphia is provided in Section 12 of the same article. For a defense of a bi-partisan judiciary see the address, Politics and the Judici- ary, W. R. Smith, proceedings of the Bar Association of Kansas, 1905, p. 53, reprinted in Reinsch, Readings on American State Government, 158. 14 The list, with the dates of adoption of the non-partisan system, is as follows: Arizona (1911, by constitutional provision), California (1911), Idaho (1913), Minnesota (1912), Ne- braska (1913), North Dakota (1917), Ohio (1911), South Dakota (1915), Washington (1911), Wisconsin (1911), Wyoming (1915). In the second place, the non-partisan judicial ballot has worked to the ad- vantage of the sitting judges who desire reélection. This is probably a whole- some result on the whole. It arises from the fact that usually all that the voter can learn about judicial candi- dates is that one is already on the bench and the other is not; and feeling that in general, judicial experience is desir- able, he votes for the man who has had it. While this sometimes results in the retention of judges who might better be retired, this is the exception and not the rule. In the third place, the non-partisan system has tended to develop in the bar of the state a sense of responsibility in respect to judicial candidates, and has led them in a few cases to adopt the policy of making a more or less formal endorsement of the men they regard as best fitted to hold judicial office.!2 Where this is done the voter is given guidance of genuine value in casting his ballot. Fourthly, in several of the northwestern states, where the determination of the Non-Partisan League to effectuate its economic and political program has endangered the independence of the courts and threatened to lower the 1°'The Kansas non-partisan judiciary act, Laws of 1913, Chap. 193, was repealed at the next session of the legislature. See Laws 1915, Chap. 207. In lowa the non-partisan system established by Chap. 104, Laws of 1911, was re- pealed years later, Laws of 1917, Chap. 68. An interesting system was set up in its place. Judicial nominations in Iowa are made by special party conventions held for that purpose alone. Each party holds a convention for nominating political officers and another to nominate judicial candidates. The membership of these con- ventions is required by law to be mutually exclusive. The election of judges is by party ballot. Pennsyslvania in 1921, Laws of 1921, Chap. 423, abolished the non-partisan judicial ballot which had been in use since 1913, Laws of 1913, Chap. 1001, and restored judicial nomi- nations by party conventions: In 1913 a state law was passed in Missouri (Laws of 1913, p. 334) providing a non-partisan ballot for state circuit 88 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY standard of judicial ability therein, the ballot without party designation enables the more conservative ele- ments in the electorate to join re- gardless of party lines, in an effort to prevent such undesirable results.?? Finally, judges chosen by the non- partisan system assume office free from any political obligations of a definitely partisan character. So far as this result has actually been at- tained, it is of course wholesome and has doubtless tended to increase the confidence of the people in the im- partiality and integrity of the courts. [b.] The Disadvantages of the System. The criticisms which have been urged against the non-partisan judicial ballot come in the main not from those who wish to throw the courts into partisan politics, but from those who are trying to raise the standards of judicial efficiency. Most of these critics are entirely out of sympathy with the method of choosing judges by popular election and particularly with the scheme of nomination by direct pri- mary. ‘Their position is not that the election of judges upon a _ partisan judges in St. Louis. A judicial nominating convention was provided for composed of dele- gates from all political parties in ratio of party strength. The candidates so nominated were to be voted for on a non-partisan ballot. Not more than half of such candidates could be members of the same party. This interesting law was repealed in 1919 (Laws of 1919, p. 329). 16 Laws of Minnesota, 1921, Chap. 322, Sec. 16. By this act the pre-primary conventions pro- vided for are authorized “‘to endorse candidates of the party for any office to be voted for by the voters of the entire state....” This, of course, includes Supreme Court justices, although they are nominated and elected on a non-partisan ballot. While the bill was being discussed in the legislature it was proposed to allow party endorsement of candidates for all offices, whether non-partisan or partisan, but this suggestion was not adopted. 17 That this was not invariably true, however, is shown by W. R. Smith, in his article, Politics and the Judiciary, supra, note 13. ballot is a good system, but that their election on a non-partisan ballot is a worse system. The reasons ad- duced in support of this view may be thus summarized: First, the elimina- tion of party labels from the judicial ballot makes it increasingly difficult for the voter to make even a mildly intelligent selection of judicial candi- dates.24. A party label may be a poor guide, but it is better than none at all. In the first non-partisan judicial elec- tion held in Ohio in 1912, the voter was given a separate judicial ticket devoid of party designations, containing the names of thirty-one candidates from which to select eight men to hold six different grades of judicial office. The writer, attempting to vote in that election, was unable to secure any shred *of information respecting the ability, character or associations of more than one or two of these men. Further evidence of the voter’s diffi- culty in the non-partisan judicial election is found in the report on Criminal Justice in Cleveland made under the auspices of the Cleveland Foundation where it said: This kind of voting in Cleveland has produced some curious results. At least two candidates, hitherto unknown to the public and of no marked fitness for the 18The Bar Association of Ramsey County (St. Paul) went on record in favor of a non- partisan bench. See Minneapolis Journal, May 21, 1912, p. 4. See editorial in same paper, May 22, 1912, supporting the non-partisan judicial ballot proposal on ground that Demo- crats could not secure judicial office before. 19The influence of the bar in the choice of judges is probably greater in Wisconsin than elsewhere. A bar primary is held and candidates thus brought forward almost invariably receive popular support at the polls. See Bulletin IV-A of the American Judicature Society, p. 9; also the address of Chief Justice Winslow of the Wis- consin Supreme Court, The Problem of Non- Partisan Judicial Reform, Minutes of Kansas State Bar Association for 1914, p. 41. In Minne- sota the local bar associations frequently en- dorse candidates for local or district . judicial 5 ) Non-PartisAn NoMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS 89 bench, were elected to the Municipal Court because they bore the same names as two retired Common Pleas judges who had built up good will through many years of service. In one election a_ blacksmith carried Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) as a candidate for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, because his name was similar to that of the well-known judge of the Probate Court. At the next suc- ceeding election for the Supreme Court the same man ran third in the field of seven.” The results in Ohio would doubtless be better if there were a shorter judicial ballot; but even in Minnesota, where a considerably shorter ballot does prevail, the voter finds himself pretty much at sea in voting for judicial candidates. A second criticism of the system under discussion is that it accentuates perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the elective judiciary; namely, the necessity for personal campaigning by candidates for judicial office. The party primary and the non-partisan primary are both objectionable in this regard, but by the non-partisan election the evil is carried over into the final campaign as well. Under the old party system the _ prospective judge could rely upon the party or- ganization to present his claims. He office. This is particularly true in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Here, however, the nominations do not originate even indirectly from the bar and the endorsement is in the form of an ex- pression of preference for certain of the candi- dates who have offered themselves. 20 In North Dakota, for example, a candidate for the state supreme court appeared before the convention of the Non-Partisan League and promised publicly, if elected, to vote to. sustain the constitutionality of the League program. He was elected by a large vote. See Bruce, The Non-Partisan League, 170, 172-3. 21 A.M. Kales, Methods of Selecting and Re- tiring Judges, Bulletin VI of American Judicature Society, p. 36; James Parker Hall, The Selection, Tenure and Retirement of Judges, Bulletin X of American Judicature Society, p. 10. 2 Criminal Justice in Cleveland, p. 269. did not have to go out as a rule and seek votes in person. The greater dignity of the campaign so conducted made it possible to induce men to run for judicial office, to whom the necessity for widespread self-advertisement would be most repugnant. It is of course true that the non-partisan system has not converted all our judicial cam- paigns into vulgar exhibitions of dema- goguery. It has, however, been of advantage to the candidate who under- stands the science of publicity and in conspicuous cases, as in Cleveland and in California, has developed a practice of judicial popularity-seeking quite incompatible with the efficiency and integrity of the bench.” Finally, the non-partisan ballot has tended to create a system of wholly irresponsible nominations and _ elec- tions to judicial office. Under the party convention system there was a definite sponsorship of judicial candi- dates by the party organizations.” It is true that abuses crept into the system. But it is also true that party organizations have in recent years grasped the opportunity of nominating judicial candidates of high character 3 Ihid., p. 268 et seq. In this same study it is shown by statistical charts, that the judges in Cleveland prior to the adoption of the non-parti- san ballot, “‘were apparently well seasoned in the private practice of law, whereas after that date the majority had been trained chiefly in the office of inferior judge or prosecutor.” T[did., pp. 255-8. In other words, the man holding political office, with its consequent publicity has an advantage in seeking high judicial office over the less conspicuous practitioner. The existence of a somewhat similar and equally undesirable situation in California is pointed out in the Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California, Vol. IX, 311-12. 24 The major objection is perhaps against any kind of judicial primary. The non-partisan primary is no worse than the party primary and may be in some respects better since it makes possible the nomination of independent candi- dates. But the non-partisan election carries over all the evils of the primary into the actual election of judicial candidates. 90 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY as an effective means of strengthening the party ticket. The party has frequently much at stake in nominat- ing and supporting a first-class man. It becomes, to use President Lowell’s phrase, a responsible“ broker” of candi- dates. Under the non-partisan system this “brokerage” disappears entirely, leaving the voter practically without chart or compass wherewith to steer an intelligent course. In conclusion, the writer ventures the opinion that no substantial gain has been made by the introduction of the non-partisan judicial ballot, but that in general it has resulted in a less intel- ligent selection of judicial officers. III. Non-PartTisAN PRIMARIES AND ELECTIONS FOR PoLiTIcAL OFFICES IN StatE GOVERNMENT A. History and Development The extension of the non-partisan ballot in local and judicial elections has naturally stimulated the inquiry wheth- er all state officers might not properly be chosen on ballots without party designations. Proposals to this effect were included in two governor’s mes- sages in 1917*% and in two states, California and North Dakota; the voters have voted upon the question in each case adversely. In both of these cases the proposals for a state- wide non-partisan ballot seems to have been defended or attacked largely upon the basis of their probable effect upon the fortunes of the various political interests involved, rather than upon the pure merits of the issue itself.” #5 Governor Frazier of North Dakota recom- mended that all county legislative and state officers be chosen on a non-partisan ballot. Gov- ernor Lister of Washington proposed the non- partisan system for state, county and city elec- tions. 26'The California non-partisan election laws were passed in 1915, in response to the urgent message of Governor Johnson. For the sub- stance of his message see Non-Partisan Govern- The interesting experience of Min- nesota, in which state members of both houses of the state legislature have been nominated and elected upon a non- partisan ballot since 1913, merits some- what more extended consideration.?’ B. Non-Partisan Legislative Ballot in Minnesota . [a.] Origin of the System.2® ‘The elim- ination of party emblems from the legislative ballot in Minnesota was not a “reform” movement. There had been no previous demand for it nor discussion of it. It came with a shock of surprise not only to the state at large, but probably to most of the mem- bers of the legislature responsible for its enactment into law. It apparently grew out of a rather complex local po- litical situation in which the following factors seem to have exerted more or less influence: First, were involved the political ambitions of the then Repub- lican governor, who had managed to alienate a portion of his own party and who felt that his interests would be furthered by a weakening of party lines.2® Second, the liquor interests of the state are said to have proposed the non-partisan feature as a means of making the direct primary law under ment, American Political Science Review, IX, 313. A referendum was invoked under the auspices of the state Republican Committee. Arguments for and against the measure are found in the official publicity pamphlet issued by the Secretary of State prior to the referendum election and in the Transactions of the Common- wealth Club of California, Vol. X, p. 459 et seq. The proponents of the measure seemed on the defensive. The opponents of it charged that it was designed to serve the political interests of the rapidly dying Progressive Party. In the special election held on October 26, 1915, the measure was defeated by a vote of 112,681 for and 156,967 against. The North Dakota Non-Partisan Election measure was initiated by the Independent Voters’ Association. That organization in- stituted a recall election against Governor Frazier (Non-Partisan League) and two of his Non-PartisAn NoMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS 91 consideration so obnoxious as to insure its defeat, whereas the dry forces came forward with unexpected support for Si Finally, it has been suggested, the 1912 Progressives desired to reénter the Republican fold in the state with- out openly assuming the humiliating role of the prodigal son. They could return under cover of non-partisan- ship. Just how much weight is to be attached to these influences it is ex- ceedingly difficult to say. [b.]| The Results of the System (1) Difficulty of Appraisal. 'There exists in Minnesota what seems to the writer to be an almost even difference of opinion as to the relative merits and demerits of the non-partisan legislative ballot. Able and thoughtful people have reached conclusions which are diametrically opposed.*? In 1921, the writer sent a questionnaire to the mem- bers of both houses of the Minnesota legislature, asking for opinions upon various phases of the non-partisan system.* Replies were received from about one third of the members; prac- tically half of these expressed the opinion that the non-partisan system had produced beneficial results, while the other half were firmly convinced that it had worked in a thoroughly un- satisfactory manner. Opinions of both varieties came indiscriminately from associates in office and initiated seven measures, of which this was one, to be voted on in that’ election. The Independents gave the non- partisan election measure divided and somewhat half-hearted support during the campaign. The Non-Partisan League forces attacked it, calling it the “Federal Job Act,” and claiming that it was designed to allow those who were fighting the Republican Party in the state (which the Non-Partisan League had largely captured) to lay claim as Republicans to federal patronage within the state. See official publicity pamphlet issued by the Secretary of State. In the recall election on October 28, 1921, the Non-Partisan League officers were recalled, but all of the measures initiated by the Independent members who had served under both systems. There is another factor also which makes it hard to appraise the results of the Minnesota system. This is the in- teresting political situation which has developed quite generally in the North- west as a result of the political activi- ties of the Non-Partisan League. That organization, supported not infre- quently by the Socialists and by the labor group, has advanced a program which has aroused bitter opposition both among Republicans and Demo- crats, with the result that the tradi- tional political alignments have tended to be obscured. Recent campaigns in Minnesota have turned largely upon the issue of conservation against radi- calism. ‘This situation has developed simultaneously with, but wholly in- dependent of, the operation of the non-partisan legislative election sys- tem; and any appraisal of the results of that system must of course reckon with the fact that the old Republican- Democratic political alignment would have largely disappeared from the Minnesota legislature, even if party designations had been left on the legis- lative ballot. Keeping in mind these Voters’ Association were defeated. The non- partisan election measure was beaten by a heavy vote. In the opinion of competent observers it helped to defeat the other measures. See analysis by Charles B. Cheney in Minneapolis Journal, December 6, 1921. 27 Law of 1913, Chap. 389. 28 In the remaining portion of this paper the writer has drawn heavily upon the researches of one of his graduate students, Sister Helen Angela Hurley, of the Faculty of the College of St. Catherine, St. Paul. He has also been aided by the observations and judgment of his col- league, Professor William Anderson, Director of the Bureau for Government Research, Uni- versity of Minnesota. 29 Minneapolis Journal, May 17, 1912. An , editorial entitled “A Move in Despair” char- acterized the proposed revision of the primary law out of which the non-partisan system grew as “the desperate act of a beaten man,” 92 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY facts, it is nevertheless possible to indicate certain fairly definite results which have come from the non-parti- san legislative ballot. (2) The Candidates. The non-parti- san nominating system has probably produced a more cosmopolitan group of candidates than the old plan. The door of opportunity stands open to any- one who can muster even very moder- ate support.” It has presented to the people some candidates of worth who might not have found favor with the regular party organizations, and it has also resulted in many nominations wholly irresponsible in character. It has by no means caused the nomina- tion and election of. persons without party affiliations. The candidates are almost invariably members of political parties rather than bona fide independ- ents. There seems to be a general opinion that the calibre of legislators is fully as high as it was before the pres- ent system was introduced and perhaps even higher. And yet, if the Min- 30'The writer has heard this statement made upon the authority of the leaders of the “dry” forces in the legislature of 1913. See also Minneapolis Tribune, Feb. 28, 1913. 3L Minneapolis Journal, February 28, 1913, p. 19. 2 Unfortunately very few of them have ex- pressed their views in writing. For an able argument against the Minnesota Direct Primary Law in general and the non-partisan nominating and electing system in particular, see pamphlet (privately printed), Minnesota Election Laws in Theory and Practise, by F. H. Carpenter, one of the leaders in the Republican state organization. 33'The questions asked were in substance the following: i 1. Is the Minnesota legislature genuinely non-partisan? Do political groups therein hold caucuses to map out party policy? 2. Is there effective leadership under the non- partisan system and if so what is its basis? 3. Do you think that the people vote more intelligently because the legislative ballot is non-partisan? 4. In general, do you think the results are better under the present system? nesota legislature has improved in its general tone and in the calibre of its members, it must also be borne in mind that that result may also be in large measure attributed to the elimination from state politics of the liquor issue with all its deplorable tendency to undermine legislative integrity. _ (3) The Issues in Legislative Cam- paigns. Under the non-partisan ballot system, policies and principles have largely disappeared as issues in legisla- tive campaigns. In some cases the campaign has turned on the question of conservatism versus radicalism, but usually little or no effort has been made to translate those slogans into concrete terms. The determining factors in the campaign are the personality and ex- perience of the candidates, and the extent to which their names are gener- ally known. A premium is placed upon self-advertising. Under the non- partisan arrangement, the state politi- cal parties have found little effective use for party platforms; and certainly legislative candidates have paid scant attention to such platforms even when admitting their own party affiliations. In fact, there is a discernible tendency upon the part of such candidates to refuse to commit themselves publicly to anything definite in the way of prin- ciples, although this is not invariably * The writer can produce little documentary evidence in support of the following statements as to the results of the Minnesota non-partisan system. The statements are based to a large extent upon the confidential replies to the ques- tionnaire sent to the members of the legislature and also upon the writer’s personal observations and discussion with other interested observers. * In 1922 an undergraduate in the University of Minnesota, one of the writer’s students at that time, ran for legislative nomination in one of the Minneapolis districts and secured it. He relied chiefly for support upon the fact that he held a card in one of the railway unions and that he had been a conspicuous figure in university athletics and was personally popular on the campus. He was defeated for election..; Non-PArtTIsAN NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS 93 the case.** Thus legislative elections in Minnesota tend to degenerate into popularity contests rather than con- tests from which any popular mandate upon legislative matters can be inferred. In the campaign of 1922, this condi- tion of affairs was further accentuated in some twenty odd districts by the fact that both the candidates were members of the same political party and could hardly be expected to be in any marked disagreement with each other. The party affiliations of the candidates are generally known, and in the more populous districts this is frequently about all the concrete in- formation concerning the contestants which the average voter can secure. But except in the cases where the issue of conservatism against radicalism has crept in, it is hard to say how much weight is to be attached to such party affiliations. Various parties, groups and organizations resort to the practice of endorsing certain of the candidates during the campaign; but this does not necessarily mean that the candidates have promised to support any partic- ular principles in order to secure such endorsements.37 (4) The Intelligence of the Voter in the Legislative Campaign. From what has been said it is fairly clear that the intelligence with which the elector 3% The Minnesota League of Women Voters sent a questionnaire upon specific legislative issues to all legislative candidates in 1922. Of the 396 who survived the primary about 155 sent replies. These replies were not published, but were open for inspection at the League head- quarters. It would of course be unfair to assume that because a candidate failed to make a reply, he was trying to conceal his views on legislative issues, but the figures are nevertheless significant. 37 The Farmer-Labor Party publicly endorsed candidates for the legislature in 1922. In certain districts where two Republicans were running against each other the Farmer-Labor endorsement of one of them proved in some cases embarrassing to the recipient by creating a misleading impression as to his views. casts his vote for legislator in Minne- sota depends upon what he can find out about the personal characteristics of the candidates. In the rural dis- tricts where personal acquaintance is general and easy, there is evidence that real discrimination is used.*® In the larger cities the voter’s problem is more difficult. There is plenty of political advertising sounding the praises of the various aspirants, and one is sometimes aided by the open endorsements of candidates by various groups and interests. But unbiased information about the real character and ability of the contestants it is almost impossible to secure, to say nothing of reliable data as to their principles and policies. This is the writer's own experience and that of many thoughtful people with whom he has discussed the matter. (5) Is the Minnesota Legislature a Non-Partisan Body? 'There seems to be little doubt that the Minnesota legislature functions in the main on a non-partisan basis. While it is true that each member as a rule is aware of the party affiliations of his col- leagues, an analysis of the voting would fail to show any marked alignment of Republicans against Democrats.*® Upon certain issues there has been a definite lining up of conservatives against radicals, but this would un- 38 The original non-partisan law in Minnesota required the words “Nominated at primary election non-partisan’? to appear on the ballot after candidates’ names. Laws of 1912, Chap. 12. Inthe election of 1918, the first in which the Non-Partisan League figured, this led to con- fusion, especially in rural districts, where the voters thought the word non-partisan referred to the Non-Partisan League. ‘To remedy this the law was changed in 1919 (Laws of 1919, Chap. 230) so that the words “‘Nominated without party designation”? now appear after the names of candidates for non-partisan office. 39 This was the practically unanimous verdict of the legislators who replied to the above- mentioned questionnaire sent by the writer. 94 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY doubtedly have taken place had the members been elected on party ballots. The Socialist and Non-Partisan League members in the legislature in 1921 held party caucuses throughout the session and voted as a unit upon many measures. The Republicans and Democrats, however, did not caucus upon matters of legislative policy and no open efforts seem to have been made to encourage the recognition of party lines. Individual members seem to be governed in voting largely by their own personal judgments and no stigma attaches to the Republican or Democrat who votes against the majority of his fellow partisans. It is possible that the added strength in the legislature which the Farmer- Labor party will enjoy in the session of 1923, will produce a more clear-cut and permanent alignment of conserva- tive against radical forces so that a new and genuine partisan division will appear; but at the time of writing it is too early to predict this with assurance. (6) Leadership in the Minnesota Legislature. In the absence of well- organized party groups, leadership in the Minnesota legislature has been greatly weakened and during sub- stantial periods seems to have dis- appeared altogether. What leader- ship there is seems to rest largely upon the basis of personality and legislative experience. It tends to fluctuate and is frequently purely temporary. Prior to each legislative session, it is customary to hold an informal inter-party caucus to lay plans for the selection of the speaker and the choice of committee chairmen.!° Certain men assume naturally a more 40 Such a caucus was held in November, 1922. See Minneapolis Journal, November 22, 1922, p. 17, and Minneapolis Morning Tribune, Novem- ber 22, 1922, p. 1, for an account of work done by this caucus. or less dominating position on such occasions. They can never be sure of continued influence however. They may forge to the front as certain issues come up for consideration, and then find themselves deserted as soon as those issues are disposed of. This was notably true of the leadership which asserted itself in 1915 and 1917 when the question of prohibition was being discussed. This lack of perma- nent leadership and discipline has the advantage of leaving legislators a full freedom of action, in striking contrast to the iron-clad rule of the party caucus in other state legislatures. It results, however, in a good deal of confusion and lost energy; and it also tends to accentuate in the mind of the legislator, the local interests of the district to which alone he finds himself responsible. (7) The Position of the Governor. Not the least interesting consequence of the non-partisan legislative ballot in Minnesota is its effect upon the position of the governor. The gov- ernor in Minnesota, as elsewhere, is coming to be regarded as a‘leader of legislative policy.4t He is the only officer chosen by the state at large who has any real share in the process of legislation, and the people look to him as the spokesman and defender of state-wide interests. More than any other officer in Minnesota he runs upon a platform of policies, although the definiteness of that platform is not always its outstanding feature. And yet the governor must depend for the carrying out of his policies, to 41The Democratic State Platform in 1922, for instance, contained this statement: ‘“‘We denounce the present administration for forcing upon the legislature the passage of a Tonnage Tax Law of doubtful validity....” The governor apparently had considerable influence in the legislature of 1921. See Minneapolis Journal, April 21, 1921; Minneapolis Morning Tribune, April 23, 1921. Non-PartisANn NoMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS say nothing of the confirmation of his appointments, upon legislators committed to nothing in particular in _ the way of principles and sharing no . _responsibility for the fulfillment of "any promises or declarations he has ~ made. In fact, there have been nu- merous instances in which members of | the legislature have refused during the campaign to take any stand whatever upon the gubernatorial contest, and have only been aroused to the fact that the governor was a fellow partisan when questions of patronage have arisen. Thus, while the governor is being held increasingly responsible by the people for legislative results, the non-partisan legislative system tends, in the proportion to which the legislature is genuinely non-partisan, to render his power actually to assume that responsibility largely a matter of luck. (8) Responsibility in the Non-Parti- san Legislature. From what has al- ready been said it must be apparent that the effective enforcement of responsibility for legislation in Minne- sota has been virtually destroyed by the non-partisan system. In no state is the enforcement of such responsibility an easy matter. In Minnesota, how- ever, where policies and_ principles are practically ignored in the legis- lative campaigns; where effective party discipline has disappeared from the legislative halls; where permanent and recognized leadership is almost wholly lacking, responsibility rests not upon any group or party, but upon the in- dividual members. In other words, legislative responsibility is almost ex- clusively personal in character, which means that for practical purposes it might as well not exist save in so far as the local interests of the individual legislative districts are concerned. There is plenty of evidence that the Minnesota legislators fully appreciate 95 this situation. They are accountable to their particular constituents and to no one else. They need not concern themselves with the effect of their actions upon any party because they are not the spokesmen of any party. So long as he can secure a slice for his district, there is no effective po- litical influence to restrain any member from participating in the excesses of pork-barrel legislation; and it has been a matter of general comment that non-partisan legislatures in Minnesota have more than once passed appropria- tion laws and imposed tax levies which no responsible party would have dared to enact.‘*7 Many members of the legislature have themselves borne wit- ness to the fact that there is a tempta- tion and a tendency for the legislator to react in a more or less personal way to legislative problems. He feels in- clined to avoid trouble and to keep his own political fences in repair. He can rest safely upon the assumption that his constituents will at most be familiar with only a very small part of his legislative record and that if the more conspicuous parts of that record pass muster, he need not worry about the rest. The writer does not wish to be understood as suggesting that members of the Minnesota legislature are lacking in patriotism or broad- mindedness, but to emphasize that the non-partisan system tends to make personal and local interests overshadow state-wide interests and at the same time practically obliterates real re- sponsibility for legislative results. IV. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The net results of the foregoing study may be summarized as follows: First, in municipal and local govern- ment the non-partisan ballot has in general produced wholesome results. “This charge was widely made against the legislature elected in 1916. (Sy Puig gta qe 96 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Second, the non-partisan judicial ballot has tended to accentuate rather than alleviate the evils incident to an elective judiciary. Third, the non- partisan legislative ballot in Minnesota has produced results which are on the whole more unsatisfactory than other- wise, although those results are to some extent colored by the local political situation. It is possible, however, to go further and suggest certain general principles which seem to govern the degree of success with which the non- partisan plan can be applied to vari- ous types of nominations and elections. These may be stated thus: (1) The Size of the Electoral Unit. The non-partisan plan works best where the electorate is small enough to make widespread acquaintance with the candidates possible. (2) The Length. of the Ballot. Where a short ballot is being voted, electoral intelligence is higher and more general than where the ballot is long and complicated, and the absence of party designations from the ballot will prove a less serious handicap. In _ long ballot elections the non-partisan scheme leads to confusion worse confounded. (3) The Character of the Issues. The success of the non-partisan ballot will vary with the character of the issues involved in the election. Where the issues are primarily those of char- acter or personality, the results will tend to be good. This would be the case in the choice of city commissioners and the like. Where the issues are largely issues of technical ability and expert knowledge, as in the case of all but the lowest grades of judicial office, popular election will never produce satisfactory results and those results will on the whole be rendered worse by a non-partisan ballot. Where the issues in the election are, or ought to be, issues of policy or principle, they will be obscured by the non-partisan plan with a consequent falling off in effective responsibility, and the results will tend to be increasingly unsatisfactory in accordance with the extent to which non-partisanship becomes a_ reality rather than a fiction. (4) The Need of Endorsements im Non-Partisan Elections. Finally, the writer ventures to suggest that except in the smallest political units, the non-partisan ballot would produce better results if some plan were evolved, in accordance with which individual candidates might have printed after their names on the ballot, the endorse- ments of political and non-political groups or organizations. Provision should of course be made to make sure that such groups were actual and responsible bodies. Such endorse- ments, and a candidate might receive several, would aid the voter materially in making his choice by indicating the kind of sponsorship back of the various contestants. Experience shows that just this process goes on unofficially at present; and there is reason to believe that if such endorse- ments were legally recognized and regulated, some of the more confusing and unsatisfactory elements in our own non-partisan elections might be elim- inated. Pre-Primary Conventions By ScuuyLer C. WALLACE Instructor in Political Science, Columbia University OES pre-arrangement fatally com- promise the idea of the direct primary? Almost from the inception of the movement there has been an important body of opinion (represented at an early day by the so-called Hughes plan) which has accepted the notion that normally the natural leadership of a party must prevail and which has accordingly advocated the direct pri- mary as a corrective rather than as a source of constant popular initiative. On the other hand, it must be said that from the standpoint of the main body of agitation on behalf of the direct primary, and from the standpoint both of the spirit and of the letter of most direct primary laws, any element of pre-arrangement which tends to reduce to a mere formality the vote of the rank and file of the party members constitutes a fatal compromise. Pre- primary conventions, more perhaps than any other tangible feature in the machinery of nominations, afford an opportunity for such pre-arrangement. The law and the practice regarding them are crucial factors in the opera- tion of the direct primary. LEGAL Provisions CONCERNING THE ~ PrRE-PRImMARY CONVENTION In Colorado,! South Dakota,? and Minnesota,* the old nominating con- vention has been combined with the direct primary. The schemes, however, are fundamentally different. In Colo- rado the purpose of the law has been two-fold: first, the elimination of non- entities from the ballot; and second, 1 Colorado Election Laws 1922, D 1, sec. 4. 2 South Dakota Code 1919, sec. 7108. 3 Minnesota Election Laws 1922, sec. 370 A. 8 the prevention of the manipulation of a convention to the advantage of any dominant clique. Both purposes are accomplished by placing before the voters all candidates within the party who have sufficient strength to warrant consideration. The convention itself cannot nominate. Instead, one ballot is cast. All those who receive ten per cent or more of the convention vote upon this ballot are placed before the voters at the primary. The contest is transferred from the convention to the polls. The choice is virtually thrust upon the voters. An altogether different principle un- derlies the law of South Dakota. There, responsibility of leadership is recog- nized and the statute has been shaped accordingly. The pre-primary con- vention whose composition is regulated by law, is directed to select a list of candidates and present it to the ~ voters at the primary. Provision is’ made for a dissenting proposal on the part of any five members of the con- vention. Only one such, however, may emanate from the conyention, ‘ although independent candidates may 97 secure admission to the primary ballot by means of a petition. A special effort is made to render effective the campaigns of any insurgent or inde- pendent aspirants for the party nom- ination through a series of joint debates which are mandatory upon the convention designee. To an even greater extent is the principle of party responsibility recog- nized in Minnesota. There, the con- vention is directed to endorse but one candidate for each office and submit the proposal to the voters at the pri- 98 mary. Independent nomination may of course be made, but not until after the convention has acted. Maine, Nevada,> and Wyoming,‘ make legal provision for pre-primary conventions. The purpose of such conferences is not the proposal of names for ratification or selection at the pri- maries, but rather to accomplish those other functions which are thought to be essential to party unity—the formu- lation of party principles, the selection of party central committees, the nom- , ination of delegates to the national conventions, etc. ‘Twenty-five states’ have deemed party conventions nec- essary for these purposes. Only the three named, however, have specified that they shall be held prior to the primary. Two other states, Mary- land and Washington, have placed the matter entirely in the hands of the state central committee; whereas Louisiana, Oregon, and Pennsylvania make no mention of the subject in their election laws, but nevertheless hold pre-primary conferences. The remaining states have created post- primary conventions. But what has the matter of a pre- primary or a post-primary convention, called for the purpose of formulating and promulgating a party platform, got to do with a pre-primary nomina- tions? Namely this, if the convention is held before the primary, there is a 4 Maine Primary Election Laws 1920, sec. 2. 6 Nevada Primary Election Laws 1922, sec. 24. 6 Wyoming Primary Election Laws 1922, sec. 2521. 7 Arizona Election Laws 1921, sec. 639. California Election Laws 1922, ch. 3, sec. 24. Colorado Election Laws 1922, D 1, sec. 4. “ Indiana Election Laws 1922, sec. 427. “Illinois Election Laws 1921, Art. 25, sec. 10 c. “ Iowa Election Laws 1922, sec. 1087-a27. Kansas General Statutes 1915, sec. 4190. Maine Primary Election Laws 1920, sec. 2. Maryland Election Laws 1922, secs. 41, 188. “ Minnesota Election Laws 1922, sec. 370 A. “ Michigan Election Laws 1919, sec. 3550. Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY strong probability that some action— formal or tacit—will be taken with reference to party nominees. The state laws may provide, as the laws of Main and Nebraska do provide, that no formal action may be taken, but needless to say no method has been devised of preventing the formulation of a party slate by tacit understanding. The convention, called it is true for another purpose, must of necessity facilitate such understandings. The legislatures in a majority® of the states may well have been of this opinion, for in them the excuse of platform formu- lation has been taken away from the organization leaders by the fact that platform drafting is lodged with a post- primary convention. Tue Actual PRAcTICE OF THE PRE- | PRIMARY CONVENTION To what extent the law and the practice of holding pre-primary con- ventions diverge it is difficult to deter- mine. In the three states wherein it is mandatory upon the parties to hold conventions for nominating purposes, conventions belong to the normal course of events. In Colorado, one of Missouri Election Laws 1922, sec. 4850. Montana Election Laws 1921, sec. 639. Massachusetts Election Laws 1921, ch. 53, sec. 54, New Jersey Election Laws 1922, sec. 49. North Dakota Election Laws 1921, sec. 890. Ohio Election Laws 1920, sec. 4991-1. Nevada Election Laws 1922, sec. 24. / New Hampshire Election Laws 1920, sec. 20. /South Dakota Election Laws 1919, sec. 7108. Vermont Election Laws 1920, sec. 131. Washington Election Laws 1921, sec. 59. “West Virginia Primary Election Laws 1922, sec. 3. Wisconsin Primary Election Laws 1921, sec. 5.20. Wyoming Primary Election Laws 1922, sec. 2521. 8 Ariz., Cal., Col., Ill., Ind., Iowa, Kan., Mass., Mich., Mo., Mont., N. H., N. J., N. D., Ohio, Vt., West Va., Wis. Pre-Primary CONVENTIONS 99 the states having a mandatory law, the convention has succeeded in eliminat- ing from the ticket all but the strong candidates, for despite the provision that all those who receive ten per cent or more shall be put upon the ballot, most of those who find the convention overwhelmingly against them drop out of the contest. Yet the fact that the convention cannot declare anyone nom- inated largely eliminates the opportu- nity for machine control. It has often occurred that the person obtaining the largest vote in the convention has been voted down at the primaries, and a seemingly weaker man been chosen nominee. The present governor of the state is an example of this. William C. Sweet was third in the Democratic convention, but first in the Democratic primary. The systems in operation in both South Dakota and Minnesota are especially interesting and have been treated with some detail elsewhere in this volume. No formal action is taken in any of the states in which it is mandatory to hold a pre-primary convention for the formulation of the party platform. The extent to which informal dickers take place it is impossible to tell. Both major parties in Washington, where the power of calling conventions at any time is definitely lodged with the state committees, hold pre-primary conventions. The work of their con- vention, according to the publicity department of the Republican Party, has been confined to platform making, and the selection of presidential elec- tors and delegates to national: nomi- nating conventions. Without doubt tacit understandings are arrived at here, just as in the Democratic Party in the state, which, accord- ing to party officials, holds conven- tions that are both frequent and effective. In Louisiana, where the law does not mention the subject, conven- tions are sometimes held, although not as a regular practice. One was held in 1911 and one in 1919, but no formal action was taken during the interven- ing years. In each case the work of the convention proved effective. It is interesting to note the attempt of the Democrats this year to institute the practice in Pennsylvania where the law likewise makes no mention of the subject. The recommendation of the organization was followed by the voters in the case of the governor, but not in the case of the lieutenant-gov- ernor. Despite the provision in the laws of eighteen of the states for post- primary convention, pre-primary nom- inating conventions are held in at least ten. In Iowa, North Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin, it is the regular practice to hold such conven- tions in one or another of the major parties, and probably in both. In the remaining states, Arizona, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and New Hampshire, such conferences are held at least occasionally. The four states aforementioned maintain their practice of holding preliminary con- ventions for the endorsement of candi- dates, ‘“‘so that” (in the words of one of the state chairmen) “the vote may not be fatally scattered or divided.” In Iowa and Vermont, according to the statement of party officials, the action of the convention is equivalent to nomination. Wisconsin could be in- cluded in the same category except that upon certain issues it has been the practice to pass the decision on to the party membership. This was done in 1922 when the Democratic confer- ence endorsed two candidates for gov- ernor, Bentley, a “wet,” and Malthie, a “dry.” The contest was decided on primary day. In North Dakota the situation has been somewhat anoma- 100 lous. In 1920 all designees suggested by the regular Republican organization through its pre-primary convention were defeated in the primaries by the Non-Partisan League slate, itself the re- sult of pre-arrangement by conference. In the remaining states, according to information furnished by party officials, such conventions are but occasional, and informal. ‘The con- vention in New Hampshire consists in an “informal gathering of recognized leaders.” Just how effective is its action cannot be said. In New Jersey it seems to be the practice very gen- erally to hold an informal gathering. The head of one of the party organ- izations says, “I, as State Chairman, select forty or fifty prominent party people of the state, men and women, for a two- or three-day conference, and we frame up a platform to be handed to the Convention.” Whether any- thing else is “framed up” is not stated. In Illinois it is said, “Pre-primary conferences are frequently held by numbers of party men. They assemble, discuss and agree upon whom they will support in the coming primary. Sometimes the state committee of the party has openly or secretly committed itself to the support of a slate of candidates.”” How automatic is the action of the voters is not volunteered. Somewhat similar are the pre-primary conferences in both Louisiana and California. Nineteen twenty-two saw the inau- guration of the system in both Michi- gan and Arizona. The Democratic State Chairman in Michigan says: The primary system has utterly de- stroyed party responsibility and party solidarity for the Republican Party in this state. It bade fair to do the same thing to the Democratic Party. Realizing this and realizing that there was a chance for a Democratic success in Michigan in 1922, I called a pre-primary convention in Grand Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Rapids for the selection of primary candi- dates for state offices, several months before the primary. While this was called a con- vention, it was nothing more than a state- wide conference. A general invitation to Democrats and Progressive voters was issued through the press and was supple- mented by mailed notices to Democratic county organizations and prominent Demo- crats throughout the state. The conference was largely attended. It resulted in the selection and endorsement of Woodbridge N. Ferris for senator. He was nominated for the primary and as you probably know was later elected senator against his Republican opponent. There was a split in the conference in re- gard to the available man for governor, which resulted in the selection of two candi- dates, giving us a contest in the primary. Fortunately the state organization was able to keep this primary contest on a friendly basis so that it did not result in a party split. The pre-primary convention adopted a set of resolutions which was, in effect, the platform for the candidates. The candidates agreed to the resolutions. Substantially this set of resolutions became the party platform at the legal party con- vention held after the primary. The Democratic Party organization is in no way committed to the policy of holding a pre-primary convention. The one above referred to was the first and only one held. Heretofore conferences of from a_ half dozen to twenty or thirty leaders in the party have been held to select candidates for state offices. Personally I believe the general convention or conference is much the better plan. That is why it was adopted in 1922,° In Arizona a similar situation existed. The Democratic Chairman describes it: I might say that I organized the first pre-primary convention ever held in this state and have given matters of this kind a lot of study. It was held primarily for the purpose of keeping the party together, as we have had since statehood two very distinct factions in the Democratic Party. ® Letter from the Democratic State Chairman. Pre-PRIMARY CONVENTIONS At the pre-primary “‘conference” which we called, we apparently had the two fac- tions united, and endorsed candidates by regular roll-call ballot for all state offices. All candidates endorsed, with the ex- ception of governor and State Superin- tendent of Schools, were elected without opposition in the primaries. The governor who was elected (Geo. W. P. Hunt) made his campaign as against the “‘conference,” making that his issue, bitterly denouncing it as held by a “‘click.”” This conference was held as an unofficial act, simply as a recommendation. Tue Practice In New Yorxk Although New York at the present moment does not have a state-wide direct primary, nevertheless in her past history lessons of general applica- tion can be read. : The law of 1913 had invited the convocation of pre-primary conven- tions by its failure to require the draft- ing of the platforms at conferences held after the primaries; instead, it expressly stated: Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent a party from holding party con- ventions, to be constituted in such manner and to have such powers in relation to formulating party platforms and policies and the transaction of business relating to party affairs, as the rules and regulations of the party may provide, not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. Dele- gates to any such conventions. . . shall not be chosen at official primaries or otherwise at public expense.¥ It was the practice of both parties to hold conventions about a month in advance of the primaries, to which as a rule delegates were formally. elected by the assembly district organizations under conditions which allowed par- ticipation at least by the members of the political clubs within the party. The single exception was in the case of the 10 Letter from the Democratic State Chairman. Laws 1913, ch. 820, sec. 45. 