Mie

i
Eat Si

Heaney
a : eo

MN en
Ki a mH it

Y bay
ya) ra i pi Wy
ret

aaa i ma

Lert 4

ARLE tt Ria!

era i
cat

of
Peers
ee
ae
ears

 

Pa
oe
eee
Peat
fo

TOI

ra ‘i

ie a
rn a eas
i i at pins
tae
f ce
oe oi ret

ni Ais age § Mba
Rat

ow
yy Veen i =

%

Caete

BA ps Peis rane
Ps

=

aS

S35

a Ry at
First ares tom
ret rh

 

Seen as eee

on ae oii
niet co etek

ARAL gt

B
Rete
faith coger ae

Diora eerie

abies

caste
ioe Anon ane 2
aah

aaa hia S

eae.
“stra pote epee

aac ol oe
a Bite tes.
ere

rite Psstac ee
Satie
e - abe
= algiaco
te Faia Sag

a iy

nike gaa.

q “ oP ea
sii aoe

he aa

es on
Ps bee Ss
i

ahlier Der
hariretrteten
dooreebelirh 2
 

 

Goruell University Library
Sthaca, Nem Burk

Columbia University,
eel In... exchange...

werdaeisderpacess 25383 Ni pcs aas jo aeenmatangweree dase abit | lopearaeicimas
Neo 7 ersty

Tinian

 
THE

Direct Primary

IN

New Jersey

By RALPH SIMPSON Boots, A.M.

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of.
Political Science, Columbia University

NEW YORK
1917
THE

Direct Primary

IN

New Jersey

By RALPH SIMPSON Boots, A.M.

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of
Political Science, Columbia University

NEW YORK
1917
PREFACE

Among the progressive measures adopted in many
states in recent years none has been more popular,
more widely accepted as desirable, than the direct
primary. The chief object of these measures has
been to place the people in charge of their own house,
or to restore to them the control of their own govern-
ment, it being assumed that they have at some time
lost a power which they once possessed. The principle
of the direct primary has been perhaps less debated
than that of several of the other reform measures be-
cause the fact is clear that it is not a departure from
representative government, but only from the repre-
sentative method of providing candidates for office in
such a government.

The direct primary has been in ope ‘ation in numer-
ous states for a sufficient length of time to afford a
fairly adequate oppertunity to learn of its usefulness,
efficiency, and results, but few extended investigations
of these phases of the subject have been conducted,
fewer probably than those dealing with various aspects
of the initiative, referendum, or recall. The latest of
the leading studies of the subject was written in 1908
when not many states had yet had much experience
of the direct primary in practice.

Not only do the laws of the various states provide
considerably different forms of the direct primary
machinery, but electoral conditions in general are not
everywhere the same. Consequently any intensive
examination of the working of the direct primary
must be confined to one state.

The investigation which produced the material for
this study was conducted through the Bureati of State
Research of the New Jersey State Chamber of Com-
merce, an organization whose interests, wider than
merely commercial, extend to the study of problems
of public welfare. The object was to obtain the facts
relative to the operation of the direct primary in New
Jersey, upon which conclusions as to its value, de-
fects and improvement might be based. The State
Chamber of Commerce provided facilities—money,
clerical force, and the influence of its reputation—
for the conduct of this study, whose results with
slight changes will also be published by its Bureau of
State Research.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge, with gratitude, an
especial indebtedness to Professor Charles A. Beard
for advice and encouragement.

RaLtpH Simpson Boots.
New York City, May 18, 1917.
CONTENTS
Cenriin oc vores heen e rig ieete ds wads peesee 1
Plan of the Study

Historical Background.
Operation of the Direct Primary in New Jersey.
Public Opinion on the Direct Primary.

CHAPTER, (LB o puny be savy oe sie oe ae coca eisacge aa cues 9

The Development of the Direct Primary.

The Unregulated Convention System.
The Beginning of State Regulation.
The Direct Primary.

CHAPTER: TI acco ce grees or eae Nees 15
Primary Legislation in New Jersey
Regulation of Primaries and Conventions Before

903.
The Act of 1903.
Primary Legislation 1903-1911. :
The Geran Act (1911).
Changes in the Primary Law Since 1911.
Public Opinion on the Direct Primary.

CHAPTER: IV goes chet ousdie@ewaedau ie RAgle add ws 47
The Extent of Participation in the Primary Before
908

Records for Hudson County.

Records for Essex County.
Summary of Records.

CHAPTER. V 446305 baa b Wee eelaeeia weil cases epee 59
The Avowed Purposes of the Direct Primary
Advocates

Governor LaFollette’s Views.
Governor Hughes’ Views.
Governor Wilson’s Views.

Summary.
GHAPTERS VEG i366 eG ea. ein weal nie ee aed as 71
A Study of the Direct Primary in Six Counties of

New Jersey
Salem County.
Hunterdon County.
Middlesex County.
Union County.
Essex County.
Hudson County.
General Survey of Other Counties.

CHAPTER WI] ean sna tied a iiakig ede 121
The Character of Primary Voters

Study of Wards in Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and
Camden.

Primary Participation in These Municipalities.

Relative Political Independence of the Primary Voters.

Canvass of Voters in South Orange Village, Salem and
Westfield.

Summary.
CONTENTS—Continued

CHAPTER: VIL vd cenadtrcnianek quar antes aneaneeens 152
The Character and Political Responsibility of Primary
Nominees

‘Candidates for General Assembly: 1908, 1911.

State Committeemen.

‘Candidates for United States Representative: 1912,
1914, 1916.

Political Responsibility of Primary Nominees.

(HAPTER: UXG 5088. coscua ana sacacere-actsa soatasaaie aeanadnere eaves 161

The Cost of Elections im New Jersey

The ‘Cost to the Government.

The Cost of Elections in 1916.

County Analyses of 1916 Primary and General Election
Expenses.

State Summary of Purposes of Expenditure.

Candidates’ Expenditures.

Enforcement of the Corrupt Practices Act.

CHAPTERS Goss ive aiccraishensirs aievarewcanegy ep ahiatesie acbeateeaa 213

Opinions on Various Features of the Direct Primary
Opinions of Municipal Clerks.
Opinions of Editors.
Opinions of County Chairmen and State Committee-
men.
Opinions of County Clerks. 4 :
Opinions of Granges and Commercial Organizations.

CHAPTER! Deli scare cinco Wied ones adie ae nie Hew on 262
Views of Political Leaders

Hudson County: Opinions A to H.
Essex County: Opinions A to E.
Passaic County: Opinions A to J.
Middlesex County: Opinions A to H.
Union County: Opinions A to E.
Hunterdon County: Opinions A to H.
Sussex County: Opinions A to C.
Morris County: Opinions A to B.
Mercer ‘County: Opinions A to D.
General: Opinions A: to G.

CARTER, CMe hip awed ees Hoe we Seas ee aaa o islouins 327

Summary and Conclusions

Lack of a System of Elections.

Proposed Arrangement of Terms of Office.

The Extent of Primary Participation.

The Participation of the Majority Party and of the
Minority Party.

The Absence of Principles in County Elections.

Rejected Ballots.

Interest in the Election of Delegates.

Offices for Which No Candidates Appear.

The Absence of Contests.

The Character of the Primary Voters.

The Character of Officials.

The Cost of Primary Candidacy.

A System of Permanent Registration.

The Need of An Effective System of Nominating Pe-
tions.

Conclusion.
CHAPTER I

PLAN OF THE STUDY

Many laws are enacted for a single specific pur-
pose and although state-wide or nation-wide in their
operation they affect but a single subject and the
degree to which they produce the results intended
may be determined quite readily by a study of the
change in the conditions surrounding the subject
to which they are applied. Thus the measure of
success attendant upon the establishment of a postal
Savings system is indicated by deposits. The ar-
rival at a conclusion in regard to the effectiveness
of many of these laws is made more simple by the
fact that the subjects with which they deal have
physical properties, and may be seen or touched
and counted or measured.

Other laws are designed to establish principles of
government which will introduce far-reaching bene-
fits and enhance the public welfare, but their effects
are difficult if not impossible to count or measure
because they are intangible or because they are so
far removed from their causes as not to be definitely
relatable to them. Such, for example, are many pro-
gressive measures of recent years—the civil-service
reform, commission government for cities, and the
direct primary. The direct primary so far has been
a state measure and its form varies in the different
states. The main provisions of the present law in
New Jersey have all been in force since 1911 when
the last radical amendment was adopted, and thus
a period of six years is afforded for study with an op-
portunity for comparison with the eight years preced-
ing during which a direct primary of more or less ex-
tensive application was in use.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

As an introduction to the special study of the
operation of the New Jersey direct primary law, a
brief summary of the principal steps in the develop-

1
ment of the direct primary throughout the United
States will be presented first, which will serve as a
background for the history of the primary legisla-
tion in New Jersey given in the third chapter.
The operation of the law can be better studied and
understood if one is acquainted with the gradual
process by which the law was created. The latter
part of chapter three will describe in considerable
detail the provisions of the law now in force in New
Jersey, and will close with a reference to the attitude
of the political parties, the leading newspapers and
the voters toward the law. In chapter four, still
as a preliminary to the main study, the extent of
participation by the voters in the primary in the
earlier years of the century before the adoption of
the direct feature and its more extended application,
will be considered. Democracy means more than
theory, and hardly any question is more important
than that of how to make democracy effective in
practice especially in the fundamental operations of a
free government.

The direct primary was adopted everywhere as
a remedial measure, not as an original means to
perform a new function, but as an improved method
of accomplishing something for which other instru-
ments had been employed. The thing to be done
was the nomination of candidates for public
office by the members of political parties. The
delegate and conventon system had long been in
use. This machinery had in the opinion of many
people become defective and there was need for
some contrivance whose operation and_ results
would prove more satisfactory to persons having a
vital interest in them, that is, the members of polit-
ical parties, not perhaps so much as such but as
citizens, along with the other citizens affected by
the inefficiency of the existing process. The form-
ing of a judgment then in regard to the effectiveness
of the direct primary will depend largely on one’s
conception of the conditions to be met by it and
of what it was intended to accomplish. On these
two points the views of three leading advocates of
the direct primary will be stated in chapter five.

2 ‘
OPERATION OF THE DIRECT PRIMARY IN NEW JERSEY

To determine to what extent its purposes have
been attained in the operation of the direct primary
law and to adduce indisputable facts in support of
such a determination are not easy tasks. These are
the aims of this study as far as they may be attained
for the state of New Jersey, and incidentally for other
states where similar conditions prevail.

Upon what points in the operation of the law can
definite facts be obtained? The number of the quali-
fied voters that participate in the primary election
can be ascertained for a period of years. No one
could argue that the direct primary is a highly
valuable institution if it is not used extensively,
unless he should go so far as to insist that the mere
existence of the law on the statute books automat-
ically produces the desired results—candidates more
desirable to the party voters as a whole, more re-
sponsive to their wishes and more capable of serv-
ing the public good when in office. Certainly the
participation must be shown to be as great as that
under the convention system, for it is submitted
that the inability of the voters to choose honest dele-
gates is hardly a valid argument against that system
unless the inability of the general election voters to
choose satisfactory officials be admitted to be an argu-
ment against the popular choice of officials.

If more voters participate in the direct primary
than participated in the convention system, the di-
rect primary, other things being equal, is to that
extent preferable to the former system, but if the ex-
pression of the opinion of a still greater per cent. of
the voters may be secured under some different sys-
tem, then that system is, to that degree, preferable to
the direct primary.

But there are two phases of the use of the primary
which may be distinguished. The one just men-
tioned is measured by the number of voters
that participate, the other is measured by the
number of contests for nomination that the pri-
mary is used to decide. If there are no contests, the
primary, however good in principle, is quite worth-
less in practice; it is not needed. The only purpose
of the party primary is to enable the party voters to

3
select from a number of aspirants to represent the
party in its campaign to secure or maintain control
of the organs of government that one who is accept-
able to. the most numerous group of the party mem-
bers. To learn the extent of the use of the primary
in these two respects is then the chief purpose of this
investigation.

It seemed unnecessary to examine the records of
every county of the state for this purpose. The law
of New Jersey recognizes four classes of counties;
those having a population of over 300,000; those hav-
ing a population of not less than 50000, nor more
than 300,000; those having a population of not less
than 20000, nor more than 50000; and those not em-
braced in any of these classes. There is no county
of the fourth class; there are eight of the third, eleven
of the second and two of the first class.

The third class counties and some of the second
are almost entirely rural in character, the others of
the second class are partly rural and partly urban;
one of the two first class counties is practically
all urban and the other is very largely so. It
is reasonable to suppose that one county of each of
these classes is quite typical of all the counties of the
class, but to be more certain of arriving at facts and
conclusions valid for all the counties of a class, two
from each were studied intensively and the results
are presented in tabulated form in the sixth chapter.
These six counties contain over 53% of the popula-
tion of the state. Salem was selected because of its
average population among the smaller counties, and
the absence of any municipality of sufficient size to
constitute a large per cent. of the population, also be-
cause of the balanced political situation, neither
party having a safe majority, and because it
lies in south Jersey. Hunterdon was studied
because it presented in part different conditions—
a situation in north Jersey and the decided
deminance of one political party. Among the sec-
ond class counties Middlesex was chosen as most
typically a mixed rural and urban county, containing
no great city but numerous small ones, and because
it, like Salem, is not a “safe” county for either party;
Union, although not so regularly controlled by one

4
party, perhaps, as some other second class counties,
and although adjoining Middlesex, was selected be-
cause it possesses, perhaps in a greater degree than any
other, the partly urban and partly rural character.
At the close of the chapter an examination will be
made of the number of candidates to be nominated
in other counties of the state for a period of years,
the number of contests for nomination, and the in-
crease or decrease in the primary vote.

After the question of the extent of participation
in the primary election there arises the question sec-
ondary in importance only to that one—what is the
character of the voters that participate in the pri-
mary?

In view of the fact that only about half of the quali-
fied voters regularly attend the primaries it would
seem of considerable importance to learn whence
this half of the voters comes. With this end in
view an effort will be made to discover from
which wards of the four largest cities of the
state the greatest percentage of primary voters come.
Then the result of a canvass of the individual voters
of certain districts of typical wards in these
four cities will be presented. The same inves-
tigation has been conducted throughout three
small municipalities in different parts of the state
and the results will be studied. The municipalities
chosen for this purpose were selected for no particular
reason except that they were each situated in a county
in which an intensive study was conducted, and that
they were considered typical, in great measure, of all
the smaller municipalities of the state.

There remain few features of the operation of the
law which may be examined through the gathering
of absolute recorded facts. One of them is the ex-
tent to which the pledges of the state platforms
of the two great parties have been enacted into legis-
lation when one or the other of those parties has
been put in control of the state legislature. This will
throw some light on the responsiveness of candi-
dates nominated at the primary to what they con-
ceive to be the wishes of their constituents. The
question of the character of party and public officers
under the direct primary as compared with that of those

5
under the convention system is almost impossible of
settlement by any presentation of facts. It is largely
a matter of opinion. But no one will deny that the
continued choice through the direct primary of the
same officers who held under the convention sys-
tem is at once indication of the failure of the pri-
mary, for whatever cause, to produce better candi-
dates and even of its failure to produce good candi-
dates, if the usual charges of primary advocates as
to the character of party leaders under the conven-
tion system are accepted at anything like face value,
unless, of course, the direct primary performs a work
of grace in the individual politician’s heart, turning
him from the error of his ways.

Next will be studied the cost of the direct primary
system in two phases—to the public and to the can-
didate for nomination. The controlling purpose of
this part of the investigation is to learn first what
is the total cost of the primary election and then to
make an analysis of the expense into separate items
with a view to making possible a reduction or elimi-
nation of items which appear to be out of propor-
tion to or unjustified by their benefits. The study
of candidates’ expenses will suggest legislative ac-
tion to bring about reductions.

PUBLIC OPINION ON THE DIRECT PRIMARY

After all the evidence of definite, recorded, indis-
putable facts relative to the operation of the direct
‘ primary have been gathered and studied, there re-
main several questions of importance for the answering
of which the opinions and judgment of men must be
depended upon to a large degree. One of these ques-
tions is, as suggested above, whether the character
of public officials, generally, has been raised by the
direct primary. It is impossible for any private
organization to conduct on any subject a referendum
which shall reach every citizen or even every voter:
The class or group whose opinions are to be solicited
must be selected. This must be fairly done so that
a prejudiced opinion will not prevail, and individuals
or organizations must be questioned that are in posi-
tions to speak with some intelligence on the subjeci.

No one probably will hesitate to concede that as

6
a body the municipal clerks of New Jersey are in
a position to be more familiar with the operation of
the direct primary law than any other persons ex-
cept, perhaps, the county clerks. They, with the lat-
ter, “operate” the law. In a rather extensive ques-
tionaire the opinions of municipal clerks on certain
questions regarding the direct primary law have
been solicited and willbe presented. The county
clerks, always acquainted with the practical side of
the law, have been polled by a somewhat similar list
of questions. Then the editors of the newspapers
of the state were believed to be very worthy of con-
sultation on these matters of political-interest. Their
opinions will undoubtedly be leavened by the currents
of public sentiment in their communities and will be
all the more valuable on this account.

Another group of men certain to take a vital in-
terest in the direct primary law and devote thought-
ful attention to it consists of the chairmen of party
county committees and members of the state com-
mittees. In some respects their knowledge of the
law’s operation will be more complete than that of
the preceding classes. The attitude of the party or-
ganizations toward the direct primary and their re-
lation to the primary campaign have been sought in
a detailed questionaire.

Lastly, as representing more closely the individual
citizen’s concern with the primary the prevailing
opinion arnong the members of three kinds of or-
ganizations has been sought through the secre-
taries of these organizations— labor unions, (a)
granges and chambers of commerce—which repre-
sent rather completely the economic interests of the
state as a whole—industrial, agricultural, commer-
cial; the shop-worker, the farmer, the business man.
The members of the New Jersey State Chamber of
Commerce were addressed in a personal letter.. The
men who have been nominated for a public office,
or have been defeated in an attempt to secure
nomination at the primary, will naturally have
opinions on the operation of the law, valuable be-

(a) A list of the more important unions of the state and the names of
the proper persons to whom to address communications could not be ob-
tained in time, after the sending of a questionaire to certain organiza-
tions was decided upon, to make possible more than a very few replies
before the close of the period available for the investigation.

7
cause based on actual experience in close contact
with its provisions. Most of these men would be
dubbed “politicians” in ordinary language. Many
of them hold or have held public positions of greater
or lesser importance. They were personally inter-
viewed. The substance of their remarks constitutes
a separate chapter, number eleven.

From the facts and opinions elicited from these
sources of information—public records and personal
judgment — the attempt will be made to draw
whatever conclusions may be warranted in regard
to the general purpose of the investigation—what
is the degree of usefulness and efficiency of the pres-
ent direct primary law in the state of New Jersey in
accomplishing the objects for which it was enacted—
in what ways may the administration of the law be
made more effective and by what means less ex-
pensive, and in what particulars the law may be
amended in the direction of simplification without im-
pairing the safeguards of the ballot or the facility of
popular control of nominations?
CHAPTER II

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE Direct Primary (a)

THE UNREGULATED CONVENTION SYSTEM

In the United States, within the 20th century,
a new method of choosing the candidates of political
parties for public office has rapidly replaced a sys-
tem which prevailed for seventy years preceding,
and which, at its inception, was hailed as a means
of affording the adherents of a political party equal
opportunity in determining who should represent
the party and its principles in contest with rival
parties before the public for the control of the
agencies of government. That system was the
delegate and convention system, which in the full-
ness of its development became in theory a perfectly
representative system of party government, chiefly
for the purpose of placing in nomination the party’s
candidates... All the regulations governing the
operation of the party machinery were for many
years provided solely by the party itself, quite as
free from any exercise of public authority through
legislative enactment as the constitution and by-laws
of a fraternal organization.

With the increasing population and wealth of the
country increased the advantages to be derived
from the possession of the offices and the control
of the government, especially for corrupt purposes.
To secure these advantages there arose dishonest
managers of party machinery, who, while perhaps
maintaining nominally the representative character
of party government, practically bent all their ef-
forts to control the nominations by whatever means
available.

Just as the foundation of our representative insti-
tutions rests on an honest choice of honest repre-
sentatives, so the representative character of party
government depended on an honest election of hon-
est representatives within the party. The whole

(a) In the preparation of this chapter Merriam’s “Primary Elections”
has been extensively used.
9
convention system took its start in the meeting of
party members within an area containing sufficiently
few to enable them to come together and conduct
a caucus at which officers for this small area (ward
or township) were placed in nomination, and dele-
gates selected for the next larger area or for several
larger areas constituting an electoral district or a
governmental unit. Given an honest choice of hon-
est delegates at this original meeting or primary, as
it was called, little objection could be raised to
the convention system, but the fraudulent election
of corruptible delegates was the object striven for
and often accomplished by those whose interest lay
in a perversion of the representative character of
party government for the sake of controlling, for
corrupt purposes ordinarily, the administration of
government in all its branches.

Then began the state regulation of party pri-
maries, justified solely on the ground of the necessity
of the state’s preserving an honest government, if
possible, through the honest election of officials
(and their nomination must precede their election),
surely not on the ground of the disappointment of
members of parties nor their dissatisfaction with the
regulations and practices of party government.

It is to be kept distinctly in mind that the early
provision by the state of regulations for the conduct
of primaries did not contemplate any change from
the convention system, but only the elimination of
the evils which marked its operation. These were
numerous,—“snap” primaries, “packed” primaries,
stuffed ballot boxes (where ballots were used), un-
fair rulings by presiding officers, the use of rooms
too small to contain all the party members, false
counting, false returns, bribery of delegates, the
participation of non-citizens and non-party mem-
bers, violence and intimidation. The evils flourished
largely because the state refused to interfere in party .
operations.

THE BEGINNING OF STATE REGULATION

The first law was enacted in California in 1866.
It required public notice of the purpose, time,
place, manner and conditions of holding the pri-
maries, compelled the supervising officer of the

10
party elections to take an oath to perform faithfully
his duties, and called for an examination of pros-
pective voters to prevent illegal voting. The appli-
cation of this act to party primaries depended on its
adoption by the parties; it was an optional statute.
The same year New York passed a mandatory, but
less comprehensive statute. The importance of
these laws lies in the fact that they mark a begin-
ning of state recognition and regulation of the pro-
cedure of political parties, hitherto voluntary asso-
ciations practically unknown to the law.

From this time on, the progress of primary regu-
lation by legal enactment was unceasing; other
states followed the early examples rapidly. At
length, as public interest increased, the details
of the conduct of the primary were included under
the application of law, until finally the primary elec-
tions in many states were as thoroughly controlled
by statute as the general elections. The steps in this
process need hardly be mentioned—from local and
optional (because conditions in the centers of popu-
lation were worst) to general and mandatory
statutes.

The adoption in 1888 and later years of the
Australian ballot for general elections necessitated
the official determination of what men, as the candi-
dates of the various parties, should be permitted to
have their names printed upon it, and this in turn
necessitated a definition of party. Then the state
moved forward in many instances in an attempt to
define membership in a party. This made the party
so evidently a recognized factor of the nominating
machinery that different states began to make the
expenses of the primary a public charge. Missouri,
the first, in 1891 required fees from designated can-
didates for nomination in such amount as to cover
the cost. The principle became widely established
(by 1899) that the expense of party primaries like
that of general elections was to be paid from the
public treasury. In reference to the grounds in
support of this public payment of the primary elec-
tion expense, Merriam says, “The controlling pur-
pose of primary reform was, however, the improve-
ment of political conditions in the interest of the
whole community, and on this broad ground the

ll
propriety of the payment for party primaries by
public funds rested.” (a)

In many states laws were enacted which at-
tempted to furnish a test of party allegiance so
that no inner group or organization could control
nominations by preventing, through narrow quali-
fications, a large body of the adherents to the prin-
ciples of the party from a vote in the primaries;
in other words, by making the nominating body
a sort of closed corporation. Concerning the solution
of this problem, a great difference of method pre-
vails, ranging from the requirement of the strictest
party adherence by means of enrollment, to the
broad principle of permitting the voter freely to
participate in the primary of any party he prefers,
limiting him to the exercise of choice among the
aspirants of one party only. The selection of party
committeemen, the procedure of conventions, the
apportionment of delegates, the meeting place of
conventions, the, call to order, the force of creden-
tials, the selection of primary election officers and
the use of ballots furnished by the state were also
subjects to which some states extended the applica-
tion of law. Merriam wrote this in 1908, “Every
state in the Union has now legislated against the
abuses arising under the voluntary party system of
nomination.” (b)

THE DIRECT PRIMARY

_ Along with, but easily distinguishable from, the
vmovement for public regulation of party primaries
developed the practice of direct nominations, or
direct primaries, at which the party members did
not elect delegates to represent them in selecting
a party candidate at a more or less distant conven-
tion of such delegates, but instead voted directly
for someone as the party candidate. This change
resulted naturally enough from dissatisfaction with
the conduct of delegates, the tendency to let the
voters exercise all the power possible, and the in-
creasing ease with which returns could be had from
a considerable area and population. The direct

 

(a) Page 36.
(b) Ibid. 66.

12
primary dates from 1860 in Crawford County, Penn-
sylvania, where it was adopted by the Republican
party entirely without state action as a means of
making nominations. The spread of the system was
apparently not rapid at first. In a few Southern
states the dominant party took it up.

During the nineties several states passed laws
providing for an optional form of the direct primary,
to be effective when adopted by the party commit-
tees. Thus as far as statutory regulation is con-
cerned, the direct primary took somewhat the same
course as primary regulation had taken—from op-
tional to mandatory for a special area, and then to
mandatory state-wide regulation. The first ten
years, roughly, of the present century mark the
period of most rapid extension of the direct primary
system by state law.

It is apparently one of the results of the recent
awakening of a new civic spirit in the country,
which in turn was produced by an increased dis-
satisfaction with the general conditions of life for
the mass of the population. True to American in-
stinct, the government was blamed, and called on
for remedial legislation, which took the form of
giving the citizen the opportunity for a more direct
control of the agencies and operation of govern-
ment and the party machinery. The first mandatory
direct primary law was that of Minnesota, 1899, for
Hennepin County only, which was extended over
the entire state in 1901. Ina short time the direct pri-
mary movement Swept over the country. When
Merriam wrote in 1908, over two-thirds of the states
of the Union had the direct primary in some form.
In some cases the method of direct nomination was
applicable to certain offices only or to certain areas,
but about one-third of the states used the direct
method for practically all elective offices. The laws
differed quite widely on a number of important
features of the system—the manner of getting one’s
name on the primary ballot, the plurality necessary
to nominate, the definition of party membership,
and so on, but they all substituted the vote for a
candidate for the vote for a delegate. “Unless
a reaction sets in soon, the desire for the direct
primary in another ten years will have swept over

13
the entire country, and it will have become the
universal method of selecting party candidates,”
says Merriam. (a) This prophecy has been practically
fulfilled, and today there is no great state where
the voters do not have the privilege of expressing
a direct choice among the aspirants for the candi-
dacy for almost every public office.

By January 1, 1914, complete state-wide systems
of direct nominations had been established in 32
states, while in five others the direct primary was
established by party rule. In addition, two states
had incomplete systems, leaving only nine states
without any system of state-wide direct primary.

 

(a) Page 90.

14
CHAPTER III
PrimMAry LEGISLATION IN NEw JERSEY .

é
REGULATION OF PRIMARIES AND CONVENTIONS
BEFORE 1903

The first statute of New Jersey on the subject of
party primaries was passed March 27, 1878. (a)
It was called “an act to regulate primary meetings
and caucuses of the several political parties of this
state for the nomination of persons to be voted for
at any elections held in this state.” It is of very
modest proportions and merely provides “that no
person who is not at the time being entitled to vote,
by the laws of this state, at the special, general and
local elections held in this state shall vote at any
primary meeting or caucus held by any political
party or political organization of this state for the
nomination or selection of persons to be voted for at
any such elections, and unless such person is a legal
resident of the ward, township or aldermanic dis-
trict in which such primary meeting or caucus is
held.” A violation of this act or counseling anyone
to violate it was made a misdemeanor. The prac-
tices which the act was intended to. prevent are
readily inferred, and it may be assumed that along
with such practices many others existed which were
untouched even by the terms of the act. For the
enforcement of this act no means or machinery
whatever was provided. It is difficult to see how it
could have been at all effective unless the rules of
the parties furnished some opportunity of detecting
infractions.

he same year an act (b) was passed to prevent
and punish the bribery of, and attempt to bribe,
delegates to political conventions; it made the giv-
ing directly or indirectly to a delegate and the ask-
ing for, accepting or receiving by a delegate of any
bribe a high misdemeanor.

 

(a) Chapter 113. pane
(b) Ibid. 204. ‘ £ ee ed

15
In 1883 an act to prevent and punish bribery at
primaries, conventions and elections was put on the
statute books (a). Sections two and three forbade
the “giving of money or other valuable thing, or the
furnishing of them with the intent that they be used,
to obtain, procure or influence the opinion, behavior, .
vote or abstaining from voting for the election of
any delegate to any convention of any political party
of this state.”

The following year the legislature enacted a statute
(b) to regulate the holding of and to prevent frauds
in the primary elections of the several political
parties in cities of the state of New Jersey. Officers
of primary elections, held for the purpose of nomi-
nating candidates for state, city and county officers
within the cities, were required, before entering
upon the discharge of their duties, to take an oath
to perform impartially and faithfully their duties in
accordance with the laws and constitution of New
Jersey, and in accordance with the rules and regu-
lations adopted by their respective parties for the
government of the primary elections. The officers
were empowered to administer the oath to any elec-
tor offering to vote as to his qualifications to vote at
such election.

Although in succeeding years numerous additions
were made to the regulations governing general
elections no further step was taken toward public
control of the nominating machinery of parties until
1898.

The public control established over the primaries
by the laws considered above was practically nil.
At best the acts: were meager and touched only
a few of the more ordinary abuses of primary
elections. Of course, if they had been observed in
their full spirit, no doubt considerable improvement
would have come about, but they were too trustful
of party organizations to be very effective, in fact
they seem to have amounted to little more than reci-
tations by the legislature of its opinion of what
ought to be.

The act of general revision of 1898 (c) added

() Chapter 134.
(b) Ibid. 211.
(c) Ibid. 136.

 

16
the following provisions in regard to primary meet-
ings: “No person having voted at any primary
meeting held by any political party or organization to
nominate candidates or elect delegates to nominate
candidates, to be voted for at any election shall vote
or offer to vote at the primary meeting of any other
political party.” ‘Certain offenses of the primary
election officers of a party were specifically forbid-
den as follows: Rejecting the vote of any person
entitled to vote under the rules of the party; receiv-
ing the vote of an unqualified person; fraud com-
mitted by destroying or defacing ballots, adding bal-
lots to the poll, by false counting, by making false
returns. The enumeration of these particular of-
fenses would seem to indicate that the party regula-
tions which the primary election officers were under
oath to enforce were not very specific in their expres-
sion of how the primary should be conducted.

THE act oF 1903

The next step in primary legislature was taken in
the passage of the act of April 14, 1903, (a) which
provides for the first time in New Jersey for the
direct primary. The first New Jersey act regula-
tive of the party primaries had been passed in 1878,
twelve years after the first similar act of any state.
The direct primary law of 1903, however, followed
the first mandatory law of any state on the same
subject within four years. It is to be noted that the
1903 statute created the direct primary before any
very extensive or radical regulation of the old pri-
mary existed.

Under the new act the primary election still was
used mainly for the selection of delegates to con-
ventions. Only ward and township officers were
nominated directly. The primary election was con-
ducted at public expense. It was held at the same
time and place for all parties on the first registry
day, the second Tuesday of September, conducted
by the boards of registry and election substantially
as general elections with official ballots, ballot-
boxes, registry lists and polling booths; but the Re-
publican election officers had sole charge of the Re-

 

(a) Chapter 248.
17

a

eas

——
ore

PE rae

.

publican ballot-box and the Democrats of theirs,
also the sole right to challenge voters offering to
vote the ticket of their party. Ten signers, residents
of the same election district, were sufficient to en-
dorse by a petition any member of their party as a
candidate for the nomination for public office or
for the position of delegate. If the party votes for
governor in the district at the last election did not
exceed twenty-five, one signer was sufficient. The
petition must be verified by the oath or affirmation
of one or more of the signers thereof. At the pri-
mary the voters already registered, or who there-
upon registered, for the ensuing general election,
were qualified to vote.

The voter was given the ballot of the party he
preferred on condition that if challenged he should
make oath that he was a member of the party and
that at the last election for members of assembly
(chosen each year) at which he voted, he voted for
a majority of the party’s candidates and intended to
support the candidates of the party at the ensuing
election. Any voter who voted in the box of one party
at any primary was forbidden to vote in the box of
another party at the next succeeding primary. The
record of participation in the primary was kept by
placing the first letter of the voter’s party in a column
of the registry book opposite his name.

Each candidate for delegate was permitted to have
printed on the ballot opposite his name his choice
for the nomination to office to be made at the en-
suing convention. If several candidates for dele-
gate named the same choice for nomination their
names might be grouped on the ballot. This pro-
vision introduced to a degree the principle of the
direct primary—the pledged delegates acting as reg-
isters for the voters’ choice expressed in reality for
the candidate for the office to be nominated at the
convention. Aside from this grouping, candidates
names were to be arranged alphabetically under the
name of the office or party position. The number.
of delegates to conventions was fixed as follows:
For state conventions one delegate from each district
for every two hundred votes cast by the political party
for its candidate for governor at the last gubernatorial
election and one delegate for each fraction thereof over

18
100; for any other convention one delegate for each
hundred votes, and one for each fraction thereof
over forty; but each election district was entitled at
any rate to one delegate to each convention, who
should have such vote or fraction thereof as the of-
ficial party call for the convention determined.

On the resolution of any county or city committee
its members were to be chosen at the primary. The
chairman of the county committee of each political
party was authorized to appoint two agents for each
election district in his county who might challenge
the right of any person to vote. Every person whose
name was printed on the primary ballot was also
given the privilege of challenging.

In one respect, by the terms of the bill as origi-
nally introduced, the method of conducting the pri-
mary was an improvement over that in forcé for the
general election. For the latter any duly qualified voter
by making proper application could secure, four
days before election, fifty or more of the official bal-
lots which could be voted just as those furnished at
the polls by the election officers. Ballots could be
handed to ignorant and purchased voters at ‘will.
This distribution of ballots outside the polling
places was not provided for in the primary bill as
introduced but an. amendment incorporated ‘a sec-
tion of the 1898 law in order to permit it.

From the foregoing description it will be seen
that the direct primary feature of the 1903 act was
one of its minor provisions. It was really the first
state regulation of the primary which was in any
way effective. Certainly the opportunity of voting
directly for candidates for nomination for township
or ward officers could not have offered any great
inducement to voters who had previously been in-
different in attending the primaries.

The great improvement made was in the manner
of the conduct of the primary—regular election of-
ficers were provided, publicly printed ballots furn-
ished, a definite day and fixed. hours established, an
orderly procedure assured and an honest count
made probable. In the main the convention system was
preserved, all nominations of any importance were still
made by convention, and whatever increased inter-
est was manifested on the part of the voters was due

19
to the possibility, then for the first time afforded in
any adequate degree, of determining somewhat ef-
fectively the selection of delegates to these conven-
tions.

The files of two of the leading newspapers of New
Jersey have been carefully consulted to ascertain
the primary conditions existent in 1903 and the
background of the passage of this first direct pri-
mary law which constituted in fact the first real
regulation of primaries in the state,

The Jersey Journal in an editorial of September
13th, says: “The history of the movement dates
from the inaugural message of the Governor (Mr.
Franklin Murphy).”

No reference to election law is found in either
party platform of 1898 nor in the inaugural message
of Governor Voorhes, 1899. The Republican plat-
form of 1901 is silent; the Democratic platform
charges the Republicans with having consolidated
city elections with the general elections for the pur-
pose of obtaining or maintaining Republican major-
ities. In Governor Murphy’s inaugural (1902) this
statement is found: “The last legislature authorized
the appointment of a commission to consider an
amendment to the election law which should pro-
vide for the regulation of the primary elections. That
commission was appointed. They have given much
study to the question, and as a result of their investi-
gation they have prepared a bill which I commend to
the favorable consideration of the legislature. No
single act will conduce more fully to the confidence and
satisfaction of the people in our form of government
than the passage of a law providing for the regulation
of primary elections. The present condition is bad.
It might possibly be worse, but in some counties of our
state not much worse. It should be improved, and that
without delay. It is of the highest importance that
means should be provided by which the voter can ex-
press his individual opinion without undue influence
from anyone.”

The Jersey Journal in an editorial (a) refers to two
statutes as the most important of the remarkable ses-
sion of the legislature, but does not mention the pri-
mary law. However, numerous editorials on the bill

(a) April 2d.
20
and its features appeared during the session. “This
plan (a) will do away with padded enrollments and
partisan trickery. It will allow the people some say
in the selection of candidates and delegates, and it will
insure an honest count. The plan has everything to
commend and nothing to find fault with, so far as it is
explained.” “There (b) is nothing partisan about the
desire for a change in the primary election methods
practiced in the state. Many men in every county are
willing to admit that any change will be an improve-
ment, and it may be that this is true, though it is pos-
sible to have decent elections under existing laws and
in some places decent primaries are frequent.” A
shadow of doubt appears in this sentence: “There
would be little use for the bosses to do the thinking of
the people if the people were allowed to select the can-
didates, though it is barely possible that the bosses
would still exercise some influence in the selection of
candidates.”

“The primary bill (c) is drawing the fire of politi-
cians of the heeler class of both political parties. The
decent element in both parties, realizing that our pres-
ent primary systems are a disgrace to nineteenth cen-
tury civilization, is heartily in favor of the reform.”

The commission spoken of in Governor Murphy’s
message above consisted of Mr. Edward C. Stokes, the
succeeding governor, Mr. George L. Record and Mr.
Joseph L. Munn. The Newark Evening News of No-
vember 8, 1902, states that the “chairman is hopeful
that the primary law will be enacted that will relieve
the state of the odium that now attaches to so many of
these nominating contests. Under the present system it
is quite common for good Republicans and good Demo-
crats from the political viewpoint to take part in the
primaries of the other party while the floating element
makes it a business to be present on all such occasions,
touring the cities and disposing of their votes.”

No official records were kept of the public hearings
held by the commission in various parts of the state,
nor of the hearing before the assembly committee on
elections on March 30, 1903.

Another issue (d) of the News speaks of the pri-

 

(a) January 6th.
(b) February 4th.
is) February 9th.
(d) February 24th.

21
Aw

mary reform measure as having “the practically unani-
mous endorsement of the state press, and, so far as can
be learned from careful inquiry, favored by a large
majority of the honest voters of the state. That it is
not looked upon with favor by machine politicians goes
without saying. These gentry have no use for any
laws which lessen their ability to control nominations
and manipulate purchasable voters.” The law was said
to be demanded by press, pulpit, party leaders and
people in every part of the state (a) and was to “make
impossible in the future the corrupt primary methods
that in past years have scandalized the state.” (b)

The Trenton Times commented thus: (c) “Of the
need of change there can be no doubt. The respectable
voters of all parties concede this. It is only the men
who have a personal interest in crooked primaries who
desire to be let alone.”

The original bill allowed parties polling 2% of the
total vote cast in any particular civil division to use the
primaries to make nominations; it required the boards
of registry and election to conduct the primaries of all
parties together; and made it necessary for a man of-
fering to vote, if challenged on the ground of non-
membership in the party, to take oath that he had
voted for the head of the ticket at the last election at
which he had voted, and intended to affiliate with the
same party at the next election. Amendments were
accepted, raising the vote of a party necessary to its
participation in the primary to 5%, requiring the Re-
publican election officers to conduct the Republican
primary and the Democrats that of their party, and
changing the last provision to the. form explained
above. On this last point the three newspapers already
quoted were insistent. The Times said: (d) “A pri-
mary election law should encourage independent voting.
The number of independent voters is very large and is
constantly increasing. It should be possible for an inde-
pendent to participate in the primary of any particular
party if he intended to affiliate with such party at the
next election.” The Jersey Journal: (e) “Such a
promise is unwise and unnecessary and will be very

 

(a) March 4th.
(b) January 28th.
(c) March 30th.
(d) January 29th.
(e) January 19th.

