by the" organization;" and the whole operation of this sham direct primary system was rendered ridiculous. So much for the type of primary law favored by the two old parties. Both of them promise amendments at the coming session, but the kind of amendment which we may expect from either of them is well indicated by the amendment which they passed last year. Without going into details, it is most important to apply the direct primary law to all public offices and party positions, including United States senators and delegates to national party conventions, and excluding only such minor local offices as were excluded under the Hinman-Green bill. To such an extension both the old parties are definitely opposed-but if the direct primary system is sound and desirable as applied to all other offices, why should it not be applied to the most important offices of all, the very offices in which the voters are most interested and in regard to which they have the clearest and strongest preferences? The opponents of such an extension will reply that it is sufficient that the party voters should have power to "instruct" the delegates to the state convention as to their preference for state officers. Even assuming, however, that such instructions, when clear and unanimous, will be carried out by the convention-an assumption by no means certain to be justified,—it is wholly unfair to the voters to expect them, with no more information or assistance than is supplied them under the convention system, even to have any clear preference as to party candidates, to say nothing of taking the trouble to go to the polls and express it when they have no assurance that such an expression of their opinion will produce any result. Up to the time the primaries are held there has been, under the present system, no adequate public discussion of the merits of the various candidates for nomination. The candidates have not come forward and conducted a campaign to acquaint the voters with their personalities or their views. Their names do not appear on the official primary ballot which is handed to the voter at the polling-place. All that he has before him is a list of names of eminently respectable and otherwise colorless gentlemen who are seeking election as delegates to the state convention, and who have been carefully picked out beforehand by the leaders of the "organization" as persons who can be relied upon to do what they are told. There is nothing to indicate whom these gentlemen favor as party candidates for the various state offices-indeed, they often have very little idea themselves. The ballot seldom contains the names of any opposing list of candidates for the positions of delegates -chiefly for the reason that there is at this time no issue on which any fight against the organization candidates can be made except that of their personalities or the general issue of opposition to the " organization," which as yet has not shown its hand. The voters, in short, are merely asked to give a blind power of attorney to the "organization," which, later on, will announce through its mouthpiece, the convention, whom it has selected. Under this system the task of the voters, at best, is to suggest. It remains for the "organization" to decide. I believe, on the contrary, in a system under which the "organization" will suggest and the party voters finally decide. Let the "organization" be given the right, together with any other groups within the party, to propose candidates for nomination. Let these candidates go before the party voters and present their claims to the nomination, so that the party voters, when they go to the primaries, may decide between them as intelligently and with as complete information as to their merits as possible. But let the party voters themselves have the last word. I believe all the more strongly in applying the direct primary principle to state offices because the statistics from other states show that where this is done the popular vote at the primaries is larger than in those states where only local officers are directly nominated. Since the chief purpose of the direct primary is to secure as full and representative an expression of opinion as possible within each party, every factor which serves to increase the popular vote at the primaries should be taken advantage of to the fullest extent. Another reason why I favor the extension of our direct primary law to state offices is that, in other states, wherever the direct primary system has been adopted for certain local elections, its application has almost always been subsequently ex tended, and in twenty-eight states direct nominations are now mandatory for practically all elective offices. In six other southern states the system is optional, but under the rules of the Democratic party, practically all elective officers are nominated at legally regulated direct primaries. In only four states outside of New York is the application of the system still limited to local offices. Surely the experience of the rest of the country has something to teach us on this point. But our direct primary law should not merely be extended to apply to the state offices in its present form. It should also be amended so as to provide for an official primary ballot of the office-group type, such as is now in use in every other state which has adopted the direct primary system. Our present form of primary ballot, with its separate column for each faction, its permission to the organization within the party to use the emblem of the party as a whole to designate its own candidates for nomination, its provision that the name of a candidate for nomination may appear in only one column, and its special provision for straight ticket voting, is cunningly devised to give the organization an impregnable position and absolutely prevent all independent action within the party. We should adopt a form of ballot on which all candidates for nomination are placed upon an absolute equality. Another most urgently needed amendment to our present law is one providing for a reduction in the number of signatures required to place a candidate's name on the official primary ballot by petition. At present such petitions must be signed by at least five per cent of the enrolled party voters in the district and four per cent of the total party vote for governor in the district at the last preceding gubernatorial election. This requirement often renders the proposal of candidates for nomination by any group within the party other than the organization practically impossible. It should be altered for the same reasons which demand a change in the form of the primary ballot. In order, furthermore, to prevent any repetition of the absurdly long ballots used at the primaries last spring, and to put into force within the party the same short ballot principle which we are advocating for public offices, the use of the election district, instead of the assembly district, as the unit of representation in the choice of party committees should be made mandatory. The same principle demands that only the most important party committees be made elective by the party These amendments would remedy the worst defects in the existing law. voters. In conclusion I wish to call attention to the fact that the direct primary is not the only method which, in full accordance with the Progressive platform, I am earnestly advocating for the purpose of giving to the people a more complete control over their government. The adoption of the short ballot system for public offices is particularly important as a corollary to the direct primary, since without it the task of the voter in making nominations will be left unnecessarily complicated, and his control over the nominating process correspondingly impaired. This does not mean that we should postpone the enactment of a thorough-going direct primary law until after we have amended the constitution to provide for the short ballot, but it does mean that we should supplement our direct primary law by a shortening of the ballot as soon as possible. WM. SULZER, candidate of the Democratic party for governor of New York: I am in favor of simplifying the ballot, extending the corrupt practises act, and instituting direct primaries. I have been advocating these reforms ever since I was in the legislature twenty years ago. In coöperation with the late Senator Saxton, I passed the first ballot reform law and the first corrupt practises act when we were in the legislature, and from that day to this I have been doing everything in my power to promote these salutary reforms. In the future, as in the past, the people of New York can rely on me to take no step backward. (239) PROCEEDINGS OF THE AUTUMN MEETING OF THE ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE HELD IN NEW YORK, OCTOBER 25 AND 26, 1912 THE HE autumn meeting of the Academy of Political Science held in New York on October 25 and 26, 1912, dealt with Efficient Government. Three sessions were held at Earl Hall, Columbia University. The program was as follows: FIRST SESSION Friday afternoon, October 25 Topic THE SELECTION AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES Introductory address Harlan F. Stone The Elective and Appointive Methods of Selection of Judges Learned Hand The Recall of Judges Gilbert E. Roe 7. Hampden Dougherty Discussion by Richard S. Childs, Everett P. Wheeler, Charles H. Hartshorne and Edward D. Page THIRD SESSION Saturday morning, October 26 Topic THE ADAPTATION OF WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS TO CHANG ING SOCIAL CONDITIONS Introductory address Munroe Smith Judicial Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions Frank J. Goodnow |