101 Republican State Conference of 1916, which was held after the primaries and which was constituted mainly of candi- dates and committeemen.” But, although it was the usual prac- tice to hold pre-primary conventions, it was by no means usual to endorse designees by formal action. For the most part the understandings were tacit. The conventions were impor- tant as arenas of negotiation, and the work that they did in the choice of candidates might have been accom- plished by the party leaders under any circumstances, although the physical assemblage of local chairmen on the broad verandas and in race-track grandstands at Saratoga no doubt greatly facilitated the task of con- solidating the sentiment of party work- ers In support of a composite primary ticket. At first there was a disposition to keep the question of nominees off the floor of the convention. Thus Mr. Whitman, who was described in 1914 as having the tacit endorsement of the assembled leaders, said of the conven- tion: I believe it would be against the best interests of the Republican Party if the 22 This conference was held Sept. 28, 1916, the primaries (in which Governor Whitman was re- nominated after much dissension but without serious opposition and in which Mr. Calder and Mr. Bacon were engaged in a very close race for the senatorial nomination) having taken place on Sept. 19. As decided upon by the State Executive Committee, the personnel comprised Senator Wadsworth, the 150 members of the State Committee, the 43 congressional candi- dates, the 51 state senatorial candidates, the 150 assembly nominees, the county chairmen, and 1 delegate from each assembly district, chosen by the members of the county committees. N.Y. Times, Sept. 14, 1916, p. 4. Comment at the time said: “When the platform finally was adopted, less than 10 delegates were in the hall, and Senator Ogden L. Mills, chairman of the resolutions committee, who read the 2,500 word document, had an audience mostly of empty seats. The great majority of the delegates were at dinner.” Ibid., Sept. 29, 1916, p. 4. 102 convention should go on record as favoring any candidate for a nomination for public office in the coming primaries. This has been my attitude from the first. Such en- dorsement would involve an evasion of the Direct Primary Act. It would undoubtedly be used in the campaign against the candi- date receiving it.¥ The Democratic Party was the first to take the question of a slate before the convention as a whole; the Repub- fican Party eventually went furthest. In 1916, 1918 and again in 1920, the Democratic Party used the scheme of an informal roll-call, whereby the spokesmen of the several county dele- gations expressed the presumed senti- ment of their localities regarding a candidate for the governorship and, on a second calling of the roll, regarding possible candidates for the minor elective state offices. ‘This practice continued, although not without pro- test; in 1920 it was sustained by a vote of 434 to 16.4% 13N. Y. Times, Aug. 17, 1914. Mr. Whitman was the successful designee for the governorship in 1914, 1916 and 1918. In the latter year his supporters were reported to have regular cam- paign headquarters at the scene of the unofficial convention. A press comment just before the meeting of the 1914 convention read: “Mr. Whitman’s friends and supporters have been busy all afternoon and evening in the absorbing task of slate-making. As a result, common report has it that there is in existence now what is known as the ‘Whitman Combination Slate,’ as follows....” Ibid., Aug. 18, 1916, p. 6. 14]t was first used in connection with a reput- edly popular, anti-organization nomination, that of Justice Seabury for governorship in 1916, who received the indicated preferences of 49 of 62 county delegations. A press account stated: “The conference came to an end without adopt- ing any address recommending formally a set of candidates to the enrolled Democrats who will vote in the primaries. In line with the expressed preference of the delegates as shown in the roll- calls, it is understood that a complete slate was determined upon at a conference between Tam- many Leader Charles F. Murphy and some of the up-state Democratic leaders.”” N.Y. Times, Aug. 12, 1916, pp. 1, 3. 16N,. Y. Times, Aug. 4, 1920, p. 1. The objector was Mr. (then Mayor) Lunn, who be- Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY In 1920 the Republican Party con- vention went the whole distance. A full ticket was voted upon and pre- - sented to the party voters through a formal resolution.” Despite the variation in method, however, the element of pre-arrange- ment has been present in New York State throughout the history of the state-wide direct primary. It is true that contests within the state tickets have not been wholly lacking: in 1914, out of 9 places, 2 were contested in Republican primary, 9 in the Demo- cratic; in 1916, of 10 places, 3 were contested in the Republican primary, 1 in the Democratic; in 1918, of 7 places, 4 were contested in the Repub- lican primary, 1 in the Democratic; in 1920, of 9 places, 5 were contested in the Republican primary, and again only 1 in the Democratic. Throughout the period, however, no designee for state-wide office understood at the time to have the support of the so-called organization, has been defeated for came the unsuccessful anti-organization de- signee for the U. S. senatorial nomination in the following primaries, in which he furnished the only contest on the state-wide ticket. Just before the 1920 Democratic convention, Mr. Charles F. Murphy was interviewed with the following result: ‘‘‘We did not designate two years ago,’ he said, after brief silence. “But you recommended a ticket, headed by Smith.’ ‘No, we didn’t,’ said Mr. Murphy. ‘What did you do?’ was asked. ‘The convention just called the roll of counties to find out whom and what the people wanted—that was all,’ said the Tammany leader.” N.Y. Times, Aug. 1, 1920, p. 4. 16The resolution read: “ Whereas, This con- vention, representing Republican Party of the State of New York, while recognizing the right of any citizen to enter the primaries to be held on Sept. 14, believes that the enrolled voters of the party will welcome and approve the advice of this convention as to candidates for State offices and United States senator; Therefore, be it resolved, that this convention proceed to recommend to the enrolled voters of the Repub- lican Party of the State of New York a candidate for each of the following offices... .” WN. Y. Times, July 29, 1920, p. 2. Prr-Primary CoNVENTIONS nomination.” This does not prove, of course, that the possibilities inherent in the direct primary did not profoundly influence the decisions arrived at in process of pre-arrangement. On the other hand, although the New York law as it stood between 1914 and 1920 must be charged with having invited pre-primary conventions under condi- tions that made some pre-arrangement well-nigh inevitable, the foregoing ac- count does not show that, under the deep-seated political conditions of the state, the fore-stalling of the primary would not have been accomplished nearly as completely without con- ventions. ATTITUDE OF Party MANAGERS Although the attitude of party managers is not unanimously in favor of the establishment of pre-primary conventions by law, it is overwhelm- ingly so. They seem to feel that such conferences are essential to the main- tenance of the solidarity and responsi- bility of the party. As Lawrence Y. _ Sherman, Republican State Chairman of Illinois expresses it: _ Party solidarity and responsibility are _ practically destroyed in this state. The processes of disintegration are detrimental to good government reflected in the election of partisan officers. It is recognized that a long measure of party responsibility is the means of fairly good government. If the responsibility is absent or broken down, it is my observation that the kind of candi- dates nominated or elected correspondingly are of a lower level. It leads to the absence of first-class men on the ticket. The pre- primary convention is one way of restoring party responsibility. To those who adhere to the Hughes 17, Feldman, “The Direct Primary in New York State,” American Political Science Review, Aug. 1917, vol. XI, no. 3, pp. 494-518. For later figures, see the informing article by R. S. Boots, ““New York’s Imperfect Primary,” in N.Y. Evening Post, March 2, 1921. 103 plan this will seem but a rational de- mand; to those who look upon the direct primary as the means of destroy- ing all advantage that the leaders enjoy by virtue of their positions, it will seem an attempt of the dominant clique to restore itself to power. CONCLUSIONS At any rate, it can be said that the direct primary in its present form has made party leadership more responsi- ble than it ever was before. Even in those states in which a _ pre- primary nominating convention has been established by law, the action of the convention is not the final authority, and in the court of final appeal that action has been frequently reversed. Formal action endorsing any particular slate is not taken in any of the states which hold a pre-primary convention for the purpose of formulat- ing party principles. If tacit under- standings are arrived at and doubtless they are, ratification by the voters is not automatic. In two of the states which place the convocation of con- ventions in the hands of party com- mittees, the party managers seem to rule with their old-time effectiveness. Of only three other states can this be said. In eight of the eleven states which have held both pre- and post- primary conventions the action of the pre-primary conference is unusual. It can hardly be said on the basis of these five states that the direct pri- mary has failed to accomplish at least the hopes of those who thought of it as an instrument with which to make party leadership more responsive to . popular demand. If this survey indi- cates anything, it indicates that the direct primary, although eliminating neither “bossism” nor “invisible gov- ernment,” has at any rate made party leadership more largely subject to popular control. 104 Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Nots.—It should be stated that the chief basis for the information con- tained in this article was a question- naire sent out to the various state chairmen. No attempt has been made, except in the case of New York, to go behind their replies. A study of elec- tion contests might lead to deductions that would modify somewhat the con- clusions as here presented. Proportional Representation in the United States Its Spread, Principles of Operation, Relation to Direct Primaries, and General Results By C. G. Hoae Secretary, Proportional Representation League HOUGH cumulative voting and the limited vote, both of which assure some representation to the leading minority party, were intro- duced for certain public elections, notably in Illinois and Pennsylvania some two generations ago, it was not until 1915 that a thorough-going system of proportional representation was adopted for a public election in the United States. In August of that year Ashtabula, Ohio, adopted the “single transferable vote” or “Hare system” of proportional repre- sentation—“P. R.” as it is called for short—at the polls, as an amend- ment to its new city manager charter which had been adopted on November 3, 1914. The vote for the amendment was 588 to 400. The system was applied to the election of seven council- men at large. CITIES Boulder, Colorado, adopted pro- portional representation for its council on October 30, 1917. The Boulder council has nine members. ‘Three are elected at large every two years for a term of six years. The election of so small a number together did not have the approval of the Proportional Repre- sentation League: the leaders of that organization would have preferred the election of all nine together. P. R. was adopted by Kalamazoo, Michigan, on February 4, 1918, by a vote of 2,403 to 659, for the election at large of its commission of seven 105 members. After the new system had been used in two elections it was thrown out by a decision of the Su- preme Court of Michigan, rendered September 30, 1920. ‘The court held that the Hare system violated the clause of the state constitution which declares that “in all elections every . . . [Here qualified voters are de- fined] shall be an elector and entitled Lovoten a4 Proportional representation was adopted on February 11, 1921, for the council of West Hartford, Con- necticut, by vote of that body itself under authority given it by special act of the legislature. West Hartford is a fine residential suburb of Hartford. The system is applied to the election of fifteen councilmen from four districts, the number elected from the districts being five, one, four, and five. As applied in the Second District, where only one member is elected, the system works out as a preferential majority ‘system. The splitting up of the town thus into districts was not in accord- ance with the recommendations of the Proportional Representation League, which would have preferred election at large. The first adoption of the system was for one election only. After the first election, however, the council voted—on February 6, 1922— to continue its use. Sacramento, California, adopted the proportional system for its council of nine November 30, 1920. ‘The vote was 7,962 to 1,587. ‘The members are 106 elected all together at large. The first election was held on May 83, 1921. Soon afterwards action was taken by Mr. James H. Devine, one of the de- feated candidates, to have the courts declare the system contrary to the constitution of California. The lower court sustained the system. On Oc- tober 23, 1922, however, the Appellate Court, to which Mr. Devine appealed, handed down a decision declaring the system unconstitutional. On Decem- ber 22 the Supreme Court of the state denied the petition for the transfer of the case to its jurisdiction. The mem- bers of the council will be allowed to finish out their terms, which end in December, 1923. The most striking advance of pro- portional representation in this coun- try since the first election under the system in Ashtabula in 1915, was its adoption by Cleveland on November 8, 1921, in connection with the city manager plan. The vote was 77,888 to 58,204. In Cleveland, the system is to be applied to the election of a council of twenty-five from four dis- tricts: from the West Side, 7; from the Central District, 6; from the South Side, 5; and from the East Side, 7. The new election system is part of a very comprehensive amendment to the Cleveland home rule charter, which is to all intents and purposes an entirely new charter. The new plan of government goes into operation January 1, 1924, the first election being held on November 6, 1923. Usep witH Ciry Manacer PLAN It is significant that all these cities which have decided to use the pro- portional system have adopted it in connection with the manager plan of government. In my opinion, for reasons set forth in the latter part of this article, this is in accordance with sound political theory. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Tue SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE It is important also to note that the system of proportional representation adopted by all these American cities is the “single transferable vote” or “Hare system.” Strangely enough, too, no other system than this single transferable vote has been adopted for public elections in any other English- speaking country, though rival systems, especially the party list system, have spread with great rapidity in recent years over continental Europe and some other parts of the world. The chief difference, so far as politi- cal effects are concerned, between the single transferable vote and the list system is that the former gives the voter far more freedom than the latter to make his will effective even when he consults only his own real prefer- ences without being restricted by party lines and without regard to any candi- date’s supposed strength or weakness. It is this greater freedom of the voter under the single transferable vote that makes the system effective not only in giving the right number of seats in the representative body to each section of public opinion but also in freeing the voter from thraldom to political “machines.” The main principles of the single transferable vote are easily explained. The members of the representative body are elected either all together at large, as in the case of the council of a small or medium-sized city, or in districts each of which is large enough to elect several. No matter how many members are being elected in a voter’s district, he has but one vote. If a sufficient number of votes—a quota, as it is called—support a candidate, he is elected. If seven are being elected together, the perfect quota would be, of course, one seventh of all who have voted. For practical reasons, PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES however, a slightly smaller number, namely, barely more than one eighth of all who have voted, is used as the quota. The voter expresses his vote by putting the figure 1 opposite the name of his favorite candidate. He is, however, allowed and encouraged also to express his second and lower choices by the figures 2, 3, etc.—as many or as few such lower choices as he pleases. At the voting precincts only the first choices are counted. The ballots of the entire multi-member district are brought together from the precincts to a central counting place. The count is then completed in accordance with definite rules which work out in causing each ballot to help, if possi- ble, in the election of one candidate— in every case the candidate marked as most desired by the voter among those candidates who could possibly be helped to election by it. Thus each member of the body is elected by a quota of voters who are united, con- sidering the actual alignments revealed by the ballots, in the desire to elect the candidate whom in fact they do elect. | As a quota of votes is required for the election of each member—I dis- regard certain exceptions — no party or group can elect more members than it polls quotas of votes. And, on the other hand, any group of voters which polls a quota of votes or more is sure to elect the member or members it deserves. ILLUSTRATION OF POLITICAL EFFECTS The political effects. of the trans- ferability of the vote, which are quite distinct from the proportional effects mentioned in the preceding paragraph, may be illustrated by a single example. Suppose seven councilmen were being elected together, and suppose each voter had only one vote and it was not transferable. In that case a po- 107 litical party which expected to poll three-sevenths of the total vote (or at least more than _ three-eighths, which is the same thing in effect), would nominate only three candidates and would read out of the party any of its members who nominated rivals to those three. For to nominate rivals to the three in that case would be to “split the party vote” and expose the party to possible disaster. In the election, therefore, the voters would have to take their choices among the “regular” candidates of the several parties, Now suppose all the conditions to be the same except that the voter is al- lowed to indicate on his ballot as many choices as he pleases, and that those who count the ballots are to make effec- tive the highest of his choices that can be made effective. In this case inde- pendent members of the party whose managers nominated three candidates (having in the transferable ballot the means of conducting at the election itself a competition within the party for the three places which the party may expect to win), will feel quite free to nominate rivals to the “machine” can- didates of the party. Thus the trans- ferable vote means real competition within each party, without any reduc- tion of the party’s strength as a whole. It therefore changes the whole face of politics, requiring of political managers not the mere capturing of places on party slates, but genuine leadership. RELATION BETWEEN PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND DIREcT PRIMARY The relation between proportional representation with the single trans- ferable vote and the direct primary will now be clear. The direct primary came into existence only because our old system of balloting, permitting the voter as it did to express only one 108 choice for each office, afforded no opportunity at the final election for free competition within a party for the offices which the party’s total vote might enable it to win. A party which in the final election ran more candidates than it could elect, that is, more than were to be elected, courted disaster, for splitting the party vote meant throwing votes away. The resulting necessity of restricting nom- inations meant, in turn, the virtual control of politics by those who con- trolled the nominations of the two great parties. ‘The ordinary independ- ent citizen had, it is true, the legal right to vote; but of what practical value was this right if he had nobody to vote for, with any likelihood of electing them, except machine-picked Republicans and machine-picked Democrats? Helpless as they were un- der such conditions, the voters demand- ed—what naturally seemed to them the only means of relief—a system of nominating candidates by direct and legally regulated primary elections. The failure of the direct primary system to give the voters all the relief they sought was not, of course, sur- prising to those who had studied the effects of the old single-shot vote as compared with those of the transferable vote. Suppose you were sending some distance for fruit and did not know what kinds might be available in the market: if you were restricted to naming a single kind of fruit, your messenger would very likely return empty-handed. In sending for fruit, however, you are not in fact restricted thus: there is nothing to prevent your naming several kinds in the order of your preference, with directions to the messenger that only one—your high- est choice among the kinds available —is to be brought But in voting, under the old single-shot system, though there may be several candidates Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY for a single office, you are restricted to the expression of only one choice. Do away with that restriction and the primary election becomes superfluous. Keep that restriction, and even the troublesome and expensive primary is inadequate to give the voter real free- dom. For, after all, the primary does nothing more than carry the same old difficulty one step further back: offer- ing the voters at the primary itself only the same old single-shot ballot, it often presents to him only the same old dilemma between voting for a can- didate he really wants and voting for the less objectionable of the two who have some chance of winning. The direct primary system, though naturally advocated as the best remedy for machine domination by leaders of public opinion not familiar with the transferable vote, and though actually helpful in many notable cases in giving the people control of public affairs, was not and is not the true remedy. The true remedy is the transferable vote. g APPLICATION OF TRANSFERABLE VOTE But how, if the transferable vote was to be used, is it to be applied? It would be possible, of course, to apply it not only to the policy-determining body, as is done in the American cities which have adopted it, but also sepa- rately, as a majority system, to every other office now filled at the polls. And that would be preferable, certainly, to the two single-shot elections—the final one and the primary—which we now have. But it would not give the voters complete relief. Even with the transferable vote in their hands, the rank and file of our voters are not in a position to choose wisely among a multitute of candidates for admin- istrative as well as deliberative posi- tions. The one thing they are in a position to do, if provided with the PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES right sort of ballot, is to choose spokes- men to represent them, in a council or a legislature, in the determination of general policies and the selection and replacement of chief administrators. In the rest of the government they can have their way most surely by holding their spokesmen responsible for making the right decisions. It was therefore quite right, in my opin- ion, when some of our cities became ready to adopt the transferable vote, for them not to apply it as a majority system to administrative offices but to apply it as a quota or proportional system to the council only, holding that body responsible for all the rest of the government. To have elected a truly representative council and then to have elected other city officials more or less independent of that body would have been only to divide the responsibility and confuse the issues. Success oF PLAN As the number of our cities which have been actually governed under this plan is now five and as several of them have been under the plan from two to six years, it is interesting to inquire how they have gotten along. On this point I cannot claim to be a dispassionate observer. But there seems to be enough evidence, of a wholly unprejudiced character, to war- rant us in saying that everywhere the plan has been successful and that in some of the cities its benefits have been very marked. After the first election in Ashtabula, it is true, the new voting system was blamed by some for the bad deadlock of the council in choosing the first city manager, for its final choice of one of its own members, and for the shooting of a man in a barroom fight later by one of the councilmen. But none of these unfortunate oc- currences was directly connected with 109 the method of voting, and the sub- sequent experience of Ashtabula seems to indicate that that method is gener- ally approved by leading citizens of all elements. This experience, con- sidered from two very different points of view, is covered by the following statements made after the third P. R. election by Mr. P. C. Remick, former President of the Ashtabula Chamber of Commerce, and by Mr. Charles G. Nelson, former President of the Ashta- bula Central Labor Union. Mr. Rem- ick: “After watching the results of our three elections under the Hare system, I am pleased with the results. In each case the best of the candidates have been elected.”” Mr. Nelson: “I believe it is the fairest method of election ever used.”’ The success of the system in Ashtabula is confirmed strongly also by the city’s rejection at the polls in 1920 of a proposal to do away with it, and by its adoption in 1921, in the light of Ashtabula’s ex- perience, by the neighboring city of Cleveland. In Sacramento nearly all elements expressed themselves favorably after the first election in 1921. The Star (May 5th): “On every hand satisfac- tion is being expressed in no uncertain terms.” The Union (May 5th): “The results obtained May 3rd indicate that gangsters, politicians, and advocates of mass voting are completely stag- gered.” The government of Sacramento under the new charter has been, it is reported, highly efficient and successful; and according to a statement made after the close of the first calendar year by Mr. Irvin Engler, Assistant Secre- tary of the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce, “Working in harmony, thoroughly representative, and giving the manager support in progressive movements, the council has had a con- spicuous part in the results attained.” On December 23, the day after the 110 Supreme Court’s refusal to re-hear the case on the constitutionality of P. R., the Sacramento Sitar said editorially: “Men who were skeptical about the plan when it was adopted were enthu- siastic over its merits after they saw it in operation. . . . Sacramento will again in time have proportional repre- sentation voting, as will every other governmental group in the United States.” Of the working of P. R. in the other American cities which have tried it, only favorable reports have come to Ture ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY my notice. On account of its effects where it has been tried and the need that is felt in some cities, governed under the manager plan, which lack it, the National Municipal League now recommends it for all cities governed under that plan. It was to the need of P. R. in such cities, indeed, that the President of the National Municipal League, Colonel Henry M. Waite, the distinguished first city manager of Dayton, devoted his.annual address as president of that body last No- vember. Prevention of Minority Nominations for State Offices in the Direct Primary By Bens. H. Witutams, Pu.D. University of Pennsylvania HE typical state-wide direct pri- mary law in this country provides for plurality nominations. Under such a law the candidate who receives the highest number of votes, whether this number is a majority or not, secures the nomination. The operation of the primary law so far has shown that this plurality is an actual majority in by far the greater number of cases. But there is always the possibility that in a divided field a candidate who repre- sents the views of a minority of the voters may be successful. An example of this may be taken from the primary elections of 1922. In a congressional district in a western state the congress- man seeking renomination was con- fronted with strong opposition because he had voted against the soldier’s bonus in the House of Representatives a short time before the primary election. His opponents could not, however, confine their opposition to one candidate. ‘T'wo ex-soldiers and pro-bonus men entered the lists. The results were as follows: ATICUIMIDOTID Pots eh. ies ier «2 bide eye 15,515 TP OPOMSe eB 55d a8 kde Go & Oye 4.8 14,346 He RPE Te We tes 0 aig) oh i x00 @ &.dpne 10,416 Had only one ex-soldier opposed the congressman in that district, the bonus advocates would have been victorious without question. This possibility that where a plurality is sufficient to nominate, the final result may be di- rectly opposite to that desired by the majority of the voters, has caused some concern among friends of the law, and several devices have been introduced in the attempt to obviate this feature. These methods are of three general lil types, which may be described as the second primary, the preferential vote and the resort to a convention where no candidate in the primary has re- ceived a majority or a certain high percentage of the vote. THE SECOND PRIMARY The second primary election resem- bles the system which was generally used some years ago in European coun- tries, where, with the multiplicity of parties, it was found: wise to guard against minority control by holding a second election, in case no candidate received a majority. In this country the second election has been adopted in the primary laws of several southern states. In those states the domination of the Democratic Party has made nomination equivalent to election, and it has been considered vital that no or- ganized minority should gain control of that Party. This type of law provides that where no candidate receives a majority of votes, a second primary shall be held in which the names of the two highest shall be placed on the ballot. The winner of the second primary elec- tion becomes the party candidate. Provision is usually made that when one of the two highest candidates in the first primary does not desire to con- tinue his candidacy, the other shall be declared to be the nominee. The second primary is found in Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Louisiana. In the caseofthe latter state the second election system was, in force for several years and was abol- ished for a system of preferential vote. 112 This was in turn abolished and the state came back in 1921 to the second election method with the provision, however, that the second primary is to be held only in case no candidate for the office of governor receives a major- ity in the first primary. In Tennessee it is provided that in case no candidate receives a majority in the first primary, a second one may be held if the com- mittee or other governing authority of the party shall see fit. The advantage of this method lies in the opportunity it gives for a clear-cut contest between the two leading fac- tions in the party, a contest which can be devoted to state issues. It presents a simple task to the voter. The re- sults, so far as the avoiding of minority nominations is concerned, are quite satisfactory. But the holding of an additional primary is open to obvious objections. ‘The nomination and elec- tion system is already costly, both to the candidates and to the state. ‘The large expenses incurred in a few recent primaries have been brought dramati- cally before the public, and have shown that men of wealth possess a distinct advantage in seeking nominations at the hands of the voters. The drain on the state treasury is a much-used argu- ment in the movement for the repeal of the primary. ‘The burden upon the public of time and effort spent during the campaign has also been great. It is not likely that in this era of retrench- ment, a system which necessitates three public campaigns and three trips to the polls by busy voters to select one set of officers, will find much favor. It will probably not spread beyond the southern states where it is believed to be a necessity. A modification of the second election system exists in the state of Georgia, where it is combined with the county unit system of voting. ‘The candidate for the nomination who receives the Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY highest number of votes in any county, is entitled to the entire vote of that — county, on the basis of two votes for every representative to which the county is entitled in the lower house of the General Assembly. In nomina- tions for governor and United States senator, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of county unit votes to be successful. If no candidate re- ceives a majority, a second election on the county unit basis is held between the highest two. As may be seen, it is quite possible for a minority candidate to be successful under such a system, just as it is possible for a presidential candidate to receive a majority vote of the presidential electors without receiv- ing a majority of the popular vote. This is, however, extremely unlikely, and under the Georgia law there has been only one case in which the suc- cessful candidate has not received a majority of the popular vote, and in that case he had received more popular votes than any other candidate. Tur PREFERENTIAL VOTE The second device for preventing minority nominations is the preferential vote. By this method, where there are three or more candidates for one nomi- nation, the voter is given an opportu- nity to express his first and second choices. Should no candidate receive a majority of first choices, all but the two highest candidates are eliminated, and the second choices expressed for these two are added to their first choices. The one with the greater number of first and second choices com- bined receives the nomination. This method is provided for in Alabama and Florida with one difference. In Ala- bama, in the optional primary law the second choices are counted from all of the ballots, while in Florida, the second choices on the ballots of the eliminated candidates only are counted. PREVENTION oF Minority NoMINATIONS IN THE Direct PRIMARY The chief advantage of the preferen- tial system over the second election plan is in the saving of expense and campaign effort. Viewed from a the- oretical standpoint, this method has an unquestionably strong appeal. A num- ber of close students of the subject have seen in it a satisfactory solution to the problem of minority nominations. But when put to the test of actual experi- ence it has been found to be unwork- able. The American voter has not been willing to make the effort neces- sary to use this more complicated method of expressing his choice, and confusion has resulted. In some cases the voter, when confronted by the two choice ballot, has marked his first choice for two candidates and in others his first and second choice for the same candidate. In the great majority of cases, however, he has not taken the trouble to register his second choice. Out of 664,559 opportunities to express a second choice in the Indiana pri- maries of 1916, the voter took advan- tage of this. privilege in only 155,123 instances, or 23 per cent of the whole number. Although there were thirty- five contests in which second choices could have been expressed, and of these there were twenty-four instances in which no candidate received a major- ity, yet the distribution of second- choice votes did not affect the result in a single case.1 When the voters are indifferent in marking their second choices, minority nominations are by no means prevented. Under the brief Louisiana experience with this form, it was found that in every case where there was not a majority of first choices for one candidate, the system resulted in nomination by minorities. ‘The list of states which have tried it and found it lacking is impressive. Idaho, Indi- The Direct Primary in Indiana” by Charles Kettleborough, N ational Municipal Review, Vol. 10, p. 166, 9 \ 113 -ana; North Dakota, Louisiana, Wash- ington and Wisconsin have all used this method and thrown it into the discard. It can hardly be recommended as a satisfactory solution to the problem. A modification of the preferential vote with the county unit and conven- tion system is found in Maryland. Here the voters in each county express their first and second choices for party nominees for state offices. At the same time they elect delegates to the state convention. These delegates are instructed to support in the conven- tion’ the first choice, and, failing in that, the second choice of the voters of the county for each state office. These first and second choices of the county voters are determined by a complicated system of transferring ballots, some- what akin to the Hare system of pro- portional representation. ‘The method is too elaborate to describe here. It is sufficient to say that it guards against the domination of a minority in each county; but for the same reason as ex- pressed in the Georgia case, it does not prevent the nomination of candidates who represent only minorities in the state at large. On the contrary, the system gives the city of Baltimore such inadequate representation in the con- vention that it directly encourages mi- nority nomination. It wasevidently in- tended to give the other counties of the state a method of offsetting the popular majorities that might be rolled up in Baltimore. Resort to THE CONVENTION The third system of throwing the nomination into a convention if no candidate receives a majority in the primaries, likewise does not prevent the success of candidates who may repre- sent only a minority of voters. An examination of several instances in which candidates have been both before the primary and before the convention, 114 shows that a convention is likely to select a candidate who represents only a minority of the popular votes of the party, and sometimes a very small minority at that. In Indiana, the law provides that in nominations for gov- ernor and United States senator, the convention shall make the selection where no candidate receives a majority in the primary election. In Iowa, unless some one candidate receives 35 per cent of the total vote cast for candidates for that particular nomination, the convention is called upon to make the choice. The lowa experience under this law shows that in by far the greater number of cases the leading candidate has secured an actual majority; and even where he has not obtained a majority he has been gener- ally able to obtain the required 35 per cent. The convention has had but few nominations to make and in only three of those instances has it set aside the plurality candidate for another. These three cases were in the nomination for the less important state offices. It may thus be seen that the Iowa law has had but little effect upon the results in that state. The 1922 nominations in Iowa showed that under this law a popular candidate, who does not stand in well with the organization and who could not hope to succeed in the convention, may find himself confronted in the pri- mary by a large number of opponents sent into the field to cut into his strength and thereby keep him under the 35 per cent quota. Thus Mr. Brookhart, who was popular with the rank and file of the Republican Party in that state, but who was out of sym- pathy with the party organization, was opposed by five rivals in the race for the senatorial nomination. Not one of these five had a chance for success. They were put into the race for the purpose of dividing Brookhart’s Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY strength in the farmer, labor, soldier and urban groups in the state, with the hope that he might receive less than 35 per cent of the vote. The result was as follows: Brookhart.; i, so dees eee eee 133,102 Frances’). Ji.302 268 Hoe 38,691 Pickett.:.:::. b.. Co} ake GR eee 51,047 Stanley... «.o.s.ssos ghee iain peak manaaneaennnn 12,593 SOWOGE ocekl e's c's a0 dtste ac Tine 35,406 Thorne... oo ota. k a eee eee 52,783 "Total .....::ikaceh-> comet eae $23,622 Brookhart’s vote amounted to 41 per cent of the total, which was sufficient to nominate. Although he received a plurality which was tremendous in its proportions, his margin of success was not great. Had the provisions of the Indiana law requiring a majority been in effect, the nomination would have been thrown into a convention, where Brookhart’s chances of success would have been at least greatly diminished, if indeed he would have had any chance at all. The Iowa provision has accomplished practically nothing of a beneficial char- acter. Moreover, the last election has shown the possibilities of political manipulation to defeat the popular will. To this extent it is contrary to the spirit of the direct primary. The Indiana law embodies this objection- able feature to even a greater degree. In North Dakota should no candi- date for a party nomination receive as much as 25 per cent of the average total vote cast for the candidate for gov- ernor, secretary of state and attorney general of that party at the last general election, the law provides that no nom- ination shall be made for that office. AN Extra-LecaL REMEDY: B1-FactTIONALISM IN STATE PARTIES A review of the provisions of the primary laws which attempt to obviate minority nominations shows that thus far no typeof law, which is likely to be PREVENTION oF Minority NoMINATIONS IN THE Direct PRIMARY generally acceptable, has been devel- oped. The second election is costly; the preferential vote is confusing and ineffective; and the choice by a con- vention as an alternative, is beneficial to the organization as opposed to independent elements and does not prevent minority nominations. A solution of the problem both con- venient and effective may be seen in the extra-legal efforts which are being put forward with increasing results to nar- row the field in the primary election to the two principal candidates represent- ing the opposing factions in the party. The American mind has demanded simplicity in politics. It has not tolerated the refinements in political beliefs which have made six or seven important parties possible in European countries. We have developed the bi- party system. There is much evi- dence to the effect that the numerous factions and candidates which have sometimes appeared under the direct primary will be likewise, and for the same reasons, replaced by a bi-factional system wherever there are any real issues to be fought out in state politics. Where issues are scarce and the contest is merely between office seekers, there will still be numerous candidates. In such a case little harm can be done by a plurality choice. But where some vital question of government is under dis- cussion, the organization of factions into two rival camps seems to be the American solution to the problem of minority control. Examples of this are plentiful, and two are here chosen from the primaries of 1922 for purposes of illustration. The Pennsylvania campaign for the 115 Republican nomination for governor opened with many aspirants seeking the honor. The organization forces first began to eliminate the various gubernatorial possibilities until they narrowed the field to one man. This man was then opposed by two strong independent candidates. As the cam- paign wore on and it became evident that neither of the independents could hope to be successful so long as they were both in the field, one of them with- drew. The primary then became a clear-cut bi-factional contest between independents and organization. The contest for the Republican nomination for governor in the state of Oregon began with no particular issues, aside from efficiency and econ- omy, which was favored by all six men who were seeking the nomination. As the campaign progressed the Ku Klux Klan issue was forced into the con- troversy. The result was that the voters deserted the standards of four of the candidates and grouped them- selves around either Governor Olcott, who was opposed to the Klan, or Sena- tor Hall, who was favorable to it. Thus, as soon as an issue was brought into the contest, it became a bi-fac- tional fight. It is this tendency of American voters to form into two groups which has caused the plurality election to be retained in the United States, when it has been generally abandoned in continental Europe. Municipal elections may form an excep- tion to this rule. But in state politics it is this same tendency which has made the plurality primary tolerable, and, in fact, preferable to any other method which has thus far been devised. The California Direct Primary By Victor J. Wxst Professor of Political Science, Stanford University HE California direct primary has not escaped the wave of criticism which has risen over the whole country against that method of nominating candidates for public office. Indeed, the California direct primary has been criticized severely ever since the law establishing its use was adopted in 1909. It has pleased neither its friends nor its enemies. Each year’s experi- ence has revealed some defect in the system, and the law has had to be amended, or repealed and reénacted in revised form every time the legislature has met. Even now, after a dozen years, the system while approved in the main, does not wholly satisfy the people of the state. Two CURRENTS OF CRITICISM In the last few years two currents of criticism have been apparent. One of these manifests itself in a demand that the direct primary be abolished and the convention system reéstablished. This attitude is taken generally by the more conservative interests in the state and is expressed through the columns of some newspapers which have been con- sistently opposed to direct nominations from the beginning. The Los Angeles Times has opposed the California direct primary chiefly on the ground that candidates are nominated by less than a majority of a party; that candidates of a party are nominated by the voters of another party; and that the law oc- casionally actually defeats the will of the. voters of a party. The San Diego Union has opposed it on much the same ground.2 The San Francisco 1 The Los Angeles Times, September 6, 1918. 2 The San Diego Union, September 20, 1918. 116 Chronicle opposes the direct primary on the ground that this method of nomina- tion has not caused an improvement in the character of office-holders.* The Democratic national committeeman for California is also reported to have strongly urged the restoration of the convention system.* He suggested that nominations for the primaries be made by party conventions instead of by petition. Others have advocated a return to the convention on the ground that the number of voters participating in the direct primary has been so small as to indicate no genuine public interest in the nominating procedure. The second attitude toward the direct primary is that it should be con- tinued, but made completely non-parti- san. ‘This, of course, is not a criticism of the direct primary but of the whole idea of partisan elections. This line of attack on the electoral system is more likely to succeed than the other. In fact there has been a tendency in Cali- fornia in favor of abandoning the party label in state and local elections. Since 1913 all county and other local offices and all school and judicial offices have been on a non-partisan basis.> Efforts made since then to have the rest of the state officers chosen the same way have failed. In 1915 the legislature passed an act which made all offices except United States senator, representative in Congress, presidential elector, and party committeeman non-partisan.® 3 The San Francisco Chronicle, December 29, ae abe San Francisco Chronicle, December 25, a California Statutes, 1911, Ch. 398; 1913, Ch. Ce California Statutes, 1915, Ch. 185. Tur CALIFORNIA Direct PRIMARY The measure was submitted to refer- endum and at a special election held October 26, 1915, was defeated by a vote of 112,681 to 156,967, in a total registration of 1,219,345.7 Since then there has been no attempt to make state elections entirely non-partisan. Indeed, so far as the legislature is con- cerned, all of the proposals have been in the direction of greater partisanship in the primary. It should be pointed out, however, that even the oflices filled on a nominally partisan basis are in fact largely non-partisan, because many persons take advantage of the opportunity offered by the primary law to become candidates of more than one party. A majority of the members of the state legislature of 1921 were unop- posed for election, having been nomi- nated by two and often three or more parties for the same office. The same thing is true of members elected in November, 1922. Nine out of the eleven members of the California dele- gation in the House of Representatives in the newly elected 68th Congress, were candidates of both Democratic and Republican Parties. Some of the undesirable results from trying to “use a partisan primary non-partisanly,”’ ® will be touched upon later. The situa- tion is noted here because it shows why there has been no emphatic demand for non-partisan elections, and at the same time indicates how easy it would be to make the whole state government non- partisan if it were undertaken with determination. ADVANTAGES OF Direct PRIMARY It would hardly do to assert that these two attitudes divide all of the citizens of California. The general run of voters take the direct primary as a fixed institution. It is quite gener- 7F. Hichborn: Story of the California Legisla- ture of 1921, p. 222 (1922). 8 The Fresno Republican, September 4, 1918. 117 ally conceded that in spite of criticism a law to abolish the direct primary and substitute the convention system if submitted to popular vote would be defeated overwhelmingly. Moreover, certain features of the California pri- mary are evidently satisfactory. For example, the time of holding the pri- mary—the last Tuesday in August, i.e., about two months before the elec- tion—seems to be a convenient time. The form of ballot is unobjectionable, and the provisions for counting the ballots, canvassing the returns, and certifying the results, and for recounts and contests are apparently adequate. The fee which is paid by a candidate when his nomination papers are filed is not exorbitant. It is $25 for candi- dates for representative in Congress and for offices voted for in districts comprising more than one county (except member of state senate or assembly); $50 for candidates for state offices and for United States senator, and for all other offices it 1s $10.° Somr TECHNICAL DEFECTS AND DIFFICULTIES Nomination in the partisan primaries is by plurality vote and some reaction- aries profess to find in the resulting “minority nominees” a fatal defect in the primary system. However, it is not usual for the nomination to go to a minority candidate. In the infrequent instances where it does the result is accepted without much criticism, not because it is just, but because it is more satisfactory than holding a second pri- mary, or adopting preferential voting. In the non-partisan primary, the two candidates receiving the greatest num- ber of votes for each office are certified as nominated to run in the subsequent general election, except that if one 9 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 1919, General Laws of California (1922), Act 1010, Sec. 7, p. 1200. 118 candidate receives a majority of the votes cast he is the only man certified to appear on the election ballot for the office for which he is contending. It is a rare case when more than two can- didates appear in the primaries for a judicial, school, county or township office, and it is quite the usual event that there is only one contestant for such an office. The procedure for proposing candi- dates to be voted on in the primary though generally acceptable, is also open to some criticism. ‘The candi- date, or somebody in his behalf, at least forty days before the primary election, files a nomination paper which is endorsed by a number of registered voters. The number of signatures required in the nomination paper of any candidate for a state office in any party primary is not less than one- half of one per cent and not more than two per cent of the votes polled in the last preceding election by that party’s candidate for governor." It has been proposed by some that candidates in the primary should ob- tain endorsements of their candidacy from voters in all counties of the state. This proposal has been opposed on the ground that it would increase an evil already too pronounced, 1.e., the trade in circulating nomination papers. Some enterprising citizens will undertake to secure any number of signatures at a fixed rate of payment per signature. The new proposal would obviously in- tensify this evil. Yet, in view of the marked evidences of local pride and the pronounced rivalry between different sections of the state, the suggestion is not without merit. In order to be entitled to have the names of its candidates printed on a 10 J, Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 1919, General Laws of California (1922), Act 1010, Sec. 23, p. 1213. U1 Thid., Sec. 5, pp. 1198-1199. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY primary ballot, a party must have polled three per cent of the vote in the state in the last general election. If a new party appears it is entitled to this privilege by petition to the Secretary of State of a number of registered voters equal to three per cent of the total vote cast in the last general election.!? This provision is obviously somewhat disadvantageous to new parties. Se- curing some 30,000 signatures is indeed a difficult task. However, it is not im- possible; and it must be admitted that if a party has not that much strength in the state, it is hardly worth while for it to hold a primary. Dirricutty ARISING FROM QUALIFICA- TIONS FOR CANDIDACY Considerable difficulty has been oc- casioned in the past by the provision in the California primary law relating to qualifications for candidacy. The law enacted in 1909 required that the can- didate for a party nomination should make affidavit that he was affiliated with that party at the last preceding general election and at that time had voted for a majority of its candidates, or had not voted at all, and that he intended to vote for the candidates of that party at the ensuing election.” This provision, of course, made it im- possible for any except ‘“‘regular”’ members of parties to become candi- dates in the party primaries.“ In 1911 12 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917— 1919, General Laws of California (1922), Act 1010, Sec. 1, p. 1190. 13 California Statutes, 1909, Ch. 304, p. 694. 14 One instance of the practical working of this clause in the law probably had a profound effect on the course of California politics. In 1909 Francis J. Heney, on account of a variety of circumstances, was under the law ineligible to become a candidate in any party primary. By “writing in” his name a majority of Democrats nominated him for District Attorney of San Francisco County. If his name could have been printed on the official ballot it is almost certain that he would have been nominated on the Union Tue CauirorniA Direct PRIMARY the law was amended so that the past affiliation of the candidate did not dis- bar him from running in the primary of a party if he declared that he intended to affiliate with that party and vote for a majority of its candidates at the ensuing election.” In 1913 the law was again changed. By this change a candidate was not required to say anything at all about his party affiliation and this clause was added: ‘‘ Nothing in this act contained shall be construed to limit the rights of any person to become the candidate of more than one political party for the same office... .”!6 Even after this change an attempt was made to limit candidacies in any party’s primaries to members of that party. In the pri-: mary election held August 25, 1914, U. S. Webb, registered as a member of the Progressive Party, received a plu- rality of the vote cast in both the Republican and Progressive primaries for the office of Attorney General. In spite of the fact that the statute is clear and that there is no doubt of the legislature’s power to pass such a stat- ute, it was claimed that “a member of one party, seeking its nomination for an office, cannot at the same time .. . be a candidate for the nomination of another party for the same office.” Application for a court order to pro- hibit the Secretary of State from certi- fying the nomination of Webb as the ‘Republican candidate for Attorney General was denied. The court de- -clared that if the members of a party Labor ticket. With these two nominations, the advantage of “straight” voting would have been with Heney instead of against him, and in all probability he would have been elected. The famous San Francisco graft prosecutions would then have been carried through probably to an entirely different conclusion, with entirely differ- ent political consequences, of course. See F. Hichborn: The System, Ch. xxvii (1915). 15 California Statutes, 1911, Ch. 398, p. 774. 16 California Statutes, 1913, Ch. 690, p. 1389. 119 ‘seek to select as their candidate one affiliated with another party, or with no party, that is their privilege.” 1 In 1917 the primary law was amended so that a primary candidate who failed to secure the nomination of the party with which he was affiliated as shown by his registration, could not be nominated by another party.!® In the first primary election after this amendment went into effect, that of 1918, there were on the Democratic ballot the names of three candidates for governor; James Rolph, Jr., regis- tered as a Republican, and Francis J. Heney and Thomas Lee Woolwine, registered as Democrats. Rolph re- ceived 74,955 votes, Heney 60,662 votes and Woolwine 28,879 votes. Thus Rolph, though not the choice of a majority of the Democrats for the candidacy for governor, led the other two by a respectable plurality, which is all the law requires to nominate. How- ever, he was also a candidate for the Republican nomination for which he was defeated. Having failed to receive the Republican nomination, he thus became ineligible under the amend- ment of 1917 for the Democratic nomination. In court proceedings in- stituted by Heney, the statute was upheld and Rolph was denied the right to have his name on the ballot as the Democratic candidate; but the court could not find any ground for the con- tention that as Heney had received the second highest vote he should be certi- fied as the Democratic nominee, nor that the Democratic State Central Committee had authority to designate the party’s candidate.!® Another pro- vision of the law prohibited either Heney or Woolwine from becoming independent candidates.2? Thus in ¥ Hart v. Jordan, 168 Cal. 321 (1914). 18 California Statutes, 1917, Ch. 711, p. 1357. 19 Heney v. Jordan, 179 Cal. 24 (1918). 20 California Statutes, 1913, Ch. 690, p. 1391. 120 1918 the Democratic Party had no candidate for governor under its own name though Theodore A. Bell, at that time a Democrat, ran under the des- ignation “Independent.” In 1919 the legislature endeavored to correct the difficulty produced by the 1917 amendment, by providing that in case the nominee of a party was de- clared ineligible on account of being affiliated with some other party, the party’s state central committee might designate a candidate. An attempt made in the legislature of 1921 to pro- hibit a citizen from becoming a candi- date for nomination by any party except the one with which he is affil- iated was defeated.” Tue LAw IN OPERATION Thus, as the law now stands, a person who is registered as affiliated with one party, may run in the primaries of an- other party, but can win its nomination only if he succeeds in getting the nomi- nation of his own party for the same office. In case such a candidate re- ceives the highest number of votes in the primary of a party not his own, but is defeated for nomination in the pri- mary of his own party, the resulting vacancy is to be filled by the state central committee of the party af- fected. It is obvious that this situa- tion might be turned to account by a state central committee bent on domi- nating the party candidates... More- over, manipulation of that sort would be difficult to uncover. That there would be some danger to the manipu- lators may be admitted. But a repeti- tion of the experience of the Democratic primary of 1918 is not impossible, and _ some astute observers of California politics are of the opinion that it is by no means improbable that some state 21 California Statutes, 1919, Ch. 34, p. 53. 22 F. Hichborn: Story of the California Legisla- ture of 1921, pp. 225-228 (1922). Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY central committee will some day de- liberately try to bring it about. Such’ is the situation produced in the state, by trying to operate a partisan primera in a non-partisan way. The California primary is “open’ al | the extent that any voter can partic- ipate in the primary of any party. It is, however, “closed” to the extent that the voter qualifies for participation in a party primary by declaring his affiliation with that party at the time of his registration, which must be at the latest thirty days before the date of the primary election. There is some demand to have the primary a com- pletely “open” one but it is not at present powerful enough to make itself felt. On the other hand, there is some dissatisfaction with the “‘openness”’ of the present scheme. A great many Democrats habitually register with the Republican Party because the real con- tests are in the Republican primary, and it 1s alleged that these Democrats often control the Republican nomina- tion. However, the Democrats who do this are relatively so few that it is unlikely that in many cases they would have much effect upon the Republican candidacies. At any rate there is at present no noticeable demand to have the law changed in this respect. And if such a demand does come, it is more likely to reflect the non-partisan at- titude of the voters and result in mak- ing the primary as “‘open” as it is in Wisconsin, than to introduce more rigid tests of membership in a party for the purpose of protecting the partisan primaries. INTEREST OF VOTER The objections so far considered have all been aimed at the technical features 3 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 1919, California Political Code (1922), Secs. 1094; 1096a, pp. 348, 350. Tue CALIFORNIA of the primary law. There remains to be examined the dissatisfaction with the results of the operation of the law. pew) There is first the repeated assertion that the direct primary should be abandoned because so few citizens are interested or participate in it. It is true that fewer voters take part in the primaries than in the subsequent gen- eralelections. Data which would show just what proportion of the California electorate goes to the polls doubtless exists, but it is not in such places as to be readily accessible or in such form as to be easily analyzed. It appears that if the objection has merit at all, it is only with respect to county elections. Figures in a few counties indicate that about a third of the voters is all that may be expected to attend the county primaries. In the state primaries, however, the situation is different. Reports issued by the office of the Secretary of State show that 56 per cent of the registered voters partici- pated in the state primaries in 1918,”4 and 56 per cent in 1922.% When it is realized that the total vote in the gen- eral election is usually only about 75 per cent of the registration,” it appears that this criticism of the direct primary is scarcely warranted by the facts. Even if the vote in the primary were considerably less, and admitting that in any event nominations are by a minor- ity of the voters, it cannot be denied that a vastly greater number attend the primaries than ever did under the convention system. *% Secretary of State: Statement of the Vote at Primary ... , 1918, p. 3. 25 Secretary of State: Statement of the Vote at Primary ... , 1922, p. 3. 6 Seestatement of the Vote at General Elec- tion . . ., prepared by the Secretary of State for years 1914, 1916, 1918, 1920. In 1918 the total vote in the general election was 59} per cent of the registration; compare this with the 56 per cent cast in the primaries. Direct PRIMARY 121 EXPENSE Those who object to the direct pri- mary on the ground that voters take no interest in it are usually also loud in their protests against the costs of con- ducting the primaries. The added ex- pense to the state of an added election must be admitted. Under the con- vention system the immediate and direct cost to the state of nominating candidates for office was nothing at all. That the direct primary costs real money is perfectly apparent to anyone; but an examination of the actual figures reveals some startling facts. The ex- pense of the state primary election held in August, 1922, was at the rate of $95 for every voting precinct in Alameda County. In Los Angeles County, the largest county in the state, the cost per precinct was about $85. In Lake County, a small county, the cost per precinct was slightly more than $100.7” There were 6,695 voting precincts in the state. If the average cost per pre- cinct was $85, which is probably a low estimate, the total was about $570,000. A total vote of 800,000 makes the cost per vote about seventy cents. The ex- pense of conducting the primary is somewhat higher than that of conduct- ing a general election, on account of the additional help required in the verifica- tion of nominating petitions and the necessity of printing ballots for each different party as well as a non-partisan ballot. The real question here is whether the direct primary is worth the cost, but it will hardly be fair to compare it with the convention system on this basis. The direct primary was adopted for the express purpose of eliminating the evils of conventions; if we would cure our- 27 The figures here given are based on state- ments of expense secured by Mr. Bevier Robin- son, of Stanford University, from county officials in the various counties named. 122 selves of serious political ills, we must expect to pay the bill. Moreover, while it is true that the expenses of the conventions did not come immediately out of the state treasury, nobody knew how much the system eventually cost the state indirectly. It may well be questioned, however, whether the av- erage voter would be _ particularly enthusiastic about the direct primary if he were obliged to pay out seventy cents in cold cash before he could get his ballot at the polls on primary day. Errect on Macuine Po.itics Some light on the value of the direct primary might be had if we could dis- cover to what extent the evils of boss rule and machine politics have been removed by the substitution of direct nominations for the convention system. But again there is no thoroughly re- liable information on which to base a judgment. One powerful political ma- chine certainly has been destroyed; and the direct primary was a major con- tributing cause in its downfall. It is by no means certain, however, that a new machine has not been created in its place. But if it does exist, it is clear that it was not so completely in control of the political situation as to determine the candidates for many of the offices in the 1922 primaries. It is exceedingly difficult also to find out whether party committees control the party candidacies. In local elections it is often the case that there appear advertisements of the ‘‘endorsement’”’ of candidates by county or city Repub- lican or Democratic committees. In elections for Congress and the state legislature, however, the ease with which candidates succeed in winning in several different party primaries would seem to indicate either that party committees of opposing parties were working together or that they were not active at all. Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY The latter is the safer conjecture, especially in view of the fact that it has been the party politicians who have made the many attempts to limit can- didacies in any party’s primaries to members of that party. Neverthe- less, there is at least one case where a party committee has openly tried to influence the primaries and with some success. ‘The Democratic State Cen- tral Committee at a meeting held on July 11, 1922, “suggested” a list of candidates for all state offices (except governor) for United States senator and for members of Congress and the state legislature.28 These “sugges- tions’? were not generally accepted, and in the cases of two incumbent members of Congress the recommenda- tions were superfluous,—they would have been nominated anyway. But in a number of districts there were no candidates in the Democratic primaries except those named by the committee. Doubtless there are other cases of the same sort of thing, some perhaps not so open. But those who allege the ex- istence of widespread machine domina- tion of the primaries have yet to prove their case. QUALITY OF CANDIDATES The value of the direct primary might perhaps be thought to be evi- denced to some extent by the quality of the candidates it produces. Here again there is no reliable information on which to base conclusions. To prove that the character of public officials in California, judged by their honesty, ability, and attention to public busi- ness, has been lowered by use of the direct primary would tax the ingenuity of the most adroit critic of the direct primary. The persons who hold posi- tions in state, county and city govern- ments may not please The San Francisco Chronicle or The Los Angeles Times. It 28 The San Francisco Chronicle, July 12, 1922, Tue CauirorniA Direct PRIMARY by no means follows that they displease very many others or that they are, in fact, dishonest or incompetent. And a careful reading of the history of California politics in the days of the unregulated conventions would leave the unbiased observer somewhat at loss to discover in what desirable quali- ties public officers in those times ex- celled their successors of today. On the other hand, no one in his senses would claim that the officials of its various governing agencies are the most able and the most effective the state could possibly get. However, it may be pointed out that the chief pur- pose of the direct primary was not to increase the efficiency of government; it was to insure that whatever the government was,—whether good or bad,—the voters should have their will about it and not have to accept a government at the hands of a party organization. Judged wholly from that point of view the California pri- mary system has been a success. Even where the voters may have accepted,— under the primary law,—machine- picked candidates, it was generally with the full knowledge of the facts and with the free opportunity to reject the candidates. EXPENSE TO CANDIDATES A very serious objection to the direct primary is that it costs the persons who run for office so much that many worthy persons are absolutely pro- hibited from becoming candidates. That it costs more under the direct pri- mary than it did under the convention system for a person to become a candi- date for office is another thing which cannot be proved. ‘There are no rec- ords of the amounts spent by candi- dates before the party conventions in the days when there were no direct pri- maries. Such records as we have of the expenditures of candidates in the 123 primaries indicates that the cost of running for office is not exorbitant as a usual thing. When it is remembered that in a state-wide contest in the Republican Party, the candidates in 1922 had to reach 927,046 voters, the $650 which the defeated candidate for governor declares he spent is little enough. Even the $6,086.15 spent by the successful candidate is at the rate of less than two-thirds of one cent per registered Republican voter, and slightly over two cents for each vote he received. Both of these candidates were very well known and doubtless it cost them less than an unknown person would have had to pay. The most costly campaign of all, as indicated by the statements filed with the Secretary of State, was that waged by the de- feated contestant for the’ Democratic nomination for governor. He spent $11,402.54 to reach 305,658 registered Democrats. Even this is only about three and two-thirds cents per voter. As he was little known compared with his opponent, who spent $1585.10, his costs probably represent about the high mark in primary campaigns. In comparison with the salary of the of- fice of governor, $10,000 a year for the four-year term, the smaller amounts spent by candidates are not too great. It may be doubted, however, whether more than $10,000 is not prohibitive in most cases.?9 In Santa Clara County, m which the total number of registered voters for the 29 The figures for expenses in this and the fol- lowing paragraph are the candidates’ own state- ments required of them by the primary law. They are taken from a news dispatch from Sacramento published in The Daily Palo Alto Times, for September 15, 1922, and from data secured by Mr. Ralph N. Shott, of Stanford University, from the office of the county clerk of Santa Clara County. There is, of course, the very great probability that sums were spent in behalf of some candidates in addition to those here given; but as to that there is no positive evidence. 124 1922 primary was 40,174, the amounts spent by the candidates for the offices which were actually contested ranged from $272 to $1,943. This is at the rate of from two-thirds of one cent to five cents per vote. The salaries of the offices involved were not above $3,000 a year for a four-year term. It will be remembered that these offices are non- partisan. For some of these there was no contest, and in several cases the entire expense of the candidates in- cluded only the necessary notarial and filing fees. ExpEnseEs Not PRouIBITIVE Whether these costs are too high depends chiefly on whether it would have cost the same candidates less to be nominated in some other way. If it could be proved that better candi- dates would have been nominated at a less cost to themselves under the con- vention system, the case for the con- vention would be almost complete. But it cannot be proved. It may be pointed out also that if some persons are now barred from nomination by the direct primary on account of the prohibitive costs (and no one will deny this), many others had no chance at all under the convention system no matter how able they or their friends were to finance their campaigns. Moreover, it may well be doubted that any con- siderable number of voters who have any real reason for insisting on the candidacy of any particular person, would experience great difficulty in raising a campaign fund sufficient to put the merits of their candidate before the voters, A by-product of the California corrupt practices law is an indirect limitation on the costs of conducting campaigns. The purposes for which money may be spent are specified in the law, and candidates are required to file statements of the total amounts Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY spent. But the lawful purposes in- clude almost everything that is at all useful and there is no limit on the total amount which the candidates may law- fully spend.2° The principle of the corrupt practices law might be devel- oped in two directions. A limit might be set on the total amount which could be spent in candidacy for each office; or the state might publish a publicity pamphlet, at the expense of the candi- dates but with a maximum of space available to each, to be mailed to each voter and to be the only means by which campaigns could be carried on. Both of these proposals are somewhat unfair, in that the best known candi- dates have a tremendous advantage which only extensive and intensive campaigning can overcome. The ex- clusive use of the official publicity pamphlet is undesirable from another point of view; the voter can scarcely judge with satisfaction between can- didates whom he cannot see:and hear, nor can the candidates effectively reveal each other’s weaknesses unless they can make a good many statements at different times during the campaign. In an election for genuinely important offices a campaign conducted only in the pages of a pamphlet issued but once would be almost useless to a relatively little known candidate or to a public interested in comparing the personal- ities of the candidates. NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR . Locau OFFICE Experience with elections in counties and cities indicates that neither the direct primary nor the convention is necessary for nominating candidates for local office. The method already used in some cities *! might be adopted 80 J. Deering: Consolidated Supplement, 1917- 1919, General Laws of California (1922), Act 1010, Secs. 29 and 30, pp. 1222-1223. 31 E.g. San Francisco. See California Stat- utes, 1917, p. 1714. Tuer CALIFORNIA generally. A “‘declaration of candi- dacy” is filed by the candidate accom- panied by “endorsements” of a small number of electors. The exact number is not important but perhaps it ought not to be less than ten. Each endorse- ment is made separately to emphasize the responsibility of the voter signing it, and the endorsers or “sponsors” become in fact a sort of campaign com- mittee for their candidate. Party organizations might easily propose “tickets’’ but as local offices are al- ready non-partisan, no party designa- tions appear on the ballot, and in campaigning no one has any more right to the use of a party label than another. Party organizations would have some advantage but no more than under the present direct primary. To avoid the disasters that sometimes fol- low three-cornered fights, a scheme of preferential voting, such as is used in San Francisco, might be adopted, though there is now some doubt about the constitutionality of that device in California. In a recent case the Court of Appeals for the third district declared the system of proportional representa- tion established by the present Sacra- mento charter invalid partly on ac- count of the preferential or “transfer- able”’ vote.22 However, the number of actual contests for county and city offices is so small, and the cases where there are more than two candidates so rare, that the system here suggested is probably safe without the preferential vote. Of course the fundamental fact is that these local offices involve no parti- san issues of any sort; they are wholly administrative. The fundamental re- form, therefore, is to remove them from the elective class. That there is some opinion in this direction already is % People v. Elkus, 39 Cal. Ap., 277 (1922). This case is now before the Supreme Court of the State on appeal. Direct PRmARY 125 evidenced by the following editorial:* “. . . Most of the county offices, in fact, are of such nature that issues can- not creep in. The work is routine and laid out in advance, and can be done but one way. In such offices we be- lieve the man who is giving satisfaction should be as secure in his position as a man employed by a private business concern would be under similar cir- cumstances. The time undoubtedly will come when certain county offices will become appointive, rather than elective, the appointees being entitled to continue in service as long as they are faithful and competent. ‘The first step toward that ultimate reform was taken a few years ago when those con- tests were placed on a non-partisan basis. The next step will be to place the offices on a non-contest plane.’”’ The arguments made here apply equally well to the choice of judges. If this reform were adopted to apply to all existing non-partisan offices, the costs of the primary election would no longer be so important a grievance against it from the point of view either of the tax- payer or of the candidate. NOMINATIONS DOMINATED BY NEWSPAPERS A final criticism of the direct primary is that nominations have come under the domination of the newspapers, particularly the big city newspapers. Yet the “‘power of the press”’ is prob- ably no more pronounced now than in the old days, when party conventions also felt the journalistic influence. It appears to be accepted as a fact that the successful candidate for governor in the Republican primaries of 1922 owed his nomination very largely to the support of the country press which was united in his behalf. That this is subversive of the public good remains 3% The Daily Palo Alto Times, September 14, 1922. 126 to be proven; certainly if a greatly preponderant majority of the news- papers of a state are behind a candi- dacy, there must be some merit in it. It is possible of course, though hardly probable, that so many papers could be dominated by “‘sinister interests’? in behalf of an unfit candidate. It is true that the ownership of news- papers is uncontrolled by the public, and that owners can and often do in- fluence the news as well as the editorial columns. It is also true that the ownership of a newspaper and the political and economic affiliations of that ownership are usually matters of common knowledge in the locality where it is published and where it cir- culates. Sometimes a paper’s “poli- tics”? is known even to people among whom it does not circulate. The par- ticular bias of such a paper as The San Francisco Examiner, for example, or The Los Angeles Herald, or The Sacra- mento Bee, or The Fresno Republican, is known throughout the state and due allowance is made for it. Moreover, a newspaper’s editorial policy is probably influenced by its readers as well as by its owners. To be a success it must have readers; to have readers it must please them. It will not in the long run follow a consistently unpopular policy or endorse unpopular candidates. It is a notable fact that the leading papers of the state are quick to “back winning horses.’ For these reasons if the voters of the state were to choose between candidates produced by con- ventions dominated by bosses and ma- chines, with or without newspaper influence, and candidates produced by a direct primary dominated by the newspapers, there is no doubt that they would take their chances with the latter. CONCLUSION It appears from this analysis of the operation of the direct primary in Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY California that there are two classes of criticism of the present law,—those which are addressed to certain features of the California primary and those which constitute attacks on the pri- mary system itself as a method of nomination. Of the former only one difficulty of great significance is ob- servable, 7.e., the provision respecting candidacy by one person for an office in the primaries of more than one party at the same time. If a member of one party is to be permitted to run in the primaries of another party, he certainly ought to be permitted to become that party’s candidate if he can get enough votes. Of the objections to the primary itself the following may be noted: (1) Lack of interest on the part of voters is confined chiefly to local primaries where it is often the case that there are no contests. The indicated reform is either the adoption of a simpler system of nomination than either convention or direct primary, or to make the local administrative offices appointive by an elected legislative body, 1.e., the adop- tion of the “short ballot.” (2) The cost of conducting the direct primary is great, but not too great if its purposes have been accomplished. That these purposes have been in large part if not wholly achieved will be generally ad- mitted. Again the adoption of the “short ballot’? would materially di- minish the cost. (3) The cost to the candidates for campaigning is In many cases prohibitive, but probably not more so than under the convention system. ‘The most practicable remedy here is also the “‘short ballot” and a simpler nominating system for such non-partisan local offices as must be elected. (4) The influence of the press may on occasion be pernicious, but at its worst it is not an unmixed evil. It contains its own corrective in the inherent necessities of the competitive THe CattrorniA Direct PRmary nature of the newspaper business. And it should be said that, despite some conspicuous exceptions, the reputation for fairness of the newspapers of the state as a whole is decidedly in their favor. (5) Finally, none of the defects 127 of the direct primary would be cured by a return to the convention system. Moreover, whatever the defects of the direct primary, the citizens of California show no desire to aban- don it. The Direct Primary Law in Maine and How It Has Worked By OrreN CHALMER HorMELL, Pu.D. Bowdoin College HE adoption of the direct primary law in Maine in 1911 was due largely to the progressive movement which placed on the statute books, in addition to the direct primary law, the initiative and referendum, and a cor- rupt practices act. An opinion which prevailed generally with the masses in both parties was that “the official class has long relieved the voters... of the obligation of self-government.” ! It was contended that the official class “had packed legislative committees,” had “‘resisted state printing reforms,” had been guilty of “charging up dead- head tickets against the taxpayers,” and had exempted from taxation rail- ways, “wild land, and other public utilities.” 2 A plank demanding “honest cau- cuses,’ and “full publicity of all ex- penditures”’ for nominations as well as elections, appeared in the Democratic platform of 1908. Both of the major parties advocated a direct primary law in their platforms of 19102 The legislature which convened in January, 1 Lewiston Evening Journal, July 1, 1908. 2 Ibid., June 30, 1908. ’ Maine Republican Party platform, 1910: “We urge upon our legislature the enactment of such direct primary and other laws as may prop- erly regulate the conduct of all caucuses to secure the honest and free expression of the proper voters therein.” Lewiston Evening Journal, June 29, 1910. Maine Democratic Party platform, 1910: “The Democratic Party of Maine in convention assembled declares that it will... demand a direct primary law.” Lewiston Evening Journal, June 15, 1910. ‘House: Democrats, 87; Republicans 64. Senate: Democrats, 22; Republicans, 9. 1911, was Democratic in both of its branches. The Republican members of the legislature were not willing, how- ever, to leave to their Democratic colleagues the task and honor of pro- viding the state with a direct primary law. Under the leadership of Howard Davies of Yarmouth a direct primary law was.drawn up, filed with the Secre- tary of State, February 3, and trans- mitted to the legislature, February 6, 1911.5 It became the Republican measure and was commonly called the Davies Bill. The Democratic or Ad- ministration Direct Primary Bill was introduced into the House, March 10, just three weeks before the legislature adjourned.6 It was drawn up by Nathan Clifford and William M. Pen- nell of Portland and was commonly known as the Pennell Biull.’ Both Bills were referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Democratic major- ity in the committee reported in favor of the Pennell Bill, while the Repub- lican minority members favored the Davies Bill. The majority report in favor of the Pennell Bill was adopted by the House by a vote of seventy-five to twenty,? and by the Senate by a vote of nineteen to five.° The vote closely followed party lines. The de- bates in the legislature on the measures were surprisingly short. With one or two exceptions the arguments clashed 5 State of Maine, Journal of the Senate, 1911, p- 202. 6 Ibid., Legislative Record, 1911, p. 458. 7 Ibid., p. 1061. 8 Ihid., p. 739. » Ibid., p. 1066. 10 Tbid., p. 1046. 128 Tur Direct Primary Law 1n MaIneé ‘ only on the difference between the bills and not on the general principles of the direct primary. The only attack in either House on the general principles of the direct pri- mary was made by the Democratic senator from Knox County, Mr. L. M. Staples. He contended, first, that a direct primary would make it “‘almost impossible for any man of moderate means to become a candidate for office,” on account of the great expense in- volved in getting the voters out to the polls for the primary election; ! and, second, that there was “‘no call for it by the voters of Maine.” Senator Carl E. Milliken (Republican), of Aroos- took, answered that he considered that the argument about the expense had no force whatever and that he favored the direct primary because it would “sive the people a right to express directly their choice.” # The relative merits of the opposing measures were argued more at length. Both Bills applied the direct primary to the nomination of governor, represen- tatives to Congress, and United States senators. The Davies Bill, however, went further and applied it to the state auditor, members of the state legisla- ture, and county officers. The Davies Bill, furthermore, contained detailed provisions not found in the Pennell Bill for holding state conventions prior to the primaries, for limiting the ex- penditures of candidates, and for pub- licity of campaign expenditures; while the Pennell Bill alone provided that candidates for governor should pay to the Secretary of State a fee of one hundred dollars and for representative to Congress, or United States senator fifty dollars. The Democrats, led by Mr. William- son of Kennebec County, contended State of Maine, Legislative Record, 1911, p. 1045. 2 Ibid., p. 1046. 10 129 that county officers should not be in- cluded, since candidates for county positions are not usually well known throughout the county; hence the vot- ers will naturally vote for the candi- date from their own section. The result, he believed, would be that candidates from the cities or large towns would always win and that the smaller towns would be “almost wholly deprived of representation.” He be- lieved also that where several towns made up a representative district, the representative to the state legislature would always come from the largest town.'8 Since the legislature refused to enact the initiated Davies Direct Primary Bill, it automatically went before the voters of the state. The question came up for decision at the special election held on September 11, 1911. Very little public interest seemed to have been aroused, if we may judge from the newspaper accounts. Public at- tention during the weeks preceding the election was absorbed almost entirely by the prohibition constitutional amendment which was resubmitted to the voters. At the polls, however, the people expressed their approval of the Davies Bill by a vote of 65,810 to 21,744. The popular majority in favor of the measure was almost as pronounced as was the majority in the legislature in favor of the Pennell Bill. Not only the country towns but the cities, in- cluding those under Democratic con- trol, voted in favor of the measure. It is difficult to account for the large “‘ves’’ vote in such Democratic cities as Lewiston, where the vote was 2,613 for to 340 against. Possibly the great mass of city voters were in- structed to vote “yes” on all the ques- 13 Tbid., p. 1062. M4 Lewiston Evening Journal, September 12, 1911. 130 tions on the ballot in order that they would vote “‘yes”’ for the repeal of the prohibition clause. The adoption of the Davies measure by the people, automatically made null and void the Administration Bill passed by the legislature. The proponents of the measure expected it to produce the following results: 1. Render impossible the rule of the party boss. 2. Reduce corruption to a minimum. 3. Afford opportunity for the examina- tion of a candidate’s record. 4. Inform the voters with regard to the candidate’s position on pending questions of public policy. 5. Atford better facilities for the punish- ment of official wrongdoing. 6. Secure rule of the people. EssENTIAL FEATURES OF THE MAINE Direct Primary Law An understanding of the essential features of Maine’s direct primary law and the conditions under which it has operated, is necessary for an under- standing of how it has worked. The essential features are as fol- lows: 48 1. Application of the Law. The law applies to state governor, auditor, United States senators, representatives to Congress, and county officers, but does not apply to city, town and plan- tation officers. 2. “Closed”? Type of Primary. 'The primary is of the “closed”’ type, in that it requires enrolment in the party as a prerequisite for voting in all towns of two thousand or more inhabitants. Voters in towns of less than two thou- sand are required only to declare their party affilation. Enrolment cannot be changed from one party to another within six months of the primary elec- State of Maine, Revised Statutes, Chap. 6. 1916, Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY tion. This provision, however, does not apply to cities of more than 35,000 inhabitants, which, in effect, exempts only the city of Portland from the en- rolment clause. 3. Nominations. A candidate se- cures a place on the primary ballot by filing nomination papers containing names of qualified voters to the number of ‘not less than one per cent nor more than two per cent of the entire vote cast for governor in the last preceding election . . . within the electoral divi- sion or district wherein such proposed candidate is to be voted for.”’ 4. Expenditures. Candidates nomi- nated in the primary election are re- quired to file with the Secretary of State a ‘“‘return of expenditures.” The law limits the amount which the candidates for the several offices may spend, and indicates the purposes for which money may be expended. Per- sonal traveling expenses, postage and stationery are not included in the re- turn. 5. State Convention. Provision is made for a state convention of each party to be held prior to the primary, at which convention a party platform is drawn up and adopted, and a state committee, congressional district com- mittees and county committees are chosen. It should be noted here that the direct primary began under more favor- able conditions in Maine than in many other states. For it was not handi- capped by the long ballot, which has been one of the chief difficulties facing it in many states. Among the state officials, only the governor and auditor are elected by popular vote, and all the positions to be filled by primary nominations, with the exception of a few of the county positions, are im- portant enough to interest the average voter. | Tue Direct Primary Law In MAINE How Has tue Direct PRIMARY WorKED IN MAINE? The subject will be treated under the following headings: 1. Has the primary given undue ad- vantage to city candidates and deprived the country of its just representation in state and county offices? 2. What has been the effect of the pri- mary upon the number of candidates? 3. Has it substituted plurality for major- ity in nominations? 4, What effect has it had upon party organization and party harmony? 5. What has been its effect upon the quality of officers chosen? 6. Has the direct primary made it more expensive to run for office? ~, 7. What has been the effect of the direct primary upon popular interest in nomina- tions? (1) Has toe Direct Primary GIVEN AN UNDUE ADVANTAGE TO THE CITY CANDIDATE Over His Country Riva? The Portland Evening Express and Daily Advertiser maintains that it does. The “direct primary plan,” it says, ze . invariably gives the city can- didate an advantage over the country candidate,” since “‘a voter will almost certainly support a man from his own town.” 16 The same view is expressed by the Bangor Daily Commercial.” Such a result was predicted on the floor of the Senate when the bill was before the legislature. The statement that the city candidate has an undue advantage has been repeated so often and widely that it has been accepted almost as an axiom. In order to discover the facts, the writer has made a study of the dis- 16 Portland Evening Express and Daily Adver- tiser, November 14; November 24, 1922. 17 Bangor Daily Commercial, November 15; November 25, 1922. 131 tribution of county officers and state senators between the cities and coun- try towns in the counties having im- portant urban centers for the six biennial periods since the adoption of the direct primary. The distribution for that period was then compared with a like distribution during the last six biennial periods under the convention system. The tabulated results of the study appear in the accompanying tables.!§ Table I shows that under the direct primary in comparison with a like period under the convention, the city’s share in the offices was reduced by twenty-two, or 4.6 per cent, while the country’s share was increased by the same amount. Five of the eight coun- ties showed a loss for the cities and a gain for the country towns. A further analysis of the figures, which are given in Table II, results in the interesting discovery that under the direct pri- mary there has been a remarkable correlation of distribution of offices ac- cording to population as between city and country. The distribution of off- ces in every county except Kennebec has tended to approach more closely to the basis of the population distribution. On the basis of population distribution, the cities of the counties of Cumber- land, Sagadahoc and York, in the period prior to the direct primary, had been under-represented in county offices, while the cities in the other five coun- ties had been over-represented. A study of Table III shows how nearly the under-representation in the one group and the over-representation in the other have been wiped out. Ban- gor furnishes a striking illustration. 18 Notre: The biennial period was taken as a unit of comparison, and no account was taken of the fact that the term of some offices was four years, in order to indicate accurately the extent to which the city and the country each enjoyed the emoluments of office. 132 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY TABLE J—Distrisution or County Orrices BetTwrEEen City aND CouNTRY (Convention Era Compared with Direct Primary Era) City CouNTRY 1901-11 1913-23 1901-11 1913-23 County LAL POE I | (es A PM I BR SN No. of |Per Cent} No. of |Per Cent] No. of |Per Cent! No. of |Per Cent Offices | of Total] Offices | of Total] Offices | of Total| Offices | of Total 1 Q o 4 5 6 vk 8 Androscoggin Yuh aida. 46 76.6 44 Uhexare, 14 23.4 16 26.7 Cumberland........ 29 48.3 34 56.5 31 Bis, 26 | 43.5 Kennebec.......... yo 45.0 99 36.6 33 55.0 38 63. 4 BSTC ets Pete ete Q5 41.7 15 25.0 35 58.3 45 75.0 Penobscot: | 2k: 32 53.3 29 36.6 28 46.7 38 63.4 Sagadahoc......... 32 53.3 36 60.0 28 46.7 24 40.0 Wialdoscriaok ot bane 36 60.0 Q1 i) QA 40.0 | 39 65.0 York 38, i've OC Onains 9 15.0 20 Ate 51 85.0 40 66.7 ‘Lota tote 236 49 2 Q14 44.6 QAA 50.8 266 55.4 Gain or Logs...) 4. — 22 —4.6 + 22 +4.6 TABLE IL—Popru.ation City’s CouNTRY’S County Toran Ciry Per Cent CouUNTRY Per Crent oF Tora oF Tota Androscoggin aimee 65,796 48,776 74.2 17,020 25.8 Cumberland: ive: atest eae e 124,376 69,272 SO. 55,104 44,3 Kennebeai. 6)... ane eee 63,466 27,466 43.8 36,378 56.2 Knox Ses ee 26,245 8,109 Sah 45s 18,136 68.7 Penobscot: 2 Aaa 87,684 25,978 29.6 61,706 70.4 Sagadahoc Ae. UR Ti le OO 23,021 14,731 63.9 8,290 36.1 Waldo cc tiie aia ae eae 21,328 5,083 23.8 16,245 76.2 Nic tig eee i Opa RRION Abd ipilbuy W/slikn 70,696 35,516 50.2 35,180 49.8 Totaly) ag Varad 482,991 234,931 48.6 248,059 51.4 Under the convention era, 1901-11, she held thirty-two to the country’s twenty-eight county offices, while un- der the direct primary, 1913-23, she has held twenty-two to the country’s thirty-eight. It is interesting to note that in Kennebec County, which alone failed to follow the general tendency, the country towns rather than the city gained “‘an undue advantage” under the direct primary. City AND Country REPRESENTATION COMPARED The tendency under the direct pri- mary for representation between city and country to approach the standard of the population distribution is further clearly indicated by Tables IV and V. 133 Tue Direct Primary LAw In MAINE 6°91 | 8°6F 0G ee = 1S. eS |" 8° by (206s 620 bai 30S $°sg | 3'Ss 60S OL9T ote: Sines yt y O96 08 1 (28292 0° 0F <2 SB LL (968 O-0g= "= oS Ost a8" Se Of09 =| Saecae Opium 6°S 198 00 == 901 |=19¢ OF Os Seg C09. (9 0 6°S9 $39 See ooyepeses ide | POL reso | L'S31-°°° | FOL L'9F OL 9°63 i Gage pie Sots a or Ba BE Steg. yoosqousg $9 L389 0'SL | FOL 4°89 g°s¢ || $°9 $I 0°S3 r OL | s'Is Lily |= ae ‘xouy aL 3°98 rs9 | 31 3°98 oss |] BL 8°Sh 9°9 oI 8 Sh OMf els doqouue y a | Sey 9° SF pL $F L'1g = 8 L'Sg O690= sh 9 Sg Sh | * ‘purpioquing 6° 8&3 jas ae Sal Be oe Pe 8° SS PSS || 6 FL Che 1 ae 3 FL 9°9L | ‘‘UIssoDsoIpUy uoryeyn SITIO uoryeiN SIOOIJO uoryen SoUTJO uor}eyN sooo + | -dog jo jo - + | -dog jo jo — + | -dog jo jo — + | -dog jo jo que) Jog|jue9 Jeg jus) Jaq|jUed) Jag jue, Jag|}Uey Jog jus) Jaq|jUeg Jag AINNOD S2-SI6I LI-L061 SS-SI6I LI-LO6I AULNNOD ALI) AULNONOY) GNV ALI) NAGMLAG NOILYTOdOg JO NOILOGIUISIG] HLIM aaduvdWOr) SYAOIMAIQ ALNOOSY) JO NOLWOaaLsIq—]]JT WIAV.L Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 134 "SOT ‘S1oyeUas Jo JoquinuU [e}OT, :aLON ee a ee ee ee ee oe ee a | %l tl— oI— 6st Pig 9° FS 6¢ L 6°91 8° 6F L°99 él rhe Ee 6 OL $8 G 0° 6° SI 1°98 0°0¢ g 0° L's a 2 POL L°99 ol ¥- a 9° FL L839 §°S8 ¢ 0 9° 6°9¢ 9°S¢ OL 8 + G'T Sth 8° SP IL P GLI ee 8°S3 §°8 1 § IL OL 6 8 OL ‘ON wuinjoy = juorjeyndog OOL L Wl ti + I+ ees oe "sss Ssory JO UTBXp TZ 9 °8P y SV 67 & US he ae ee LAA P ral 3°08 eee 9 eee Aides ee el ss eee IO 9 8° ks LOL I 0'0 ov AES Stee 8 ODT AN ¢ 6° £9 0°0¢ g 0°0¢ e 5, bi aie ee “0yepeses 31 9°68 66 9 §°Ss peat San 5 "***qoosqousg 9 e'1e L'9t I 00 Oi eae <3 2) 92 AROuST PL 8 J EP , TP red pars : a 10) 6) Ke ae eee *‘deqouusy rL weds 6 9 sI 9° TP OL: seek 4s. ~paeequm > v 6 vk L416 Il L°99 Tee Seen Paes uIsso00soIpuy 9 g v & 6 I SIO}TBUIG menudo” [eqO], Jo | s1oyeuag | [e}JO]T, jo S10}VUEG pue 6 ‘ON uunjosy | [Roz jo UseMJI VUIIOYIC, | JWI) og 6o-SI61 68-SI6I KULNQOD [@1O], jo | sioyeuag | [v}Oy, Jo qusy Jog] jJo‘oN | #90 leg ‘ [PIOL Jo : : jo ‘ON ras eros qu99 Jag} Jo‘ON | UID Jog] jo ON XINQOD II-L06L 66-6161 IL-LO6I ALIQ SNMOJ, AULNNOD ANY SALI NUGMLEG SUOLVNAG JO NOILNAGIULSIG—AJT WIAVL Tue Direct Primary Law In MAINE During the last six biennial periods under the convention system, the representatives of cities won 14.3 less than their just proportion according to population, while under the direct pri- mary they approached to within 3.2 of their just proportion on the basis of TABLE V—Distrisvution or STATE SENATORS BETWEEN City AND CountTRY COMPARED WITH DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION 1901-1911 (Convention Era) City | CountTRY Per cent of county popu- FRTIOOERE hail sides = 5 a>: > 48 .6 51.4 Per cent of offices..... rive 34.3 65.7 Over- or under-repre- Ce ae ea ee —14.3 +14.3 1913-1923 (Direct Primary Era) Per cent of county popu- PRIA ee eva SS 48 .6 51.4 Per cent of offices....... 45 4 54.6 Over- or under-repre- ETELOU teats oe 0a 3” —3.2 +3.2 population. It is often contended that Greater Portland, including Westbrook and South Portland with Portland, has been securing more than her share of the state senators. Statistics show that Greater Portland with 70.7 per cent of the population of the county held (1901-11) only 54.5 per cent of the senatorial representation, while under the direct primary, (1913-23) she has held 62.5 per cent of the senatorial representation, which is 8.2 less than her population calls for. Is it fair to say in the face of such facts, that the cities have an undue advantage in securing senatorial representation, es- pecially when it is recognized that on account of the constitutional limitation the cities are greatly under-represented 135 in the House? Portland has one representative in the House for each ten thousand people, while many of the smaller towns have one for each three thousand. It las been said that the distribution of offices is not a fair test, and that the real test comes when a candidate from the city runs in opposition to a candi- date from the country. Applying that test to the Republican primary of 1922 %in the eight. counties chosen above, it appears that there were eighteen contests between country and city candidates; twelve were won by the country candidates and only six by the city candidates. A survey of the statistics ?° on the primaries in the three counties having the large cities,”4 Androscoggin, Cum- berland, and Penobscot, for the six primary elections gives the results, as shown in Table VI, with regard to con- tests for county offices. ‘The more sig- nificant statistics are those from the Republican primaries in Cumberland and Penobscot counties, where the can- didate nominated at the primaries is reasonably sure of election. Table VII shows the total number of candidates in the three counties con- testing for the several offices, the num- ber from the city and from the country winning and losing. It is interesting to note from the table on bottom of following page that 46.7 per cent of the candidates running from the city won, while 53.3 per cent lost; while among the country candidates 49.6 per cent won and 50.4 per cent lost. The opponents of the direct primary in 1911 predicted that in case a repre- sentative to the legislature represented 19 Nore: The contests in the Democratic pri- maries were few and the Democratic organization in the country districts in most counties was much weaker than that of the cities. 20 Official returns filed in the office of the Secretary of State at Augusta. 21 Auburn and Lewiston, Portland, and Bangor. 136 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY TABLE VI—Repusiican PriMarigs County No. or Contests! Won sy City |Won By CountTRY ANGIOSCOR TINY Sab ay lobe mu lnesye dischcn tannin 11 5 6 SC SIRTHA OE SETICL Gort Cn eee yr i ne to aks cee te ae 12 5 7, PAROUSCOL Ete ee reuse twa ee 12 3 9 Teta cline as enh Wee aes Sees 35 13 22 PATIOTOSCOPPIN TY rate kau guiete naa cee 10 6 - 4 Suro perland.shers iso Sea ale sile eee ee Q2 13 9 Pen ODSCOt® se) ne. ce yes high veer een 6 4 2 Totaly ia aerate 21 haan einer 38 23 15 Total, Republican and Democratic 13 36 37 ® Residences of candidates in Penobscot County were not procured for 1912-14; hence only four primaries are represented in the Penobscot figures. TABLE VII—Crry anp Country CANDIDATES 2? City CouNTRY No. or | Canpt- CouNnTY | OFFICES] DATES Won Lost Won Lost Republican ANGLOSCORLIN C.'eNSE Pet eee rene ae 38 82 29 31 9 13 Cumberland: i: Vey OU en 36 82 26 35 10 11 Penobseotisi. laces ced ee Ppa le 23 63 10 25 13 15 ‘Total oc); Gerla seater wise vee Wgme 97 907 65 91 32 39 1 Democratic ANGLOSCOP PIN, i ia oeee eee re 32 72 25 31 7 9 Cimberland 23045 sy ioe ous 36,0 Ost 22 12 14 9 Penobscot ho oa se ee ee 23 38 11 6 12 9 frotal.x:, sites a) ee ee 91 167 58 49 33 Q7 Total, Republican and Democratic 188 394 123 140 65 66 2 The statistics for Penobscot for 1912-14 and for Androscoggin for 1914 are not included, since the residences for those years were not available. Tue Direct Primary Law In MAINE several towns, one being much larger than the rest, the smaller town would never furnish a representative. For example, it was declared in the legisla- ture, 1911,%% concerning the legislative class made up of Hallowell, Manches- ter, and West Gardiner, that: “‘Under the present system [Convention]... Manchester would have one term, West Gardiner one, and Hallowell three. But if the Davies Bill becomes a law neither Manchester nor West Gardiner will be represented during the next ten years.” The extent to which the pre- diction failed is indicated by the fact that West Gardiner had its turn in 1914, Manchester in 1916, and Hallo- well its three in the three succeeding biennial periods.