22
unpopular with independent voters. The only possible
result of such a provision would be to prevent many
men from voting at the primary election.” “If this
provision is retained (a), it is urged, it will wipe out
the independent voters in so far as primaries are con-
cerned. There are too many independent voters in
New Jersey to make it safe or wise to attack them in
so radical a manner.” The opinion of the News (b)
was that the voter should declare the party which he
generally supported, but not that he voted for the head
of the ticket.

The principal objection of the political leaders to the
bill were probably expressed by the Republican county
committee of Essex: (c) “It gave the municipal clerks
too much power. They were likely to be partisan, find
technical flaws in the petitions of independents or men
of an opposing faction or party and prevent intended
nominations. Independent voters might resent having
primary ballots provided for them. The districts were
not sufficiently represented in conventions. Republican
voters should not be challenged by Democratic election
officials.” It will be conceded that these reasons for
opposing the bill were not of great weight.

In a succeeding chapter dealing with the extent of
participation in the primary prior to 1908 some light
will be thrown on the operation of the law. Of the
first primary day under the law the Jersey Journal
pays: (d) “The result of the primaries today is in
most cases a foregone conclusion, The only contest
in the city is in reference to the Democratic mayorality
nomination.” Democratic leader Davis (Jersey City)
expressed the opinion: (e) “That new primary law
suits me very well. Record designed the open primary
system for the Democratic party. He thought he saw
a chance to wipe the Democratic organization off the
face of the earth. George’s idea did not work out the
way he thought it would. The new Jaw helps us to
locate our men. The voters must say what party they
belong to and we are able to know our men.”

The following opinion appeared in an editorial : “The
law was designed to curb in a measure machine domi- f
nation of the primary elections for convention dele-

 

(2) Eraray ae
r 4
( Newark News, March 28th and 31st.
(d) September 8th.
(e) September 9th.

23
gates. The indications are, however, that party or-
ganization has nothing to fear from independent can-
didates. Voters do not want to sign independent peti-
tions because the act puts them on record as being
against the organizations. The independent candidate
finds he cannot man all the precincts without some-
thing very like an organization of his own, and that
the cost of making a contest requires almost as much
money as a regular election campaign. He is unrepre-
sented at the polls. The very election officers them-
selves are the appointees of the regular organizations.
It is a benefit for a party organization to have a con-
test on its hands, for it gets the voters registered. Ma-
chine nominations have at least got to come out into
the open and stand up and be counted. The law does
give independent voters a chance to know what is
going on.”

PRIMARY LEGISLATION 1903-1911

The history of the progress in primary election law
between 1903 and 1911 is a history of the attempts to
extend the application of the direct primary to the
more important offices of greater civil divisions. The
growth of the demand for legislation on the subject is
evidenced by the messages of governors, platforms of
parties and bills offered in the legislature.

As early as 1900 a brief corrupt practice act (a)
was introduced calling for an itemized statement
of receipts and expenditures to be filed by every
candidate for public office, but met with no suc-
cess. In 1902 one bill (b) proposed a repeal of
Par. 36 of the Act of 1898, which authorized
boards of elections to issue on election days transfer
certificates to voters who had moved from the election
district after registration and before the election. The
voter could then vote on this certificate, subject to the
taking of an oath in verification of his statements if
the election board required it. A second bill (c)
anticipated in a measure the Hughes primary plan
of New York state. “Nominating elections” were
to be held to choose candidates for the specified
offices—governor, U. S. representative, assemblymen,

 

(a) Senate 141.
(b) Ibid. 190.
(c) Ibid. 82,
state senator, and county officials. All ballots were to
be printed and furnished at public expense. Any con-
vention of delegates of any political party might endorse
certain candidates and recommend them to the voters.
Individual members of the party (5%) might also sign
certificates of endorsement for other candidates. All
persons endorsed went on separate ballots for each
party. Successful candidates must receive 35% of the
entire vote of the party; if no one did so then a com-
mittee on vacancies chose one of the three highest.
No person was to vote at a nominating election unless
his name appeared on the last registry list. Neither
bill passed.

Assembly bill 144, at the 1904 session of the legisla-
ture would have made the date of the primary the
third registry day and allowed only those to vote at
the primary who had registered for the general election
ensuing. This would have given an opportunity to
check up the registry list for the primary in the same
manner as the law provided, however loosely, for the
general election. To accomplish the same general pur-
pose as this bill was intended to accomplish was the ob-
ject of other bills introduced at almost every succeed-
ing’ session of the legislature until 1911.

The giatform of the Democratic party in 1904 con-
tains nothing regarding elections; the Republican
platform compliments the party on its law for primary
reform (1903).

Governor Stokes’s inaugural message (1905) is
silent on election law, but in his annual message of 1906
he recommended definition, limitation, and publicity
of campaign expenses, as well ag stricter laws to pre-
vent bribery. The first recommendation was repeated
in 1907 (action having been taken on the second by the
legislature) and the restriction of ballots to the poll-
ing places was added along with the separation of state,
national and municipal elections. Senate bill 88, 1905,
proposed to accomplish by somewhat different methods
—holding the primary on the day succeeding the first
registry day—the same result as the assembly bill of
1904. In 1906 one bill (a) attempted to pro-
vide a preference vote on United States senator for
the purpose of affording members of the legislature
information as to the choice of the party voters, and

 

(a) Senate 12.
25
another (a) introduced by Senator Colby, chamt-
pion of the New Idea forces—progressive Repub-
lican wing in Essex County—extended the direct pri-
mary to all offices to be filled at the general election
for members of the assembly, including presidential
electors. Another Colby bill (b) required county
and city committees to be elected at the pri-
mary, and empowered any delegate to a convention
which did not nominate any candidate for whose choice
enough pledged delegates had been elected at the pri-
mary, to make application to a justice of the supreme
court for an investigation. The justice might order
the name of the defeated aspirant to be placed on the
general election ballot or hold a recount. This was to
make effective the possibility offered by the law of 1903
in reference to delegates pledged to support for the con-
vention nominating the man whose name they author-
ized as their choice on the primary ballot. Other bills
(Senate 259) forbade all expenditures of money by a
candidate except for personal expenses, and all so-
liciting of funds from a candidate at a general elec-
tion or primary by a political committee ; (Assembly 3)
prohibited all political contributions by corporations
doing business in the state; (Assembly 12) restricted
the purposes for which a candidate or political commit-
tee could spend money to traveling, printing, political
meetings, rent, clerks, canvassers or speakers, watchers
and counsel fees, A law was enacted (c) forbidding the
payment, for political purposes, of entertainment, rent,
or clubroom expense and the insertion of material in
a newspaper except paid advertising so marked. As-
sembly 422 would have forbidden political contribu-
tions, directly or indirectly, by corporations organized
solely or partially for pecuniary profits, to promote the
nomination of any person as a candidate or to aid
or promote the election of a candidate. It seems that
no law on this subject of corporation contributions
was adopted until 1911. A clause was inserted in the
Republican platform in 1907 (the act of 1907 was
passed October 28th) in favor of modifying and sim-
plifying the primary law. “The most effective method
to accomplish this purpose is a direct primary for all
municipal and county officers, including senators and

(a) Senate 45,

(b) Ibid. 217,

(c) Chapter 208,

26
assemblymen.” The Democrats advocated “the nomi-
nation of candidates for public office by direct primary
vote, without the intervention of delegates or conven-
tions.”

In this year the second great step in direct primary
legislation was taken. No new principle was intro-
duced. The law of 1903 was simply extended to re-
quire the nomination by direct primary of all local mu- |
nicipal and county officjals, and state senators and as-
semblymen. Signers equal in number to 2% of the
party’s vote for general assembly at the preceding elec-
tion or one hundred signers as a maximum were re-
quired for the petition of any candidate who was to be
voted for throughout a county. The minimum number
for a municipality less than a county was 50. About
the usual number of bills to cure election evils, which
failed of passage, appeared in 1907. One bill (a)
provided for the blanket ballot, on which the names of
the candidates for the different offices were to be ar-
ranged alphabetically under the titles of their respective
offices, followed by the party designation and emblem.
Another bill (b) again attempted to secure the election
of the county committee at the primary; still another
bill (c) was introduced to secure representation for
party factions on the boards of registry and election by
permitting a dissatisfied voter to petition a judge of the
circuit court against the nominations made by the
county chairman. An interesting proposal (d) was
made to enable a party to dispense with the official
primary in case, at a preliminary caucus of the party
members five days before primary day, on the pub-
lished call of the county committee, to select delegates
to conventions, and candidates for ward and township
officers, the meeting being open fifteen minutes to re-
ceive nominations, only one set of delegates or candi-
dates was proposed. Bills appeared requiring pub-
licity of campaign expenditures (e), and extending (f)
the direct primary to all officers voted for at the gen-
eral election. Two bills (g') had for their object to
secure representation for the second leading faction of

 

(a) Assembly 448, Senate 51.
(b) Senate 133.
(c) Assembly 97.
(d) Ibid. 356.
34 Btls Og
enate 63.
(g) Ibid. 44, Assembly 97, above.

27
each party under the dominant faction, that is, the
minority faction, on the boards of registry and election.
These bills indicate the prevalence of the general
classes of “outs” and “ins” in party control and cer-
tainly hint at the feeling that only organization can
successfully fight organization; in other words, not
individual aspirants, ordinarily, were seeking the nomi-
nations of their parties, but groups of individuals
united by harmony of sentiment on the subject of party
conduct were striving by organized effort to place in
nomination as representatives of their party men who
possessed these sentiments.

Governor Fort, in his inaugural message, 1908, made
a plea for increasing the ease with which voters might
express an independent choice at elections, and “split”
their tickets. During the legislative session bills for
election reform were numerous; forbidding corpora-
tion contributions (a), extending the direct primary to
United States representatives (b) and governor (c),
giving representation to factions on election boards
(d), nominating all state committeemen and delegates
to national conventions at direct primaries (e), re-
quiring members of county committees to be chosen
at primaries (f), providing the blanket ballot (g), cre-
ating state regulated primaries (h) for the choice of
delegates to state conventions which should select dele-
gates to a national convention, making the same
provision (i) for counties of the first class only, divid-
ing election districts when more than 400 votes had been
cast at any election (j), prohibiting (k) the distribu-
tion of official ballots outside the polling places, ten or
more specimen ballots to be posted outside each polling
place, giving any legal voter (1) the right to object
to any petition naming a candidate for nomination or
a delegate to a convention and arranging for a hearing,
witnesses, and testimony to decide whether the petition
was in form and substance in accordance with the re-
quirements of the law. This flood of bills indicates

(a) Assembly 6.

8 ire

& Ibid. 35.

(e) Ibid. 51,

(£) Ibid. 56.

(g) Ibid 61, Senate 43.

th) Ibid. 247, Senate 186.

(i) Senate 234.

> Assembly 328.

(k) Senate 229.

(1) Assembly 86.

28
at least a general dissatisfaction with election condi-
tions in the state and the existence of a strong senti-
ment for reform. Two of them, that regarding peti-
tions and that securing factional representation on
election boards, are evidence of fraudulent practices.

In the annual message of Governor Fort, 1909, sev-
eral passages were devoted to the subject of election
reform. Governor Fort asserted that the registration
law needed amendment to protect against fraud. He
recommended personal registration which required per-
sonal appearance and the answering of specific ques-
tions and the signature of the person registering. He
believed repeating to be prevalent in the large cities.
in reference to the operation of the act of 1907, he
said: “The primaries held in this state the past year
under the direct primary act met with general public
approval.” The extension of the direct primary law
to the selection of delegates to national conventions,
and to the election of county committees, as well as
to the nomination of governors and representatives in
congress was recommended.

In 1909 county and city committees were required
by-law (a) to be elected at the primary. A great
number of election bills was introduced which
failed of passage. Their provisions were very similar
to those of the bills which had failed at the previous
sessions for several years. One bill (b) made the
second registry day primary day and required the use
of the poll book of the preceding general election to
determine who was qualified to vote at the primary;
another (c) provided for blanket coupon ballots and
confined their distribution to the polling places; still
another (d) proposed a party enrollment at the general
election for the primary election of the ensuing year.
In both the 1909 and 1910 sessions (e) bills were
introduced which required the voter who had regis-
tered in one district and subsequently moved to an-
other, to have resided in the second district a certain
time (30 days or 14 days) before he should be entitled
to receive a transfer from the first district on election
day, permitting him to vote in the second. Governor

 

(a) Chapter 106.

(b) Assembly 31.

(c) Ibid. 32.

(d) Senate 374.

(e) Assembly 184, 1909; and Assembly 86, 1910.

29
Fort in his annual message, 1910, had recommended
an enrollment of party voters.

The Republican platform of 1910 made no radical
suggestions for changes in the primary law of the state.

_ Enrollment of party voters was advised to ‘confine the
primaries of each party to the members thereof, and
the election of all delegates under the primary laws of
the state was favored. The Democrats came out
strongly for “an explicit and effective corrupt practices
act,” defining legitimate campaign expenditures, com-
pelling publicity in detail, “such simplification of the
electoral machinery of the state as will make possible
the effective exercise of the right of direct nomination
for all electoral offices.” The Democrats elected Wood-
row Wilson governor and a majority of the general
assembly, but the senate remained in the control of
their rivals. Their platform proposals were put into
effect through the Geran law (a) and a corrupt prac-
tice act. (b)

The nominee for governor in his speech of accept-
ance had mentioned corrupt practices in elections as a
great issue, putting it in a group of three issues, of
secondary importance to three others.

THE GERAN AcT (1911)

Although the primary reform bill was introduced by
Assemblyman Geran, it seems to have been prepared
under the supervision of Governor Wilson, and after
conferences with various men interested in good gov-
ernment and pure elections. (c) The Jersey Journal

_ (d) credited Mr. George L. Record with being the
' father of the bill and insisted that it was of Republican
origin, and was, in fact, a progressive Republican meas-
ure, backed by a progressive Democratic governor and
a part of the Democratic party. The Democrats in
caucus voted 27—11 to support the bill, and it passed
the house as a Democratic administration measure, with
the Republicans in almost solid opposition. This took
place after a long delay in committee. (e) When the
bill went to the senate, where more serious and suc-
cessful resistance from the Republican majority might

 

(a) Chapter 183.

(b) Ibid. 188.

(c) Newark News, February 7th.
(d) April 6th.

(e) Jersey Journal, April 6th.

30
have been expected, it passed without a dissenting
vote, after being considerably improved by amend-
ments. The same unanimity favored the bill on its re-
turn to the house for concurrence in the amendments.

The governor referred to it in a speech (a) as the
“fundamental bill of the session,” and asserted (b)
that it would “break up the private and secret man-
agement of party machines.” In a speech at Indian-
apolis, Governor Wilson said: “The passage of the
direct primary bill by the Republican senate of the
New Jersey legislature is the result of a popular up-
rising in which the voice of the people made their de-
mand so clear that there was no escape. The men who
are fighting me in the legislature are not Republicans
or Democrats. They are merely a body of men banded
together for selfish interest. One of the hiding places
of those seeking special privilege is in the old state
convention.” (c) “No bill has been before the legisla-
ture in years in regard to which public opinion has been
so explicitly and so generally expressed” runs an edito-
rial in the Jersey Journal. (d)

At a public hearing given by the Senate Committee
on Elections, hardly any antagonism to the bill devel-
oped. The only opposition came from representatives
of the two Essex County party organizations. That
the previous laws had done little to improve conditions,
despite the laudatory comment of the newspapers at the
time, when the slightest evidence was seized on as a
sign of improvement, is shown by the remarks of pub-
lic men and newspaper comment during the legisla-
ture’s consideration of the Geran bill. “Political can-
didates in Hudson County have for twenty years or
more been selected in secret by one man or a few men
at the head of the machine. The man in the street
has nothing to say about it (party organization)” (e),
although for two years county and city committees
had been elected at the primaries. “In almost every
election in recent years somewhere in the state scan-
dals have arisen in connection with crooked work at
the polls or with the use of money to influence or pur-
chase voters.” (f) “These party organizations are

(a) Jersey Journal, March 3rd.
(b) Tbid., March &t
(c Newark News, April 14th.

(d) Jersey Jouetat. March 27th.
(e) Ibid., April 5t h.
(£) Ibid., April 17th. ;

31
things apart from the masses of Democratic and Re-
publican voters—machines controlled by a selected few
who are responsible in each party. If these bosses had
been duly elected by a popular majority or if they in
any fair sense represented the people, there could be
no fault to find. Under the corrupt system which the
state is now trying to get rid of, money has been the
controlling factor in politics, and that is why a hue and
cry has been raised against the old methods.” (a)
“Who are interested in party organizations as they now
exist? Only a handful of office holders, grafters and
dependents. So far as the people are concerned nine
men in ten who are worth their salt and who have any
conscience in politics have only contempt for the party
organizations as at present managed.” (b)e

Mr. Geran, in speaking on the bill, said: “The time
has arrived when we must place in the hands of the
people the power to control their own destinies, This
bill gives the people the control of the election ma-
chinery and places in their hands the power to admin-
ister government.” (c)

“The thought below the Geran bill may be expressed
somewhat as follows: The degree to which adminis-
trative or legislative public officials will be really repre-
sentative of their constituents will be the degree to
which those officials are compelled to rely for choice,
nomination and election on their own merits and com-
petence, as expressed in their service, past or promised,
to the people and not merely their usefulness to some
artificially and disproportionately powerful clique
thereof. The Geran bill is a part of the movement to
make the people take an active competent interest in
their own affairs by putting the responsibility up to
them so hard that they cannot escape it.” (d)

In regard to the exact content of the Geran act
there is apparently a considerable degree of popular
misunderstanding. It is frequently referred to as if it
had established the principle of the direct primary and
consequently as if a criticism of the Geran act in any
particular is equivalent to a defense of the old conven-
tion system. Many people are doubtless convinced that
popular elections did not exist in New Jersey until the

 

(a) Jersey Journal, March 21st.

(b) March 13th, editorial, Jersey Journal.
(c) Jersey Journal, March 22nd,

(d) Newark News, February 21st, editorial.

32
passage of this act, and out of respect for the facts it
must be admitted that there is more truth in such a
conviction than is creditable to the reputation of the
state. New Jersey has never experienced a properly
regulated and safeguarded convention system, but
moved in 1903 from a very loosely governed general
election scheme and a primary system barely affected
by legal protection (1898 Revision) to a limited direct
primary, and to a more extended direct primary in
1907 without purifying the registration and protecting ‘
the ballot. The result was to prevent an entirely satis- ;
factory trial of the mixed direct primary and conven-
tion system.

The direct primary feature of the Geran act is one
of its less important provisions, and alone would have
amounted to littl. To many minds the direct pri-
mary is associated with orderly elections, honest voting
and reliable counting, but these are entirely separable
from any direct primary principle and may exist alto-
gether without it.

By far the most important part of the Geran act is
that which provides for a thoroughly regulated system
of registration, and this will be briefly discussed first,
although it is section eleven of the law. Personal reg-
istration was required in all municipalities exceeding
5,000 inhabitants. Prior to 1911 personal registration
was required only in cities exceeding 30,000 inhabitants
and consisted only in giving the name and address.
Besides, registration by affidavit of a voter residing in
the same election district was permitted. No provision
was made for verifying the registration lists, and so
about all that prevented false registration, to the ex-
tent of all who wished to register falsely, was the
activity of the agents of an opposing party. The reg-

wae

istration provisions of the Geran law are taken practi- ¥

cally verbatim from the election law of New York.
The information which the voter must give is name,
residence, floor or room number, householder with
whom the voter resides, age, length of residence in the
state, and so on to thirteen questions, then the voter
must sign his name, or if unable to do so, must answer
four additional questions on an identification statement.
On election day the voter must sign his name in a poll
book and his signature is compared with the original
for identification ; if challenged he must answer to the

33

s.
satisfaction of the board of election all the registration
questions. The voter who cannot write must answer
both the general registration questions and those on the
identification statement. A law of 1888 (a) had re-
quired the voter to answer a few questions in cities
containing 100,000 population or over, but it was re-
pealed the next year. ;

In all municipalities containing 5000 inhabitants or
less the boards of registry and election meet on the
first registration day and make up the registry by a
house to house canvass. On the registry is written after
each name a letter “R” or “D,” or nothing, as desired
by the voter, to indicate his political affiliation.

For municipalities of over 5000 inhabitants the
county clerk is required to print, immediately after the
last day of registration (two weeks prior to the elec-
tion) copies of the registry lists, some of which are
posted by the election board, and five copies for each
election district furnished to the chief of police, who
must cause an investigation to be made to learn if
the persons registered are residents of the houses from
which they are registered. Written reports are made
to the county board of elections where they are kept
open for public inspection.

The twelfth section of the law provided for a blanket

a ballot in the Massachusetts form, the distribution and
use of which is confined exclusively to the polling room.
The political designations of the candidates follow their
names which may appear but once. Before 1911 the
state had printed separate ballots for all political par-
ties and independent groups. The voter did not mark
his ballot, but enclosed it in an official envelope to be
had legally only from the election officers. Official
ballots could be bought and distributed before the elec-
tion and voted on election day. An independent can-
didate of some wealth could buy hundreds of ballots
and have his name pasted on and furnish them to the
voters. This custom may have been the cause of the
provision in the Geran law that sample ballots for pri-
mary and general election separately should be mailed
to all registered voters. A bill of 1910 (b) had pro-
posed mailing an official primary ballot, and an official
general election ballot, and also a sheet of pasters con-

(a) Chapter 231,
(3 Senate 326.

34
taining the names of all candidates for nomination or
election to each registered voter. Official ballots bear
detachable numbered coupons to insure that the voter
casts the ballot given him.

Section nine extended the direct primary to all can- >,
didates for the office of governor and representative in ;
congress. (a) One thousand signers are required for
the petition of a candidate for governor and two
hundred for that of United States representative. The
signers may name in the petition three men as a com-
mittee on vacancies to select a new candidate in case
of the death of the person first indorsed.

The governor is the only officer in New Jersey popu-
larly elected for the state at large, and his nomination
at the direct primary took away the chief function of
the state convention. The Geran law calls for a state
convention of each political party each year made up
of the party candidates for senate, general assembly and
governor, nominated at the primary immediately pre-
ceding the convention. The governor of the state is a
member of the convention each year when no governor
is to be elected, as are also members of the state senate
who are holding office at the time of the state conven-
tion, whose successors are not to be chosen at the suc-
ceeding general election. The term of governor and
state senator is three years. Members of the state
committee are also members of the convention. Every
year a governor is to be elected a member of the state
committee of each political party is elected in each
county at the primaries. One hundred signers are
necessary to place a candidate’s name on the primary
ballot. The state committee chooses its chairman and
the member of the national committee of the party.

All delegates and alternates to the national conven-
tion of each political party are chosen at a primary
held on the fourth Tuesday of May (changed to April
by amendment) in presidential years. One hundred
signers are necessary for the petition of a delegate at
large and also of one from a congressional district.
Candidates for the position of delegates are allowed to
be grouped together and have printed opposite their
names the name of the man whom they favor for presi-
dent. One thousand voters of any political party may

(2) By amendment the law was later extended to include United
States senators.

35
endorse in a petition the name of a person for presi-
dent and have it printed on the primary ballot under
the heading “(Choice for President.” The secretary of
state publicly announces the preference vote of the
parties for president.

Any candidate for nomination for any office may
have a sort of platform of not more than six words
printed after his name to indicate his pledge, policy,
or faction. Several candidates for nomination to the
same office may request their names to be grouped to-
gether, or bracketed, followed by their designation.
This permits the forming of slates by party organiza-
tions and other groups.

The method of the preference vote for United States
senator was amended by the Geran law to something
like the Oregon form, permitting the candidate for
nomination to the state legislature to sign one of two
statements—that he would be bound during his term
to vote for the candidate for senator receiving the
highest number of votes at a primary in his party, or
that he would consider the preference vote merely as
a recommendation. Before 1911 the candidate for the
legislature had an opportunity of subscribing to one
of these two statements: that he would cast his vote
for United States senator in accordance with the choice
of his party in the state, or that he would cast it in
accordance with the choice of his party in the county.

The primary election is held on the fourth Tuesday
of September. No one is entitled to vote at any pri-
mary unless his name appears on the poll book used
at the preceding general election, or upon the primary
registry list as made up for the current year. This
primary registry list in municipalities of 5000 inhab-
itants or less is the same as the general election registry
list as made up by house to house canvass. But in
larger municipalities the voter, unless he voted at’ the
last general election, must personally register for the
primary on the first day of registration. The process
of registration is just the same as for the general elec-
tion, except that registration by affidavit is still per-
mitted for the primary. The letters “D,” or “R,” etc.,
are placed after the voters’ names on the primary reg-
istration list according as they appear on the Republi-
can or Democratic primary book of the preceding year’s
primary. It is to be remarked that if a voter voted

36
at the preceding general election he is automatically
registered for the succeeding primary, but when he
votes at the primary he must register for the ensuing
general election. This arrangement enables all who so
desire to vote regularly at the general and the primary
elections by going twice to the polls each year. Of
course, if a person misses voting at the general election
one year he will have to register personally or by affi-
davit before the primary day of the succeeding year
in order to be qualified to vote.

Each voter offering to vote at the primary must an-
nounce his name and the party primary in which he
wishes to vote. He must not vote in the primary of
one party if he voted in the primary of a different ;
party the preceding year. A sort of probationary pe- “
riod, or fallow period, is required of the voter who
wishes to change his party before he can participate in
the primary of the party of his new allegiance. If he
did not vote at any primary the year preceding, he
may vote in any primary he chooses the next year,
provided he is not challenged, in which case he must
make oath as explained above for the law of 1903.
The primary books of all parties are required to be
preserved open to inspection by the municipal clerks.

In New Jersey no period of residence in any area
less than a county is necessary as a qualification for
voting. Five months’ residence in the county is indis-
pensable, but provision is made for the issue of trans-
fers by a judicial officer to all voters who have between
registration day and election day moved from the dis-
trict in which they registered to another district in the
same county.

In accordance with section one no election district in
the state may contain more than four hundred voters.
The method of appointing the members of the district
boards of registry and election prescribed by the Geran
act is quite unique. The chairmen of the two largest
political parties in each county may nominate to the
state civil service commission voters of their respective
parties of good moral character for members of the
election boards. Such persons must have resided for
one year in the district for which they are to serve.
Any five voters of one of these parties living in the
same district may nominate a man for a member of the
board of election by petition. This is to furnish fac-

37
tional representation on the board. ‘The state civil
service commission gives an examination in each
county, and certifies to the judge of the county and to
the county board of elections the applicants who pass
the examination. The county board of elections in the
presence of the judge selects four members for each
district by lot, two from one party and two from the
other. They hold office for two years, one from each
party retiring each year. The county judge may ap-
point officers when there are no applicants, or when
for any reason a vacancy exists.

As to the condition which the strict registration pro-
visions of the Geran act were designed to remedy the
special message of Governor Wilson is enlighten-
ing. (a) “It is evident that the Geran election law, if
properly executed by the election officers, will prevent
the frauds which it is plain have been practiced in the
past. The return of over 11000 official envelopes ad-
dressed to voters in Essex County alone, to say nothing
of the many thousands in other counties, proves that
frauds were perpetrated at the last election and pre-
sumably at the last primary.” In Hudson County con-
ditions were about the same. “Nearly 4000 sample
ballots mailed to addresses in the primary registration
books came back to the city (Jersey City) clerk.” (b)
These sample ballots were mailed to voters whose
names appeared on the poll books of the preceding
year, and who were under the new law automatically
registered for the succeeding primary, provided that
at it they registered for the ensuing general election.

CHANGES IN THE PRIMARY UAW SINCE 1911

Since 1911 very slight changes have been made in
the direct primary or election law of the state. The
Republicans had a majority in senate and general as-
sembly in 1912. The Democrats controlled the legisla-
ture in both branches, and also the executive in 1913
and 1914. Then the Republicans gained possession of
the legislature and are still in the saddle. The gov-
ernor remained Democratic until 1917. The Demo-
crats take full credit for the enactment of the Geran
law, and its preservation has become a political slogan.
If a Republican legislature or commission suggests any

 

(2 Newark News, September 25th.
(b) Jersey Journal, September 23rd.

38
change in the provision of the law, the cry is at once
raised: The Geran law is to be emasculated.

Both Republican and Democratic platforms of 1913
came out for a system of preferential voting at the
primary. Although under the theory of the direct
primary the state convention which made these plat-
forms consisted of men all chosen by the party voters,
and realizing their responsibility to them for nomina-
tion, anxious to enact their will into law, no preferen-
tial voting bill has yet got through the legislature.
The Republican platform favored the separation of
state and municipal elections and the election of as-
semblymen from single districts, and although the Re-
publicans have dominated the legislature for three
sessions, no resolution for a constitutional amendment
to permit the latter change has been passed nor has
any legislation to carry out the former proposal been
enacted.

The Republican platform of 1914 called attention to
the fact that “this convention is mainly composed of
candidates for the senate and the general assembly,
and we consider our platform to be a promise to the
people of New Jersey.” The pledge made the year
before in regard to election laws was reaffirmed, but
did not prove any more effective.

In 1912 laws (a) were passed permitting any volun-
teer, acting without compensation, to transport voters
to and from the polls, and enabling any voter ill or
absent from the state on a regular registration day, to
register by affidavit even in cities of over 10000 popu-
lation. In the session of 1912, amendments were in-
troduced to group party nominees on the ballot; to
abolish personal registration in municipalities under
15000; to’ compel independent candidates to file their
petitions before the primary; to do away with the
questions at registration as to the voter’s age, the
householder’s name, and the number of the floor or
room occupied, unless the voter was not the head of a
family; and the employer’s name and place of busi-
ness. As indicated above, not any of these bills
passed.

By a 1915 statute (b) no defeated contestant at the
primary election was permitted to file an independent

 

(a) Chapters 104 and 417.
(b) Chapter 100.

39
petition for the general election. If an independent
faction now puts up its strongest man at the primary,
and he is defeated, there is little chance for success at
the following election. This amendment was passed
mainly to prevent disgruntled candidates, defeated at
the primary, from dividing the party vote by running
independently at the general election. In 1916 the
question as to the voter’s age was eliminated from those
necessary to personal registratioh (a), and personal
registration was no longer required in municipalities
between 5000 and 10000 (b). This latter change af-
fects 27 municipalities of the state. Election districts
in counties of less than 60000 population were per-
mitted to contain 500 voters instead of 400. (c)

Of the amendments to the election law since 1911,
the Newark Evening News (d) says: “The legislators
have been both careless and reckless in the changes
they have made in this act in the past five years. Of
the 36 amendments adopted since 1911 only three or
four have improved conditions, while the majority of
changes either have been ineffective or have tended
to make the committing of fraud easier. If it (the
commission to revise the election law) continues to
delay the beginning of its work, the probabilities are
that the result will be as unsatisfactory as the blunder-
ing of the legislature in attempting to bring about
piecemeal revisions.”

PUBLIC OPINION ON THE DIRECT PRIMARY

What has been the general attitude of the parties,
the press and the voters of New Jersey in regard to
the election law of the state during the past ten years?
The introduction of bill after bill at every session of
the legislature has indicated a dissatisfaction some-
where with electoral conditions. As has been pointed
out above the enactment of the Geran law was pre-
ceded for years by the proposal of laws intended to
accomplish much the same results by quite widely vary-
ing methods. That there was a popular demand for a
more stringent registration system, and for more safe-
guards around the exercise of the franchise, both at
the direct primary election and at the general elections,

 

(a) Chapter 277.
(b) Ibid. 277.

(c) Ibid 96.

(d) September 14, 1916.
no one will deny. It is probable, too, that the voters
desired an extension of the direct primary to the of-
fice of governor and United States representative,
although it is likely that the agitation for this amend-
ment of the law was supported most vigorously by
those politicians who were desirous of destroying, for
the sake of their own advancement, any grip which
the regular organization may have had on the general
nominating system. Since the Geran law was placed
upon the satute books there have been no signs of any
‘popular desire to return to the convention system. The
direct primary principle has been widely accepted, but
there has been much comment on the continued in-
fluence of the party organization and considerable criti-
cism of the cost to the candidate of an effective pri-
mary campaign. That the election law, considered
simply as a legislative product, has-become unwieldy,
complicated and unintelligible, through the process of
continued amendment, coupled with the wholesale re-
peal in general terms of all inconsistent acts, is evi-
denced by the provision of the legislature, within the
last ten years, for the appointment of four commissions
to revise, simplify, arrange and consolidate the election
law. The commission of 1908 made a report which
was only considered by a joint committee; that pro-
vided for in 1911 seems never to have come into ex-
istence; for that of 1915 no appropriation was fur-
nished, and that appointed in 1916 made a report to
the last session of the legislature, but no action was
taken.

It is commonly understood that the platforms of
political parties, especially in the states, do not often
deal with real issues; that is, with subjects on which
there is real opposition in principle of one party to
the other. Nevertheless, the propositions of a plat-
form mention subjects on which its makers believe
there is a public sentiment or upon which they believe
stich sentiment may be created.

The Democrats, as was mentioned above, have rested
on the laurels of their achievement in the enactment
of the Geran law. Their 1914 platform is typical:
“Tt (the Geran law) affords all citizens equal oppor-
tunity to aspire to public office; it insures clean regis-
tration, fair primaries and honest elections; it has com-
pletely met the desire of the people for: relief from

41
controlled conventions, and in consequence the ma-
chines and the bosses have always opposed. it.”

The Republican platform of 1911 reads: “This (the
new election) law is still so ambiguous in terms that
its provisions are differently interpreted by experts
and bewilder the ordinary ‘citizen. We favor the ob-
ject of the new election law. Furthermore, we pledge
ourselves to the preservation and enactment of such
legislation as will enable the people to rule without
the pernicious activity of political machines; but we
insist that this principle can and should be coupled with
a simplification of election machinery that will encour-
age every voter to vote, rather than with confusing
regulations that discourage the exercise of the fran-
chise.” The state plaform of the Republicans for
1913 expressed this view: “Thousands of our citi-
zens have been disfranchised by the present cumber-
some and unsatisfactory election laws, and we pledge
the people of New Jersey to correct the defects there-
in.” This statement is certainly not very definite
nor is that of the 1915 platform, which promises “a
simplification of our election laws without sacrificing
the safety or the honesty of the ballot in order that
the large number of voters who refuse to exercise
suffrage under our unnecessarily complicated ma-
chinery shall not be disfranchised.” It was in 1913°
that both parties favored some method of preferential
voting at the primary. Governor Edge in his inaugu-
ral message, 1917, said: “Any attempt to emasculate
the election law in the interests of partisanship ought
to be promptly and unceremoniously discouraged
wherever it is found. But at the same time I realize
that the question of the practicability of certain feat-
ures of the Direct Primary and Election acts must be
considered by this administration, frankly and fear-
lessly, without any hesitation because of insinuations
that men or party are attempting to weaken the acts in
their fundamentals. No act is so sacred that it doesn’t
require improvement or alteration from time to time
as people gain more experience and conditions change.
Any act, I take it, which so completely closes the op-
portunity for general competition for public Office,
needs at least careful review and studied consideration.
You realize that in a number of respects the election
laws are confusing, and tend to a waste of energy
and money.” 42
These quotations are all indications of a belief that
some improvement could be made in the election laws
of the state, but they do not contemplate any change
apparently in the direct primary principle. The sug-
gestion of the preferential vote must be considered as
evidence of a feeling that the direct primary is in some
way not representative of the majority’s wishes in its
operation, or perhaps only that there is a considerable
degree of discontent with primary nominees.

Turning to the press, one finds the following para-
graphs: “Jt is too much to expect that the great mass
of voters would wake up so quickly to the fact that

_ they mean something. Primaries heretofore have been
generally regarded as more or less of a cut and dried
proposition—a formality.” (a) “The worst thing
about it, perhaps, the worst thing next td the brackets,
at any rate, is that there is no way of limiting the
number of candidates who may run for any nomina-
tion at a primary. The law could be improved in
certain details, but even though it should remain as it
is, it is one of the best primary laws ever enacted.” (b)
This has been, it seerns, the consistent attitude of the
Jersey Journal ever since. ‘At the time many of
the Progressives were desirous of returning to par-
ticipate in the Republican primaries in 1913, the News
spoke as follows: “But the party primary does re-
ceive a heavy blow. The Geran law was the furthest
possible in its day and generation. The bipartisans
have given excellent proof of the weakness of the party
primary, so the way to the next step is open. Why a
party primary? Why not a non-partisan primary?
Or why a primary at all? Why not combine primary
and election through the preferential system?” (c)

“The legislature should amend the primary law so
that independents may vote for nominations. Some
change is desirable to make the nominations as rep-
resentative as possible of the desires of the great body
of the voters.” (d)

“It must be admitted that the tickets are too long,
the functions of the officers not sufficiently clear to

 

(a) Newark Evening News, September 27, 1911. Just after the first
primary under the Geran law.

'b) Jersey Journal, September 27, 1912.

eptember 23, 1913. ass

%) Newark Evening News, November 8, 1913. Editorial.

43
the average voters, the candidates too often men he
has hardly heard of.” (a) :

“Under the direct primary system if the bosses rule
it is with the people’s consent qualified by the fact
that the concentration of the machine influence on one
set of candidates still gives the bosses an advan-
tage.” (b)

“When the direct primaries were first put into ef-
fect we had a better class of nominees for the legisla-
ture. Then, when the bosses became familiar with
the method of manipulating the new system the nomi-
nees reverted to the old type of boss-ruled men in both
parties, just as bad as they ever were, but no
worse.” (c) “That the direct primary is falling into-
disrepute cannot be denied. That, however, is not the
fault of the system, but of the voters, for whose benefit
it was devised. The general experience in every state
where it has been adopted is that the direct primary
has had little effect in thwarting the purposes of the
machine simply because of the indifference of the
voters. The old boss-controlled convention system was
worse. Whether the solution rests in compulsory vot-
ing at the primaries or in doing away entirely with
the nominations, permitting any person who desires to
run to have his name put on the ticket by petition, is
for statesmen to decide. In the meanwhile the adop-
tion of preferential voting at the primaries might help
some.” (d)

It is clear from these last two quotations that a
leading paper of the state was far from satisfied with
the results of the direct primary law, although not
with its principle of popular control of party nomina-
tions, and was ready to welcome a step in advance of
the party primary as it now exists. After the 1916
primary election, however, the News saw a new
light, due, apparently, to a few outstanding cases of
independent success over organization candidates—
notably that of the Republican nominee for state sena-
tor from Essex County, and that of both the Demo-
cratic and Republican United States senatorial nomi-
nees. On September 28th an editorial was published
containing this sentence: “All in all it was a great

 

(a) September 21, 1914. Editorial,

tb} Septem Dee, 25, gre Heke

¢ ewar' ‘vening News, uary 10, 1916. Editorial,
(d) September 25, 1916. Editorial. en

44
primary. It will help the people to a realization of the
fact that under the direct primary they, and not the
bosses nor machines, rule.” The next day it was stated,
“That the direct primary is a needless waste, that it is
not an effective weapon for registering democracy is
a theory submarined by Tuesday’s vote.” The pri-
mary of 1916 did demonstrate that the people have
in the direct primary a means by which they may ab-
solutely control nominations, but in connection with
the history of the five preceding years, it afforded
a striking example of how seldom they avail themselves
of this power through the present machinery.

The voters have apparently accepted the direct pri-
mary as another automatic governmental device, pro-
vided upon their demand in this particular instance
to make the popular wishes effective in nominations for
office without any effort on the part of the people.
Their attitude seems to be: “The bosses used to rule,
but now we have a direct primary law. That ends the
trouble. Why should we go to the primary, haven’t
we the law, how can the bosses rule when we have the
primary law?” When speaking of the indifference of
the voter to the opportunities of the direct primary, it
must be remembered that by the provision of the law,
in all municipalities exceeding 10000 population, a
voter may vote at the primary without making an
extra visit to the polls, if he chooses both to register
and vote on primary day. It is true that such a pro-
cedure requires as a rule more time at the polls than
does registration alone on either the first or the third
registration day, or even perhaps than such registra-
tion plus the time required for voting at the primary.
It is quite probable that should all the qualified voters
of a large district attempt to register and vote on pri-
mary day there would be much delay during the
crowded hours. This is a question which would neces-
sitate careful study. At any rate, for most of the voters
registration and voting at the primary may be per-
formed on one day in municipalities of the state total-
ing 1,802,040 population, yet in a great many of these
areas, if not for all on an average, only about 60% of
the voters take part in the primary election. This is
an indifference that demands serious .attention. Of,
course it may be said that there is usually a dominant
party, and that frequently more than 60% of its voters

45
attend its primary. This is undoubtedly true, but the
fact remains that regularly a large body of the voters,
sometimes nearly one-half, exercise no very effec-__
tive influence in determining who shall be their officials. —

This chapter has attempted to give a brief history
of the progress of state regulation of the party pri-
maries in New Jersey and a description of the essen-
tial features of the law at present in force, along with
a very general view of the disposition of the political
parties, the leading newspapers and the voters toward
the law.
CHAPTER IV

THe Extent oF PARTICIPATION IN THE PRIMARY
BeEForeE 1908

In his “Primary Elections,” published in 1908,
Professor C. Edward Merriam makes this state-
ment: “There seems to be a general agreement that
the vote cast in a direct primary is, as a rule, greater
than in a primary for the choice of delegates.” (a)
As an explanation of this fact he gives several rea-
sons: “The primary is frequently held on a regis-
tration day. Under the delegate system a number
of districts are always uncontested, and the total
vote is diminished accordingly. The vigorous cam-
paigning of individual candidates, the dramatic na-
ture of the personal contest, the immediate import-
ance of the individual vote—all tend to swell the
size of the primary vote.”