** A survey of a large number of similar representative dis- tricts shows that in the main, the tradi- tion of distribution of representatives between towns has been continued un- affected by the change in the system of nomination. (2) Wat Has Been THE EFFECT OF THE Dtrect Primary UPON THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES? The answer to the question may be gained from an analysis of Table VIII. It appears from the table that the average number of candidates for the Republican positions was about one and one-half, for the Democratic posi- tions slightly more than one and one- tenth, while 71.1 per cent of all the positions were filled by unopposed candidates. Referring back to Table VII it i} seen that in the three counties ex- amined, three hundred and ninety-four candidates entered the primary contest for one hundred and eighty-eight % State of Maine, Legislative Record, 1911, p. 1063. 24 Official Returns, Office of the Secretary of State, Augusta. % Above, page 136. 137 county positions, which makes an average of slightly more than two can- didates for each office. A comparison of the above results under the primary system with the number of candidates running under the convention system, based upon newspaper reports, shows that the change to the primary has had little or no effect in Maine upon the number of candidates running for office. (3) Has tHe Direct Primary SuBsTI- TUTED PLURALITY FOR MAJoritry NOMINATIONS? One of the usual objections made against the direct primary is that it substitutes plurality for majority nom- inations. In theory that is undoubt- edly a weakness. But how has it worked in practice? An analysis of the primary election returns for 1922 shows that out of the five hundred and ninety-two positions filled by the two parties in the primaries, five hundred and fifty-eight were nominated by a majority vote; that is, 94.3 per cent received a majority of the votes cast. An examination of the nominations of ninety-six senators from Androscoggin, Cumberland and Penobscot counties since 19127 shows that ninety-four were nominated by a majority and only two by a plurality vote. An examina- tion of the nominations of one hundred and eighty-eight county officers for the same counties over the same period, shows one hundred and forty-nine nom- inated by a majority vote and thirty- nine by plurality vote. It seems fair to conclude, therefore, that the evils of plurality nominations have been ex- perienced only to a slight degree under the primary. 2 Note: The figures for 1912 and 1914 for Penobscot County were not available, hence only the four biennial periods 1916 through 1922 were used for that county. (4) WHat Has Breen THE EFFEectT oF THE Direct Primary Upon Party ORGANIZATION AND PARTY HARMONY? The answer to the above is largely a matter of opinion. If political news in the daily press and the evidence given by the candidates themselves may be relied on, it is only rarely that bitter personalities among candidates in a primary have been indulged in. The candidate defeated in the primary al- most invariably lends his hearty sup- port in the election campaign to his successful opponent. In fact, a study of the newspapers reveals fewer politi- cal feuds in the party in recent years than appeared in the period from 1900 to 1912, when “ring” and “‘anti-ring”’ were often struggling to control the party nominating conventions. 138 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY TABLE VIII—Primary or 1922 Republican By By OFFICE NuMBER | CanpDIDATES | UNoprposepD] Masoriry | PLURALITY VoTE VoTE Thich CCTIALOL A mcraich. ELM. ae enee 1 3 0 1 0, Gavernori.: <. oxe ook: peau lee 1 3 0 1 0 LATO AUOILON:: 6 sieah eee Fake 1 3 0 0 | Representative to Congress...... 4 A 4 4 0 POU EY ORICES coe sae ere aie ald maw 107 194 60 88 19 State Representatives ........... 151 208 85 146 5 State Senators....... by pant aos ahs 31 48 4 27 ; 4 Toteloen. antes gay eases 296 463 153 267 29 Democratic * US. Senptork itera elcid: 1 1 1 1 0 GOVeErTOn y's ce OR ee ate Suk 1 1 1 if 0 State Anditor. hie a Gueiten. aiiuiablera | 1 1 1 1 0 Representative to Congress...... 4 4 4 4 0 Courity Olices asi. kee eeu. 107 131 88 102 5 State Representatives........... 151 155 144 151 0 State Penhtorss weiss mene eG bie ek: 31 33 Q7 31 0 oh OLE In RR ee a. 296 326 266 291 5 Total Republican and Dem- OCratey Peete hs. dine 592 789 419 558 34 The pre-primary state conventions, provided for by the primary law, aid in bringing the party leaders and dele- gates together for conference and dis- cussion. ‘There is a widespread feeling, however, that the lack of a county con- vention is a handicap to the party organization in the county. (5) Wuat Has Breen tHE EFFrect oF gue Primary Upon THE QUALITY oF OFFICERS CHOSEN? This again is a question upon which informed opinion is much divided. The opponents of the system declare that the officers nominated under the direct primary are decidedly inferior in quality to those under the convention system. They are careful however to mention no names. The advocates Tar Direct Primary Law In MaInE of the primary system, on the other hand, ask if it is true that Curtis, Mil- liken and Baxter have not been equal _in courage, judgment and adminis- trative ability to governors of the convention era. Opinion is also di- vided with regard to the quality of the legislature under the primary system. It seems that there are fewer dominat- ing leaders in the legislature than in former years. It is more difficult to pass measures through the legislature at the dictation of one man or a few men. Noone maintains that in recent year the legislature of Maine has been bossed or that it will obey_ orders. Persons interested in the passage of a nieasure can no Tonger “fix it up” with one or two men and know that _ its passage is assured. It must be ad- mitted moreover, that much social welfare legislation, such as limiting the hours of labor for women, working- men’s compensation, and public utility regulations, have been put on the stat- ute books by the so-called inferior legislators. The efficient state budget system is also a product of the direct primary era. A majority of the state representa- tives are nominated without opposi- tion. For example, eighty-five of the one hundred and fifty-one Republican candidates were thus nominated in 1922. These unopposed candidates are selected in the main by the same party committees and party influence that selected them under the conven- tion system. “ Whe com the When it comes Lo the selection of candidates for the sixty-six contested positions, the independent better chance under the direct primar than under the convention system." A good Musiation of the possibility, through the direct primary, of nom- inating an independent candidate in a contest with a leader of the organiza- tion is seen in the recent victory of 139 Nelson over Viles in the second Maine Congressional District. (6) Has tHe Expense or RuNNING For OrriceE Bren INCREASED BY THE Direct Primary? Reliable statistics on the amount of money spent under either the direct pri- mary or convention system in Maine are not available. The direct primary law limits the amount that may be expended by the candidate, but re- quires him to make a return to the Secretary of State of the amount ex- pended. Personal traveling expenses, postage and stationery, however, are exempted. The advantage to a can- didate of meeting the voter personally in the primary campaign is obvious, and the wealthy candidate has an op- portunity to spend a large amount for personal traveling expenses. It is doubtful whether candidates for the office of governor under the direct pri- mary have spent any more for traveling over the state, than was spent by Gov- ernors Burleigh and Fernald in their thoroughgoing canvas of the state un- der the convention system.2” Oc- casionally in Maine a contest between factions for the control of the state organization led to the expenditure of large sums for securing pledged dele- gates. It is probably true that more money is spent by the average candi- date and less by the party organization under the direct primary than under the convention system. (7) WHat Errect Has tHe Direcr Primary Hap Upon POPULAR In- TEREST IN NOMINATIONS? “ A compilation and analysis of the statistics filed in the office of the Secre- tary of State shows that in the first Republican primary, (1902) 50.7 per 27 See Sam E. Connor’s account of Governor Fernald’s thoroughgoing canvas of the state, in the Lewiston Evening Journal, June 13, 1908. 140 cent of the vote polled at the election was cast at the primary. It increased to 60.5 per cent in 1916, and to 73.3 per cent in 1922. It fell down to 41.9 per cent in 1918 when Governor Mil- liken was nominated without opposi- tion. The highest proportion of the Democratic vote was cast in 1914, when with a real contest for the nomi- nation, 42.2 per cent of the September vote was cast at the June primaries, while the lowest was only 13.6 per cent in the primary of 1922. The analysis of the vote for county officers shows that rarely does the local contest bring out a big party vote. A primary in which there is no contest for the higher positions, that is, governor, United States senator and representative to Congress, as a rule fails to arouse public interest. The experience with the direct primary in Maine shows that the people will not generally become in- terested in nominating men for com- paratively insignificant offices. The direct primary functions less success- fully in the selection of candidates for county positions than for state and federal positions, if we may judge from the popular interest manifested. THe PRESENT STATE OF PUBLIC OPIN- ION IN MAINE witH REGARD TO: THE Direct PRIMARY Since the close of the World War a movement for the repeal of the direct primary law has been growing in Maine. The chief causes underlying the movement seem to be: First, the conviction in the minds of many that the direct primary has not sufficiently produced the betterment in govern- ment promised by its proponents; second, the reluctance on the part of many voters to go to the trouble of signing nomination papers and inform- ing themselves regarding the qualifica- tions of candidates to be voted on at the primaries; third, the natural hos- Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY tility toward the primary held by the old line politician who sees in the present state of public indifference and confusion, an opportunity to restore the old convention system; fourth, the reactionary swing of the political pen- dulum which tends to place under a ban of disapproval the progressive measures of the Rooseveltian era; and fifth, the conviction in the minds of a number of people that the principle of representative government is superior to the principle of direct democracy in party affairs. The opponents of the direct primary were successful in securing the adop- tion of planks in both the Republican and Democratic platforms in 1922 for the repeal of the direct primary law, or at least the submission to the people of a bill to repeal thelaw. Since the April conventions however, the friends of the law have been making themselves heard especially in the rural districts and two of the leading organizations among the women of the state, the “League of Women Voters” and the “*Maine Federation of Women’s Clubs” have passed resolutions favoring the retention of the law. In the light of the growing opposition to the repeal of the law it is probable that the next legislature will consider modification rather than repeal. Many advocate giving the party conventions the power to indicate their choice of candidates whose names would appear, labeled as the convention’s choice, on the ballot with others which have secured their places by means of nomination papers. It is probable that several minor changes looking toward the improve- ment of the primary law will be pre- sented to the legislature. For example: the extension of the registration law to towns of two thousand and under; the inclusion of Portland in the enrolment law; dispensing with the primary elec- tion in all cases where there is no con- Tur Drrect Primary Law In Maine test; and strengthening the corrupt practices act in its application to the direct primary. When the voters of Maine in 1911 adopted the direct primary law, its more ardent proponents believed they were creating an almost perfect instru- ment of popular self-government. But having the limitations of all mere in- struments, the direct primary did not operate itself, and many of the promised 141 benefits have not been fully realized. On the other hand, most of the dis- advantages predicted of it by its op- ponents have not materialized; and it has not been the failure which its pres- ent opponents would have us believe. If the writer interprets public opinion correctly, the people of Maine must be convinced that something better is being offered them before they will give up the present direct primary law. The Operation of the State-Wide Direct Primary in New York State By Lovutsr Overacxer, M.A. Fellow in Political Science, The University of Chicago INCE 1906 the direct primary has been a-lively issue in New York politics. Governor Hughes’ strenuous efforts to pass such a law during his two terms (1907-1910) proved unsuccess- ful, but public attention was focussed upon the question to such an extent that the 1910 platforms of both the Republican and Democratic Parties contained planks advocating direct nominations, and in 1911 the Dix law passed the legislature. This law, how- ever, established the direct primary only in congressional, judicial, state- senatorial and assembly districts, and in cities and counties, leaving the power of the state convention over the state-wide ticket untouched, and it was not until 1913 that the advocates of the direct primary in New York State succeeded in putting through a meas- - ure which extended the direct primary principle to state-wide nominations. In 1921, after having been used in four gubernatorial elections, the direct pri- mary was abandoned and the conven- tion restored for state-wide and judicial district nominations. It is therefore a fitting moment for some appraisal of the operation of the state-wide direct primary in that state. ARGUMENTS For AND AGAINST THE Drrect PRIMARY At the time of its adoption many advantages were claimed for the direct primary, but the arguments in its favor may be summarized as follows: (1) that it would bring out a larger vote than an election for delegates to a nominating convention, and therefore would be more representative ‘and democratic; (2) that superior candi- dates would be chosen; (3) that the power of the “boss”? and the “ma- chine”’ would be broken or more easily opposed, and that the party organiza- tion would be made more responsible to the rank and file of the party. | The opponents of the direct primary, on the other hand, argued: (1) that the ballot would be crowded with the names of publicity seekers; (2) that it would complicate still more the already complicated task of the voter; (3) that it was expensive to both the state and the individual candidates; (4) that party unity and harmony would be 1m- possible and that party responsibility would be destroyed. What light, if any, does an eight years’ trial of the direct primary throw upon the validity of these contentions? How far did it fulfil the claims of its supporters, and to what extent have the objections of its opponents proved well founded? A complete evaluation is im- possible with the evidence available, but some interesting results are reflected. NUMBER OF CANDIDATES In the table on the next page is shown the number of candidates for the Re- — publican and Democratic nominations for the seven important state offices.! It is at once apparent that the direct primary ballot was not crowded with the names of notoriety seekers; in no case were there more than three candi- dates for a nomination and most con- 1 Compiled from the New York State Legislative Manual. 142 OPERATION OF THE STATE-WIDE Direct Primary In New York 143 1914 1916 1918 1920 OFFICE Rep. | Dem. | Rep. | Dem.} Rep. | Dem.}| Rep. | Dem RTO VETTIOEUELT ces ee ee eT OTS & 3 Q g 1 2 Q 2 1 Lieutenant Governor................ s 2 1 1 8 1 2 rf OPO RRT OM OMRLE & 5 a S¥vis. Kieh b o4/S She hr de “ 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Ne LUOUNNE TM Doh. °c ord etnies ie oe ag 3 Q Q 1 3 1 Q 1 SOI cee ladies pat didielajsee 1h 1 Q 1 1 Q 1 3 1 PUTED UTOMCTAL s,s eat ee ein 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 Starceempmece: Pi. ee) Ae 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 tests were between two aspirants. On_ direct primary, nominations could be the other hand, does the fact that there were no contests whatever in thirty out of fifty-six cases, indicate that the direct primary was a mere farce at which the voters put their stamp of approval upon candidates already se- lected by the party organization? It is well known that throughout the period of the operation of the direct primary, the parties held unofficial con- ferences and drew up unofiicial “slates” which were afterward put upon the ballot by petition. In no case did a nominee with the support of the party organization fail of nomination, al- though in 1916 Senator Calder, the Republican organization candidate, came dangerously close to losing the nomination. Now this may indicate that the direct primary utterly failed to break, or weaken, the power of the “boss,” but it may also indicate that, recognizing the power which the direct primary put in the hands of the rank and file of the party membership, the “bosses” carefully felt the party pulse before making their choices. The mere fact that designations were made by unofficial conventions does not in itself indicate the breakdown of the direct primary; it is natural and ad- vantageous that such should be the -case. The only danger is that the party organization may be able to force its selection upon an unwilling party and it is difficult to see how, under the forced upon a sufficiently unwilling party. No amount of primary legisla- tion can change a “Barkis is willin’”’ attitude in a political party; all that it can hope to do is to provide a weapon with which the members of a party may protect themselves. The very fact that the weapon is possessed may be the reason why it is unnecessary to use it often. INTEREST OF VOTERS Figures showing the size of the vote at direct primary elections give us some indication of the amount of interest which is taken in the primaries, and are especially significant when they can be compared with the vote for delegates to nominating conventions. In New York the latter figures are available for 1912 only. It is unfortunate that we have not the figures for 1922 also, to give us some indication of the degree of interest displayed since the return to the convention system, but these have not yet been compiled.? In the table on page 145, the total vote cast for delegates to the state con- ventions in 1912 and the total primary vote for governor, 1914-1920, have been compared to the total vote for governor at the general elections, 1912- 1920. In addition, the three following typical groups of counties have been taken for more intensive study: (1) the 2 November, 1922, 144 five counties of New York City; (2) five other urban counties; (3) ten of the larger rural counties. To the most casual observer two things are apparent from the table on page 145: (1) Only a small proportion of the people voting at general elections voted in the party primaries; (2) a larger number voted in the direct primary than voted for delegates to party conventions in 1912. The small size of the direct primary vote has been a distinct dis- appointment to those ardent advocates of direct nominations who were con- vinced that it would mean the democ- ratization of the party. In so far as any trend is indicated by these figures, they would seem to be even more dis- couraging, for they show a decreasing rather than increasing interest in party nominations. Upon closer analysis, however, it appears that several factors other than declining interest may have entered into the decreasing primary vote. It must be remembered that the years 1912-1914 marked a high water level in interest in party affairs because of the Progressive movement; this was followed by a “slump”’ in the interest of the rank and file which was naturally reflected in the primary vote. Then, too, it must not be forgotten that the enfranchisement of women brought a new element into the parties in 1918. It is well known that fewer women than men vote. In New York City in 1918 only 40 per cent of those registering were women; in 1920 only 36 percent. Isit also true that women are even more unlikely to vote in the primaries than in the general election? This has been the case in Illinois and it is reasonable to suppose that it is also true in New York.’ 3 In the 1915 election for mayor of Chicago 33 per cent of the votes in the primaries were cast by women, while 37 per cent of those cast in the final election were cast by women. See Grace Abbott, Are Women a Force for Good Government? in 4 National Municipal Review 437. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY The see-saw nature of the primary figures may perhaps be explained by the fact that 1916 and 1920 were presi- dential years, and in those years many people are drawn to the polls by their interest in national affairs who also cast a vote for governor, although they have not voted in the primaries and would not participate in a purely state election. It may also be explained by the fact that in those years there were no important contests in the Democratic Party. An interesting point brought out by these figures is that the rural counties show a consistently higher primary vote than the cities. Apparently the farmers are not going to permit them- selves to be ruled by city “bosses”’ if they can help it. On the whole, these figures show a disappointing lack of interest in direct nominations, but the direct primary enthusiast may gather some comfort from the fact that they do indicate appreciably more interest in the direct primary than in the 1912 election for delegates to the state conventions. And every gain in popular interest in party affairs is of importance, for the larger the number of people participat- ing in party primaries, the greater the likelihood that nominations will repre- sent the real sentiment of the rank and file of the party membership. COMPARISON BETWEEN REPUBLICAN AND DEmMocRATIC VOTE A separate analysis of the primary vote of each of the two major parties, 1916-1920, shows a decidedly larger vote in the Republican than in the Demo- cratic Party. In the table on page 146 are given the Republican and Demo- cratic vote for governor at the general election and at the direct primary, and the percentage of the primary vote to the general election vote, 1916-1920. 4 Compiled from the New York Legislative Manuals. OPERATION OF THE STATE-WipE Direct Primary IN New York 145 -lid 9y} 1OJ somsy oy} pUB SoINSG UOry9IO [eIOMAT oY, “paepnypour s10y} you ‘AquNCD YIOX MON OJ soiInsy syy jo SoUsIEjoY SAI} U[SISOT ‘UvUURE “WM “AJA AQ poiduioo vzep wo; o18 STG61-FIGI 10} soinsy Avulid oy} pue ‘ZTE FG GS LT 0Z % EZF'ST Te9'F €18'8Z CSo'F 91S'ts $196 TEF'Es O8L'F S8F‘0% LEs‘z IFF‘0% SIL‘ FO6'TS GZ1‘8 L¢6'91 lt6'F L0Z‘OF co6‘Ot IOL‘'SZ 98¢‘9 TFE‘09S 619'Z9 O86'FIT ESL'SS 261'06 002L‘9T LLO‘LG ze9‘OL 608'69T ZIS‘8E 066‘08 SSF'ZS Ss‘ F1¢ CFO'ITIT OIT‘'L6Z'T | 666‘'91Z CF9'Z96'% TE0‘OS8¢ wood | krone [Biouer) qoortq, 4B IOUIBAOY 10} 9J0A Oc6I FIO'ST 1E6‘ES ELL‘0% 98¢'ES $1991 ¥60‘9T eSl'SZ 6E2‘FI 629°SS 26291 CIS‘F6T 868'FL 0z¢‘89 618'SF SST‘Ssl Z19°S9 FLO LLE LEP‘ 196 IFP‘'S61'Z wOryooTG [eieuer) 889'L LES‘ IT 1828 FLL‘S €Z0'2 Z9G'S TLe‘9 cTs'9 96e‘SI 6F6'8 Z6E'E8 CZF‘6I LOF'SS C8‘ LT FZF'LE ZLE‘6S €90‘6Z1 ¥S0'0EZ GZ8"ES9 WOrqoaT AIVUILIg qoond 4B IOUIVAOY) IO} 940A ST6t 109‘ TT Z6L‘61 980'FT T20‘0Z 63ST T9OL‘21 9SF'6I OLLIT SELES 199‘9T S98‘ZFI €e0'9¢ 882‘0S 9¢g‘98 €66‘60T €68‘9OF 1266S 99L‘FTL SOL‘STL‘T wOryooTy [e1eue+) 4B IOUIOAOY) IO} 904. 9T6T cers Lesh 660'2 O8O'TT CSP'S 8809 GoG‘G LOL‘S 6oE'L Sele CZS8'9OF Tob? ¢99°6 O98‘ TT rE9' ls 89S'SS SES'Z6 O6T‘98T CLG‘ LLP wOrqoo[T AIBVUIIIg oor €& LE €& E % 906‘0T 9ST‘ST Org‘eT FEL‘9OL Oss‘OT SPF IT 962‘FT $166 6ZF'ST 6L‘ZT Gre ESI LZZ‘6F CSO'SF TEs‘oe 9ST‘S6 $12 'SP EFS‘E9S GSP'Ss9 GL8‘98F'T TOlpolH [eiouexyy ‘BUIYOR] SOIJUNOD W90}TIAY g ‘Tonuvpy 9014018169] Yo X MapT OY} WIJ 91v CYZGT JO SolmvUr ZIGT Ul UCI} ppe oy4 YR ‘Aavugi7y e4e4IG YIOX MON ‘uBIeIgrT I ‘SUOTJUOATOD 03%48 OY} OF SOJETO]OP IO] 4SE"O S94OA IC] SOINSY OY, g eg er meee ee ie de ee ee ee ee ne i ee €IL'h Ch8'S O8T'S OEF'¢ GE8'E 680'¢ CEg'F G60'S 6149'S 66t'F VIG EF ZL0°LT TLI‘ST Z08'6 CEL‘cs 900'0% 982'L6 TPL‘'L0G C0%‘Z0¢ MOTO AIew1ig qoorrqd 4B IOUIBAOY) IO} 9}0A FIGL 8e6'L C16 60F ‘ET OLEF e9'TT C96‘ COS‘ZI 1Ze'T 20°01 PEST 09S‘0I 198‘P 606‘Z1 T8e'T GF0'S OLL'T LIg‘St Zee FOIL F6'T IZ | Z6L‘EII S08‘ FZ L0g‘98 ZOL‘L S8L‘Ee E8201 OFS‘ES 689° C1‘S6 €69'9 LLO‘8E GPUZT LI | Se'22z% ZL6'6E 6I | 90I'zZ9 SOT‘6ZI OL | oTzz‘ere'l | soeg'ezz SUOIJUOA uo | _: reiow | Seurmont : 93938 Oo of | IOUIOAOY | Seaeee IO} 940A ZIGI © ete) olbate ee UO}SUTYSE AA fe Se See recites Per roach nn es ae * BS0}vIG neta ate setae © QoUdIM BT] "49 © hye hes, 6 al coc ewes ‘ o1meyUC, de siete wees * AIQMIOSUOYT o ai Stes. 0 Stal ean a *uosieyor dig caper es owes * oIVM BOC Pea, core eee *enbnewneyO Soto WOREe 0 78 ee * snSnvie}VO an eae sorqyunor) [eany uo sess ** 193899489 AA a a Se BAC PUOU CY pes eee- *eDIOTO Bee a treate a cee ee ee ee oe ROO Rene) Hd er EE ISY}O SoUNOD URqIy sALT es (seryunod sag Bulpnyour) AO xox Many AINNOD SS eens ee eee ooo ua. oo OO Oe giLOA NOILOGIY IVUINGYH AHL OL AUVWIU FHL dO GOVINDOUTT FHL ANV ‘OZ6I-ZI6T ‘SNOILLOGDIV IVUGNGY) FHL LV YHONNHAOY AOU GLOA IVLOT WHL HLM YHLGSOL, ‘OZ6I-FI61 YONUTAOH Od TLOA AAVNIUG IVLOL, FHL ANV ‘ZIG ‘SNOIINGANOD GLVIG OL SALVDTITG YO ISVO ALOA IVLO], FHL PNIMOHY aIAVy, et re 146 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATIC YEAR : Per Cent of y Per Cent General Primary ene & General Primary hd Election Election Rloction' Vere Election Election Blection Vole OG noo 835,820 298,897 686,862 158,718 23 TODS aie. i. 956,034 414,350 1,009,936 232.518 91 VOZO Cee ws 1,335,878 414,003 1,261,812 166,028 13 These figures would seem to indicate that the more complete the control of the “organization,” the less the popular interest in the primary; certainly the Democratic “‘machine”’ remains intact. It should be pointed out, however, that the Democratic Party was particularly fortunate during this period in the selection of its standard bearers. TypE oF CANDIDATES SELECTED This brings us to a consideration of the type of candidate selected during the operation of the direct primary. It is unfortunate that it has been impos- sible to make an exhaustive study of candidates for nominations; but a glance at the names of the contestants for the more important state offices indi- cates that the direct primary accom- plished no revolution in the type of candi- date and that the general average was as high as under the convention system. EXPENSE OF Direct PRIMARY The opponents of the direct primary made the objection that it would be expensive to both the candidates and to the state. When one looks for evi- dence on this point one is somewhat at a loss. Candidates were required to file statements of their expenditures, but these were carelessly drawn and sometimes intentionally misleading. No doubt large amounts were spent by some candidates,’ but that lavish ex- 7See H. Feldman, The Direct Primary in New “ork State, 11 American Political Science Review 494. penditures won the nomination is not so apparent. No more satisfactory data are available in regard to the cost to the state. In 1918 a special com- mittee of the New York Senate com- piled figures showing the cost of primary elections, 1914-1917, to have been about one dollar per vote. By themselves, however, these figures are not significant; for the repeal of the direct primary means the substitution of an election for convention delegates, and it is difficult to see how this election could be conducted with less expense than the direct primary. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, it may be said that the results of the operation of the state- wide direct primary in New York State were largely negative: it did not fulfil the prophecies of its enemies, neither did it meet the expectations of its most ardent advocates. It did not result in a ballot crowded with the names of mere publicity seekers, and it did not destroy party harmony or responsibility; the work of the voter was no more complicated than under a convention system requiring the elec- tion of several sets of convention dele- gates, and it is doubtful whether the financial objections can be sustained. On the other hand, it did not result in a vastly greater degree of interest; the power of the “machine” was not broken, and no striking change was effected in the type of candidate. The OPERATION OF THE StTATE-WipE Direct Primary IN New YorK 147 only positive results were a slight in- crease in popular interest and a slightly greater degree of responsiveness on the part of the leaders to popular demands. These are intangible results perhaps, but very important ones, and in the opinion of the writer they were sufh- cient to warrant a longer period of trial. The Workings of the Direct Primary in Iowa, 1908-1922 By Frank E. Horack Professor of Political Science, State University of Iowa, Iowa City HE law authorizing direct primary elections in Iowa was passed in 1907, after a period of five years of agitation and debate, both in and out of the General Assembly. Its passage was heralded as one of the big achieve- ments of the progressive wing of the Republican Party in Iowa. The first trial of the system was made in 1908, the year following its enactment. In the fourteen years which have elapsed since the enactment of the law it has been used eight times, and it is therefore possible to draw some fairly accurate conclusions as to its workings. PROVISIONS OF THE Jowsa PRIMARY Law The Iowa law is compulsory and ° state-wide for all state and _ local officers (except judicial and munici- pal offices) filled by popular vote at the general election. Candidates for United States senators and congress- men are chosen at the primary; and presidential electors, delegates to the county convention, and precinct party committeemen are elected by the primary voters. The primary in Iowa is conducted as a regular election. The voter’s oral choice of ballot, of which a record is made, determines his party afhiliation. Party affiliation, however, may be changed by filing a declaration of change with the county auditor ten days prior to the primary election, or by taking an oath, if challenged when offering to vote, that one has in good faith changed his party affiliation. Other provisions relative to ‘the manner of filing nomination petitions and the like need not be given here. The names of the candidates for United States senator and state offices are placed in alphabetical order in the county in which the party they repre- sent cast the largest vote at the pre- ceding general election; in the other counties a system of rotation is em- ployed so that each candidate will appear first among those _ seeking nomination for the same office as often as the rotation system permits, The successful candidate must receive 35 per cent of his party vote, cast for the office he seeks in order to be nomi- nated. NuMBER OF CANDIDATES At the time of the enactment of the Iowa primary law it was predicted that, owing to the large number of office seekers, the voters would be so confused and disgusted that the system would not accomplish its purpose. By reference to the table, p. 150, it will be seen that out of the eight offices there listed, only four times have more than four candidates been offered for any office. Nominations for the office of United States senator have been made six times under the primary law, but only once (during the war) has the nomination been uncontested in the Republican primaries. Never before 1922 have there been more than two candidates. The campaign for the nomination of United States sena- tor in the Republican primary of 1922 attracted nation-wide attention and 148 Ture WorxKINGS oF THE Direct PRIMARY In Iowa has been one of the chief causes for the renewed agitation against the primary law. In 1920 Colonel Smith W. Brookhart contested with Senator Cummins for the Republican nomination, making his campaign largely in opposition to the Esch-Cummins railroad law, and certain phases of the Federal Reserve Act. He was unsuccessful, but polled nearly one hundred thousand votes. When Senator Kenyon resigned early in 1922 Mr. Brookhart promptly announced himself as a candidate. The leaders of the Republican Party organization characterized Mr. Brook- hart as radical and dangerous, and sought to checkmate his ambition to go to the United States Senate. It is asserted that the organization leaders encouraged numerous candidates to enter the field in the anticipation that no one would receive the necessary 35 per cent of the vote cast, and thus leave the convention free to name the candidate. Much to their surprise and chagrin however, Mr. Brookhart, in a field of six candidates, carried seventy-six of the ninety-nine counties of the state, ran second in all the rest but two, and won the nomination by 42 per cent of the vote. When the state convention of the Republican Party met following the primary, the “standpat” wing of the party was in complete control, and they took the occasion to show their dislike of the man who had made his own platform and won the nomination without their approval. The con- vention refused to call upon Mr. Brook- hart for a speech, or to indorse his candidacy; demanded the repeal of the primary, and inserted a plank against socialists and demagogues. One of the organs of the “standpat” element, speaking editorially of the platform, said, “It turns down every plank which the radicals had proposed 149 and endorsed almost everything to which they objected... . It is the voice of the people speaking through their accredited representatives chosen by the primary to attend the state convention and it adequately and correctly represents the views and wishes of the Republican voters of this state.” Again the same paper declared that, “‘the last so-called Re- publican primary was a rank fraud and the candidate for United States senator was dishonestly nominated.” It is somewhat difficult for an im- partial student of politics to see how the candidate was “ dishonestly nominated”’ while the delegates who made up the county conventions (which in turn select the delegates to the state con- vention) who were voted for at the same time were “the voice of the people.” Most of the people who voted in the primary were interested in the contest for the senatorship and not in delegates to the county con- vention. Competition for nominations to state offices has been healthy in the Republican primaries. In eight pri- maries there have been twenty-one candidates for the nomination for governor: only twice has the primary been without a contest for this office in the Republican Party. The least contested office has been that of state treasurer (see table, p. 150). Seven candidates for the nomination to the office of state superintendent of public instruction is the largest number .so far offered for any one state office in the primary. Tue SizE OF THE Primary VOTE One of the objections frequently urged against the primary in Iowa is that so few turn out to vote. The number of candidates for nomination at the primary does not necessarily determine the size of the vote, though Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 150 —— — —— See 98s'tr| -*"" roo'es | “"** oak 9L8°ES | SL9°9F | OOG'EF |68P'LL401 "°° |ZT6'ZIT] ***" ""** I1SS*SFT |FZ8'SFT |690'F9T | * °° °970A [eIOT, worpontjsuy orqng jo T eeee I eeee eevee yi I z ¢ eoee a eevee eeee I 2 Zz SO} BPIpUBd JOON yuepuszutiedng P8S'SF | LL6°SE| Z6P‘9E| EEL4‘OL| 96F'F9| E6S'FS | FL0'FF| OLS‘ LF | LI9‘ShS |STFLZST |SZO'TIT [092261 |SFO‘6TT [968 TST |F22'ZST |ZST'6St | °°’ 830A [eIOT, [erewe5 T T Lee ee aL. I I j T T g I 9 I I e I |S0}8prpueo yo ‘on 40u10}7V reo'er | TOF9E| OFT‘9E| GOT'ZL| ZES'29| EOS'FE| 8zs‘OF| 98‘ LF 1Z89‘E9T |6E0' FST |F9S‘STIT |S86‘O6I |986‘EST |EFS‘OST |SzF'GFT |996'TOT | °° °° °970A [BI0, IaMSBILT, 9381G I T T I fe I T I Ye Z S g I I I T =‘ |89}BprpuwBo fo ‘ony OF6'SF | OTS'9E| FE'9E| 6ZF'SL| TSS‘'29| 66S'TS] ZOSm‘ZF| OZS‘LF |SOE' FHS [E96'9ST |SIG‘'IZI |ZFFSST |6L6'2ZZ1 |S80'S9T |OFS‘OST |TFO'S9T | °° °° 090A [eI0, Siete ; IOPIPNY 978} FT I I T S A . T I T F I I G F T Z |89}Bprpuwo Jo “ONT 0SS‘Sh | 6ZI°9E| 6629] THO'SL| ZO00'OL| L8P'FS| FZL‘OF | 9L8‘ZF |S9S‘TSZ | FSS‘6ST |SZS‘SZI | O&'Z6T/S09'FZI (SeEe'FOL | LoT‘ecl |zeg'zor | °° °° 970A TeI0], 91B1g Jo AIByaIIeg T I T T S I I I Z Z F SZ I € T T _‘_|893¥prpueo Jo “oN ZIL‘9F| SS8'9E| FES‘9E| SET'sZ| TLL‘'69|] TPE'FS| Tec‘'zr] E86'LF |ZL2'FFS |SFL‘Z6L |S6Z‘OZI |S68‘66T |SZS‘OkT |O68'S9T |227°9CT |868‘E2ZT |° °° 920A [BIO], ouIOAOD) a AE I I I I z I I I Lob Fe bet g z z I € — |seyeprpueo jo "oN ee ae 998'LF | S90°8E] TOT'6E| IT6L'PL| 942'SL] OLE'LS| ZES‘LF| $90‘0S |STS‘98z J9ST'SIz |SSZ‘LZI |e98'L% |96S'ZFT |6IZ‘ TST |OOG‘9ZT IS98' IST |‘°°°** 930A [BIO], eaten 3 2 TEI I if z T SZ 4 ¢ I Ti F T F € € be € |Se}Bprpuvd Jo “ON 626'6F | STS‘8S] SIs‘9e| *°** ste €68°29-)—*=- €ES‘6F |0S9'SZE |TES‘'SIs |O9G' ZZT} “°° “*"* 1ogg‘68T| “*"* 1¢0%‘'TOs’ |° °° °° 9704 [R20 I0zeusg “g§ “9 I 1 1 fi 3 ae 1 eae, 1 9 z 1 ett =e z =r zZ + --gayeprpueo jo "ON SPE | see | sf2| shz| 322 | sie | ef? | sta| 22 | 282 | efe2| efs| cf2| fa | 222] oFe 8 pe SH By paren = ho Berd = = og tery = rata MRSA 55 58 3 8 x Be} ©8e | Sse 3 5 GOIWIQ JO ANV Bee | S88 | oes | SES] RBS | 2H | SEB | S24] SEE] Ss8 | bes | aes] SBS | SES | SES | SE 2 > qe as s < gy & eq eq A < wg i < ‘ qe “ wg A S| SHLUVAIUg OILVYYOONE CG SHLUVAIN NVoOIrIld onda yy eee ey Zc6Il-S806L ‘A0IdIO HOVY WOd AUVAIUG NI ISVD SALOA JO UAEWOAN IVLOT, GNV SHOIddIO ALVLG GNV HOLVNGG *§ ‘Q AOU SALVGIGNVD JO UAAWON ONIMOHSY ATav ], Tur WorKINGS OF THE Direct PRIMARY IN Iowa as a rule contested nominations poll a larger vote than uncontested ones (see table, p. 150, bearing in mind that women have not voted in the primary elections of Iowa prior to 1922). According to table on page 150 it is evident that presidential election years seem to bring out more candidates for state offices than do the off years, and the number of votes cast seems to rise and fall accordingly in Republican primaries. Thus it would appear that national politics stimulate an unusual interest in Jowa. This has been especially in evidence in the primary of 1922. In the general election of 1920 Senator Cummins received 528,499 votes while Governor Kendall received but 513,- 118. In the primary of 1922 Governor Kendall sought renomination and though unopposed, he received over 43,000 more votes than the lowest ranking candidate on the state ticket and 5,000 more than the next highest. Yet the Governor fell 37,000 votes short of the total vote cast for the six candidates for the office of United States senator. Thus 61 per cent of the Republican vote cast for Senator Cummins in the general election of - 1920 was voted at the primary to nominate a successor to Senator Ken- yon; while only 55 per cent of the vote cast for Governor Kendall in 1920 was polled for him in the primary election of 1922. During the past fourteen years, the office of governor has polled on the average about 70 per cent of the vote cast for the office in the general election, while the percentage for the minor state offices has varied from 60 to 65 per cent. The percentage in 1920 was very low, being only 41 per cent for governor and as low as 31 per cent for some of the minor state offices; this is easily explained, how- ever, by the fact that the women voted in the general election of 1920 but not * maries, 151 in the primary of the same year. In like manner the high percentage of 1912 (98 per cent for governor) is explained by the split in the Republican Party through the organization of the Progressive Party after the primary had been held. Normally, only from 65 to 70 per cent of those eligible have voted at the general elections, and the aversion of many to making a declara- tion of party affiliation no doubt keeps a large percentage of those who vote at the general election from voting in the primary. Is tHE VotTiInG INTELLIGENT? Granting that it would be highly desirable to have a larger percentage of the voters participate in the pri- what evidence is there to support the charge frequently made that most of those who do vote, vote unintelligently? The alphabetical ar- rangement of names on the ballot always favored those of the top of the list. To remedy this situation, the system of rotation referred to above was adopted. It is now said that candidates for nomination, knowing in advance the counties in which their names will be at the head of the list, devote their campaign energy to the other counties, feeling assured that wherever their names are first they will win without effort. The writer has no data at hand to either prove or dis- prove this assertion. No doubt many electors will vote for the candidate at the top of the list when all are wholly unknown to them. But where -the issue has been made clear to the voter, as in the primary campaign for United States senator in 1922, a consciousness of purpose in voting seems evident. That one candidate in a field of six should get 42 per cent of the vote cast and carry seventy-six out of ninety- nine counties cannot be attributed to place on the ballot or to chance. 152 The total primary vote tends to diminish from the top of the ballot downwards, though contests usually raise the rank of the office above its position on the ballot. The fact seems evident that the public is not greatly concerned about who is nominated for the minor state offices; and so unless the candidates for these offices are well known in the state or conduct a vigorous publicity campaign, the voter is apt for want of knowledge, to cast his vote for the one at the head of the list or pass the office altogether. ‘The fact that thirty- seven thousand more persons expressed a choice among the six candidates for United States senator in 1922 than voted for governor is evidence that the campaign for the senatorship had impressed itself upon the mind of the voter, whereas the nominations for state offices with but three contests for minor offices failed to impress them. PRIMARY CAMPAIGN EXPENSES The opponents of the Iowa primary law frequently speak of it as an ex- pensive institution, which makes it impossible for men without means to become candidates for office. Cam- paigning for the nomination for a state office if contested, is largely a matter of advertising, since the candi-. dates can meet personally but a small percentage of the voters. Some news- papers, however, will give considerable publicity to “pet”? candidate which is not paid for as political advertisement. The law of Iowa requires candidates to file a statement of campaign ex- penditures in both primary and general elections within ten days after such elections; but there is no limit upon the amount which he may spend. The cost of candidacy is often very large—larger than the candidates can afford. It is doubtful if all candidates report their expenditures. The Demo- Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY cratic candidates for state offices sel- dom spend much money nor do they spend much in the congressional dis- tricts which are solidly Republican; but there are one or two congressional districts in which a Democrat feels that he has a fighting chance and in those he may spend a few hundred dollars. In the Republican primary campaign for the nomination of United States senator in 1922, six contesting, the smallest amount reported as spent was $118.68, while the largest amount was $6,869.88. The successful candi- date reported $453.98 of which he claimed the Spanish War Veterans contributed $112, his home town $75, and the remainder represented his personal expenditures. He, however, had the active support of the most influential farm paper in the state and got a large amount of publicity, which would have cost a great deal if it had been paid for as political advertise- ments. The other candidates spent about $3,000 each. The governor seeking renomination and uncontested, reported having spent $110.18, while the Secretary of State seeking renomi- nation, but contested, spent $1,511.04. In many instances candidates for nomination to local offices or that of state senator or representative report no expenditures at all of less than $25. Contests, of course, invite large ex- penditures, but that was also true under the caucus and convention system. THe CHARACTER OF CANDIDATES The question whether the primary keeps the best men out of office be- cause they are unwilling or unable financially to enter a primary cam- paign; or whether the candidates nominated by the primary are no worse than those chosen under the convention system, are questions upon which it is difficult to get trustworthy data. ‘The people have made serious Tur WorKINGS OF THE Direct Primary IN Iowa mistakes at times in selecting candi- dates by theprimary system; nor did the convention system pick all good men. EFFECT OF THE Primary Upon Party ORGANIZATION There is much evidence going to show that the primary has not been a menace to party organization. In- deed, party organization really con- trols the primary election to a con- siderable extent. In theory, anyone is free to circulate his own petition and contest any nomination; but in practice, it is usually futile to oppose the organization slate unless public sentiment is aroused, as was the case in the senatorial primary of 1922. The failure of the organization to control at all times is one of the chief causes for the demand for the repeal of the law by it. Iowa is essentially a one-party state and a glance at the table on p. 150 suggests that it is no mere accident that the Democrats in Jowa have had no primary contests for state offices since 1914. The party organization makes up the slate of those who are to represent the party in the primary and where there are no contests it is a foregone conclusion that those persons will also represent the party in the general election. In 1920, the writer succeeded in getting primary ballots from sixty-eight of the ninety-nine counties of the state. These ballots showed that the Democrats had no candidate in the primary for more than 50 per cent of the county offices, while for 50 per cent of the county offices only one candidate appeared in the Re- publican primaries. On the other hand, the Republicans were without any primary candidate for fifty-one county offices in the sixty-eight coun- ties, and the Democrats were without any for two hundred and eighty-four offices. The figures for the Republican 153 Party, however, do not appear so bad when it is said that the office of coroner appeared thirty times of the fifty-one offices without primary candidates. This office is without salary and few fees in the majority of the counties of Iowa, and consequently sought only in the more populous counties. There were three hundred and seventy offices out of five hundred and forty-four with only one candidate, or no candidate in the Republican county primaries and five hundred and seventeen in the Democratic primaries in the sixty-eight counties referred to above. Thus it is apparent that in the primaries of the year 1920, most of the county offices, even in the majority party primaries, were uncontested, indicating either that the party or- ganization had fair control of the situation or that there was general lack of interest in public offices. In- stances have come to the attention of the writer where the two-party organizations, in counties where the parties are nearly equal, have divided up the offices—each organization agree- ing not to put in nomination any one for certain offices, thus assuring the election of the bi-partisan slate. IRREGULARITY OF Parry VOTING AT THE PRIMARY The Iowa primary is a closed pri- mary; as indicated above the voter must make a declaration of party affiliation and he receives a_ party ballot. But why is the Democratic vote so small? Why is the percentage of Democrats voting in the primary so much smaller than that of the Republicans? On the average the Democrats cast only about 30 per cent of their general election vote in the primary. Are the Democrats par- ticipating in the Republican primaries and helping to name the Republican 154 candidates? the opponents of the primary are constantly making. It is probably true that others than Republicans participate in Republican primaries. The Democrats, being the minority party, having fixed their slate in advance of the primary, and having no contests for state offices, have little incentive to bring their party voters to the polls. The Socialist, Farmer- Laborer, and Socialist-Labor Parties combined, cast a little more than twenty-eight thousand votes for presi- dential electors in Iowa in 1920, while only the Socialist Party offered candi- dates in the primaries of the same year and their maximum vote cast in that primary was seven hundred and ninety- one. It is altogether likely that some of these, attracted by the occasional lively contests in the Republican primaries, have participated therein. But the fact that the percentage of the general election vote cast by the Democrats in their own primaries has remained fairly constant throughout the entire period in which the primary has been in operation, convinces the writer that the Democrats do not make a general practice of entering Republican primaries. In the Republican primary of 1922, the six candidates for the nomination of United States senator received a total of 323,650 votes, while the head of the state ticket received but 286,- 518. It is therefore evident that some thirty-seven thousand voters entered the Republican primaries and ex- pressed a choice on United States senator and nothing else. It has been too generally assumed that these thirty-seven thousand votes were not Republicans. In this the writer can- not concur, because the total primary vote for senator was 61 per cent of the vote cast for Senator Cummins in 1920 and 63 per cent of the vote cast This is the charge that Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY for Governor Kendall in the same election. The office of governor has on the average polled about 70 per cent of the party vote, while the other state offices have averaged from 61 to 65 per cent. Governor Kendall being unopposed in 1922 and the center of political interest being in the contest for the senatorship, he fell far below the average percentage of the party vote which the head of the state ticket usually gets— receiving only 55 per cent of his general election vote of 1920. These facts convince the writer that the Republican primaries of 1922 were not overrun with out- siders. NOMINATION BY CONVENTION Does the primary accomplish its purpose as a popular nominating system? Only three times out of eight have all the nominations been made at the primary; that is, the suc- cessful candidates received 35 per cent of the vote cast for the office sought. But never before 1920 was there more than one state office at any one primary which failed to get the requisite vote. In 1920, however, the primary failed to determine the nomination of five out of seven offices. Every nomina- tion for which there were more than two candidates went to the state convention. The primary law leaves the convention free to make a nomina- tion wholly outside of the contestants in the primary, but as a matter of practice, this has never been done. Nor have the state conventions adopted the policy of selecting the high man in the primaries; on the contrary, in five times out of eight they have not done so. REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION TO THE PRIMARY Most of those who originally opposed the adoption of the primary law in Tuer WorKINGS OF THE Direct PRIMARY IN IowWA Iowa are still opposed. Their news- papers welcome every attack upon the primary and continually demand its» repeal or suggest such amendments as would practically nullify it. In the past two years the attacks upon the primary system in Jowa have been more vigorous than ever before. The Republican State Convention in 1920 declared that, Actual experience has demonstrated that great evils have arisen in the use of the present primary law of this state. It has been given a fair trial and found to be unwieldy, expensive, and unsatisfactory. We favor its repeal and the substitution therefor of such primary legislation as will guarantee to all voters the full right to take part and be heard in the councils of their party, and will provide for them an opportunity for free and fair expression as to both candidates and measures. In the General Assembly of 1921 the Republican Party had almost complete control; out of fifty senators, forty- eight were Republicans and of a hundred and eight members of the lower house, one hundred and one belonged to the Republican Party. Yet the Assembly adjourned without having touched the primary law. The Republican State Convention in 1922 declared that it “emphatically” reaffirmed the declaration of 1920 respecting the primary law and added: In the event, however, that the General Assembly shall not comply with this demand for a substantial revision of our nominating system, then we instruct the Republican State Committee in calling the state con- vention for electing delegates to the next Republican national convention, to call such state convention for a date not later than February, 1924, and to include in the call therefor, as a part of the business of that convention, the duty of indorsing candidates for senator, governor, and other state officers to be supported by the party as a party in the ensuing primaries; and the state committee shall at the same time 155 prescribe suitable rules for a fair and free choice of delegates to such state convention under republican auspices and by republi- cans only. At the present writing no one seri- ously believes that the legislature of 1923 will materially change the pri- mary law. The reason for this difference be- tween party declaration and legislative action is easily told. The primary law sought to preserve the party organization and make it subject to popular will. It therefore provided for both county and state conventions to be assembled subsequent to the primaries, for the purpose of naming candidates where no one received the requisite 35 per cent or where vacancies occurred, and for the purpose of drafting a platform of party principles. For the selection of delegates to the county convention the law provides that, “The requisite number of names of candidates of his choice for delegates to the county convention to which each precinct is entitled, shall be written or pasted with uniform white pasters on the blank lines upon the ballot by the voter while in the booth.” Also, “One member of the county central committee for each political party from each precinct shall be elected.” In practice very few voters find themselves able, on the spur of the moment, to write out a list of from ten to twenty names of persons whom they know to be residents of the pre- cinct and members of the party des- ignated. The result is that the party organization or some of its members distribute lists of delegates and candi- dates for party committeemen printed on gummed paper, in _ practically every voting precinct. The voter obediently licks this gummed _ slip of hand-picked delegates and pastes it on the proper place on the ballot, 156 without knowing who they are or for what they stand. The delegates thus chosen in the several voting precinct make up the county convention, and the county convention in turn chooses the delegates to the state convention. Thus the party organization perpetu- ates itself and may often be altogether out of accord with the mass of the party voters. The voters seem to show an interest in candidates for office, especially if there are contests; but seem to fail to realize that in case the primary fails to nominate a candidate, the selection will fall to a group of dele- gates picked by a mere handful of men. The declaration in the Republican state platform demanding a repeal of the primary does not, as far as the observation of the writer goes, repre- sent the popular sentiment in Iowa. Outside of the so-called “old guard,” one hears more demands for open or non-partisan primaries than for repeal. The Democrats, though a minority party, have declared strongly in their last two platforms in favor of the pri- mary. The progressive wing of the Republicans favors it and the League of Women Voters has recently expressed its disapproval of any attempts to repeal the primary system in this state. PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE IOWA PRIMARY LAW It would be as hard to find a sub- stitute for the primary election as it is to find a substitute for the jury system. Both. have their faults, and both can be improved. The time of holding primary elec- tions in Jowa is unfortunate. The first Monday in June is one of the hardest times of year for a farmer to leave his work and consequently the rural vote is usually small. Again, the interval between the primary and the election is altogether too long. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY The issues of the primary are either forgotten by November or the people are weary of a long drawn-out cam- paign. The early part of September would be the best time for holding a primary in Iowa. Some of those who talk primary elec- tion reform in Iowa advocate the short primary ballot; by which they mean permitting the voters to nominate candidates for United States senators, congressmen, governor, lieutenant governor and local officers, the candi- dates for the rest of the state offices to be nominated by the state convention. It is doubtful if such a proposal would receive much popular endorsement. Both the advocates and the op- ponents of the primary system seem to be agreed that the 35 per cent rule should be changed. The first group would adopt the so-called “high man”’ rule, while the latter insist upon majority nominations. Majority nom- inations being difficult to obtain when more than two candidates are in the field, it would be necessary to have a second primary or throw the nomina- tion to a convention. Opponents of the present law want to make the test of party affiliation more rigid. They advocate registra- tion for the primary, and would permit no change in party affiliation to be made, unless made anywhere from thirty days to six months before the primaries. ‘The woman voter has made such a proposition impossible. As far as the writer is informed, the women of Iowa are more interested in open or non-partisan primaries than in more rigid tests of party affiliation. A provision limiting by law the amount of money which one may be permitted to spend in a primary con- test, would be wholesome and would no.doubt overcome much criticism now directed against primary election expenditures. Tur WorKINGS OF THE Direct Primary IN Iowa Probably one of the most unsatis- factory features of the Iowa primary law is the unrepresentative character of the conventions called by its au- thority. The inability of the average voter to name lists of delegates to the county convention or to pass judgment on the lists submitted to him by the party organization on primary day, has been mentioned above. If the convention is to be retained, the dele- gates should be named in advance of the primary in order that the voter may have an opportunity to know who they are; but of course if the “high man”’ rule were adopted, the convention would be shorn of all power except fillmg vacancies and drawing up the party platform. The so-called Hughes plan is largely condemned because it has been ad- vocated in Iowa by those who have been hostile to the primary system. The suspicion grows that the reac- tionaries would like nothing better than the ability to name all candidates in a convention and give them first place on the ballot bearing the par- ty endorsement. Popular candidates without an organization endorsement would appear as “scabs”’ and irreg- ular and would have difficulty making 157 much headway against such odds as these. CONCLUSION It is the writer’s belief that we should proceed slowly in making any changes which will reduce the power of the voter, especially so in as much as the electorate has been doubled by the adoption of the nineteenth amendment. The women of Iowa should be given ample opportunity to become familiar with the workings of the primary system before radical changes are made. The fact that a particular candidate nominated at the primary is not acceptable to the organization leaders is no reason for overthrowing the system by which he was nominated. Moreover, too rigid a test of party affliation is more apt to keep the honest and conscientious from the polls than the venal and corrupt; thus reducing the percentage of those who participate in the primary. In such a case we would probably witness worse abuses than those now com- plained of. Perhaps we would have more con- fidence in the demands for the repeal of the primary system if they did not come so consistently from those who have suffered disppointment under it. The Operation of the Richards Primary By Cuarence A. Brerpant, Px.D. Associate in Political Science, University of Llinois NDOUBTEDLY the most unique primary law on the statute books is that of South Dakota, known as the Richards primary. In the words of its author, “‘it differs from primary laws of other states in that it retains the representative convention system in proposal of party platform and can- didates; also differs in making prin- ciples, instead of persons, ... the paramount issue; ... it provides a free proposal system to raise, join, dis- cuss and elect the paramount: issue for party platform and nominations of candidates.”’! In an attempt to provide for a more effective expression of public opinion in the selection of a party’s candidates and issues, and to secure in general more responsible party government, the Richards law includes several features that are decidedly novel; the proposal of candidates and issues by representative conventions, the emphasis on the “paramount issue,” the scheme of public joint debates, the postmaster primary, the attempt to apply the merit system in appoint- ments and the party recall. The law has been denounced as freakish,? unworkable, unduly expen- sive, destructive of party organization and discipline, and productive of political turmoil. Since its first adop- tion through the initiative and refer- endum in 1912, it has been subjected to almost continuous assault by the state legislature and the party machine, 1 Statement by R. O. Richards, in Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, Aug. 8, 1921. *The precinct elections of the last primary campaign were referred to as “the first act of the Sunshine Follies of 1921-29.” but has received the sanction of popu- lar approval at the polls on four sepa- rate occasions.’ It has now been in operation during three primary cam- paigns—those of 1913-1914, 1919- 1920, and 1921-1922,4 and it may therefore be in order to inquire into its working. Party ORGANIZATION Party Membership—Although the Richards primary is of the closed primary type, the test for party mem- bership “does not amount to a conti- nental as a restriction,” as was re- marked by one of the South Dakota newspapers. The test provided is that of present affiliation, a voter being merely required at the polls to declare his party allegiance “‘in a distinct and audible voice,’ and, if challenged, to state under oath that he is “in good faith’? a member of that party and a believer in its principles “‘as declared in the last preceding national and state platforms.” The Republican Party being the normally dominant party in South Dakota, there is regularly a lively contest for its nominations, and just as regularly comparative quiet within the other parties. In 1922, for ex- ample, Mr. Louis N. Crill and Miss 3 Jn 1912, 1914, 1918, and 1920. In 1916 the law failed by a small majority to secure popular approval. For a sketch of these events in the adoption of the law, as well as for a summary of its salient provisions, see an article by the writer on “The Richards Primary,” in Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., XIV, 93-105 (Feb., 1920). Thelaw may be found in Session Laws of South Dakota, 1916- 1917, Ch. 234; or in the Revised Political Code, 1919, Sections 7097-7200. ‘In amended form in the last case, however. 158 Tuer OprrRATION oF THE RicHarps PRIMARY 159 Alice Lorraine Daly were unopposed™fa view of intimidating the voter, it is for the Democratic and Nonpartisan§#only necessary for the challenged League nominations respectively for; governor.~ Within the Republican Party, however, there was a bitter con- test between Governor McMaster, representing the regular party organ- ization, and the picturesque George W. Egan, posing as the champion of the people against the machine. Con- sequently, there were frequent sug- gestions and even open appeals that Democrats and Nonpartisan Leaguers participate in the Republican prim- aries in order to “smash the machine.”’ Apparently an effort was made to interpret the loose provision noted above in such a way as to prevent this, the Attorney General (and at least one state’s attorney) issuing a state- ment in which he called special atten- tion to the penalties for illegal voting at the primary.® In reply, it was pointed out that under the law “a voter who was a Democrat yesterday may legally be a Republican tomorrow. In reality there is no distinction between the parties save in name alone. A voter is neither a poor citizen nor a poor sport who chances to change from the Democratic primaries to the Republi- can primaries, because in his belief he can perform better the obligations he owes the state.’ ® One of the lead- ing newspapers of the state likewise declared very bluntly that “any Re- publican, any former Democrat, any former Nonpartisan Leaguer may go into the primary election on March 28 and demand a Republican ballot, vote that ballot and have it counted. If the right of an applicant to vote the Republican ticket is challenged, with ® See statement of Attorney General Byron S. Payne, in Sioux Falls Press, Mar. 23, 1922. ® Letter of Attorney Thos. H. Kirby to the state’s attorney of Minnehaha County, in Sioux Falls Press, Mar. 19, 1922. person to declare himself or herself "a Republican. , tion to vote the Republican ticket at The desire and inten- that particular time makes the voter a bona fide Republican. ‘There is no other test that need concern the con- science of the voter. There is no other clean-cut division between the parties except that demonstrated in the bal- loting.” 7 In the following primary of March 28, 1922, the Republican vote for governor in Minnehaha County, the most populous county in South Da- kota, reached a total of 13,435, as against a Democratic and Nonpartisan League vote of 83 and 17, respectively. In the November election, on the other hand, the Republican vote in the same county fell to 5,118, while the Democratic vote increased to 4,208, and the Nonpartisan League vote to 3,028. Similarly, the Republican vote in the state at large fell from 101,758 in the March primary to about 78,000 in the November election, with corre- sponding increases for the Democrats and Nonpartisan Leaguers.? These figures seem ’to demonstrate that Democrats and Nonpartisan Leaguers in South Dakota probably do like to invade the Republican primaries on occasion, and that such invasion cannot be prevented (if, indeed, it be desirable to prevent it) by the test of party allegiance imposed by the Richards law. In this respect, however, the charge that party organization and discipline are practically destroyed is no more valid against the Richards plan than against any other primary law with a loose provision of that sort. It is possible, of course, that other features 7 Sioux Falls Press, Feb. 8, 1922. 8 These are the unofficial figures, obtained from newspaper reports. 160 of the Richards law may encourage independence to such a degree that the political conscience of the voter becomes more elastic, and that the bonds of the party organization there- fore rest more lightly upon him. Party Committees—Party com- mittees under the Richards law are constituted in quite orthodox fashion. There is a county central committee for each county made up of one com- mitteeman chosen by the party voters in each precinct, and a state central committee similarly composed of one committeeman elected from each county. The county chairman is chosen by the members of the county committee and the party nominees for county and legislative offices, while the state chairman and the national com- mitteeman are elected at the state- wide primary. All party committees are, however, constituted on the basis of “unit representation”; that is, each com- mitteeman casts a vote at all committee meetings equal to the number of votes cast at the last general election within the territory he represents (precinct or county) for his party’s candidate for governor. Thus, although the 64 counties of the state are each repre- sented on the state central committee of each party by one committeeman, their strength and influence will vary according to the party strength. The Republican state committeeman for Minnehaha County, for example, had a voting strength of about one-tenth of the committee before the last gen- eral election, whereas now his relative strength is only about one-thirteenth. The Democratic committeeman for the same county, with an actual smaller number of votes (4,208 to ® The writer is of course aware that the prin- ciple of unit representation is applied in the primary laws of some other states, notably Illinois. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 5,118), has a strength equal to ap- proximately one-tenth of his com- mittee.® One other point in connection with the selection of party officials and committees may be worthy of mention in explaining the operation of the — Richards law. ‘The law provides that an unopposed candidate for a nomina- tion shall be certified as the nominee of his party without having his name printed on the primary ballot; but candidates for elective positions within the party (that is, for party chairman and committeeman) must have their names printed on the ballot, whether unopposed or not.!® In other words, the law makes possible a short ballot by eliminating most of the uncontested places; but, on the other hand, it is not possible for any party to avoid altogether the necessity of conducting a primary election. It happened in several counties last spring that the primary ballot (particularly that of the minority parties) contained only two names, those of unopposed candi- dates for the positions of state com- mitteeman and state chairman. PROPOSAL CONVENTIONS For the selection of candidates and issues, the Richards law provides a very elaborate and somewhat com- plicated machinery. In two of the steps involved in the complete proc- ess (the precinct initiatory elections held in November of every odd-num- bered year, and the state-wide primary in March of every even-numbered year) the voter participates directly. But especially important are the representative conventions held by each party in both county and state, for the purpose of proposing candidates 10See Sections 7111-7113, 7132-7133 of the Richards law (Revised Political Code, 1919), and opinion thereon by Assistant Attorney General V. R. Sickle, in Sioux Falls Press, Mar. 12, 1922. Tuer OPERATION OF THE RicHAarRpDs PRIMARY and issues, from which final selection is made at the following primary. The county proposal conventions for each party are made up of three pro- posalmen elected by the respective party voters in each precinct under a regulated caucus system, the so-called precinct initiatory election; while the state proposal conventions are similarly composed of three proposalmen from each county, but chosen for each party by the respective county conventions. Both county and’ state conventions are, like the party committees, based on the idea of “unit representation,” in that each proposalman has a vote equal to one-third the number of votes cast at the last general election ‘in his precinct or county for his party’s candidate for governor. The details as to time of meeting, organization, and procedure of all these proposal con- ventions are carefully regulated in the law. Majority and Minority Proposals — The plan of an initial proposal of candidates by pre-primary conventions is in accord with the growing desire to attach more official responsibility to the party organization, and has been 41 For example, all proposal conventions, county or state, are required to convene at 11 o’clock A.M. on the designated day. The Revised Code of South Dakota, however, further declares in what portions of the state such statutory designations of time shall be understood to mean central or mountain time, in accordance with which provision any legislative designation of time would mean mountain time in the city of Murdo in Jones County, although the business of the city is conducted according to central time. As a result of this confusion, one faction of Republican proposalmen of that county met at 11 o'clock, and another faction at 12 o'clock, each electing a separate group of state proposalmen. The writer is not aware how the contest was settled, although the law seems to favor the second group; but the incident illustrates the difficulty of attempting to regulate such minor details by statute. It would seem that the hour of meeting and other details might well be left to the party committee or other authority. 12 161 adopted to some extent by other states, notably Minnesota. The Richards plan is decidedly novel, however, in that it expressly recognizes the ex- istence of opposing factions within a party and provides for an official slate of candidates to be proposed by both the majority and minority factions. The majority in a proposal conven- tion first selects its candidates and principles. Thereupon the minority, if dissatisfied and if composed of at least five proposalmen, is permitted to “protest” by selecting and filing its own slate. Both the majority and minority (or protesting) slates are given a place on the primary ballot, but without any distinction as to name, both being called merely representative proposals. It is possible for the voter to distinguish these on the ballot, however, since the majority proposals must be placed in the last column of the ballot, and the minority proposals in the column next to the last. It may be noted also that only two official factions are recognized, the law pro- viding that in case there is more than one group of protesting proposals, those first filed shall be placed on the ballot. Thus, in the Republican State Proposal Convention of December, 1919, General Wood received 28,599 votes to 15,442 for Governor Lowden, and thereupon became the “majority ”’ candidate for the presidential nomina- tion. Governor Lowden was promptly named as the minority or “protesting”’ candidate, and as such contested with General Wood for the support of the South Dakota Republicans. Simi- larly, the Democrats selected President Wilson and former Ambassador Gerard as the majority and minority candidates of their party.!? 12 Tt should be remarked that Mr. Gerard announced that his “protesting” candidacy was filed only in case President Wilson should decline. 162 Independent Proposals ——In addition to the two “representative” slates that may be put forward by the of- ficially recognized factions in the proposal conventions, the Richards law permits the proposal of an un- limited number of independent candi- dates for any office by the usual proc- ess of a petition with a required number of signatures. In fact, such independent candidates are definitely encouraged in that they are given the first column on the ballot, generally conceded to be the choice position, and are given prior consideration in other respects, in order, as is stated in the law, “‘to encourage leadership.” The Richards law goes so far in its attempt to encourage such independent leadership within a party, as to provide that any independent candidate for the nomination for President or gov- ernor who received as much as 10 per cent of the total party vote at the primary election, shall be recognized as a “leader.’’ The language further seems to require that the protesting or minority proposalmen shall select this ““leader”’ as their candidate at the next election, if he desires to continue his fight for his “paramount issue.” ¥ This peculiar provision applied in the last campaign to Mr. Richards him- self, the author of the law, since he had been such an independent candidate for the gubernatorial nomination in 1920. It was generally expected that Mr. Richards would insist on _ his right to “leadership,” whether the proposalmen would have him or no, but Although the President’s withdrawal left Mr. Gerard as the sole candidate proposed by the Democratic convention, his name necessarily appeared in the third or “protesting”? column. For a full report of these proposal conventions, see the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader or Sioux Falls Press, under date of Dec. 3, 1919; and the same papers, under date of Dec. 7, 1921, for reports of the latest of these conventions. 13 Section 7098, Rev. Pol. Code, 1919. Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY at the last moment he withdrew his claims, and as a consequence there was no minority candidate for that office in 1922. Presumably Mr. Richards’ legal claim will have expired by the time of the next primary campaign, although the law is not clear on that point. | ; Good use has been made of the pro- vision for independent candidacies. Senators Johnson and Poindexter were able in this way to submit their presi- dential ambitions to the people of South Dakota in 1920, although neither received any consideration from the state proposal convention. So also Mr. Richards himself, decidedly per- sona non grata to the Republican organization, was enabled in the same year to become a candidate for the gubernatorial nomination, and in that way secure a hearing for more of his ideas. The campaign of Mr. Egan in 1922, already mentioned, was also conducted as an independent candi- date. In other words, the method of proposing candidates by an official convention does not by any means pre- clude other candidates who may not stand in well with the “organization,” nor does it necessarily mean that the slate or program is going to be a cut and dried affair. The system does, however, throw a certain responsibility upon the party organization; it is required to show its hand, so that the voters at least know which are “organ- ization’’ candidates and which are not. The plan of the Richards law with regard to the selection of candidates is thus much like the plan of Governor Hughes in New York. It is different in that the official slates are proposed by representative conventions instead of by the party committees, thus providing greater opportunity for the voters themselves to determine the Tue OPERATION OF THE RICHARDS PRIMARY selections. It differs also in that the Hughes plan gave the official slate the preferred place on the primary ballot, whereas the Richards law favors the independent candidates in that way. Finally, it differs from the Hughes plan and from any other plan in its distinct recognition of factions within a party. It is this provision, perhaps more than any other, that is criticized by politicians and organization men. Itis said that this prevents party harmony, promotes factional differences, and keeps the state in continuous political turmoil. To a certain extent those criticisms are no doubt well founded, but it séems to the writer that the law is simply a recognition of an obvious fact, perhaps especially obvious in South Dakota, where the Republican party has been split into two well- defined groups—stalwart and_ pro- gressive—for at least the last twenty years. The Richards law does not require factional proposals, it merely permits them; but it does offer an opportunity for dissatisfaction, where such exists, to assert itself in an organ- ized manner. The voter’s task of ultimate approval or disapproval of the party’s program and candidates is thus simplified to a degree. Declaration of Acceptance—In con- nection with the process of selection, it may also be noted that all candidates, whether proposed by representative conventions or by individual petition, must sign a declaration of intention to accept the nomination and the office, to adhere to the party principles, and to obey the party recall if invoked. Failure to do this, as well as failure to comply with any other provision of the law, operates to bar or to remove the candidate’s name from the primary ballot. This provision had the effect, during the last presidential campaign, of 163 forcing certain gentlemen to declare themselves definitely as seeking the office, when they would otherwise have preferred to play the part of the coy maiden or the dark horse. General Wood hesitated for some time after he had been proposed by the Republi- can “majority” in South Dakota, and would clearly have preferred withhold- ing any definite announcement of his candidacy at that early date (Decem- ber, 1919). However, in order not to forfeit the ten delegates from South Dakota, he finally signed the required declaration, in spite of an opinion from the attorney-general of the state that the pledge could not be applied to constitutional offices.“ Governor Low- den and Ambassador Gerard, as the “protesting”? candidates of the two parties, willingly signed the declaration, as did also Senator Johnson and Sena- tor Poindexter as independent candi- dates. President Wilson and Gov- ernor Frazier, the latter proposed for President by the Nonpartisan League, did not file acceptances, and hence their names did not appear on the primary ballot; while Governor Coolidge, proposed by the majority Republicans for Vice-President, for- mally withdrew his name for that office, he being then a candidate for the presidency. PLATFORM AND PARAMOUNT ISSUE The Richards law is notable for the special emphasis placed on princi- ples and issues, rather than on persons. No “representative” slates, whether of the majority or minority, may run without a platform and declaration of principles, and even independent candidates for President or governor are required to file such a statement of principles. The procedure for the proposal and selection of such party platforms is the same as that for the 14 See Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, Dec. 16, 1919. 164 proposal and selection of candidates. The various planks are presented in the proposal conventions, discussed, voted upon one at a time, and the platform thus adopted becomes the platform proposed for the party by the majority faction. If dissatisfied,the minority may “protest”? as in the case of candidates, by filing its dec- laration of principles together with its slate of candidates, and if there is still dissatisfaction, there may be independ- ent proposals. In order that the voter may base his ultimate selection of party candi- dates at the primary upon principles, each group (except the independents) must select from the proposed dec- laration of principles or platform what it considers the “paramount issue,” required by the law to be “a well- defined and definite principle for a public policy.”” This paramount issue must then be summarized in not more than eight words, and is printed at the head of the appropriate column on the primary ballot. It is also required that there be one such summary or paramount issue for national, state, and county purposes. In accordance with these novel pro- visions, the South Dakota Republi- cans, by endorsing General Wood and the “majority ”’ slate in 1920, approved as the national paramount issue “‘Pa- triotism, Progress, Prosperity, Honesty, Economy, Law and Order,” which in- deed seemed to that group so impres- sive that it was repeated on the ba'lot without change as the paramount issue for state and county as well.® Had the Republicans preferred Gov- ernor Lowden, they would have com- mitted themselves to the issue of “Economy, Efficiency, Protection, Peace, Agriculture promoted, One Flag.”’ Although Senator Johnson’s paramount issue was not printed on % This was the case in Minnehaha County. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY the ballot, he being an independent candidate and not the candidate of a “representative” faction, it was de- clared to be “American Freedom of Speech and of the Press, and Justice with Law and Order.” Surely here was a real opportunity for the Re- publican voter to exercise his dis- criminating judgment! The Democratic “majority,” evi- dently thoroughly tainted with Wilson- ism, endorsed President Wilson on the paramount issue of “For a. Lasting Peace under the League of Nations”’; but recognizing that the League was hardly a state issue, proposed for that purpose “A Business Administration for South Dakota.’ Ambassador Ger- ard, although the “protesting”? candi- date, showed his readiness to go Wilson one better by basing his campaign on the issue of “Make and Keep the World Safe for Democracy,” which for state purposes was reduced to “True Democracy.” | In the campaign of 1922, all the parties appeared to be in practical agreement, to judge from .the para- mount issue of each, all emphasizing somehow the idea of economy and reduction of taxes. The Republicans declared for “Equitable Adjustment, Economy, Progress and Prosperity,” the Democrats for “Efficiency, Econ- omy and Reduction of Taxes,” while the Nonpartisan Leaguers showed their radicalism by standing boldly for “Sweeping Reduction of Taxation.” All of this sounds more or less ab- surd. In fact, it is quite possible that a strict interpretation of the Richards law itself would make this sort of thing actually illegal. Mr. Richards has been reported as objecting, both in 1919 and in 1921, to the paramount issue adopted by the majority faction of his party as not “well-defined and defi- nite.” © It was suggested that the 16 Siauz Falls Press, Dec. 25, 29, 1921. THe OPERATION OF THE RICHARDS PRIMARY candidates had not complied with the law in defining their issues so vaguely and indefinitely, and that their names might therefore be barred from the ballot. No action was taken on those occasions, but perhaps some day the Supreme Court of South Dakota will be called upon to determine whether or not an issue is well-defined and definite. Before denouncing all this as utterly absurd, one should bear in mind that the “paramount issue”’ does really serve a useful purpose in distinguishing and identifying the various slates on the ballot; and it is quite possible that it might, if taken seriously, serve reasonably well in summarizing for the voter the party’s declaration of princi- ples. The politicians have made of it merely a meaningless and well-sound- ing slogan, but not more absurdly so under the Richards plan than under any other method. It is quite true that the complete platforms adopted under the Richards plan contain the usual amount of “‘bunk”’; still in the method there is opportunity provided for discussion and consideration, and any sharp conflicts of opinion are likely under this plan to be resolved by the voters at the primary instead of being carefully smoothed over by the leaders in the interests of party harmony. In other words, the South Dakota law rec- ognizes that the factional divisions with- in a party may be grounded in real differences of principle or policy; those candidates who wish the prestige of or- ganized endorsement by either faction are required to commit themselves ac- cordingly, and the task of the voter in making the ultimate selection is thus rendered somewhat simpler. If the issues are not sharply defined, there is still with the voter the power to discriminate between the candidates themselves as he may choose, 165 PUBLICITY The Richards plan is notable in its attempt to secure publicity in party affairs, foster public discussion of issues, and educate the voters so that there may be formed an intelligent public opinion. The provisions for these purposes are among the most in- teresting and novel features of the plan. Political Record Books—The South Dakota law requires the Secretary of State and each county auditor to keep “political record books,” in which are to be recorded all transac- tions of the several political parties relating respectively to state and national, and to county and _ local affairs. These include the minutes of all party committee meetings and proposal conventions, the various party platforms, the proposal papers and declarations of all candidates, the challenges and acceptances to joint debate, and the party endorsements for appointive positions. If carefully kept and preserved, these books should afford a constant check on _ secret political deals, as well as furnish a perfect mine of reliable information for the future historian and student of party politics. As a matter of fact, the various officials charged with the duty either of reporting or keeping these records seem not to have taken their duties in these respects very seriously. It is reported that the minutes of the last Republican state proposal meeting were not filed as required by law; and Mr. Richards, himself a member of the state committee, has charged that the Republican state chairman called a “snap” meeting of that committee for May 16, 1922, and failed to file a record of that meeting with the Secretary of State.” An examination 1 Sioux Falls Press, Dec. 29, 1921; Nov. 5, 1922. 166 of the political record book kept in one county (Minnehaha) revealed that the only party transactions there recorded were the minutes of the county proposal meetings; the officials did not seem to appreciate that the transactions of the party committees should have been recorded, as _ well as other party transactions of the sort indicated. The writer submits that this provision of the Richards law is among its most valuable features, and pressure should be brought to secure its careful observance. Party Publicity Pamphlet—The pub- licity pamphlet is now a fairly common device, but the South Dakota law is the first to provide such a pamphlet for the purposes of the primary cam- paign within each party as well as for the general election campaign between the parties. Space was provided for the biography, half tone cut, principles, and arguments of any or all candidates proposed independently or by conven- tion within each party, with all the details as to the amount of space, arrangement of the material and kind of type, carefully regulated by the law. A copy of the pamphlet was mailed to every voter forty days before the date of the primary, the expense of mailing being borne by each county, that of publication by the state. This was a step in advance of other provisions for state payment of party expenses, in that it legalized and pro- vided for the factional and personal campaigns within each party for the nominations of that party; whereas the most that any state had done before was to provide in some measure for necessary expenses in seeking the office itself. Presumably because of the ex- pense, this feature of the Richards law was repealed by the legislature of 1921, and is therefore no longer in effect.!® 8 Session Laws of 1921, Ch. 333. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Public Joint Debate——Perhaps the most novel feature of the Richards pri- mary (also now repealed), was the pro- vision for a series of public joint debates between the candidates for President and between those for governor. The law required that before the primary there be held within each party at least one such debate between the presiden- tial candidates, and at least sixteen debates between the candidates for governor. It also required a similar series of twelve debates to be held after the primary between the nominees of the two largest parties for governor. Presidential candidates might debate by proxy, but gubernatorial candidates were required to be present and to debate in person. The debates were in every case re- quired to be discussions of each can- didate’s paramount issue, with express provision that ‘“‘no personalities or personal imputations may be brought into the debate under any circum- stances.” A definite system of chal- lenges and acceptances was provided for and enforced by the simple provi- sion that failure on the part of a candidate to make or accept a chal- lenge, when required, or a failure to fill the debate, operated as a withdrawal of that candidate’s name from the pri- mary or election ballot, whichever the case might be. There were also de- tailed regulations for the conduct of these debates, prescribing the time and place of meeting, the selection of a presiding officer, the time and order of speaking, and the rules of procedure. In accordance with these provisions, public joint debates were held in South Dakota during the campaign of 1920. Senator Poindexter, as an independent candidate for the Republican presi- dential nomination, challenged Gen- eral Wood, the “‘majority”’ candidate. General Wood accepted the challenge, as he was required to do, and appeared Tur OprRATION OF THE RICHARDS PRIMARY personally instead of by proxy. The debate was held at Pierre, the state capital, on March 20, over General Wood’s paramount issue, reduced for the purposes of the campaign to ““Americanism.” A tremendous crowd was in attendance, a judge of the state Supreme Court presided, and altogether the event was notable in the political history of the state.!® Similarly a joint debate was staged at Sioux Falls between Ambassador Gerard and one James O. Monroe, the rival candidates for the Democratic delegates from South Dakota. The provisions of the law with regard to the gubernatorial debates were also scrupulously adhered to, and a particularly vigorous series of debates was held between Mr. Rich- ards, the author of the law, and Mr. McMaster, the present governor. It could not be claimed that these debates held under the Richards pri- mary were like unto the more famous Lincoln-Douglas debates; it may well be supposed, as indeed the records show, that the discussions of the “para- mount issue” were frequently inane and beside the point; it may even seem that the state was on occasion “putting on a burlesque show,” as was said by a country newspaper. On the other hand, the discussions thus instituted aroused interest on the part of the vo- ters, brought the presidential candi- dates of all parties into the state to be seen and heard, attracted attention even outside the state, and on the whole seemed to be worth while. There was probably more active interest in the presidential canvass of 1920 in South Dakota than in any other state. In addition to participating in the one required debate with Senator Poindex- ter, General Wood delivered numerous addresses throughout the state. Gov- ernor Lowden, Senator Johnson, Sena- 19 See account in New York Times, Mar. 21, 1920. 167 tor Poindexter, Ambassador Gerard, and others of less repute—all emulated General Wood in their frank scramble for the South Dakota delegations—so that the campaign in general assumed something of the character of a free-for- all public debate, so much so that the New York Times was led to remark: “Tons of political literature and prop- aganda, supported by intensive per- sonal efforts, have so_ effectively muddled the presidential situation in South Dakota that it is indeed a bold man who dares to give an unrestricted opinion on the outcome at the state primaries on March 23.”’ ?° The provision for public joint de- bates was repealed by the legislature of 1921, and the system has therefore been operative during only one cam- paign.??. Nevertheless, the idea seems to have obtained something of a hold on the state, in that during the last primary and general election campaign, challenges to joint debate were made by several candidates, some of which were accepted and some declined. For example, during the primary campaign, Governor McMaster accepted such a challenge from Mr. Egan, his rival for the Republican nomination, and a highly spectacular debate was held in Sioux Falls. An immense crowd at- tended from all parts of the state, the newspapers printed unusually complete accounts, and although not free from personalities, the debate undoubtedly served to clarify the issues by centering attention in a somewhat dramatic fashion on the men and the things for which each stood.” During the elec- tion campaign, Miss Daly, the Non- partisan League candidate for governor, 20 New York Times, Feb. 19, 1920. 21 Session Laws of 1921, Ch. 329. 22 This provision was not contained in the law first adopted in 1912. 23 See accounts in Sioux Falls Press and Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, Mar. 5-10, 1922. 168 similarly challenged the Democratic candidate, Mr. Crill, which the latter declined on the ground that his real contest was with the Republican can- didate and that a debate with Miss Daly would simply detract attention from the vital issue of smashing the existing state machine. It would seem that this feature of the Richards primary, although decidedly novel and probably needing many im- provements in the details of its opera- tion, might have been of unusual value in arousing interest and in educating the public. At any rate, the idea was well worth a fair trial, and its repeal is to be regretted. Merit System In APPOINTMENTS Another unique feature of the Rich- ards law, also repealed by the legisla- ture of 1921,% was its provision for official party endorsements for ap- pointive positions within the state, whether state or federal in character. Under this provision, the respective party state committees were consti- tuted into a sort of civil service board, to hear and pass upon applications for such appointive positions; that is, for United States District Attorney, United States Marshal, State Insurance Com- missioner, etc. The committee was required to act always “in public ses- sion and without subcommittees, as a committee of the whole,’ and to make its endorsements by open ballot and majority vote. It might endorse any of the applicants, or it might endorse such other persons “‘as shall be agreed upon by a majority of such committee- men present for the betterment of the public service.”” The endorsements of the committee were then to be trans- mitted to the proper appointing author- ity (the governor in most cases), if for a state position, or to the President, if for a federal position; but in the latter case 24 Session Laws of 1921, Ch. 330. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY also to the United States senators and representatives from the state, this being perhaps the first legal recognition of the position and power of members of Congress in dispensing federal patronage. ‘Clearly this was an attempt to abol- ish the spoils system in appointments, and to substitute a sort of merit system. The constitution of the party commit- tee into a civil service board was again an attempt to make the party organiza- tion legally responsible for performing a function which everyone knows it actually performs without such re- sponsibility. Mr. Richards seemed to consider this feature of the South Dakota primary law as its crowning achievement, and was very much dis- turbed by its repeal in 1921. Obviously it was not possible to bring about any such “legal merit system”? without the sympathy and codperation of the state and federal appointing authorities. At least one application for appointment seems actually to have been heard and en- dorsed by the party committee (a federal Land Office position, in 1919),”° but no information is at hand to indi- cate what action was taken by the ap- pointing authorities, and apparently the provision has been practically ignored. Under those circumstances, it may be as well that it was repealed, although the principle of party. re- sponsibility for appointments seems excellent, if impossible of execution. PosTMASTER PRIMARY For the position of postmaster, the Richards law proposed quite a different method of selection, in that the party endorsement was to be given, not by the party committee, but by the party voters at a special postmaster primary. Such primaries were to be confined to 25 Information furnished in letter to the writer by Secretary of State C. A. Burkhart. Tur OPERATION OF THE RIcHARDS PRIMARY the municipalities concerned and to the party of the national administration in power, and the result certified to the President, Postmaster General, and congressman from the district, thus again giving legal recognition to the congressional power of patronage. Under this provision, such _ post- master primaries were conducted in a few isolated instances, but were ap- parently ignored by President Wilson and the Democratic organization in the state. Consequently, this feature of the Richards primary also fell into a state of “innocuous desuetude,”’ and was repealed by the legislature in 121.78 Party RECALL The Richards primary law includes a provision for the recall, but again of a sort that is decidedly unique. It is a party recall, which is defined by the law as “the right and official act of the regular party organization, by jury trial, for the causes and under the re- strictions provided in this chapter, to request the resignation of any public official who has been elected or ap- pointed to office as a party candidate.” This recall feature is therefore novel in these respects: (1) it is applicable to all public officials who have been elected or appointed as party candidates, and apparently not to those who may have secured their positions independent of any party; (2) it may be invoked and is operated by the party through which the official secured his office, and not by the general electorate; and (3) it is conducted as a quasi-judicial proceed- ing, with the party committee acting as a sort of jury. The causes for which the party recall may be invoked are stated as failure to adhere to the party principles; miscon- duct, crime, or misdemeanor in office; or drunkenness, gross incompetency, or 26 Session Laws of 1921, Ch. 332. 169 neglect of duty. Recall proceedings may be initiated by 33 per cent of the party voters or by 66 per cent of the party committee, in either case by those within the territory from which the official was elected or appointed. The recall hearing takes the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. A complaint must be filed with the recall petition, setting forth specific charges; jurisdiction to hear the com- plaint and to try and determine the charges is vested in the party central committee, state or county, according to the character of the office; the com- mittee members are specially sworn; counsel may be employed by both sides; witnesses are examined and evidence is taken. If 90 per cent or more of the committee members sustain the charges, a formal request for his resignation is served upon the official concerned. It should be remembered in this connec- tion that every party candidate for office, whether elective or appointive, has expressly pledged himself to obey the party recall, if invoked; hence failure to resign, when thus formally requested, is declared by the law to constitute “proof of his moral mis- conduct and corrupt conduct,” and the office is thereupon declared vacant. This recall feature of the South Dakota law emphasizes again the cen- tral idea of the Richards plan, namely, | that of legal responsibility in the party ~ organization for its governmental acts and for the persons whom it selects for public office. Some curious situations might arise under this provision. In Minnehaha County, for example, the voters were for some time in the habit of electing a Democratic sheriff, but otherwise the complete Republican ticket; and in the same county, at the last November election, the Repub- licans won all the offices by large majorities except one state senator. Clearly the sheriff and the state senator 170 were elected by Republican as well as by Democratic voters, but under the Richards law are in that case respon- sible only to the Democrats. Similar situations obviously may occur in other localities and in the state at large, and it may therefore seem that the law lays down a principle of doubtful value. The theory of the Richards plan, how- ever, is that the real selection after all is not by the voters in the general elec- tion, but by each party group in making its nominations, and that each party ought properly be held responsible, therefore, for those officials whom it has placed before the general body of voters. So far as the writer is aware, no recall proceedings have yet been instituted under the Richards law. The applica- tion of the recall provision has been tested, however, in the case of a county judge (Judge Burns of Deuel County), who, in an attempt to avoid ouster proceedings brought under another statute, claimed that he could be re- moved only through the party recall. The Supreme Court of the state, in denying his plea for a writ of prohibi- tion, held that “the recall procedure (of the Richards law) does not purport to cover the entire field of the matter of removal from office and is therefore only cumulative to, and not incon- sistent nor in conflict with, the general statutes upon removal.” ?7 Although the court did not pass directly upon the constitutionality of the party recall, the inference from its decision is that the provision is valid. EXPENSE One of the serious criticisms that has been made against the Richards pri- mary is that it is unduly expensive. It is quite obvious that the voluminous machinery of initial and primary elec- tions must be a source of considerable expense to the taxpayers, but probably 27 See Szoux Falls Press, Jan. 27, Mar. 3, 1922. Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY not much greater than any other le- gally regulated primary system. In addition, however, the novel features of the Richards primary are all a source of expense. The proposalmen and the party committeemen are paid a mileage of five cents each way for attendance upon all necessary meetings, which in the case of the proposalmen in 1921, amounted to an average of $18 apiece, or a total for the three proposal con- ventions, of about $10,000. The can- didates required to debate were allowed a mileage of ten cents for all necessary travelin that connection. Presumably General Wood collected mileage for travel between Chicago (then his mili- tary headquarters) and Pierre, Senator Poindexter between Washington and Pierre, Mr. Gerard between New York and Sioux Falls, and Mr. Monroe be- tween Maywood, Illinois, and Sioux Falls. In addition, mileage must have been paid for all the travel required by the 28 gubernatorial debates, alto- gether amounting to a tidy sum. The heaviest expense, next to the proposal conventions and the primary election, was that necessitated by the publicity pamphlet. Candidates who desired the insertion of cuts and biog- raphies were required to contribute $100 for both or $50 for either, but otherwise the expense of publication was borne by thestate. Thisamounted in 1919-1920 to $4,500. In addition, the expense of mailing was borne by each county, which in Minnehaha County amounted to $150, exclusive of clerical and other expense, and might be estimated at about $1,500 for the entire state. The total expense to the state in 1919-1920 for mileage, publicity, and incidentals can be estimated at about $20,000,278 and in addition an expense 28 These figures are estimated from information supplied by the Secretary of State, in a letter of Dec. 8, 1921. , Tue OPERATION OF THE RicHarps PRIMARY to the 64 counties of $20,000, or a total of about $40,000 exclusive of the ini- tiatory and primary elections. This is a heavy expenditure (now reduced through the repeal of the provision for the publicity pamphlet), but if the law accomplishes its purpose of securing a more effective and responsible govern- ment, the expense is a comparatively unimportant consideration. The Richards primary has probably come to stay. It still remains the only law enacted in South Dakota through the initiative and referendum during the twenty-five years of that institution in the state, although numerous other measures have been initiated and sub- mitted. Ever since its first adoption in 1912, the legislature has constantly attempted to wipe it off the statute books, either by direct repeal or by the substitution of its own measures. The verdict of the people has on every oc- 171 casion but one sustained the Richards law; but the struggle has confirmed the constitutional right of the legislature (at least in South Dakota) to repeal or amend an initiated law at will. AI- though the legislature of 1921 accord- ingly did repeal several of the novel features—the provisions for a publicity pamphlet, public joint debates, party endorsement for appointive positions, and the postmaster primary—the sa- lient provisions of the Richards plan with respect to the proposal and selec- tion of candidates and issues remain intact, and are likely to be respected. The machinery is cumbersome and complicated, but has worked rather well in spite of dire predictions to the contrary. On the whole, the experi- ment has been unusually interesting and, as the writer feels, well worth while. Its continued operation will be watched with keen interest by students of government and party politics. The Operation of the Direct Primary in Indiana By Frepreric H. GuiIip Indiana University T has been repeatedly asserted that the average voter shows no interest in the primary. ‘This, of itself, might not be an unanswerable argument against the primary, but certainly the apparent apathy of the voters does not aid the cause of the adherent of the direct primary. Newspaper comments following a primary election in Indiana bear witness that the average editor is inclined to condemn the primary on this ground. “Light Vote Cast,” or “Only 50 Per cent Vote,” and similar headlines have given the general im- pression that there is no interest in the primary. Such, however, is not the case. A statistical analysis of Indiana pri- mary returns, from vote for state officers down to the vote in townships and precincts, reveals an astonishing inter- est in the primary wherever the . candidates nominated at such pri- maries have a chance of success in the election. INTERPRETING THE PRIMARY VOTE There seem to be several miscon- ceptions as to the conclusions which can be drawn from what appears to be a light vote in the primary. In the first place, the Indiana primary vote over the state averages from 50 per cent to 54 per cent of the vote at the election. This is, in fact, a relatively high primary vote. The difficulty is that the primary is compared with the election. It should be compared rather to the old primary system. So far as can be ascertained, a 10 per cent vote was considered a good vote under the old system, and there are many tales in Indiana of primaries in which a mere handful of voters named the slate. A 50 per cent vote today then is actually an increase of 400 per cent in interest in the primary and in the extent to which the average voter is participating in party affairs. In many counties in Indiana one party or the other casts a primary vote of 70 per cent, or an increase of 600 per cent in interest and participation. Moreover, in comparing the primary with the election, no allowance is made for the independent vote. While the independent may participate in Indi- ana, he is not a party man and should not be expected to participate in an election within the party, and his failure to vote in the primary in no wise enters into the merits of the direct primary. If we accept Mr. Merriam’s recent estimate on independent voters, we should not expect much over a 75 per cent vote in the primary. In Indiana the proportion of independents is probably lower, and an 85 per cent vote might be expected. On _ this basis the present 50 per cent vote in Indiana is nearly 60 per cent of the vote that might be possible. And a 60 per cent voluntary vote, with no party machinery to drag the voter to the polls, is, after all, a good-sized vote. PouiticAL GEOGRAPHY Must Br CONSIDERED But an analysis of.Indiana counties reveals even more interest and partici- pation in the direct primary. It is useless to add up the total vote in the state and draw conclusions from that. The political geography of the state 172 Tur OprraTION OF THE Direct Primary in INDIANA must be understood and allowance be made therefor. There are in Indiana 37 counties which are strongly Republican and 32 which are strongly Democratic. That is, a study of the 19 general elections in Indiana in the past 38 years dem- onstrates that all of these 69 counties have been carried by the dominant party in at least 14 out of the 19 elec- tions. Andin many cases the majority or plurality of the dominant party has been so great that it required the Progressive split of 1912 or the land- slide of 1920 to turn the plurality into the opposite column. In these 19 elections, eleven counties have always gone Democratic; three have always been Republican. Five others were Progressive in 1912, but have otherwise been Republican. Six others went Democratic in 1912 only. Such strongholds of party strength must be considered in any analysis of the primary, and the conclusions which can be drawn from such counties seem to be of great importance. In many of these counties the nomination is always equivalent to an election. They can be compared to the states 173 of the solid South where the Demo- cratic primary is far more important than the election. And these 69 counties constitute 75 per cent of the 92 counties of Indiana. Reau INTEREST IN Many CovuntigEs To illustrate the results of the statistical survey, two tables are given. The first shows ten of the strongest Democratic counties, giving the per- centage of vote cast in the primary as compared with the vote at the election the same year by parties for 1916, 1920, and 1922. In 1920 the women voted in the election but did not vote in the primary. To make the per- centages comparable with the others they have been consequently multi- plied by two. This is not accurate, but does roughly account for the women’s vote, and seems preferable to setting forth the figures without making some allowance therefor. The table shows first that the Re- publican vote in these counties is usually small, and uniformly much smaller relatively than the Democratic vote. On the other hand, the Demo- cratic vote is frequently surprisingly I. Primary Vote 1n TEN SrroneLY Democratic Counties SHOWING PERCENTAGE oF VoTE Cast IN Primary AS COMPARED WITH THE FoLLowine ELECTION 1920 1922 Democrats | Republicans} Democrats | Republicans} Democrats | Republicans 1916 CouNTY AGwraweey WIE 3... 83.9 48.17 Browititews Mas... 68.9 46 .2 Oley A See 71.4 51.3 Franklin. 3 -h<. + 6): 73.3 38.3 Hancock... . 23... 72.2 45 . 4 JACHAOW. od oles. 73.2 44.1 Dohnson : lee Fis): 71.3 56.0 Site fetal’ Lek Bs 90.1 59.4 SUE VAT Rieu. «Lhd isis 76.0 50.6 OM Lea fu cctary ts 78.4 47 4 4 ia DORI aaa 77.2 54.5 -—_—_——eeeeoeee OO OOO. [| 72.8 50.2 85.9 36.8 118.4 27.4 102.5 27 .0 80.2 45 .8 93.5 23.8 91.0 40.0 40 .2 26.9 63 . 4 59.6 70.2 48 .6 66.6 58.0 58.5 43.6 75.6 60.6 79.6 42.2 91.6 64.2 80.6 61.6 58.8 43 . 4 60.3 50.8 73.8 55.8 64.9 40.1 _— ee _—_—_ 174 high, averaging 77.2 per cent in 1916 and 70.3 per cent in 1920, in many cases rising above 80 per cent. The fact is, of course, that there is no reason to expect a high Republican vote in these counties where for 38 years the Republicans have never won an election, and where their only influence can be in assisting Republican strength in counties joined to them for joint election districts. However, in thése counties, for the Democrats the real contest comes in the primary and the voters respond. THe ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY party is distinctly dominant, bears out the general conclusions of these two tables. There is a very real inter- est in the direct primary in 75 per cent of the counties in Indiana, but then usually in the primary of the dom- inant party only. In the other coun- ties, those which may be called “‘ doubt- ful,” the percentage of vote varies somewhat according to the strength of the majority by which the more successful party has carried the elec- tions; but in all cases of counties which can be won or lost by small pluralities, II. Primary Vote In TEN STRONGLY REPUBLICAN COUNTIES 1920 1922 Democrats | Republicans} Democrats | Republicans} Democrats | Republicans 1916 County Benton c's os ese 54.6 79.3 Delaware......... 38.3 76.5 Grane eo iy ee 38.9 85.4 Hamilton: ak) ca 36 .2 67 .4 Lagrange 650s) cisvky $3.9 69.1 Panter joi. eiaeha ice: 22.9 73.6 MURNIOOU HT ou true le 34.9 72.9 Steuben! 0s oh e. 48.3 90.8 Warren. 32). boas 24.6 67.7 Wayne siti cl. geen 33.3 78.3 Total os oor 37.6 76.3 The second table shows the same facts for ten strong Republican coun- ties, and the conclusions from the first table are reaffirmed. The dominant party invariably polls a high vote in the primary—a very high vote— while the party which has no chance to win the election is not greatly interested, naturally enough, in nom- inating men whose defeat is certain. In fact, the vote of the minority party in these counties is far lower than for the minority party in the first table. A similar analysis of all of the 69 counties in which one or the other 29.2 62.0 33.8 88.2 19.4 61.8 30.9 92.6 27.2 89.8 32.1 70.0 20.4 76.8 35.0 87.2 29.6 82.4 20.2 85.3 19.2 96.0 55.6 108.1 12.8 83.6 25.9 87.8 28.8 79.8 28.7 93.5 24.0 67.6 22.7 91.4 16.0 66.6 19.7 94.5 21.0 73.6 30.4 77.9 the primary vote has usually been high. From this analysis, emphasis on the 50 per cent vote cast over the state is obviously improper, as it includes the votes of one party in 69 counties where no one would expect anything but a low vote. The inevitable conclusion is that the direct primary should be retained in Indiana because in 75 per cent of the counties it is usually for county offices more important than the elec- tion itself, and is the only opportunity for the voter to cast a ballot where it will be of determinative value. THe OPERATION OF THE Direct PRIMARY IN INDIANA THe EFFECT OF THE PRIMARY UPON THE ELECTION Another feature of the primary in Indiana has been distinctly notice- able. The direct primary partakes of the nature of an election. The arguments for and against the candi- dates are publicly made. And in a bitter contest members of the same party may attack each other with damaging effects. Personal feelings engendered may estrange the two factions, to the extent that the sup- porters of the defeated candidate may prefer to vote for the candidate of the opposite party rather than for their late adversary. Or a successful fight against the organization for the nomination may mean lukewarm sup- port by party workers in the election. The striking illustration is that of the Indianapolis Municipal Republican Primary in 1921 in which Mayor Shank was the successful minority nominee. So bitter was the contest against him in the primary that Demo- cratic papers had ample ammunition for the election supplied from the mouths of Republicans. And the Re- publican party and organization went through numerous distressing con- tortions in attempting to swallow the candidate they had not wanted. Mayor Shank’s election was due more to Democratic votes for him than to the success of these contortions. Similarly in 1922 most of the party workers were supporters of Senator New and were positively opposed to Mr. Beveridge. There can be no doubt that many of them did not work actively for him in the election, nor for that matter, vote for him. In this contest, however, by mutual agree- ment, both candidates refrained as far as possible from supplying fuel for the Democratic flames. 175 Minority NOMINEES AND THE ELECTION One of the serious defects of the Indiana primary lies in the very great possibility of a candidate being nomi- nated by minority vote, as the law re- quires merely a plurality. Thus in 1922, out of the 13 congressional districts, eight minority candidates were named by one or other of the parties. In the municipal primaries of 1921, in 92 cities, 45 mayors or city clerks were minority candidates. This cannot but influence the ensu- ing election and party organization. Public opinion within the party has not had full expression, and the result in Indiana is distinctly visible. In 34 cities in 1921 the tickets in the election were split so that mayors, clerks or treasurers were not of the same party. Under the 1915 law Indiana pro- vided for the casting of first and second- choice votes, the latter to be used in case no candidate had a majority. While there were numerous cases in 1916 in which the second choice might have determined the result, less than 10 per cent of the voters expressed a second choice, and the provision was abandoned in 1917. Some sort of preferential voting seems to be necessary in order to per- fect the primary, but no mere writing of such a provision into the law will suffice. It requires several years of systematic education before the voter can be expected to leave the traditional scheme of voting and appreciate the significance of the new. Certainly there must be some constructive at- tempt to make the voter understand the new system. That has_ been distinctly lacking in Indiana. EFFECT ON Party ORGANIZATION That the primary has materially upset the long-standing methods of 176 party organization. and control must be admitted. Minority nominations distasteful to the faithful workers in power, the present failure of the pri- mary to elect primary officers in ac- cord with the candidates nominated, and the independence of the average voter concentrating primarily on per- sonalities, has caused the politician uniformly to condemn the primary. Reward for political services by nomi- nation to an elective office is now un- certain. Where formerly a rising can- didate stepped aside for another with stronger demands, on the assurance that he would be considered next time, the politician is no longer in a position to give that assurance. Geographical representation, which people are quick to notice when it is disproportionate, is forgotten by the voter in the primary. In 1922 a member of a county council resigned after election because his election left unrepresented an im- portant township that had always de- manded representation. Such things the practical politician must take into account. ‘The voter neither considers them nor understands their importance when he is exercising his power to nominate, however quick he may be to comment upon them later. All of these facts seem to lessen party re- sponsibility under the primary. Com- bined with the recent increase in splitting the ticket and leaving county and city and state government di- vided administratively between the major parties after election, this would seem to demonstrate that the party organization cannot fully assume re- sponsibility nor command obedience. As a matter of fact, however, in most instances, the party organization has seemed to keep a rather secure ‘hold on the reins. In some of the larger counties, the organization regularly prepares its slate for the primary, : and it usually goes through. In the Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY smaller counties the successful candi- dates are frequently amalgamated with the old order, unless in a few cases they are strong enough to force compromises in their interest. Control of city, state and federal patronage continues to command for the organization a respect and obedience, so that party responsibility has not been altered as greatly as would first appear. « PRIMARY EXPENSES The cost of primary elections to the various counties in Indiana in 1920 was $313,427, averaging $0.99 per vote cast, as contrasted with $567,599 and $0.45 per vote for the general elec- tion. Unquestionably the expense of conventions or primaries under party control would be less. But the ques- tion of expenditure is never the deter- mining one in the case of state policies. The chief objection raised against the primary in Indiana concerns the expenses of individual candidates. This is particularly true of state-wide offices, where candidates must cover the entire state with advertising and_ mail matter. It is impossible to draw definite conclusions on this subject, but there is a strong movement in Indiana to eliminate state offices from the primary on this ground. All state officers are now nominated by the state conventions with the exception of the governor and United States senator. For these the vote is prefer- ential only unless one ‘candidate re- celves a majority in the primary. In 1922 candidates were nominated by primary majorities. In 1922 Senator New reported an expenditure of $15,588.05. Beveridge reported $10,715.91. But Ralston, successful in the election, spent but’ $2063.01 in the primary. In 1920 Governor McCray reported a _ total of $31,366.82. All were campaigning in state-wide contests. Tur OPERATION OF THE Direct PRIMARY IN INDIANA For lesser offices, it appears that it is possible for a state representative to be elected in Indiana on a primary expenditure of from $11 to $25, al- though some candidates spent as much as $150. In many cases candi- dates reported that no money was expended. For close contests in a single county, candidates may spend much more than candidates for Congress. one contest for superior judge, the successful candidate spent $1,180.50, and the unsuccessful $1,297.07. The candidate for Congress in the same territory expended but $67.50 in the primary. A candidate for county treasurer needed $3,864.45 for his campaign. An unsuccessful candidate for state office before the state con- vention reported $1,134.00. In the face of such returns, no posi- tive conclusions are possible. A suc- cessful candidate for governor may spend less than an unsuccessful candi- date for county office; a congressman, less than a state representative or justice of the peace. Primary Dors Not Controut Party ORGANIZATION By far too much attention has been centered upon nominations in Indiana, and practically no emphasis has been placed upon the. question of party organization. It may be stated em- phatically that popular control of party organization through the primary does not exist in Indiana; has never existed; and, which is more important, has never even been attempted. . The so-called democratization of party machinery, a fundamental part of the program of the direct primary, has been a total failure in Indiana. It is written into the law, but there it has remained—on paper only. The Indiana primary law is based upon the assumption that the proper 13 Thus; »:in« 177 place at which popular control should be applied is in the precincts. Hence, under the law, both major parties regularly “elect”? precinct committee- men who are chairmen of the precinct committees, and the foundation upon which the party organization is based. There are 3,395 such precinct com- mitteemen in Indiana. These meet in their county meetings as a county committee and elect a county chairman for each county. The 92 county chairmen meet in congressional dis- tricts and elect 13 district chairmen who constitute the state central com- mittee. These elect the state chair- man. It would be a cumbersome system at best, were the precinct committee- men the real representatives of the popular sentiment in their precincts elected to have a decisive vote in party affairs. But the real state of affairs is that the average party voter in most instances has no idea that such a committeeman exists, and certainly has no interest in his selection. To nominate a United States sena- tor, a governor or representative, or to express a preference for a presidential nominee; that the voter understands That he has within his grasp possible complete control of the party itself through the insignificant precinct com- mitteemen, he does not understand. Nor does he understand the reason why party control is of any importance. Frew ContrvESsTS FOR PRECINCT COMMITTEEMEN Hence no citizen is interested ordi- narily in becoming a candidate for this lowly office. The fact is, that in most cases the county chairman or other active workers have to select someone in each precinct who can undertake the work of political organ- ization necessary for party success in the election, and in many instances 178 have to persuade that person to accept the position. A statistical analysis of the returns demonstrates this fully. In the first place, in most of the precincts in Indiana the candidates for precinct committeemen do not even appear on the ballots. There is no contest and the canvassing board certifies them as elected with “‘no opposition.’’ Where they do appear on the ballot they re- ceive but a handful of the total vote cast, except in a small number of instances where there are contests. For example, a study of 792 pre- cincts for the primary of 1920 shows that there were contests for precinct committeemen in 61 instances, or 7.7 per cent. A similar study of over 800 precincts in 1922 shows an even smaller number of contests. In eight of eleven counties in 1920 there were no contests in any of the precincts; and a contest in 31 precincts out of 51 in one county accounts for over half of the contests. In other counties, for example, there were contests in three out of 44 precincts; in 10 out of 69. In only one of these cases could the contest have affected the control of the majority of the county com- mittee. And without such majority control, minor personal contests be- come unimportant. It seems fair to conclude from the nature of the returns considered, that the percentage of contests for this fundamental party office in Indiana is less than 10 per cent. Eliminating the miscellaneous minor contests which cannot affect subsequent party control, the per- centage of real contest for party organization falls to 5 or even 3 per cent. The fact is that the contest for party control, which frequently is a real con- test, does not take place in the primary, however much the law intends that it should. The real contest comes after . the Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY the people have voted in the primary. It is then a contest of faction against faction, and not a contest for demo- cratic control. CONTESTS FOR Party CONTROL IN 1922 The primary of 1922 affords in- teresting illustrations. In Marion County (Indianapolis) there was a long-standing movement to dislodge ““machine” which had been in control for eight years. This contest did find its way into the primary, and many candidates for precinct committeemen were known as for or against the existing order. After the primary, both factions claimed a majority in the county committee. But the assured support of each left some thirty doubtful committeemen holding the balance of power. Itisa publicly acknowledged fact that these doubtful ones were definitely bought by city patronage by the faction seek- ing to gain control. According to the mildest statement appearing in an Indianapolis newspaper the day follow- ing: “The Mayor made no attempt to make a secret of the methods used in getting some of the precinct com- mitteemen to vote for his candidates for the county organization. ‘Of course we had to give about thirty of the precinct committeemen jobs with the city,’ Mayor Shank said. This public declaration of a thing which would have been soft-pedaled by al- most any other man in public life, resulted in riotous applause and cheer- ing from the crowd in the packed court-room.”” And Mayor Shank re- iterated this statement the next month before the Junior Chamber of Com- merce. Seldom have the methods used been so freely admitted. But the methods have been used before. And the con- test in the Republican State Central Committee, in the election of a state THE OPERATION OF THE Direct PRIMARY IN INDIANA chairman, developed methods of co- ercion less admitted but no less dis- gusting and reprehensible. It is a rather complete commentary on popu- lar control of the party organization in Indiana through the primary. Wuo ContTROLS THE PARTY MAcHINERY? If the voter does not, who does con- trol the party organization? Strange enough, it is by no means certain that the successful candidates will. It may happen frequently that the party machinery, started through the pre- cinct committeemen in the primary, may be positively opposed to the candidates nominated by the people in the same primary, or more favorably disposed in other quarters. For ex- ample, Mr. Beveridge won the nomina- tion for United States senator in the Republican primary in 1922. But it was unquestionably Senator Watson who secured a dominant control of the party organization through the election of a state chairman and con- sequent control of the state central committee. Mayor Shank had been elected in the municipal election of 1921. He was in no way Officially connected with the 1922 primary. But there is again no question that it was he who secured control of the Republican Party or- ganization in Marion County. And it was repeatedly claimed that the na- tional committeeman for Indiana had largely determined the election of the district chairman for that congressional district. Not only was party control not seized by the voter; it was secured by men who were in no sense before the public eye in the primary itself. Democratic ContrRoL A MytH The fact remains that democratic control of party organization in Indiana is a myth. The real contests come 179 after the primary, and are beyond popular control. The voter usually has no distinct knowledge concerning these contests even if he does happen to see the name of a committeeman on the ballot and place a cross beside his name. It would be better if precinct committeemen were appointed in law, as they virtually are in fact, by the county chairmen; and if popular atten- tion were concentrated on the first real contest, that for county chairman. If the voters of a county were to vote for a single party officer instead of for 20 to 200 precinct committeemen, there would be better chance of a real expression of public opinion; and at all events a real contest in which public sentiment could be aroused _intelli- gently would be transferred to the primary within reach of the voter. DELEGATES TO STATE CONVENTIONS Similarly there is no popular control of state conventions. There is more interest in this office in Indiana than for precinct committeemen however. These delegates are also ‘“elected”’ at the primary. Contests for these positions run from about 20 per cent to 30 per cent in counties surveyed where there were contests in 1920 and 1922. But in 63 per cent of the counties studied there were no con- tests. In many instances the delegates were omitted entirely from the ballot and certified without vote, the voter never seeing the name or the name of the office of delegate whom he is sup- posed to have elected as a basis for democratic control of the chief as- sembly of the party. From the re- turns utilized, a 12 per cent contest for delegates would seem to be the Indiana average. This is an entirely insignificant proportion so far as any possible effect upon control of the convention is concerned. It is cer- tainly true that the state conventions 180 of the two major parties in Indiana are in no sense controlled by the voter within the party, even though he may ““vote’’ for a delegate in some cases. Voters IGNORANT OF METHODS OF CONTROL The reason for this failure is not hard to find. We have regularly depended upon the political parties to educate the voter in all matters po- litical. In an election they accom- plish this to a certain extent in the discussion of issues and candidates. But if the organization interferes in the primary, machine control is at once alleged. And if the party workers do not interfere, the usual education is lacking as its chief agency has been removed. Moreover, the party workers very generally have been strenuously op- posed to the primary. It is not to be supposed that they would attempt to inform the voter how to exercise his powers to wrest control from their hands. And we have provided no other means of informing the voters concerning the significance of party control or how to secure it. This failure is not a failure of the primary law, except in so far as it expects public opinion to focus on offices concerning which the voter is ignorant, and, moreover, in which he cannot be interested. The law pro- vided the machinery for the democ- ratization of party organization. What is needed now is some method of concentrating party attention on the important contests and persuading the primary voter that zeal in nominat- ing candidates might be better spent if he were to remember that he is also electing party officials. The chief defect of the Indiana primary at present lies in the over- emphasizing of the nomination of candidates and the almost total ignor- Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY ing of the election of party officials. The voter in the primary is not par- ticularly nor strikingly successful in selecting better candidates than were chosen by the party workers under the old system. If that were all there was to the primary, we might be better off under the old primary or convention. But it is the question of party control, however much it has been overlooked, that should be the dominant question in the primary. With popular con- trol of party a fact, nominations perhaps would be easily taken care of through the party committees. To revert to the old primary and convention system, as things now are, gives no promise of improvement. Today, as large a proportion as 90 per cent of the voters in some counties participate in party primaries. Their zeal is considerably misdirected towards nominations, it is true, but still they are interested and do_ participate. And yet their control of the party,— popular control,—runs as low as 3 to 12 per cent. What could be expected if their main interest were removed? It is hopeless to assert that they would come out in similar force to a primary where their sole participation would be the selection of committeemen and delegates in whom they are now not at all interested. To argue that the primary should be discarded as a failure is to declare that real control of government should be relegated to self-appointed commit- tees, or factions thereof, with no semblance of popular control. It were as well to restate the argument in this form:—that the people are neither interested in, nor capable of governing themselves,—for that is what it means. People are used to elections and ballots as the method of expressing their political opinions. And the _ possi- bilities lie through utilization of this interest, not in destroying it. DIGEST OF PRIMARY ELECTION LAWS BY CHARLES KeEtTTLEBOROUGH, PH.D. Legislative Reference Bureau, Indianapolis, Indiana Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 182 ‘Areuntad Joy30 fue oiojaq skep ¢% pue Areuiid Aepy Jo ysnsny o1ojoq skep cg *Areurtid [eroeds a10joq sXkep OL pur Iensei v10jaq sXep Og 0} 06 pag Joded vor -eurmou ‘Areurtid 310} -oq skep 0% 01 09 Paty uor}ytjod = Uor}eUTUIONN ee ee ny Se Areullig aojog skeq Joquin N—(Suryiy Jo 9787) eyepripueD Jo UOlPVIVVIC] [VUOSIOg *papoye pun Ui UOLPV]o JSP] 7B YsSBO 9JOA [B}O} JO %ZB 03 %F ‘syoutooid jo 2 ur 930A Ajyred Jo CG ya] PB pue V}OA Ayred Jo %oOl 03 %e *youtooid ur 330A Azied Jo %e *qoutoo1d ur a}0A Ayied Jo %e *£JUNOD UI 9}JOA Ayred Jo %ol 04 %e ‘9}e4s ut AjAIed Jo 9}0A 1®10} Jo 9401 ueyyor0UL lou %][ uey} ssaj you ynq ‘satyUNOD ¢ SB] 7B ul SdajoA Aysed Jo %] (sdeusIg Jo JequinN) SUOI}Jog SuryeUuIMON sooujo ediomnyy saougo diysumo J, sooyjo AyUNOD SOTO [OOYDG soomjo [eIoipne SI9OqJO UMOT, sia0qjo AWD so[qeysuoy soRveg jo seorsne uoul -9d} TWIN POUTDIIg sospnf rotsedng dIN}L[SIB9] JO SIOQUIDTA sooygo AyUNOD) SIZIYJO 9}¥}S UIUISSA1SUO/) S10}BUS S9}B}S poyUy $10}d9[9 [VIJUSPIsaLg Aloyepuvyyy AUVAIYT LY GALVYNINON GUY SALVGIGNV’) HOIHMA HOU SHOWMdIC ‘oyepipueo yurol B JoJ %9 JO ‘ayze}s ay} Woysnosy} 9}eprip -uvd AUB JO} 930A 9.11} U9 Jo a10ul 10 %¢ suryseg ‘UOIS -IAIpqns [vorpyod Aue IO ‘a}VyS Ul 9}JOA [BO} jo a1oul 10 %e¢ Bunsen WIaVOridd Vy HOIHM, OL SAILUVG AUVWIUG AYOLVONV], “UOr}OaI9 [edio1u “NU Surpeoeid syvomM ¢ ‘Aepsony, ‘ivaf posoq -WINU-UdAV Yowa Jo Jsns -ny ut Avpsony, yey] ‘UOI}DI]9 UMO} IO APIO 0} Jord skep 0g eI} ssoy you pus SUOIPI9 [BID -ads 10 [vioued Aue 04 Joud Aepsony, yyWsy AUVWIUG JO ALVG “LISI d ‘TS61 spy pue [gg pus 6g ‘d “6161 SPY ‘TFSI “d ‘LIGL SPV Aq pepuoure sv ‘6Lgt ‘d ‘gI6l spy BIUIOPI[eD “86h PUB CFS ‘d “1@6I SMET ‘L506 O10 9S “SI6T °S "UL $46 pue 6 “d “IGT smey Aq popuoure se *F8 “YO “SI6I “WoIssag [e1oedg Js sey BUuOZIIy NOILVLIQ) GNV GLVLG 183 Dicest oF Primary EvEeEctTion Laws nh ‘sAep 1 UI ouB -jdacoe sIq afy ysnu ayepIpuvs oq} “UOI}UGA -uod ev Aq peyeUsisep ji Suorjijed surjeurmi0u 24} GYM svouvydao0" oy raed Hic! deg el Hc Ped ‘qUepIsetg 10j soudlejoid sty souno0U -ue ABUL a}eSaIep 10] oyepipues Yoo “Uor}eI -Bpoep [euosied siq uy ou Ur jnq ‘soqjo JeyjO Aue JO} QOL Pues sido -IO JoL}sIP pu 7e}s ‘jeuorzeu =O} = SIO}JOA 210ml 10 QQg Aq poeusis aq ysnul suorjed su -JRUIMION, “UOIJUSATOD Ayred e Aq uoryeusisap jO 9}RogI}Ie0 JO UOT} -1yod Aq joO[[eq eq} uO poorjd oq Avul sa}ep -Ipuevo jo soureu oy ‘IOUIOAOS IO} 9JOA Aysed jo %B 07 YF "I0UJo -AOS 10} 930A Ayied jo %@ 03 WI “7s 9y} JO UOISIAIpqns e Aq pooja Uy AA “IOUJIAOS JOT 9JOA Ayred Jo %% 0} $ ‘a}e4s eijua jo siaj0A Aq peqpsja usyAA “Areul -id yediormnut oa1ojaq skep ¢g pue Azeunid Avy 10 ysnsny s10Joq sXep OF poly oq yn] SIs0qJoO PULNIIg dIN}LI[SISI] JO SIOQUIZT sisoqjo AyuN0D sisoqjo AID SIOOTFJO JOUSIC SIDIYJO 9}VIS UsUISsaIsU0) 10}eUIS *S *F) ‘soyesojep jo dnois @ JO} JO S[eNprAIput IO} 9}0A ABU SI9}O A. So] CUI} [PB 9} Jovjo puke Jooul ‘payejes soyeso -[PP AY], “es1e] Ye 93e4s aq} JO SIo}0A oy} Aq peyooy]e oe UOTJUSATOD [BUOIJBNT 0} SozeSoTEq SIOOTJO JOIIISIG 2IN}LISISI] JO SIOQUIOPL WoUIsseIsUu0D) IoyeUas *S “ IBOYJO 938 *IOUIZAOS IO} 9}8}S UI JOA [B}O} JO aioul 10 “°,9, Suryseg ceedh ags -uvo yurof v Joy %9 10 ‘ayes 94} ynoYsnoiyy ayepipuvo Aue JO} 9}0A jo a10UI 10 94 ¢ Surysey “UOI}Oa]o a10Joq SYoM F ‘SoleuUl -id JoyjO [TW ‘“SsivoA U2Ad JO Jequieydag ui Apseny, puosag ‘siva& [erjuepisoid Jo Avy, ut Aepsony, SIL “LET ‘666 “d “IS6I spy Aq popuocure se ‘et “d “OI6I ‘UOIsseg [wIvedg ‘spy opri0joy “9T6L spy Aq popuoure se ‘YO “SIé6l spy Ture ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 184 AyuNo0D vy} Wo 9}¥9 -9I}190 B a[y pus ‘sive @ 103 Aqsed J9aq}oue jo Arewid @ ye poajoA you sey oy }BYy} JeoMs qsnyy “Areurtid a10jJoq sAep 0§ 0} 09 Ped ‘goqyo AJUNOD 10] sXep 0% pue soqjo you} -sIp 10 o}¥ys Joy Areul -1id ai0jaq sdkep 0g Arewlig sojog sk¥y Joquin N—(surq Jo 078) oyeprpuey jo UOI}VAIBPIC] [BUOSIOg ‘pormbad suo Ny ‘posmnbod suo N ‘AIVUILIG Vf} W1OJog sXep 0% 03 OF poly oie suor}iyed ‘suorqoajo A}19 uy ‘Areurtid oy} a10Jaq sXep 0¢ 0} 09 peg sl pue UOIPeIo JSP OY} 32 IOUIIAOS IO} 9}0A 9} Jo 240 uvy} a10ul aseo (SdausIg Jo JoquinNy) SUOI} Jog SuI}BUIMION, sJooqgo [ediomny dIN}EISISI| JO SIOQUIZT] siaoqjo 4yuN0) AQui0}}e SUIWNOVSO.1g espn yoy4siq S10}VUS “SG *f) ssoyjo AyUNOD UsUssalsuody S9OYJO 9321S Aloyepurpy AUVAIUd LV CALVNINON ANY SALVGIGNV)) HOIHAA WOU SAHOO ‘UOIPI2 4SP] 7B S90 -YJO 9783s 10} ssoulmi0U g sulAeq pue soo Aue JO} 94e}S JO 930A [¥10} Jo %or suryseg “SoI}IO ur yeuordg “yj “SIP [eUOISseIsu0d 10 AyUNOod ‘9784s UI Ja0qjo ysoYysIY IO} 9JOA [v}O} jo a1oul 10 %¢ suse) a eee WIdvorlday HOIHMA OL SAILUVG panuyuoj—AUuvWIug AYOLVANV] ron ‘savaA U9A9 JO ysn3 “ny ur Avpsony, ys “OLE “d ‘“6I6L SMUT OF “LYE—-66G “99S ‘OS6L “S “HW ‘666 “YO ‘“606L SPY ‘OLb9 “YO ‘SI6L SPY ‘ILbS “YD ‘G061 SPY Aq pepuoue se ‘Flog “UD ‘LO6I SPY ‘F189 “YO ‘SI6I spy Aq popuoure se ‘6979 “UO ‘SI6L sPY epllopy ‘sivah U9Ad Jo oune ur Aepuoy, 4sig Joye ABpsony, 4siry aS AUVNING JO ALVG NOILVLIQ) NV ALVIG eee SEE 185 DiaeEst oF Priwary Evection Laws ‘sAep 0¢ ISP] TV ‘s£ep 0§ 07 09 ‘90U90 -Jajoid OU svy oY eq} suiyeys JO YUapIseig Jo} soueJejoid = may} Surjyeusisop Joded v a[y ACUI UOIPUIATOZ) [VUOTY -BN 0} soyesojoq ‘[ed -Io1uNU JO} SAeP YZ 0} 0§ puBe ssdqJO YorI}SIpP Jo o}yeys soy Areunid a10joq SAep OF 0} 09 “AQed Joyjoue 0} suIsUOTEq uosiod @ JO JO 9}epIp -ued yuepuedepur uv jo soded uornjeurmou oy} pousis jou sey oy yey} pue ‘Ajred 94} JO JoquIoUl B SI oY 3eY} SI9JOA G WO} IO ‘304 -yum109 «JO UPULIeYyo ‘pormbed au0N ‘poambol ou0oN *‘popoye uorjorpstuimf ur sdeaoqjo IOUIM IO} S10}9]9 OT ‘S190GJO Joy}O JO} SiO -joA Jo %] jo = tuew -99}}IUIMIOD [B1I}UVO a}e}s IO} OOL ‘a0qjo 9384S JOF 000° 97 000°T sooo AYO s£9ul10}}e SUINIVSOLg IINJEISISI] JO SIOquMIs] ([e007J) saspne soorgo digsuMo 7, Ssoisuod) UI SOATPeJUSSaIdoyY sosoqjo AyuNo) dIM}E[SIBa] JO SI9qtUayPAL (Aqpedioiu -NUI [HIM AISU9}XO -09) Sdsoqjo diysumoy, sp} -sip ArepURS SaoqJsnIy, s}inoo oyeyjedde sysa[¢d uoryeziyenbo pxeoqg 93e]S SioquIopy SJooUjo [vIOIpne SIOOGJO UMO T, (OsBoIyD) S190 -o yMoo jediomnyy SIIOYJO 9SVTIIA S190 TO AW) siooyyo AyuNOD UdUISS9ISUO07) SIDIJO 9324S ‘9}OA [B}O} JO a10Ul 10 Wot surysed AEPIp -UBd JSOYSIY 10} Joos9y} uoIstAIpqns [voryod Aue JO 9384S UI 9}0A Jo %% UY} d10Ul Suryse) ‘Pppey oie suOT}eTa AYO puv 9}e}S [BIO -u9d YOM ul sivaf Jo Aeyq jo Avpuopy sig royye Avpsony, ISI UOIIIa dIOJOq SYVIOM g “S.1oT}O [TV ‘[udy ur Avpsony, pag} UO OTe Oj yore py ul Aepsony, puo 9G ‘uorpo[a [Udy Aue 01 Joud ‘Arend -qoq ut Aepsony, yse'y] ‘UOIJDIJ9 JOQUIBAON fue 0} Joud ‘iudy ur Aepsan T, puodag “O-APLOL—RFIOL 00G “JEG Sum “PLE ‘SIh “d “1261 suey pus $o¢ “d “LT6T smey Aq popuoue se ‘g¢g ‘d ‘cI6[ SMUT euvIpuy ‘ChO-SOF “99S ‘OF “YO ‘1661 “SU ‘Iss d ‘gl6l sMe'y ‘gop “d ‘1Z6L Saey Aq pepuoue se ‘L/, ‘d ‘OLGL SMP’T (9161 SMUT ‘op “d ‘S16 SMUT ‘Sh “d ‘TS6L SMET ‘Ors “ ‘S16 sme] Aq popuoure sv ‘op ‘d “O16L SMUT sour] Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 186 "uOT} -yyod = suryeurmmou 9} SB OUI} OUIeS 4B PIII Arewllig oojog skeq JoquinN— (suri Jo 978) eyeprpueD jo UOT}eVIR[IIQ] [BUOSIOg —_—————_ —————————————————— Cr "SI9JOA 0¢e ‘espn so1sedns Joy ‘AjyUNOD. yore Ul OG ySBI] 7e ‘SIO}JOA 0o¢ ‘espnl yorsrystp 10Oq ‘AJUNOD YORI UI YE ISB] ye ‘S19}0A OOO‘ ‘ospnl swioidns 10oy ‘A}UNOD oy} jo oj0A Ajzred ay} Jo %% ‘stvouo Ay -UNO0d JOY “Jor}sIp oy} jo 930A Ajred oy} Jo %I Wey} Sset Jou pue JOLISIp oY} JO setyuNOD ay} ¥ ul siay0A Ayred Jo °%G ‘SIBIGJO POUIYSIP IO ‘9724S JO 930A AzAed Jo %T jo = puv sarzunod OT ysvo 7B ul SiojOA Ajred jo %I ‘sisvoyo o}e}s Joy ‘Areutid oq} 910] -aq sA¥p OF SIOTJO JI} -sIp pue 9}e}s 10} pue sXep 0¢ peg ore soWYyO Ayunod JoJ suo (Sd9USIS Jo Jaquinyy) SUOI}I}9g SUI}BUIWION saspnf 4.moo so1edns pue yuysip ‘oueidng uestjied -u0U aie SUOIWIIa aay 3dv0xe ‘194 -reyo [eloods & Jopun BUIVE YOO‘ET J9AO Jo SoIpid pus ‘sse[o 4sIg JO Sat}IO UI Sda0TyO AWD uorjeindod 9000's, pue AyuNOD 9uUOo Jo syoLysip ut saspnt ospy S1OJ]9 [VIUOpIsolg Joyeuas "S$" sospnt yda0xa 9AT}029 [[V Aloyepurypy AUVWIUY LY GHLVNINON GUY SALVGIGNV) HOIKAA YOU SAOIGIO “10UJo -AOZ IO} 938}S JO 9]0A aityua Jo %% suryseo HIAVOlIdd Y HOIKM, OL SaILUVg panurjuoj—AUuvWlug AYOLVANV][ "SoI}O ur Areniqay ur Aepuoy yse_ pue ‘sieah uaAd Jo eune ut Aepuoy ysi1q XUVWIYG 40 ALvG “"S-QL80I-4L80I1 “99S ‘SI6L “pod ‘Fog “d “6I6I SPY ‘¢g ‘d ‘TZ6T spy Aq popuoure se *C§-®L801-I-®L801 ‘99S “SI6L ‘apog @MOT NOILVLI GNV GLVLS 187 Diaest oF Primary Evection LAws a me ‘sAep OT ‘sKep 0% "pred eq jsnul vo} & “poly oq UOI}eIB[ep B FI ynq ‘Areutid a1ojyoq sXep OF peTy eq Avur uorjzty0d @ JO ney Ul Uor}Ue} “ul jo uOorTeIepep VY sLa0qjo AyD SIOOWJO PIVAA sis0qJO [eTyoo1e g SLIGO JOLSTIC] SIZOYJO 9321S S10} B[SIS9'T UWoUIssaIsUO) “uoIstIAoid ON LOPEMIS *S *() *qourse1d ut 930A Aysed Jo %ol UVUI-I9} UIULOD qoutoeid AyUNOD *£YUNOD IO YI} -sipqns ut 930A Ajz1ed [e107 Jo %OL 0F %E ‘AyunN0d «JO = SJoIISIp -qns Jo syoutoeid 94} Jo ¥ ut 930A Aqaed Jo %¢ Sisotyo diysumoy, Sisoqjo Aun) SIQOJO POUysIpqns *JOiTJSIP UI 9}OA Ayred [e}07 Jo Y%Ol 0} %B pues PUysip oy} jo sarjunoos oy} ¢ jo yors ul syouroeid jo F ut sia}oA Ajred Jo %% dIN}LISISI] JO SIOQ MIT UdUISSIISUO) S90TJO POLIYSICY "SOIJUNOD 0G UI 9JOA Ayred 1210} Jo YT sv] ye JO 93e]S UI 940A Ayred [8307 Jo %OL 07 %L ynq ‘satyunos OT ur sioj0A Ayed Jo %] $10}09[9 [VIJUOpIsalg ‘Arevurtid a10joq Shep OF Poy st uoI}yod SuryeurMON S10}UIS *S *() SIQOYJO 9321S ‘UsUISSaISU0D ‘S10}eUVS ‘S ‘GQ Joy Joquiaydag jo Aepsany, puovas ‘2IN7RISIZ9] JO SIequIsUl pue sisoujo [edioronu pue pies ‘erpoored ‘VLIjsIp ‘SI90qJO 937e}s ‘1oUIZAOS JOJ Aren -uep jo Aepsony, puyy ‘S10JO9]9 [eIyUeptseid IO JOUIZAOS IO} 330A [210} Jo %¢ surysed *savad porlequinu-ppo jo ‘uor} -d9J9 a10joq AvpuoyW puooes UO ‘SsaI}ID poulo -AOS-UOISSIMITIOD “SselO -puoosss pue -3siy uy ‘uoryejndod o1ou 10 000‘OL SUIARY Sat}IO UT | ‘qoreyy ur Aepson J, ys1g uo Ajjenuue pue sivof polaquinu-udAe ul ysnd ‘sorpied [[@ 0} soddy | -ny jo Avpsony, ysay ‘6¢9 “d “OS6L “¥84S ‘L036 ‘OLT spy ‘S161 pepucue ‘99 ‘d ‘916L ‘os PV VUBISINOT "CSBP ‘E1Lsp ‘09S ‘eg “d “F "WV “STI6T “F8IS “UH “SSL “UD “TIGL SMeT ‘OST “6LT “YD “T36T SMV'T £61 “UD ‘OZ6T SMUT ‘Z8I ‘SLI “SST "UD ‘LIGI SMP’'T S11 “106 “603 “YD “S161 SMT S161 “UD ‘SI6L savy ‘9ST “YD “606T smey Aq popuowe se “FS “UD “8061 SHOT sesuey eS ed ee ee ee Se ee ee ee ee eee ee Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 188 “STOO TJO [B00] oy skep 0% pue ojv}s 10} sfep Og Tady ut Aepuoyy pirq} v10jog Arewllig s10jag sAvqy yoquin N— (sur q Jo o78(]) yepipueD jo WOTPVIV PIC [euosi9g *pormbol su0N *IOUIOAOS IO} ySBd 3}0A Jo %% 07 [ (siausIg Jo JoquinN) SUOI}I Jog SUIZeUTTION “Ayuno0d jepuniy uuy jo suo -uoIsstumI0s ~=AVUNOD 0} soddy ‘Ajyunoy PIVMOP UI S10} LISTSO] pu sisoygo AyuN0d 0} A[dde you sooq UdUISSIISUO) sospne sgoqjo 4yuN0) dOUIIY[V JO s1s0YJO siaoqjo AyuN0) SIOOYJO 97BS S10} 8 [SISO] UWIUISsa1sUO0,) SIOPLVUIS “CG *(f) SIOYJO VSeRTIIA SIOOYJO UMOT, Aloyepuryyy AUVWIUg LY GHLVNIWON GUY SALVGIGNV) HOIHAA HOA saodG ee Se eae ee ee ee eee "940A [B}0} JO 10M 10 %oy, suse *IOUIZAOS IO} 9}0A Jo %] surjog a1avorlddy HOIKMA OL SUILUVG panuyuoj—AUuVWIug AUYOLVANV], ‘aiounlyeg Joy [1udy jo Aepsony, ys “ABT ur Aepuoyy, ysig uo prey st Areunid usy sieaf [eryuepisaid ur ydaoxe ‘sor}1I04} -ne Ayred Jo JuaUIVIISe Aq peululiojyep ‘1aquis} -dag jo Aep yyuseqjy uvy} Joye] Jou qVYSI0 uey} Joyiva ON ‘oung ul Aepuoyy pay, "SOIOUBIBA [IF 0} Uorea s10j -oq skep QI ‘siv0qF0 piem pues yediomnu JO} UOIPeIa VIOJaq skep OL 07 09 ‘Sds0qJo [ed -lIunud pues [emoored ‘qerorpnt oraysip ‘aze1s AUVWIUG JO ALVG Ge RE SF TELE ae eR RA” AES UNE aT Tia aS I a SS SES - e "663 “O9T “YO ‘9I6T SMUT PST “FLL “dd “OS61 SMUT PLL LL ‘TOL “CLP ‘193 “BO9T ‘YO pue ‘ROOT ‘299 ‘EOI ‘UD “PI6L SMe] ‘PET pur ‘UD “GI6L SMET 6FS ‘BO9T “99S ‘TFL ‘WD ‘OI6L SMBT SBQ9T “09G “LEL “UD ‘8061 Savy puepAieyy ‘9 "UD ‘SI6I ‘*S “YH ‘S91 ‘OOT ‘UD “6161 sMeT ayqng Aq poepucwe “096 ‘SE “FD ‘ST6I SVT NIN *16S ‘LOL ‘SL "EO ‘ST6L SPT orpqng ouIe yy NOILVLITY) GNV ALVLS 189 DiaeEst oF PrmARY ELECTION LAws “Aep -SoUpo AA PUODES “‘SUMOY ‘uoI}Oe]a alOjeq Ap “WOW PAY} “Ser}d + BOT} -oaje alojoq Aepsimyy, YVy sisyj0 [[e oj pue Aepuofy YyWeaes poy Ja0WjO 23e}S JO} uoy -eulmou jo 9}BoOgI}II) *SIZOqJO Ayunoo pue dAr}eyUeS -91da1 33e@}S 10} 9}0A Ayred yo %F 03 %I *O]OA Ayred Jo %F 0} Wooly ‘Aepsinyy, puooes ‘sumoq ‘Aepsoupe AA puo -0aS ‘S8I}I19 'S19DYJO9} 24S ioy Arewulid a1ojaq Aep “UO YSIS PLT “0% uvy} Ssez JOU ynq ‘So -JOA Q¢ YoRe IO} JOUSIS I ‘sds0qfo UM0} *000‘T uvy} V1OUI 10U Q¢ UY} ssoy you ynq ‘SI9}OA OOL Youre IO} slousis Z ‘sI9T]}O [[® ‘S19]0A 000‘T ysBe] 4B ‘slooqjo 92}84s Joq ‘Areurid oa10joq sAvp QT ‘SUA0} PUB Sor yg «= Areuntid Surpeo -aid Aepsony, puooas usyq} ‘sucI}oe[a [eIoeds ydeoxe §=‘Areuid = Sul -poooad Aepsony, qq PITT “OCS peexe 0} you ynq “UMO} IO pre yova JO} ¢ ‘s1a0qIO Jayj}O ][B IO} ‘s1s0qjo oyeys IO} ‘soljuNo0D F jo yous WOT} OCS uy} sso] JOU ‘SI9}0A ONT 930A wnpus -layjo1 e Aq poroidde # O00‘OL UeYy ssol JO Sat}Io UI sIaO0qJo AID S10} BISISI'T 1ozeues *S* IOUIOAON JURUIINVT IOUIOAO ‘snoneo B 4B 4OT[Vq Aq soyepipueo 9} eUl -WOU 0} 9ploap 230A umpusisjor Aq AvWw Solty ‘Woplselg 10; gouslejoid Mey} ee -op AvUL OYA UOT]UDA -U0,) [BUOT]BNY 0} soyes Pq ‘Worse AD pue UM0} AIoAo 3B po} -yruqns st Arewitid 94} Sumunuoosip 10 sul -jdope jo uonsanb ayy, SIQOYJO 9A1}09]9 [TW SIOOYJO 9324S [PV "ayes Jo 930A Jo %OT Suysed “UOISIAIPAnS [eorpjod Jaq}O IO o}e}S JO 930A aijus jo %gE sarod {SII “SeT}IO UI UOTpe{e Jayreyqo 0} Joud Ap “sony, ply, “worjoaye sutids 0} sod yoieyy ut Avpsoupes, SILT ‘SUOIPII[a = [VAIS Sutpsseid = Jaquieydac ur Avpseny, puodvesg ‘Aep oules uo snoneo B ploy seryied oj ou ynq ‘Aysoyyne Ajz1ed Aq poxy ser}io Uy “u0T} -daJa [e1oeds a10yjoq Avp “San, puossg | ‘[eIyUep -1soid 10} [ludy ut Aep “Sony, SVT “SUMO} 10] Aepsony, puovsg “sal “yo Joy Avpsony, PY, ‘9]BYS IO] UOTJDIII B10} eq Avpsony, qiqsig ‘OFL PY ‘SIG SMUT °6 “py “SS3G “XU JST SI6L SMBT ‘69L PY ‘LIGL SMVT 00h PY ‘6I6L SMBT popuoule ‘186 PV ‘6061 SMUT ‘FOL PY ‘ISSl sey wesyorA, “S¢ pus S¢ “YD ‘TS6L SMBT [BIoTa4 S}Josnyoesse yy Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 190 a a a mn eA i ae Nl cn TTT es “sep OF ‘sAVP OF ‘sep 03-S1 SS Ne a a aa aa Re . Arewlig s1ojag skeq yoquin N—(sur1y Jo 278q) oyepipuey jo uoI}eIEPVIq] [BUOSIag "0S “NOD YLysSIp jo ospn{ ‘go¢ ‘WnoD euiaidng jo saspne ‘OOT Wey} o10Ur 10 0G UY} Sso_ JOU yOTTeqG Avewuud uestyied-uo ny ‘AjIo9 10 AyUNOD UI 4sBd 930A situa jo %Ol "yOUysTp OY} Ul ySBd 9}OA oIIjUa jo %¢ "MOIIIO [B1oUes ye 9JOA [eV}O} Jo %] ‘soy e Avd pue uoly -U9}UI JO UOT}eLEp[Vep B ag Apesout ABUL sozep -Ipuvd 000°096 19040 JO SoryUNOD 10 Sat} UT no) ata) diysumo} ut sXkep OT ‘ Sa img cag Sd gta ae St. es =? ——s 2a Ss a ; ay ¥ ih & y i) s, ‘ th Ol ty Bt = 4 , j ty Fall ‘, Ht ae ] ity © it * J ee yee Ot Ae vet * tree, ” \en) ’ id : im Vie hy H | ' ; <7 Z ‘ j os 1) ¥ q Hy 4 y ee j t y are i's ’ ii A j 1 be 7 h wt ay ' ae ) , ( ’ z Y f fi ' ‘ id } [iy ea \ +4 | ” ‘ + ah . ‘ wa cy Se } ' P { ni / yi rN ay i rte a a. \ on e i) is -% ral? \ Ba i ‘4 e : ( at ie vi | ‘ Ris, ee | : ; ey eS AMEN a ‘ , ; vee Sf i) ’ he By | , he A 4 fi " ” % ae ¥ ei « | ¥ be } 7 il } ? 2 +} < ti} } m1 My ' } ti a tt i % hs i} et Ft A i \ “ he ? ; « 4 ‘ het } 4b A ‘ le ba t : eg 1 Se " tg j ak i, ; i < f La, ( ‘ f Moe? Pu , ‘ re i , i ADs ah I ae ene, | ” iA i ie ~~ j ‘ & a * ' . hy V6) La: , Gi * a yet vist ee D tiele A Al's! giity, « vour % hel ee fry Rernte pipe « d aia i m0 eh igrmet daha tiny higeens'>: antag tnc Qs PAM e Ale) LA er) Peer Lip, coKs 7a" h i : é ; | > ; 2 rh a" ' i 4 , ’ Ad 1 4 ‘ 14 Lae J i aA? I fe 8) Vy ORR \ath ' ms 3: ee a | 7 i bi yale dh, Wh re dy % 0h el v. i ia oe ~ Dice! } i iy iy on f Ny * i ay ‘ = ! ae es | ail Take 4 yay RAN Reta ei) eAciiemye f7) he tre 1 c] *C, , aoe a4 - a oly aoe & CUE hs a cot ANS | + ~s on My 9 an | ome Be Mi nth? * { aa ¥ : : j oe Se rt art"? oe - i PS agi) i, ae i) } » A a Ceri [ a Ce, a: Sw et % ones a. y ee ML i iN 4 ort Ay r as with Tau ne hee f re Dk! , eae ‘ : / raiwee vias ae ; OO MATTE em Gees ee eet ee ee ve oD f Jie 4 ye Ob Ointins a Crag © ‘play (42> , 5 vin? AA Ae . j 2% j i Ps mt : ae. 7% ; f a ‘ ’ sd ‘ ry hy\ wy + Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 204 a Dig eee se jess o.'@: 6 6 6) Se 2.68 eoerevee eevee é 51.6 ¢) o1 € 6. 618 10 eee eevee eee oo eee ee eave oo eee ee eee eooe ee ee eee eee ere eee se oeoer eee eees [BUOTyBNT 94} 0} soyes -3Jep ‘“Weu99}}IUTUIOD [BUOr}eU JOUOTDeTaS 9} IO} pUw SIdTJO 9AI}II9 IO} uey} Joy}O soyep -Ipueo jo uorl}yeurmou 94} Aoj orepop Aeu A} -red Aue Jo 90}}1UIUI00 DAIJNIOXI +94e}S YJ, Pa et ieee et ea ge) 6.0m es C8 16) > '@ "MOISIAOId ON ‘popoye pun Jo soyytumut0o « Ayed = Ag *‘popoye jun jo soyptuu09 = Ayted =Ag ‘Areurtid peoeds IO WOIJUIAUOD 9} esa[aP &q ‘poyeye wun jo soyymm0a «~Ayed Ag ff Areulig sojog sXfeq JoquinN—oury, STVMVUGHLIAA AUVNIUg wuosIAg SAV UaaWON —(ONIII 40 ALVQ) SULVGIGNV()) JO NOIL -Vavioag IvNosaag (SHANDIG UAAW0NY) NOIWLILEGG ONILVNIWON AUVWIYG TWNOWLdO HO IVIINTUaAAGH . POT MOF[—So1lUBOR A *‘MOISIAOId ONT BPHOla ‘u01} -d9[9 0} Jod skep OT Opei0[oD “UOI}a9 a1ojoq sfkep gg ust} ‘JOT [Bq WO Uo}}IIM oe souvu usyM 4 4dooxa ‘MvIpyWA 0} payquT -Iod you o1e SoyepIpuey BIUIOF TED ‘MOISTAOId ONT BuoZzIIY Aeulig Vojog sfeq Joquin\y—oulry, SHIONVOVA YO STVMVUCHIIAA (SS DS SE EE a Dicrest or Primary Evection Laws G16 Oe 01.8 eto bie ‘sep CS S82] 1V oe ee ew www we @ ‘hie 9 le Wee oer ee ewe eae ‘sep 09 4S¥9[ 7V ‘pormbor su0NT oer ee eee eree oe eee ee we 00¢ “Areurtid alojoq skep 0g 07 09 {S19}0A 000'S 9} 000‘ “ATWO 940A AIOSIA -pe ue se pyoy ‘Areurtid a1ojoq skep OF poy ‘s19}0A 000°9 91 000°S eee were rere IOUIOAOD Ioyeuas *S “-) JUIpIsa.g-ol A pUspIsailg JO}VUYS *S *{) quepIsoig eoecoeceve re @ “Areuntid a4} aiojoq Shep OG 9781S jo Areyai00g 94} YA peg oq ysnu UworyN] -OS8I OYJ, “Wepiselg “OIA pue yUEpIsalg Io} pue wUoryUeAUO7) “UOIJUDA -U09 Jo}Je Jl 997} IMIUIOD Aysed Aq pue uorjueA -W09 d1OJoq SUTIINIIO JI uoryuaAuo0d Ay1ed Aq ‘popoye jun jo goyyiuim09 «= Ayed Ag ‘popoye ziun jo goytumut0o «= Ayaed = Ag ‘popoye pun jo soyruui0s «~Ayed Ag ‘uorstaoid ON BMOT ‘sep CS 4S¥9[ VW euvIpuy ‘£reurtid a10jaq A} -UN0d IO} 0% pue 9783S Joy skep og ‘MBIPGPIA Aeul woulse}}TUIWIO* sIouN TT ‘sia0qjo 4yUNOD Io} OL pus yLystp JO o}¥}S Joy SkUP OS OFePT Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 206 —S SS SE NE a a a a Se rey oq Avur Areunid yetoods 8 loyeUasS “S “—) JO oso ur ‘saz}UIMIOD §=6ayerid -o1dde oy} Aq Jo ‘sno -nvd JO UoTyUeAUOD Aq JO WOl}eUTMIOU [eULSLIO ti ee ee Ee eee «6 Se Nm ae i ee een ene et oe ees tee ae oe IOJ pepraoid JOUURUL uy “UOIstAOId oN ouleyy “uoryorpstnf eee ereenee Se ee ea fe eo ca 0-8 6 te secs) te Gases) woe eh, Gg Se teen Shree Cong ee ere en ne rhs ee jo 99}}1UTU00 Ayred kg * Pere ee Se A = BUvISINO'T *qourooid ueul JO 930A [¥}0} Jo Y%% -99}}TUIMIOD JOUIDII "paw ut 930A Ayed [e}0} Jo %G 04 %B pue pa -juasaidel preA oy} UI syoutoeid ay} ¥ Jo yoo ur 930A Ayed Jo %% UvurpIounos A319 “APIO UT 940A 18103 943 Jo OL 0} %E puv syoutoaid ayy} Jo ¥ ut o30A Aqsted Jo %% ssoqjo AyD ‘poyoye jun Jo Seer a es 0) et -I}1ed-uou ‘OM} Wey} d1OJAL 910A ABT “u0r} -d9J9 }xXoU 4e So}epipuvo jo Ayusofeur jo yoddng ‘posmbod WOrzVsysts9yzy "yO][Bq oyeIedas uMo spt sey Ayied youy "sJOT[eq oeIe -deg ‘poumber uoryzes} -sisoy *Ayaed Jo yxoddng *srvod Sutpsooid g oY} UIyIIM Ayred 94} YHA p.s0d0¥ Ul Udeq Sey SsouTUIOU Ay -ied j10ddns 0} uorjueqyuy ‘poumbor = UOT} eI SISOy ‘poumbor UOI}VAISISIY- “UOT JOaTo yxou ye OS OP 0} spud} -UI pue UOTpoIo 4se] Ye A} -red poyioddns Ayje19004) ae ee ee SS SS SS SS SS ras BYSBIQIN ‘poqooye yun jo 90}}tu1mI00 Ayred Ag eueyuoyL LMOSSIP[ 1ddississtj Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Jo AlejOINIG ‘IOUIOAOS IO} UOI}VIsIS9y *JOT[Vq o7e1 eee ee ee eee ySBO 9}]OA [¥]O} oSRIOAR “ATWO -edes ev sey Ayred yory ‘AyUNOD JO 9383S 9Y} JO 96GG JoAO 940A ySoysTT | QO10YO SAL] ‘SOULVU 91IOUI 10 9UO J] epee ‘pombe uorzergye Ayeg | Aq pred ore sasuedxo [Ty Boxed YWON *s19]}0 Te doy Ayuofeu pur *yOT[eq ‘qUopIseTg-s0lA pue yep ‘ATWO uMO spt sey AyIed Youd ‘£}UNOD pue 9724s -ISaIq JO} 930A ysoystyy | QOIOYO 4ST ‘SOUIVU OIOUL JOOMT, | “'"**" ‘pomnbar uoryesisoy | Aq pred ore sosuodxg BUI[OIB) YON Pew o1B SUOI}BUSISOp UWoOTYAL "sjo][Vq - ‘spuny ory ‘9]0A JSOySIL WA Jaoqjo JO pieoq kq poululiejep JIpIO eee eee uMO spt sey Azred youry ‘poambo.s Wor} B14s139y] -qnd wo pred ore Areut -11d 94} Jo sosuodxe [Ty YOK MIN RAUNT Shee ae eS ‘Teornjeqeydiy | ccc ‘pommbei uoqeysisoy | ttt eo Aasiof MONT “So]BPIPURI 91OUT IO "soj0A JoARTeN[g | °° ‘ATWO JsIL | OM] 1B o1oy} JI soywjoy | cc ‘pormbod uojeysi30yy ered oy arysdurepy MON ‘pomnboad Wor}e1}81 -SayJ~+«“UOUIUIOD SI }O][eq *yuoul uvsi}red-uou ‘yo][eq 9781 "aJOA YSOysIWR | “ATWO YSIL] -asuelie [eorjeqeydiy | ‘"""*" -edes e sey Ayed yor $, *SoRtt dete Si epeAodNy puoosg {SIL usdg (S204 Jo Couvogrmnt) PIL] MOF[—so1ouvoe A ALVNINON OL AUVSSHOAN ALO A LOTIVG NO SHWVN JO NOILVLOYY peso[y 218 @OIOHD) GNOOUS ANV ISU] aasol)) uO NadQ STVMVECHLIAA SSS SSS ae ee a a re 219 DiaEst oF PRmaARY EvLEcTION Laws “AUTEN J “APPIN T ‘Q]OA JSOYSIFT “APYIN[ I *9]0A JSOYSTY ‘10}eUaS ‘S ‘Q ‘poyeurmou aie S9JOA 4SOySIY OY} SUTAIZO -aI OM} 94} ‘SoyepIpueo uvsijied-uou JQ ‘uory -d9[9 [eloues 4s¥[ 4e [eIo -uax) AvU10}} Y PUB 23%1S eee eee ee eeee cee eee oe BO cw 6 *AyUO dVIOYO YALL *AyUO Qo10Y9 4SIL *ATUO QOIOYO ISAT] *AyUO QO10Y9 ISI] ‘g0qJO sues JO} soyepipuvo oie suos -Iod d10UL JO OM} UOT AA ‘OJo ‘SoU J9q}O [[@ WPM sour} jo Joquinu jenbo ue 4ysij jo poy ye reodde 0} ouleu Yyoug ‘Q1OUI IO OMY UdYM poyeJOI oe Soe ‘pommbead st UOT} ~B1{SIS91 dJaYM Jo4sIso1 yshy, ‘poumnbei uoreryye Ayreg ‘“sieoX OM UTA xe} A}UNOD JO 9}e4s pred dARy ISNT “SOxB} JO JUST -fed 0} se ydooxo ‘suor} -da]9 [BioUes ye s1OII jo suorjvogienb se ours ‘sjo][eq oyeIedes sey Ayred yory ‘“uorzerlpyye Ayred pue uoryerjsisoyy ‘posmba worzeryye AyIeq ‘“Worpoje [vseuas }XOU 910Joq OS oq []TM OTA ISO} 10 S1OJPOITP PogTTeNy *yoT[eq oyeredas v sey Ayred yoey ‘posmba. st UOIeIYSisaL VIOYM Polo} “Sisal oq YSNUI SI0}JOA ‘posn 18 Syooq {jod ynq ‘pesmbes you st ae ee *sIOUOT}IYOd [BULSIIC) eres [Asuuag 656464, 9 8 9 8 evuloyepIO e ares 0s a eee foe Ture ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 220 -4SIq OM} OY} UsaMjoq se Pppeq st Areunid puosss e Ayuofeul e sey uossed ou JI ‘saoqjo 4oLIysIp IO 9}8}8 IO} doUJO Yons I0J ySBd S9}0A [e Jo Apolep "19}JeaI9q} SAVpP OS 0} 06 Pjey st Areuntid yo -UNI & ‘say BpIpueod Jsoysty 24} W9dMjJOq 9}0A aI} B SI 919} JI “JOA 4sSoystTT "9]OA JSOqSTHL PRY st Arevuttid paryy @ ‘Areur -l1d pUOdes OY} UI 91} & JO JUSAD oY} UI pure ‘sa}epIp -UBd JSOYSIY OM} VY} 1OF pry st Areunid yo-uni Jo puooss ve ‘Aqynofeu @ SdAlo0o1 uosiod ou JT ‘ayepIpueo & si UOsIed ay} YoryM IOF soyJo VY} 10j ysvo sajoaA jo Ajzuoleyy (a EEE ALVNIWON OL AUVSSHOAN' GLOA ce ae ‘g010Y9 ISAT ‘yo, Aq pourulssjoq ATWO “yuoul teens go1oyo 4su,q | -asuvsie = peorjoqeydyy “ATWO QOIOY ISAT] eee eee 8 8F ANnTATIA NCI wr lt i i‘“‘COsC HH HH *£JUO VoIOYO ISI eee 6.0. 