Here is an important matter for consideration,
and one that goes to the very vitals of all election
processes. Whatever increase in the direct primary
vote over the former delegate vote comes about on
account of an increased interest on the part of the
voter due to a feeling that his vote is more effective,
or to a zeal for candidates which he did not have
for delegates, or to other similar causes, may be
credited to the virtue of the direct primary prin-
ciple. Any increase due to the fixing of a registra-
tion day for primary day, or to similar causes, can
hardly be classed as a peculiar merit of the direct
primary system. There were many dates for the
voter to remember under the old system, and this
complexity may have been conceived of as desirable
by those who had the management of the nomina-
tion machinery in charge. Primary day did not
recur at regular intervals but was set by the decisior
of the committee which had control of it and notice
was ordinarily published a few days in advance. In
New Jersey there was very little assurance, in fact,
no satisfying assurance, that a vote at the party

 

(a) Page 117.
47
primary would ever be counted unless it suited the
plans of the organization which appointed the prim-
ary election officers.

But laying aside all discussions of the reasons
why the delegate primary vote was smaller than the
direct primary vote, as it seems to have been, the
results of a search for definite facts will be pre-
sented. It is impossible to learn the number of
votes cast in any area larger than a county, and
very seldom can even the county total be obtained.
It must be remembered that the primaries were not
officially conducted in New Jersey, and no official
returns kept, until the time the direct primary in
its earliest form was introduced (1903). Due to
changes in population and the alteration of voting
districts, the size of the vote one year cannot fairly
be compared with that of other years, but it seems
proper to consider the primary vote of each party as
a certain percent of the assembly vote at the gen-
eral election for the same party and area.

Naturally the space which the newspapers de-
voted to the primary vote in detail was much less
than now, for the choice of delegates at the primary
was only one step, although, perhaps, the chief one,
in the process of nomination. There remained the
meeting of conventions—ward, city, county, con-
gressional district, and state—each of which might
be held at a different time. The number of dele-
gates secured by rival aspirants for nomination
was the important news, not the vote cast for these
delegates. In many cases the fight was not settled
until the proper majority was recorded at the con-
vention. Now the decision is complete and final on
the day of the primary election.

RECORDS FOR HUDSON COUNTY

In Hudson County in the middle nineties the
Democratic county committee adopted voluntarily
a system of open primaries, devised by Mr. George
L. Record, always a worker for the full expression
of popular opinion. The petitions of candidates for
nomination were filed with the secretaries of the
county and city democratic committees. The names
of candidates were printed on a blanket ballot, and
the members of the party cast their votes directly

48
for the candidates. The ballots were counted under
the supervision of the executive heads of the com-
mittees. Enrollment of voters for the primaries
was the rule in both parties.

In 1899 there were contests in the Democratic
party for sheriff, coroner, and assembly. Speaking
of signs of strong opposition to the organization
program in some municipalities of the county the
Jersey Journal says—October 12th: “But these
proceedings did not worry the machine. It held the
key to the situation because it carried Jersey City,
Hoboken and Bayonne in its pocket and could get
any amount of votes desired.”

The Democratic primary vote in Bayonne was
2071, the Democratic assembly vote at the ensuing
general election 2045. The primary vote for sheriff
is given in the following nine other municipalities,
followed by the assembly vote: West Hoboken
837-1444, Union Hill 1197-1190, West New York
440-415, Gutenburg 472-412, Weehawken 329-360,
North Bergen 616-610, Kearny 377-390, East New-
ark 153-158, Harrison 186-688. In Hoboken the
primary vote for only five districts out of twenty
was found; the average for each district was 145,
and the average assembly vote for each of the
twenty districts, 211. The official returns (by the
county committee) gave 21702 votes for sheriff,
which officer received the highest vote. This was,
76% of the Democratic assembly vote of the county,
28400. This percent is approximately the same as
that for 1910, but considerably lower than the per-
cent for any later year. It is by no means a mere
handful, however, and although many of the votes
may have been fraudulent it must be remembered
that probably the same ratio of the votes for assem-
bly was also fraudulent and also that the vote for
the candidate for a particular office in the pres-
ent day primaries is frequently as low as 90% of
the total primary vote. That year (1899) at the Re-
publican primaries delegates were chosen to the
county convention. The vote could be obtained for
only a few districts. Of the 5th district of the 2nd
ward, Bayonne, the newspaper reads: “A heavy
vote was polled, over 70 votes were cast—consid-

49
ered good for the primary in an off year.” The 84
votes of another district are referred to as the larg-
est vote in the city. For those two districts the
Republican assembly vote was 270 and 303. For a
district in Jersey City the primary and assembly
votes were 52-260; in West Hoboken 74-226; in the
five wards of Hoboken 175-2000 (apparently). (a)
Perhaps the small Republican vote is explained to
some extent by the large Democratic vote, in turn
explained by the dominance of the Democratic party,
making the primary result equivalent almost to elec-
tion.

In 1900 the Republican primary vote for a few dis-
tricts amounted to 739, about 20% of the assembly
“vote for the same districts. An editorial comments
thus on the Bayonne Democratic primaries where
2287 votes were cast, all for the machine ticket:
“The number exceeds by 20 votes the total number
of Democratic votes cast in Bayonne last spring for
president of the council.” The assembly vote, how-
ever, was 3015 (primary 76%). In a Jersey City
district one candidate asserted that 95 voters par-
ticipated, but 221 votes were announced (assembly
421). In a Hoboken district there were 178 primary,
271 assembly votes.

Little information is given for 1901. Of the Re-
publican primaries this statement appears: “In
but two places was there any opposition and in each
case the regular candidate was defeated.” (b) In
one district the primary vote was 77, assembly vote
244; in another, Democratic, they stood 66-103.

This editorial appeared on October 21st, 1902:
“In the Democratic party there is no opportunity
for a selection by the people and in the Republican
party the primary system is unsatisfactory to the
majority and they do not try to express their
opinion by means of a vote. We are fourteen days
trom election and no nominations made for local
tickets. It is simply this: The Democratic machine
will not name its candidates until it knows how
strong a ticket is to be opposed.” This item was
printed a few days later: “Before the county com-

 

(a) All these returns are taken from the Jersey Journal, Republican
paper of Jersey City.

(b) Jersey Journal of October 8th,
50
mittee meets tonight the machine leaders will go
through the motion of ‘canvassing’ the returns and
they will also agree as they wink the other eye that
the ‘open’ primaries are the real thing,” and the
next day: “The sequel to the Democratic ‘open’
primary joke occurred last night—when the Demo-
cratic county committee met as a county conven-
tion to nominate the ticket that Thursday evening
had presumably been adopted at the ‘open’ prim-
aries.’ Announcement was made later that 19716
votes were cast, with returns not complete from a
few precincts. This represented 5514 of the Demo-
cratic assembly vote for 1902. No Republican
primary figures are obtainable.

From 1903 on the primaries were conducted by
the regular election officers and return sheets were
sent to the municipal clerks, who certified to the
county clerks the names of successful primary can-
didates which were to be printed on the general
election ballots, but not until 1908 (law of 1907)
were the primary returns sent to the county clerks
and canvassed by them, for in 1908, for the first
time, the direct primary applied to the county of-
ficers or to any officers above those for wards and
townships.

At the 1903 Democratic primary in Jersey City
15152 votes were cast,or 75% of the assembly vote
(20200). There were registered on the first day
(primary day) 18689, leaving 3537 who may have
voted in the Republican primary or not at all. This
comment is given in the Jersey Journal. (a) “While
the workings of the new primary law proved highly
acceptable to the Democratic organization there
were many who registered yesterday who refused to
vote at all, many saying that they would rather
give up the privilege than disclose their party pref-
erence. The student of local politics cannot help
but find that the new law proved a boon to the
machine Democrats for it enabled them to weigh
the strength of the anti-machine element.”

For 1904 there is hardly any comment in the
press, except that the administration won the
primary contests. In Jersey City 8832 voters reg-

 

(a) September 9th.
51
istered on primary day. This was a great falling
off from 1903, when lively primary fights had
brought out the voters; and amounted to only 21%
of the assembly vote for the two big parties. In
the 4th ward, Hoboken, 1677 Democrats voted at
the primary and 1464 for assembly ; in the 2nd and
4th wards, Bayonne, there were 1200 Democratic
primary votes and 1469 for assembly, so the par-
ticipation may have been greater in other parts of
the county than in Jersey City.

The total first day’s registry in Jersey City for
1905 was 15350, 38% of the Democratic and Repub-
lican assembly vote; throughout Hudson County
the Democratic primary candidates for sheriff re-
ceived 25164, which was 72% of the county Demo-
cratic assembly vote. The total primary vote would
have been a somewhat higher percent. The Repub-
lican vote is given in only the 3rd ward of Bayonne,
432, and the 3rd ward of Hoboken, 173, which are
respectively 34% and 20% of the Republican assem-
bly votes in these wards.

In 1906, the regulars won in every one of the
city, county and congressional district contests.
The Republican vote for alderman or freeholder in
all the Jersey City wards was 10722, 96% of the
assembly vote. In the 2nd and 5th wards of Bay-
onne the vote of the same party was 875, 72% of
the vote for assembly. The Democrats in eight of
the Jersey City wards polled 9477 votes, 66% of the
assembly votes for the same wards.

The primary returns printed in 1907 are very
scanty. There seems to have been just one big fight
in the county and that was for the Republican may-
oralty nomination in Jersey City, at which 13738
votes were polled, 70% of the Republican assembly
vote in that municipality. These votes were cast
for delegates, mayors still being nominated by con-
ventions. .

RECORDS FOR ESSEX COUNTY

The newspaper record of the extent of participa-
tion in the primaries of Essex County prior to 1908
is more fragmentary than that for Hudson County.
In the years 1898-1902 this is due in a measure prob-

52
ably to the absence in the former county of any
scheme of “open” primaries such as the Democrats
used in the latter.

For 1898 the newspaper statements seem to indi-
cate a warmly contested primary in both parties.
One heading of a news article reads “Democrats
Engage in Lively Fights.” (a) The vote is spoken
of as unusually heavy, and under the second cap-
tion these sentences appear: “In the 12th ward
there were warm dissensions, and in others any-
body could vote regardless of his place of residence
if the district captain found he was casting the bal-
lot ordered for the occasion. Many of them (the
voters) did not remain longer in any one place
than was necessary to deposit a ballot or two. In
some instances as many as a dozen able-bodied
voters were recorded as living in a modest private
residence built for one small family.” Republican
primary votes in three Newark districts numbered
473, 61% .of the corresponding assembly vote, 773.
In Irvington 711 Republican primary votes were
cast as compared with 604 assembly votes, so it is
evident that the Democrats were not political sin-
ners above all other parties in Essex County. In
four Newark districts, however, the Democrats cast
909 primary votes to 1038 for assembly, or 88% of
the latter. To be sure, these votes may generally
be accepted as higher than the average because
the newspaper naturally gives the votes in cases of
contests and in exactly these cases the primary vote
was highest.

The Democratic county committee adopted the
plan of enrollment for the primaries in 1899, A
committee on primaries favored the Hudson plan
of open primaries but not the Hudson method of a
secret count. The Republicans already used an en-
rollment scheme, to which the only exception taken
in a discussion at the hearing on the 1903 act was
that the men in authority in the county committee
issued numerous certificates to voters who, having
failed to enroll before, asked for them at the time
of the primary. No Democratic returns are avail-
able. In nine precincts of the county the Republican

 

(a) These records are taken from the Newark Evening News.

53
primary vote totaled 1607, 77% of the assembly
vote for those precincts. The primary in the first
ward of West Orange was said to be the largest
ever held, which may well have been true, seeing
that 208 votes were counted, as against 178 for
assembly.

In 1900, 4878 Republican primary votes were cast
in a number of districts in various municipalities,
most of them outside of Newark. The assembly
vote in these districts was 7979, of which the pri-
mary vote was 61%. The same year the Demo-
cratic primary vote in three Newark districts and
three districts in Belleville amounted to 1283, 77%
of the assembly vote for those districts, 1654.

This sentence concerning the Democratic primary
of 1901 throws some light on primary conditions:
“From nearly every ward come stories of fights and
ballot-box stealing. In many districts two primaries
were held—one by each faction. In many districts
more votes were cast than had ever been for the
Democratic ticket at an election.” (a) The primary
vote for about a dozen districts is recorded and
totals 2118, 95% of the assembly vote in the same
areas, but in six of these districts the primary vote
exceeded the assembly vote. Such a thing may
legitimately happen, as it does today in the Demo-
cratic party in Hudson County, but it is extremely
unusual, it is safe to say, except in abnormal polit-
ical conditions or in cases of fraud. The Republican
primary vote, so much of it as is obtainable, reached
64% of the assembly vote, the two being 1859 and
2887,

The enrollment of Republicans in 1902 is given for
Nutley as 679, compared with 647 in 1901. The
assembly vote was 558. This is rather difficult to
explain, for Nutley had only 3682 population in
1900 and it would hardly be supposed that many
floaters or members of the other party could en-
roll as Republicans, if there was any pretense of
honesty at the primaries. A conceivable explana-
tion is that there was an exciting local contest to
augment the primary interest, or that there was
general dissatisfaction with and falling away from

 

(a) Newark News, September 28th,
54
the Republican assembly nominees. Of the Demo-
cratic primary this statement is made: “For many
districts the only votes were those of the election
officers and district leaders.” For two districts the
primary and the assembly vote stand thus—133-407.
For two Republican districts the corresponding
votes were 409-722.

For 1903, the first year of the officially conducted
primary, the Democratic vote was very light. “In
some of the districts charges were made that the
Democrats were forsaking their own primaries and
boldly declaring themselves to be Republicans.
These charges were made by both sides, and in most
instances there was undoubtedly foundation for the
charge. The extent of the Democratic apostasy
was not sufficient in all probability to change the
result in any instance.” In Newark the total regis-
tration on primary day was 22773, 63% of the total
assembly vote for the two major parties. In the
11th ward, 9th district, one of the better parts of
the city, the number of primary votes is given as
486; the assembly vote was 466. In the Ist, 8th,
9th and 15 wards the total Republican primary
vote was 5523, 91% of the corresponding assembly
vote. The last three wards are among the best
parts of the city where the least fraud would be
likely to occur.

In 1904 the Newark primary vote (registration
on the first day) was 37% of the assembly vote. In
1905, Everett C. Colby “smashed” the Republican
machine in an exciting contest. The first day’s
registration in Newark (not all of which can be
counted as primary participation), was 68% of the
assembly vote. The Republican vote for delegates
in the state senatorial contest totaled 22803, 88%
of the republican assembly vote.

In 1906 the first day’s registration figure was
39136. This quite likely is higher than the number
of primary votes by a few thousands. The Repub-
lican primary vote in Newark was 19759, in the
county 33281, 131% and 126% of the respective as-
sembly votes. Between 15000 and 16000 Democrats .
were estimated to have voted in Newark, thus mak-

55
t

ing the total primary vote 35259, or 82% of the
total assembly vote in Newark.

For 1907 the Republican primary vote was 84%
of the assembly vote, the Democratic 41%, both
61% of the total assembly vote at the general elec-
tion.

In the other counties of the state, in which a spe-
cial study was conducted, it was found quite diffi-
cult if not impossible to secure any extensive defi-
nite information on- the subject of participation in
the primaries prior to 1903. For Middlesex County
the New Brunswick Daily Home News for October
4th, 1900, makes this statement: “The Republicans
polled the heaviest vote at their primaries last even-
ing ever known in the party’s history in New Bruns-
wick. In the six wards the different candidates got
out over 1700 votes all told. Last spring the candi-
date for alderman at large on the Republican ticket
received 1663.” This vote was 58% of the Republi-
can assembly vote for that year. The Democratic
vote is not given, there being apparently no ex-
citement and no contest. There is here no sugges-
tion of fraudulent practices in the primary. No
figures were given in this paper for 1901 and 1902.

For Union County some figures are available.
The Elizabeth Daily Journal states that the Demo-
cratic primary vote in 1906, in Elizabeth, was 4120,
the Republican vote 3081, which are 70% and 71%
of the respective assembly votes. Going back to
1902, the Republicans cast 3036 votes in Elizabeth
(a) exclusive of the 6th and 7th wards. This was
69% of the Republican assembly vote. In 1903, in
Elizabeth, the Democratic primary vote was 1796,
the Republican, 1311, which are 36% and 30% of
the assembly votes of the two parties. (b) The total
primary vote for the same area in 1907 seems to
have been 3513, only 35% of the assembly vote for
both parties.

SUMMARY OF RECORDS

The record of participation in the primaries prior
to 1908, in the years reviewed above, may be pre-
sented in the following form:

 

(a) Elizabeth Daily Journal, September 23d,
(b) Ibid, September 8th, pene ae
56
PER CENT. OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTE WHICH WAS
CAST AT THE PRIMARY

HUDSON COUNTY

1899 1900 1901 1902 1903
Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem, Rep.
76% 27% 76% 20% ? ? 55% ? 75% ?

1904 1905 1906 1907
Dem.& Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep.

21% 72% 27% 66% 96% ? 70%

ESSEX COUNTY

1898 1899 1900 1901 1902
Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep.
88% 86% P 77% 77% 61% 95% 64% 33% 85%

1903 1904 1905 1906 1907
D.&R. Rep. ‘Dem.& Rep. D.&R. Rep. D.&R. Rep. Dem. Rep. D.&R.
63% 91% 37% 68% 88% 82% 126% 41% 84% 61%

There is no apparent tendency during the period
for the participation in the primary to increase or
decrease. The extent of participation for the first
year, however, seems fully as great as that for the
last except for the Republicans in Hudson County.
In the case of Hudson County the percent for the
Democratic party applies to the county area from
the first, or at least to the area of Jersey City. In
Essex County the record for the years 1898-1902
may be disregarded because only for a compara-
tively few districts could the vote be found. But 1903
shows a primary vote equal to 63% of the assembly
vote; 1905, 68%; 1906, 82%, either for the county
area or for Newark. That as great a part of the
assembly voters took part in the primary then as
take part now in these counties is not asserted, al-
though for the Republicans in Hudson, towards the
- end of the period, and for both parties in Essex, the
participation compares favorably with that of the
present time. That there was a great deal of fraud
will have to be admitted, but certainly for the years
after 1902 the fraudulent primary vote was mate-
rially balanced by the fraudulent general election
vote and for some of these years the primary vote
constitutes almost, if not altogether, as large a frac-
tion of the general election vote as it does today.
The main purpose of this chapter is to afford a foun-
dation for a survey of primary conditions and inter-
est following 1907, which are to be presented in
succeeding chapters. The primary law in force from
1903 to 1907 really constituted an ineffectively regu-
lated convention system, with a very slight direct

57
nominating element, almost negligible. The records
of participation presented in this chapter for these
years show that while the average primary partici-
pation may have been considerably less than it is
now, especially in the less populous counties, the
voters in New Jersey took a very considerable inter-
est in indirect nominations; and that those who in-
sist that the extent of participation in the primary
has been increased many-fold in Essex and Hud-
son Counties by the adoption of the direct nominat-
ing system, are unaware of the number of voters
who attended the primary prior to 1908.
CHAPTER V

THe AVOWED PURPOSES OF THE DirREcT PRIMARY
ADVOCATES

In the record of the direct primary movement in
the United States the names of three men stand out
in marked prominence. One of these was successful
in having enacted the first approximately complete,
state-wide mandatory direct primary law—Robert
M. LaFollette, at that time (1903) governor of
Wisconsin; the second, Charles E. Hughes, strove
energetically as Governor of New York, to per-
suade an unwilling legislature to provide a plan of
making nominations for public office, known as the
“Hughes Plan,” only to resign his office to accept
a Supreme Court appointment with his purpose
unaccomplished; the third, Woodrow Wilson, was
elected Governor of New Jersey on a platform which
called for an extension of the direct primary system
then in operation in the state, and was largely in-
strumental in framing and pushing to passage the
Geran bill, whose provisions are explained in a
previous chapter.

It is worthy of remark that all three were nomi-
nated by the convention system which they fought,
before or after nomination, or both, and are counted
among the great executives of their respective
states. In none of the three states has the direct
primary since raised to the highest office a man
whom the mass of citizens would consider as well
qualified as the three convention nominees, although
in one at the present time a very favorably known
and capable man holds office.

In studying the purpose and aim of the direct
primary, the views of these men should furnish
concrete expressions of the best reasons for the
enactment of such legislation. The public utter-
ances of each, private or official, will be examined
in turn.

GOVERNOR LA FOLLETTE’S VIEWS

Mr. LaFollette experienced defeat in his contest
for the nomination for governor at the hands of the

59
Republican state convention in 1896, to which
enough pledged delegates had been elected to nomi-
nate him, In his account of the affair in his auto-
biography, he charges the delegates with accepting
bribes. This defeat led him to study intensively all
the state laws governing caucuses, conventions, and
nominating systems. No mandatory direct primary
law existed in any state at that time, and only a few
optional or party systems. Mr. LaFollette formu-
lated a plan which he presented in a speech at the
University of Chicago, in 1897, and at the University
of Michigan in 1898. After two other campaigns for
the gubernatorial nomination, the first unsuccessful
for the same reason as that of 1896, he was nomi-
nated and elected governor in 1900, one of the two
main issues being the direct primary. In his inau-
gural messages of 1900 and 1903, he dealt exten-
sively with the subject.

He says: “The modern political machine is im-
personal, irresponsible, extra-legal.” (a) His de-
scription of the working of the agents of the ma-
chine fits the old caucus and convention system,
unregulated by law, e.g., “passing the word for the
caucus work, presiding at the caucus, recognizing
only machine motions and declaring them carried
at all hazards, moving with great alacrity the elec-
tion of delegates slated; ‘seeing’ delegates at the
convention ‘alone.’” These practices are or can be
avoided without the direct primary.

He continues further: “Control by the machine
is, without exception, the rule of the minority —
If we provide the same authority, the same facility
for expressing and executing the will of the people
at the primaries as now prevails at the elections, we
shall have the same general interest, the same gen-
eral participation in the one as in the other. The
caucus, delegate and convention system is inherently
bad, it invites to scheming, trickery, corruption and
fraud. Even if the caucus was fairly conducted, the
plan of which it is a part removes the nominations
too far from the voter. Every transfer of delegated
power weakens responsibility, until finally by the

 

(a) University of Chicago speech.

60
time it is lodged in the hands of a nominating con-
vention, the sense of responsibility has been lost in
transit. Then (under the direct primary) every
citizen will share equally in the nominations of the
candidates of his party, and attend primary elec-
tions as a privilege as well as duty. The nomina-
‘tions of the party will not be the result of ‘com-
promise’ or impulse, or evil design—the barrel or
the machine—but the candidates of the majority,
honestly and fairly nominated.”

In his speech at the University of Michigan, Mr.
LaFollette compares the results of the new system
with that of the old: “The nomination of all
candidates at a primary election will enable the
citizen at all times to place his hand upon the public
official and point the way he should go. With every
transfer of this delegated power, responsibility has
weakened until when finally it has made its winding
journey to the nominating convention, responsibility
to the voters has been lost on the way.”

Then LaFollette tells how the fathers adopted a
method of electing the president which would avoid
the gathering of a large assemblage in a single body,
he decries the excitement of a convention, its lack
of thoughtfulness, and at the same time asserts that
the delegates do not make the nomination, but that
these are made in quiet and deliberation by the
machine. It is a question whether candidates were
not in the early years of the republic, and in colonial
days, put forward by just such “parlor caucuses,”
composed, however, of a different class of citizens,
probably. Again pointing out the defects of the
convention system, he explains: “The moment that
any power or authority over the representative
comes between him and those who have elected him
to be their representative, that moment he ceases to
be their representative. His responsibility is at once
transferred to the intervening power or authority;
he becomes the trustee of this new authority, and
to it he must render account for his actions.”

LaFollette then compares the time required by
the citizen to attend a half dozen caucuses with the
time required simply to drop his ballot in the box at
the direct primary. “It (the direct primary) would
destroy the political machine because it would abol-

‘61
ish the caucus and the convention by the very
manipulation of which the machine controls in
politics. It would appeal to every member of the
party to participate in the primary election because
it would insure every member in the party an equal
share in the election of its candidates. It would
greatly improve the character of nominees. They
would be nominated because they stood for some-
thing. The man of no opinions or of extreme
opinions could never win the confidence and sup-
port of the great body of conservative men in the
party. It would bring into public service the best
talent of the times. It would elevate the public
service. The nominees of the caucus and conven-
tion are wholly independent of the rank and file of
the party. Between the nominee of the convention
and the great body of his party stands the political
machine. It nominates the candidate.”

In his first inaugural Governor LaFollette re-
peated the same argument: the necessity of an
equal voice for each citizen in making nominations,
the liability of a convention to corrupt influence, the
irresponsibility of the machine and the machine can-
didate to the voters; the certainty that under the
direct primary men of the highest talent would
readily become candidates.

The second inaugural asserts that the nomination
of candidates has passed out of the hands of the
citizen ; the voter loses interest when his caucus vote
is no longer effective; the official well understands
that his nomination through convention delegates is
invariably secured without the consent of a majority
of the voters of his party, he well knows the value
of the powerful influence of public service corpora-
tions; it is imperative that the trustee be required
to account directly to those whom he represents in
the discharge of his trust; this is the fatal defect
of the convention system—it removes the nominee
too far from the voter, the trustee too far from him
for whom he bears the trust.

The burden of the argument for the direct primary
is that its nominee will be responsible to the people
and feel this responsibility, whereas the nominee of
the convention will not be the choice of the majority
of his party but, due to the corruption of delegates,

62
will likely be the tool of interests hostile to the pub-
lic good.

GOVERNOR HUGHES’ VIEWS

Mr. Hughes in his speech accepting for the second
time a Republican convention’s nomination for gov-
ernor of New York (1908), said: “The best way to
make the organization effective is to keep it in clos-
est touch with the voting strength of the party, to
secure the largest participation of enrolled voters
in party affairs, and to stimulate interest and the
feeling of responsibility for party action. The pres-
ent method of choosing candidates is inadequate.
The voter feels that he has little or no influence in
determining the result.” He then announced his
position in favor of a mandatory law for direct nomi-
nation.

In his first annual message to the legislature (a)
he had proposed a provision for direct primaries with
official ballots, optional with the committees of par-
ties, in order that a test in a few counties of the
desirability of a general system might be furnished.
In his 1908 message he announced “There is a wide
difference between effective organization in the in-
terest of the party and the misuse of such organiza-
tion for purely selfish purposes. Within itself the
party constitutes a democracy, and its members
should be protected against despotic proceedings.
There should be unrestricted opportunity for the ex-
pression of the wishes of the members of the party
in the selection of candidates for office, and in order
that the enrolled voters should be encouraged to take
part in party proceedings and that the will of the
party in the choice of candidates should be expressed
and not defeated by a perversion of party machinery,
Iam in favor of direct nominations.” To the extraor-
dinary session on May I1th, he said: “Tt is a per-
version of the machinery designed to carry on a free
government that those who are elected to office
should regard themselves as the appointees of indi-
viduals, responsible to them for their acts, and de-
pendent upon them for their continuance in public
life.’ This statement is stronger than those preced-

 

(a) January 2, 1907. Public papers of Governor Hughes.
63
ing. The first message of his second term is still
stronger: “Delegates to nominating conventions are
generally mere pieces on the political chessboard and
most of them might as well be inanimate as far as
their effective participation in the choice of candi-
dates is concerned. Party candidates are in effect
generally appointed and by those who have not been
invested with any such appointing power. To the
extent that party machinery can be dominated by the
few, the opportunity for special interests which de-
sire to control the administration of government, to
shape the laws, to prevent the passage of laws, or to
break the laws with impunity, is increased. It (direct
nomination) will make the elective official more in-
dependent of those who would control his action,
for their selfish advantage, and enable him to appeal
more directly to his constituency on the basis of
faithful service, it cannot fail in the main to prove
a strong barrier against the efforts of those who seek,
by determining the selection of candidates, to per-
vert administration to the service of privilege or to
secure immunity for law breaking.”

A similar annual argument was developed in Gov-
ernor Hughes’ 1910 message. “The ordinary party
member feels that he is practically helpless, a victim
of a system of indirect, complicated and pseudo-
representative activities which favor control by the
few and make party candidates to a great extent the
virtual appointees of party managers. The degree
of success which has attended the efforts of those
who have not been entrusted with governmental au-
thority to dominate the action of public officers and
to place and keep in power those who will be answer-
able to their control may be traced in large measure
to the methods which have been in vogue in making
party nominations. Primary elections should accom.
plish their purposes and that is to make the partici-
pation of the voters effective and their wishes de-
cisive in the selection of those who are to hold party
position and of candidates for office. It is not diffi-
cult to provide........., for all necessary consulta-
tion and recommendations by party leaders. But
they do not constitute the party and their recom-
mendations, which should be made in a responsible

64
and public manner, as well as all other proposals: of
candidates, should be subject to the final decision of
the party voters.” The message to the extraordinary
session, called especially to secure the enactment of
a direct primary law, contains these statements: “It
(public sentiment) insists that the work and prefer-
ence of party managers shall be brought to the test
of party opinion freely expressed. The people of
this state are not disposed to tolerate a continuance
of a system that experience condemns because it fos-
ters an alliance between business and government
and tends to make departments of government the
servitors of those they are intended to control. I
believe that opportunity should be provided to those
who have been chosen to represent the party to
make their recommendations and thus secure to the
party the advantage of their conference and open
advice. But the decision should not rest with the
party managers.”

One of the governor’s most energetic speeches in
favor of the direct primary was made at Batavia,
prior to the assembling of the special session of 1910:
“Special interests” were the particular object of at-
tack. “If you do not put party managers under
check, if you give to improper practices the oppor-
tunities and large rewards they now enjoy, you
hobble political leadership and put a premium on
those seeking to dominate party organizations and
serve their ambitions or fill their pocketbooks. If
special interests can write your statutes they will
a weap a te 88 te Give the party members a chance and
put the party managers under the restraints. The
seat of power should be with the party voters, not
with the party managers, and it is through the
manipulation of delegates and their abuse of the
representative system that the latter hold their con-
trol. Let the managers’ candidate stand out clearly
and distinctly to be approved or condemned. If the
sentiment of the party has been suitably recognized
in his selection, opposition will be futile and un-
necessary.”

In Governor Hughes’ opinion these conditions ex-
ist in and result from the convention system: 1.
The voter feels helpless and fails to vote at the elec-

65
tion of delegates because he does not know who will
be nominated. 2. The delegates, being without
check, nominate men whom the majority of the party
do not desire. 3. The nominations are unrepresenta-
tive of party opinion and are distorted by party man-
agers who in turn sell out to interests working to
profit at the public expense by controlling the gov-
ernment. 4. The purpose of the direct primary is to
make the real wish of the party effective in determin-
ing nominations by referring the recommendations of
delegates as to nominees along with any candidates
for nomination put up by petition, to a direct vote of
the party members. By the provisions of the Hin-
man-Green bill, which Governor Hughes favored, the
proposals of the party committee for nominations
were to be made six weeks before the primary;
within the next three weeks independent nomina-
tions might be made by the usual petition method,
and the party voters were to have the final decision
at a direct primary five weeks before the general
election. Governor Hughes believed the party com-
mittees would name good men for three reasons:
to avoid unnecessary strife in the party, to have
candidates at the primary who could win, and to save
their political lives.

GOVERNOR WILSON’S VIEWS

Governor Wilson in his inaugural address dis-
cussed the subject of direct primaries at some length.
“Others, looking a little deeper, have pointed out
that with our present methods of election, which
were nothing more than a choice between one set
of machine nominees and another, we did not get
representative government at all—at least not gov-
ernment representative of the people, but govern-
ment representative of political managers who served
their own interest and the interests of those with
whom they found it profitable to establish partner-
SHIPS bis va writes ey How are you going to get genuine
representatives who will serve your real interests?
(Direct primary laws)... .c<ss0scus should be ex-
tended to every elective office and to the selection
of every party committee or official as well, in
order that the people may once for all take

66
charge of their own affairs, their own political
organizations and associations.” On February
14, 1911, Governor Wilson issued a statement on
the Geran bill: “The evils of our politics have
existed largely because public affairs could be con-
trolled by private understandings, arrived at in ways
the people could not comprehend; and the basis of
all this private management has been the choice of
candidates for office and of those who were to con-
duct the affairs of the parties in such a way that the
people felt themselves unable to take part with effec-
tiveness, and intelligence. Its passage will mean
that we shall regularly and always have free legisla-
tures, and not depend upon exceptional circum-
stances to give them to us.”

Before the Trenton Chamber of Commerce Gover-
nor Wilson made this statement: “It (the Geran
bill) will break up the private and secret manage-
ment of party machines. The chief difficulty we
have to contend with among intelligent voters in
this state and everywhere else in the United States
where conditions are such as they are in this state,
is that men will say, ‘What is the use of going to
the polls when we don’t seem to be able to accom-
plish anything by it?’” (a)

“The attitude of most busy and thoughtful men
toward the government is an attitude of indifference
because it is an attitude of despair. If we take part
in the election what choice do we have, except the
choice between the nominees of one political ma-
chine and the nominees of another political ma-
chine? Now the business of politics at this mo-
ment is to reconstitute our government by putting
it upon its right basis again, which is the basis of
the popular will and not the basis of private ar-
rangement.” (b)

The following sentences aim to present concisely
Governor Wilson’s views on the direct primary’s
purpose. The convention system is unrepresenta-
tive, “machines” control nominations, the people
feel unable to take part effectively, but the direct
primary will make nominations representative of

 

(a) Jersey Journal, March 8, 1911.
(b) Speech before the Hoboken Board of Trade, Jersey Journal,
March 3, 1911.
67
the people by destroying the power of the machine
and will make these nominees of the people free
to serve them. When’ the people feel that their
wishes as expressed at the primary are effective they
will participate to such an extent as to control
nominations.

SUMMARY

These three advocates of the direct primary have
maintained practically the same view of its neces-
sity and its purpose. Broadly stated it is this:
The convention system is unrepresentative of the
party voters because of the corruption of delegates
by private interests. Because it is unrepresenta-
tive, the party voters do not participate in it. (It
is not unrepresentative because the party voters
refuse to participate.) The direct primary will be
representative, the party voters will participate and,
there being no corruptible delegate making nomina-
tions, the nominees will owe their selection to the
party voters and be subservient to their wishes alone.
The participation of the voters must be made effec-
tive and their wishes decisive.

Only the plan of Mr. Hughes proposed to main-
tain the theoretically representative system of nomi-
nations and to attempt to make it representative
in fact by, among other things, submitting its nomi-
nees to the approval of the party voters. It is
doubtful if, in any state of the three, all the possible
steps had been taken to make the convention system
representative. It is certain that in New Jersey
this had by no means been done. It is strange
that in many western states the adoption of the
direct primary has been followed by the adoption
of the initiative and referendum (or preceded by
it). If the theory of the direct primary is sound
all legislatures whose members have been nomi-
nated by it should be completely responsive to the
opinions and wishes of their constituents—a con-
dition which would remove altogether any need for
the initiative and referendum whose subsequent
adoption must have been out of abundant caution.

That public officials and especially legislators
have become more responsive to public opinion

68
Table I.

MUNICIPALITY

_ TAB

|
|
|

Population

LE FOR SALEM C

Votes for Commit-

teemen

Committeemen

chosen
Possible Contest Vote

Contests for position of
Committeeman
All Contests

TY PRIMARY ELECTION, 1916

Actual Contest Vote

 

ve}

 

Alloway Township

1,500

>
ay

 

Elmer Borough

1,143

an
ey

 

Elsinboro Township

432

 

Lower Alloway Creek Township! 1,289

 

Lower Penns Neck Township

1,605

 

Mannington Township

'1,653

o}8)ala

 

Oldeman Township

/1,324

10

 

Pennsgrove Borough

‘4,412

>

* 109
* 103

39
31

\(57*) 48
\(49*) 41

 

Pilesgrove Township

1,786

 

Pittsgrove Township

\2,169

 

Quinton Township

| 999

SO/ Oe] an] a

* 109

|
|
|
|
| * 106

 

Salem

6.953

 

 

Upper Penns Neck Township

1,559

105

 

Upper Pittsgrove Township

1,984

 

Woodstown Borough

* Indicates a “real” contest, or the vote for a ‘‘real”’ contest.
s Indicates the same contest in anotherdistrict.
(1) Three contests, one running through the municipality, each of the other two through one ward.

1,507

ml Ree) Bee RRR] OO] Of BR] BRL RL OO] Ry BL RL RL RIO
Ble le] eee] ol ol He} Be] He] Hel ol Rel Hl Hloj a

* 137

(132+) 84 |

 

563
(458*)

391

(4198)

335
(344*

|

Officers and Commit-}

teemen Nominated and |
Elected

0
BPN! SIT Ol wl ei mw] alo

ee ee oo

rar
a

to

He wrHnEal va

 

”
NN} Reel aol Pe worRwm] Oo

wlerm|~

8

ot
CHART OF PRIMAI

PRIMARY VOTE

o»
n29fas |
sjoyjeq Arewig

6

a

Azewtid ‘day

ye 4se9 930A A[quiasse

uol}da]9 [eJaUed ‘day jo %

 

 

14
3.1
2.

 

| 18 | a4
|| 23
28
114
ur | 6s
86 | 3S
| 88 | as
127 | 3.3
ce
53

55.8
43.3
43.1
44.7
34.2
39.3
64.4
32.5
49.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Axewrid ‘waq
7B 4SBD 930A A[quiasse
uo!}daT9 [eJaUuad "Wag Jo %

 

25.3
34.6
16.3
32.7
41.1
52.6
78.2
38.3
31.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Azewid ye seo
930A UOI}DIJa [esJoUaT Jo %

2 2884 40.3

&

 

 

YEAR

38.1
36.1
60.3
31.5
31.9

1883 29.
1951

1868 29.7
3763

1462

2217

859 2202 38.5

1415
1055
755
1816
773
1651

1347

 

803 2072

870
468
896
1109

1239

1872

 

a
"|
|
if

ajye301Ins AjuNo-

WafQ Ayunog—~-———

 

yueays

 

speepetepetaye rs

|
ee
|
|
|

UPUT99}}IWIWIOD 2727S-

 

uew A[quassy

IOJBUIG 9321S

 

CANDIDATES FOR THESE NOMINATIONS

|
ae
|
ie
|

|

[Rl p>lRripiR iD

 

E a
10JBUIS *S *"Q-—
A

 

qaU010g,

ajyezo01Nns HED

HIII0 nein

UBUIDI}}IWIWOD 9381S

uewA]quassy

 

NOMINATED CALLING FOR

COUNTY-WIDE VOTE

ERS 2781S

IOUIIAOD

 

TO BE

 

 

NATIONAL, STATE AND COUNTY OFFICERS

 

Table II.

aatqzeyuasaiday “S

 

 

2 The total sometimes includes the vote of minor parties.

1 Preference vote.

i

 

|
pens
|
|
|
a

 

1

1913 |
1915 |
1916

1910 | 1
1911 |

 

 

 

 

 
 

CHART OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN SALEM COUNTY

 

 

 

NUMBER OF CANDIDATES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOMINATED FOR LOCAL VOTE F(
MUNICIPAL OFFICES
e
2 & c 3 a
3 2 8 ; g | 2 ;:
2 | 8. | #8 : g § es S
§ |38 | oS “ g g 3 g £3 3 3
3 | se | 38 3 SB e Be g S Se 3 8
3 53 Lo = oS uo wo 5 § bw es 3 8 e
Op |} et & 8 33 SE 3é Soe 2 =o 3 2, §
ai | S82) &2> se 28 38 aes YEAR 2 o> a ‘ga a
se | g>el ae es Sa 42 52 gee 3 B25 3 33 £
cei is| det] ip | 3 Hi e et el e| & a :
bw 2 oa 4 = ow Ss 3 2 =
st |see/seu| a2 és Ass $8 838 S| 28 a s% z
2 ea | | |__| oe oe a | ———_ | |
T | 28 | 248/282) No| % |No| % | D| R| T D R  |% of |Nom-| Real Nom|Real|Nom Real Nominal Real |Nominal| Real | Possible | Actual | P
prim. | inal D R T ? |inal inal contests | contests | contests | contests | R R I
| | fal aaa | (178) react gt oeth ea = Whe ge alg oe et i
2 2884 | 403 | 25.3 | 558 | 18 | 0.624 | 59| 0.825 | 27 | 36 | 63 285 | 1611 | 65.7] 5 | 0 1908 70 | 71 | 141 | 14] 12] 10/12] 10 8 7 5 | 707 | 1063 | 622 | 799 | 6€
oan i rca erszes aca (224) are ap ee | fas, Palate:
2217 | 381 | 346 | 433 | 48 | 2.16 8 0.138 | 16 | 23 39 392 | 1229 | 732| 5 | 1 1909 83 | 77 | 160 | 22/11] 7/16] 11 11 7 7 | 791 | 707 | 646 | 478 | 7:
een S| i sie ts mess eral (182) Po eee we ep ee ree fs
1883 | 29. 16.3 | 431 | 28 | 148 | 37/0571 | 47 | 62 | 109 355 | 1235 | 733] 4 | 1 1910 60 | 71 | 131 | 7} 7]19/ 19] 10 9 6 5 | 237 | 719 | 200 | 667 | 2:
loach ty SOM ages (156) ~~ | fa tee a oe
1951 | 361 | 32.7 | 44.7 | 114/ 5.8 | 120 | 2.2 18 | 19 | 37 533 568 | 564 | 4 | 3 1911 57 | 52 | 109 | 8) 3] 14] 36] 1 8 5 4 | 460| 582 | 272 | 443 | 3(
feat | iy toe Sean wa 4 ae ih) kee Geri Ve lathe ted ne dpe bid aaa
1868 | 29.7 | 41.1 | 34.2 | 117) 62 66/10 | 21 | 21 42 595 438 | 550| 6 | 2 1912 s6 | 67 | 123 |11] 8/11/15] 14 | 10 7 6 | 687| 389 | 522 | 338 | &
—— — —|—_ ——_ |_| S$ |. S$ ir jo cr jj _-—__}
| | | (200)
2202 | 385 | 526 | 39.3 | 86) 39 55 | 09 2 | 26 52 749 426 | 60.7| 3 | 1 1913 71 | 72 | 143 | 10| 4] 15| 38] 12 5 8 5 | 683 | 266 | 539 | 136 | 47
EEE ——— | ana reenter [— | | | —$. )§s ———_— |__| qq qj oe ~—_—| — ———— ——_ —
| | (190)
| 3763 | 60.3 | 78.2 | 64.4 | 127] 33 67 | 1.0 20 | 20 4o | 1022 | 1168 | 582] 2 | 1 1914 70 | 65 | 135 |10| 6| 14) 23] 10 7 9 6 | 861 | 422 | 694 | 193 | 5
feces Beta cae ec cee eres Peet es ee ase ere [Se eA YE ee ey pee eae
| (206)
1462 | 315 | 383 | 325 | 46 | 3.1 41 | 08 18 | 18 36 377 309 | 469] 1 | 0 1915 7 | 7 | 153 | 22) 9| 7}17] 15 7 9 7 | 638 | 522 | 531 | 391 | 4:
i os rte np ata (180) peek me m= Ss peat oe re te ST ed
2562 | 319 | 318 | 499 | 53 | 2.0 79 | 0.9 19 | 20 39 522 757 | 499 | 3 | 0 1916 68 | 70 | 138 | 12) 4]12] 36] 14 7 7 4 | 574 | 563 | 391 | 335 | 2

 

 

 

 

® The figures in parentheses represent the numbers of officers that could have been nominated. « The number of districts in the county was 1%
will be asserted unconditionally by many people,
and probably with reason; it is a difficult matter
to determine absolutely, and how much of this in-
creased responsiveness, if it exists, may be credited
to the direct primary is still more difficult of de-
termination. That political conditions are generally
better now than a decade ago is not open to dispute.
It is considered probable by some that these better
conditions would have come about without radical
change in the nominating system, but this belief
does not admit of proof.

The accomplishment of the purpose of the direct
primary, as expressed above, seems to presuppose
the participation in the primary of the great mass
of the party voters and the absence of any means
of securing a nomination except the reasoned sup-
port of a plurality of those voting.

Whether the direct primary is accomplishing its
purpose, then, will be determined by the extent of
the participation of the party voters in the primary,
and by the extent to which the candidate relies upon
the freely expressed wishes of the party voters rather
than other influences.

In theory there can be no doubt that the nomi-
nation of a certain candidate at a direct primary
in which all the party voters are free to take part
must be the outcome of the wishes of those party
voters. Even in practice no one can deny that in
the direct primary the party voters as a whole
always have the means and opportunity at their
command and ready for their use to control as they
wish, and absolutely, the nominations of candidates
for public office. But it must be recognized that in
practice those who have the most direct interest in
the nomination of a certain candidate will be most
active in his support and that there are means, some
legal and some illegal, of creating an active inter-
est in the success of a certain candidacy, which do
not depend upon popular favor; that there are still
powerful agencies which come between the candi-
date for nomination and the voters who are to nomi-
nate him upon which the candidate will depend for
support, and to which he will in large measure owe
his success; that for large areas an effective cam-
paign usually demands the expenditure of money

69
to an amount which makes the candidacy of the
man of little means depend on those who will furn-
ish him the sinews of war. To be more specific—
control of patronage, corruption, direct and indi-
rect; the favor of an organization, legitimate or il-
legitimate ; and money are powerful factors in di-
rect primary nominations, especially in populous
areas. How far they go in determining nominations
under the direct primary system will be illustrated
in some measure in later chapters.

70
CHAPTER VI

A Stupy oF THE Drrect Primary 1n Six CouNTIES
oF NEW JERSEY

SALEM COUNTY

Salem County contains a population of 30292 (a),
12% more than in 1910, and is almost entirely rural.
Its constituent municipalities number fifteen, of which.
Salem, the county seat,’is a city of 6953 ; three are bor-
oughs, and eleven, townships. Only three of these sub-
divisions contain more than one election district ; Salem
with six, Pennsgrove borough with two, and Upper
Pittsgrove township with two. The county is nor-
mally Republican. In 1908 and 1909 the Republican
majority was about 600; in 1910, 400 (for Assembly ;
the contest for governor and for United States rep-
resentative being close) ; in 1911 the Democrats elected
an assemblyman by less than 100 majority, and also
a state senator, a sheriff and a coroner. The Demo-
crats were successful again in 1912 and in 1913 be-
cause of the Progressive movement. In the three
elections since 1913 the Republicans have chosen the
assemblymen by about 500 majority, the total vote of
all parties being 6237, 4631, and 8021.

In Salem alone, apparently, of the third class coun-
ties, the the primary returns for municipal officers
regularly recorded by the election officers on a printed
form which is filed with the county clerk.

The election return sheets from each district were
examined, and for each year a table was made up
substantially as the one inserted, number one.

From these tables was compiled the single chart,
number two, covering the years 1908-1916 inclusive.
The reason for beginning with the year 1908 is because
in that year the direct primary was first used for of-
ficers voted for throughout the county and because
it was desired to have a basis of comparison for the

 

(a) The establishment of large munition plants has since caused a
considerable increase.
71
periods preceding and following the Geran law of
1911.

The first division of the tabulation shows for what
offices candidates are to be nominated each year. In
the second division are repeated the titles of the of-
fices to be filled under which appear the initial letters
of the names of the two leading parties and under
each letter the number of candidates running for the
nomination of that party. This number will show
whether there was a contest or not for the nomination
to the office under which it stands. The total primary
vote is not always the sum of the Democratic and
Republican party votes because of the participation
‘in some years of small parties, whose vote, however,
is almost always negligible, there being as a rule no
contests in these parties, and very frequently even
when the party is quite numerous at the general elec-
tion no names of candidates for nomination are printed
on the primary ballot. That is, no petitions have been
filed. The per cent. of that party’s vote for Assembly
which the primary vote of each party constitutes is
given in order that the relative extent of each party’s
participation in the primary may be shown. Members
of the Assembly are the only officers for the county
area who are elected annually. The per cent. of the
Assembly vote is always higher by a varying amount
than would be the per cent. of the total number of bal-
lots cast for each party if it could be known. In other
words, not all voters who cast ballots vote for a can-
didate for any one particular office. Moreover, of
course, in the use of the Massachusetts form of ballot,
a great many ballots cannot be considered either defi-
nitely Republican or Democratic

The two spaces showing the number and per cent.
of ballots rejected are given to afford definite informa-
tion on the question as to the extent of disfranchise-
ment caused by the use of the blanket, Massachusetts
ballot instead of the separate party ballots as used
formerly.

Prior to 1911 delegates were chosen at the primaries
in certain years for state and congressional conven-
lions, and county committeemen elected every year be-
ginning with 1909. The latter practice was optional
with county committees in the years 1903 to 1908. The
total vote for these delegates or committeemen, or both,

72
and the per cent. which it is of the primary vote and -
the number of contests for the places, are given to
show the degree of interest which the voters demon-
strated in the choice of delegates as compared with that
taken in the direct vote for officers, and the increase or
decrease of this interest. This study was confined to
one county of each class—Salem, Middlesex and Essex.

The officers to which the data given under the head-
ing, “Number of nominations for local municipal of:
fices,” apply are those voted for locally in subdivisions
of the county: cities, boroughs and townships. There is
no doubt that in most if not all counties these officers
are more closely related to the welfare of the citizen
than any others. The county officers, except the board
of freeholders, may almost be said not to affect the
life of the citizen at all. These local officers determine
the greatest part of his taxation and collect and ex-
pend it, they police his neighborhood and keep up the
streets or roads which he uses most frequently. It is
often asserted that whatever may be the doubt or cer-
tainty as to the efficacy of the direct primary for large
areas where the voters may not be well acquainted with
the various aspirants, for the nomination of local of-
ficers its desirability cannot be questioned. As stated
in a preceding chapter one of the main purposes of the
investigation is to learn how much use is made of the
primary, not only as measured by the number of citi-
zens who vote at it, but also by the number of con-
tests for nomination that are settled by it. It will be
noticed that the number of officers nominated each year

‘differs for the two parties. The numbers here given
show only those candidates actually receiving votes
exclusive of candidates for the position of delegate or
committeeman. The election law provides that the mu-

‘ nicipal clerk shall certify to the county clerk the

offices which are to be filled at the general election.

These certificates were not used in the investigation

in Salem County, and as a result the number of
offices to be filled is unquestionably larger in every
year than the number given as receiving votes at
the primary election. This is indicated by the varia-
tion in the number of candidates voted for by each
party for each municipality as shown in the first table.

It is also clear the number of offices to be filled in each

municipality is at least equal to the number voted for

73
‘by either party, and thus the highest number voted for
in each municipality may be considered as at most not
more than the number to be actually nominated. By
adding the larger numbers voted for in each munici-
pality the figures appearing in parenthesis in the tabu-
lation are arrived at as the number of local officers to
be nominated in the county for the series of years, and
if in error at all are below rather than above the actual
figures.

In the next section to the right is given the number
of “nominal” contests for local municipal offices and
the number of “real” contests. These words “nominal”
and “real” are not part of any official, technical elec-
tion phraseology, but are used with this signification :
Without reference to the primary ballots used it is im-
possible to know positively how many candidates had
filed nominating petitions for each office; that is, had
their names printed on the primary ballot. This is
especially true in a rural county where the vote cast
in each precinct is as a rule not very large and where
as a result there is no means of knowing whether, of
two men receiving votes, both, one or neither had se-
cured a place on the ballot by petition. Soa case of no
opposition was considered to exist when there were
votes for only one candidate, or when the only votes
for a second or for other candidates were single votes.
But all cases where there were two votes for any candi-
date or candidates other than the leading one, were
tabulated as contests; but in many of these latter cases
the votes did not seem to indicate any real opposition
or actual contest, which is properly held to exist only
when two or more candidates have filed petitions and
presented their names on the ballot. When there
seemed no doubt that the votes recorded for two or
more men were due to there being no name on the bal-
lot for the office, and consequently scattering votes
were cast for several persons, the so-called contest was
deducted from the entire number of contests, as defined
above, and the remaining number designated as “real”
contests.

The information contained in the columns designated
“number of districts affected by ‘real’ contests” and
“number of municipalities affected by ‘real’ contests” is
given a place in the tabulation because the mere num-
ber of contests alone does not show at all the area nor

74
the number of voters affected, and both these factors
are necessary to a complete comprehension of the
service which the primary performs. Thus the whole
number of contests might conceivably occur in a single
municipality of perhaps a single precinct, and such an
intensive use of the primary in such a limited civil
division would hardly justify employing it over a great
surrounding area. On the other hand a single contest,
if for mayor, might affect in Salem County, distinctly
rural as it is, six voting districts.

The words “possible” (a) and “actual” used in the
last four columns but two need an explanation. The
vote recorded under the heading “possible” for the
Democratic party consists of the sum of all the ballots
cast at the primary by that party in districts where con-
tests existed ; that is, in districts where the Democratic
voter had an opportunity of favoring one of two or
several Democratic aspirants for the nomination for
one or more offices, and so for the Republican “pos-
sible” vote. The “actual” vote is, as would be inferred,
the number of votes counted for all the party candi-
dates who were standing for the nomination in contest
with one or more others. These four spaces are neces-
sary to show whether the contests were all in one party
or not (a matter which is shown separately in the tabu-
lations for other counties), and whether they afforded
an opportunity of choice to many or few of the party
voters. This fact is not sufficiently clear from the
number of precincts affected (even when given sepa-
rately for the two parties) on account of the great
variation in the number of party voters in the different
precincts. The relation of the “actual” contest vote
to the “possible” contest vote is evidence of the degree
of interest manifested in the contests. Naturally if the
contest is felt to be important by the voters the interest
will be keen and the “actual” vote will swing upward
toward the “possible” vote, and if interest is sluggish
the reverse will be true. From the number of contests,
the districts affected and the actual vote cast in deter-
mining them, the student will be able to form a con-
ception of the use which is made of the direct primary.

The last two spaces summarize the extent to which
the primary is actually used by the voters in selecting
the candidates who shall represent the party at the

(a) There is no official record of the number of party members.

75
succeeding general election. The next to the last pre-
sents the per cent. of the total party vote cast at the
primary which was employed in the choice of party
candidates in cases where two or more aspirants ap-
peared for the position. The last reduces this part of
the primary vote to a per cent. of the party’s vote for
Assembly at the succeeding general election.

A study of the tabulation will now be taken up with
a view to arriving at any conclusions in regard to the
trend of participation in and use of the direct primary
which the facts will support and warrant.

From a survey of the officers to be nominated for the
nine years one fact presents itself forcibly at once— -
the sharp difference in the number and importance of
the officers from year to year and the seeming absence
of any regularity; “seeming,” because since the terms
of the officers remain the same there must be a recur-
rence at intervals of the same combinations, but such
a recurrence does not take place within the nine year
period. The number of officers calling for county-wide
vote to be nominated at the primary each year by each
party runs thus: 5, 3 county 2 state; 3, 2 county 1
state; 2, 1 state, 1 United States; 6, 3 county, 2 state,
1 United States; 5, 2 county, 1 state, 2 United States;
2, all state; 7, 4 county, 2 state, 1 United States; 2,
1 county, 1 state; 5, 3 state, 2 United States. In each
of three years, county, state and United States officers
were to be nominated at the same time; in each of
three years, county and state officers were to be nomi-
nated, and in one year state officers only were to be
nominated. The situation is certainly confusing.

Besides the mixture of county, state and national
issues at the general election to be regretted, there is
the great variation in the probable duty placed upon
the voter. In 1914 he had to nominate to seven of-
fices; in 1915 to two. Such an arrangement is un-
doubtedly conducive to the encouragement of the “off
year” non-voting class. With a combination of two,
four, and six year terms for national officers, and one,
three, and five year for state and county officers (a),
a hit and miss succession of groupings is unavoidable.
The solution is a change in the length of the term of
state and county officers and a separation of state and
national from municipal elections—this regardless of

(a) Governor three, state Senator three, Assemblyman one, Sheriff
and Coroner three, Clerk and Surrogate five. ¥ aeoa

76
any verdict on the necessity of the direct primary.

A study of the contests for nomination to United
States, state, and county offices brings out the fact that
in only two years (1911, 1914) of the nine year period
have both parties had one or more contests for the
county offices ; in two other years (1912, 1915) neither
party had a county contest, and in one of these years
(1915) there was no contest at all extending over the
county. In this year there were only nine local mu-
nicipal contests in the county in nominating 153 of-
ficers for that number of places out of 206 possible
primary nominations., They cost the county at least
$2500, The law requires a primary election to be held
every year, contests or no contests, with the full number
of election officers, polling places, sample and official
ballots, and so on. It is a serious question whether
some plan could not and should not be devised by
which the operation of so extensive and expensive a
machinery might be reserved for the times when it is
actually to be used for accomplishing its intended pur-
pose. In examining the number of contests further
it is learned that in this period 78 officers were to be
nominated by the two parties—counting the election
of the state committeemen by the voters of each party
as the nomination of a state officer, and the preferen-
tial vote for United States Senator as the nomination
of a United States officer—30 county officers, 34 state
officers, and 14 United States officers. For the 78 of-
fices there were 24 contests (one in three and one-
fourth offices) ; 7 for county offices out of the 30 nomi-
nations, 10 for state offices out of the 34 nominations
and 7 for United States offices out of the 14 nomi-
nations. There are apparently fewer contests in Salem
County for nomination to county offices than in the
county, congressional district, or the state for nomina-
tion to the state and United States offices. In three
cases for coroner, one for county clerk and one for
assembly, the Democrats had no nominee at the pri-
mary.

As to participation in the primary for the period
there is no definite trend observable. The highest
vote and highest percentage of the general election
vote was, with one exception, cast the first year the
direct primary was used for county-wide nominations,
In Salem County it is hardly probable that repeating

7
or other fraud explains this large vote, although cast
before the Geran law was enacted.

The largest vote and largest percentage of the gen-
eral election vote (60.3%) was cast in 1914, when the
greatest number of officers was to be nominated. This
also is one of the two years in which there were con-
tests in both parties, and there were also the most
contestants for the nomination to one office in the
whole period—four Republicans and three Democrats
for sheriff. It seems safe to say that the size of the
primary vote in Salem County depends largely on the
number of contestants for county positions. It cannot
be said that there is an increasing interest and partici-
pation in the primary election—rather the opposite.
The lowest per cent. of participation was 29%, the av-
erage 37.%. The Republican participation has aver-
aged 43.2% of the assembly vote, the Democrats 39%.
The former would no doubt be considered the dominant
party. . For officers elected wholly within the county
it has had eight contests and the latter four. There
seems to be a natural tendency for the minority party
to have fewer contests and a relatively smaller primary
vote than the majority party.

In the matter of rejected ballots, there is evident a
larger per cent. at the primary election than at the
general election, with only one case of exception,
ranging from twice to fifteen times as great (six times
as great since the Geran law). The adoption of the
Massachusettts ballot caused an immense increase in
the per cent. of ballots rejected, but since that time
there has been a practically steady decline until the
per cent. is about the same now as when separate party
ballots were used. As far as Salem County is con-
cerned the frequent outcry that the new form of ballot
is so complicated as to cause a very large number of
rejected ballots is unfounded.

The vote for county committeemen shows a tendency
to decrease in the later years. After 1910 no nomina-
tions have been made by convention, so it is very
natural that the vote for committeemen, the only nu-
merous party officers remaining, should fall off, espe-
cially in a county where there is little expenditure of
public money, comparatively few salaried offices to fill,
and slight probability of securing much state or na-
tional patronage. In 1910 when delegates to a state

78
convention and a congressional convention were
elected, 73.3% of the primary voters expressed a choice
for delegates ; in several districts no delegates were se-
lected, at least the primary returns so indicate. This
would seem to show a lack of interest in the nomina-
tions made by conventions, even though for important
offices, or perhaps a lack of interest in the nomination
to offices beyond the immediate neighborhood. In sup-
port of the latter view it may be cited that this same
year the voters were given their first opportunity to
indicate a preference for United States Senator, and
only 70% of the Republican primary voters did so,
63% of the Democratic, although the vote was direct.
The vote for county committeemen the last three vears
has been slightly less than half the primary vote, which
in turn was less than one-third the general election
vote. It will hardly be denied that-this is substantial
evidence of an absence of concern for the composition
of the county committees, or legally constituted party
organization. When one considers the fact that the
county committees have practically no recognized
powers as such, it is not surprising that the members
of both parties pay so slight attention to their selec-
tion, especially in a county where the spoils which an
organization might control are of no great value. The
chairmen nominate members for the election boards
and probably obtain the names of men from the indi-
vidual committeemen for the different districts. This
little patronage amounts to at least $100 a district for
each party for each year in fees of members of boards
of registry and election. The county chairman is nor-
mally the party leader in the county, or his represen-
tative.

The average Republican primary vote for an officer
nominated by county-wide vote in 1911 was 74% of the
total primary vote, Democratic 75% ; in 1913, 85% of
the valid Republican primary votes were counted for
governor, when four candidates were running, 94% of
the valid Democratic votes were counted for governor.
In 1914 only 77% of the valid Democratic primary
votes designated a candidate for United States repre-
sentative although there was a contest, and 74% of the
Republican votes where there was, however, no contest.
In 1916, 90% of the’ valid Republican primary votes
were counted for United States Senator and 92% of

79
the Democratic votes. From this consideration the pri-
mary vote for county committeemen does not seem so
ridiculously low. It does show that the legally con-
stituted organization rests on no broad support among
the party members.

During the nine years in which 457 delegates or
committeemen have been elected, there occurred nine
contests, an average of one a year.

The number of local municipal officers actually
nominated at the primary is seen to range around 75%
of the total number to be nominated. This is due to
three causes. (1) In several municipalities one party
is dominant and the other party puts up no candidates
by petition at the primary for the general election. (2)
In other cases it is common practice for the parties to
divide the municipal offices of any importance, and
each party then makes nominations for certain offices
only. This is a practical way of introducing “non-
partisan” elections for municipal offices. It may be
spoiled by an ambitious member of one party filing
a petition for nomination to an office which has been
assigned to the opposite party. (3) Many offices are
of so little importance that no one ever, in certain
municipalities, seeks the nomination for them, and the
votes cast are often written in as jokes, naming some
well-known citizen for pound-keeper or some national
character for surveyor of the highways. Those two
offices are probably most frequently followed by a
blank space on the primary, and often general election
ballots, with perhaps constables and justices of the
peace next in order.

There has been, perhaps, a noticeable tendency
toward fewer contests for local municipal offices and
a corresponding increase in the number of offices to
each contest, 38 being the highest, 36 the figure for
1916. There were four contests in the entire county
in 1916, less than one-third of the districts were af-
fected and less than one-third of the municipalities.
Two of these contests were for the nomination as
councilman, one as township committeeman, and one
as collector of taxes.

The actual vote for “real” contests constitutes
usually a fairly high percentage of the possible vote,’
although in the Republican party. for 1916 it is only
75%. The per cent. of the whole primary vote which

80
Table III. CHART OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN HUNTERD

NATIONAL, STATE AND COUNTY OFFICERS TO BE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOMINATED CALLING FOR COUNTY-WIDE VOTE | TEES NOL
| | | |
| | » ' ‘
| | oy 3.43
| | | 8 |p| ee
yi |i | 2° -a |“ z 6
2 EE] aE 3 3
ae | |g § 6 | st | ge 3 3
| > g > AalMé 2 a
o c P| | | 3 : : : 8 & eg | Ea *
YEAR| |2| | e| | a | € Laat BP AT B % YEAR = | 33 | 32 g §
5 Sicigial | Pel | 84 s|8]/2]4]a] a 2 |e B | 32/88) 8 3
2 SIRIEIS) | 18) | 8 | 2 3 E : “ 3 2 5 oS | sa} os 5 2
| Oo el elelulala| 4] 9° | & a | ue Ee S — 3 oO a 5 n ee was | eae a os
o/ 8 | ols & | >} E | | oO eo | 6 oO = ° D 3 7 oS at ae a
3/8 lelElel sl sis S15) | oO % Ee n 2 O S S 3 Ses > > 3 5 58 | 38 2 BB
l§|S|s/Sl2\elsiels OTe w a | $ 2 3 2 3 3 3 5 § § 8 §.| go | Se z 33
Siglelalsalolslealsa S| |S 1 ae ie Se a oO o o a 2 3 x we! 22 | dos & eo
Vl elfis/sisislelislzlelgis| Ss |e |e | ete) oa) eéele |] &€)e@)ei1é is Sele pel oe $5
iN YS ey aah aie a Sah ag | Sy caf i Nd po SB Se. | Se Ae Of
5ip/6/4/4\s/ale/e|e 5/6/6/D/R D|R|D|R|D|R|D|R|D/R|D|R|D|R|D|R/D|R/D|R(D|/R|D|R D R T | 88] 8 |B] No. | %| No ¢
1908 | he oa | [1 1 | | | |2ja | | (2) 1 1] 0} 1908 |: 3731 | 745 2| 4476 | 51.2| 88.3/ 18.0 | » 53 | 0.
aoe al aca Iq 1/1 | 5|2/1]1 1j1j2}aj}1]1 1/1{/0]|0]| 1909 | 4851 | 1128 |s 5979 | 75.8 | 107.8 | 35.7 52 |0
| | tt pe ae hes
1910 | 1 1 1 1 1/2] 3| | | j 1} 0 | 1|2 2} 0 2/0] 1910 | 3990 | 678 |* 4668 | 61.1| 85.9 | 24.1 49 |0
SSS ae eee a te hohe at Poh oh be hehe | or oe oe ee be ape ee ee —_—_—_ eS
| |
1911 1 iL | Ty} 1 | | | 2);1)2/)1 0/0 1911 3949 499 |5 4448 | 62.7 | 100.2 | 20.3 101 | 1
ee le ls eed eee oe he eee eee ol ote aa ooh at oe it beer ae ine eh tl one eee eae eeeacaT ee —_ | ——]—
1912 1/1 Lt 1 | | 1 | 4/1|/9|2 | 2);1)2 2/1 210 1912 3488 733 4221 | 53.4} 96.4| 442] 232 |55/ 136 |1
ee eae de ee ay ot oe eb pp ae i de edo poe fol oh tho dein =e a a — ee
1913 1 Ee: 1 | 1 | | 2/|4 1 en 3) 1 | 2/0 1913 3528 841 |* 4436 | 61.9 | 92.1 | 43.0 107 | 1
1914 1 1 1 | a es | | 2/4 | 2 3/2)4|2 2/1]1]0]| 1914 | 4455 | 1326 |7 5802 | 75.3 | 103.0 | 47.9 |» 140| 2.4 | 104 | 1
SS |e oe a ee eon oe pst Pooh be oh abo doa hee —_— — eee actos
1915 1]1 1 | | 1 1 | | | 2/1/1]0 2/1 5|1 1}1]| 1915 | 4285 | 736 |# 5021 | 64.2| 99.0 | 27.7 93 | 1
‘ eo oe) ee Pd ec ee Pace bed war et 2 hed on py 4 oe sence eel anes lon
1916 } 1/1] 1 1}1 1 | 2 | 4|2 | 241 | 1] 3 1yjijij1 1} 1 4/0] 1916 2434 | 1603 4037 | 48.3 | 61.2|522]) 48 |1.1) 78 |4
J t t but highest Democratic vote for any office. 10 District return statements show 74 for slightly more than half the county.
: Not po vote cat but highest Republican vote cast for any office. u No attempt was made to carry the investigation further back than 1911 due to the unsatisfactory chz
3 Vote for Democratic state senator and Republican assemblyman. 2 The necessary information could not be found for the Democratic primary in 6 districts, nor the Rept
4 Vote for Democratic assemblyman and Republican freeholder. ocratic party are for 24 districts and 17 municipalities, those for the Republican party are for 28 districts ar
5 Total vote for sheriff. 3 The Democratic figures are for 25 districts and 18 municipalities; the Republican, for 28 districts
3 Vote for Democratic freeholder and Republican governor. «The Democratic figures are for 27 districts and 18 municipalities; the Republican, for 30 districts :
7 Total vote cast for some districts, vote for sheriff in others. 8 The Democratic figures are for 27 districts and 19 municipalities; the Republican, for 29 districts ar
& Vote for Democratic state senator and Republican clerk. = The Democratic figures are for 30 districts and 21 municipalities; as are also the Republican.
®

Figures not recorded for any year except 1912 and 1916. There were no contests. Infinity.
COUNTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NUMBER OF CANDIDATES
NOMINATED FOR LOCAL
MUNICIPAL OFFICES
s g
3 & =
5 § « 3. 2
g 3 2 €8 z
#8 m5 8 5 eg 3 3
° = eV =
gg =23 YEAR 2 On & 32
“3 Bs R By s
2 g22 3 BS 2 5B
€ 20 E < vo a =~
2 GUE § E 3 e9
3 & is 6 Bk 2 22
> 8 3 °° , Ze Qa = a
R  (% of |Nom-| Real | [Nom Real|Nom Real) Nominal) Real |Nominal| Real
prim. | inal | D R T * |inal | inal contests | contests | contests contests
(178) | |
1611 | 65.7} 5 | O 1908 70 | 71 | 141 | 14] 12] 10 10 | 8 7 5
| | (224)
1229 | 73.2 | 5 1909 83 | 77 | 160 | 22/11] 7/16] 11 11 7 7
(182)
1235 | 73.3 | 4 1910 6o | 71 | 131 | 7| 7/19] 19] 10 9 6 5
| (156) |
568 | 564] 4 | 3 1911 57 | 52 | 109 | 8/ 3| 14/36] 11 8 5 4
| (172)
438 | 550] 6 | 2 1912 se | 67 | 123 | 11} 8] 11/15] 14 | 10 7 6
| (200) |
426 | 60.7) 3 1913 7 | 72 | 143 |10| 4/15] 38] 12 5 8 5
(190)
1168 | 58.2] 2 1914 70 | 65 | 135 |10| 6| 14/23] 10 7 9 6
(206)
309 | 469] 1 | 0 1915 77 | 7% | 153 |22| 9] 7/17] 15 7 9 7
(180)
757 | 499| 3 | 0 1916 68 | 70 | 138 | 12] 4]12|36| 14 7 7 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cers that could have been nominated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VOTE

3

§

¢

8

3

&

E

S

pe
Possible | Actual
| Rk | DER
707 | 1063 | 622 | 799
791 | 707 | 646 | 478
237 | 719 | 200 | 667
460 | 582 | 272 | 443
687 | 389 | 522 | 338
683 | 266 | 539 | 136
861 | 422 | 694 | 193
638 | 522 | 531 | 391
574 | 563 | 391 | 335

 

 

 

 

FOR

25

g

¢

8

3

o
Possible | Actual
BTR | DR
660 | 86g | 582 | 752
791 | 502 | 649 | 462
237 | 688 | 200 | 636
303 | 251 | 250 | 205
539 | 352 | 434
478 | 41 | 421
599 | 121 | 520 | 114
422 | 300 | 385 | 286
206 | 458 | 198 | 344

 

 

% of Rep. primary vote cast

% of Dem. primary vote cast
at real Rep. contests

at real Dem. contests

 

 

 

308
33

 

 

 

21.8 | 20.8

 

 

 

 

 

a6 ga is
8 |e 18
gO lem | §
Ag |&3 |s
ga |g. |¢
20 c. 3
Qa ~
38 jeg | 8s
a2 ls 8
Se |S | $e
e> |§> £8
Sp8/e, 3! &
SEES
SE Sess S| Sa
D/|R|G
18.3 | 20.2 | 18.7
22.7 | 14.8 | 19.1
6.9 | 19.3 | 12.9
9.1] 86] 84
16.0 | 13.9 | 11.8
176| 15] 7.9
21.6| 3.9 | 10.1

21.4 | 11.9 | 14.5

6.6

 

6.9 | 10.3

‘ The number of districts in the county was 18 in 1908, 19 in 1909 and 1910, 22 since 1910.
wa

IN HUNTERDON COUNTY

 

 

 

nicipal offices

| Number of candidates for
nomination to local mu-

 

 

 

 

 

, of general election Rep. assem-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-
a» > &
3 a 9 2
i| 65 2 3 8 3
: = 8 2 3 E
x a i a o
; a 2 a & eg
7/831 2 e 3 E YEAR §
1}3%| & 2 a | 2 2.
2 2 | = Q € | i &
a|Ss| 38 a a &§ es
2 asl nn a a 2 | 28
3 g e | 5 | = 2 | E83
4 oO} S Eg o | 3S v | So
2) 22 | E eg a a € | §
| ‘r =
$ | >| « | o2 | é 6 5 Zo
> > | | | —t waeeacaa! ————
5/8 | No. |%]|No|/%| D}| R| D] R | D{R|T| D R iT
318.0 9 | ssjo6j» | | | 1908 z
8 | 35.7 | | | 52 | 0.7 | | | | 1909 —
9 | 24.1 | | 49 | 0.6 | | | 1910 aa
| | | | 53 rom 4 ec
.2 | 20.3 | | 101 | 1.4 |#117| 130) 79 |or54}12|2/14 > 1911 | 98 > 65 | 17.6
eset | | ro 47 | pant
4 | 44.2 | 232 | 5.5 | 136 | 1.7/4 113) 125 | 67 |or51) 20|5 | 25| 1912 | 5.7| 25) 95
r | | | | 32 teh Uo an] a ie a |
-1 | 43.0 | 107 | 1.5/4 99 | 119} 54 |or 33] 12]1/ 13) 1913 | 83) 119 | 168
ted | | i i
.0 | 47.9 | 140) 2.4} 104] 14) 95 | 116) 45 jor 47| 7/0, 7 1914 |13.6 |)" | 30.7
| | | 67 ileal Fie]
.0 | 27.7 | 93 | 1.2 | 127| 129 | or 70} 40 | 20/1] 21 | 1915 | 64) 129 | 12.2
2/522] 48 | 1.1 | 78 | 0.9 | 125 | 125] 45 27 5|2| 7 | 1916 | 25 | 62 | 36
a 18
due to the unsatisfactory character of the records. i 19
ary in 6 districts, nor the Republican in 3, hence the figures given for the Dem- »

party are for 28 districts and 20 municipalites.
Republican, for 28 districts and 20 municipalities.

Republican, for 30 districts and 21 munici

ities.

epublican, for 29 districts and 21 municipalities.

2 also the Republican.

 

D

10

12

11

 

 

9
16

8

 

| wn | Districts affected by contests

4

4

1

0
i

 

7 [>
wl
12 xe
pal 6
ae
16 | 11
9; 5

 

Municipalities affected by

contests

| =

0

1

 

1

6

11

6

 

VOTE FOR CONTESTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Possible
ee Bs
1B
Ww
- |

1557 |. 9
ww

1020} 61

The vote for candidates could not be obtained.
The number of ballots cast in the various districts could not be found.
The votes for some of the Democratic candidates were missing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actual
D | R
1801 91
1567} 266
+400 0
2» 258
B

 

% of Dem. primary vote cast

at Dem. primary contests

 

39.0

44.4

& of Rep. primary vote cast at
ep. primary contests

 

 

of general elec. Dem. assem-

% of primary vote cast at con-
bh
bly vote cast at Dem. contests

tests

 

41.3

 

25.5

 

26.8 | 25.7

% of general elec. Rep. assem-

| | | | | | bly vote cast at Rep. contests

mare

o
a

|
|

13.6

0

 

9.7

% of general election vote
cast at contests

 

18.4

25.6

19.2

| |

2.0 | 12.9
 

 

Table IV.

 

 

 

1.6
1.2

 

 

 

 

310
287
284
245

279

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.9

6.5

| 3.7
3.4
2.6

|

576

339

310
304

283

 

 

The total may include the vote of

 

 

|
|

 

 

 

 

 

 

54.2

43.8

 

 

 

 

72.6 | 48.9 |
62.6 | 43.5 |
|

66.3 | 67.3 |

56.1

77.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46.1
46.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10396 | 52.3

9219 | 45.7

9646 | 52.3
10791

8873

 

 

 

 

|
|

 

5480

 

 

| 2582

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6419 | 2816
5796 | 3254

 

 

 

 

 

5311

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preference vote.

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ik bake
eI 8 lz l2 IZ
wo
mf pa}defa1
SJoO][eq UONDaJa [eJaUay |
2/8/22 /8
hee ela fa2/3
Parsofas soyjeq Arewnrg || ee
Z\§ 8
_ Areuirid ‘day 3e 38e9 9}0A Te feclen.
A|quiasse ‘day uora9]9 [eJauas jo % a
Azewid ‘waq 3e 4se9 330A Aq | |
“Wasse “WIG UO!}DI]9 [e19UaZ Jo % 8
Axeuntid lca OIm/]O
YE SED 230A UOIIDIaIa [e1aUaT jo %, g E 8 a
«/8)88]6
F oO] a] | co
8 «18/8 (8/8
Re] on
Bi J a I
ei PBIB
As %
< So
a 5 (8 |5
ae |
i {ale |
ayeZouns Ajunog | . |
. ed
no yIID Ayunod S | |
Z ja} |
E yueys | : = |
z [ale]
3 Jappoyae1y | - | |
la} |
: ueu99}} TU LA |
mrslal
m
2 |= | =|
uewA|quassy -
g | [al=|
A Jo}eUaS | : |
Q 10 aS5~>———
2 _ la} |
Oo JOUIIAOy | z | |
_ {lal |
aaNeuaseiday “S "9 {| = |
eld
JoyeUaS “Ss “| {ng | - |
bs ; [a] |
fg Jau0109 | “ | a
2 azeZouns Aquno | |
Oo
oc)
ez gusays | = |
Ba9 soproyaax | |
So UBW99}}IWIWOD 3321S | |
pae uew A[quiassy | ” | o}o
ase soyeUaS 9181S | |
ass s0us9A05 | |
BSS
ue aatjequasaiday “SQ | |
<a JoyeUas *S “9 | |
EF < Ae
|
z > pT

 
CHART OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN MIDDLESEX COUNT

CONTESTS FOR POSITION OF
DELEGATE OR COMMITTEEMAN

 

 

 

 

 

VOTES FOR DELEGATES

DELEGATES AND COMMITTEMEN

OR COMMITTEEMEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ee de ell
| 8 = cn
area te
| et lele[=[elefe[=] a
| ——- ——
fel er llel| «
: Qa Js ]e]- «|e ~|»| r-)
geet Mi
oe eet
melee ea
SE la wolNn w o
we |S (S/S /E/ S/S) 3/3 S
ae ede ie Nee Me
SISISISIVZIslBlg é
o|e w wo
S/S/8/8 (B/S /2(N/8| B
SEISigielelislelsie|] 2
nS
ators } t
Ol DIDI eI1A oOIlN ~
-la lo Ola lod ~
a\|a|s|aale|a)p a
- SiSiginig|ajs/e| 2
a Sis he ie Se Le Te || 2
S
: wo wo
at aie | | |
- =e ts
8|%18 8 |
is aN a
i=}
3} ([F] {SIS iSi8]8/8]8] 8
S] gt Hae baal cet
S13 oO a + st
= | % B/SIS\/SIBISIS ~
#6) Ae on
Z| |a| |glslelelelelel e
vy
a ED Pos ee aa
5
sl" |e a| | |
oh ols Ne Sila dd che
c
§lxls| |s |
po! zy Yl. are
Cc
Slalsl |g
ce] [©] [S/2/S/S/S/8/8] B
shee
319
gl glo \a|8|ele|ele|e ©
eft Pe ee
é pee NP a
E BiBljL(LjJKILie}] e
~”
a|"/8| |2 |
ne eee
> oO
lz /8) [8
ato ;
als 5 | | |
«(2[a[stalele|=|3] a
Ala lalinjalatlala a
pe qdefa1 ee aoe
SJo][eq uoNda]o Jesauay |
3 N Ole ltiu n
Z\S/3/8/3/3 18/818] &
se a\alale|e & slal a
MIN A lalol|alata nN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infinit

| may include the vote of smaller parties.
EX COUNTY _

 

 

NUMBER OF CANDIDATES FOR NOMI-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R COMMITIEEMAN 'NATION TO LOCAL MUNICIPAL OFFICES CONTESTS FOR NOMINATION Lanner ot ones | SUIS FOR NOMINATION.
a a At large Ward | Total | ;
| |
3 | Cy 3 |
& | | z - |
0. Com. | Cong. Conv. a | z é Z 2 g ies | | ———— Tweet cna od
oa nee Ce oe 3 | 2] 2 z z 2 | At large _Wara Total ae wie | ea At large | Ward | Beth
(ete eR ee 6161.6. 1 8 § Do Re i a ee | | Ry Bl Rl oe |e
'o 9 | 9 | 330 | 251 | 68 | 6 | 398 | 311 | 1908 | 12 | 8 | 20 Ps | 5 | 10 | 30 | 165 | 68| 133 | 18 | oo). we ae
6 8 | 262 «194 | 54 | 38 | 316 | 232 | 1909 9 }12 | 21 fae 2| 4|2 | 92 | 95) 93 | 14 | 15 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 535
3. 9|2 , 0 {2 | 28 | 1% | 42 | a3 | 270 | 213 | 190 | 1 (15 | 16 | 2 | o | 2 | 18 | 143 | 21.0| 15.0 1|2 1/410 5 | 20
ae | 26 | 193 | a2 | 27 | sis | 220 | 19 | 12 [14 | 26 | 2 | 0 | 2! w | 110 | 160] m4 | a | 44 | 3 | o | 13 | 44
Ls. | aa | 169 | 54 | 43 | 308 | 212 | i912 | 14 | 9 | 23 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 42] a6 | 40 | 21 |u| 9 | 4 | a
| 0 oe 232 «11S: || 54 | 45286 | 160 | 1913 _ eStats es | 29.0 | 135 | 238 | 17 | 21 | 7 | 2 | 22 | 21
ae | | | 264 | 140 | 58 | 46 | 322 | 186 | 1914 | 0 | 1 1/0) 1 1] 2 | 264 | 58) 161 o | 19 | o | 4 o | 19
ei | |__| 290 | 151 | 70 | 17 | 360 | 168 | 1915 | 10 | 7 | 17 | o | O | © | 47 | 72 | | 212 | 2 | at | o | o | a | at
— | |——
| 13 | 21 | | | 246 | 128 | 74 | 28 | 320 | 166 | 1916 | 4 | 2 | e-| 2 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 41 | 37 | 40 | 24 | 5 |3]|0]| 2] 5
3 Infinity. There were no contests.