0 99 PP AnvAnrAn Ae oe te OO ee 2c8ce les 2 a me puossg SLOTIVG NO SUNVN[ JO NOILVLOY GOIOH) GNOOSG GNV LSU] eee eee oeeeee Pe en eat le ee "mOl} -eyyye §=Ayreg ‘suor}eog -Ijenb ;euorpppe oqriosaid Aeut 90}}1WIUI0D = OAT} “nooxy + ‘000‘OL Jo Serpo ul xv} [[od jo yuowAvg *poambo. SI UOI}RI}SISOI BIOYM JO}ST -Sal SNL *}OT[Bq pasojoo oyeredes sey Ajred yory ‘pred aq ysnur xeq [jod £44 -red YPM oyelWe Isny "sjOT[Vq postojoo 9ze1¥edas sey Ayaed yory ‘Ares -sg00U SI aoueIsare AyIeg "qnyp ay} Jo Syood 94} UO pa[jo1us pus ‘aque qnjd B 9q ysN] (S19}0A Jo WOI}eogITeNy) Ppeso[D adsol) YO NIdQ ‘Areunid pereds SBXO], *Areurtid [eto -eds 10 WolueAUOD Ag sessouua y, ‘90}}TUIMI0D AyIed JO sulyeu § jesodoig Boye WNog Po MOF{—sorouvoe A STVMVUGHLIAA 221 DiaceEst oF Primary EvLEcTION LAws “AVTCIN] | ‘ayeprpuevo jus -puodepul ue se popiesol SI o}epIpuvo ysoysty 91} *‘yIUN 3} Ul 9}OA [e}O} 9} JO %OL wey} sso] vAtooo1 soyjo Ue JOJ soyepIpuvo Tr # mg = “Ayyeimyg “20TfO 24} JO} oepripuvd oq} IO} }SBO S9}OA Jo ApT[VIN] ‘20JO oy} IO} ys¥o sojoA ApeInN[g *Ayred e Aq yS¥O SOJOA [[e Jo Ap]TeRIN[G "9]0A JsSOysIY 24} «SUIAeY = so}epIpuro jo goequinu yuslowne *slgoqjo AyuNOoD IO} AjITeA -njd so Ayuofem Jay}oyM eproep AvUl 99}}TUTUI0D aATyNoexe AYUNOD *4s9 ove eee ee eee ee ee «ae 1 acre ce” 4 be: ‘AJUO YsII | posuvise o18 “Q010YD 4SILT “ATWO YSALT “ATWO YSIT “ATWO JST “ATTBor}oqeydye SOUL NT *SJO1I]SIp uonosja «= Aq poqeyoy *‘soumvul JSOUL OY} O18 JO} YOM UI UOISIAIP ojo sq} UI SoyepIpuvd oie oJOq} se uoyo se posuryy “SUOIS -IAIp ooo Aq po}ejoYy = 6s) 9), eo wee) B.S) 0 CW re Re ee Chee. 56 e ene ew ey em Cle (Oke fare We Ol oe U6 "yor[eq o}eI -edas @ sey Ayred yory "yo][eq 9} eI -edas @ sey Ajred yoy "SJO[[Vq Ppoio[Oo o}yeIedes sey Ayied yoru ‘oJOA 0} SpUd}UI OY YOM ITA Ayrzed ayy Jo Joquiour & SI oY YLY} IVIMS JSNUI JO}OA ‘posmbo uorye1} “SISOY=O “JOT [eq 9} eIedas e sey Ajied yor ‘uory -d9[9 }XoU Je soyepIpuro jo Ayuofeu jo ysoddng ACTS UMO spt sey AJIed You ‘posnbad woryeryye Ayeg ‘pormbai uorzesjsis0yy SuIUIOs AA ‘sooqqiumm00 Ay1ed oy} Ag UISUOOST AA ‘soo}}turumo0s Ayred Ag BINS 189A WOPSUIYSe AA qUOULIOA 423) Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 292 rrr EERE AIYV1INIIG UVULIIVY)-901 A, ueuLdey) 674.0. ¢ 6% 8) 08 fe | go} UID ay} Aq peq2/7J—S190TFO “Areutid 1aqye sXep OT Joo. “VOYJO OF pozeu “m0 soyepIpuvd 9} pUue JOIISIp 94} JO sor} -un0d oy} JO UsMITeYO -d01A pue USULATeYO oY J, “puy -sIp oY} WOIJ ssa1du0d IO} oJepipurs sy} pur 99}}1MIWI0D»—- BAT]NOVXO ayeys oy} Aq poyeres ‘s1aqulom ¢g UBY} 3101 JOU GI UvY} SseT JON oeoeeceeeeee Jo S}sIsuoy 99}}TUIUIO’) JOLI}SI(] [VPUOISSeIZU0I) AIBYAINIG UVULIIBY)-9O1 A, ueuLdeyy "S190 -JO I9qY}O s}I sesooyo pue oq}ImMIMI0D §=—8AT} -NIIX9 UB SpOI]Jo 994} UL -W109 [BI}WID 97%}S OI], "S19]04 000'T yoro IO} [vUoryppe auo puv AjUNOD Yova WO1f Jequiett uO JO 99}}IWIUIOD DATINIOX | JOMSVIL AIVYVINIG UvULIeYy) so} IUIMOT) OY} Aq peqo2/q7—_ S199 TO SI JI ‘IOUIOAOS IOJ S9}OA 000‘OL petfod Ayunoo @ J[ ‘aoqjo Joy poyeu -IWl0U_So}epIpuvd 9} pu soo}}Tu1UI09 AyUNOD [B1dAVS OY} JO UsULIIeYO -O1A PUB USULIVY eq], ‘WOI}UIAUOD 9724S ayy Aq poyooye “orrysIp [BUOISSeISUOD Jove WOT] SIOQ USUI 99.1} JSBI] FV *s90}} 1UIULOO Ayuno0d =[eleaAes = 9} woiy pue Aq peyoie ‘AyUNOD UI SI9}OA ONS Youre 10} [eUOIIppe suo pur 90}}1uIUI09 AyUNOD youd wWOIy UOlpIppe Ul UOSsIed 9UO PUB 94¥}S jo uoteyo AyUNOD [TV Jo S]sIsuo‘) 99} ]TUUUIOT) [B1}UID) 9381S SHALLINNOT) ALUVG ‘uor}zesued -ul0D otaes pue UOT} -oafo [eloued sev oUIeG a (0) Bas) ) [etoues 7e se uoryesued -W09 PUB SIZDTJO sUIeG mC) ata) ) [e1oues ye se Avd ouleg SYII[9 OMT, sospnt OMT, 1opodsut sug (puULDeIg qoe7y) pivog wore ‘Ayo 10 £yuN0 ‘ayejs Aq pred sasued “xT “syO][eq oredaid sysopo Ayo pue AyUNOD Opri0[oy ‘syor[eq oredoid syiopo Ayo pue AyuNOD eIUIOPI[eD ‘sasuadxa [12 shed 9323s 10 AyUNOD ‘Ay. *syoTTVq. eredoid yaopo Ayo pue AyuNOD euozlly pivog Ayano? STVIOIIG NOLOGY en SS SSS SSS SSS RR SN SCE REESE ST 223 Diaust oF,PRIMARY ExEctiIon Laws “AVS -sa000 = SIZOIGO III1O ueuliteyy) a matin eee tke 6 *kresso00u peWlsep sis0qjo 1973109 ueULeyy) -LIUIMIOD YoRY *909)10I -U109 JOLI]SIp [PUOISSOIS -u0d 94} JO siequioul 218 UIUI99}}TUIUOD youtoeid ay} ‘syo1I} “SIP [BUOIssaIsSUOD 07UI Ppoprarp st AyuNoD aay Io puodsa1109 417} -sIp pue Ayunod a1oy AN ydaoxo JOUIIsIp 94} jo uouleyo AyUNOD [TV “MOTJOsIa 19 7B SAUp 0S UIGIM sz1UesI_Q ‘Areutid sq} 7e payeya ‘AyUNO0D: Yow Woy 19q -Ul9UL 90 JO S}SISUO) *£IBSSo00U pewsep sis0qjo 191109 UPeULIey) "90}}TUIUIOD UI sotoued “VA Sq *Areurtid Joye ysnsny jo Avp -Son], YAMOoj uo syopV AI¥Y91ID9G uUvUuLITey) *Xressoo0u peWleep sis0qo ITO ueuTeyy) "UOIPIII Jaye SkUP OS UIQ}IM S}oopT ‘SoLeUl -ud [udy 4e poqo[o *qoII}sIP [eUOIssa1su0d yova wWoOly Jeqmoul auo JO s}SISUOD 99}}1UI -W107) [B1]9D 9321S 9T J, ‘morjusAMO0D 4yUNOD aq} Aq poypoiea A}UN0D Yovs WOI] JoquIeW suG_, ‘MOTpaIe Jaye SAep OG UIGIIM IZIUeSIC) ‘Areutid oy} 78 poydeIo ‘Ayunod Yove WO] 10q -Ulat QUO jo SjsISUOdD *Areutid Jaye skep OT urgzia Joo, *20}]TUIMIOD Ayanos ay} Aq pooja eq 0} ‘000‘OL [euCT} -Ipp® Youre 10} OM} pure ‘UBUIOM B 900 ‘s1aq Wow aJOUL OM} 0} poTtyUS ‘SUOT}OI]a [eIoUes sv UOoryesuedu0d suIeG SYJ9[9 Volt, T, sospnf say, |, ‘sorjddns pue sjzoy[eq soystumy Ayanos eyy, ‘sored ay} Aq pred oie soov]d suryjod ay} JO 4s00 94} puv sprv0q UOr}DeI9 oy} jo uorjesusdmoo ory, "m01} -da[9 [Bloues se ouIRG *‘spuny otjqnd woz pred ore sasuodxe [Ty \ *‘sIOMOISSTUIMOD OT} -da[9 JO sprvoq AyUNOD pue A}0 OsTe oe O19, J, ‘sjoyfeq saredeid ysoo [ediorunta 10 AUN) Orit *syO] [eq sored -aid soyIpne AUN) bee ‘AyuNod JO 9723s Aq predore sosuedxy *m01} -da[9 [eIoued sev ouleg A Saad © | Tue ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 224 NN SS ee eee sosuadxe [[Y “S}O][®q aiedaid 0} Aynp ‘sjue -jsISSB [BOLIO[O PaMoyT[e “Ayred yore 10J ‘sdaquieul ~=aaAtyurodde (‘sayna Aq *(saqna Aq Jepjoy yooq [fod sug | om} pue Yeo Ay JO Ppexty) Sisqo IO. Pextyq) sdsoqjo 1010 gg ‘syMeys OMT, | AJUNOD Jo systsUOd ‘AzT19 JOMsSval], *JOLI]SIP 9} JO $99} IdMSval], ‘ *$99}}TUIULOD JOLT} Gg ‘syIo[D OMT, | puv AJUNOD Jove UI SIo Areyoioog | -yruutoa ~=AyuNoD [ea Aiv}2199G | -SIP [BUOISSeIsMOD [e1a ¢¢ ‘sospnfomy, | -uolssturui0d uor}ee uruULeyy) | -Avs oY} Jo uBuITeYyD) uvuley) | -Ads oq} jo ueuITeaD Eg ‘10yoodsul sug | Arewtid Jo prvog suO eueIpuy *$10}09]9 [etquoptsoid OJ sazep -IpUvo SpuUsUIWIODeI PUB UOIPUIAUOD = [RUOT}EN 0} SsoJeSoJop 97eUII4 -[@ pue soyeso[ep S92] -9S [MOT}UBAMOD [BUOIS -soisuoo ev se Areutid Judy doze 4 “a ) i? : at Cy ty ; + \ Deri , 7 ike. Py nt i a yi | PE aR tie it nee a a ft } he i i , Jeane ft a nt ea ee Payee ; fe lcamt i? ‘ i) j ss ie 5 Bk 1 ; fs, ad’ ' ‘ vail t o ' y ’ y e i i & H 4 an ha) v ao ’ uy at ar , ‘ i) vss Nad re. tl iAKb ae heen B . tt re AY, ¢ t ip 3 , Pi We SPOT ET A. 9) CATR ay ob ae Re Naa an > ; a ‘ ; As } \ ? Y * 4 4 wy oe ‘ ! i / TVA} 5 nH ci 1 a} AT i ; a ; E , ; j > 22 tia ee Sin Eo o = a t : ‘ 3 4 1 : 4 Lee AT A tay SY HE 1 Mate ' a Viaeetioy em ‘ _ Ig a id tu vela 7 Wy Cd a ‘ ae a ee te 7 STN , ot ii + i \ Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 234 oo ee a ‘Areuriid ysnsny SUIMOTIO} sJaquieydag ur Aepsony, puooes uo SPO “S9}OA QZ oro JO} Joquioul [ ‘SzOII}sIp Jostagedns Aq poyoya 18 SIoquIsu ‘S}OII}SIp A[quiesse ¢ uRy} ssoy SUIUIG}UOD soI}UNOD UI ‘S19}OA QOL Yove IO} po -y9[9 SI JoquiouUl [ ‘SyoII} -stp A[quiesse o10Ul 10 ¢ SUTUIeYUOD seT}UNOD UI ‘pPL}sIp Yovs Ul poyoye o1B8 SIoqUIOUL ¢ ‘S}oTI}SIp Ajquiesse Q[ uey} o10Ur SUIUIeJUOD soIzUNOD pus S190TJO 19419 | serpio ur ‘Areunsd ye AIV’JQINVG | po}oajo pue a1n}e]STF9] Jo UvVUINBYD | SloquieuUl SB po}yBUIMION ee Seas A ee, ae Se LOS OOhrs wi RE OO ee ie ee I I el cai a Oe AS, ae pet ne a Sine enon Ee "SOJOA CL Yors JOJ [euor} -Ipp® ouo pue yourD JOMSVOLT, ‘Arewutid repnse1 JomMsealy, *ATeU -aid yove JO} uvul AIvyo10IG | 7 uUssoyd usUII0} AI’vY199G ‘£JUNOO 9y} Jo Uou aru 18 PoWa[ =|. Se -99}}TMIWI0D UO uvmmeyy | -yUIUIOD yuTDIIg ueuIeYyD | -90}}1WIMI0D JouLDeId |TV euozily so}}IUIULOD 9y} Aq so} TIMID oy} Aq apo A O}VUIUION AA $}SIS s . pepeay MOF] PoyVUIMION, MOF] jo sjsisuoy paioepy— 81090 jo sysisuoy paiepy—s190019 jo sjsisuod Q9}PMIMIOD JouLDdIIg soypuUMIOY AyD 99} 1UIULOZ) Ayunoy ee ee eee SAGLLINWOD) ALYY Se ————————————————————_—_————————— — — 235 Dicest oF Primary Evection Laws *Areurid [udy 343 «ye ~—so~payoye 918 WOUIId}}TUIUIOD f pie pue puDoig *Areul -id ye pepo *AIVUL -id 38 popoq “your -o1d wo Areu -ud ye popoy *SIO]OA OT JO BOryWIog “u0T} -erle[oop [euosiag *“I9AO JO 000°006 Jo sero ut ydaoxe “youtoeid yoro Wolly UuUvUr -99}}1UIMIOD «=: OU) *youroeid yoro wWoiJy uUeul -99}} M09 OU) *qoutoeid yore WOdJ Joquiou suQ *qouroeid Yove Jo} UvUIOMI9}}IUI -W100 9U0 pues ueUr 29 -99}}TUIUI09 *Aressoo0u SIZ0TJO I9yIO ueuldieyy 15’ -6) 6 8s ee ore ee eee “ArvuUl -1id Joqye sep ¢ peziues.io0 $99} }UIULOD YPM 9}0A pus pS A}I0 UWLOJj SoyepIpueyD £1€49109G (weuI0A\) UBULITBYD)-90IA, ueulireyqy) ‘AYO 94} Ul SULpIs -a1 UsT9e}}IUIUIOD pieM JO ypuLDIg *AY10 VY} UI JUapIsaI UsuIOM ._pue dul -90}}TMIUI0D.-Ss« OY, ‘Ares -s9000 = pouleap SIIOJO 1OYIO uvULeys) (‘SoToUBdBA [Te S[iq) ‘Azesso -d0U SIZ0TJO 194109 A£.1@49199G ueuldeyqy “Ares “S900 + pouleop SIOIO 19919 ueulneyy *Areurtad Joqyye SABp ¢ pozt -uBs10 {90}}TUI “W109 YPM 9}0A pus ys AzyUN0D Wo} so}epipuey Axe 1199 (ueu0M) UVULIIBY)-901 A, uvULITeY() ‘UOLJUIAUOD 9}B4S pus [VUOISSeIsU0D 94} 0} Sa}esefap sSasooyo pue ‘UOI}UIAUOD A}JUNOD B SB uMouy st pue Areurrid jiudy Joye Aepuoyy ysig S}Od]J. ‘IOUIOAOS 10} ySvO S9JOA OG YOVI IO} 9}0A [VUOI}Ippe vU0 pu 930A euo sey UevUl9e}}TUIUIOD yoeg ‘Ajunod 94} jo WoU199}}TUIUOD PrvA pue pouroeid ay} Jo s}sisuod sphedec! LH ‘Areurtid 19}Je Aepmyeg puoosss Yo} ‘Ayun0d oy} jo usu -99}}TUIMIOD YouTDeId [TV rel “UOIPOTe JoLe sXep 0g UIG}IA ozIUes1E, ‘Areuttid ay} ye poypoye ‘qourooid yoes WOIJ J30q -UloU 9UO JO sjsSISUOd SPLOT *£yUNOD oy} Jo UsMIOM puUe U9II9e}}TUT -wi0d yuLeid 94} [[V Ope10[OD Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 236 ‘drysioquioul WMO S}I Ul SoOUBOBA SIT 99}}TUIUIOD Yoo pue ‘Areurtid oy} 38 popo[e a18 S1OqUISU [[e pus 90}}10TUI07) [ery 9381g 94} Aq poqtiosaid oe S90}}IUIUIOD [BOO] [[e JO UOI}ISOdUI0D pus JoJOBIVYD oY], *Areul -ud ye pepo[q *Areur -ud ye popolq *AIVUL ‘ud ye pepo A | | pee] MOPy “soyepripuro 1930 SB OUIeG *Areultid 910J -oq skep 03 Ply ‘SI9JOA QI JO UOT} -yod JO Uor}eIe] -oep [euosiod Ag “seul -tid o10joq sdep 0 97 09 peTy ‘uory -eIepep [euosiog PoyVUIMION, MOFT so}}IUIMIOT) POULELJ *qourooid yovo Wo ueuUl -99}}TUIULOD UGC) *99}IUIMM0D [P1} -u90 A}UNOD 9} 04 pepeye st youtseid yoeo wWolJ uUeu -9o}}1MIMI0D: BUG ‘ueul -meyo Aq poyutod -de suosiod 19430 pue wueules}}1UI -W109 Jouloaid oJ, Jo sjsisuos JomMsvol], £11199 ueulireyy) (‘sajna Aq poxtq) SINFO JoqIO JoMsvol], £1B49109G uvUlneyy do} }UIUOT) oY} Aq pspo,qy—S19N01 FO ~Areurtid jenuue ye uasoyo UW9U99}} UIU0O qouroeid Ay *£YI0 9} UL yaed UI JO 904M ul syurdeid sur ~jusseideil 99}}1UT -woo AjuNOD oy} jo Sioquioul oq], Jo sjsisuoy soy, AID JoIMsSBVely, Arey109G uvueyy) (‘safnt Aq poxty) S[BIOIO 19q1O JaMSvI1], £142199G ueuleyy) do}}TUIMIOZ 943 Aq pe} 2/q—_ S199 TO euvismoy *£JUNOd 9Y} JO UsUIIe} -yrarar09 youloerd 94} [TV susuey “u0r} -U9AU0D 9} SUIMOTIOJ Apyerpoumr ‘Areurd Joye Avpinzyeg yYPMoj seziuesig *Areuntid 24} 3728 poyore ‘A}yuUNOD oy} Ul yuLeId yYova WO] WEUIII}}TUIUIOD BUG eMOT . AY -unod oY} JO UsUIIe}} UI -u100 yuLDeid 94} [[V euviIpuy JO S4SIsuo‘) soqyuM0Z7) AyUNOD SAALLINNOD ALUVG VK 237 DiceEst oF Primary Exvection Laws eee eRe prey tse ee ee ee eS eee "SOAT}L]UIS *AIVUL -oidey jo osnoyyT -ud ye pepaly UI 9}JOA SP 2/q ‘Apyedriorunu 93} -nop 0} uorjyod Ul SIOOJO DAT}ET -oid ut poyussoided -SIdd] 918 9194} SB Son ea. Sioa ias st AyunoD youy Cet ie. sioquiout AUBU SY uUvUIey) AieYVINBG eee ‘ et ee eae AE es a 8 tae uRUTeYD) a eg He iC 4 eee eter eienetine «Se eamee ne acn haa eee Lardner Se ae ‘UMO} JO PIVM YORI IO} 9914} WEY} SSo] JOU 7B S9eq}IU -U10D UAO} PUL PIVA JO SJOqUIATA Jo JOqUINU oY} XY Sdd}}TMIUIOD UAMOZ pu A “MET Aq pozTUsode1 ST JOUIOAOS IO} 9}OA ayy jo %e pajjod yey} Aqsed Aue Jo waysts oaqiuIUI09 Ayied oy, “Uorpoeye JoqJe skep 0G UGA sooqqUIMIOD A}IO pue pIBM pue ‘[ yorepy pue | Arenuee uaeajoq peztueSio 99}}TWIUIOD UMOT, “SiaqUIOUI WMO S}I 0} Ppe ABUT da}}[UIUIOD POV “SLIGO Aressao0u J9y}O pues Jomsvel} ‘AreyoIOVs ‘UBUITIYD B IIe 9V}PIUIVIOD YOR JO SLBOTJO Ot], *99}}TUIUIOD AYO 9Y} ByNzWYsU0d UIUId9}}IMMUIOD PIVAL [BIOAES oy, “Arevatid oy} 7B poypo]e o1V YOIYA Jo SJoqMoUT oy} “9d}}TUIUIOD UMO} PUB PAM B Sf osoy,[, 8 ee OS Se *Ayred *Aresso yova AQ PpoUlUIIa} | -d9l SIoOqJO I9qIO ‘Aqzred yeorpy | -ep st drysssqurour A1€@4QIDIG ears eo a es es os acetate rely Sag toe SURE es welageer eet s -od kq peur DPC pue 19308 eyo oy, uvuL req ‘£reurtid sy} 0} Si0s -S200NS S}I JO VoIOYD oY} quqns Avut 90}}1UIUI0O Ayunoo Aue ynq ‘WOTyUIA -u0d oyesajep AjyuNOD Sq pepepPsg “pLysip sJostagodns yovo wloly QoIY J, “SloquIouU 199} 1ddississipq *WOr}UaAUOD Ayumo0o 343 Aq pepely eOSOUUlAL ‘200 Ayunoo Joy poyeuruloU soyepipuvo Jo s}sIsuod uesiqorA S}}JosnyoBssBpy *S1oqUIOUL JO JoquinU 94} SdUTUIE}ep Os[@ Yor ‘MOT}UeATOD ayeys oy} Aq poypoyo st go}}1uMI09 ~A}UNOD oq], er 3 a Ee ee ee ee, Eee ee ED , ete ie be. been teal Sas tk 2! Rare Se eee Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 238 of ie OMe eo Se — - Sige be «6 & © *Areur "SI9JOA -ud ye peyeq | cag jo uonned Ag *Areul "WOT}eIe] -ud ye payea[q | -oop [euossed sap 6a rrr r,t SSS [| SnsnnnnStsssissnsnesnesssenssesessessteee eee pepopq MOP] poyeUIuION MOF, so} MIMO, JOULDeIG *qoulo -aid 94} Jo si0oq -mewu Ayied poo} -sisol Aq poo} -Jo UOrIyezIUesIQ ‘youroe1d yowa Wo uur -99} }TUIULOD BUG, OM} O18 a10q} BoYM O00 ~00F 91 000°00% Jo satjunod ul yda0xe ‘diysuMo} 10 pres yors wo uPrul -39}} TMIUIOD OU, jo sjsisuo eC ta ay ear ca A£1€12199G uvUdIIey) eoeeeeeee so}}IMIMIOD 943 Aq pe} 2[q{—S100JO voy}TMIUIOY AVID *“A£}IO VY} JO S1aq -mout Ajied pote} -sido1 AQ poo} -Jo UOT}ezZIULSIO S20 | eee See 6. 923i 08) Re ea ie Seo eee Bie Bis . Peete ete Sn ee ean eelte, oe aoe es © ‘syouroaid Ay0 ur SUIATT UsUlee}} 101 £14199 “W109 JouTDeId oy, uemneyy) “qyOLI}sIp IATPRISISIT YORa IO} UBULITeY)-901 A, JOMSVILT, AI@YB1NBG uvuldreyy) 90}}TUIUIOT) ay} AQ Meise peP~ea[y]—Ss90 TO *AyUNOD Yows uloIy s9}V3 -9J9p pue ssourmou £} -red Aq UO1WUIATOD 97%}s ye papeye SIoquIa;, oirysdure yy MONT ‘UdSTUSSAISUOD 10} 4Svd SoJOA 0} Uor}odoid ut spouted Wod] soyesapoq SPAIN ‘U9UI99}}TUMUOD JOULDIIT BYSBIQIN ‘£juN0d oy} Jo usUl -99}}TUIMOD YouTDeId Vy} [[@ jo sysisuog -*Areur -1id 94} 3 poyojo ome usulse}}ITIMIOD §=AyUNOD evuewoyy *AeUr -id Jajye Avpsony, ysay S}9J._ “Uetl909}} TUITION diysuMo} pue prea [TV LIMOSSIPA jo s}sisuos ee}}TMMIOY AJUNOD ee ee ee ee ee SHALLINNOD) ALUVG re a ge 239 Dicest oF PRIMARY ELECTION Laws *AIVU -ud ye payooyy orn & 8 a ee 6 Sree te len ace w *AIeUL -ud ye popoq a Oy 6 Wei ce Se, tl onc SP toa tg oe ee ww oe Ci ee ee ‘asooyo Aoy} emeu AUB UI OFLA A[9IOUI $.19}0 A ee a hee *youtoe1d yors Woly uUeul -ve}UIMI0D «=: OU *qoutoeid yove UWlOly uUeUl -d9}}ITUIMIOD «= OU) *Aqared oq} JO suorzye[nsad sant AQ pouli08g 99} 101 -W109 dAINIEX] Joinsealy, *syrunty Ay10 Areyai0aG | Ul SUIPIsa UII} ueULeYyy) | -yWIUIOD yuTDIIg ‘rojoid Avut Areyoioog | Ayred se spire ueuliey) WO} UssOy) 90} } UI ‘£10 VY} UI SyoUIO -M109 aATJNOX7Y | -o1d WoT Uasoyo AreyaIoog | 90}}1tuIMI0D AyUNOD uewmMmeyy) | 94} jo sioquioyy ‘$yred oy} jo suor}e[NsaI pue SE Stan sant AQ pouls0,y *Areur -1id 78 payojo 918 99} TUIUIOD AYO JO sioquIsy 90}} (UI -U109 BATNIOX | JOINSVILT, AI YVINIG uruUley) "90}}1UI -JIUIULOD DATINIOX AIBYVINIG ueUuldeyy *suosiod 6 0} ¢ jo 99}}1UI -W109 9ATINID -xo pue Jomnsevoly, AIvYVINIG ueUlirey) i Oe ae ek eles 0S de Tew oe “Arvuruid Joye skep 0% yoy «= “A}UNOD Jo uoUur -99}} TMIWMIOD YourDe1d [TV u0s21Q BULoyeTAOG ‘UOT JoyJe SXup CT eziuesig “Areurtid oy} ye uasoyo‘AyuN0d oy} Jo drys -UMO} JO pIVM ‘JouTDeId Yove WOIJ Joquioul sug oO ‘Arveurid Jaye Lepsou POM Ea aN oe oer PAT}EISISI] IO} SoourMOU ay} Aq os1R[ Ye UssOYO U9U199}} ITU pue “Hou -99}}TMIMIOD Yurde1d [TV ByOyeqd YWON euljore’) YON ‘Ayived oy} Jo suorjRnsax pue saint Aq pouli0g YIOX MINT ‘Areurtid ye popoja oie 903}1UT -u109 A}UNOD Jo sIOqWMI9TAT Aosiop MON st ss SRS SS Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 240 ‘9}JOA OF ysta Ady} Woy Joj uosied aq} jo SOUIvU 9} Ul 9PM S19}0A ‘poy oie Ayeut | ouou jt 10 ‘sysanb -ud ye pepoq | -o1 jo sung Ag "So ‘Areut | -yoa Aq YoT[eq uo -id je pepo | w9z1IM ore someN pepo MOP poeyVUIMION, MOF] ‘Areuntid ye po -pele si UvUIMeYD ‘puroeid sorysnfl IO SUI}OA YoRa WOdJ Joquioul 9uG) *youtoeid yore Woy UeUT -99} }IUIMIOD 9UGQ) *pieM JO diysuMo} yoo Ul peziaesio oq Avur Sqn[od e10U 10 UG) jo S}SISuO’) Vd} }TUIMIOT) POULDIIg Oaewe se ret aly ones ve} IUIMIOY ay} Aq pepely—siooyjo “UBULITBYD pues SIIq -Uloul INOj ‘pre ou J] ‘pred ora Io} Joquieur 9u0 pus uevurneyo Ay) jo S}SIsuos) vo}}IUIMIOD AWD SGGLLINWOD) ALUVG ‘saqo0A Aq pepee uvoIeYyy JamMsealy, £1€49109G ‘g0}}TuIUI00 £4 -unoo Aq pure s30 “Yo sanesisoy pue Ajyunoo 0} soyeptpueo Aq po aes SE SI0TJO 19y30 pue usulrey) so} TMIUIOD vq} Aq pe}e[q—_S1209O *Areuid 94} ¥8 payere ‘AjyUNOO UI youtoeid dorysnf Jo Zurj}0A yovsd WOlj Jequioul 9uGQ) SVX9], s9Ssouula T, “Areutid 197 je ‘Aepsony, YyMoj sysop “AyUNOD aq} Jo syoutoeid [B1eAes 9q} WOI poze 9 W9UI9}}IUIUIOD 37, BIOYeC] YINog *AyUNOd oy} UI qnyo yows UlOly a}yesajep sug euljorey qos eruva[Asuuog JO S}sIsuo7) so} }UIMIOD AyUNO|D 241 Digest oF PRIMARY ELECTION LAws *AIVUL -ud ye pepo] ‘Areul -ud ye pepoly oe eee enne ‘930A Aqied jo %OL %E Aq peusis ony -od Aq poeyeurmou oie sayepipueo ‘ssvpo ysig jo Ay SUIAvY SoT}UNOD Ul ‘sia}0A Aq Ur Ud}}IIM 1B SOUIe NY "Soule ot} Ul OPIM sI9J0A «26 ae oO ew | “paw qyovd WO} pozo9]9 SI UweUl9e}}1UIUI0O ouo Tory UI “sseyo ysig jo Ayo @ Bul -UIv}U0D =sar}UN0D ut ydaoxe yourveid yovs Woy ueUl -99}}TUIUOD 9G) ‘solreurtid 24} 78 pooja yours -oid yore 10} ueu -99}} 1MIM09 ou Be) oO @) Qu tey ca se a Coe s © 64 dw ‘S19OIJO Aressao0u Jay}0 pue ueuldey) *Areurtid Joye s£ep OT W227 “AYO oq} Woy poy9]2 WetI90} -jIUIUIOD pres pue qoutoeid [B1aAes aq} jo sysIsuod ‘poyeusisop JOU $90}}1MIMMIOD [edro1u “NUL SUIPII[ES JO JoOUULM pu [BUUOSIOg Ge! ay S's (@ ce 6 ‘suorqaye ped -IDIUNUL 78 popojy *yuetpodxa tusep Avy} se UOT} -BZIUBZIO YONS oJ -Jo ABU UMO} Goa Ul Sioquiem Aye g JOINSBOL], *£yuN09 AreyDeg | 94} JO UeUII07}TUIUIOD ueueyy | youtloeid ay} Jo sysisuos UISUOOST AA ‘Areuatid ay} 42 poyoya ‘pie Fos WOI] Joqurour [VuoI}yIppe euo uasoyo’ SI d104} BIOUL 10 OOO‘OE AxBYINBG | JO SoI}O JO asvo oy} Ut JoIMsvely, | PUv “JoIIYSIP [eIJoysiseUT uvulieyy | Yove UlOIj SIoquIOUI OAL T, BIULSITA S94 “Areuttid J9yye Aepin -yeS puooes syoopy “AY -UNOd 94} JO UsuUII0}}1UI “woo yueid sy} [[V TOPSUIYSe AA € e066. 6 © *“MOTJUIAUOD 9784S ye vovid sayez UOT ‘90}}1UTUIOD AyUNOD ® pop AyuNoD yYova Woly ssouTmou AjIeg JUOULIO A eee ee wee eee a MS ee oer eee wees 44) 17 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 242 “WOT}UIAUOD 9}B}S 9} ‘paw 0} Soyesa[ap Vsooyo pur AyD yore =woly uoryusAUOD A}UNOD 9} OM} puv JouTO ‘sqyromty Ay10 UIqyM se Avy, ul Avpsony, sig “Arvur -oid yore Jo} uvut AIVYVINIG SUIPISOI UIM90} Areyaioag | yoour ‘Ajyun0d jo ue tite Ih po joo|ip 4 -39}}IUIUI0D JUG, ueuneyy) | -ymMUI0D yuTDIIg ueulleyD) | -90}}TUTUIOD youTDeId [TV Surulod AA —_e eee — — SO S | | Of eay}IUMMO,) oy} Aq Jo sysisu0g so}IUIMIOZ oq} Aq pepo MOFT per el N er JO S}SISUO;) pay}2a[{—s129T7 p2}9;7q7—S190 JO jo Systsuod so}HIMIMIOD JOULDeIg soyquMIOD) AUD vo}}1uAMI0D AyUNOD SGaGLLINWOYD) ALYV RAS » ui ' 3 04] * v He we iy i Gv! ‘ u it! th My y € y Wii ee At vt Spine § Cohan MPM Rm WINN yy AV it Ae a : Why, uD A TAG AR a ae ea aA Aas ae 4 yer an, } wil et eet Ame SER LA GUAM GES Ally 4. = t A +4 j ai aN ty | oy " 4 4H ly ty a) : ; { ' 4 ) Vay “| A‘ " f / ( r ' \ An i dl) oa Le 1% i my - ty yi) itt y Wy { rity f re Hy ) I i "Ne » fa) f ‘ a) eee or i) ey 4 fi i" He A 1. im | da i ts haf , i A uae } ih WA y rh ay i} , Oe rl Ae Ca ie any ae Per ke CRO AR) PU Ra a | Tf a De A ag LE SNR A NR) " ' sy ive fs a ie ay ' ) ¥ My i oy i iy bail , A} ' i aca Bib 2 LoVe ihe ; Pea WT ene Oa Oe ae a. ” . } | Oa bean i rig Oh A as | Naar ¥ «1 hel 7 iat , { " 4! i ff i ae My wil r Le i , my) fe) a Wh Nei) A aN Le) y ele )) (ak TD Se ; Nee, i ee an a WT RL Rt bald } yd Ue ae a at a 1 AN Wah PRe pA ARUN | JO EE EE AS Tt a Uy . ‘ i , Ay ea maa OD Oe a Ey PP fea nd Ai) ea | ih { ; N \ ae’! bs fil j } in 4 i f ay i ( it ‘ wtih, Wy, hy i | : | vy Wai! bt ; | ‘ Ta ul? UF | tg he fal yi i ; i) Pat ry, Ney ( ait AU A RC a Hach MARC AEN Ae Maik, sy TW : } ey Pigt Vibes july be ADP | j | } vie j it | :) . 4h yy Ler me ‘ih hh ; if vat : il | st Ve ih / j i { i é Bs Alb ie ( ia Md i ‘ i} Mh 1 ‘ oh esi) d . ” y Ms OV ay ae. i nN th j mt aif iy all > a | y Py fia is } PF bd in TA! Nh rh af p by i iW Lh vi } ae iy | i : - ie 1 ; j aif a “] BN | hen | Lie ht hae " { , : nay Wi Wi 4 le eid ii emis ' Ue ‘ai f yy \ cy i M ‘ i 4 Wy a { i) f , a Vio >. ep i | : ARR } Bs rd I | ' AR ery ‘i M } + My ntl i, Ck Be DY et URN cael TY eee ee eee Ales CLAP MLAROOR OE A Ue a wt ial a at | | es My rey yao li j ni me! iz ' ed ij | righ! jie Aol ts : oa ae ' moh i f ' ar | y ay ao aa al an BM Ane WANT ORs mR man DUE) ‘ ; igh Yor’ abby) yt i} _ as ra. ya ease peetee Se ) i \ * { eat Wy mt : Vala Vortale hl re it “yh! HAR Ln \ “ ip) i / Lye | ‘ f NN hi ie Lie mi iM va "ULHRA Aad We : ‘ lwinght ae uN i VF i, , | a) Mn i b a aun a hie t 244, Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY *SUOISTA oe 0 6 ee bic . On Be eee ay aa, Oh 218 enemies is eee ereeee Ais «60 #6 658 -oid ogtoods ON oeeeeeee BpHoly ‘wdIO;}v[d B soyEMNUIOJ pur Jaquio}deg ur Aepsony, YANO} oY} UO syooUI PI ‘s.10}eUaS I2A0-pjoy oy} pue UeUMITeYO 93e}8 94} ‘oINyeISIZ9] 94} IO} pUv DOJO 9}¥}S IO} So}yepIpUvd oY} JO S}SISUOD MOT}UIAMOD 9384S 9], eeeceveveeeeve ope10[ogd ‘ArvuTtId VY} 7B Popo]o ov PU 9INZVISISI] OY} JO SIOQUIOU S¥ BUIVS JY} PI}VUIMIOU o1B Soyesapeq] *JII}SIp Fons WO] 9}VSI[op B So}VUIMIOU JO}eUNS JOAO-pjoy ou Suraey Ajred vyJ, ‘S10JeIe [VI}Ueptseid 10} soyepIpuvd so}eUu “TOU (g¢) PUB SJII]SIP [VUOISSAIFUOD YORI WOIJ SIOQUIIUT dA} YSvI| 7B JO SUTISISUOD ‘99}}TUIUIOD [B1}UIO 9383S ‘Arevntid | B spoofs (%) ‘us0jye[d v sozes;nutoid ([) UOTyWeAUOD sy, ‘JoyeUes JaAO-pjoy ve Aq poyueseider jou YorIsIp Joye Joquieydeg | [el1o}eUes Yous WOI] o]VSo[Op 9UO PUL S1O}VUIS JOAO-pjoy ‘A[QUIaSs¥ [BJOUES Jo SJoqUIoUL “JUapUdsyUTJedns 9783s ur Avpsony, paryy, | puv sospnf{ ydooxe seoyjo o}v4s ‘ssoisuoy Joy Ajred Yors Jo sayeprpuvd oY} JO S}SISUOD UOIJUIAUOD 9}¥}S BT], ag ah ee BIUIOJITBD our} Auv 78 Joy}e90} poj[vo oq Avul puv sivad % IO} 9oU4SIx9 UI SUIBUOI Jounoo Ajred oy], ‘“Wasojz}e]d & oye~NUIIOJ pue ‘pjoy st Areurtid oy} YOrYA UT YJUOUL oY} Jo Avpuoy ysv[ 9y} SuIMo]joy Avpson y, uo yoour Ady} ‘UstIMeYo AJUNOD [VIOAVS BY} PUB 99}}TUIMIOD 9}¥4S OY} JO 99}}TWUIOD VAT]NOVXO PUL UBULMeYD oY} “Uaute9}}UIUIOD [VUorjeU oy} ‘oINzRISIZ9] OY} JO SIoqUIOUL ‘Sedo 9}e4S ‘ssaIFUOD ‘10}VUDS *G *() IO} So}epIpud 9} Jo s}sIsuod [loUNOD Ayred ayy, | BuoZzily AreULLIg aT, Mo : ote. er ses ae AIeUILIg d10Jaq : GUN LE, ussoyy) MOFT ARNO YAH steq. ‘uoreaey | poyeurmoyy moze | POR FAMAOD ONt ag WOI}UsA OZ) WWOIy JOQUIN AY -oa(y yeuosieg pape2[y—_s.10 YO jo ojeq eth othad EESTI soyesofoq dd} TUIMIOD PULL NOLLNHANO) BLVLS GALLINNOD ALUVG 245 “SOUT] YUR][G UO UI U9z}TIM aie JO YorTTeq oY} UO posed pu sieyxor}s Uo pozutid oie WoT}WIAUOD A}UNOD oq} 0} 9}VSa[9p JOJ SoyeprIpuvo JO SOUVU OYJ, *JOL}SIP [eUOISSeAJUOD YORE WIOIj JoqUIOU UO UY} SSO] JOU JO 99}}TUIUIOD [¥.1]USd 9783S B S}OI[9 Puv 4.N0D suTeIdng aq} jo espn Joj soyeprpuvo soyeuroOU ‘UIIO;e[d 93e3s B sydope ‘ArvutId oY} 7 930A VY} Jo %¢g poatoood Ssvy oyepipuvo ou UsyAL Q0IJO IO} SoyepIpuvo soyeUIMOU YY ‘“SUOT}UaAUOD AyUNOD oy} Aq Uasoyp So}edo[ap 94}. JO S}SISUCD PUB UOT}UeATOD AJUNOD 94} Jazze Aepsoupaa YG 94} Wey} J9}ze] Jou ysIy oy} Wey} Joes JOU Pay SI UorJWeAUOD 0}¥}s oY, “wWI0J}e[d v ydope osje AvuT pue “svo 9}0A OY} Jo % cg poatoooi Jou sey Areutid oy} 3e o}epipuvo B MAYA odLJO JO} SUOT}VUIMIOU OYRUI SUOTJUSAUOD YONG “UoT}UIATOD Ayunod oy} s9}ye AvpsMy], YG oy} wey} 1972] Jou sy oy} ULYy} Joipive you AyUNOD auO UeY} B1OUI jo pesoduod s}oLNsip [euors -~so13u00 pure [elorpnl ‘fe10}euUes UI Ppey 9q osTe Av sUOI}UaAUOD *A}UNOD 9UO UeY} BOUT Jo pasoduiod 99}}IUIUIOD S}OII}SIpP [BUOIS ~saisuoo pur [etorpnt ‘fetojyeUes ay} JO JaqWOUL B PU SUOTJUIAUOD JLI]SIP PUB 0}e}S JY} 0} Sd}eSa[ep Spe[es pu ‘ospnl JoLNsIp J0j osye ‘Aivurtid oy} UI 230A 94} Jo % cg poatooas aoyo Aue JO} So}epIpuvd OU UOYA VdIYO IO} So}yepIpULd SoyeUIMIOU UOTyUaATOD AJUNOD ayy, ‘AyUNod 9y} Jo spouted [esrsAes oY} Wor Areutid oY} 3 poye|2 Sozesapep jo sysisuod pue Areumtid oy} Jaze Aepinzeg YIM} oy} UO Ppey st UoryMeATOD AjUNOD oY, “WOr}USATOD 9783s pu ‘Ap “JoLNsIp ‘AyuNOo v “pjey suoT}uaAUOD Ayred MOJ Iv VIO], oes ee wee Diaest oF Primary ELEection Laws BMOT ‘Arveurtid 910] (‘sons Aq poxtq) -aq SAP 0S 1S¥B2] S190TJO J9YIO ye Po[y ‘S.19}0A Jomsvoly, *Areullid Jaye *SIOUO1} *Areur *SIDJOA Ay1ed OT sed] A18Y9INIG sfep OST UUM -1yod [eusug | ‘sep ol yseopzy | -d ye popopy | OOF yore Joyaug | ‘sXkep OJ ysve[ FV | 38 Jo uorpyed Ag ueuleyy BuvIpUy *AreUL -1id pudy 0qye i uo} Avpuoyq 381g 10} -uaAuo0d AyuNOD -ye Avpigy Prion gS bees De ge eee 2 ie Raa ed oe fq PSRs | ee sere re a ee ee ° Stour] ‘oyeys oy} Aq pred st UOTJUSAUOD 9}¥}S JY} 0} So}VSo[ap JO oI] PvOIIVyY *9}0A 0} pa[}}Ue o1e pepoYe JusSIp oy} Wo] soyeSojop oy} ATWO USUIssoIsU0D FUI}VUTMIOU UT ‘S1O}EUVS *G ‘f) PUB SLOP [eI}UAp -Isoid ‘sio0qJo 9384s ‘ssoIdu0d IO} So}epIpuvd soyvUTMIOU pue UoO;}e[d & s}dope UOI}UeATOD aT, “peyoies OS Sd}VSIJ9p 9Y} JO S}SISUOD UOTJUZAUOD 93¥}S OYJ, “JSVd S9}JOA OOF YORs JO} [BUOI}Ippe 9UO pus UOT}UeATOD 9784S IY} 0} B}eZa[ap uO ysvo] }e 0} PoT}tyUe st AyUNOD YORy ‘wao0s}v{d Ayunoo vw ydope Av pue ‘90}}TUT -U109 [B1}UID 9784S OY} JO JoqUIOUL B PUB UOIJUIAUOD 9}¥}S JY} 0} Sd}eSI[IP S}JOoTVS UOI}UIAMOD OY, “Ul910q} $o}0A rIendod Og yore JOj [eUOT}IPpe OUO PUR 9}eF9[9P 9UO 0} Po[}I}UE SI yoULDeId yoey *Areurtid oY} SUTMOTI[OJ ysn3ny jo Aepsony, pay} oy} uo poy st ‘Areurtid 94} 7e pooja Sazyesajep Jo pesoduiod ‘uoryUeAToD AyUNOD YW *Areuntid Joye ysnsny jo Aepsony, qjno7 Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 246 “UOT}II9 [V19Ues 0} Jo1d syaoM ‘Arewtid ‘99}}TUIUIOD ¢ ueyy J978] JON “Lact SRC gale Meus GLb eee state, eeare ye pepo 2723S &q poxty ere chore tere oe OE) Rot OE cSrretcncte eC Re eT) ye eretene pueAreyy -Areurtid ‘dOI}eyUIS a1ojoq sAep -o1dai Jo siseq 06 Wey} o10ur JOU oY} SOUIUIO}Op 09 Wey} ssot ION in Se go = Aa oe ie, ee ee ne ee alee 99} }1UTWIOD 9781g Seed eee ae ee! Re ell re epee : . oule yy a 10) Bay) aiojoq sep 0ST iediaialpimasioNts er 32th |e ate eae ee ee eS Fe git ce one We EN el Boe na euvisInoy . ‘oult} AUB 7e Po][vo oq Avut [unos Ayred oy} Jo ssurjsey ‘[lounods Ajred oy} Jo yBouuMolpe oY} SutMoT[oy Avp oy} Jo uooUIE}e oY} Jo “Areutid | Yoo[9,.0 9 UvY} 1078] JOU o1[qnd speu oq ysnuI UJOF}e[d oy, = “sseUIsnq Joyo JowsuRIy pu “UIs]qQUIO Ue JOaTIS pu SUIMOT[OJ Jsnsny | Wo; e[d ev oye~nutIo; AoYT, “UoutMVeYyo AyUNOD oY} PUL oM}zEISIZa] JO SIoqUIOUI ‘si0}VUAS J9A0-pjoy ‘UeuUIIe}}TUI ur Avpsany, Se] | -Wod [eUOT}eU oY} ‘Sso1sUOD ‘10}CUIAS “Gg *—] ‘SADTJO 934s 40} SoyepIpuvo Ayred aq} Jo S}sisuod [IOUNOD AzAed oy, a Saas sesuvy pay Moxy Areulig —sorouvoe A S10 SEBCL JC £ AIVUILIg V10Joq ; ase CALL ere LEE F uasoy) MOF pial edie skeq ‘uoryerey | poyeurmon mop | P°HETATOD at jo o3eq hie See at soyeso[oq 9d} }TUIMOT) YUIDIIT NOILNAANOD ALVLS : WALLINNOD) ALUVG Q47 Diacest oF Primary Evection Laws ‘oueyy ur sAep L ye] sung “Areutid Joye Shep OF WITHA ‘salreurtid Ja} Je SYVOM Z uey} Joye] Jou | UBy} JoljIva JON ee Fe ew 6% <8, 6.10) (6) 81 ow ars 29, ¢ @6-< eRe e 2 ee 0 ere ver ea ee) Te 6 cw ence e) ® *suor} _-esojep Ayunoo £q peqe]9G “u0r} -usAuoo AjyUNOD Aq popela *Aveu11d ye popo[q *Areul -uid ye popoiy "SOAT} -ejuasoidey jo asNOP{ IY} Jo sioq -WI9UL SB So} B38 -ajep jo Jaq -WUNU 9Y} 9OIA\} sey AJUNOD YoRy “SOUTULIO}OP 994 -JIUIWOD [eryUAZD 9381S sev ‘I0UIO -AOS IO} 9}0A UO -dn poseq soyes id pl i erat es puv AjuN09 yoo WO s5IvT 4e Soyesojep oI], "2381S jo A1eyo109G IO} 4S¥d SoqJOA ay} 0} surIps0o “08 99}}TUIUIOD [etqUaD 9721S &q pouorsoddy "UMO} IO pxvA YORI IOJ 2U0 UL} Sso] OU ye 994} 1UIU00 eyejs Aq poxyg SI UOTJUIAUOD oyeys 0} soqes -9[ep jo JaquinN *suor} -U9ATOD 9383 -ajop Ayunoo Ag CNS, --$)0 220, “9-010 ST.e- el B10 e ee ee ee ae o g te oe eee ere See ere en ee ee = ee ee Oe ee ee ‘aojo UI S}UsqUINdUI oY} P[Py St Uorye[9 ou usyM sive Ul JO ssoutmou AjyIed [[@ ‘Stoyeues “SG *—-) 9Y} ‘90}}TUTUIOD 9}e4s oY} JO sioquioul oy} ‘AIeUr -11d 9Y} 38 poyo]a soyesojap oq} JO S}SISUOD UOT}UGAUOD 9}¥}S OT], oC eee poe iddississtj B}OSOUUITT UBSTYTAL @ Ue) 6°. Ane 2 s}jesnyprsse yl Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 248 *SUOIJUSAUOZ [euoTeN 0} SozVse[ep Spoje pue ‘AjUNOD Yove WOIJ Jaquet 9UO 4Sva] }¥ Jo ‘90}}TUIMIOD [vI}UIO 9}e}8 B S}o]o pu UIIOJ -yeid v sydope ‘oung jo Aepsony, YANOJ 94} UO SJOU UOTUSAUOD o}e}s VYJ, “WOT}WIAUOD 9}%}8 94} 0} 9}eZeTep 9U0 ySvo] JV OF Po[}tqUs st AyUNOD YOR “yuTsId yore WoOIJ sioquUIDUI 9914} 0} DUO WOT] JO S}SISUOD 90}}1UIUIOD Ayano oy, “Usosyv]d Ayunoo v ydope Avul pus ‘90}}1UIUIOD AyUNOD oY} Jo SJoqUIDUI 9Y} S}OITo puw TOTUEATOD "PpeYy St WorZOej9 | 07¥}S VY} 0} S9}eSaTap S}Oo[9 UOTyWeAUOD AJUNOD VyT, “UOt}UaAUOD A}UNOD oY} 0} SoyBFaTap Yo] 0} JOUIDeId Youa [eieued YOIyM UI | Ul Pley St Surjoour ssvul v “MOI}UaAUOD A]UNOD aq} a1OJoq SXvp oAT ‘9}BSaTop UO ys¥OT }e Sey yoUIDeId Yova pu sivaf Jo vung Ul | “youTOeId YOVe IO} SojJOA YG JO} BYVSa[Op 9UO 0} $9}0A ¢ YO JO} 9}eSo[ep 9UO WO] SasUvI WOTYWATOD 94} 0} Sayed Aepsony, YWnoy | -ojep jo Joquinu oyy, ‘oung ut Aepsany, puooes ay} Uo IvaA paJoquINU-UaAs Yoo ppoy oe suOT}UIAUOD AyUNO*) ‘UOTJUSAUOD A}UNOD oY} 0} SoESa[ep Joo[es 0} JouIDe1d Yoe UI snonvo v SI dJOY} “UOT}UDAUOD AJUNOD 94} Q10JOq Yooh oUO ‘sivah OAK} AIAG “WOTJWIAUOD 9748 9Y} 0} So}eSa[ep pUL 9977IMUUIOD [vI}UeD AJUNOD B soofes pue ‘AreuItId ay} V1OJoq syooM xis ‘Aepsany, uo PPYy ere suorjMeATOD AJUNOD sy, ‘SuOIJUSAMOD AJUNOD oY} Aq Uasoyd sayesajap JO S}SISUOD UOTJUIAMOD 97"4S OY], “WOryWeAUOD [VUOTIEN Bq} 0} SozVSoTop Jo[os pu 99}]TUIUTOD [BIJUVd 9784s B JeTes ‘UIIOJ}e[d B ydope oj ‘ArevutId oq} eJOJaq syo0M oA ‘Aepsony, uo PPY St UorJUsAUOD 9}e3s BY, “Stee posoquInU-UeAs UI sIvak OA} AJOAO P[PY WOIZUIAUOD 9}e}s B PUB TOTJUIAMOD AjUNOD ¥ SI OIOTT, "UVULMVYD 93838 B 40919 pue wuoj}e[d & ydope puv ‘uordeale oy} Surpoooid ‘g] Joquieydeg Uey} Joye] JOU JooTAT *90}} TUITION [vI}UEO 9784S 94} JO sIOquIoUI 9} PUB SIOJVUIS JBAO-P[OY PU dINYLISISI] ‘sSeIsUOD ‘IOYUEAS “G “—) ‘BdTJO 9}v]S JO} SoyepIpULd 9} JO S}SISUOD UOIJUIAUOD 94838 OUT, ‘uorydope sz SuIMO[[o} AVP oY} JO “Wd g ULY} JozL] JOU o1[Gqnd epeU st UOT}UeAUOD oy} Aq poweIj WIO}eI[d syT, ‘saAIze}UESeIdeI puv s10zeUeS 9}EYS “UOUUSSIISUOD ‘BDO 9}¥}S IO} SOOUIMIOU oY} PUL 99}}IUIUIOD [V1}UAO 9}¥}S OY} JO SIOQUIDUT JY} JO S}SISUOD UOIJUSAMOD 93¥}S OT], Areuig TIT Ao eet as07eq SAucq JO c Areultig a10joq requnN—euny, | uasoyy oxy WMD PPA | skeq -uoreaey | poyeurmon Mozy WOTyUIAWOs) mo PION | -5aq jeuosieg jo ayeq i laces en AI $9} B39/0q NOILLNAANOS) GZLVLIS 6.0 6 6 6 0's BPRAIN © Se) wwe) ee oe eee eee aos 6 6 Caw TLINOSSTIAT do} }IUIMIOT) 94} Aq p2}~2/q]—S190 JO Vo} IWIWIOT) JOULDIIg FALLINWOD) ALUVY 249 Digest oF Primary EvEctTiIon Laws Cee ee ee ‘90}}TUIUIOD 9784S Aq pourutieyoq ‘UOTJOO[a [VIOUS eq} Surpsooid Aevpsony, YyWIAIG ‘Iaqopg jo Aepsony, ysuy oq} Uey} Joiea Jou AreUr -11d SUIMOTIOJ 10q -uiaydag jo Aep Sine A og Salta uvy} Joljiea JON Pe eh ee oe SO 0) 8° 9) Ss “yun sures toi} Juesoid sayesarep Aq peypees uosiod B JO ‘So}BUI9} -[@ peytyeo Ag Cie eee ee ove eee ee €, Bi 6c te © te be Ss. eS ee Oe ee *AreUL -id ye popo[y ore ee eee *Areuotid [ey Ie peporgy 90} 101 -WI0d 9384S oT} Aq pouorsoddy "O}OA 94R1S [e}O} 94} 0} Savoq 4O1I}SIp A|quiosse oq} Ul JOUIBAOS IJ ySvo SdJOA oY} YorjM O1j7e1 94} JIM souURp109 -O8 Ul SI SojEs -9[ep Jo JoquinNy "907 TUIUL0D ayeys AQ poxly *soyesafop o78}S pue SdAT} -eyuasoidal ‘s10} -BUdS 9}e1S ‘SIO -[ouno0d =‘10UIa -A0S Jo s0qj0 IO} SOOUTUION 1-0 0 e668 ‘sep 09 eee eevee my ao ee ek Ts =. « 6s i. 6 “mOT] RI -Bpep [euosiog *"SID]OA 0¢6 jo orp} oMmO euIjore, YON YIOX MON Aosiof MON onysdurepy MONT Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 250 ‘Iva poleq -UInU-ppo yove jo Jaquisoeq] ut Avpsony, sq “ABIL UI AepsoupoM Parga uo ievaf uor}eIe [etoues AIIAY C2 054 0 6s 0 a i ——— —EE WOI}USAUOD jo o1"q oe eee eee *99}} 1UIUI09 [eajuso §=A}UNOD oq} jo JO 90} -}UIUIOD [B1}U0 aye}S JO 9}0A Ayiofeut ‘9077100 -ui00 tesodoid eeeereevee jo uvumeyo Ag ‘shep 0¢ *90}} 11 -M09 9384S kg Sigs 2 18 6.8.6 [lq Mo Sport Portal “OH a1ojoq skeq jo —So10Uvdv A , Joaquin \}— oul J, S[RPMBIPT ITAA ‘AIq -UIISSY [B1oua+) oY} Ul S1oquioul Ss} Jo Joequinu oq} 9qnodg oer eee eee Cpe aes Ob ee CO ere) emia ole Ayunog yqoeq seed Bod 2 TWOI} JOQUIN Ny so}esa[oq NOILNGANOY) ALVIS eee e eevee oe eee eee ose ee eee ate. tere) Sar ws AIvUIIg a10Joq skeq ‘UoryeIR] -daq [euosiIag 0-0. 4.4) a, 66-0 *SuOT} -usAuo0o A}UNOD Aq pepo poyeurMION MOF] @'O. 6.01.0. ¢ rR Jessa y, ereeevevee ejoyxeq YyyNoG s1oT1O DATINIOXG UOl}BIYSIZOY $99} }1UIUIO/) JomMsealy, A£1€49199G JUSPISA1J-901 A, quopIsolg euljorey Y Nos e1ueA[Asuuog 99}}1UIWIO*) Yq} Aq peq2/7J—S100 JO do}MIMIOD JOULDIIG HaLLINAOY) ALYV 251 Digest oF Primary EvEection LAws “Avy Ur Aepuoyy puovag “ysnsny jo Aep YI¢L pue ys Us9M YO ‘reoA [eI}Uep -isoid yovo Avy Ul YooM Psy} pue ‘sivaf UaAd UI Jaq -0P—Q ul Avpsony, SI 910Joq 10 UG ‘ysnsny ut Aepin -yeS YMNo}j J9}e Aepuoyy puooes Joye epson y, $99} ~yrurm02 AyUNOD Aq popoq ayeys AQ poxly *99}} TUIUIOD oecereeeee eoeeeeeee "S10}09]2 [VIJUSpIsaid yOojo pue ‘ULUITILYD 9}¥}4S B PUB JOLI]SIP [VUOISSIIsU0D YORE WOI} SIOGUIBUL OM} 4SVO] 7B JO 99}}IUITIOD [VIJUDD 93¥js B YOO ‘UIIOJ}e[d @ ydope 0} o1e SoljNp s}]T ‘sJoquiajdeg Jo Aepsony, psy} UO SOU FI f9IN}RISIS9] IY} IO} SoyepIpuvd PUP SIO}VUOS JOAO-P[OY ‘dO 94%}S JO] SoyepIPULD 9} JO SSISUOD UOIJUSAUOD 9}¥4S IIT, oe ee eo eee oeee ee ee oe ee we eee oer ere eevee coer ee eee “SUOTJUDA -uoo Ayunos AG ook ee Ce i ae eae 6 > 6 tere 6 8 ee. e ‘A[QUIOsse 9384S pus ‘sis0qJ0 AyuUnN0d pue 9704s Joy Ayied yoro FEI eam ke et es eee TN ee er Wer par oe jo SIODUTULO NT ‘£JUNOD UT JOUIS -AOS JO} So}JOA 00S YoRe IOJ UG oeew eee ee a ee ee eee eree Surar0d AA UISMOOST AA. eeerveevee BIUISITA ISOM UWOPSUIYSB AA oeow ee eee JUOULIO A eeeeeveee e310 *si0j0A Aq pepespa + ueuUlneyD Sexo], Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 252 "MOIs{AOId ON i Cha UO Ul Us}}IM oq ABU souleN ‘poy wade g “poy lao g JOT[V WO sourepyy UT SUTIN ‘solreuiid [etoods i0y veqyrIUI0D § AyIed Aq pesieyo st 903 ON ‘o}epIp -Uvd 94} Jo Arv[es [enuue oq} UO yUeUIssasse [euOIyIppe %% Lag] Aveul svo}}wUI0D AyIeg ‘s0qjo oy} 0} poyor}}e uoryesuedu0s ou SI alay} JI posmnber st 9aj ou pue ‘a0qjo oy} Jo Areyes enu -ue aq} Jo %¢ Jo vaj Surg v Aed 0} peimbai st oyepipueo yord ‘posmbod su0N ‘009$ Poes0xe Jou ssop uor}esueduI0s sieyYM SJooqjo [ed -Io1TUNUT 10 diqsuMo} OJ JO UoT}es -uedu0d pexy OU SI 9104} doy Jo soweunid Aepy ur parmb -91 SI 99} SUIT ON ‘OT ‘St00TFO Ayo pue sisoqjo Ayunoo ‘ain} -B[SISI] JO SIOQUIOUM Ess ‘sIooqJO PLjsip puwe UsUISseIsU0D ‘ocg ‘S10}BUIS “S "(] PUL SIBDTJO 23e1S ‘pormboi suoN S907 SUT ‘UOTJUIAUOD Aq po}e[NULIO,, ‘u0T} -usAuoo Aq poyesinwMolg ‘UOTJUIAUOD Aq poulely U1IO}} VI NOILNGANOY) ALVLG 4S, 232s (6.8) 2, 1s ‘S1OPIIo [eIJUOpPIsolg ‘S1OP]o [BIJUSpIsalg 4q uasoyy sozepipury UWOI}UIAUOZD [e -U0I}EN 0} So} VSIPOC OpeJ0[O7) Aq uasoyy si001JO 253 ‘Q}VPIPULD B OJ 4SVO SBM ‘Areutid aq} 7 psye]a ore suo} Areurrid ye 930A Jo %cg -usauo0d A}UNOD 0} s9}eBS9]9q uvy} sso] Us so}epipuro ‘UI Uo}}IM oq AvuU souleN eS eRe ‘uorjueAuos Aq peydopy | sJoyjo pue sospnf{ outeidng | eMOT JOUIIAO4) S10]BUVS “S ‘() S10}09]2 9} BUI} V UOI}USAUOZ [eUuOT} N S1OJoI[P [VIJUNpIseig | -VN 0} soyeZopepozeU # ek See SS ‘paamber au0N "UOIJUSAUOD Aq powViy SIIOGJO 9}¥1G | -Jo}[e pue sozyeZopoq = otk AS | Z ° *$10}09]9 5. or Aq pousts ‘uorned &q pozeu < -IUIOU JIV WIUI99}}IMIMIOD [eILIO} i -BUds IO} SojyepIpury ‘sid0qjO by Aressaoou JoyjO pue ueuUIreyo > e syoja pue Areuid oy} 10}je si skep Q¢ UIQ}IM szoour yoryAs 4OLI}SIP oY} Jo saryuNod [esaAVs P4 = 94} woz Areurtad oy} 7% poyoayo B ‘sIaqUIeUl g JO ZUT{SISUOD ‘90}} TUL cH -U109 [VIIO}JEUIS B OS]V SI 9197, iS ‘Areunrtid oq} 7B poyoyo oie u0Ty © “U9AMOZ) [VUOT}BN 9} 0} Soqvs : saojsni} APISIOAIUL) an) -3pep oyeuloy[e pue soyesopq | "CC ‘uoruaAuos Aq poydopy SIOPIP [VIJUIpIsaig eee out S1O]JVUIS *S *{) *Amsvo1} A}VUNOD S1OPJo [VIyWOpIsag O}UI pleg ‘d}epripued sArzVISIS9] SIIOIJO 9381S dg SE Se “ IO} Sf pue Areyes s rv9k jo %1 ‘uoryusAu00 Aq poydopy UWeulssaisu07 gM hee gs od OSE Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 254 ‘UI Ud}}IIM oq AvUI Sou Ny JOT[VG WO soulVNy UT SUIzIIAA ‘papoye yun sq} Jo puny [esoues 9y} ojur pred aie saagq *Ayaed Aq pey92 [09 aq Avur sasuodxa uo0ry ~da[9 ABIJap 0} SaojJ [VUOTTIPpY "Ig “Ono parva 6Q0'Gg ‘sis0qJO ystied 10 .YLIsSIP {OOTP ‘s190 “gO JI}sIp pue SIZDIJO 93% *Aq10 1o AjuNod ‘a}"}s Jo puny [eis -U95 0} PoPpodd 918 PIATII01 99,7 ‘Sar}o ssejo-parqy ‘aspnl so1jod ‘uotupiounes ‘IoABTAL :Sa0qyO diysuMo} J9qY}O JO} Og'g Jo say ‘90}sn1} drysuMO}y JO} [¢ Jo 99,7 ‘SIO]VUIS 9781S ‘SaI}o SSB[D-]SIQ UI UsW[IOUNOD IO I9MOISSTUIUIO’) : 10} OLY JO 997 *SOI}ID SSB[D-PUODIS ‘SIOTIOIS -STUIMOD IO UstpIOUNOD ‘VAT} -eyusseidal ‘ssoy 10 QOOTY jo Areyes YIM sooyjo A}UNO,D :SIOOIJO SUIMOT[OJ] IO} Gg Jo 9a *SOI}IO SSBO -puooss pue -ysig Jo sioAvUl “000‘I¢ JoAo Areyes YIM Saoqjo Ayanood *4.mM0d Yorrjstp Jo ospnl ‘sooo o}eys “10}eUas “GS ‘f) :S19OGJO SUIMOT[OJ Joy Areyes Siva auo0 Jo %T{ 0} [enba vaq seo] SUIT ‘ounoo Ayred Aq pouresy WI10}}e J NOILNGANOD) LVL Bite Ue fe" yeneiae op anne wae. 6 “« Coes. « ee Aq woesoy) So}yepipury é\-le- 4/0) 0.67 6 ene 8) euvIsmMoy oeoeeeevreees SVSUBY _ £q uasoyy si20JO 255 Diarst or Primary Exection Laws ‘u01} -U9AUOD 9}¥}S 0} Sa}eSa[ep Joyo suomueAuos Ajyunoy ‘Areud dq} 3 poposye o1¥ OJ} S9}RF -9[9p oq} pure ‘Areutid Jajye shep CT Pjey ere suoTyUsAUOD AyUNOD *‘poyqyiuised st soulvu UL SUITIIAA ‘SOUIVU Ul 9}IIM 0} poq}ULeg *AINS¥II} Ayia Jo AyUNOD OFUL pleg “404 -BUaS “S “1 JO} DOTS SOGg “NOD esulaidng jo sospn{ pue ‘osary] - }¥ - UsUIssaIsu0d ‘S10} BISTSO] pue siz0qjo o}ye}s fAyuNOD 90 A[UO UI JO} Po}JOA 9q 0} VITO 10} O1g ‘AjuNOD suo UeY} o10UL UI IO} P9}JOA 9q 0} BOGFO UB OF NZS ‘uor} ed & Jo noq UI Ivf Sut -paoeid Jo sooj puv Arvyes Jo %] 0} = Aed QQ0‘0ES IOAO Jo ssoqJo Ayunod Jo A} JO} sozyeprpuey "yO[[eq UO u9}}1IM aq AvUI sore Ny ‘payoya yun jo punj [eisues our pred ‘OLS Usq} ‘ssa_ JO OOSg st Areyes atoyM ydaoxe ‘ezg ‘oyeprpueo JIYO YORs O/B ‘sIVyJO 9716 ‘posmboa 9U0N ‘UOIJUIAUOD 9384S Aq poureiy wis10j}e[d 97e7¢9 "uoI}UIAUOD A}yUNOD Aq pemeviy wuoyeid Ayn) "m01y -udAuod o}ye}s Aq poydopy ‘uoryuaAuod Aq poydopy “‘uoryUIAUOD Aq poureLy uotUueAuoy) Ayeg [euory -BNl 0} odIR[-7e-so}eSI[0q SIOPo]o [VIyUOpIselg Joyeuas "CS" SIZOIJO 9321S SIZDIJO 9721S $10}09]9 [VIVUEpIselg S10}D9]2 [VIJUOpIsolg JoyeUas *S *) SIdDO 9}B4S Joq}0 [[V sjeoddy jo yn0d) YAIO JaT[orydu0y [v19u0x)-A0U10}} ¥ IOUIIAOS) eB} OSOUUTT S}josnyorsseyl ‘9324S 9] Io} Ayaed ay} Jo Apoq SUIUIZAOS O]} SPOTOS OS[@ UOTUIAUOD 9 T, “UOTJUSAUOY = [VUOT} -WN 0} = Soqesoafaq puepAreyy Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 256 ‘JUIPISIIG-solA PUB JUSPISoIg IO} SoJEpipuvd JO} poyMcg “WeT99}} 10 -M09 JO 9S¥O dy} UI poz}ULIeg ‘poyiuiiod soureu ur SUuTzIIAA JOT[VG UO SoMVAy UT SurzLIAA *sat}UNOd Jo puny [eioues OUI peuiMy ‘yqora O1¢ “4@3or} UestZAed-uoM UO S190 -IjO [[e@ fgg ‘sooujo AyD pue oAT} -Bsidoq ‘A}UNOD {OTS “ANd 4O1I} -sip jo sospn{ pure uourssoisu00 ‘sIZOJO 9}7¥ 1S [OG ‘IOyETIAS *S *—) eee ewe eevee ‘£JUNOD JO 9384s JO pun] [esos O}U! OS soyepIpuvo JUSpUSdepuUT io uest}ted-uou Aq pred soaq ‘usieduiwa jo sasuedxa Avy -op 0} 99}}TuIMI0D AyIed 04 pred soo} [Ty “Arepes Jo %z% ‘000‘00F jo saryid Ul Ssia0qjo AyD ‘og ‘suoresapep A}9 ‘OTS ‘000‘00T JO SaI}I9 UI SI90qJO AjzId fgg ‘soo -qjo Ayunod pur saarzejuosoido1 ayes [CZs ‘sloyeUes 9}e}s pue espn{ ymomo {Q¢g ‘ssoIsu0D Ul SdAT}eyUaseIdel ‘QOT¢ ‘sjeoddy jo yn0+4 espnl pure sis0qJ0 93e7¢ ‘sse}}urutoo Ay1ed Aq poxg aie Sa}epIpuvd posieyo sooq "m0r} -U9AU0D 38 poyRs[NMOIg ee ae ee eS ‘MOIyUaAUOD Aq poulely] a 8) ew We a c8), dw ‘UO1}UOA -U0D [BUOI}BNY 0} Soyesojoq FS, WYO nd, <0" Wy om S10}09]9 [VIWUOpIsa.g S1OPO]o [VIJUOpIseg UOT}UA -U072 [VUOT}BN 0} Sozesapaq 99} ]TULULOD BATINIOX 9321S oee een eeane vuvyUuoyL 99} THUD [BUOT}VU Jo SIOqUIZT SUOT}UIAUOZ) [BUOT} -WN 0} soqyesopod LIMOSSTJAL ae ak tek Te eee ee) STI ey sao SUNY W1IO}}VL J NOLLNGANOT) ALVIS Aq wasoyy seyeprpurs Aq uasoyy si00IfO 257 Dicest oF Primary Exectrion Laws —_———$$———— $$ .0_0O8# OOOO ‘po}jrudied st SoUIVU UT SUT “suOl} -dgjo jedimrunut ye pe} Mieg ore eee eeae ‘Ainseojy £}UNO0D pue 914s oyur aqedeg ‘1g ‘sieuorssrar -mi09 A}uUN0d puR ‘190.100 ‘10LDA -ims jda0xe ‘¢g ‘siooqjo A}UNOD ‘CR “1OPVUIS 33¥IS FO%P ‘soo -Igo 97e}s pur ‘Jorujsip [etorpnl , jo Joyoos “ymMo dy soWedng jo aspnl ‘ogg ‘soyjo [euOIsseisu0+ ee we! = 6 eae) Pee ‘Ig YAopD parvar ‘Tg “‘TOPVIepoUL [Tg “YSI] Yyooyo jo daostArodns ‘%g ‘aAr}e}Ues -aide1 ayes fog “asoqjo AyuNOD ‘OL ‘“toyeUSS o}BYs fegPy ‘10 -[lOUN0d [Ogg “UouUISsaIsUOD SOgg ‘s1ooqJO a}e}S SOOT ‘IOUIZAOX *Amsvod} Ayunod oy} O}UT pred soaj [[V ‘OI$ ‘teoqJo diysuMo} IO UMO}Y *GLg ‘usuA[qutasse ‘Og ‘S10}eUIS 9784S SOFR ‘srsoWJo AyUNOD f¢Lg ‘sI90qJO YU}SIP SOOT “Stoogzo o}e4s J9q}0 “OGTY “Wanog sue1d -ng jo sorsnf{ ‘1oulaAos ‘uoul -SsoIsu0d ‘Qgsge ‘IOyeUIS "GS ‘fy eee Se 6s 6 6 @ aw. 8 8 w Sew So ‘UOIJUIAUOD UI peydopy “UOIJUIAUOD Aq pourVsy, *S1OPOI]O [VIJUEpIsolg eoeereee reese BUI[OIBD YON yIoX MON Aosior MON oarysdurepy ANON BpvaoN 18 Toe ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 258 ‘uosied Aue jo curva uozWM oq Avu YOU Ul Sazeprpued Jo 4sI] Yove JO puso ye 39] 9q 0} soeds yuLlg_ ‘poy ude g ‘poy}uiied st soureu UI SUIPTIN JO[Vq WO SoueNY Ul SUTPTIA ‘OL$ Wey} ssaj you puv ‘Are[es sty jo %] sourmtou ay} ssas -se AvUL 99}} TMIMMIOD A}UNOD You ‘solansvod} AY -UN0d PUB a}e}S dq} OJUI ajqeAed *Ggg UuBy} o10Ul Jou ynq ‘soG -Jo Jo Areyes Jo %L Jo F[Vy-9ug *£insvo1} AYUNOD IO 94e}S 94} OJUT pred aie sooj [TV “SUOT}VUTUIOU pavAL IO} SY ‘asive] ye suoT}eUTMOU IO} Gg :sis0qJo [ediolmnu J0q : "$$ ‘saoqjo yrystp so AyuNOD JOq "S107 BUS ‘S ‘q jo poaumboar st 903 oN ‘Arepes penuus vy} Jo %] :sao -JO 2381S puv UsUsseisu0d JOJ soo SUIT] ‘AepSiny ]T, SULMOTI[OJ UO “Wd Yyoopo.o g URY} Jo}e, Jou peystyqnd pue Areurrd 194je Aepson J, puooas uo ‘svo}}1Ul -U109 VATJNIEXe PU [eI}UI Ayanod 94} jo uerwateyo oy} pue ‘so0}}IUIMIOD [e1} -U90 PUB BATNIIX9 94¥}S JO sioquiem ‘Ajquiesse [vioued jo Ssiequieul ‘ssoqjo 97¥%}s IO} Ssoyepipuvs Aq pouleay WIO}}VI J oe eee oe eos ee S10}D9]9 [VIJUapIsag a *SUOI}UOA -W0d [BUOI}VU 0} Sojesa[oq *s1opo]e [BIJUEpIsolg PSs Aq uasoyy soyeprpuey oe eee eee wo0z919) oe eee eee euloyeTyO e1OYRQ YVION Aq wasoyy S190 NOILNHANOD) GLVLG 259 Digest oF Primary Evecrion Laws ‘salinsvod} A}I0 puv AyuNod OF preg “[g ‘seoqjo qoulaig ‘sseoxa Aue Jo %] puv ‘UsUIId}}IMIMIOD | ‘pasiVyO SI OTF JO 92 & OOO'TS qouroead jo asvo a} ur poyqrorseg jo Areyes B ya So0TJO LOD BOP Bele 6: 40,8. eoeeeveeee @ 6 fi f ‘ ' : 73 A hy : if i ~ " a , 4 Wi i ‘ > 44 5 ) : th , ‘ ; SA: ‘ ft i /? ’ i) t ; .) x ih he Pe } ; i i), ‘ me dil ia mM) Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 262 -Areurtsd aq} a10jaq shep OL 90}}1uIMI09 Ajred 04} Ayjou ysnul syeprpuso ®@ 9q 0} Sullsep uosied Aue yng ‘permbeoi auoN ‘pormboi ou0N *pomnbol su0N suor}yog Sa}esoep Yo]o 0} poy st Arveuid @ Jf ‘90g -JO 10} Soyvprpuvo o}eu -TM10U 0} UOT}UaAUOD @ 0} SoazEsaJep ose ‘Jd0qJO BATPVIa Jaq}O Aue osje ‘sivoqjo Ayr) ssoqjo }momy ssorjo jedriorunyy seorgo diysumoy, saoyjzo AyuNOD SI0IJO JOIST, SIdTJO 34% sospne dIN}VRISIS9] JO SIOqUMIO, UWaUIssaIsU0d 1OJBUSS §9}B1S popup sao jo [ediorun yy sisoqjo AyUNOD SIZOYJO JOLISIG] SI9IGJO 3321S Aloyepueyl poyeUMMON s1V sozyeprpury YOY AA JO} sooWO ‘gorjou sadoid sais pue ‘prey oq [[eys Areur -id @ JoqjoyA sourUr -iajop Ajied oy} Jo Ay -1OYNe SUIMIZAOS IJ, ‘sooypiurutos Azred ay} Aq Ajjuoreddy *JOoIoy} So}Ou peysyqnd sass pue ‘ppey oq [eys Areurrid ve JoY}OYM Soplwop popo} ede OPA IRS SEO) -od JoyjoO JO “JorI\sIp ‘£JUNOD ‘9}8}S VY} JO 994 -~JIULULOD SATNIOXO OJ, uondg9 jo Uor}eIEpIq *JOII9T]} WOISTA -ipqns Auv JO 9}¥}s jo 930A Jo %OT suryseg *ATeUL -11d 91} Jo sasuodxo [|v Sed pure sjojjeq uso spt yurid ysnur yng “you oy} Jo Jasp [reav Avur syred poziuesio Auy ‘a}VIS Ul 9JOA Jo % cs Uv} I1OUL SUTISBD “£JUNOD UI 9}OA Jo % GS UVY} dou Surysvy) aqqvoyddy TMM OF seed AUVWING TVNOILdG ayeq ‘reo ouo Aue ut sep % uUvy} o10UL you uo soreunid ploy feu Ayred yoro pur ‘ = _ Wiss. St % ~~ BEG Fg: LOE | Sh oa A vi) en Ala wily bh S Ne evs We - Hy, % 5, Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 266 ‘so[NI UMO S}I YIM soURpI0O -08 UI oyeuTMoU Av ALE *‘popoye yun jo ve}4}1uTUI09 Ayred Lg *‘poqooye jun jo so}}TuItM0D Ayred Aq poly *‘UOI}JUIAMOD IO 997310 -mioo Ayred ‘Areuttid jeweds “ACUI -ud yereds Aq 10 popoye yun jo 9ve}}aIUI0D AyIeg Po “AOFT ‘UOISTAOId ON “SUOISIAOIC ON *SUOISIAOIC ON *SUOISTAOId ON Areullig a1ojag skeq jo saquinyyN—oury, SHIONVOVA YO SIVMVUCHIIA oeeereesr ere eeevnesee BIOL ILA ‘pasieyo si aaj & nq ‘pery oq Avut uoTHed @ jo nell Ul UorUezUI Jo uUOrRIepPIG Ayon UI eeeeereeee eee eee ees ®19.1005) *‘SUOISIAOIC ONT dIBMEII ‘SUOISTAOIC ON sesuvyIy ‘Areutd a10joq skep ¢[ Sayeprpuvo AyuNOd |[e saygI7.100 ueusreys AyuNOd fAreutid 0} sold skep 03 ‘SeoWfo yOLIjsIp puv 9}e}S JO} sozep -Ipuvo Ayred [[e Sayiyie0 WeULITeYo 97%4¢ eUleqe[V SHLVGIGNV() AO NOLLVOIMILAA) ee ee ee ee ee eee ee eee a. eeeoeoeoee—S—Soo — > ee SS ee ee ce! . ae e a eae a - . aa pe > ? om r ry lan ale uv ; i nnn a AE A ‘ iu . ON ; ‘ re: 4 sft f Tyee We See ie a ‘4 wv nm - ) oa ‘. eo ; i ay 8 } et oA iv Cae ; “ee |, } ( re ' 7 Ait P mere SM a Ber Ase i Oe tay d Re Pie at 7 : ‘ oe P, : \ ying » . bet i T) ‘, ty ae al , > By er, ie { f - 2 ui ’ } as) 5 we . fi 4) ! Fe “ Th: iy . ' j r PW 2 I m ) | ei We at ( i ‘ ; } vr f it, e j’ - e ye etn a ¢ ee s, 4 i t a or ' i r ; aly oa } ; ‘ : ny ihe Hi & ' Pee San} ' Yi tee Py hath eRe OeeD | } ‘ ih) i ltg a F ‘ *) | a , j iy :! yy , J : os } et L sf al) pean yeaa ode eaiiina lie ala de en “i : Pe vo of Pier De i | Ms AT ots | al Sl i i j heh Fa ’ ; ae ome ay? ot ' sf , : j ; st j {s P, ’ ‘ hl gop «| 5 a ; é 4 i es ' ‘ it. . ‘ ‘ 4 x - “7 \ , 7 : i! } sD i a eet PAI VRE Rein die bbe Sle 6 ce wou nh Peat), sar aris aber a , Cia a Rae ae : hs 'e fh *) bi : WS sonore d aL “* | ‘ JON eae Wu: GaN fy i me " if he ; ook hay. { } Sys a) Ue Wats! HE re ae oh, ' i rtoY ah i at Kl a M hee a i Yn, yy ray é ae f 4 See ee m4 Biege ch Re he Fae Se MC aii ‘ ? a i | é On 4 . ‘ Hvady et mh esqe “hth, es ieee en eh ‘ t ch , ‘ 1 \ ey} re tae | hy i : in he BAN F : 1 9 Tr. A Al ’ 3 j ‘ i | wba) i ¢ i { ue 1 [ pat ry rma f * \ i | i ty ' i] ‘ Sr ive ? ( ’ eat | ’ ; : ‘ ! ‘ ! | * ' ; " [ Ae i en t ) t - | View ‘ , ‘ 4% ’ 4 = v 7 7 oe alt Ba ait a ares oe a # A J q a Wicca eh ae ty cee, 4 05) Ny a) . ‘pa Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 268 *IOUIOAOS PUB IO}PBUAS *S “() ioy Arveutid puoosess oy} ut pormbar st o}0A Aqiofeul WY ‘ainyelsisoy oq} ul sey AJUNOD oY} 9AT}e}UASaIder YoRa IO} S9}JOA Z SI YOIA ‘o}OA YUN AjUNOD dIIyUd VY} Sjos ‘AJUNOD B JO 9}OA IVT -ndod 4sos1v] 94} SUIATA001 o}epIpuRy) "OJOA SOY SIFT *‘pogioeds JON ‘poppe ole puooss pue jsIy o1oYA 489 -Ysty IO S9JOA doI0Yo-js1g Jo Apuoleyy Q}JVUIMION 0} AIBSSBVON 9}0A, ore eee *puooes pure 4sIlq puos9g GOIOHD) GNOOUS GNV ISULy “ATWO QoIOYO ISIN] “UOISIAOId ON, ‘ATWO *“Iop1o so10yo 4SIL [eorjoqeyd]e ul poyutig “yor [eq 94} WO SouIvU jo JapIO 94} *AJUO SIL | VUIUAIO}JOP OF 4SBO Ie S}OT sere ‘1ap1o [eorjoqeydyy LOTIVG NO SHWVN JO NOILVLOY ‘suoryeoytfenb Jaqjo eqiioseid Avur Aysred oy} pue posmbeas st uoryesysisoyy BIB1IOIN) "S19}]OA IO} SUOT}BO -ytyenb oqisosoid Avur Aytoyne AVIeg ‘padeysisal 9q 0} pormbod ore s19j0A dIBMBTIG *‘poumbas ydred0d xv} 19d ‘SzOT[Vq UO sz sqzutid Ayr1ed gory sesueyly *SI9JOA JO SuOT}eOyTTenb Iaq}0 Io [eorpjod oy} eqtioseid 0} AIIOq NS eABY S99}}IUIMIOD A}JUNOD JO 97¥}S 9], ‘Ul UIOMS oq AVUI SI9}0A Potoysisor -un ynq ‘pormbead uoryerysisay = “1000 qUoIeyIp Jo syojeq sesn Ayied yoey eueqely (Sdaj0A JO UOT}VOMTTENy) pasopy aasoly) YO NadOQ 269 Dicest oF Primary EvLEctTIon Laws eee. eee "S033 -2[9q JO esno}PY{ OY} IO} oouruIOU 9t{} JO ‘soatyeyuasoidey JO WSNO}F{ 94} 1OF vou -1W10U 9T]} JO IO ‘WOTyDITe [eioues {sv] 7e wets 6 eee eee eee eee eee eee eee $.10399]2 [etuopisoid Ayred jo qaoddng "930A APRN] T a BIUISITA ‘yor[eq oyeredas sey Ayted yor “UOrpoje [e19Ued OF “£10 puw AYUNOD UI 4OT posmboi fi posmbasr uoreyyye Ajied Aq poulullojop pue szIIysIp SUIMOYS UOTVIYSISIY “Worpooye [e19uss "QJOA YSOYSIPL Sees ‘Ayuo ysstgq | [euoissatsu0a AQ poze}oY eat qsv] ye soyeprpuvo Azred jo ae yon yy Sit rege ed ares eet 2 oe es ee SSS Ee Tuer ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 270 err eevee eee eereeeveevee eeereeve eee eevee ere eee ‘uay} supjoy Ayed [eo -1y1jod oy} Aq pred ore sotreutid Jo sosuedxe [Ty BI3.1095) *Ayred ay} Aq ousoq oie sosuodxo [ev pur Mey Areutid [e1sues ey} Aq pousJeAos you are sotreuntsd Yons ynq ‘uoryUaAMOD A}I9 JO AYUNOD ¥B 0} JO WOTJWIAUOD 9}¥}S IY} 0} SoyeSo[op JoIe 0} ‘APLIOY NV AzIed Jadoid 9q} Jo [[vo uo ppsy oq Avur Areunid y ‘SOIDUBOBA UMO S71 STIG 99}}1MIMI0D AyIed ORY ‘aoq4TUTUIOD [eIyUeD AJUNOD 24} Aq 10 ‘s19}0A OT Jo uoT}pTyed Aq payeulWOU oI UdTII0}}IMIUIOD JouLDeId JO} SoyepIpuBy ‘“spreM APD pue syoutooid [eieAes 94} Wo Arvid oy} 7 UasOYo a1¥ 397}TUIUIOD [eI}UGD AYUNOD VY} JO SIOqUIaT] *qoodIp ABUL 99}JWUTUIOD VATINIEXY 9}B1G oy} sv 10 Aq pI] We solouvoeA “JLI}SIP [VlLIOyeUsS puv UOISIAIP AJvouvYD “ymodIO [elorpnl Yovs ul seoq}MWU0D os[® aie o10y} ATjueredde ‘a0}}1WUI0Z [BUOIssaisu0D pus ‘se}}IUIMIOD AJUNOD ‘a9}}1WITIO) aATINIIxY 9721S IY} 91e S99} IMIUIOD oso} 0} Pousisse souivu syJ, “AJUNOD YoRa JO} JaquiswW 9U0 UY} Sse] JOU Jo S}SISUOD 90}}IUIMIOD 9} ‘AJUNOD B ULY} Jo}YvoIS SUOISLAIpqns [vory[od UT *9e}}IUIMIOD aATJNIeXa 9374S oy} Aq postotoxe oie siamod Yons [[e@ Wey} ‘UOISIAIpqns [vorptfod AuB IO} Popo as SI 99}}IUIUIOD OU JT ‘Aqyred oy} Jo AytoyNe Sutasieao0s vy} Aq poqisoseid oq ABUT SY JOMUBUL YONS UI Payo]Vs 9q 0} ‘PoprA -o1d oq ABU 93e]S BY} JO UOISIAIpqns [vorj}tjod yows Joj puv 9}e}s ayy A0J AjIed Yoa Jo 99}}1WIUIOD Y QO} IUMUIOD) JOLIISI(T [BPUOISSIIS07) 99}}TUIUIOY) [RI}UID) 9721S SAGLLINNOT) ALYY “og ‘sydopo oi} fog ‘sospntl OM} S¢g ‘1oyedsul auG "u0l} -oaja [eioued se sues ‘Arnsvoi} AYUNOD wIOIJ pred ‘uorjoajea [ei9ued sve uorjesusdum09 cures os[® ‘[[@ Ul g ‘suOTPaTa [eieuss JOJ sB sues (qOULlDeIg yor) pivog wore "S8I}ID PUB SOTJUNOD 94} &q pred oie sosusdxo [fe :seeqqytuu0s Ayed ey} Aq poqyutid pue peredeid ore sole dIVMBLIG "$1 0] -[@q UMO sp soredoid 90}}uIUI0D Ajred yorq svsueyIy ‘syoT[eq [[@ soredoid Ay -unood jo ospnl ayeqoig Bureqely Ayunoy STVIOMUQ NOWLOaIy Q71 Dicest oF Primary ELection Laws eer ee SS ee eee SSS “soyepIp -uevo Aq pred ore sasued -xo ‘oyep Joyjo Aue uo PPY FL Sey Aq poqtios -oid oyep oq} uO ppPy jt ‘Arnsvar} o1qnd jo yno pred ore sosuedxy ‘Ayared Youa Io} sydopo TOM wee a Ree ewe es . Srane-ehebs oreh ete atone eter pee setae OM} pus sospn{ oom], ecescecere BIULSIT A, “£710 Io AyuN0D £q pred oie sasuedxo I[¥ ‘Stouorssrurcto0o WOIPaIa Jo prvoq as 61s sie Shea S Sree dene 2% else eer ece eel ace. xe Cet ae aC ‘sIOqUIOM Ino0,J yunoo @ Sl oq], AyonWUIy Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Q72 see ceees ‘UOI}UIAUOD Aq Poue1y] BIULSIL A AyonyuIy "Iaqye -o104} SsAep gt [Wun ppy JOU SI WOIJUIAUOD 9384S OY} ‘ppey st Areurtid puoovas ® fy ‘uortyusAuod Ayred Aue 0} soyeSafap yo]o 0} ppey oq Avu someuUNIg BIS1IOID) ‘aoryefe Areulid aq} d10Jaq poyo]a oq AVUL S9yVZa[ap [VUOTJVU PUB ‘MOTJUSAUOD [BVUOTVN Of} 07 SozyeSa[ap Jo UOTJe[9 OY} IO} Sopna eqrioseid Avur 9974 TUIUIOZ) [eI}UID d}YVIG EY], “SUOTJWIAUOD YOLI}SIP PUL 9}8}S SUIPNPUL ‘SUOTJUIAUOD [[V 0} SoYVSoOp o}eUIE][V PUL Sa}eSo[Ep JoTas 0} st Aynp spt pue Areurtid oq} Joye ABpuoP, 4SIY 9G} UO Ppey SI UOTJUSAUOD AjUNOD sy, *9e7}}TUIWIOD [eIyUI0 AyUNOD ay} Aq IO SI9JOA ‘moIstAoid ON | OL Jo uoryNed Aq poyeutuo ole soyeso[op OJ SoyepIpuey ~‘uoT}USAUOD AJUNOD 94} 0} ArvUTLId 94} 7 UasSOYD oe sozeSa[oq sesueyly ‘Areutid [eioues oy} ev Sis0qJo Ay1ed Joq}0 IO SUOIJUSAMOD Yous 04 Sayesafep JO UOT}aI9 94} IOJ optAoid pu 9}e}S 9Y} JO SUOISIAIPNS 19430 JO SUOIJUIATIOD JO SUOT}UZATOD ‘peptsoid YON | 0783s Jo¥ apracid Avi 9384s oY} Jo UoIstIAIpqns [eorzod Aue jo 9aq}1IUMIOD AyAed 94} pue 99}7IMIUIOD dAT]NOOX 9384C oT], euleqely NOLINGANO’Y) 40 ALVG NOLLNAANOY) ALYUV 273 ‘satinsvoi} AjUNOD pue AjIO ‘97848 OJUI preg ‘Ig SI sof 94} Arey[es OU SI oJoY} JJ ‘oJepIpuvo w SI oY YOIYM IOJ VdUJO oy} 0} poyoryye Arveyes s reak auo Jo %% ‘posinbor oyepIpued Yous IO} Tg Jo 99,7 ‘UMO} 10 A410 ‘AyUNOD JO punj [e1oues 0} pope ‘Tg ‘SIo0qJo UMO} pu Az ‘diysumoy ‘gg ‘sds0qjJo AyuNOD ‘ge ‘sooo J LISIP Og ‘UsUISSOISUOD £Q¢°g ‘a]BIS BJOYM Aq JO} S9}JOA SIBZIIC ‘a}eys IO} OCg pure SUOISIAIPQNS J9s1V] UI OSS ‘AJUNOD ul QTY Seoujo Ajred JO sAT]VIOUNMIOIUN IO} puv Are[es S.reak 9uo0 Jo %% pse0 -X9 0} JOU SoIjUNOD Josie, ul Suotyepndod QQO‘¢F Jopun SoI}JUNOD UI opeUl SI yUOTUSSEsse OU ‘9e}}TUIMIOD AyIed [eoo, Aue Jo 9}R}s 943 Aq ope oq ABU S}UETUSSessy Dicest oF Primary Evection Laws SULVGIGNV)) JO LNANWSSassy GLVLG eIUIdITA Ayonyusy sesuRyly, euleqriy 19 Book Department BioGrapuicaL Nore: The Division of Biography in the Library of Congress pub- lished a list of references on primary elec- tion laws in November, 1920. A list sup- plementary to this one and bringing it up to date is now in preparation. Dewey, D. R., and Ssucrur, M. J. Banking and Credit. Pp. vu, 506. Price, $3.00. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1922. This useful volume makes no pretence of covering the entire field of money and banking. The emphasis is distinctly on the descriptive and practical aspects of the subject rather than upon historical develop- ment or the discussion of underlying theo- retical principles. Yet sufficient theory is presented for the purposes of the elemen- tary student or the business man who _ desires a better understanding of his rela- tions with banking and credit institutions. The authors assume on the part of the reader a preliminary acquaintance with the chapters on money and banking found in any standard text on economics, and thus avoid the duplication of this material which is usual in the first few chapters of books on banking. The space saved in this way permits a more detailed treatment of certain topics than can be found in other introductory volumes, notably the problem of credit analysis, to which five chapters are devoted, and foreign exchange. The operation of the federal reserve system is described at length. In order to give concreteness to the dis- cussion, there are appended some sixty practical problems, half of them with solutions. About a third of these are merely commercial arithmetic (interest and discount), but the remainder deal with bank statements, credit analysis, and for- eign exchange. Numerous references at the end of each chapter and an extensive bibliography are valuable guides to further reading. The merit of the book lies in its clear and up-to-date presentation of judiciously selected parts of a large subject, rather than in any originality of thought. It would be ungrateful to criticize the in- evitable omissions, in view of the con- siderable success of the authors in achieving their object, the “‘detailed description and illustration of actual practice in the busi- ness world.” Moraan, Geraup. Public Relief of Sick- ness. Pp.195. Price, $1.50. New York: The Macmillan Co. In this book, Mr. Morgan has organized considerable valuable material on the prob- lem of sickness and poverty and methods being used to meet that problem in Amer- ica, Denmark, Germany and Great Britain. He then discusses the facts so compiled, with reference to the relative success and failure of the methods used in those coun- tries. His conclusion is that health in- surance alone cannot meet the problem and that the best plan would be a two-fold one comprising two separately operated and distinct programs: one, a provision for contributory, compulsory health insurance; the other a state-wide system of public health centers in which the best possible health service would be provided, that service to be paid for by patients in pro- portion to their ability to pay. Mr. Morgan’s data for his discussion of the present American situation with regard to public relief of sickness came largely from the survey made by the Illinois state commission appointed in 1917 to study the subject of health insurance. He presents an interesting analysis of the results of that survey in which he points out the extreme difficulty of getting accurate sta- tistics as to the cost of adequate medical relief, as compared with the much simpler task of computing the wage loss caused by sickness. His deduction that this fact makes it difficult to provide adequate medical treatment in any system of health insurance appears to be borne out by the experience of the European countries where health insurance has been quite thoroughly tested. In all three countries cited— Denmark, Germany and Great Britain, 274 Book DEpaRTMENT with a different system in each country— the facts gathered by Mr. Morgan appear to show that adequate medical treatment is not provided. The book is a thoughtful, logical dis- cussion of a very important subject in the field of social work. While it may be said to be too sketchy to be considered a comprehensive study of the subject, it does bring together a nucleus of idea, fact and bibliography which should prove valuable to anyone wishing to pursue the subject further. W. M. L. TospaLt, H. R. Problems in Export Sales Management. Pp. 697. Price, $5.00. Chicago, Ill.: A. W. Shaw Co., 1922. Problems in Export Sales Management is designed for use in the so-called “case system”’ of business training. It is in line with similar books which have been prepared by other members of the staff of the Graduate School of Business Adminis- tration of Harvard University. Other volumes in the series deal with the manage- ment of retail stores, sales management, marketing problems and problems in business finance. One of the shortcomings of the case system is that some of the problems pre- sented are such that from the information given no one can be certain as to the correct answer. With only limited data before them both the instructor and his students may decide upon a particular policy, while a business executive actually called upon to decide the problem for his firm may decide it quite differently, in the light of some human element or other important fact which he knows to have a vital bearing upon the business policies of his firm. Another shortcoming, and one springing directly from the desire to minimize the likelihood of the one just mentioned, is that some problems are presented in such a manner that the answers are virtually given in the problems and require little reasoning on the part of the student. It would appear that the case system can be used to advantage only in advanced classes which have acquired a thorough 275 groundwork in foreign trade methods and policies before attempting to solve many of the problems presented to them. Given a set of conditions, the student cannot reason intelligently as to the correct export method to apply, unless he knows con- siderable about all or many of the various methods in actual use. A book of prob- lems is more serviceable in a class of gradu- ate students than in undergraduate classes because the average graduate student is more mature and should have a wider knowledge of business practices. Professor Tosdal’s collection of export sales management problems shows careful selection and contains much practical in- formation which will be of great value in the teaching of foreign trade, whether or not the case system is generally adopted. The book merits careful reading by every teacher of foreign trade and by every export manager. It abounds with valuable examples and pertinent suggestions. It contains 164 problems, many of which were obtained from the experience of export concerns. They are presented in eleven chapters dealing with different phases of exporting: export sales organi- zation; research and planning in export trade; export policies relating to the prod- uct; export policies relating to distri- bution; export policies relating to prices and terms of sale; sales methods; manage- ment of export sales force; foreign branches; financing, credits and collections; delivery of export orders; and control of export sales and general problems. Suggestions for collateral reading are contained throughout the. volume. In addition to the information given in the problems and explanatory statement of each chapter, the reader will find that it contains a classified bibliography. Grover G. HUEBNER. Persons, Frank W. Central Financing of Social Agencies. Pp. 284. Price, $2.00. Columbus, Ohio: Columbus Advisory Council, 1922. This is an exceedingly timely and in- telligent survey of community financing as a method of solving the present needs of social agencies. 276 The author, a well-known leader in philanthropic work, has based his study on the experience of the six cities which have tried to solve their social financial difficulty by the community plan. The book out- lines the various functions of organization, budgets, soliciting funds, administration, education, and then sums up the difficulties and advantages. One gathers the advan- tages well outweigh the difficulties and that there are many possibilities of codperation and elimination of waste yet to be worked out. Among the advantages are: more givers, agencies released from money struggle, an accurate estimate of social needs and com- munity spirit created, as against diminish- ing returns from drives, standards of agencies levelled, new developments checked and the control of social work vested in a small group, which tends to become arbitrary and dominated by the dollar. Altogether, the book is well worth a thoughtful reading. That our social agen- cies are spending their valuable time and energy in struggling with their financial needs is a problem we are increasingly forced to solve, and the only solution as yet found is this plan of community financing. L. F. R. OBERHOLTZER, Exuis Paxson, Pu.D., Litt.D. The Morals of the Movie. Pp. 251. Price, $1.25. Philadelphia: Penn Publishing Company, 1922. | Doctor Oberholtzer was for six years a member of the Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, a board which was a pioneer in its field and whose principles and methods have been widely adopted. What success the Pennsylvania Board has had has been largely due to his efforts. In view of his intimate knowledge of the moral signifi- cance of the motion picture, it seems re- grettable that he should confine himself to a destructive criticism of the industry and devote only one or two paragraphs in his preface to a mere mention that it is ““among the world’s greatest . . . successes.” After thus favorably cataloging the motion picture, he states that his purpose is “to point out the wrong in film,” which Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY he does with a wealth of illustrative ma- terial. The censor’s point of view is well presented and established. The illustra- tive material is not always wisely chosen, but it is nevertheless valuable, as is an appendix of 55 pages containing examples of existing and proposed censorship laws and standards, to the outsider who wishes to know just what censors are attempting to achieve. | DonaLp YOUNG. Darrow, CLARENCE. Crime, Its Cause and Treatment. Pp. 302. Price, $2.50. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Com- pany, 1922. This book is what one might expect from a man who for years has been fighting the legal battles of organized labor in this country. It is thoughtful and filled with the milk of human kindness. Mr. Darrow makes no pretence of being an original investigator in criminology or of being an authority in biology, psychology or philoso- phy. The book is his reflections on the subject of crime, based on forty years of court practice. It is the book of a social philosopher. His point of view is fully expressed in his preface. “My main effort” he says “is to show that the laws that control human behavior are as fixed and certain as those that control the physical world.” Actually he does not spend much time in proving this; he assumes this in every chapter of his book. There are few, how- ever, who would quarrel with him over this assumption. Accordingly, he throws over the notion of moral responsibility and accounts for crime solely on the basis of heredity and environment Much of the book is devoted to an elaboration of this thesis interspersed with common sense appraisals of society’s attitude toward various aspects of the crime problem. Many sentences and paragraphs could be taken from the book which deserve a place in one’s collection of useful quota- tions, as for example: As a matter of fact, the potential criminal is in every man, and no one was ever so abandoned that some friend would not plead for him, or Book;DrEPpaRTMENT that someone who knew him would not testify to his good deeds. I have very seldom seen one who felt that he had done wrong, or had any thought of what the world calls reformation. A very few have used the current language of those who talk of reform, but generally they were the weakest and most hopeless of the lot and usually adopted this attitude to deceive. In almost every in- stance where you meet any sign of intelligence, excuses and explanations are freely made, and these explanations fully justify their points of view. But with few exceptions, the criminal comes from the walks of the poor and has no education or next to none. For this society is much to blame. Any man or woman who has fairly normal faculties, and can reason from cause to effect, knows that the crimes of children are really the crimes of the state and society which by neglect and active participation have made him what he is. Still with the unfortunate accused of crimes or misdemeanors, from the moment the attention of the officers is drawn to him until his final destruction, everything is done to prevent his recovery and to aggravate and make fatal his disease. The author’s comment on the aftermath of crime following the war deserves wide- spread publicity: For more than four years most of the Western World did nothing but kill. The whole world talked of slaughter and devoted its energy to killing. - Every sentiment of humanity was for- gotten. Even religious ties and religious com- mands were ignored. The prayers to the Almighty contained requests that He help the various fighting nations to kill their enemies. Everyone was taught to hate. The leaders in the war knew that boys could not do efficient killing unless they learned to fear and hate. The most outrageous falsehoods were freely circu- lated by every nation about its enemies and their conduct of the war. The highest rewards were offered for new and more efficient ways to kill. Every school was turned over to hate and preparation for war, and, of course, all the churches joined in the universal craze. God would not only forgive killing but reward those who were the most expert at the game. When this bears a harvest after the war, the public loudly clamors for hanging boys whose psychology is a direct result of long and intensive training by the leaders of the world. Mr. Darrow believes, of course, that society has a right to protect itself from Q77 the depredations of criminals, but he be- lieves that this should be done not in the spirit of vengeance and of hate but with charity. “All prisons,” says he, ‘should be in the hands of experts, physicians, criminologists, biol- ogists, and, above all, the humane. Every prisoner should be made to feel that the state is interested in his good as well as the good of the society from which he came.” The question left in the reviewer’s mind after reading the book is how long it will be before the general public comes to accept whole-heartedly these sound views of Mr. Darrow. Dr. Louis N. Roprnson. Lorer, Leonor Fresnev. Railroad Freight Transportation. Pp.771. Price, $5.00. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1922. This book is not designed for the use of the general reader, and those who read it with the hope of getting a clear and logi- cally presented account of how freight is transported by rail will be disappointed. As Mr. Loree explains in his foreword, the volume is a “series of memoranda,” origi- nally prepared by him for the use of officers of his own company, “expanded and rearranged” for the benefit of the entire body of railroad officers in the United States. Though there is evidence that considerable labor was given to expansion and rearrangement, the work still has many characteristics of memoranda. With so much excellent material available for the preparation of a thoroughly good general work on railroad operation, it is to be regretted that Mr. Loree did not give more effort to its organization and presen- tation. There is no business in the United States which comes into closer contact with the public than the railroad business. Yet to the vast majority of people the operation of a railroad is a complete mystery. There has been for a long time a real need for an authentic work giving an adequate description of modern rail- road facilities and telling how a railroad system is operated. Mr. Droege, in his two books on terminals and trains, has performed some service in this direction, 278 but his work is extremely detailed, and, like this work, is intended primarily for railroad men. Mr. Haines’s volume, Eff- cient Railroad Operation, is much too technical for the general reader, and it places much more emphasis upon efficiency than upon operation. Mr. Loree’s book is for the most part a running commentary upon modern rail- road practice, based upon his own experi- ence and observation. While not exactly autobiographical in character, it gives a fairly good account of the author’s long and useful career in the railroad field. The frequent references to his own experience, and even the Colonel Repington touches, such as, “When I took the Prince of Pless through the Western Pennsylvania coke region,” and when Mr. Richards said to Mr. McCrea, “‘ You have a good man in Loree,” serve to lend interest to the discussion. The volume is divided into eight sections, labelled in order: The Permanent Way; Shops and Equipment; Organization, Field and Staff; Forms, Accounts and Statistics; Movement of Cars; Movement of Engines and Trains; Men (two sections). Mr. Loree has refused, however, to be hampered by his labels, and has exercised complete freedom in the distribution of his com- ments on different subjects. The engine house is discussed as a part of the perma- nent way and again in the section on shops and equipment; signals come under per- manent way and the movement of trains; airbrakes almost escape mention under equipment, but receive passing notice in the first section on men. The inevitable historical narrative on the development of steam transport is delayed until the middle of the book, appearing in the section de- voted to the movement of engines and trains; and a description of periodicals on railway transportation comes in the section on organization. One cannot say that Mr. Loree discusses any topic too fully or too lightly, because one cannot feel sure of the needs of his selected audience. Having prepared the material for the use of railroad officers, he naturally assumes on the part of his readers a fairly thorough knowledge of railroad work, and he has a right to be arbitrary in the selection of topics and in the assignment Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY of space. His views on many subjects will doubtless be criticised. The majority of progressive railroad officials look with favor upon the use of mechanical stokers for large locomotives, despite Mr. Loree’s opinion that they do not make for greatly increased firing efficiency and his belief that firemen do not have enough work to do anyhow. His opposition to electrifica- tion of steam roads will likewise not meet with general approval; nor will his rather singular implication that the inefficiency of terminals in large cities such as New York and Chicago is due to the failure of public authorities and shippers to provide ade- quate facilities. His opmion with regard to store-door delivery and the use of motor trucks and container cars by railroad companies, is at direct variance with the views recently presented by Mr. Lyford and other railroad officials of the younger generation. One wishes that he had given his opinion of automatic stops and devices for train speed control, but he does not mention them. He apparently favors the use of the locomotive booster, though he neither describes it nor discusses its advan- tages. He tells with much detail of his own connection with the development of the standard code of train rules and tele- graph orders, but he avoids any discussion of the controversy over the virtual elimi- nation of the “31” order. . If any part of Mr. Loree’s book will be of great interest to the general reader, it will be the sections devoted to labor. More than one hundred and fifty pages are given to this subject, and most of this space is occupied with an enlargement of his well- known opinion of labor organizations, their purposes and methods. Mr. Loree is con- vinced that the labor problem can best be solved by leaving all questions at issue to the employer. The following paragraph (p. 697) is faintly reminiscent of Divine Right Baer: If both parties organize to control wages and conditions of employment, as they become more nearly equal in strength, we shall enter upon a new phase. Practically every capitalist and enterpriser has had the experience of the laborer, knows thoroughly this phase of life in at least one branch of endeavor, and looks forward to the probability of his great grandchildren having Book DEPARTMENT to make their start from the same level. Prac- tically no laborer has had the experience of the capitalist or of the enterpriser, and he usually conceives a radically wrong picture of their activities, environment and motives. It is to associations of employers, therefore, not to labor organizations, that we may look with hope for practical solutions of the questions involved. In dealing with the activities of labor unions Mr. Loree occasionally lets his prejudices becloud his judgment, and at times his attitude is positively truculent. The Adamson Act, in particular, rouses his ire, every time he thinks about it; “The most insolent humiliation ever put on a proud people. The Anglo-Saxon people have a long memory. The day of retri- bution is not likely to be entirely avoided.” And of President Wilson: “‘A man of quick imagination and mercurial morals [what- ever that may mean] he lacked that sense of perspective without which no man is safe in high places. Nor did he possess those long traditions of Americanism, with- out which no man can adequately represent the republic.” One may wonder why, if this opinion was general, Mr. Loree, in common with other railroad officials, waited until the day after election in 1916 to challenge the constitutionality of the Adamson Act in the courts. Mr. Loree contributes little of construc- tive nature in his discussion of the labor problem. He quotes at length various passages of open-shop propaganda, and re- hearses the familiar shibboleths of personal liberty, freedom of individual contract, and “‘socialistic’” Russia. His attitude is the traditional attitude of the labor- union opponents, whose opposition has never served to check the growth of trade unionism or to correct its abuses. T. W. Van Metre. JoNES, FRANKLIN D., of the Washington Bar. Trade Association Activities and the Law. Pp. 360. Price, $3.00. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. The author’s purpose is first, to aid officers and members of trade associations by informing them as to the legality of proposed acts and plans; second, to present to the public at large the vast extent of 279 legitimate association activities and show their value and importance. The work has been done with such extraordinary thor- oughness and clarity that the author might well have stated a third purpose for his book; that of serving as a text for advanced university courses in commerce and govern- ment. The plan of the work is admirable. After opening chapters on the general legal rules governing competition and a summary of their protective purposes, the author takes up the chief activities of trade associations. These are: the dissemination of basic business facts; the study of cost and accounting methods; the establishment of standards, classifications, types and sizes, etc.; industrial research; labor ques- tions; codperative advertising; traffic and transportation; the protection of credit, trade marks and other property interests; commercial arbitration; foreign trade; re- lations with government. The layman will be surprised to learn of the extent and intensity of this activity and the large influence wielded by some of the trade bodies described. The Silk Asso- ciation has developed commercial arbitra- tion to such a point that all contracts made by its members are accompanied by a blank form on which the parties state that they will or will not accept arbitration of claims arising under it. The effect is to take out of the courts an immense mass of litigation and to avoid the expense, delay and disruption of trade relations caused by such lawsuits. The same association has set up a complete schedule of standards in order to meet the need for a definite meas- ure of silk products in both quality and quantity. Codes of trade practices are solely evolved so that the trade bodies described are becoming the source of a new industrial law which, the author believes, may greatly aid the government in its regulation of fair and unfair trade methods. The collection and distribution of business information is a vital function of trade bodies. Its importance to the individual business concern is well described and the limits of its legality are clearly set forth. The book concludes with a study of those collective activities which are prohibited 280 by law. There are appendices giving the texts of the chief federal trade acts. It might be wished that the author had given a more detailed description of the leading association activities; also a more critical explanation of the reasons why some policies were successful and others were not. The reader also misses some constructive suggestions for the future development of association work. The first of these needs is partly supplied in a well-written booklet, Trade Associations, issued by the National Association of Manufacturers. Perhaps it is as yet too early to expect a discussion of policies, because most of the work undertaken is still new and its value and future develop- ment cannot be quickly appraised. The author has given a highly valuable survey of the present lines of activity and Tur ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY has referred the reader to helpful sources of information. All statements of policy are well documented; the references both to association minutes and other publi- cations, and to court decisions and adminis- trative correspondence, are thoroughly up-to-date. The author’s attitude is that of a broad-visioned student of trade and legal affairs who has a keen practical sense of the value of codperation, and who wants to see association activities conducted along legal lines that will be helpful to their members and to the public at large. The treatment is both scholarly and interesting. The views expressed are sane and practical and the material has been gathered and presented in a natural order. The author has done a real public service in a new and fruitful field of research. JAMES T. YouNG. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY By P. Orman Ray, Pu.D. American Year Book, 1912, pp. 61-63; Ibid., 1913, pp. 72-74; Ibid., 1914, pp. 68-71; Ibid., 1916, p. 28. American Political Science Review, X, 116- 120 (Feb. 1916), ‘‘Presidential Prima- ries.” Aylsworth, L. E., “Presidential Primary Elections—Legislation of 1910-1912,” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., VI, 429-433 (Aug. 1912). Barnett, J. D., ‘“The Presidential Primary in Oregon,” Pol. Sct. Quar., XX XI, 81- 104 (1916). Boots, R. S., “The Presidential Primary,” Nat. Mun. Rev., Suppleme , 597- 617 (1920). Bourne, Jonathan, Jr., “Federal Patronage,” Congressional Record, February 27, 1911. Davenport, F. M., “The Failure of the Presidential Primary,” Outlook, CXII, 807-810 (1916). . Dickey, F. W., “The Presidential Prefer- ence Primary,” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., IX, 467-487 (Aug. 1915). Hall, A. B., Popular Government (1921), Chap. V. Laprade, W. T., “Nominating Primary,” No. Amer. Rev., CC, 235-243 (1914). Interary Digest, XLIV, 579 (1912), ““The Hunt for Delegates.” Merriam, C. E., The American Party System (1922), pp. 289-298. Outlook, C, 164 (1912), ‘““The Presidential Primary: A Poll of the Press.” Ibid., C, 387 (1912), “The Presidential Primary.” Itid., CI, 56, 102 (1912), Primaries.” Ibid., CI, 287 (1912), ““The Campaign as a School for the People.”’ Ibid., CV, 783, 792 (1913), ‘‘ Presidential Primaries.” Ibid., CXXIV, 584-585 (1920), “‘Money in Political Campaigns.” Potts, C. S., “The Convention System and the Presidential Primary,” Rev. of Rev., XLV, 561-566 (1912). Pulsifer, H. T., “The Pig and the Primary,” Outlook, CX XVI, 19-21 (1920). Senate Report, No. 823, 66th Cong., 3d sess. (1921), pp. 2941-2944. On pre-con- vention expenditures in 1920. Villard, O. G., ““The ‘Unbossed’ Republi- can Convention” (1920), Nation, CX, 820-821 (1920). Williams, Talcott, “‘ Presidents, Primaries, and People,” Independent, CII, 358 (1920). World’s Work, XXIII, 260 (1912), ‘‘Presi- dential Primaries.” ‘Presidential Report of the Board of Directors of the American Academy of Po- litical and Social Science for the Year Ending December 31, 1922 I. REVIEW OF THE ACADEMY’S ACTIVITIES yee ee Board is in the fortunate position to present to you a most encouraging report on the activities of the Academy dur- ing the calendar year which has just come to a close. At no time in the history of our organization have the publications of the Academy exerted so far-reaching an influ- ence on the thought and opinion of the country. With each year the Academy is moving steadily towards the fulfillment of its larger mission as one of the real forces in the education of public opinion. The meet- ings of the Academy have been largely at- tended, and the sessions of the Annual Meeting attracted attention throughout the country. The progress of the Academy’s work and the extension of its influence has been due in large measure to the devoted and unself- ish efforts of the Editorial Council under the able leadership of the Chairman of the Council—Dr. Clyde L. King—and the Board desires to take this opportunity to place on record the debt of obligation owing to Dr. King and his associates. During the year the Academy has suf- fered the loss of one of its founders—Dr. Simon N. Patten, to whose guidance the Academy owes so much. A special memo- ‘rial session was held under the auspices of the Academy to honor his memory. Your Board has quietly continued the campaign for the establishment of an en- dowment fund. It is our purpose to raise such a fund through comparatively small contributions by the members of the Acad- emy. While this campaign is still in its initial stages, it is our hope that in time such a fund will be established in order to enable the Academy to carry on special in- vestigations on subjects of national and international interest. II. PUBLICATIONS During the year 1922 the Academy pub- lished the following special volumes: The Federal Reserve System—its pur- pose and work (January). Russia Today—Determination of Wage- Rates—American Intervention in Haiti and the Dominican Republic (March). The Ethics of the Professions and of Business (May). America and_ the Europe (July). Industrial Relations and the Churches (September). | A Study in Labor Mobility (September supplement). Western Europe and the United States (November). Attendance in Four Textile Mills in Phil- adelphia (November Supplement). Rehabilitation of II. MEETINGS During the year that has just come to a close the Academy held the following ses- sions: January 14, China and Her Problems. May 12 and 13, The Twenty-sixth An- nual Meeting—America and the Rehabili- tation of Europe. October 28, Special session to honor the memory of Dr. Simon Nelson Patten, one of the founders of the Academy. IV. MEMBERSHIP During the year 1922 the Academy re- ceived 1,318 new members and 172 new subscriptions, or a total of 1,490. The Academy lost 68 members by death; 545 by resignation; and 192 delinquent members and 95 subscriptions were dropped. The present membership of the Academy is 6,979 members and 1,436 subscriptions, making a total of 8,415. 281 282 V. FINANCIAL CONDITION The receipts and expenditures of the Academy for the fiscal year just ended are clearly set forth in the treasurer’s report. The accounts were submitted to Messrs. KE. P. Moxey and Company for audit, and copy of their statement is appended here- with. In order to lighten the expenses in- cident to the Annual Meeting a fund of $1,734 was raised. The Board desires to take this opportunity to express its grati- tude to the contributors to this fund. VI. CONCLUSION One of the purposes which your Board has constantly kept in mind is the estab- lishment of Academy centers throughout the country. We have not been able to put this larger plan into effect because of the fact that it will require not only a much more elaborate administrative organization than we at present possess, but will also call for the services of an executive director whose entire time and energy will be de- voted to this special duty. As yet your Board has not been able to find a man ade- quately equipped to undertake this im- portant task. In conclusion your Board desires to ex- press the hope that during the present year the Academy may have the more active co- operation of a larger percentage of our members. Occupying, as they do, influen- tial positions in all sections of the country, such codperation will add much to the in- fluence and prestige of the Academy. Tur ANNALS OF THE AMBRICAN ACADEMY January 11, 1923. CuarueEs J. Ruoaps, Esaq., TreEas., American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, Pa. Dear Sir:— We herewith report that we have audited the books and accounts of the American Academy of Political and Social Science for its fiscal year ended December 31, 1922. We have prepared and submit herewith statement of receipts and disbursements during the above indicated period, together with statement of assets as at December 31, 1928, The receipts from all sources were veri- fied by a comparison of the entries for same appearing in the treasurer’s cash book with the record of bank deposits and were found to be in accord therewith. The disbursements, as shown by the cash book, were supported by proper vouchers. These vouchers were in the form of can- celled paid checks or receipts for moneys expended. ‘These were examined by us and verified the correctness of the payments made. The investment securities listed in the statement of assets were examined by us and were found to be correct and in accord with the books. As the result of our audit and examina- tion we certify that the statements sub- mitted herewith are true and correct. Yours respectfully, (Signed) Epwarp P. Moxry & Co., Certified Public Accountants. REpoRT OF THE DIRECTORS 283 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR FiscaL YEAR ENDED DrEcEMBER 31, 1922 DeESTT PR TMUAT TL LOSS. meh. eu eel ie ag haley Wid cle sh et EE ES 3) 8.5 UD, NO ce Mo, os Vike Beaton PoE RRPE RENTS SON SUE ee Te ea. souls Whee aed SE RCTS PMA Warmer Meme eS ee | ay Se eg la aS eet ce SL SESS INS GR ec Sn a a MT ets IVLATLIPEC, |. disks) iste oiccid cele ed's cv ule ee Interest on Investments and Bank Balances............ Gain on Sale or Maturity of Securities........./....... Dots lf ui WE ne aa RCRA! ON Ct nr S62 oo EID fae i ARR SAIS ce Ra Pe UEN LE LOS ITB ait task sihe le aicls. «5 alalalandie evs is dosha Be IN OOS Deo 01 aah SN AA. a Publication of The Annals............ Bape ba Ul Aces Ge alana Deerer ear ecords ) ie Sn ee Ce a dds Expenditures for Special Research Work............... Securities Purchased................ Ta ae Sate ap ef $33,841.99 22. 1,734. 21 7,597. 7,201 6,971 71 $6,215. © 4,294. T5122. 26,954. 2,759. 1,749. 6,743 . 50 00 10 .80 5,749. 63 . 64 30. 85 SES Le Oe IOCEINET OL. LOS ee ace. earciormiat dia oth b.e so tle sie Wate TUBE OAV ANIC). ERA PUN ks co. sok NIE EMD le we wae GM all Cash: Preemie ary Cities) 8 er I ee In Treasurer’s Hands, Girard Trust Company........ $1,693 .07 63,220.72 $64,913.79 56,438 . 80 $8,474.99 $117,148 . 27 8,474.99 $125,623 .26 Index Ability, 20. Accuracy, 72. Advance, 106. Advertising, 43; self, 92. Amendments, 22, 68. Alphabetical arrangement, 152. America, 35, 94; change of attitude in, 36. Antagonism, 47. Appraisal, 142. Assurance, 176. Ballot: judicial, 86; non-partisan: 7, 84; radi- calism of, 85; results of, 87, 95; short ballot 7, 14,19. BERDAHL, CLARENCE A. Operation of the Richards Primary, The, 158-171. Berger, Victor M., 51. Bi-factionalism, 114. Board of Directors, Report of, 281-283. Bonus, soldiers, 111. Boots, Raupn §. Party Platforms in State Politics, 72-82. Bribery, 1. Breakdown, 143. Brookhart, Col. Smith W., 78,149. Calder, Senator, 143. CALIFORNIA Direct Primary, Victor J., 116-127. California, 37. Campaign funds, 3. Candidates, 122; character of, 152; independent, 14; non-partisan, 14. Central America, 42. Centralization, 80. Cleveland, 32. Clique, 97. Compromise, 53. Committees, 16; state, 99. Compromise, 97, 52. Competition, 149, 107. Confusion, 94. Conservatism, 85. Consolidation, 19. Control, 176. Conventions: 101, 113; endorsement of, 15; evils of, 1, 2; post-primary, 99; proposal, 160; remoteness of, 1; state, 179, 74, 46. County government, 20. Cox, Gov., 19. Crill, Mr. Louis N., 158. Criticism, 23, 126. Cross examination, 26. CusHMAN, Rosert Evaenre. Non-partisan Nominations and Elections, 83-96. Tur. West, 284 Daly, Alice Lorraine, 159. Data, 93. Davies Bill, 128. Davies, Howard, 128. Debates, 166, 167, 168. Derects IN THE Direct PRIMARY. Karl F., 31-39. Defects, 66, 180. Deliberation, 27. Demagoguery, 43. Democracy, 39, 42. Despotism, 24. Devine, James H., 106. Difficulties, 35. Dignity, 89. Dicest oF Primary Exection Laws. borough, Charles, 181-273. Direct Primary, 108; abolishment of, 28, 116; advantages of, 6, 142; city versus county, 131; criticism of, 116; democratic endorsement of, 55; disadvantages of, 142; disappointment in operation, 5; effect of, 45, 46, '77; essentials of Maine, 130; impracticability of, 56; necessity for, 70; opposition to, 116; repeal of, 29; retention of, 23; small size of vote in, 144, 157; voting differences, 3. Direct PRIMARIES. 11-17. Direct Primary AND Party RESPONSIBILITY In Wisconsin, THe. Hall, Arnold Bennett, 40-54. Drrect Primary Law 1n Marne anv How It Has Workep, Tue. Hormell, Orren Chal- mer, 128-141. Dissatisfaction, 10. Discard, 80. Dix law, 142. Dixon, Governor, 19. Dopps, H. W. Removable Obstacles to the Success of the Direct Primary, 18-21. Drafts, 76. Geiser, Kettle- Kettleborough, Charles, Education, 180. Efficiency, 83. Egan, George W., 159. Election, 41, 175. Endorsement, 99. England, 94: allegiance to leader in, 36; free trade movement, 36; party spirit in, 35, 36; return to two-party system, 35. Esch-Cummins Railroad Law, 149. Essentials, 36. Europe, 115. Evidence, 40, 46. Evil, 24. INDEX Expense; 2, 25, 26, 67, 112, 121, 123, 124, 139, 146, 152, 156, 170, 171, 176. Experimentation, 8, 9. Extra-legal, 114. Factionalism, 53. Failure, 163, 180. Farce, 143. Fee, 117. Freedom, 106. Geiser, Kart F. Defects in the Direct Pri- mary, 31-39. Genius, 50. Geography, 173. Group organization, necessity of, 41. Guitp, Frepertc H. Operation of the Direct Primary in Indiana, The, 172-180. Haut, ARNoLD BENNETT. Party Responsibility 40-54. Hannan, Wiutram E. Opinions of Public Men on the Value of the Direct Primary, 55-62. Hare system, 105, 113. Hoag, C. G. Proportional Representation in the United States. Its Spread, Principles of Operation, Relation to Direct Primaries and General Results, 105-110. Horack, Frank E. Workings of the Direct Primary in Iowa, The, 148-157. HorMett, ORREN CHALMER. Direct Primary Law in Maine and How It Has Worked, 128-141. , Hughes, Governor, 2, 162. Hughes, Secretary, 6. Direct Primary and in Wisconsin, The, Ideals, 44. Independent voter, 23. Individual, 95. Tneligibility, 120. Informal gathering, 100. Intelligence, 93, 151. Trish, 42, 54. Irregularity of party voting, 153. Issues, 164. KeEtTTLeEBOROUGH, CHARLES. Direct Primaries, 11-17. Digest of Primary Election Laws, 181-273 Klu Klux Klan, 115. LaFollette, Senator, 52, landslide, 47; popu- larity of, 50. Leader, 162; leadership, 70, 94, League of Women Voters, 140. Limitations, 43. Liquor, 38, 90. Lists, 155. 285 Lowden, Governor, 163. Lowell, President, 43. Machine control, 122. Maine Federation of Women’s Clubs, 140. Majority, 28, 161. Manager plan, 106. McMaster, Governor, 159. Merits, 128. Merriam, Cuartes §. Nominating Systems, 1-10. Minority, 161; organizations, 41. Mistakes, 64. Modification, 31, 112. Myth, 179. National conference, 8. Newspapers, 24, 125, 126; ownership, 126. NomInaTina Systems. Merriam, Charles §., 1-10. Nomination, 41, 125; pre-primary, 98. Non-partisan League, 91. Non-PartisAN NoMINATION AND ELEcTIONS. Cushman, Robert Eugene, 83-96. Non-partisanship, 83. Norris, George W. Why I believe in the Direct Primary, 22-30. Oberlin, 33. Ohio, 33. Old Guard, 9. OPERATION OF THE Direct Primary IN INDI- ANA, THe. Guild, Frederic H., 172-180. OPERATION OF THE RicHarps Primary, THE. Berdahl, Clarence A., 158-171. OPERATION OF THE State-WipE Direct PRrI- MARY IN New YorkK State, THe. Overacker, Louise, 142-147. Opinions: of editors, 56, 58, 60, 61; of governors, 55, 57, 59, 61; of political chairmen, 56, 58, 59, 61; of professors of political science, 57, 59, 60, 61; group, 41; public: 43, 49; constituent elements of, 43. Oprnions oF Pusitic MEN ON THE VALUE OF THE Direct Primary. Hannan, William E., 55-62. Opposition, 31, 155, 180. Optional, 65. OvERACKER, Louise. The Operation of the State-Wide Direct Primary in New York State, 142-147. Pamphlets, 16. ‘Party PLATFORMS IN StaTE POLiITICcs. Ralph S., 72-82. Party: adherence to, 34; allegiance, 159; cohe- sion, 33; control, 178; committees (Richards Primary) 160; conference, 8; disappearance of organization, 50; disregard of allegiance, 35; dissolution of, 34; dominant, 50, 174; effect Boots, 286 on organization, 33; failure of system, 34; government, 42; labels, 88; leadership, 5; membership (Richards Primary) 158; organi- zation, 50, 177; progressive, 2; two-party system, 41; responsibility, 23, 33, 43. Patriotism, 24. People, 22. Pennell Bill, 128. Prerogative of political scientist, 40. Personal campaigning, 89. Personality, 92. Personalities, 48. Philipp, Emanuel L., 49, 52. Platforms: improvements in, 81; insignificance of, 79; opposition to, 79; recommendations for, 82; party: 76; differences in, 80. Plurality nominations, 111. Political affiliation, 126; campaigns, 42; harmony, 42; machinery, 41; sanitation, 83. Precinct caucuses, 81. Pre-arrangement, 97. PrE-PRIMARY CONVENTIONS. C., 97-104. Precincts, 177, 178. Presidential election day, 64; ignorance, 63; in- difference in nomination, 63; methods, 63. PREVENTION OF Minority NoMmInaTIONS FOR State Orrices IN THE Direct Primary. Williams, Benj. H., 111-115. Primaries: mandatory, 11; optional, 11; primary caucus, 12; dates, 12; repeal bills, 18; open, 16, 51; Richards: civil service board, 168; elective, 160; independent candidates, 162; novel features of, 158; official party endorse- ments, 168; unit representation, 160: second, 111; system, 8; principles, 163; problems, 63. Procedure, 118. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN THE UNITED States. Irs SpreAD, PRINCIPLES OF OPERA- TION, RELATION TO Direct PRIMARIES AND GENERAL Resutts. Hoag, C. G., 105-110. Protest, 72. Public issues, 44. Publicity, 26, 165: pamphlets, 166; record books, 165. Wallace, Schuyler Questions, 55. Questionnaire, 104. Qualifications, 118. Ray, P. Orman. Reform of Presidential Nomi- nating Methods, 63-71. Recall, 22, 169. REFORM OF PRESIDENTIAL Nominatinc MeEts- ops. Ray, P. Orman, 63-71. Reform, 18, 68. Remick, Mr. P. C., 109. REMOVABLE OBSTACLES TO THE SUCCESS OF THE Direct Primary. Dodds, H. W., 18-21. THe ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY Reorganization, 8. Repeal, 156. Report of Board of Directors, 281-283. Results, 65. Responsibility: factional 48, 49; organized, 48; party, 49. “Rings,” 20. Rural Counties, 144. Saratoga, 101. Sentiment, general, 55. Sherman, Lawrence Y., 103. Shank, Mayor, 178. Shortcomings, 23. Signatures, 118. Skepticism, 31. Slate, 102. Social welfare legislation, 139. Spokesmen, 109. Stability, 43. Staples, L. M., 128. Stimulation of national politics, 151. Suffrage, 22. Sweet, William C., 99. Time of election, 66, 117, 156. Traditions, 36. Unconstitutionality, 67. United States Senate, 26. Unit representation, 161. Unity, 71. Variation, 102. Villages, 12. Vote: county unit, 16, 112; majority, 137; modi- fications in, 113; preferential: 117; advantage of, 112. Waite, Colonel Henry M., 110. WALLACE, ScHuyLER C. Pre-Primary Con- ventions, 97-104. War, 2, 34, 67, 140. Washington, George, 24. Weapon, 143. Webb, U.S., 119. West, Victor J. California Direct Primary, The, 116-127. Way I Betieve In THE Direct Primary. Nor- ris, George W., 22-30. Wiuttams, Bens. H. Prevention of Minority Nominations for State Offices in the Direct Primary, 111-115. Wilson, President, 65, 163. Women: enfranchisement of, 144; voters, 151, 156, 173. WorKINGS OF THE Direct Primary In Iowa, Tae. MHorack, Frank E., 148-157. ee ~ Publication: Office’ Z The: Rumford Press Building ~ CONCORD, N. H. Editorial Office - Bs “29th Street and Woodiand Avenue PHILADELPHIA ; * x ¥. ‘ , Wwiein’ ee Parpass, | ‘The ay rene was iad ‘Davee : Ay : 1889, to. provide a national forum: for the discussion ‘of political Bess z questions. — The Academy. goes 8 not take sides ‘Upon. controverted qu aus le forming a an ‘intelligent and accurate opinion. es > Publications. ‘The: Acadia publishes suluale § six issues a * ae ie ANNALS dealing with the most prominent current social and pi it problems. Each publication contains from. twenty. to twenty-five pap rs oe Ls same eae bie ? The terest number of the papers nae: expressions of opinion. Meetings. ‘The Academy. holds scientific sessions each yi “Padelohia. The annual a} menibershig fee is $5.00 and the life ae er 5 ship fee $100. ‘Members not: only receive the regular publications. of the . Academy, but are ‘invited to all the meetings. 5 ‘Members also have ne privilege: -of applying to the Editorial Council, Sa ke! 1p 11 Lois and social questions. - ; Aseued foe ie the American . Academy of Politicat “oid ‘xa Soionce Now Hi. ampshire. 2 Editorial pe 89th Street and d Woodland Avenue, Philadel, Pa : sa SOME COMMENTS IN "REGARD TO “THE ANNALS” a date. ae express my sincere d gonieantion of eat. aes to me e\isough a the: ee ae et ere « ds no a | Be a like sum. which is a oe Cs so. worthwhile. fo _ SEWARD A. SIMONS, teat thes Sake k ode eh ae es este ‘ SL RAS Rey Salt Someone Nase SS ; = 2 mat Cara? Statik, NR as r Mer ae 8 ' ¢ y “ pe sy af ‘a v * iL ae on *T can ‘conceive ae no: more sopateel terion for reepion | in tonok ue % ees “the great vital. ‘issues. of ‘the: at than ace a careful shady of your highly Se. authoritative volumes.” ee ene idmen iar) | _HESTER £. HOSFORD, : Sar Ce ph ae “Seattle Wehington : gates oe = L haw ay no. publiestion hike ORS meé- with as ‘ger definite and” ‘accurate information..on the. problems. of the day as” soe that me = etn by. the Ak geitee of Political and Social Seience.”” ie a SAM DOOR, Sane pom ae unbiased in 1 the formation of his own os eas re : | nN ie SOMERS, ne Pre Se ae : ee ay aS Se es sto bugeles California : ¢ oS The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, ? = 1, nee ta! F conspatilate’ you’ on. te eles ‘of the saludos oe ihe, wns eae past. year... The one thing that is’ particularly commendable i is the up-to- Je eats _. dateness ‘of the. information. that you publish. Further than that one gets . “views: from’ all sides of. the different. subjects, aa ls quite free and | Ee ch Ontario. fe bes eat 3Y ae ete ie Mee “ BPreaidon) ; ae tee Ho te 8. ‘ROWE, PD. Diredor General, Pen-American Union i eee : ~ 3 Pew 2 . Topol = = : 2 ee _ Vide Presidents ‘CARL KELSEY, PhD. Coa cee Saas University of Pennsylvania: ne ae ey ee S 7 DAVID B, BARROWS, Pad. He a CO ey . — & . a ake of Seitornia:: Pigs Wee ‘Bectotany Si ae : ae Boe perenne de Pp, LICHTENBERGER, PhD. = “CHARLES: 2 RHOADS, Esq. Att ‘University, of croc eco: ee | Brown Ero and ee Palade ; ve "Madrid, Spain "EDUARDO JIMENEZ DE ARECHAGA PROF, “ C. PIGOU Bain a ay Rise reper ‘s eee of ‘Cams Bead DR. M. |.BONN. (DR. WM, es 'RAPPARD - Berlin, Germany oats. — 2 : - = ao See ies Ae PROF. EDWIN CANNAN, u “De Seay - Oxford, ‘Engiand aF et aes "PROF, L, DUPRIEZ © | Sea _ University. of Louvain , a. Werke ee st _ PROF. CARLO F, FERRARIS Te See % were Royal University, Padua, Italy et aay EDMUND J; JAMES, Ph.D., LD. ah, ae | ‘University. ofllinsis. ae 3 "PROF. RAPHAEL GEORGES. Ley Ne : _ Paris, France ns He a} eee eile 4 7 y nae eee ‘ . " Ya cee ey crioeaaeuterelge . ' Mar brs Mt oer | ; Soke We take 4 ue 4 ’ o . ; 7 J Pinu mitra ena | ; Ctbote cusemp rt ote eisusitien : ’ gaia a : ener ‘3 ,! fe) Da ie depaernah » ee * ~ , NG ee rah is Seah A rd wee Pet os ota whhy: * 075956836 if af of : us ‘ onic Pat i at Reales lipteeree , pee eet hia mt be erect ee heed ere" Gout teat sere ; : art eee Eee ef en tele ak ”s FILLINOIS-URBANA perth meant sees ahaa becesigtittetsas Pe Rrcaniatheni toait ateaurat 5 areal tte pent } we 4h ee hla late thngen yas. c ie if te y ia Teer ait ty i Seine 3 011 Ce a Nes Coa, Mar ‘ 7 f tee ' Pe fbure t TUkGi@ess Wit iSueeree et : yebeaages By Ep HS trcieneretaceee vena oy era ‘, Phe ee iyene SG! a 0 Eby OR FREE IE ie tea tea giant tenor fepet aerate ta fet FASE ESouuaet du tikdece BAMA FO a I . Rapti siaie tat blac Talttiteses ceepunle dnd ewes Lrashemitrns eet PR So A rH eS Ri cpepebe eke? ¥ ens Feet feranieny eae pit Me i ; neuen’ 1: ; Henenite es bala aura 3 iy “ tebe : fide : } r ‘ A Giieigeee lay J : hes Peis Yeoh " , ; 7 t : os Fe oh Lod ore * , mail t ‘ ft a2 agi 4 “a L gsi ih dice eh , 4 i 7 od + jen? rite the ti b Pepe ety aR eee " we Neate ; hiwae par +4 ’ iMhiey pe tuk otras Pre gipeke PLOT epsren nde kOe bee baie fal he ’ 18) ae Teak eR Pere Bohr ree we Sr ye pebti rf : + Le eae pee ser ee Star “ee . bad ’ pee etre eaten sient ri ; Zine hoe be! ita th fr rte { & : eae ark aa hy : Phepere . , i) oar ; ms 4 y Ay ¥ + 1 vet ’ ‘ i : f - - r aibaasanish eet ited (Oe ryoe Ars ; Eye y Sh mpi } Ay ts ’ grpek Dene g ett Ne hele " ; fl edt br H ¥ tits hel eeraepen t ci Sta \ uae aed bd, eed pie are Oe 7 Tiel uae ba BLU eat be bee i iene ; Wer vise bepred nirpitwrt 1 De tte lie ane es oe Hop L cE « PRE L (Grd oe VB epi ses Runes } fe 44 i PALO be choy ’ Voli ae } 4 he : ; soles we ; erebhhieh ObyF ace ieee e MY 5 : hed Dr “ yeu Yee eT CME Ly cee ek Gu bct Lea ererteeAt ; a ‘ acetal t } gtd 393 pCR i aes OE I 5 ‘ye i at Hoge sta : phe OUT Mo ee STL tein aC Peete bra dit , vive y ABE ; ¥ , ‘ Sptaht Har ERAN A ne LS ss mua Ha Serre eh rat ith ts Ra hielbniys : Ree es 1 Bids iy RGU aarti) Mio it bebe pra Veit bil ah AD Mata Pt aa i ite CH ean Hen peacertn de) UR j Edy Api ny a ; mals yond mented if ida artaghel tangen) 6 Y Ab ebent F ( . are : i - th his fi bs 4a if dunt pith Leet phi: b : ¥ cae ile his hee a ee : tere a ee : 14 ee Pe. Ld fi aw Shi lie ; at 1) “ 0 t ei ‘ : » | ve hipel he ~ var i ’ St ae Hiehe neh ih > i meen 1 ah Lu tap ga ais p eta pis ate i yee 4° Gye itees BSEP ET CULY ; | rl y ve Otte Bo us hick unite Fan ab viata is wy Apbiact ee bate: BOF td . L Fastin BOOED Ld ha fa th f i ? ew oti eee ‘Phaed Pale aati ow? , hart ie 4 Ve » rf , . ° fi as saad Ppp t yt augat ing: i " 4 ‘ + by h-43 Cer OTe Oe wae a i Shine . pivieg Slot chopre , ES Be a pa , vee eta : ‘ ibehoeey Cebeites tnt : tye : : ‘ : , ehept te 4 fibibese h® PY Le puis aaa teg “fh ries 7 : re yi tig au eetier ve roy a citi i * * Pas . ” . r rine - : at ein Bana t aay tind q ft { ’ By igh) Spit ce - 5 ee ee i eb hate) hie { Palas wir iP tdee KERDD uy peivedte t ih i A i Voi + i rt i Christe ‘ a j y , H f F ' # " eA E austel stots Hap Rae: he Hehe lyst: Sa BE OE AB rt et igel tL) 3s eye Nae oh GEE cept me } 7 : Gi i ‘ iD ive [heed ‘ ¥ H i } tf] , . ‘ bey Te aaa at ¢ : t i : > , ui val } ier AS My % ote : j : fs ~~ we ih ’ iu i ; ’ bee we teeth Vi fer pitt : mie gertarh ie mot ioe ticles senautetey Haas EET AN ‘ th pete A S dileeatl " edd en ede yan Cy pales gee ; i ‘ ; neti ; ieee ie osa@enhl' iH ie ; ae H f , SAM pee ESE Oty ' ; : . 4 edowee Hebe ireuet eet sate | ime bana deph td 43 f Lrnesie® he : ‘ ¢be * ; ' i neve f ; 2 t ’ vine t f ita } ard Ao Pentaedian brieht ; ° rin ! bigs t limber oe Pe fendte PPP! Dy 4.) Ltrs) Wee pst P fet, EME Cit “gel the Vi pyabit heed ti hey 4 * M4 ; ; rid) Bik . hoa Fenhey Gbadberttis tT i Fle) OY, ee ; ht 4 ONE We ebabree sige dtr ig is degrarny Poe ibid ids r : yt ’ fe , i ’ ps 1 ‘ i ‘ eet 49 SBade & ; jet ' ss athe bE bee « . t mci { ; ¥ rH vevad dag an AY add satan ti Tih Wb sled Le h le r bbe ; “" ( Viaeed | ad vie \ babe Tee eet Define) a wre ‘ ‘ Teapotebbet ee : Llecme pling f 9 DES Aradaatie aed ; Hey ¥ ete reroak Rab) rieeittatts EL eee hn what Rey 4 brapameie Brey ra I tard Femree teases five tame bt Beh) in ity a tirtiieg hea i eee tee At 3 hate Aeipeinl ape 4 Wi piel abe ne] H othe he Loti . , ieee ; bel ewinel sai LAU hopipeaest tina pe Unveil: (itd } Mine | reapers Ay Ady ae hivet at: { EM auPd gs ee ne lame | 0 ibe ne badge i Eireht foe pare de PEGLE SHS? eh we aescehupe oe rhe A f - ¥ iy M: (3 “4 i r '? ‘ ay it f " i ie apis Osa iedddag 2 iy a or © © ~ J * : ¢ ns Wein ply BE dulin ‘ 4 Piedhie Meio 44 Oe A € * Hy4 * ~~ pepe we fel ins Tawi me ae Coe ee aeaee pala Woot 1 Vike : i Webra vennntheMep Reweiprba uti (rt PEE HOCK gain ach } ‘nil Mishary Aa - { * V4 » ' . te Ll ' eee it Gus lhe =e ise find i eae be mi th Piet p rel |G . gees prise! ratays (Mer aioe tate Gt AL, i 4 “h - + f Satie te ; “ we he vit A es nen eh uy p rrbhty : oye : iv Ee Hepeenieat By fdr 4 Pipe -~ oa Epa Lease gtri ‘ be enn f is eo east leaaineyet : ; Pct a : : hE Conte LEE a ; i i a BAL APE # ‘ iheePecrs f ¢ 5 uf Bt dF AOS he Micke dupa! sete { SUES A pn meni nN It etinely ” ree “ ees (abe b) ta ve Df bt Me pet baer bm putea a} te ' Pe a) ‘ . ‘ att oat eaters Orr ea aes eh iow Tinton t Ares aN Pi choareping ates ai cs tis be (o) 8 * ir * ‘ ct bun viata : ioeanacir ach TU rp ah Read sacgaa han Geir att rr , Maint ilies 8 4 seed ; ® , pie Ws OT stiet Street bie : ray mah ied P ) ry R ‘ y Leh we , 6 " ceemetaesta ilettasen seek tac m pment 0 ere io Hp rrate ide arch te Raita esas iiss seit } mee Y Le i) be Ahi de wd Hg ; : ook Rew RS OR eh i ae oo} eo Ty A A dat ath Peat ed le ig ss be fae: Wes bt) Nb: ; Phe 15 4 / ay 7 * _ eee Ae: | % Beh diy are a or : [ ds Daren Demeraane ’ r ba Si iel gh) ) ratte hile dag pak} Meaeadd 9 ° ’ OE hamhe<§ he 4 kg ” Fat ers tes * id pebi beet z " ne 4 ; i Na ' y , ay r Vel > ** : ‘ ‘ , ’ Rigen bth aria ; UNS poe Pt Le x re P ’ ' ) ye wn » f 3 Deb lpr fs ied Nf 4 ‘ ( ° oe ent ath 4 ae 4. Pi rd ae ed i ' ee iter reeet -¥ Sa : yal ‘ . Lf 1% - . 4 r * ad ; prs a ; . _ ‘ Bewek vhs t eee ’ Ages Ss db pein iph Oe DAA a rare hoe hawt 4 poe 3 . YH ' Pith oe > we Lat a ce sist iy : ‘ ‘4 y + u bet gee ’ ly io ” ' vs ~ \* ’ : balé = ¥ va v Ff inpeywt ‘ ‘ , atria preeratpart (esse: : eee ek q PE rie . fy bel st MF fi hebesstehes ete f Gite Vebedst iwi th pemaseret tg va A fe ade paneder ete liidin 6 Sep ede bie UE ; ‘ ohn Ante pede ley ' : iraad pitied ; ' , Abas $ ALD lt + . ‘ » A ‘ nd , | ian Fgh iw j ; } # ¢ ’ ‘ pat: j Lip ie eA ate F . i a0) ‘ ' tefl Petit Guae te if rare ¢ if ,* r Tt goog b| 7? :, t . ‘ m