YEAR

1908
1909
1910
1911 |
1912
1913
"1914
1915

1916

Municipalities affected by
contests for nomination

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At large
mete Lae Possible Act
‘Dir!pDirR| p | R | D
“4/5 | 2] 2| 2111 | 3704 | 1843
“2/3{1/1/| 1101 | 1658 | 9835
‘1/6{1/0| 32} 169| 29
“4/}7{2/0| 1120 | 2836 | 913
5] 4| 3] 2 | 3732 | 1413 | 3110
2/313] 1| 2086 | 1148 | 1866.
Toliloli| o| 99| o
“4a|4|0| 0 | 2737 | 1217 | 2357
4/2] 2]|0| 2295] 6gs | 2012

« The number of districts in the county, 1908-1916, was 52, 55, 55, 70, 71, 75, 75, 76, 76.

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of nomina- | DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY CON- |Municipaliti aff d 3B a : sa Ss
ions for every contest, TESTS FOR NOMINATION ‘ Jeo Ua aM aa VOTE FOR CONTESTS = 8 e§ os o
[- g (8 § |sa [=m | 8

s °o {Q s °

2 |8 gj/e8 |§* | 2

$ 9 ~ oe Coe s

2! 2/38 | 38

is 5g Sf za 3 Ss

= 2 o 2

YEAR & |G] ¢ jes es | 2
Sz | ES > 18 oie

:g | &e 5 | S>,| w>,| 3s
| Ward Total | Be ak — aes see Ga
At At large Ward Both ; (SS | ge} & | oe! 88] 8°
large | Ward Total \ 2 fs ‘ bios la ae Hosible pctual 5 SE | ee ‘Ss 235 38 33
| [ Rj; D/ R]| D|R p| rR /p{R |p {RR [vp [rR | Aalsé| el pr i
5 | 68] 193 | 1} a | 7 | 7 | is | 86 1908 829 | 1047 | 603 | 927 | 2111 | 3704 | 1841 | 3275 60.5 | 59.7 22.3 | 309 | 25.7
9.2 | 9.5 | 9'3 14 15 4 4 14 15 1909 | 405 585 342 | 540 | 1101 | 1658 847 | 1418 , 39.0 | 20.4 16.0 | 11.8
14.3 | 21.0] 15.0 1} 2 | 4 | o | 5 | 20 1910 558 | 0 530| 0| 590 | 1699 | 559 | 1482) 15.4 39.8 179 | 100
| | |. \ | *5 a!
110 | 16.0 | 114 11 44 3 0 13. 44 1911 | 591 0 | 434] 0 | 1444 | 2836 | 1215 | 2434 | 25.6 | 60.5 33.2 | 21.2
no | 42| 86 | 40 | 21 [i | 9 | 0 | 2 1912 1222 | 695 |1075 | 565 | 3732 | 1413 | 3147 | 1156 | 59.5 | 44.8 | 30.2 | 22.4
29.0 | 135 | 238 | 17 21 7 2 | 22) 21 1913 987 | 104 | 824 | 87 | 2221 | 1148 | 2385 | 1003 | 37.2 | 35.6 17.4 | 18.4
264 | 58 | 161 o |i | o|4 | 0 | » 1914 0} 329| 0| 303) 0| 979 0| 848 | 00.0 | 26.1 11.4] 42
72 | 2 | az | 2% | a | o | o | 4 | a 1915 | 0/0 0| 00} 00} 00 | 2737 | 1217 | 2357 | 1036 | 34.4 | 29.3 128 | 170
| | | | | | - -
41 37 40 bi 3 | 0 25 5 1916 451 |

| | | | | | 0 | 417] 0 | 2529] 688 | 2231] 559) 42.1 | 10.2 5.5 | 12.6

« The number of districts in the county, 1908-1916, was 52, 55, 55, 70, 71, 75, 75, 76, 76.
is actually cast for contestants shows a tendency to
be lower since the first two years of the period, and in
vertain years it is ridiculously low for one or both par-
-ties. The highest per cent. for the Democrats is 74.6%
in 1909, and for the Republicans 44.9% in 1910: Last
year’s per cent. proved the lowest of all for the Demo-
crats 21.8%, and that of 1913 for the Republicans
3.9%. The relation of the votes at the primary which
were effective in determining municipal nominations in
cases of contest to the corresponding party’s vote for
assembly at the ensuing general election, expressed in
per cent., was also highest for the Democrats in 1909
and for the Republicans in 1908. It was lowest for
these parties respectively, the former in 1910 and 1916
(the same per cent.) 6.9%, and the latter in 1913,
1.5%.

The effective vote of both parties at the primary
considered as a per cent. of the total vote cast at the
general election ranges from 19.1% in 1909 to 6.6% in
1916, the average per cent. for the nine years being
12.2%. This means that in 1916, out of every 100
voters at the general election, between six and seven
had some part in really selecting a candidate for nomi-
nation to any municipal office at the primary. Persons
may differ in their interpretation of this established
fact, but it would seem that it affords strong evidence
of the almost negligible use made of the opportunities
of the primary, for whatever season. It raises the
question whether the cumbersome and expensive ma-
chinery of the primary need be put in operation each
year in Salem County to grind out decisions in four
cases of contest arising out of the actual nomination of
138 candidates out of a possible 180, in making which
one’ voter in sixteen took effective part.

A questionaire (a) was sent to the fifteen municipal

(a) 1. What are the election frauds, if any, committed under the

present law “5S : Banus
2. Do voters of one party participate in the primaries of the
other? :
3. Are all the present registry days necessary? Should a house
to house canvass be required . :
he Ea BRS Gites netlist 4p" axles eee
qe Se ok officers been raised by the direct
i ee ted dent candidacy been stimulated?
Could foes officials be used for registration in rural
counties?

sample ballots necessary? : é
be woes need the notification of elections in the news-

papers?

pe NA w

81
clerks of Salem County to which eleven replies, were
received. Not all of the clerks answered every ques-
tion. The only fraud mentioned was “Copying from
sample ballots.” In itself this is, of course, not illegal,
but it may be the clerk had in mind one of the perhaps
not infrequent concomitants of such “copying,” the
purchase of an ignorant vote and its delivery in this
manner. Only one clerk reported that voters of one
party took part in the primaries of the other; another
said “All one-sided here,” the meaning of which is
doubtful, probably being that there exists only one
party for practical purposes and the other puts up no
primary candidates locally.

To the first part of three six answered “yes” and
four “no”; to the second part ten answered “yes” one
adding “to save trouble.” At this point it may be
proper to give the results of an examination of the reg-
istry books for 1915 and 1916 which showed just how
many names were added or subtracted on the second
and on the third registration day. In 1915, for the
16 districts outside Salem (where personal registra-
tion was then required), 53 names were added on the
second registry day and 4 subtracted, making a total
change of 57 names, or 314 names for each district, at
a cost to the county of about $9 a name in case the
time of the election officers were not used for any-
thing but this supplementary registration (the second
day of registration is also primary day). On the third
day in 1915, 74 names were changed in the 16 districts,
4¥4 in each, at a cost of $7 a name, without counting
anything for the rent of the room. (Each election
board receives $32 for this day.) In two districts no
changes were made. This is somewhat expensive reg-
istration, a thing which certain states accomplish at an
expense of a few cents for each voter. In 1916 on
the third day, excepting four districts for which a
record could not be found and three others in which
abnormal conditions prevailed on account of a new
munitions industry, there were 94 changes in 15 dis-
tricts, 6 2/5 in each district at a cost of $5 for each
change, exactly.

In answer to the first part of question four,
four gave the reason -as lack of interest, and
one “because they can’t vote the way they want to,”
which presumably means that voters do not wish

82
to be confined to one party, either for all officers
or for all years. Two clerks gave “yes,” for the
second part, and one its equivalent by saying, “that
kind doesn’t vote at the primary”; seven clerks gave
“no”; five thought the character of officers has not
been raised by the direct primary, one of them insist-
ing that it was much lower, and four thought it has
been raised. Six agreed that independent candidacy
has been stimulated and one held the opposite opinion.
Two thought fewer registration officials could be used
and eight thought not. Six believed sample ballots
necessary, one qualifying his opinion by “probably”
and another by “in some cases” ; four believed these un-
necessary, and one did not know. To the last question
there were seven affirmatives and four negatives. The
questions of most weight in arriving at a judgment
in regard to the value of the direct primary are (4)
and (5). On the first a quite decisive opinion existed,
that the question of party does not keep voters from
‘the primary and on the second a slight majority un-
favorable to the primary was observed.

As far as interference from, or support of any can-
didate by the organizations are concerned the primary
seems to be quite free. An official of prominence
stated that there had never been any trouble in getting
satisfactory officials and that the primary had made
little difference except in adding an election. Certainly
there have never been more primary nominees for
county offices than could have been voted for quite con-
veniently and left to plurality choice at the general
election, the highest number being seven which oc-
curred once, the next highest, four, occurring twice.

HUNTERDON COUNTY (a)

Hunterdon County is credited with a population of
34697 according to the 1915 state census, only slightly

(a) The gathering of the necessary data was attended by unusual diffi-
culties. At the county clerk’s office were filed the certificates from the
municipal clerks for each year, stating the offices to be filled, and those
containing the names of the successful penary candidates which were
to be printed upon the general election ballot by the county clerk, but
in about half the cases the names of the other primary candidates were
not given, not to mention the votes they received. Even when the
names were given, it was frequently impossible to determine with abso-
lute certainty whether the names of all or any had been penis on the
primary ballots. The municipal clerks were addressed by letter, and
later visited in a canvass of the county in an attempt to get the desired
information. No effort was made to carry the inquiry further back
than 1911, and the foot-notes attached to the tabulation will show in how
many cases it was impossible to obtain the records for later years.

83
over a thousand more than it had five years before. It
is one of the most completely rural counties in the
state. Its largest constituent municipality is Lambert-
ville, with 4657 inhabitants. There are besides, one
town, seven little boroughs and fourteen townships.
The election districts number thirty-two—four in Lam-
bertville, two each in six other municipalities and one
each in the remainder. The county is rock-ribbed in
its support of the Democratic party, which has had a
comfortable majority for assembly throughout the en-
tire period, except in the first year when it won by
less than 100 votes. "The Republicans constitute more
than a negligible minority, however. In 1916 their
presidential vote was 3400, as compared with 4400
for the Democrats. A nomination for a county office
in the Democratic party is, under normal conditions,
equivalent to an election; in fact, the primary as a
rule is the election. This dominant position of the
Democratic party has led to the development within it
of two hostile factions and rivalry at the primary has
been so intense at times as to cause the adherents of
the defeated faction to “knife” the party nominee
at the general election. Two Republican officials hold
office in the county now as a result of such procedure,
the county clerk and one of three freeholders.

An explanation of the differences between the tabu-
lation for Salem County and that for Hunterdon must
be given. Instead of “Officers nominated” the cor-
responding column in Hunterdon is headed, “Officers to
be nominated.” This is followed by the column show-
ing the number of officers for which candidates for
nomination appeared on the primary ballot. The fig-
ures for the two parties in the former column are the
same for 1916 and, of course, would be the same for
each year if the same municipalities were considered.
But sometimes the Democratic returns for a municipal-
ity were obtainable and complete while the Republican
returns could not be had, or proved incomplete, and
vice-versa. In all of the years preceding 1916 allowance
must be made for the fact that returns from certain
municipalities are lacking, thus probably making the
tabulated number of offices for which candidates sought
nomination, the number of contests, and the per cent.
of the primary vote or general election vote, and sa
on, cast in cases of contest, smaller than the actual

84
Table V.
TABLE FOR MIDDLESEX COUNTY PRIMARY—LOCAL MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, 1908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| |
2 i | op | =
MUNICIPALITY = | § a | i 2 e

2 | 2 mere 8 | “4 Page 3 | i

b oB of Bp ee tg % | ‘3S 3 3

a oe ae a z 3 a 2

| € | £ | sig | 8 | joa i 8
Cranbury Township [42a 1 | i | 2s | « | 3 0 oOo.
Dunellen Borough | woe | a | 8 | 6 | 0 i: 8 ; a2
East Brunswick Township / 1602 2 ; so | = | o | o | @ | «©
Helmetta Borough | 661 1 8 4 0 0 ) 0
Highland Park Borough | 1517 1 \ 10 8 | 0 | 0 0 | 0
Jamesburg Borough j 2075 1 6 3 0 | 0 0 0
Madison Township 1621 1 8 5 a3 ! 0 0 0
Metuchen Borough i 2138 1 8 8 22 0 0 0
Middlesex Borough : | Municipal ity not yet created i
Milltown Borough 1a4Ci—}sti“‘<‘ié‘iaké‘ /])]é(it;*é<‘drY;*é‘té‘ 0 0 0 0
Monroe Township [ayes | 1 12 6 oO 0
New Brunswick 23388 3 3 5 6 6 11 | 6 15 41
North Brunswick Township 990 1 18 5 0 0 0 0
Perth Amboy | 32121} 3 Tt 6 6 52 | 16 13 67
Piscataway Township 3523, 3 18 10 0 0 0 0
Raritan Township ' 2707 2 26 25 0 0 0 0
Roosevelt Borough 5786 1 4 4 0 | 0 0 0
Sayreville Township 5783 1 26 21 77 0 0 0
South Amboy 7007 r 1 20 20 82 36 32 92
South Brunswick Township 2443 2 24 7 wo 1 0 0 0
South River Borough 4772 1 14 ll 0 0 0 0
Spottswood Borough 623 1 18 18 0 0 0 0
Woodbridge Township | 8948 3 38 34 n 2 0 0 0

Total 114426 52 330 251 2 20 68 60 810

 

Republican; Two Surveyors of Highway; Overseer of Poor.

Republican; Councilmen.

Republican; Clerk.

Republican; Councilman.

Democratic; Clerk; Republican Clerk.

Five Councilmen (2 Dem. 3 Rep.); Two Board of Education (1 Dem. 1Rep.)
Democratic; Township Committeeman; Three Constables; Overseer of the Poor; Collector; Clerk.
Democratic; Mayor; Alderman at Large.

® Democratic; Councilman; Assessor.

10 Republican; Township Committeeman.

1 Democratic; Township Committeemen.

12 Twelve Democratic; Eight Republican.

13 Five Democratic; Five Republican.
Table VI.

TABLE FOR MIDDLESEX COUNTY PRIMARY—LOCAL MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, 1916

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 5
A 3 ee
| a z 3
| a 3
MUNICIPALITY | c e zo
§ 6 2 s
| 3 3 §
3 2 £3
a E .2
S 5 | &t
a Z |; Of
Cranbury Township | 1533 2 | 2
Dunellen Borough | 2877 2 | 8
East Brunswick Township 1865 | 2 | 10
Helmetta Borough 767 | 1 | 8
Highland Park Borough 2901 2 | 6
Jamesburg Borough 1865 1 6
Madison Township | 2123 1 | 16
Metuchen Borough | 2692 | 2 | 6
Middlesex Borough | 1310 | 1 6
Milltown Borough | 1902 1 | 4
Monroe Township | 2581 1 | 14
| 3, 3,3 |
New Brunswick 30019 4, 3,3 | 0
North Brunswick Township 1247 1 | 16
| 3, 2, 2 |
Perth Amboy | 39719 3, 2,3 | 4
Piscataway Township 3624 3 | 20
Te ae ale cal cess paid Speer alarms paeear |
Raritan Township | 3412 2 | 14
See nN ee re ae a |
Roosevelt Borough | 8049 2 | 26
eee ee ee a a et |
Sayreville Township | 6312 3 | 16
_—— $$ —$ ————$ ——— 1
South Amboy 7482 xi. 1 4
Ba i a a ec reniadine asia
South Brunswick Township | 2020 | 2 12
ae ee ee re Se hs
South River Borough | 6691 2 | 10
SE ne le eee ee a |
Spottswood Borough 683 | 1 8
ete toe ee RSS ee
Woodbridge Township 12133 | 2, 2,2 30
a
Total 144716 | 76 | 246
| |
1 Democratic; Township Committeeman; Collector.
2 Democratic; Clerk.
3 Democratic; Councilman
« Republican; Mayor. |
s Republican; Township Committeeman.
¢ Democratic; Councilman. 5
7 Democratic; Two Councilmen; One Justice of the Peace.
8 Democratic; Collector.
® Four Democratic; Two Republican.
10 Democratic.

 

On Ballot

NOL ee lL wl ol nl A! Ale] a]

18
10

13
128

 

~

clololo|™|ololo]o| of oo} Contests

°

Off. to be Nom. for

Oo} Oo] Oo} S10} 0} 9] 0} 0] SO] O} Election by Wards

>
oO} &

clolol|alolololo]/s=

NL
rN

 

olololololo|ololo}o] o|} On Ballot

oln

_
So

Blalolololualo|clolo

 

olololololololo}lol]o| o} Contests

o|o

wlelelelolelolololol=
number or per cent. really was for the entire county.
The terms “nominal” and “real” as descriptive of con-
tests are omitted, and the contests tabulated include all
the cases where two or more candidates were known to
have filed petitions for a nomination, or where the evi-
dence warranted the conclusion that such a situation
existed.

The fact that one assemblyman, and one freeholder,
and one coroner are chosen each year in Hunterdon
tends to make the number of offices filled each year
niore or less uniform. The greatest number in any
year was seven, in 1909 and 1916. The election of
one of the coroners the latter year was due to a va-
caucy, that of the three freeholders in 1909 was due
to the origin of the small board: The smallest num-
ber nominated in any year was three in 1908. There
are always both state and county officers to be nomi-
nated and elected each year, with the national officers
added every other year.

Within the nine-year period each party has nomi-
nated or could have nominated 49 officers. Out of
the 98 opportunities for contest, there have been 10
contests for nomination to the 12 United States offices ;
12 contests for nomination to the 32 state offices; and
20 contests for nomination to the 54 county offices, a
total of 42 contests for nomination to 98 offices, one
for every 2 1/3 offices. Leaving out of account the
offices voted for beyond the county limits, there have
been 82 officers nominated and 28 contests, about one
to every three officers nominated. In each of three
years there was no Republican contest, in each of three
others no Republican county contest and in each of
two others only one Republican contest; in 1916 the
only Democratic county contests were for coroner and
the Republicans had no county contest. During the
period, for 12 offices the Republicans, for 2 the
Democrats, made no nominations. For each of 19 of
the 24 Democratic contests for the nomination of of-
ficers chosen for the county area, there have been only
two candidates. This is evidence of the degree to which
the two factions control Democratic nominations—a
candidate not in one or the other faction has absolutely
no chance of nomination. In 1915 there were five
Democratic candidates for the nomination as county
clerk and the votes ran 1951, 1639, 389, 163 and 118.

85
It is said that the reason why more than two candi-
dates sometimes appear for a nomination is because
one faction or the other puts up a “dummy” to draw
votes from its rival.

The participation in the primary in Hunterdon
County is heavier than in any other of the counties
studied except Hudson. It has averaged since 1910,
61%, a very respectable part, of the general election
vote. The Democratic primary vote has averaged 92%
of the party’s general election vote for assemblymen ;
the corresponding Republican average has been 39.2%,
considerably under half as great. The Republican
leaders have difficulty in getting candidates to run at
the primary, for only in case of a Democratic split can
a Republican hope to be elected to an office. In prac-
tice about 40% of the voters of the county
are deprived of any influence in determining who the
officers shall be’ unless they vote in the Democratic
primary, which it is said they do. The reasons for
the extensive Democratic attendance at the primaries
are apparently these: The successful primary candi-
date is almost assured of election. Strong, long-exist-
ing factions with effective organizations and some
money to spend are much more able to get out the
vote than a group of independents. In fact the situa-
tion in Hunterdon is somewhat akin to that in Hudson
County where the primary participation is unusually
heavy. The primary vote shows no growth during the
period. It was highest in 1909, next highest in 1914,
and lowest in 1916. The Republican vote was high-
est in the last year although there was no county con-
test in the party.

The per cent. of rejected ballots for the general elec-
tion was more than doubled by the change in the form
of the ballot (1911) and has since gradually dropped
toward the prevailing per cent. in former years. The
per cent. rejected at the primary was three times that
for the general election in 1911, but only slightly
greater in 1916. With the exception of 1915 for the
Democrats, and 1914 and 1915 for the Republicans, the
number of local municipal offices for which candidates

_have sought primary nomination as compared with the
number of offices for which nominations were to be
made has become quite gradually smaller. In 1916
Democratic candidates filed petitions for about one-

86
third of the places, and Republican candidates for one-
fifth. The number of contests for nomination to local
municipal offices was seven in 1916, one for every 36
places, and seven also in 1914, never more than 25, one
for every nine places.

In about one-third of the municipalities there
are usually local municipal contests, and in a
slightly larger fraction of the voting districts—in 1916,
cne-fourth of the former and one-third of the latter.
Very frequently the parties agree to divide the offices
and make no primary nominations for those assigned to
the opposite party. The per cent. of the total primary
vote which is effective in determining local municipal
contests is perhaps somewhat larger than in Salem
County, but expressed as a per cent. of the general
election vote, it is considerably larger, due to the
greater per cent. of the general election vote which is
cast at the primary.

In Hunterdon County only nine replies to the ques-
tionaire were received from the 23 clerks and these
were in general of a quite unsatisfactory character. As
far as the first question was answered the clerks agreed
that no frauds are now committeed under the present
law. Only one said definitely that the voters of one
party attend the primary of the other; although an-
other thought it was done very little; to a negative
answer, one clerk added that some voters would like
to vote for the candidates of the opposite party. Two
clerks gave lack of interest as the reason why more
voters do not attend the primary; one, inefficiency
of the candidates, meaning possibly that one is thought
as good as another; one, the absence of contests, say-
ing that during his seven years in office there had been
no local contest ; one replied, “Becatse they cannot vote
for the man they would like to,” in almost the exact
words of a clerk in Salem County, and continued with
the suggestion that voters be allowed to vote for whom
they wish on either ticket. ‘This would be practically
a non-partisan primary. Only one clerk out of nine be-
lieved that voters. hesitate to declare their political af-
filiation. Six clerks think the character of officials has
not been raised by the primary, and two think it has
been raised. The. replies were just the same in regard
to the stimulation of independent candidacy. The
opinions favored the usefulness of sample ballots, three

87
to one, and were more equally divided five to four, in
support of the value of the notification of elections in
the newspapers. On the third registration day 107
voters were registered in 25 districts, at a total cost to.
the county of $800, approximately $7.50 for each voter
that registered.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY (a)

The population of Middlesex, a county of the second
class, is 144,716, an increase of 26% since 1910 when
it was 114,426. The county contains two cities of
about 30000 population each, New Brunswick and
Perth Amboy, and several smaller municipalities of
between 5000 and 10000 inhabitants. The tables for
the primary elections in the years 1908 and 1916 are
presented, showing the population and number of elec-
tion districts in each municipality for each year. The
county gave a majority to Republican assemblymen
(it is entitled to three) in the years 1908 (2357), and
1916 (647), and to Democrats in 1909 (526), 1910
(1355), 1911 (221), 1912 (3143), 1913 (3090),
1914 (1779), 1915 (813).

Party rivalry, therefore, is quite intense and the
party organizations are strong, especially the Demo-
cratic at the present time. One would naturally sup-
pose that the activity of the party voters would be
more or less energetic in the primaries of each party.

An examination of the first space of the chart for
Middlesex County gives the same impression as in the
case of the preceding counties—a large number of of-
fices to be filled in one year contrasted with a very few
for another. The number of officers, to be voted for
throughout the entire area of the county, that each
party might nominate for each year, is as follows:
1908, 6—3 county, 3 state; 1909, 11—7 county, 4 state;
1910, 4—3 state, 1 United States ; 1911, 12—9 county, 3
state; 1912, 7—1 county, 4 state, 2 United States ; 1913,
10—5 county, 5 state; 1914, 8—4 county, 3 state, 1
United States; 1915, 10—6 county and 4 state; 1916,
7—1 county, 4 state, 2 United States.

In each of three years again, county, state and
United States officers are to be nominated at the same
time, in each of five years county and state officers are
to be nominated, and in one year state and United

 

(a) See tables four, five and six for Middlesex County chart of pri-
mary elections,

88
States officers. If possible to avoid it, there can be no
question that a variation from 12 to 4 in the number
of officers to be nominated should not be maintained,
nor should such a confused mixture of county, state
and national officers be continued. Credit must be
given for the election of the five freeholders in off
years, that is, between congressional and presidential
years, but even so, their election always occurs with

.. that of the three assemblymen, and in two out of three

years with that of either a state senator or a governor.

During the nine years the two parties nominated
150 officers—72 county officers, 66 state officers and 12
United States officers. For these 150 officers there
were 82 primary contests (40 Republican, 42 Demo-
cratic) ; 40 county (18 Republican, 22 Democratic) for
72 places; 34 state (17 Republican, 17 Democratic)
for 66 places and 8 United States (5 Republican, 3
Democratic) for 12 places. This number of contests
is as liberal as possibly can be allowed. In the case of
three assemblymen or five freeholders to be nominated
if one more than the number to be nominated presents
himself at the primary a contest is considered to exist
for every place to be filled, three or five or both as
the case may be. From the practical standpoint of
actual use made of it for its avowed purpose of giving
the voter a choice in the selection of party candidates
for nomination to public office the primary will have to
be adjudged somewhat over 50% effective in Middle-
sex for these years if all the voters took part, and if
the per cent. of voters taking part in the opportunities
offered for selective choice be considered as 50% of
the party totals, which is a liberal estimate, the per
cent. of effectiveness of the primary law in operation
for nominations to be made throughout the county
would be reduced to 25%.

As in Salem County there is no tendency shown for
the participation in the primary to increase or decrease
during the period. That of the first year, measured in
per cent. of the general election vote, is not the low-
est. That came in 1910 when only four officers were
to be nominated (38.7%) nor that of the last year the
highest, which came in 1913 and 1915, the same for
each (52.3%). The average is 47%. The absolute
number of Democratic primary votes was much higher
in 1913, 1914 and 1915, than in 1916, and .the abso-

89
lute number of Republican primary votes higher in
1908 and 1909 than in 1916. The Democrats had their
greatest participation in 1915 when there were ten
candidates for the five freeholder nominations, the Re-
publicans in 1909, when there were eight candidates
for the five freeholder nominations (the Republicans
had eight freeholder candidates in 1915 also) and five
candidates for the assembly nominations (in 1916
they had six), making 13 candidates for both, a num-
ber higher, by two, for the same offices than in any
other year. The Democrats averaged at the primary
55% of the assembly vote and the Republicans almost
the same, 54.2%. ‘

It should be observed that in 1908 and in 1909 there
were no county contests for the Democratic party and
only one in 1912; in 1912 there was no county con-
test for the Republicans, and only a contest for free-
holder nominations in 1911 and 1915.

The number and per cent. of rejected votes, both at
the primary and general election, bear out the con-
clusion based on the same data for Salem County.
Here also the percentage of rejected votes has always
been higher at the primary than at the general election,
even after 1910 when officially the same form of bal-
lot was used—four times as high in 1911 and 1912,
never less than twice as high. One is tempted to be-
lieve that the voters who take part in the primary are
on the average not as capable of marking a ballot
properly as those in the general election. Such a be-
lief would be almost unavoidable were not another ex-
planation possible, which was offered by a county
clerk. As a rule there are more offices on the primary
ballot for which the name of no candidate appears than
on the general election ballot, consequently more voters
write in names and in many cases invalidate the bal-
lot by forgetting to place a cross (x) opposite the name
written in, thus “marking” the ballot. Writing in a
name agreed upon is said to be a method of identify-
ing a ballot frequently employed when a vote has been
purchased. There might be more efforts of this na-
ture at the primary than at the general election in
counties where one party is safely in a majority.

The difference in the percentage of the primary
voters who, in 1908, 1909 and 1910, voted for delegates
to congressional and state conventions or members

90
of county committees in Middlesex County and Salem
County is very noticeable. For 1910, in Middlesex,
both parties averaged 95% of the total primary vote.
This is as high a per cent. of the total primary vote as
any single office receives as a rule. For example, in
1916 the Republican voters at the primary recorded
only 89% of their votes for United States representa-
tive, although there were 6 candidates, and the Demo-
cratic vote for United States senator, when 4 candi-
dates were running, was 89% of the total party pri-
mary vote. These figures show that where there is
normally a considerable political interest the voter will
vote for a delegate if he knows that the delegate will
exercise real authority in selecting a party candidate.
However, after 1910, when the members of the county
committee continued by mandatory law to be chosen at
the primary, but lost practically all real authority whose
exercise, was of evident moment to the voters, the in-
terest in the selection of this party organization im-
mediately slackened and in 4911 only 71% of the
Democratic primary voters took the trouble to vote for
county committeemen and 72% of the Republican
voters. The Republican vote has not-reached this
figure since, but at the last two primaries the Demo-
cratic vote rose to 78% and 79%, comparing quite
favorably with the vote for some of the less attractive
offices. This increase may be due to a realization by
the voters of the part the county committee can play
in the’ primary campaign, though this is not likely,
because the number of contests for the place was not
much greater than in 1911, until last year.

In the second class and first class counties it seemed
wise to distinguish between two classes of local muni-
cipal officers to be nominated—those to be nominated
for offices to be voted for by all the electors of the
municipality, called “at large” offices, and those to be
nominated for officers to be voted for by only part of
the electors of a municipality, that is, by those of a
ward, called “ward” offices. In Middlesex County
most of the municipalities, and those the smaller, have
only “at large” offices, which in general are less im-
portant though, perhaps, not to the citizens of their
particular municipality, than the “at large” offices of
municipalities which have both. At any rate a contest
for the “at large” offices in the latter municipalities af-

91
fects more voters than a contest in the former. In
this county as in Hunterdon the certificates of the
municipal clerks to the county clerks showing the num-

ber of offices to be filled were used in order to know the ~~

number of officers which could be nominated at the
primary.

There is in Middlesex County the same marked fall-
ing off from this possible number in the number which
actually appeared upon the primary ballot. In 1913
the number of offices for which candidates’ names
were printed on the ballot dropped below half of the
number to be filled for “at large” offices and remained
almost at that fraction since. The difference between
the number of “ward” officers to be nominated and
the number of offices for which candidates’ names
actually were printed on the ballot is not so great until
1915, when the latter becomes one-fourth of the
former. In 1916 it rises to between one-third and one-
half. The very great difference in these two years
is possibly due to the adoption of commission govern-
ment in New Brunswick by which all ward offices ex-
cept constable and justice of the peace were abolished.
For the latter office there has not been a single can-
didate on the primary ballot for two years and the
investigator was assured by a clerk in a public office
that the place on the ballot was never used for any-
thing but a “marker,” that is a space in which a voter
whose vote had been purchased might write in a desig-
nated riame so that the buying agent present at the
count could tell that the “goods” had been “delivered.”

In 1908 in one municipality only one party had any
names on the primary ballot, in 1909 in three muni-
cipalities, in 1910 in two, in 1911 in four, in 1912 in
four, in 1913 in three, in 1914 in six, in 1915 in three,
in 1916 in six. There is evidence in this county again
of an attempt at non-partisanship for local offices in
some municipalities by either putting the name of one
candidate on the primary ballots of both parties, or
by the voters of one party writing on their ballots
the name put on the ballots of the other by petition.

The number of contests for nomination to local
municipal offices seems to show a rather irregular
tendency to decline in the last four years, when the
average is 934 as compared with 27 2/5 for the first
five years of the period, The highest number of con-

9?
PRIMARY VOTE

= ~ Areutnid ‘wad 1
3SB2 9}0A A[quiosse
jYoNdaT9 [e1auad “woq Jo %

60.2 |

54.2 | 971.2 |

 

 

Azewtid ye 4sed 3}0A

uolj}aJ9 [e1IUuad jo %

68.4

952.0 | 69.5
|

 

 

752.9

17273
611305
13895
14293
£12339

T
| 114102

|
|
|
|
|

18277
10168
85935
5763
7259
£7320

 

 

 

7105
6877
6277
65019

45825

 

1908
1914
1915

YEAR

|

 

Jau010D

JaqysiBay Ajunos

r 1914 could be found.

Table VII.

NATIONAL, STATE AND COUNTY OFFICERS TO BE

CANDIDATES FOR THESE NOMINATIONS

aqyedouinsg Ayunog

HID AIunodg

R|
|

|

ylays

D|R/D|/R|D|R_D|R

 

 

 

 

“IA § ‘Japjoyse1y

D|R/|D

“IK Z ‘apjoyoe1y

|
|

 

R|D|R|D;R|D;|R

 

“IK | “Saploysas

UPUI99}}IWIWOZD 3383S

uew Ajquassy

JOU 3387S

jouJaA0y

sateuasaiday “Ss “A

4oyeUas “Ss “

 

Jau0loD
daysiday AqunoS

 

NOMINATED CALLING FOR COUNTY-WIDE VOTE

 

 

: ayeZo1ing Aqunod
yID Aqunog

yuoys

“IA E ‘apjoysary

“IA Z% ‘Japjoysaly

“IA [ “apjoyaoiy
URLU99}}TWWOD 3}81S
uewA[quassy
1O}VBUIG 9}e1S
JOUIIAOD |

9AIBJUISIId IQ

‘sa
sa

40} BUaS

 

YEAR

 

 

a
° |
mi
|
|
|

2
a

a

oO

3

——|-----;7---
| |als5l6

eel ead
———_ | — | —
4)/2)1

3

|
|

1

}1

|

 

|1|4

hay

}2|1|

a

 

hod

1910
1911

 

 

|_|

aed

7 |
5|5
13/3]

aa
| | eens ttyen a

2/4

|

,2)3

 

 

1913
1915

 

1916

3 No record of a nomination for coroner in 1913 o
4 This is the vote for state senator.

1 Nominations were made for a small board of freeholders but the legislative provision for it was held unconstitutional.

2 Due to vacancy.
_ CHART OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN UNION _COUNTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NUMBER OE CANDIDATES NUMBER OF NOMINATIONS DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY CONTESTS ~ Municipalities
E FOR NOMINATION, TO LOCAL CONTESTS FOR NOMINATION ROR EVER CONTEST PO NONAMATION & | by contest
i =o t= 1) _Atlarge | Ward =| Total _ cera aa Two | ;
og g 2 | | | |
SPiloe | <3 g sy | | | |
| BE/Gee/ 8p 8 es foo en) a | |
SE Ged fog @ 22 | | YEAR | |
| g@|Sse) gece 2 Se) [3 a a |
| ae a) ro PO Z fi 1) 2 ae | | |
| 8 erie" 8&8 Es E an re on ea | |
| S38 S23 gp. EY ze g 3/8 2/38 3
wes QlE Moa a3 os a Fa lee Biocu 3 |
lee 35a see a2 Oa B33); S |S) 8 | 35/8 Atlarge | Ward _—s Total | Atlarge |
Ss g ; g 8 ae bas es
= sed ipeke e822 No. % | No| % |8E' 6 |€8) 6 |88/ 6 At large "Ward Total | Atlarge Ward Total | D | R | D | R| Dj |R |Dj|R {1
7 114102 | 752.9 |_| 1908 | | | | | |
| | | | | | / 1909 | | | | | | | | |
3 17273 | 684 60.2 91.3 304 1.2 | 258 | 203 | 234 142 | 492 345) 8 38 | 46 | 14 | 8 | 22 | 68 | 1910 | 56 | 106 | 7.2 | 37 | 55 | 24 | 14 | 38 | 55 | 3 | 12 |
5 | 611305 | 854.2 | 871.2 | 964.9 | 212 | 144| 184 | 82/396 | 226|/ 3 | 21 | 24 | 12 | 7 | 19 | 43 | i911 | 88 | 97 | 92 | 2 | 11 | 30 | 14 | 32 | 25 | 1 8 |
5 [433 | 794 | 692|831| 74 | 312| 12 | 210 159| 204, 68|414| 227; 8 | 11 | 19 | 17 | 5 | 22 | 41 | 1912 ii | 93 | 101 | 66 | 70 | 47| 20 | 8 | 7 | a | 5 |
5 11227 | | | | | |
3 | 13895. | 601 84.0| 71.0| 586 42 | 414 18 | 278 210 194 64| 472 274) 11 | 12 | 23 4 | 2) 6 | 29 1913 12.1 | 323 | 163 | 50 | 25 | 15 | 2 | 50 | 27 | ee |
> | 55.7 774 | 634 | 648 4.5 | 520 20 184 107/212 78| 396/185) 2 | 22 | 24 9 | 7] 16 | 40 1914 7.7 | 135 | 99 1 | 13 | 26 | 16 | 27 | 29 1 8 |
) 14293 | | | | |
é (952.0 69.5 61.2 455 1.9 | 282 189 176 51/458 | 240) 10 | 27 | 37 2| 2 4 | 41 | 1915 | 76 | 44 | 112 | 48 | 64 | 8 | 9 | 48 | 6 | 2] 8
) 12339 | | | | | | | |
~ fat | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
1 | 18856 | 624) 983 702/645 34 | 1073) 36 | 180 116 | 178 77 | 358 193 5 | 14 | 19 9 | 9 | 18 37 | «#1916 | 95 | 99 | 97 | 80 | 47 | 27 | 30 | 50 | 47 | 3 | 8 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
or 1914 could be found. 5 The records for 1909 could not be sufficiently identified to warrant their use.

6 Estimated from vote for candidates.
 

 

DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY CONT

ESTS|

Municipalities affected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a HQ
| | 2 | B® 2g »
VOTE FOR CONTESTS | £ | 82 | Ba | 3
FOR NOMINATION Pee ee eae we sels oe
Se : | i Be tg fae | B88
a es 8 | Be | Sg es
$ | 8 4 | Sate | Be
o ° | a ‘Se
> 9 | BE | me] 38
| Pal & 318A |\s¢e)| 88
| eg|es| = | st | So | sé
YEAR £8 | 23 (Se ioe | 8
| | Be ag e Sw ou | 3
| 1 et ——!] 29] 28 £ og | 0° | gp
At large | Ward Total |} &./ $8) 2 se) eg) gs
| <7 e | | Ag; =a) S| 2) Ss | BE
At large | Ward Total Atlarge | Ward | Possible Actual Possible Actual Possible | Actual | 5 Als Z| 3 | 3S | Sg Sa
| | | | j | poem oO | pow
D/R/D/R|pDj|Rip; R/D/] Ri D/| R D| R D/| R D| R D| R | D/ R {| egies] & | 8s | SS | Re
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 1908 | | | | | | | | | | fe aay ae
—— | | ia 1 | | | ls aaa |
LF fo | ee | | eee ee ee lee ed
37 | 55 | 24 | 14 | 38 | 55 3 | 12 | 2 | 2 1910 | 6488 | 8572 5022 | 7239 | 5487 | 2047) 4943 | 1797 | 6459 8572) 5139/ 7454/ 723) 73.3/ 72.9| 435, 66.9 49.9
| | | | | | | | | 1 } | i | |
2) 1 | 30 | 14 | 32) 25 | 4 8 | 3 | 4 i | ® 7 | aga | | 2913 | 1060; ™ =| ~— | — 3080, 2344) 056.4| 939.5) 47.5) 40.2) 25.6 258
| | | | | |
66 70 47 | 20 | 68 | 70 3 5 | 2 1912 5250 | 3382 4078 | 2436 | 3946 | 1213 | 3301 | 1058 5321 | 3382 | 4293 2504 67.2| 51.8 60.5, 53.4 | 35.8 26.2
50 | 25 | 15 Saal 50 | 27 a | ¢ | | -2 1913 | 4813 | 2063 4065 | 1926 | 1606 462 | 1353) 412 | 4813, 2525, 4095/2338 59.5, 405 46.3 50.0 28.8, 27.8
| | i——. aod | | | | Seat ee a | | |
1 13 | 26 | 16 27 | 29 1 | 8 2 3 1914 | oe 1520 | 32 | 1366 | 2909 | 1344 | 2517 | 1255 | 2945 2864) 2549, 2621 | 40.6} 36.1) 36.2) 31.4/ 22.9, 20.2
| ee eee } | | | io | | | |
48 | 64 8 9 | 48 | 67 2h B-[-a [3 1915 |™ | » | 2853 | 3824 | 817 | 901 744} 831) ™ | | 2982, 4020 959.4) 954.9 | 56.7 41.3) 33.6 | 29.5
| \——| | | | | | | | | | | |
50 | 17 | 27 | 30 | 50 | 47 3 | 8 | 1 | 2 1916 4732 | ae 100 | 2123 | 3155 | 3484 2938 3181 4732 | mee 4281 | 5304 | saa 48.1 at 51.6 33.8 324
| |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 This percent of the general election vote was cast for state senator at the primary.

8 Affected by estimated vote for 1911.
9 Affected by estimated vote for 1915.
10 Records incomplete.

11 The number of districts in Union County, 1910-1916, was

72, 103, 103, 108, 108, 108, 109.

 
tests for any one year is 36 in 1912, and the lowest, 2
in 1914, out of a total of 322 places to be filled, for
nomination to 186 of which petitions were filed. Last
“year was second lowest with eight contests. This evi-
dence is probably overwhelming, to anyone but a devo-
tee of the theory of the system, that there are not in
practice enough contests for local municipal offices to
justify the operation of the direct primary machinery.
At least the uncertainty of there being in any given
year any necessity for its use, would seem to suggest
the advisability of devising a method which would be a
little more elastic or flexible and adjustable to existing
needs. The number of districts and municipalities
affected by contests in one or both parties from year
to year affords no foundation for any conclusion ex-
cept as to the remarkable variation in the areas within
which voters have an opportunity at the primary of
voting for one designated candidate in preference to
another,

The relation of the “actual” vote for contests “at
large” to the “possible” vote for these contests varies
widely and on the average is possibly indicative of a
slighter interest in these contests than in those affect-
‘ing the whole county. The lowest ratio is about 7:10.
There is no marked difference between this ratio and
that of the “actual” to the “possible” figures in regard
to “ward” contests, and hence also that of the same
figures for all contests.

It is necessary to explain how the figures for the
combined “at large” and “ward” contest “actual” vote
are obtained. Some method of combination was neces-
sary where “at large” contests overlapped “ward” con-
tests. The “possible” vote is of course the total ballots
cast by the party in the “at large” area which is the
sum of the “possible” ballots for the “ward” areas.
In case a contest takes place in a ward in which also
a vote is cast for an “at large” contest, it would be
possible to take the highest contest vote in the ward
as the actual vote. Frequently, there is little differ-
ence; sometimes the vote for the “at large” contest
is considerably greater, and vice versa, so it seemed
fair to take the average of all “ward” and “at large”
contest votes in wards where there were more than
one of either as the “actual” vote for both ih those
wards.

93
The years of the period arranged in the order of
the varying per cent. of the “possible” county primary
vote which was effective in deciding contests, from
highest to lowest are as follows: 1908, 1912, 1911,
1913, 1915, 1910, 1916, 1909, 1914; and the order of
years corresponding to the changing per cent. of the
county general election vote which was employed deci-
sively in the primary for local municipal officers is this:
1908, 1912, 1911, 1913, 1915, 1916, 1909, 1910, 1914.
The former runs as low as 9.2% and the latter 4.2%,
that is, about one in ten of the primary election voters
and one in twenty-four of the general election voters
took part in nominating local municipal officers in cases
of contest. In these years only a slightly larger per
cent. could possibly have taken part—10.6% of the
primary voters, and 5.5% of the general election
voters—even if every voter who had the opportunity
of voting for a contestant for nomination to a local
municipal office had taken advantage of it.

Of the 23 municipal clerks of Middlesex County
only 11 filled out and returned the questionaire, which
was the same as that sent to Salem County. All agreed
so far as they answered question one that no frauds
are committed under the present law.

Contrary to the evidence in Salem County, three
clerks say that voters of one party to some extent vote
at the primary of the other party, and six say they
do not, one of these adding that they should be allowed
to.

On question three, part one, the opinions stood six
to four, but nine believed in a house to house canvass
as against one opposed to it.

-On the subject of the necessity of all the present
registry days in Middlesex County, the records of
changes made on the lists of registration for the last
registry day throw some light, as in Salem County. In
1915, in 27 districts where the changes were recorded,
a total of 168 were made, an average of 62/9 for each
district at a cost of $5.14 each. In 1916, it is true,
many more additions and subtractions are recorded,
but still the expense of each one is probably far above
the average cost of each cast ballot to the county.

On question four the verdict is again different
from that of Salem County. The reason for no greater
participation in the primary was considered lack of in-

94
Table VIII.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATIONAL, STATE AND COUNTY OFFICERS TO BE NOMINATED

 

CANDIDATES FOR THESE NOMINATIONS

CALLING FOR COUNTY-WIDE VOTE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s _([/8/8)5/8]3|3/3/2
pele le lel
oe ele Tfel [lel | _
q3qsIday came 1 | | | © |
ee ee
‘ianiceaseonseeeliael [=| | | | |» | |
bce Pet ea
41319 Reseed ak ae a a ee
ee aE eed,
sone | a Be rare
mslelel CET
PRERGae

 

 

f10}euas 91eIS

dae IUaSIIday

 

AOUIIAOH

‘sn

District

 

 

 

 

 

10}

|
siBay Ayunos |

ayezoiins Ayunog |

 

yluays |

 

“14h

€ ‘Japfoyse1.y |

 

“1k

Z ‘Jappoysaiy |

 

“IA

PANRJUSIIGIY “S “AQ

YEAR

T ‘s9ppoyaes.y |

Jostaradng Aquno5 | =

uewA|quassy | {| fet

JOJBUIS 9}BIS | ha

1

District

8

JoWeUas °S "A

 

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HID AqUNod | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

URUW99}}ILUWOD 3721S |

JOUIIADD | |

ae
ee

 

i!

 

 

 

 

 

11,51 12|

ea esl

 

 
CHART OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN ESSEX COUN’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| | DELEGATES AND COMMITTEEMEN VOTES FOR DELEGATES | CO!
| OR COMMITTEEMEN
| | 7 Q |
& & 9 2 |
> o |
| 5 > 8 8/808 3 = | YEAR
\ BE |B88] sce 3B a |
| BE |e >a) oPe e
3 | Se lop lone Z &3
2 | 2 go /SS6| Ese 2 32
2 'YEAR 8 58 268 2 Bc 5 £5 |
ae | > 28 |!eu| Meo > 3 —
2 a d a? ly 2 a Eau « g 5 To be chosen Number on ballot D R
° oy Ps) ae & & | - | | aes
& S o see 2A 8 3 8 oc 6 St. Conv. Del. | Co. Com. Cong. Conv. Del.| St. Conv. Del. Co. Com. Cong. Conv.Del. r St.
| - oe = =| =| Ap | | %o % of |——
i Rin pd | oR T D No. |%|No|/%/D|R|T|D|R|T,)D{R{|T/]DI RIT D(X Pip | els No. |Prim.| No. |Prim.| D
oe Res eal | | = i poet maa
3 | 6 | 1908 [121998 141366 |263364 | 71.6 | 64.7] 83.6] + | | | 1008
eee eI | | are = Saas | |. “een lunsel gaa. > ob
B || 1909 | 19922 | 34508 | 54430 | 80.4] 71.1] 96.2 | 2208 | 4.06] 616 | .91 | | 228 | 238 | 466 | 219 | 236 | 455 |_1909 || 18616 | 93.4 | 31544 | 91.4
, [2 _| 1910 | 21997 | 37560 | 59557 | 72.9 | 54.3 | 105.5 | 2510 | 4.21 | 1333 |1.64 231 | 228 | 459 230 | 238 | 468 363 | 369 | 732 | 223 227 | 450 | 216 | 231 | 447 | 331 | 359 | 690 __1910 | 19776 | 89.9 | 33560 | 89.4 | 112
7 6 | 3 1911 | 17892 | 25518 | 43410 | 66.7 | 76.4| 83.3 | 2314 | 5.33 | 1310 | 2.01 | 288 | 294 | 582 | | | 266 | 284 | 550 | 1911 | 13811 | 77.2 | 20781 | 81.4
“| ||| 1912 | 20415 | 19562 340498 | 47.9 | 76.5 | 112.7 | 2259 | 5.57 | 1293 | 1.54 | 293 | 301 | 594 | | 282 | 285 | 567 | 1912 | 16897 | 82.8 | 15272 | 78.1
Al | 1913 | 19951 15276 | 39079 | 57.5| 88.5) 69.2 | 2026 | 5.28 | 1137 | 1.67 | 312 | 319 | 631 | 299 | 294 | 593 1913 | 16283 | 81.6 | 11639 | 76.2
33 1914 | 18152 21212 | 41134 | 53.0 | 75.5 | 60.2 | 1550 | 3.85 | 1965 | 2.59 | | 315 | 322 | 637 | | 283 | 302 | 585 1914 | 15102 | 83.2 16211 | 76.4
16 [| tos | 15526 | 25089 | 41254 | 54.0| 71.0] 71.2 | 1788 | 4.33 | 1503 1.96 | | 319 | 326 | 645 | | 285 | 322 | 607 1915 | 13597 | 87.6 | 23405 | 93.3
| | 1916 | 16041 36522 | s2614 | 54.9) 57.5] 72.4 1908 | 3.63 | 1902 1.98 | | 321 | 327 | 648 | | 281 | 313 | 504 | | 1916 | 12837 | 80.0 | 29913 | 81.9

 

 

 

eneewe

Estimated by taking average ratios of sheriff vote to total primary vote for 19L1 and 1914 as a basis for determining the 1
Estimated, vote not to be had except for candidates for nomination.

The total sometimes includes the vote of minor parties.

The primary records for 1908, beyond the votes received by the candidates, could not be found.

Vacancy.
Number of districts in the county, 1910-1916, was 229, 286, 292, 315, 315, 319, 321.
SEX COUNTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eos ee iINUMBER OF CANDIDATES FOR|
2 DELEGATES | CONTESTS FOR POSITION OF DELEGATE OR NOMINATION TO LOCAL CONTESTS FOR NOMINATION DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY CON- B
AITTEEMEN COMMITTEEMAN MUNICIPAL OFFICES 2 TESTS FOR NOMINATION ¢ xs
———_-—- 8 38
At large | Ward Total 3 ee
3 ge
eg Sy
2 2 YEAR oS Bs YEAR
z 2 2 so 38
= o a> ce
g & g ge =5
5 z é E Bu 23
R s/3s/es|3s]s]3 zs ee ee, At
St. Conv. Del. Co. Com. Cong. Conv. Del.| 8 § 3S 5 3 3 At large Ward Total} At | large | Ward Both large | Ward Possible
% of | S e | io 5 ° eS ———__— | ——_——_ large | Ward|Total| ————_—_; —____j _____}__ |
|| No lfrim| D| R|T| D|R|TiloDiR{|T|@€| 6+&) 6) ei sé D)R/}T|D,R,|T | D|R D,;R|D]R([D/R [DIR D R
1908 | | | | fod 1908
‘| 31544 | 91.4 116 | 182 | 298 188 | 144 | 286 | 207 | 474 | 351 | 1909 | 4 | 12 | 16 | 21/50 71) 87/118) 40) 54/149 | 152 100 | 137 | 154| 182 2| 4|2|8| 1909 | 16188 | 2197
| 33560 | 89.4 | 112 | 131 | 243] 54 | 143 | 197 | 43 | 223 | 266 | 200 | 152 | 344 | 247 | 544 | 399] 1910 | 10 | 23 | 33| 31 54 85 | 118| 61 40, 46| 164 | 210 110 | 118 | 164 | 213|4|12|2|8| 1910 | 19813 | s510
‘| 20781 | 81.4 72 | 121 | 193 142 | 100 | 338 | 229 | 476 | 327| 1911 | 5 | 12|17| 40/32 72| 89) 84) 47| 53/181 | 196 188 | 158 | 202 | 23913| 7|7|7| 1911 | 13620 | 1744
15272 | 78.1 107 | 34 | 141 162 | 109 | 304 | 184 | 466 | 203] 1912 | 7| 14 | 21| 2619 45/ 66| 7.7) 68| 71| 210| 235 162) 83 | 221 | 263/4|10|5|7| 1912 | 17080 | 1563
11639 | 76.2 66 | 6| 72 108 | 78 | 316 | 171 | 424 | 249] 1913 | 5| 6/11| 20/14 34) 45| 98| 93| 94|194| 23 69 | 72|214| 413| 4/5|7| 913 | 14324] 101:
| —— ————_ —_ | —_ |——_—_ —- — { $$: | | | | — | ec_ *'cr\r
/16211 | 76.4 64] 30| 94 146 | 103 | 262 | 142 | 408 | 245 | 1914 | 1/ 19 | 20/ 21| 18/39] 59| 73) 67| 69] 25| 250 | 129 | 101 | 144 | 251]1]1015|6| 1914 729 | 17481
23405 | 93.3 57 | 142 | 199 | 130 | 104 | 264 | 137 | 394 | 241 | 1915 | 6 | 12/18] 10 | 20/| 30/ 48| 7.2) 88| 82] 205 | 208 | 102 | 149 | 215 | 233|5|6 |314)| 1915 | 11875 | 1697
| 29913 | 81.9 33 | 82 | 115 | 118 | 80 | 290 | 145 | 408 | 225 | iis | 1] 10/11] 6/16 22] 33 [117 | 132/124] 190 | 34 | 43| 66|193| 86/1] 6|2|4| 1916 | 11495| 593

 

 

 

for determining the 1908 total primary vote.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ - ~~
DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY CON- 5 s Bete : . | 3s
YMINATION ‘ TESTS FOR NOMINATION © 2g VOTE FOR CONTESTS % Z Z sé (ss |
2 23 8 8 aA gm 2
3 =e ° 2 ~ 5a Se >
aw SS > > 8 Sw gy §
E3 ge 2 > 62 {Sa |
on Sh » (88 188 13
eS zs B e ie |g ~ |3 3
Ss? Sian YEAR Bale > ‘oz SB > ov
2 33 ef| aie (Es [Ss |3
Be ge ge/a8le ($8 [gs |e
Eu s5 ae SS) 28) 2 Saalosn 32
Su 9 Qo 8ia to | 00% oo 3
38 pees rn a At large Ward Total sil Ba sa lsgiisasi 38
—— ' = At ' t I _ | | mlee- | —_ 2 2
Ward |Total), At | ft |_lrge_i__Ward Both | large | Ward Possible Actual Possible Actual Possible Actual BA |} wee | x08 eas od §| 2
——-|large | Ward| Total = So SS SSS SSS SSS | [| | | |
| R ri) | D |R D;R {DR I{D/R |D/R | _D R D R D R D R D R D R D| R D| R
[| 4 | | ee Tot ee ee eg ae ea |
| 50 71) 874118) 46) 54/149 | 152 1 | 137 | 154 | 182 | 2 | 4/2] 8] 1909 | 16188 | 21971 | 14419 | 19913 | 12015 | 25499 | 10406 | 21900 | 16996 | 29965 | 14982 | 26273 | 75.2 | 76.2 | 75.8 | 53.5 | 73.3 | 60.9
54 85 (118) 61° 40, 46] 164 | 210 110 | 118 | 164 | 213 | 4 | 12 | 2 | 8 | 1910 | 19813 | 35108 | 17521 | 30388 | 14619 | 25169 | 11957 | 22185 | 19813 | 35711 | 17101 | 32043 | 77.7 | 85.3 | 82.5 | 42.2 | 90.0 | 60.1
| 32 72 89! 84. 4.7, 5.3] 181 | 196 188 | 158 | 202 | 239 3/717 | 7 | 1911 | 13620 | 17442 | 10709 | 14736 | 14164 | 16428 | 12240 | 13810 | 14852 | 22797 | 12241 | 19297 | 68.4 | 79.5 | 72.7 | 52.3 | 66.2 | 48.5
i119 45! 66/ 7.7, 68! 7.1] 210 | 235 162 | 83 | 221 | 263/4|10)5|7/) 1912 | 17080 | 15637 | 14939 | 14026 | 13005 | 7112 | 10713 | 5783 | 17638 | 18067 | 15368 | 15902 | 75.3 | 81.3 | 77.2 | 57.6 | 91.6 | 40.0
[i i4 34, 45/98 93) 94/194] 23. 69; 72/214| 84/3) 4|/5|7] 1913 | 14324] 1913 | 12158] 1653 | 6351 | 4822 | 5382 | 4056 | 15872 | 5395 | 13493 | 4534 | 67.6 | 29.7 | 46.1 | 59.8 | 20.5 | 265
|| 18 39} 59] 73) 67| 69| 25 | 250 129 | 101 | 144 | 251 | 1 | 10 i 5 | 6| 1914 | 729] 17480 | 573 | 15619 | 9874 | 8229] 8108 | 7191 | 10277 | 17624 | 8406 | 15688 | 36.9 | 73.9 | 58.5 | 27.8 | 44.4 | 31.
“130 30 | 48 7.2 | 8.8| 8.2 | 205 | 208 | 102 | 149 | 215 | 233) 5/6 |3 | 4} 1915 | 11875 | 16970 | 10169 | 15155 | 6311 | 14189 | 5267 | 12234 | 12369 | 19676 | 10613 | 17164 | 68.3 | 68.4 | 67.4 | 48.5 | 48.7 | 36.4
| 16 | 22 | 33 | 11.7 | 132{/12.4|190| 341 43| 66|193| 86/1] 6|2/ 4] 1916 | 11495 | 5935 | 9604] s609| 3507 | 10101 | 2878 | 9245 | 11684 | 13346 | 9796 | 12310 | 61.0 | 33.6 | 42.0 | 35.0 | 24.3 | 23.0

 

 

 
terest by four, and “no opposition” by another ; on the
other hand, two gave unwillingness to be known as
members of a certain party, another independence of
party, and a fourth “for business interests of his own.”
Six clerks think voters are averse to declaring their
politics, and five say they are not, but two of these add
“some” and “not many.”

The opinion on question (five) is decisive, three
“yes,” and seven “no” with one “don’t know,” but on
(six) there are 7 “yes” and three “no” with one “don’t
know.” For (seven) the belief is almost unanimously
negative nine to one who said “perhaps”, and another
who did not know. Seven favor sample ballots, one
as “somewhat useful,” and four think them unneces-
sary. Nine of the eleven clerks think the published
notice of election needless.

On the two points of special importance to the pri-
mary the consensus of opinion is hostile—that is, the
primary does not attract the independent voters nor
does it secure better officials. One clerk wrote: “The
present primary election law gives any man the chance
to run for nomination, but without the help of the
‘machine’ or ‘gang’ he cannot be nominated, as they
have their own men on the ticket and nominate them
just as before. The present system gives a man a
fighting chance.”

It is to be remembered that all of the officials an-
swering this questionaire were chosen under the pro-
visions of the direct primary law.

UNION COUNTY (a)

This county’s population numbers 167,322. It con-
tains 21 municipalities, the largest of which are Eliza-
beth, with 82036 inhabitants; Plainfield, with 24516;
Rahway, 9586; Summit, 9136; and Westfield, with
8147. Five of the others contain between 3000 and
5000 people. The Republican party had a majority
for assembly at the last election of 7411, almost two to
one, carrying Elizabeth by about 1200; in 1915 of about
5000, with the Democrats 1000 ahead in Elizabeth;
in 1914 of over 3000, the Democrats leading by ap-
proximately 2000 in Elizabeth ; ; in 1913 the Democrats
cast 400 votes more than the Republicans; in 1912

 

(a) See table seven for chart of Union County primary elections,

95
about 1000 more; in 1911 the Republicans were 1600
in the lead in the county, but 700 behind in Elizabeth ;
in 1910 the Democrats won for assembly by 700; in
1909 the Republicans by 2800; in 1908 the Republi-
cans again had a majority of over 6000. In 1916 every
municipality in the county showed a Republican ma-
jority and this is normally the rule except sometimes
in Elizabeth.

The number of offices to be voted for throughout
the county, which each party might nominate each year
was: 1908, 6—2 county, 4 state; 1909, 6—3 county,
3 state; 1910, 5—1 county, 3 state, 1 United States ;
1911, 6—2 county, 4 state; 1912, 16—11 county, 3
state, 2 United States (a small board of freeholders
(9) were nominated but the legislative provision for it
was later held unconstitutional) ; 1913, 6—1 county, 5
state; 1914, 9-4 county, 4 state, 1 United States;
1915, 4—1 county, 3 state; 1916, 10 (one vacancy) 3
county, 5 state, and 2 United States. Practically the
same combinations of county, state and national offices
occur as in the other counties. The variation in the
number of officers to be nominated each year is not so
marked as in some counties, but ranged from 4 to 9.
During the nine years the two parties could have nomi-
nated 136 officers,—28 county, 34 state, and 6 United
States, each.

In one year (1915) there was no contest of any
kind and the direct primary was used to make only
local municipal nominations. In three other years
there was no Democratic county contest, and in two
of these years there was no Democratic contest at all
and the only Republican contest in each of the two
years was for assembly. For the 136 officers nomi-
nated there were 76 cases of contest; 30, (15 Demo-
cratic—15 Republican) in the nominations of 56 county
officers; 37, (19 Democratic—18 Republican) in the
nomination of 68 state officers; and 9, (4 Democratic
—5 Republican) in the nomination of 12 United States
officers. There was slightly over one contest for every
two officers nominated. In three cases, Republican
1910, Democratic 1911, Republican 1913, where three
contests for the general assembly were counted in each
case, making a total of nine, there was only one candi-
date for nomination more than the number to be nomi-
nated and the primary cannot be considered as afford-

96
ing the votets of the party a great range of choice
inasmuch as three of the four candidates were certain
to receive the nomination.

The absolute number of primary votes cast is high-
est in 1916, but it is not any higher than that of 1910
if a 19% increase of population between 1910 and
1915 is taken into account; in fact, about 2500 lower.
There is little doubt that many fraudulent primary
votes were cast in 1910, but whether 2500 or not can-
not be known, and just as little, that many were cast
at the general election, but perhaps not constituting
so great a per cent. of the total vote. However, the
difference was hardly sufficient, if it could be ac-
curately reckoned, to overcome the greater relative
participation in the primary in 1910, compared to
the general election vote, than in 1916. The per cent.
of participation in 1916 was higher than that of the
same year in any other county studied. The Repub-
lican primary vote has tended to show a rather con-
sistent increase since 1912, but the Democratic vote
has not done so, although, like the Republican, highest
in 1916.

The per cent. of rejected ballots for the primary
election has fallen from 7.4% in 1912 to 3.4% in 1916,
but the rejected ballots for the general election have
increased from 1.2% to 3.6% in those years, a fact at
variance with the records in the other counties. The
per cent. of rejected ballots is higher in 1916 for the
general election than for the primary. This also is
contrary to the rule in the other five counties. No
explanation of either peculiarity is known.

The ratio of the number of local municipal offices
for which candidates appeared on the ballot to the
entire number of offices for which nominations were
to be made falls as low as 107:184 for “at large” of-
fices in 1914, and 51:176 for “ward” offices in 1915.
Expressed in per cent. the ratio for all offices in 1916
is 54%. The number of contests for nomination was
greater in 1909 and in 1910 than in any year since.

The smallest number of precincts affected in any
one year by Republican contests was 25, in 1911, about
one-fourth of those in the county; by Democratic con-
tests, 27, in 1914. The per cent. of the primary vote
actually effective in determining local contests was
lowest in 1914, 36.2%, which was 20.2% of the general

‘97
election vote. The highest per cent. of the genéral
election vote which proved thus effective was 49.9% in
1909; for the other years it ranged from 32.4% to
20.2%. .

In summarizing, generally, the use of the direct pri-
mary in Union County for the last seven years, it
may be said that there is hardly any tendency observ-
able in regard to the number of local municipal con-
tests, the number of districts affected by these contests,
nor the per cent. of the general election vote repre-
sented by the vote at the primary contests. On the
whole the absolute primary vote seems to have in-
creased slightly; as a per cent. of the general election
vote it has been irregular. The actual use of the pri-
mary in Union comparies favorably with that in Mid-
dlesex, the county corresponding in population. In
1911 no Democratic primary candidates appeared in
seven of the smaller municipalities and in 1916 this
was true not only of five smaller municipalities but
also of Summit, and with the exception of one candi-
date for a councilmanic nomination, of Plainfield. It
is not here suggested that it is necessarily desirable
to have Democratic-Republican fights in municipal af-
fairs, but that probably the municipality and the indi-
vidual citizen would gain by making it more possible
that all the citizens should have an opportunity to vote
with some effectiveness for municipal officers rather
than lose interest in the local administration because
practically debarred from influence through their at-
tachment to a national party whose members in the
municipality are in a hopeless minority.

ESSEX COUNTY (a)

Essex County is, by approximately 5000 persons,
the second county of New Jersey in population, having
in 1915, 566,324, 10% more than in 1910. The city
of Newark, metropolis of the state, contains slightly
over three-fifths of the county’s population. There
are seven other municipalities in the county of over
10000 population, five of about 5000. The county at
present is solidly Republican, almost exactly two to one
in the last vote for governor, 53000—26000, slightly
less so in the assembly vote. The votes for assembly

(a) See table eight for chart of Essex County primary elections.

98
preceding 1916 were roughly as follows: Republican
majority, 1915, 14000; 1914, 11000; 1911, 7000; 1909,
7000; 1908, 15000; Democratic majority, 1913, 500;
1912, 9000 ; 1910, 5000.

Every municipality in the county was quite safely
Republican at the last election, but West Orange and
Orange, especially the former, are not so strongly
Republican that there is no chance for Democratic
candidates. The county elects 12 members of the as-
sembly (it elected eleven before 1911), and three free-
holders every year (first chosen at large in the county
1911, a board of nine), a county supervisor every
second year, three coroners every three years and a
county register every five years, besides the sheriff,
county clerk, surrogate and state senator.

The same ebb and flow of elections occurs in this
county as in the others already studied. The officers
nominated each year during the period studied have
been: 1908 seventeen, (5 county, 12 state) ; 1909 twelve
(1 county, 11 state); 1910 fourteen (2 county, 11
state, 1 United States) ; 1911 twenty-six (13 county,
13 state) ; 1912 nineteen (a) (5 county, 12 state, 2
United States; 1913 seventeen (3 county, 14 state) ; ;
1914 twenty-three (9 county, 13 state, 1 United
States); 1915, sixteen (4 county, 12 state); 1916
twenty-one (4 county, 15 state, 2 United States).

In each of four years, county, state and United
States officers were nominated; in each of the other
five years county and state officers were nominated.
The annual nomination of 12 assemblymen and 3 free-
holders maintains such a large average number that
an added increment of six or eight as happened in
1916 and 1914 does not serve to attract much atten-
tion as far as the mere additional number is concerned.

Of course, when those six happened to consist of a
United States senator, United States representative,
governor, state senator, state committeeman and county
supervisor, a ripple of excitement was added even to
an electorate accustomed to the regular stimulant of
nominating 15 officials each year as a minimum since
1911. In this period 330 officers were to be nomi-
nated (342 if 3 United States representatives are
counted each year) by the two parties—92 county, 226

 

(a) For which each voter could vote, 21 if the 3 United States Repre-
sentatives for the entire county are counted.

99
state, 12 United States. For these 330 offices there
were 260 (a) contests, 136 Democrats and 124 Repub-
licans (one for every 1.3 places), 68 for county
officers out of the 92 nominations (34 Democrats and
34 Republicans), 185 for state offices out of 226 nomi-
nations (98 Democrats and 87 Republicans), and 7
for United States officers out of 12 nominations (4
Democrats and 3 Republicans. In only one year, 1916,
did either party have no county contests. It must be
admitted that much greater use has been made of the
primary in Essex County than in any of the preceding.
This is quite to be expected. The salaries of county
officers are attractive and the public contracts involve
the expenditure of large sums of money. There is
considerable “pap” for the support of the “ins” and for
heightening the zeal of the “outs.” The county is
with its twelve assemblymen of very great weight in
state politics.

The Democratic voters of the county who attended
the primary election in 1914 performed the duty of
selecting 18 candidates out of 42 aspirants, and the
Republican voters 18 candidates out 35 aspirants not
to mention the choice of a candidate for United States
representative and candidates for all local municipal
offices. In 1911 these voters accomplished an even
more formidable task, the Democrats out of 57 aspi-
rants selected 26 to represent them, the Republicans
out of 58, selected 26 also, omitting altogether as for
1914 the choice of all local municipal candidates.

That the average primary voters are acquainted to
any great extent with the qualifications of these can-
didates for nomination (40 one year and almost 60 the
other) is hardly thinkable, and that they are not so
acquainted is evidenced by the following occurrences:
(b)

The most notorious of the “fake” candidates was
one Joseph Q.—of cot No. 23, main aisle, to the right,
close to the pot stove, second flight up, 323 Market
Street. In 1913 Q.— was an independent candidate
for the Board of Street and Water Commissioners,
supported presumably by some politician for the pur-
pose of cutting the vote of his rival. OQ —was an um-

 

(a) Not counting the United States representatives in the 8th and
10th districts, for which there were 10 contests for the 12 places.

(b) These incidents were gathered from the files of the Newark
Evening News, and from conversation with one of its reporters.

100
Table IX,
TABLE FOR ESSEX COUNTY PRIMARY—LOCAL MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, 1909

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| |
2 Pe oie -
2 = = & | <3
MUNICIPALITY & a Es ES

5 % a8 ‘ ae .

2 5 ic = 2 oe 2 2

: Z Be ae |b | :

2 5 Bl s 6 e2 s 3

a Z Of ° Oo Of ° Oo
Belleville Town 9,891 5 22 18 51 0 0 0
Bloomfield Town 15,070 6 6 3 0 18 12 42
Caldwell Township 704 1 16 12 | 0 0 0 0
Caldwell Borough 2,236 1 8 8 0 0 0
Cedar Grove Township 2,409 1 12 | 1. 0 0 0
Fast Orange S”té=<“‘i=—s™s™S™SOS:T:TTTTTTTUC(“(<“‘(‘ HTT 0 0 20 4 53
Essex Fells Borough 442 | af 12 0 0 0
Glen Ridge Borough 3,260 2 | 0 0 0
Irvington Town 11,877 | 6 0 26 15 464
Livingston Township 1,025 | 1 18 | 10 0 0 0 0
Millburn Township 3,720 2 18 | 18 35 0 0
Montclair Town 21,550 11 | 6 3 0 34 24 56
Newark 347,469 144 | 6 6 67 112 97 43 8
North Caldwell Borough 595 | 1 6 3 0 0 0
Nutley Town 6,009 | 3 2 | 1 0 14 9 49
Orange 29,630 | 13 6 | 6 0 30 19 5 0
Roseland Borough 486 1 8 8 (0) 0 0 0
South Orange Township 2,979 1 14 7 2u 0 0 0
South Orange Village . 6,014 3 0 | oO 0 0 0 0
Verona Borough 1,675 1 12 fos 0 0 0 0
West Caldwell Borough 494 | 1 | 2 | 2 0 0 0 0
West Orange Town 10,980 | 6 6 | 6 0 32 18 12

Total 512,886 | 229 188 | 144 16 8 286 207 71 4

 

1 Democratic Supervisor of Roads; Two Republican Township Committeemen; Republican Qverseer of the Poor; Republican Justice of the Peace.
2? Republican; Three Councilmen; Constable.

3 Republican; Two members Board of Education; Three Councilmen.

4 Republican; Councilman; Member Board of Education; Two Constables.

6 Republican; Township Committeeman, Collector, Assessor.

6 Republican; Councilman; Member Board of Education; Three Constables.

7 Four members Street and Water Board (2 Dz2m. 2 Rep.); Two City Home Trustees (Dem. Rep.)

8 Nineteen Aldermen (8 Dem. 11 Rep.); Fourteen Constables (8 Dem. 6 Rep.); Ten Justices of the Peace (2 Dem. 8 Rep.)
9 Republican; Three Councilmen; Constable.

10 Four Councilmen (2 Dem. 2 Rep.); Constable.

u Republican; Collector; Assessor.

12 Republican; Councilman. .

148 Four Democrats; Twelve Republicans.

4 Twenty-one Democrats; Fifcy Republicans.
Table X.

TABLE FOR ESSEX COUNTY PRIMARY—LOCAL MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, 1916

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 | 8 53
e f & =o =e
x | 2 Eq &
MUNICIPALITY | a | a | ge S =

| 5 | 3S | os » a ~

| 3 | 5 | 3g s = 2 Oc 2 8

| 3 3B | 98 3 g 38 3 3

| 3 | g | 3 a 2 a cs) 2

| 8 | 5 |; 2s sg 8 He < 8

_ Puce | Oa 6 3 6a 5 §
Belleville Town | 11,996 | 8 0 0 0 6 3 21
Bloomfield Town | 17,306 11 | 2 1 0 12 7 32
,Caldwell Township | 782 1 8 6 0 0 0 0
(Caldwell Borough | 3,409 2 6 6 0 0 0 0
} cedar Grove Township | 2,979 1 6 6 0 0 0 0
;}sast Orange | 40,961 25 2 2 13 30 6 | 34
Essex Fells Borough | 538 | 1 | 4 2 0 0 0 | 0
Glen Ridge Borough | 4,153 | 4 8 8 ) 0 0 0
Irvington Town 20,342 | 10 0 0 0 14 6 0
Livingston Township | 1,202 | 1 10 5 15 0 0 0
Millburn Township 4,372 | 3 2 2 0 0 0
Montclair Town | 25,029 | 15 | 0 0 10 0 0
Newark | 366,721 | 190 | 5 16 152 104 97
North Caldwell Borough 664 | 1 | 14 7 0 0 Oo | 0
Nutley Town 7,987 | 4 0 | 0 16 a
Orange 29,805 | 22 o | oO 20 4 | 0
Roseland Borough | 593 1 4 19 0 es
South Orange Township 4,676 4 | 18 9 4 10 0 o. (| 0
pes Sale ee eS | |
South Orange Village | 5,866 4 | 0 0 0 0 o | 0
pouth Orange NNeSe Se
Verona Borough | 2,643 2 10 8 ju 0 0 0
West Caldwell Borough 690 1 ; 12 6 2” 0 o | 0
West Orange Town | 13,610 | 10 | 2 2 | oO 30 10 =| 0

| 566,324 321 | 118 80 We 2902145 | 22 4

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Democratic; Two Constables.

Republican; Councilmen.

Republican; Mayor.

Republican; Councilmen.

Republican; Township Committeeman.
Democratic; Member Street and Water Board.

Republican; Five Constables.
Republican; Assessor.

Republican; Collector.

Republican; Collector; Assessor.
One Democrat; Ten Republicans.
Cie DMamareate: Gixteen Renublicans.

PE WarSteie a Aw ee wie

Five Aldermen (2 Dem. 3 Rep.); Four Constables (2 Dem. 2 Rep.)

Republican; Three Township Committeemen; Road Supervisor.

 
brella mender when not loafing. The News said (a)
“No serious attention is paid to his candidacy; but at
the election Q.~received 1041 votes. On May 15,
1916, “Buck,” as Q.—was called, got twenty days in
the county jail for begging. October 15, 1916, he was
again sent to jail for five days, being picked up on the
street near his lodging house, “slightly under the
weather.”

In 1914 a certain L.-H.—sought election to the same
board. He and two others, one running for mayor,
became known from their initials as the “H.-H.-H.—
trio” and the intent of the whole affair was clearly
fraudulent. All appeared on the ballot as Progressive
Republicans, and L. H.—polled 1,027 votes.

The number of votes these two men received shows
how little the voter often knows about those for whom
he votes, since it is inconceivable that any voter cog-
nizant of the character of these candidates would have
supported them for one of the most important offices
in a city of a third of a million people. It is true these
men were candidates at the general election, but it is
not at all probable that the voter possessed greater
knowledge concerning the primary candidates who are
quite as numerous as those at the general election. ~

Regardless of the correctness of the theory of the
direct primary, it is difficult for anyone to defend the
practice of nominating and electing 18 to 26 officers a
year for the offices voted for throughout the county
or a greater area, exclusive of the other officers such
as mayors, councilmen, city home trustees (Newark),
members of the street and water board (Newark),
collectors, assessors, clerks and so on, many of whom,
in any given municipality, come before the voters for
election at the same time.

The participation in the primary election in Essex
county seems to have gradually declined since 1908
(with the exception of 1912, when the Progressive
defection from the Republican primaries constituted an
unusual condition) down to 53% in 1914. The per
cent. of participation in 1915 and 1916 was 1% and
1.9% higher.

One could reasonably have expected the 1916 vote
to show a much greater increase due to the number
and importance of the offices for which noniinations

 

(a) October 30, 1913.
101
were to be made. Probably the absence of any Demo-
cratic contests except that for the United States sena-
torial nomination and the United States representative
nomination in one district explains the failure of the
Democratic vote to show much increase over 1915. It
was lower than the Democratic primary vote any other
year. The absolute Republican primary vote was 45%
greater than that of 1915, and also greater than any
other Republican vote since the adoption of the Geran
law and slightly greater than that of 1909, before the
adoption; but it constituted a much smaller per cent.
of the Republican Assembly vote than the primary vote
of 1911, and a very slightly greater per cent. (1.2%)
of the Assembly vote than was cast in 1915. It is
probable that many one-time Progressives returned to
the Republican primary and general election in 1916
for the first time since 1911. Then, too, the “every
four years,” “presidential” voters who did not go to
the primary served to raise the general election vote.
Generally, however, it would seem—if the party voters
as a whole are at all anxious under the present law
to have the privilege of expressing a choice in deter-
mining who the candidates of their party shall be—
that a contest for governor, United States senator,
United States representative, state senator, assembly-
men, freeholders and state committeeman ought to
have had the effect of inducing more than 63 out of
every ‘100 who voted at the general election to attend
the primary. (The number of general election Re-
publican votes estimated from the total vote cast and
the Republican votes for president.)

Such a primary involving the same nominations will
not come around again in Essex County for 6 years,
and not a presidential year for 12 years if the state
senatorship is not included; if it is included the com-
bination will never return in the ordinary course of
elections, this being due to the vacancy in the senator-
ship for 1916.

The per cent. of rejected votes in Essex County has
fallen off materially for the primary election since
1911, but is almost the same for the general election as
in 1911.

For the primary election the per cent. is about 1 2/3
times that of Salem County and 1% times that of Mid-
dlesex ; for the general election the per cent. is slightly

102
over twice that of Salem and somewhat less than 1%4
times. that of Middlesex. The rejected vote at the
primary is almost twice as great proportionately as at
the general election.

The interest manifested in the election of the mem-
bers of the county committees and the delegates to
congressional and state conventions, when such com-
mittees and conventions possessed real powers in whose
exercise the voters felt a lively concern, was high, but
never so high as in Middlesex if the per cent. of the
primary vote which the vote for committeemen, etc.,
constituted is a valid indication. . In 1909, 93.4% of
the Democratic primary voters recorded a choice for
members of the county committee, although its legal
power had largely vanished, and 91.4% of the Repub-
lican primary voters did likewise. After 1910 there is
a noteworthy decrease in this percentage until 1915,
when the Republican per cent. of the primary voters
which cast ballots for county committeemen was the
highest on record—93.3, the Democrats also having a
high per cent. The Democratic primary participation
was quite low, absolutely and as a per cent. of the gen-
eral election vote, so the high per cent. of the vote for
committeemen may be partly due to the fact that prob-
ably the organization voters made up a larger part of
the primary voters than usual. It is possible, too, that
the small number of officers to be nominated left more
of the attention of the voter for county committeemen
than usual, and also that the return of the Progressives
in some numbers induced a greater number of county
committee contests than the Republicans had had since
1910. In 1916 the Democratic candidates for the
United States senatorial nomination received 89.9%
of the total number of Democratic votes cast at the
primary. This was the highest vote for any office. The
Republican candidate for United States senatorial
nomination received 92.4% of all Republican primary
votes cast. The vote for county committeemen was for
each party about 80% of its primary vote. These com-
parisons throughout the period show that the voters
will cast a large vote for a party organization which is
to all intents legally powerless. Perhaps this is due
to the part which the county committeemen take in the
primary campaign in support of organization candi-
dates which in Essex County seems to be considerable,

103
although they have little or no influence in determining
who the organization candidates shall be. Besides,
down until the present gubernatorial term the county
chairmen throughout the state really exercised the
power of distributing any patronage in the nature of
appointments which was assigned to the county.

In case of offices “at large,” those for nomination
to which petitions were filed bear in general about the

_same ratio to the number to be filled as in the other
counties ranging from 2/3 up to 4/5; this does not
mean, of course, that in neither party were petitions
filed for more than these fractions of the places to
be filled, but that the average of both parties is not
above 4/5. Although the offices for which no petitions
were filed in either party may not be so numerous,
there are, however, many. For “ward” offices the cor-
responding fraction tends in the latter years of the pe-
riod to drop to 14, which it reaches in 1916.

The tables (a) made up for the different years afford
some interesting facts. In 1916 there were only two
Democratic contests for nomination outside the city of
Newark, these being for constable in Belleville. In
four of the smaller municipalities no candidates for
local offices appeared on the Democratic primary bal-
lot. In 1914 there was one Democratic contest at large
outside of Newark Ina few cases the same man seeks
the nomination of both parties, a proceeding which
suggests a sort of dormant desire to disregard the lines
of state and national political groupings in electing of-
ficers to local positions.

The number of contests for local municipal offices
has experienced a decrease quite marked in its extent
between 1908 and 1916, if not very orderly in its de-
velopment. The average number for 1909, 1910 and
1911 was 98, and for 1912-1916 was 50, or just about
one-half as great. The number for 1916 is lowest, 33
for the entire county, or one in every 12.4 offices to
be filled. In a study throughout the period of the
number of election districts affected by contests “at
large,” one is unable to discover any trend whatever,
although, 1915 excepted, in the last four years the “at
large” contests of one party or the other have covered
quite small portions of the county viewed as an electo-
ral area—in 1913 for the Republicans only 23 districts ;

 

(a) See tables nine and ten, inserted.

104
in 1914 for the Democrats, 25; for the Republicans last
year, 34. There are 322 election districts in the county.
No assertion can confidently be miade concerning the
increase or decrease in the number of election districts
affected by “ward” contests in one or the other party.
The most remarkable fact observable in regard to the
number of districts affected from year to year is its
irregularity. Until the spirit has moved the voter
qualified for an office to file a petition for some
nomination, no one can say whether there will be
no petition, one petition or several and a contest. The
Republican total of districts affected by either “at
large” or “ward” contests has twice been as low as one-
fourth those in the county; the lowest for the Demo-
crats has been 144, about 45%.

When the relation of the votes actually cast in cases
of contest for local municipal offices to the total pri-
mary vote is examined it seems possible to maintain
that a very noticeable reduction in the ratio has taken
place, the last four years averaging about 54% effect-
ive. That is, of the 55% of the general election voters
that attend the primary election about 54% (29% of
the general election voters) take an effective part in
the primary as far as local municipal offices are con-
cerned. The lowest effective vote in the Republican
party was 29.7% of the primary, 20.5% of the assem-
bly vote; the lowest for the Democratic party was
36.9% of the primary vote, 27.8% of the assembly
vote. The per cent. of the general election vote which
proved effective at the primary for the last four years
has been 26.5%, 31%, 36.4% and 23%, respectively.
The average for the first four years of .the
period was 52%. These calculations are not sub-
ject to attack on the ground that fraudulent voting at
the primary was common prior to 1911 (the per cent.
that year was 48.5%), because the contest vote for
local municipal officers would be fraudulent to no
greater degree than the total primary vote.

The effectiveness of the direct primary’ in Essex
County as a machinery for putting the making of nomi-
nations into the hands of the party rank and file may
be judged more readily perhaps than in any other
county in the state. In the county the organization of
each major party puts up each year, or at any rate

105
recognizes, a practically complete (a) slate of candi-
dates for nomination, not only for all the county of-
fices, but also for United States representatives; for
the “at large” offices in Newark, mayor, city home
trustee, Board of Street and Water Commissioners ;
for ward officers in many instances, aldermen, consta-
bles, justices of the peace; and finally for county com-
mitteemen from each voting district. Sometimes a few
other municipalities of the county are included, such
as Belleville and Bloomfield, for mayor and council,
but especially for county committeeman. In comply-
ing with the corrupt practices act, one blanket state-
ment of campaign receipts and expenditures is filed for
all these candidates in each party by one man whom
they have agreed to appoint as their treasurer, accord-
ing to the law. For several years the treasurer of each
party has remained the same, and he, no doubt, has ac-
quired a knowledge and skill for the conduct of a cam-
paign which alone would give him an immense advan-
tage over the come and go leaders of the independent
forces. The record of these slates and the names of
the candidates are easily obtained from the filed ex-
pense statements which are matters of public record in
the county clerk’s office.

Naturally, every man who is a candidate for nomina-
tion on one of these slates is a worker for every other
candidate on the list. When this fact is considered in
connection with the number of candidates which make
up the group, often well over two hundred, and the
amount of money which they may contribute, it is not
at all a matter of surprise that the slate goes through
as a rule almost without a scratch, especially in the
ranks of the candidates for nomination to the higher
offices.

In the years 1912 and 1916 inclusive, only three in-
stances of failures to carry through the entire slate,
as far as county officers and United States representa-
tives are concerned, occurred. Those were the nomina-
tion of an independent Republican for state senator
last year by a majority of a handful of votes, of a sur-
rogate in 1914, and of a United States representative in
the tenth congressional district the same year ; but only

 

- (a) In 1912 there seems to have been no candidate f inati
county clerk on the Republican list, nor for United States cenreretitien
noe the 8th district, 1916, and the 10th district, 1912, on the Democrati¢
ist.

106
the state senator’s nomination may be counted an inde-
pendent victory the legislative reporter of a leading
newspaper states, for the surrogate and the United
States representative were strong party men, for the
time being, however, not in favor with the controlling
organization ; that is, they were factional leaders. The
state senator was supported by the strong forces of the
Anti-Saloon League and the Home Rule League of
Essex County. Last year was, as one very capable
political leader of another county put it, “a good year
for independents,” because of the unusual number of
independently inclined voters attracted to the polls by
the importance of the offices for which nominations
were to be made—United States senators, governors
and United States representatives everywhere in the
state, besides, as a rule, a rather heavy list of county
officers.

In addition to the mere importance of the officers
nominated there is to be considered the remarkably
strenuous primary campaign, especially from a finan-
cial point of view, made by the Republican candidates
for United States senator and governor, which cost,
according to various estimates, between $300,000 and
$500,000. The filed expense statements of the five can-
didates total $92,197. If such an expenditure mainly
for advertising will not get out the vote, political inter-
est in the primary must be at a low temperature.

An examination of the tabulation above will show
that in the five years (1912-1916) the two parties to-
gether nominated a total of 196 candidates for county
offices and United States representative. This number
makes the independent success appear small indeed,
one out of one hundred and ninety-six. The operation
of the direct primary here has certainly shown that no
irresistible opposition to the organization’s proposal of
candidates exists among the party voters. Even if the
opposite view is taken, that a large part, or majority
it may be, of the party voters, are unfavorable to these
organization candidates, the obvious fact remains
that they have not succeeded through the direct pri-
mary in defeating the nominees selected by the organi-
zation. Shall the conclusion be drawn that the reason
is a faulty direct primary machinery, a lack of suffi-
cient concern on the part of the voters, or a general
satisfaction with the men proposed by the leaders?

107
That is, either the machinery will not work, or the
voter will not try to have it work, or he does not care
to have it work. If either of the two latter conclu-
sions is reached the primary hardly seems worth a
great deal, unless its mere existence serves the purpose
of its creation as a check upon the “bosses” and a
guarantee of popular control; if so, some cheaper,
equally effective substitute may be found. If the for-
mer conclusion is reached the remedy would lie in
amendment. It is true that in several instances the
organization candidate has received a minority of the
total vote cast for all candidates for the office. In
1915 for register the organization candidate received
8089 votes to 15620 for his five rivals, and the organi-
zation assembly ticket was outvoted by two others,
12540 to 11870. In 1914 the Republican organization
candidate for nomination as sheriff polled 5089 votes
to 14225 for other candidates, and the organization
candidate for county supervisor, 6602 votes to 11810
for other candidates. On the Democratic side the
organization candidate for state senator received 5959
votes as compared with 9867 for three other candi-
dates. If with respect to these cases it could be confi-
dently asserted that all the other candidates were seek-
ing the nomination as independents, in the sense of
running mainly to defeat the organization candidate,
and that all or most of each one’s supporters would
have favored as second choice another independent
rather than the organization candidate, then the prefer-
ential vote would have likely proved effective.

Since the candidates picked for nomination by the
party organizations are for whatever reason so uni-
formly successful, it is a question of primary impor-
tance to learn how and by whom these candidates are
chosen. The Newark Evening News of August 20,
1914, prints this statement: “The purpose of the direct
primary is to permit the voters of each party to select
their candidates instead of being compelled to accept
a ticket forced upon them by a boss or machine. This
purpose is partially thwarted, at least, when the party
organization places its O. K. on certain candidates
prior to the primary and lets it be understood that these
men and these only bear the stamp of regularity. Evi-
dence a glenty points to the conclusion that a certain
little inside coterie of the Republican county commit-

108
tee has made up a slate which it hopes to put through
at the primaries. The preference given these candi-
dates is certainly not based upon fitness, popularity,
or party service. It is simply a case of the old machine
engaged in its old-time work of picking favorites for
its own purposes.”

The impression conveyed by this paragraph is that
the selection of the organization candidates rests on
no broad basis of party preference. While that is
probably true, it seems that since 1912 there has been
pursued a regular and defined course, in the Republi-
can party at least, for determining what men the or-
ganization shall propose to the voters of the party and
support for nomination at the primary. The executive
committee of the county committee at present gets
together and puts up a slate by considering the propo-
sals of the individual members of the executive com-
mittee. This slate is then recommended to the county
committee, where a motion is made to accept it. In
the case of municipal officers outside the city of New-
ark the executive committee of each municipality takes
charge and makes recommendations. For ward officers
in Newark the county committeemen from the ward,
or their chairman, would be consulted. All these pro-
posals must be made in advance to the county chair-
man, who looks up the record of the designated man
and may try to secure a change. The Republican
county chairman in an interview gave the assurance
that everything is now done above board. Formerly
the county committee simply passed the word along as
to favored nominees presumably at the command of a
higher authority, but this practice the voters came to
resent. It seems that there is something of a contest
in the air now for the control of the Republican county
committee and that one of the issues is this matter of
the recommendation and support of definite organiza-
tion candidates. It is not difficult to imagine the influ-
ence which the more than 300 members of the county
committee exert in backing and creating sentiment for
the candidates for nomination proposed through them.
Many voters accept entirely their recommendations in
lieu of personal knowledge.

The executive committee of the Democratic county
committee, usually at a “shore dinner,” and after every
district has had a chance to make proposals through its

109
committeeman, names a slate of candidates for riomi-
nation to county offices and perhaps the more impor-
tant local municipal offices, and instructs the campaign
committee (of the executive committee, apparently ), to
recommend these candidates to the county committee.
The dissatisfied members may propose other candi-
dates whose chances have the proverbial snowball’s
longevity, according to a party leader’s statement. The
acceptance of the executive committee’s suggestions is
merely a formality. The Democratic organization ad-
mits only three defeats since 1908, when the direct pri-
mary first applied to offices for the county area. They
were the nominations for sheriff, state senator, and
surrogate in 1908 or 1909. At present two challengers
in each district are hired and also someone to make a
canvass of the district. He takes the Democratic pri-
mary book and learns the attitude of those whose
names are recorded, organization or independent. On
primary day the challengers keep a record of those who
vote and hustle out the organization vote if there is a
necessity.

It is obvious that the organization candidates: for the
county area are almost always successful in securing
nominations, and equally obvious that the average
party voter has little or no influence in determining
who the organization candidates shall be. The direct
primary becomes a referendum of the organzation slate
to the party voters who take sufficient interest to attend
the primary, and these may then register a protest
against unsatisfactory nominees, in favor of some one
who has secured a petition to put his name before the
voters on the ballot. It is not intended to assert here
that the party voters are always or even generally
opposed to the proposals of the organization. The his-
tory of nominations for the last five years, taking ac-
count of the cases where the organization candidate,
though successful, has received only a minority of the
party primary vote, as well as the one outright defeat
of an organization candidate, would indicate the con-
trary—that the voters in each party have been quite
content with the candidates for nomination selected
for them, For many offices there has been no one but
the organization’s choice in the primary field. Where
party organizations can satisfy the desires of the party
members, one hundred and ninety-five times out of one

110
YE/
190

 

 

CANDIDATES FOR THESE NOMINATIONS

NATIONAL, STATE AND COUNTY OFFICERS TO BE
NOMINATED CALLING FOR COUNTY-WIDE VOTE

 

 

Table XI.

R|

AQUOISSIUIWIOD pJBAI[NOG

2

 

42uU0109)

JaysiZay Ajyunod

 

|=
[a
|
[a
|@
E

R|D/R/D/R{D|

ayeZouing Ajun0d lal

 

zi
‘IK € ‘Japloysal.y »>——
al

l«|_ |

 

IA Z ‘Iapfoysa1

 

 

/R/D|R_D[R D|R DR DR are

|
|

"1A [ ‘Jap[OyIoI

 

Jostazadng Ayun0d

 

JOJBUIS 3321S

JoUI2A05

Dist.
12

 

aatzequasaiday

ord or newspaper account could be found to establish certainty as to the number of c

There seems to have been one in each party for supervisor, one Democrat and two Republicans for cor

2 No official rez

 

 

11

Dist.

‘sn

 

 

 

 

|D|R|D R|D|R|D

 

sau0105

 

yaqysiday AyunoD, |

|
|
| AJUOISSIUIWIOD pieaajnog [ |
|
‘|
|

ayeSoung Ayunod

 

41D AyunoD |
__ yueys | = |
“aK | € zapjoysoad |

+ “aK Z ‘Jappoysely |
a “1A [ ‘Japfoysas.y P|
Jostasadng Ayunog |
UBUI99}}IUIWOZ 9321S |
uewA[quassy | N

JOJBUIG 9}BIS

 

JouIIA05
| nN
a

oy
al

Biel |

District

aANBIUasaIday *S “A

soyeuag ‘Ss ‘a|

 

YEAR
1908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| 1|

1 Voter votes for two candidates only, so that minority party may be represented.

1909
1911
1915
1916

 
CHART OF ERIS ELECTIONS IN HUDSON COUNTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| : +
| Hs 9 NUMBER OF CANDIDATES FOR NOM- CONTESTS FOR Number of nomin-|_ pISTRICTS AFFECTED BY | Municipalitie
Ss > z INATION TO LOCAL ICIPAL tions f
PRIMARY VOTE j= | Big Z ON 22 Lee MON NOMINATION soe? ad | CONTESTSFOR NOMINATION? |*7ected by ¢
= [2 | weteet Z |
e |> | €2| 48 g 2 |
| }° | 3 | 5 | os oO }° |
IP stag | 6 SE iwsé @ =
| 2 > | Og |™a ‘e ‘g
| 2
| E as ga § 2 n 5 At large Ward Total |
| = Sa Ss |
| 9 ° O51 8 2 | Bey | | |
| 3 | YEAR |3 | sEiee # | 8B | }2| /3| | z |
21 3] ls | Bo | Be > = | | 2] | | § |
2 > 5 35 | 38 3 < | 2
5 2 le es iso £ a YEAR & }3 | E 3 | & 3 fo = | — =x
g 3 | ge} 8s) ag E 5 ele|é@ 2,8 2 At large Ward ‘Total’ At |Ward Total | Atlarge | Ward Total At War
Oo | ’ SE 3a | 3? a o 3) a8) 2) 8-1 3 (ee | large | | | | | large |
ee ee | - ees | a ea etna | | —_—_—_— re | a |, fl ee fe
DR DR D | R | T | eh / e8 je \ No| % Nol % &l6/&}6}|&/Sloir{[t|/p\|ri[ tl fey p|R|D|R\|pDiR| Db
21/22 | | 1908 |* | «18321, 46.7 i ee 2 aS a ae ee | | | |__| | ie
a\4| | | 1909 526488 669.6 | 4. — | 1909726 | 26 | 130 | 128 | 156 | 154 | 11 | 13 | 24/17 43 | 60 | 84 11 | 22 | 19 | 145 == 45 | 128 | 159 | 159| 3/3] 3 |
| 2. 9 | 1910 | 37724 | 16280 | 54004 70.9 | 786 64.4 3530 65) 632008 1910 *22| 22 162 157 | 184) 179 | 41 | 11 | 22 | 80 | 82 j102 | 124 | 10 | 1.6 | 15 | 167 | 267 | 138 | 119 | 167 | 167|3|3| 3)
2,2, + | 1911 | | | | ge] 13) 1911 eerie | | roy tt | | Par
3/1| | | 1912 | 36272 | 8993 | 45755 | 65.4 | 910/455 1508|33|789| 11| 1912 | 86|75|290| 214 | 376|289|21| 8 | 20 | 4a }21/65| 9429 | 45 | 4.0 | 230 | 210 | 234 | 130 | 278 | 2501713] 10)
| 6/4) 1913 36700 | 9005 46696 67.0 | 101.5 67.0 124427 743) 11 1913 | 96| 71 | 286) 195 380 266/121 7 19 39| 6|45| 64/51 | 64|59| 80} 32|187| 25|208| s916|4) 8
3.2 | :19M4_— 43702 10216 | 54557 | 733 113.0 760 1114 2.0 828) 11) 1914 | 98 | 8 | 298 | 195 | 396 | 275 | 22 7 | 29| 36) 10| 46| 75 | 275|65|53| 73| 38|a214| e4|223| 7lelal el
4,2) | | 1915 | 42246 10370 52746 | 74.7 1104 | 60.0 | 1172 22 772 | 1.0) 1915 | 74 | 59 | 228 | 118 | 302 |-177 | 8| 2| 10| 26| 7| 33| 43 | 74 | 69| 70] 34) 19| 135 | 25 | 151| 36/4/2| 7/
| 7. 9 | 1916 | 41258 | 15919 | 57241 | 621 | 981/458 787/13 | 790 |0.86) 1916 | 84 | 60 | 248 | 128 | 332 | 188 [11 | 2 | 13 | 31 | 5 36 | 49 | 65 | 68 | 18 | 10 | 124 | 49|129| 591311] 6)
| ! 1 | | 1 | |

 

 

 

| | i

 

 

s to the number of candidates.
Republicans for coroner.

3 Complete records could be obtained for no year before 1912.

‘ This is the vote for Republican candidates for nomination as sheriff.
5 This is the vote for Jersey City only.

* This is the per cent. for Jersey City only.
 

1in-
iy

|

DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY

Municipalities-
affected by con-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| CONTESTS FOR NOMINATION ® |" tests for nom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

otal | At large | Ward Total | At, Ward
—\p Tr )p |r| DR (D/R| DIR
Se eee
19 | 145 | 159 | 45 | 128 | 159 | 159] 3| 3) 3 | 3°
L5 | 167 | 167 | 138 | 119 | 167 167 | 3|3| 3| 3)
ge a ea
10 | 220 | 210 | 234 | 190 | 27@ | 250 | 7) 3 | 10 | 6
39 | 80 | 32 | 187 | 25 | 208 39 | 6 | 4 83
53 | 73| 38 | 214| 64| 223) 73|6|2] 8| 4
em] oak | $8 [eae | 2 | ashe a
18 18 | 10 | 2 | 49 | 129) 59|3/1} 6/4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% of general election vote cast at

contests

 

 

on
9
°

 

69.7

 

52.3
34.4
43.2

 

 

30.3
21.0

 

 

|
VOTE FOR CONTESTS ie [|e | 4 i
| - ~ A
oa 8 % e | §
| Ye 0 8 g E | a~
eo eo a
: 2 Ss oY 2
cf. e 2 8 =e
| gj af) 8 | 88 |S
S2|/s3/ 3 |38 192
fs fei 3 (38 |38
as a? | ae » |e
ea! ae| B BS | 88
At large Ward Total zB ge a je. jee
& ‘2 < Y= a a,
YEAR Possible Actual Possible Actual Possible Actual SE st| 2 | 288 a
| | a 3 og2, 952
D | R D | R DR D R D R D | R | SA/ we | x 85 288
1908 | | | = ae
1909 | 19416 | 14874 | 16996 13506 | 8580 12036 | 7725 | 10753 | 21581 14874 | 19137 | 13481 88.7 906 89.7 63.1 57.1
1910 30277 | 12515 | 28067 11052 | 25823 11655 | 24114 | 10337 | 30277 | 12515 | 28210 | 11176 93.2 89.3 92.1 803. 61.2
1911 | | | Se
1912 | 27968 | 5527 | 21743 | 4757 | 29232 | 5503 | 24746 | 4867 | 34681 | 7975 | 29606 | 6942 813 77.2 799 74.0 35.1
| i
1913 9911 2318 | 8701 2133 | 22255 2484 | 19274 | 2312 | 25994 2850 | 21282 | 2708 58.0 30.1 514 589 202
1914 | 12538 | 2096 | 10277 1886 | 30247 4116 | 25135 | 3844 | 33714 | 4872 | 27701 | 4468 | 63.4 | 43.7 590 71.6 | 33.3
| | -
1915 5190 757 | 4395 | 696 | 20124 2377 | 17275 | 2279 | 22031 | 2775 | 18701 | 2637 | 443 | 25.4 40.5 489 | 152
1916 4299 518 | 3703 "gaa | 19065 3732 | 14975 | 3106 | 20321 | 4250 | 15833 | 3494 | 38.4 | 21.9 | 338 | 37.7 | 10.0
| | | |

 

 

 

 

7 The figures given for 1909 are for Jersey City, Hoboken, and West Hoboken only, containing 159 districts.
8 The figures given for 1910 are for Jersey City, Hoboken, and Bayonne only, containing 167 districts.
* The number of districts in Hudson County, 1912-1916, was 312 318, 320, 322, 327.
hundred and ninety-six they are to be commended.
Nevertheless, it is submitted that the selective agency
is by no means properly representative of the mass of
the party voters, nor even of that portion of them,
around 50%, who attend the primary, and that a
method of designating organization candidates could
be adopted which would afford an immensely broader
basis of control than the present, which in Essex
is perhaps as open and above board as in any county
where the party organizations present candidates for
nomination at the primary.

A brief review of the outcome of organization rec-
ommendations for ward nominations in Newark will
be presented. Neither party organization puts up a
candidate for every ward office. The Republicans
especially pay less attention to these minor positions.
In the Democratic party frequently more than one good
organization man will file a petition for nomination as
alderman, justice of the peace, or constable, and they
will all be permitted to run equally supported, or un-
supported, by the organization.

In 1912 there were 15 ward contests in the Demo-
cratic primary; for 13 of these the organization made
recommendations, and 12 of them were successful. In
one of the two remaining contests no recommendation
was made, and in the other definite knowledge is lack-
ing. There were 5 Republican ward contests, and
one of the successful aspirants had been supported by
the organization; the other 4 were not, and secured
nomination in opposition to men whose names appear
on the organization list.

In 1913 every one of 7 successful Democratic con-
testants had been sanctioned by the organization, and
two of the three successful Republicans. The third
nominee defeated an organization opponent.

In 1914, out of 16 Democratic primary nominees,
13 were “regular,” the three others ran without inter-
ference. For four Republican contests out of seven
there were “regulars” on the ballot, but only two of
them were nominated.

In 1915 there were eight’ cases of contest for ward
office nomination at the Democratic primary, in seven
of which candidates supported by the organization ap-
peared. Six of these were successful, one was de-
feated. In another of the contests no recommendation

111
had been made. Four of eleven successful contestants
at the Republican primaries bore the stamp of regu-
larity and an equal number of “regulars” met defeat.
For the three remaining contest no candidates had
sought organization endorsement.

For 1916 there were six Republican ward contests.
Candidates had been “endorsed” in all the six contests,
and five of these received nominations.

Three of the four Democratic primary choices were
on the “approved” list, and in the other contest no
“approved” candidates ran.

For the five years the facts may be presented in the
following summary:

PRIMARY NOMINATION OF ie OFFICERS IN NEWARK,

° 3
$ 3
Bo 2 3 33
£3 3 zs 28S
3 ae 3 Fae eos
‘3 ‘See ‘SEB S Sa88. Sez8
bg BSE 583 hb begee 25s
ann aug 2y a 2QBnke ang?
4 gs B96 ER? & Exo, BeEgo
oO ae sao sug s 5&,g6 SEES
~ a3 2oe Zis a Zoso® Goss
Democratic
1912 .... 15 3 12 1 (or 2) 1 (or 2) 1
1913..... 7 7 7 0 0 0
1914 .... 16 13 13 0 3 0
1915 .... 8 7 6 1 1 0
1916 .... 4 3 3 0 1 0
Total... 50 43 41 2 (or 3) 6 (or 7) 1
REPUBLICAN
1912 5 5 1 4 0 0
1913 » 3 3 2 1 0 0
1914..... 7 4 2 2 3 0
1915... 11 8 4 4 3 oO
1916 ... 6 6 5 1 0 0
Total... 32 26 14 12 6 0

HUDSON COUNTY (a)

Hudson County is the first county of the state in
population, having 571,371, an increase of 34140 over |
that of 1910. It contains thirteen municipalities, of
which the largest, Jersey City, contains almost half of
the population ; nine of the other municipalities contain
over 10000 people each, two about 5000 and the small-
est 3163. Hudson is even more thoroughly Demo-

(a) See table eleven for chart of Hudson County primary elections,

112
cratic than Essex is Republican. The Democratic ma-
jorities for the nine years of the period studied are
3000 (1908), 12000 (1909), 23000, almost two to ond
(1910), 20000 (1911), 20000 over the Progressives
(1912), 15000 over Republicans and Progressives, two
to one (1913), 22000 (1914), 20000 (1915), 8000
(1916).

Every municipality in the county gave a majority to
the Democratic assemblymen last year except Kearney,
which is normally overwhelmingly Republican and
West Hoboken, where the Republican majority was
about 200. The county elects practically the same of-
ficers as Essex, and in addition a Boulevard Commis-
sion of three members every three years, only two of
whom may belong to one party.

The number of officers elected is no more evenly dis-
tributed from year to year than in other counties. The
officers nominated by each party each year during the
nine were as follows:

1908—Fifteen, 3 county, 12 state.
1909—Sixteen, 4 county, 12 state.
1910—Eighteen, 4 county, 13 state, 1 United States.
1911—Fifteen, 3 county, 12 state. ; :
1912—-Twenty-six, 12 county, 12 state, 2 United States. (a)
1913—Twenty, 6 county, 14 state.
1914—Twenty-one, 8 county, 12 state, 1 United States.
1915—Seventeen, 5 county, 12 state.
1916—Twenty-five, 8 county, 15 state, 2 United States.

In each of four of the nine years, county, state and

national officers have been voted for and in each of
the five other years county and state officers have been
elected. Altogether in the nine years, the two major
parties have nominated, or assisted in nominating, 346
officers, 106 county, 228 state, and 12 United States.
For these nominations there have been 293 contests—
81 county, 40 Democratic and 41 Republican; 201
state, 87 Democratic and 114 Republican; 11 United
States, 6 Democratic and 5 Republican.

The minimum number of officers elected in any year
is 15, 12 assemblymen, 3 freeholders, but this num-
ber is practically always exceeded. In 1912, 26 of-
ficers were nominated and elected, and in 1916, 25,
while in the preceding year, 1915, the number was 17.

In 1912 the Democrats selected their nominees for
the 26 offices from 142 candidates counting one-third

(a) In 1912, 1914 and 1916, a United States representative is counted

but once, because each voter could vote for only one; the county in-
cludes two congressional districts and part of a third.

113
the congressional aspirants. The Republicans had the
comparatively simple problem of choosing 26 nominees
from 57 aspirants.

‘In 1916 both parties found less ambition to receive.
a nomination manifested. The Democrats chose 25
standard bearers from 59 candidates for nomination
and the Republicans the same number from 77 aspirants.
The reversed position of the parties in the years 1912
and 1916, in regard to the number of candidates for
nomination as compared with the number of places to
be filled is probably accounted for by the increased
strength of the Republicans in the latter year, espe-
cially in view of the Republican split in 1912. A
Democratic nomination in 1912 was more than ordi-
narily equivalent to‘an election and in 1916 the Repub-
licans no doubt felt that they had a fighting chance. It
will hardly be maintained by anyone that the average
voter possesses a stifficient knowledge of the qualifica-
tions of 59 or of 77 primary candidates to enable him
to make an intelligent selection of one-half or one-
third of them as representatives of his party to contest
in the general election and if successful fill the public
offices of the county, state or nation.

The extent of participation in the primary election
in Hudson is the greatest found in the counties investi-
gated and for some years reaches what might be gener-
ally considered as a really satisfactory degree, the high-
est per cent. of the general election vote being 74.7%
for 1915. This is the year of the last five in which the
fewest officers were nominated, and the large relative
primary participation is surprising until a further study
reveals the fact that not only was the absolute primary
vote somewhat lower, though not greatly, than in 1914
(but higher than in 1916), but the general election vote
for 1915 was lower than 1914 and much lower than in
1916. One may say. that the interest in the primary
election as measured by the vote does not respond to
the influence of the greater or lesser importance of
the offices to the same degree as the interest in the gen-
ral election does. The slight change in the number of
Republican primary voters in the years 1912-1915 is
remarkable—within a range of only 1377 votes.

The absolute Democratic primary vote of the
three years 1914-1916 ranged within 244 votes—
only 6% of the total for the lowest of the three, that

114
of 1916. Such regularity in primary participation
is not true of any other county apparently (although
it is approached’in Essex) and may be -an evidence
of the existence of a primary clientele or class in a
sense, consisting, by and large, of the same voters
year after year upon whose favor the candidates for
nomination depend for success. That there is this
primary class is not asserted with assurance nor as
being proved, but as very probable. The primary
candidates as a rule use each year for canvassing pur-
poses the primary books of the preceding year, since
these furnish the names of those who are definitely and
publicly committed to the party and who are also most
likely to attend the primary again.

For the last five years the average percent. of the
general election vote which the primary vote consti-
tuted has been 68.5%, much higher than in Essex
County. The Democratic primary vote has for three
years, 1913, 1914 and 1915, exceeded the Democratic
assembly vote. That the Democrats. should poll a
big primary vote in Hudson is natural enough be-
cause a Democratic nomination is as a rule as good
as an election, but why the vote is regularly so much
higher than the Republican vote in Essex is rather
difficult to explain. Political activity has always. been
keen in Hudson ‘County, which has acquired a reputa-
tion as one of the most corrupt counties of the state.
It is a fact worthy of consideration that in the county
where in the days of the unregulated primary the
primary vote exceeded by the largest margin the gen-
eral election vote, the present primary vote constitutes
the largest percentage of the general election vote.
This fact may signify nothing whatever except a keener
political interest.

The use of the new form of ballot in 1911 caused
fess increase (63%) in the percent of rejected votes
in Hudson County than in any other one studied.
This is hard to explain. The per cent. of primary
votes rejected in 1910 was eight times that for the
general election vote. It has not been so high, ab-
solutely, nor relatively, since then, but has varied
since 1911 from three times as great to 50% greater in
1916.

For municipal and local offices the number of
candidates whose names appear on the primary

115
ballots is considerably higher in relation to the num-
ber of officers to be nominated in Hudson in the
case of “at large” offices than in the other five coun-
ties, and probably somewhat higher in the case of
“ward” offices. The ratio which those two numbers
bear to each other has become greatly reduced in
the latter half of the period. While the records for
1910 and 1909 covering the two largest municipal-
ities and one other in each case, cannot be accepted
as representing exact conditions throughout the
county, they must be quite typical at any rate. They
show a candidate’s name on the primary ballot for
almost every office to be filled and contests for well
over half the places. In fact, the contests in the
three municipalities, whose records for 1910 could
be found, overtop considerably the total number of
contests for the whole county in any other year, and
are over twice the number in 1915, and 1916; those
for 1909 are more than for any other year except
1912. These facts show conclusively that, for what-
ever reason, the primary is not furnishing the voter
the range of choice it once did for local and muni-
cipal officers, those whose administration most di-
rectly affects his life, property and happiness.

Why the same number of aspirants no longer con-
test for nomination to these offices is uncertain, but
it is quite safe to say that the main cause is the dis-

-covery that only one man can receive the nomina-
tion to one office and many of those who in the first
years of the primary either through ambition or
public spirited motives sought office have ceased to
try for nominations. One might conclude that the
undesirables, having found it impossible to be nomi-
nated have given up the effort, or that the capable
candidates having learned that capability does not
necessarily recommend one to the primary voters
have lost heart and given up the fight. There are
people who take one or the other of these positions.
Whichever one is taken the fact remains that the
primary has largely lost its usefulness as a means
of deciding who of several candidates for nomina-
tion for local municipal office shall receive the
party’s support, there being contests for only 15%
of the nominations.

In the last four years the Republican contests
116
have affected less than 16% of the election districts
and the Democratic about 54%. The per cent. of the
primary vote having effective power in determining
contests has fallen from about 90% in 1909 and 1910
to 33.8% in 1916 which amounts to 21% of the general
election vote.

In Hudson County the three largest municipalities
have adopted commission government. They con-
tain 402,975 people—seventy-one percent of the
county population—who have no interest in the pri-
mary election for the nomination of any local muni-
cipal officers except constables and justices of the
peace. Their commission elections are held every
four years on the second Tuesday of May and cause
an extra election expense of thousands of dollars in
those years. To maintain a nomination system for
municipal officers when 71% of the population have
practically no interest in it for that purpose seems
hardly justifiable from a standpoint of economy and
efficiency. :

As in Essex County, so in Hudson, slates of can-
didates for all important offices of the county ap-
point common campaign treasurers and file blan-
ket statements of contributions and expenditures.
But in Hudson County there is not an organization
in practically absolute control in each party as in
Essex County. There are two factions in each party
and in the Democratic party, at least, each faction
frequently succeeds in securing the nomination of
some of its candidates. These factional fights do
result in giving the primary voters a certain wider
degree of choice perhaps, because the candidates of
either faction stand a chance for nomination,
whereas when there is but one organization the vote
for an independent candidate is often little more
than a vote of protest. That the factions may be
induced to designate better men as their candidates
due to this rivalry, is very probable. No study of
the expense statements in connection with the pri-
mary returns was made in Hudson County to de-
termine how many independent candidates, that is
candidates supported by none of the factions, have
been nominated within the last six years, but two
county officials agreed that only one such case had
occurred and that in 1911, when an independent

117 .
candidate won the nomination as sheriff. The legis-
lative correspondent of a leading newspaper was
asked for information on this subject and he men-
tioned the same independent as the only successful one.
In speaking of the control of the organization under
the old Democratic “open” primary system, it was sug-
gested to the clerk of a leading municipality of the
county that anyone without the organization’s sup-
port stood no chance of winning a nomination. “Just
as much as now,” was the reply, “a Chinaman’s
chance.” When asked how the Republican organi-
zation’s primary candidates were determined upon,
his answer was “G——— and V-——,,” naming the two
Republican organization leaders.

GENERAL SURVEY OF OTHER COUNTIES

Tt will be sufficient in connection with table num-
ber twelve to direct attention to the points of simi-
larity existing between some of the facts which it
presents and those brought out in the preceding sepa-
rate study of the six counties.

The first thing to be noticed in most counties is
the frequent variation from year to year in the num-
ber of officers to be nominated. The names of the
counties in the following list are followed first by
the smallest number of officers nominated in any
one year of those for which data are given, and sec-
ond by the largest number nominated in any year.
Atlantic, 6—10; Bergen, 8—30 (here the largest
normal number was 20); Burlington, 10—18; Cam-
den, 8—14; Cape May, 6—8; Cumberland, 48;
Gloucester, 8—8; Mercer, 6—24 (hereafter the
largest normal number will be 20); Monmouth,
6—20; Morris, 6—10; Ocean, 2—10; Passaic, 14—32
(here the largest normal number was 24); Somer-
set, 48; Warren, 4—12. These minimum and
maximum numbers do not take account of any of-
ficers to be nominated for areas larger than the
county—United States representative, United States
senator and governor. It must be remembered that
candidates for the state office of general assembly-
man are to be nominated every year in every county,
so that every year state policies are before the pri-
mary voters, almost always in connection with either

g 118
Table XII.

Tabulation Showing the Number of Candidates for Nomination at the Primary Election in Fourteen (}) Counties of
New Jersey, 1912-1916 (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 8 ; |
a 7 gS
= c e ev a a | a
= o cg. u te 2 Sf ° & | ov >
2 & 3 Go 2 ine
: © el ae ie g 2 eoi2 i213 Z
b $2 | 2) Boe 5 £ fe ls i 2 2 5
< a a 5 A e | Oo em HE} Oo | < | a Y a
COUNTY | B3years | 2years 1 year | | | 8 §
—: 3 | | | Our
= wm 1 | = | + Le | "1 | | | 3 = om
elgg! | 5 | +e | |§ | 8 | | | ol toes
Z| 3 | Z| Zz 4 Zz i | | 2 Zse
Be el ealelalelardiale| eit elasie! al\flela@e@lalelalelelalelela @! a: eo lael ise a
g ¢ S$) 813) 8! 4 | & > S| 5 | 3 | 5); 9 3 a] & esis sifisig' &, F sisei sat &
Fla 2 Ala Aig Aid OdliAle &€ Ald & Sle 8 8 z# Bale Ae aie Aiaja a Ale A ZElmais =
i le; al 2 | 2 Ga fa | | ; | 3/0 3! 8 @ 1912
en S| Si - Sata te | te las aia, | poy | 2) 3. 5/10) “72 1913
213 3 |3|4 2 ole | Pi big ttl i 3/1 4) 8) 79 1914
252) 2 yo ae ai | in WW 0; 0 0; 6) 1915
ei St aiatad | 11 0; 2 2; 8 73 1916
eae 2
| 1 2 41 3 3/2 2 3! 2:2 3/1 2 2 | 10/ 2 12,30) 58 1913
Bergen 13 ae #12 a SNe | | | BY 3/0 3! 8) 46. 1914
3,919 Pe Mer Bot 3.7; 9 2 5 10 2 4/6 | 11 | 10 21 | 22 1915
3/8) 8/2|3/ 3/6) 7 | a eae tel f 1 #{2 | 7| 8 15/20 64 1916
i | 1 5 | 13) 16 | | 2/1! 8} 8 16:18 61 1912
Burlington a 2 3 1jy2) | i ee | : | | } #3 0a 1'1/1;1) 2 | 1 3/10 68 1913
L[ i! 1 (2/3, 4/7 L}ortad fy | | | [113] 2] 3, 5/10) 86 1914
T| ii a)2)3 21 2}4, | | } 2,2! | idtilaia! a] 2) 3149! a dere
1 1 1, | 1 6 es | | | i | 1 | | ! : soa
= | | 1 | \ | | 5/ 6,11) 12 1911
Camden a ae Pe eer Z ees ile A | | 4) 4) 8| 3 1912
| 2 | 2 4) 5 1913
She Pi slate ee | | Perle td | 1 4 5 12 1914
2) 31 5 2 oly oh4 | i 4) 34 7 | 10 1915
3] 4' 5:1]2 jo 2/ 1/3 | | 311 f __ 4) 6) 10 14| 57 1916
=e ‘ene 1 ach iil i 3.2; 5! 8 1912
Cape May 1] 3; 3,2)1 ; 2/2 rt ela; | ipa 1 1 2 8 64 1913
By hee eolot. | 2 2 4 6 74 ~~ 1914
i| ¢] 3jal2 a1 ore tk eo 0 3: 316 1915
Tigi etl tee 1 17 | i = Bey [it i 12] 3] 8) 8} we ' 1916
= | = 1 | 0 2 2 6 1911
Cumberland 1} 1 3 1) 7 1) ola | Oo) 212° 4| # 1B
3 2i2a| | 3 1913
a pee aa 46 ings | | 3.2) 5) 8 66 1914
P| ee ie e( sed 1 oi] | | 0, 0} 0 4 1915
vlc eal i 1 0|0 | 7 1 1 | £ a o' 1; 1) 8, 50 | 1916
——— [ort 1 | | 2 0} 2! 8% 1911
Gloucester i a . 3)1);2/1 Lia 1 i t | 2:1] | | : x oi 8 | = 1913
12) Qed 2 sl S Doge cde? | a ; | 4} 1914
[ey Ha a) el eitr es elt a 8 9/17/18 42 4912
Mercer ay 8) Fishy! 1 3 I 11 4) 4] 8 10 1913
4) 7 1914
3151 9 /2 10 1:7; 3); 3°97 | 3 He
at Gh ey oh 3 162 4 10 23 71,1) 7latlisjan| se | 43
3) 3/1 5 1/2 a bere | 2 1
= <a re 7, 6/13/14 1911
Monmouth 5 | 4 ; 3 2,1 11 ae ee 5 1 5 7 0| 7,16) 40 = 1912
| | | | 2 |
2} 2! 3 5 B13 % mt) | 8 7/13 20 86 1914
Cee yess Mia ot 8 | | 0; 4] 4) 8) 1915
2 | | 8)
- 2/2) 8 | ele! SEL, Sele = 4 ati a
Morris o1 2) 814 ay erg es 2! gle eal 3/3; 6/10) 58 | 1914
2/2: 5 | fo OS Lo. | 0| 3] 3| 8| 60 | gi
2} 1! 4)1/24} . sof ek lee Att | |
= ay wines zs - rate | 1} 2} 3/10) 1911
Ocean i) 24d 32) — eile 1] 2] 3/4! 41 | 1912
i} | 33 i 21 3| 2] 5! 8 1913
re a] 143-42] |2 2 52. Ste 11 Oo; 1! 1) 6) 1914
1} aj i] ; 1.5 | 5 | | | Oo) 1/2 2 9 | 1915
| | ti2 1/| 3 6. | 1916
tla} 2/2) 24 | | |
a | |—| = re j i | \ ae | |
Passaic 5/ 6 10 pf 2/3 15 2 01,7) 8 24 | | 3 | 18 3 ig | 45 | jor
Bee alg | 54 4 | Z| 5| 12 | 14] 1912
3/18 10 A 1{/ 1/;2/3) 9! 8) 4;13 11 2)9 3'2/)1 13 | 13 | 26 28 | 62 1913
| | 2! 2,3/2/ 4! 8 7| 9/16] 18| 60 | 1914
5| 6) 11) 314/09 | 7} 10] 17 | 20 | 1915
5| 6/21,1,3/1 4 1 2 ee le | | | | 519] 14] 24] 66 | 1916
Bh Bide to | 11 1/1/21); 0,1/3; 3:13 : 1/3 | | eee
—= |=] ji—| > | ae a a a oe | 1/ o/ 1] 6 1908
Somerset et +} aa | 1) 2i1 1) 2il| | | | | |; O| O| O|] 4 1909
1 Lat Lae 1/10! ; | | / 1} 1] 2] 6 1910
BIE: | 5) | | | 1 t | | 2] o| 2] 4 1911
1] 2] 1/3/14 3 | aes | | 2] of 2] 4] 45 | 1912
1}; 2] 1] | | 2 1) é fora] | | | | 3] 2] 5] 8 1913
Pay Arete tn @l of ft 4 | | 1] o| 1] 4 1914
1 | | i | \ | | |
hb Tah ot | i. | ' peo ONS a el fifa | | | 3 2 3 3 53 i916
fai af 2; | fare | | i 1; oj;1) | | | | Posh] +--+ =
| eee re oss Jie |—|— ast [—)
| | 2) 2,0) | | | ; | 3| 0] 3]| 10 1911
Warren 61} 5) 1/3/1/5 1 | tio) tee _ | | | 0] of oO] 4) 45 | 1912
Hal ilata|| belay ll) Pte Pl dpe al ats) ae la
| | | | | | | | !
fi] 2] 1]2/1]4i2 oliitl? Re eee st i bg | | i 4 | 2 1| 3| 4 1915
IE] BT 3 | | | | ee a eid Li {at Bh ale el Phe lai a als | | 4} 2| 6|10| 72 | 1916

 

 

 

i i i i pear h mitted. No data were obtained from Sussex County. : .
& oe rice cary ie it a tabulation further back than 1912. In Sues returns were readily available for earlier years and are presented; in others data for
every Seat Ie Tae Pe vole for several ponte i tate’s office, he xtent of participation is not shown here. :
(s For the enti Sale, meee Atlantic Camdes Maat Case May Counties, ee ares vote in. ise was 49% of ihe general election vote; this small participation was due to the Progressive
re a 1918, for sixteen counties the participation in the primary was 60% of the general election vote; in 1914, for fifteen counties, 63%; in 1916 for the entire state 59%.
Stee tabulation of the county vote does not show a coroner to have been nominated at the primary,
% State committeemen were chosen this year but it is not known whether there were contests or not.
(7) In 1916 the primary vote was 48% of the general election vote in Gloucester.
national policies or local policies, if any, or both.

Next should be noted the relation of the num-
ber of contests to the number of nominations to be
made.

The total number of contests for all the years re-
corded in the tabulation will be given immediately
after the county, followed by the total number of
nominations to be made in the same years. In four
counties there occurred a year when no county con-
test took place. Atlantic, 14—40; Bergen, 51—80;
Burlington, 32—58; Camden, 50—68; Cape May,
19—-36; Cumberland, 15—38; Gloucester, 9—24;
Mercer, 60—74; Monmouth, 43—72; Morris, 18-34;
Ocean, 17—36; Passaic, 112—136; Somerset, 17—48;
Warren, 20—44. In three of the counties the num-
ber of contests was little more than one-third the
number of officers to be nominated. In three others
the former was less than half the latter. In three
others still, the former was only slightly over half
the latter. It could be said, therefore, that in nine
of the fourteen counties the number of contests was
about half, or less, of the number of officers to be
nominated. The purpose of the direct primary is to
select the candidates for office when the party
wishes. If there is in half the cases of nomination
only one candidate for one nomination, it is obvious
that the primary is unused and unnecessary for its
purpose in the performance of half the work for
which it was provided. This, of course, does not
constitute any criticism of the primary, but raises
the question again whether in some manner the ma-
chine might not be reserved for use when it is
needed.

Taking the case of state senators, it is found that
for 28 out of 60 nominations only one candidate ap-
peared. In the case of general assemblymen, for
91 out of 145 nominations only one candidate or no
candidate appeared. Whenever two or more assem-
blymen were to be nominated at one time, and one
more candidate appeared than the number of nomi-
nations to be made, for the purpose of listing the
number of contests, a contest was considered to exist
for each nomination. This was done in view of the
fact that not one of the three or more candidates for

119
nomination was certain of success, and hence the
extra candidate was in contest with each of the other
two, three, or four, as the case might be. But from
another viewpoint, two of the three, or three of the
four candidates were certain to be nominated, and
for every nomination to be made the voter did not
have a choice between two or more candidates. In,
cases of this kind, occurring in the tabulation, where
49 cases of contest were counted, only 16 candidates
for nomination in excess of the number to be nomi-
nated appeared on the primary ‘ballots.

In the matter of participation, it is interesting to
note that the per cent. for the entire state in 1916 was
59% ; exactly the same as that for the six counties.
This per cent. of participation was lower than that of
1914 and 1913 for the counties of the state whose re-
turns for those years are known. Taking the counties
separately, in six of them, aside from those especially
studied, the per cent. of the general election vote which
was cast at the primary was lower in 1916 than in
some other year or years; in eight others the vote for
1916 was higher than that reached for any other
year. The next primary will afford again an oppor-
tunity to measure the extent of participation, and it
will probably be a more normal year for this pur-
pose than has yet been had.

120
CHAPTER VII
THE CHARACTER OF PRIMARY VOTERS

The study of the primary records of the six coun-
ties investigated showed that approximately 60% of
the general election voters participate in the primary
election. Every advocate of the direct primary has
presented as among his strongest arguments for the
system, the increased interest of the voters in the direct
choice of party candidates as compared with that in
their indirect choice by means of delegates, this in-
creased interest leading to a corresponding enlarge-
ment of the number of voters who would respond to
the improved opportunity to exercise a direct and ap-
preciable influence in the designation of the party’s
candidates. All thoughtful people have emphasized
the importance of the primary election, pointing out
that it is a matter of greater moment even than the
general election because if proper candidates are not
presented for the latter, satisfactory public officials
cannot be secured and the election will simply be a
question of avoiding the greater of two evils. With
these arguments in mind it is difficult to understand
how persons appreciating the desirability, in accord-
ance with democratic ideals, of a broad suffrage, and
the conclusive power for good or ill of the primary,
can be at all content or satisfied with the participation
of only one-half the political people in the basic electo-
ral operation, if by any reasonable means the propor-
tion may be made larger. It is not denied that the
adoption of the direct nomination system has been
followed by a somewhat more extensive participation
in the primary, probably, but there have been few
evidences that the interest in the direct primary since
its adoption is greatly increasing, or that the per cent.
of the general election voters who attend the primary
will be in the future much, if any, higher than it has
been and is.

These facts being recognized, and their import un-:
derstood, the value of a knowledge of the character

12]
of the direct primary voters, and the weight of its
significance become apparent. Here stands a primary
class, men who regularly cast their ballots at the pri-
mary and thus determine who shall be our public offi-
cials. They constitute one-half, more or less, of the
body of voters who normally take part in the general
election. On an average are they, who select the can-
didates, more or less independent holders of the fran-
chise than the great body of voters? Is there any ap-
preciable difference in the make-up of the two bodies,
the latter containing the former? Are all the elements
of the larger body, the whole, equally represented as
constituent parts of the smaller body, the fraction?
Assume a group of 100 general election voters, will
the 50 who vote at the primary be composed of pro-
portionate parts of all the elements of population con-
tained in the 100, and if not will the parts of the more
or less independent elements predominate?

These important questions admit of no off-hand an-
swer, although such is often given. An effort has been
made to acquire some information on which to base
a competent judgment if any such judgment seems to
be attainable.

The most obvious, and perhaps the most widely sepa-
rated extremes of condition among the population of
New Jersey, exist in the large cities of the state—New-
ark, Jersey City, Paterson and (Camden. Here the in-
habitants of some whole wards are quite homogeneous
in respect of economic and intellectual standards, and
by comparing the size, of the primary vote, expressed
as 9 per cent. of the general election vote, of all the
wards of these cities in connection with a careful study
of the population of each ward, one may learn which
elements of the population predominate among pri-
mary election voters.

STUDY OF WARDS IN NEWARK, JERSEY CITY, PATERSON
AND CAMDEN

A precise and accurate ranking of a city’s wards on
the basis of a general standard of citizenship is a well-
nigh impossible task. The question at once arises as to
what determines merit in citizens. An honest and in-
terested intelligence in any man equips him with the
best sort of fitness for exercising the franchise, but it
is obviously not possible to obtain the facts on such

122
a matter without individual character studies. The
only procedure to be followed must be one which will
reveal facts indicative of political intelligence, honesty
and independence. Honesty and independence in vot-
ing are qualities which politicians generally concede
to the more prosperous men of any city, for the appeal
of a small sum of money is much greater to a poor
man living on the margin of subsistence than to a per-
son of means or the higher grade of artisans.

The difficulties to be met in connection with a search
for such facts are many and great. A sound judgment
of average wealth in wards, based on taxation statis-
tics, would require an intensive study of every ward
in order to eliminate various elements of a misleading
character. There must be taken into account the pres-
ence of banks, manufacturing plants, large and small
business houses, office buildings, and empty lots in
different parts of a city, and even then it might prove
necessary to go deeper and show the significance of the
magnificent apartment house, the poor tenement house,
the one-family mansion, and the one-family hovel.
Thorough inquiry would without doubt find other fac-
tors to challenge the reliability of statistics.

Nevertheless, it is by no means impossible to draw up
a broad and yet fair classification of wards. City offi-
cials are, as a rule, well acquainted with all the wards
so that their opinions of the relative merits of different
districts are quite trustworthy. This direct observation
and knowledge is especially useful and dependable when,
as is customarily the case, officers in divers branches
of administration rank the wards in much the same
way. And further, these results usually correspond
at least roughly with the percentage of illiteracy among
males of voting age, as shown in the U. S. census of
1910. In making this arrangement of wards, then, we
have solicited the opinion of such officers as city clerks,
chiefs of police, assessors, tax commissioners, health
department heads, outdoor relief commissions, and
charity workers, and have finally checked them up with
the U. S. census figures of 1910. Testimonies from
such widely-varying angles, converging to a general
agreement, are, we believe, reliable indications of the
type of citizenship in the several wards of a city.

Newark’s population in 1910 was 347,469, and by
1915 it had increased to the number of 366,721. The

123
arrangement of the wards of Newark presents a much
more complex problem than that of the other and
smaller cities to be considered. A large number of
destitute transient roomers of American birth detracts
from the value of the illiteracy percentage. Further
more, the population is so crowded in some sections of
the city that the types of people overlap the rather ar-
bitrary ward lines, with the result that any classifi-
cation of these wards must be accepted only in its
broad outlines.

The wealthier portions of the city all lie on the
northern and eastern heights, and include the 6th, 8th,
9th, 11th, 13th and 16th wards. Of this first group the
best living conditions are to be found in the 8th and
9th, which contains the finest residences of New-
ark. The 9th should be ranked slightly below the &th,
because its downtown section merges into the over-
crowded 4th; 75% of it, that part which lies near
Weequahic Park, is, however, the same in character
as the 8th. The 11th is also a very well-to-do home
district, for about 80% of the inhabitants are in good
circumstances. In the 16th and 13th, 70% and 65%,
respectively, of the people are in good circumstances,
while 20% of each are to be classed as “fair.” Hous-
ing conditions in both wards are good. Living condi-
tions in the 6th ward are also very good, but the people
who live here are not as prosperous or wealthy as those
of the other wards in this group. Of the inhabitants,
40% are business men, 40% clerks, and the remainder
unskilled laborers. In all these districts sanitary in-
spectors find only the routine work of inspection,
charity workers are nearly useless, and policemen are
merely highway ornaments. Independence from po-
litical influence exists in these wards with the excep-
tion of the last mentioned, the 6th, which is susceptible
to the influence of party workers.

We come next to a middle group comprising the
2nd, 7th, 14th, and 15th wards. In the second, 50%
of the people are in good circumstances, but the re--
mainder are uneducated, unskilled laborers, a large part
of whom are colored, living in overcrowded tenements.
The 7th, 14th, and 15th, contain a mixed population
of Italians, Jews, and negroes, whose standards of
living are rather poor. While the upper ends of these
wards are marked by comfortable living conditions,

124
the lower parts are characterized by want and igno-
rance. The 15th gives occasion for a great many
arrests, as does also the 14th, though not to such a
great extent. The 2nd and 15th are subject to po-
litical influence.

The third and last group includes the 1st, 3rd, 4th,
Sth, 10th, and 12th wards. The 4th contains a large
business district on one side, and on another it pre-
sents conditions of a most opposite nature ; 60% of the
inhabitants live in good circumstances, while 40% are
in dire destitution. The transient roving population
which dwells in the lodging houses is perhaps the
worst class of voters in the whole city. This district,
in spite of its small size, absorbs about one-fourth of
the charity expended on all the territory covered by
the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 12th wards. The 10th and 12th
wards are factory districts where one will find a poor
but rather thrifty class of Italians, Russians and Ger-
mans. A comparatively small amount of charity is
carried on here, and few arrests are recorded. These
are the two best wards of the group. The 5th is com-
posed of a large illiterate foreign population, chiefly
Italian, but with large numbers of Poles, Lithuanians
and Hungarians. Living conditions are very poor.
One-half of the relief work of the whole city is spent
on this one ward. The Ist has a strong foreign ele-
ment, which is almost impossible to educate; 60% of
the men are unskilled laborers and they live huddled
together in poor tenément houses. The 3rd ward is,
with the 4th, generally considered to be the lowest in
the scale in Newark. A great deal of sickness and
poverty is existent among the extremely large Jewish
proportion of the neighborhood. The bureau of chari-
ties does not handle the Jewish charity work, but, not-
withstanding, the living and health conditions among
the remainder of the population is such that it de-
mands a tremendous amount of social service. Un-
naturalized Italians and Poles are common here, and
arrests are more frequent then in any other non-busi-
ness section of the city. All the wards in this group
are influenced by party workers except the 3rd, where
the independent Hebrews remain aloof from persua-
sion.

The ranking follows, accompanied by the U. S.
census figures showing the chief foreign elements in

125
each ward, and also showing how the illiteracy per-
centage corresponds with the results:

Ward % Illiteracy of Males Chief Foreign Born Elements.
of Voting Age.
8 } Wards of greatest 2.1 German, Irish, Italian.
9 * - th 2.9 German.
11 Next in wealth Group 1 0.7 Irish, German,
ie Very well-to-do. i aoe Russian.
6 Fairly comfortable 4.4 German, Austrian
7 Group2 86 ‘feallan, Germ:
7 TOU) % ian,
14 e 9.0 Russian, Italian, German.
15 ; 116 Jislien. —_
12 } Thrifty but . rman, Russian. |
10 - i vee r 4 i a German, Russian.
1 (UV ivi TOU) : ,
5 i ordiGane , 13.2 Italian, Russian.
4 } Poorest living con- 5.7 Italian, Irish. _
3 ditions 6.3 Russian, Austrian.

Jersey City’s population was 267,779 in 1910, and
it is estimated by the U. S. Census Bureau that
this number had risen to 306,345 in 1916. City officers
generally concede that the lower wards, numbers 1 to
6, are marked by much worse living conditions and by
a more uneducated class of people than are the upper
six, numbers 7 to 12. One official stated that the Ist,
2nd, 4th, and 5th were all on a par at the bottom, while
the 3rd, 6th, and 11th were a trifle better. He believed
that the finest residential districts were to be found
in the 8th and 9th, and that moderate comfort ex-
isted in the 7th, 10th, and 12th wards. A tax officer’s
information was that the “Bon Ton” district contain-
ing the finest homes stretches through the 8th and 9th
wards, and that the most destitute and _ illiterate
people live'in the lst ward with its large Russian
colony, and the 5th, with the Italian colony. He gave
the 2nd, 6th and 4th as rather poor, and the 3rd, 7th
and 12th as moderately well-to-do.

Unlike Newark, the smaller cities, Jersey City,
Paterson, and Camden conduct their charity and police
work without regard to ward lines, so that accurate
statements are not possible. However, a police officer
advised us that the first five wards are responsible for
over half the arrests of the city. A poor relief worker
stated that one-third to one-half of their work was
spent in the lst and 2nd wards. The 5th, with the
large Italian population, is just as needy, but these
people have their own charity service. The 4th, 6th
and part of the 11th always supply the social settlement
workers with a great many urgent cases. The 7th,
8th and 9th rarely need any assistance. A health of-

126
ficer regarded the first five as the worst in point of
health, the 6th a little better, the 7th, 10th, 11th and
12th as quite comfortable, and the 8th and 9th as the
best. He was of the opinion that, in general, vitality
depends upon the wages and wealth of the people.
An example of the inadequacy of statistics for our
purpose might here be mentioned. The highest death
rate for the last three years occurred in one of the
two wealthiest wards, the 9th, while the lowest death
rate in 1914 and 1916 was in the 5th. Two politicians
were questioned. One said that the 8th and 9th were
the hardest for political workers to influence and were
consequently the most independent and intelligent.
The other frankly informed us that the machine could
handle one part of the town as well as another by the
use of diplomacy and favors in some districts and by
the dispensation of the friendly $5 bill in others.
Ward. mel ea aes Chief Foreign Born Elements
§ Two “Bon Ton” } Group 1
12 Modonitely

3 comfortable but Group 2
mA not wealthy

1

1

1

1

3

8

11 2
6 Very uneducated 4.
4 and poor Group 3 7.
2 10.
5 23.
1 22.

} Wards of least
wealth

Irish, German, English.
Trish, German.
German.

German.

   
 

German.

Trish.

Paterson’s population by the 1910 census was 125,-
600, and in 1916, by estimate, 138,443. One city offi-
cial stated that the most splendid living conditions
were in the 4th, 5th and 11th wards, while the most
wretched dwellings were in the 7th and 8th. The 6th
and Ist were in his mind nearly as bad as the 7th and
8th. He placed the remaining wards, the 2nd, 3rd,
9th and 10th in a middle class. A health officer felt
that the 5th and 2nd were the best districts from his
point of view, although he added that he rarely had
much work to do in the 11th, 4th or 9th. The worst
health conditions prevailed in the 6th and 3rd, he
thought, with the 7th and 8th nearly as bad. An offi-
cial on outdoor relief stated that about half of his
charity work was connected with the 7th, 8th and 6th
wards, and named the Sth, 11th and 2nd as the dis-
tricts where the most comfortable living conditions
were to be found. Another prominent official advised
that the 11th and 5th were the “silk stocking” wards.

127
He believed the 8th to be the poorest, on the whole,
although the 7th and 6th were about on a par. A poli-
tician stated that the “organization” could “handle”
the large foreign population in the 6th and 7th wards,
and the negro vote in the 4th with, ease, but that prac-
tically nothing could be done in the way of influence
in the 5th and 11th, where the people were independ-
ent.

Ward &% Illiteracy of Males Chief Foreign Born Elements
of Voting Age.
5 Two wealthiest 0.7 English, Irish.
11 i Group 1 0.8 Dutch, English.
4 6.6 Russian, English.
10 35 an, Irish.
2 Fairly comfortable 74 German, English, Russian.
9 conditions , Group 2 7.6 Italian, Irish.
1 5.1 Dutch, Russian.
3 Very poor 8.1 Italian, Dutch, German.
8 Group 3 48 Irish, Scotch.
6 } Poorest wards 20.0 Italian.
7 19.7 Italian, Irish.

Camden’s population by the 1910 census was 94,538
and the estimated population in 1916 was 106,233. In
1913, the 7th ward was broken up into two wards, the
7th and 13th. Asa result, the census statistics of 1910
show only twelve wards and will be partially inap-
plicable. The 13th ward will have a much higher rat-
ing than the old 7th, because it is a new district, prob-
ably the best in the city to-day.

One of the city officials had recently made a study
of the conditions throughout the city and was thus
especially qualified to give a judgment of the com-
parative merits of the wards. He stated that Camden
was not a city with great extremes of wealth or pov-
erty. A few tenement houses and dwellings of a very
poor nature are to be found, and yet, on the whole, the
city is fairly comfortable. And many a ward, he said,
contained both extremes in so far as they existed. A
single block was often composed of a little American
colony on one side, a negro colony on another, and an
Italian or Hebrew colony on a third side. On ac-
count of the uniform character of the wards as to
voters, he regarded it as a difficult task to classify the
city. The 13th ward he considered to be without
doubt the best sectional unit in Camden. It consists
largely of new houses built by intelligent people of
moderate means desiring to locate in a clean district
where they may be sure of a good neighborhood.
This is not the wealthiest district. Hle said that the

128
2nd was the next best because it contained Cooper
Street, the 5th Avenue of Camden. He believed that
the 9th should be ranked high because of the intelli-
gence of the voters. Though not living in a rich por-
tion of the city, the people are politically very inde-
pendent’ and thoughtful and free: from influence.
The 4th, lst and 10th are medium wards. The groug:
near the river, including the Sth, 3rd, 7th and 8th, are
all characterized by poor living conditions, especially
the 5th, with its Italian element. In the matter of
poverty he considered the 11th and 12th as most char-
acterized by it, but the 5th was nearly the same in this
regard and more known for the ease with which polit-
ical workers could influence the people, so that he
ranked this last as the worst. A tax officer stated that
the 2nd ward had the most satisfactory, living condi-
tions, in the Cooper Street residential district, but he
added that the 13th was a better ward as a whole.
He thought the general conditions of life to be least
satisfactory in the 5th, with not much difference in
favor of the 7th and 8th. Houses and tenements
in these three wards were far below the average.
More arrests take place in the 5th, 7th and 8th
wards than in any other residence portion of Cam-
den. The 13th and 2nd and 9th were particularly
free from arrests in spite of the fact that the 2nd and
9th contain within their boundaries parts of the busi-
ness section.

Ward % Illiteracy of Males Chief Foreign Born Elements.

of Voting Age.
3 Highest living f

pandars Group1 115 deh Bagish

2 Vea well-to-do roup ‘ ri nglish.

9 } and intelligent. 0.48 None.
10 0.21 English.

1 Moderatel: Group 2 0.69 on English.
4 comfortable. 0.85

3 6.10 Iesan.

6 Rather poor but Group 3 2.39 Russian, German.
11 not ignorant 1.31 German.
12 2.16 German.

7 Very poor 9.72 Russian, German.
8 I ‘ant Group 4 12.93 Russian, German.
5 oorest War 13.35 Italian.”

PRIMARY PARTICIPATION IN THESE MUNICIPALITIES

To learn the per cent. of the general election vote
which was cast at the primary each year in each of the
wards of these four cities was a comparatively easy
task. On account of a general change of ward
boundaries in Newark in 1912, the average primary
participation of each ward expressed as a per cent. of

129
the ward’s general election vote was computed for
only the last five years. Since the operation of the
present law is being studied it would not have been
desirable in any case to consider the primary par-
ticipation before 1911, and because the conditions of
that year were abnormal due to the first trial of the
new law it is perhaps just as well to include only the
years 1912-1916 in the average for Jersey City and
Paterson also, In Camden, the creation of a new ward
in 1913 made it necessary to average only the last four
years. The average primary vote by wards in these
cities was as follows:

News 68% 60% «48% «MH ©«—«GO. «BI «8
ewark..., 36% ne eye 2% 0% ae

8

52% 49% 55% 59% 64% 45% 44% 56% 46%
Ward. 1 2 3 5 6 7

demey best & 82% a ae 76% 79% 73% 60%

63% 68% 70% 68% 59%

Ward. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Raeeaoe: cae 61% 54% 53% 57% 62% 60% 66%
65% 66% 59% 67%
Ward. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Camden...... 61% 65% 63% 58% 59% 58% 57%
8 10 11 12 13

9
62% 59% 68% 56% 58% 51%

Table thirteen was made up to show graphically
the relation of the size of the primary vote in each
ward to the general character of the population of the
ward as determined by the methods explained above.

The variation in the extent of participation in the
wards of Newark, 44% to 66%, and of Jersey City,
59% to 87%, seems too great to be based on trifling
or transient causes. What all the factors are in pro-
ducing such a remarkable variation among the wards
in the interest taken in the primary it is quite beyond
human power to determine. One of the most com-
monly assigned reasons for a large primary vote is the
existence of contests for nomination, and for a small
primary vote the absence of such contests; but all the
wards of the same city are equally affected in this
matter at any one election except for the contests for
nomination to ward offices. These contests in the four
cities were recorded for the years included in arriving
at the average per cent. of participation and an ex-
amination of their distribution does not seem to show
a necessary relationship between a large primary vote
and numerous contests. There is no doubt that con-

130
        

Percentage of General Election Voters Participating un the Mireck Parnary Election
“PaTERSON Jersey City

36

Ps Tifafio[2zt [i [sis jet7} ST 9 [23 [7 fot fe j4i2z[sT7
Reading Lest to Righk - Wards Rated Wigh to Low on Basis of

    

[nteWigence ,Reonomic Station and Lnarependatnec,

Per centage of (

 

Reading Left Lol

Lntelle gence,
Percentage of Geneva\ Election Voters Participating inthe
Divect Prumarcsy Election

    

NEWARK CAMDEN

8

rs loi7Vevalelzl7atsteapol [sl413) Wilete¢lvel7 Teja feta fai7Te Ts
Reading Left to Right - Wards Rated Kugh colow on Basis of

Lntelle gene ¢ Economic Station and Lrdependence

   
tests do as a general rule bring out the primary vote,
but a ward contest-would have to be an exciting one in
order to increase the vote over that brought out by a
mayoralty contest or a county or state contest. The
effect of single instances of this sort will be distributed
and largely neutralized by the employment of the
average participation for a period of years; but if con-
tests were more frequent in some wards than in others
this fact itself would need explanation and might per-
haps be assigned to interest in the primary, which
would bring one back to the starting point again. Po-
litical tradition is somewhat enduring and the preva-
lence of contests and a high primary vote in certain
wards might in some cases be assigned to the former
presence of aggressive, energetic leaders as a cause,
or perhaps to a long-lived factional fight. Whatever
strength is allowed to these foregoing influences, the
fact is that for the last five years the primary vote in
Jersey City has been quite noticeably higher in the less
well-to-do and independent wards than in those of
opposite characteristics. Why this has been so, it is
not attempted here to answer. As noted above some
persons would class the third ward roughly with the
first six. If this classification is correct a very con-
siderable exception to the apparent variation in pri-
mary interest inversely as the increase of the com-
monly desirable conditions of life in Jersey City, dis-
appears. It must be remembered that this is not a
study of the relation of political interest in general, ‘but
of interest in the direct primary, to certain conditions
of human life in New Jersey cities. No claim what-
ever is made that there is anything like a law of pri-
mary interest to be formulated from the above facts.

When the Newark chart is studied there at once
seem to be three glaring exceptions to the condition
found in Jersey City. These are the third, fourteenth
and eleventh wards. Two of them are not so excep-
tional as they seem. The per cent. of illiteracy in the
third is less than that in several wards given a higher
rank, and the population is quite exclusively Jewish,
people who are normally, perhaps, more intelligent
than others in an equal condition of life, and who in
Newark at any rate are known as not being readily
susceptible to political influence. The population of
about half the fourteenth ward is considerably like that

131°
of the third and the rest is of a materially higher
economic station. The eleventh ward seems to remain
an exception. Taking the order of the wards as they
are given above, it is found that the average partici-
pation for the first group is 50144%; for the second
55%, and for the third 59%.

With respect to Paterson and Camden there seems
to be absolutely no sign of evidence that interest in
the primary goes along with amenability to political
influence, slighter intelligence and unsatisfactory phys-
ical surroundings, or the reverse. The largest of
these two municipalities is less than half the size of
Jersey City, and in both, especially in the latter, the
extremes in all conditions of life are not so marked.
It will be noted that the range of variation in the per
cent. of primary participation is within narrower limits
in each than in Newark or Jersey City,—from 53%
to 67% in Paterson and from 50% to 65% in Cam-
den. On the whole, the difference in the per cent. of
the general election vote cast at the primary is very
striking in Newark and Jersey City, and certainly in
the latter, in general in the former, the vote has been
proportionately smaller in what are commonly con-
sidered to be the better wards and larger in those
usually viewed as less desirable. There is no indica-
tion of this condition in Paterson and Camden. In the
two former municipalities the voters of the poorer
wards play a larger part in the nomination of mayor,
for example, than do the voters of the richer wards. If
there is any tendency in the large cities of the country
for primary interest to vary inversely as the wealth,
education and independence of the voters, it would
require a much more extensive study to discover it.

RELATIVE POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRIMARY
VOTERS

In New Jersey, as in almost all of the states of the
United States, except the southern, the “one man one
vote” of universal, or universal male, suffrage pre-
vails. A man votes because he isa man. There is in
evidence little or no desire on anyone’s part to apply
any restriction to the present suffrage, but a question
frequently debated is whether an educational qualifi-
cation should not be required for voting, and if there
were substantial equality of opportunity to acquire a

132
primary education, little argument could be presented
on the negative and in fact in Massachusetts one must
be able to read in order to vote, while with some quali-
fications the literacy test has recently been adopted by
the congress of the United States as the best available
means to restrict the entrance of undesirable aliens
into the country. If an illiterate alien should not be
admitted to the United States, because he will not be
a desirable inhabitant, it would seem that literacy must
be all the more a proper measure, by and large, of the
desirability of a voter.

The most prevalent qualification, almost universally
so, for the suffrage in the early years of the country’s
history was economic—the possession of wealth in
some form, preferably land. This qualification has
practically disappeared, although in Pennsylvania a
man must have paid a tax in order to be able to vote,
and in Rhode Island, until recently, for the privilege
of voting at certain municipal elections the ownership
of a limited amount of property was required. Be-
sides, a property qualification is rather frequently im-
posed in municipalities for voting on referendum
measures of a financial nature. Regardless of whether
one would favor or oppose a property or tax qualifica-
tion of any kind, it must be admitted that, in general,
the man in good economic circumstances is a
more desirable citizen and voter than the one with
hardly anything in his possession and liable at any
time to become a public charge. The United States
immigration law excludes paupers, and those likely to
become paupers. Again, granted equality of oppor-
tunity, the possession of a comfortable living would be
indicative of certain praiseworthy elements of char-
acter and a guarantee of more or less independence of
opinion and judgment. “An empty sack cannot stand
upright,” said Poor Richard.

The laws of all states recognize that criminality
should disfranchise and that political corruption and
dishonesty should ‘be punished by the loss of the
suffrage.

In view of these facts one may conclude that per-
haps the most important characteristics of a desir-
able voter are intelligence, independence and honesty, '
and at the primary the first, and possibly the other two
as well, are more essential than at the general election

133
when broad questions of policy are supposed to be in-
volved on which even the unlettered man may properly
be consulted as to his preference, because at the pri-
mary a really valuable vote must be based on an ac-
quaintance with the qualifications and character of the
numerous aspirants for the party nomination. It being
presumed that the voters of any given ward of a large
city are in general on comparatively the same intel-
lectual, economic and moral plane, the problem of
making a distinction between them becomes rather dif-
ficult. Since, however, the advantage of the direct
primary lies in its enabling the party voters who are
independent of political control to express a preference
for certain candidates for nominations, the question of
the independence of the voter becomes of uppermost
importance. How shall the independence of the voter
be measured? Practically everyone agrees to-day that
the number of independent voters is increasing and
that they are becoming more and more the determin-
ing factor in many an election contest. This fact is
viewed hopefully by many of those who insist at the
same time that the two-party system is indispensable
in the proper conduct of a democratic government.
The party system is encouraged at the same time that
ballot scratching by the voter and caucus bolting by
the representative legislator, that is, the exercise of
independent judgment, are encouraged. To what
party the voters in California belong, who at the last
election sent Governor Johnson to the United States
Senate and continued President Woodrow Wilson in
his office, is as unanswerable a question as that of the
politics of the Oregon voters who keep about nine-
tenths of their state legislature Republican and at the
same time support two Democratic senators in Wash-
ington, if party means a group of citizens united in
adherence to certain principles which they wish to
make dominant in the operation of the government.
However, “independence” in a political sense means
the exercise of personal judgment combined with free-
dom from party domination and is usually supposed
to be indicated by voting a split ticket. The voter who
thus votes will likely be less under the influence of the
party organization at the primary than the voter who
accepts the party ticket whole and “votes it straight,”

134
that is, the former will be more likely to use his vote
to “break a slate” at the primary than the former.
The questions (a) below were mailed to all the
registered voters in two of the most well-to-do dis-
tricts of the city of Newark and in one at the bottom
of the economic scale, The other poor district was can-
vassed by individuals to solicit the same information.

Question one served only as an introduction, as
did the first part of question two, to which the primary
books show the answer. The reason for not voting at
the primary was asked with a view to obtaining defi-
nite knowledge on a rather disputed point by an appeal
to the voters. By question three an attempt is made
to secure an indication of the voter’s “independence”
and by question four a referendum on the direct pri-
mary is submitted. From the thirteenth district of the
8th ward 96 replies were received, from the fourteenth
district of the 9th ward 82, and from the third district
of the 3rd ward 25. The voters of these districts who
did not reply by letter were canvassed later by indi-
viduals. The desired information was obtained from
no additional voters in the 3rd ward. There were 323
voters registered for the thirteenth district of the 8th
ward and responses of some kind were obtained from
128 of them. Of these 128, 94, 73%, voted at the
primary and 33 did not, according to their answers,
one not recorded. Of those who voted at the primary
46 voted a slit ticket at the general election and 45
voted a straight ticket, and 3 are unrecorded. Of
those who did not vote at the primary 20 voted a split
ticket at the general election and 10 voted a straight,
3 unrecorded. Of the entire group 66 voted a split
ticket and 55 a straight ticket. Of the 128, 90 favored
the direct primary, and 16 the convention system, with
22 non-committal or not answering. Of those who
favored the direct primary 51 voted a split ticket and
35 a straight ticket, 4 not recorded. Of those who
favored the convention 6 voted a split ticket and 9 a
straight ticket, 1 not recorded. Of those who favored

(a) 1. Did you register for the election last fall? If not, please

state your reason,

2. Did you vote at the primary election last fall? If not, please
state your reason. : : .

3. At the general election did you vote a “straight” or “split”
ticket? (That is, did you vote for all candidates of one
party only or for some candidates of both parties?)

4, Which do you think better for making nominations, the direct
primary or the convention system? Why?

135°
the primary 71 voted at it and 19 did not. Of those
who favored the convention system 11 voted at the
primary and 4 did not, 1 not recorded. The official
return sheet shows that in this district 196 ballots were
cast at the primary, by the 323 registered voters. The
above staternent of the result of the letters and canvass
shows how difficult it is for a private organization or
individual to get any valuable data from more than a
comparatively small fraction of the voters of any dis-
trict. It is much to be regretted that such is the case.
The voters from whom replies were elicited comprised
for some reason many more than the average propor-
tion of primary voters. The first fact which appears
from the tabulation is that the primary voters are
divided almost equally into what may be termed regu-
lars and independents, while among the non-primary
voters the independents were twice as numerous as the
regulars. A very strong sentiment prevails favorable
to the direct primary and it is rather strange that only
seven-ninths of those who prefer the direct primary
voted at it. The percentage of independents among
those who favored the primary is considerably higher
than among those who favored the convention. The
22 non-committal replies came from voters who di-
vided evenly into those voting split and those voting
straight, 11 each.

The tenth district of the 4th ward was chosen as
one of those typical of the area of the city in which a
more or less unsettled population lives. In this dis-
trict 196 voters were registered and 60 responses were
received but only 57 are intelligible for the purpose of
this inquiry. Of those 57, 46 voted at the primary
(81%) and 11 did not. Of the 46 who voted at the
primary 13 voted the split ticket and 25 voted the
straight ticket, 8 not recorded. Of those 11, who,
did not vote at the primary, none voted split, 5 voted
straight, and 6 are not recorded. What the latter fact
means is not known. Of the entire group 13 voted a
split ticket and 30 voted a straight ticket at the general
election. Of the 57, 36 favored the direct primary and
8 the convention system, with 13 not expressing a pre-
ference. Of those who favored the direct primary, 7
voted a split ticket, 24 voted a straight, 5 not recorded.
Of those who favored the convention, 2 voted a split
ticket and 4 voted straight, 2 not recorded. Of those

136
who favored the direct primary 30 voted at it and 6
did not, of those who favored the convention 6 voted
at the primary and 2 did not. In this district 78
voters took part in the primary out of the 196 reg-
istered. The data collected would indicate as far as it
goes that the primary voters, although not nearly so
inclined to independency as in the 8th ward, are more
inclined thus than those who did not vote, unless 2 or
more of those not recorded voted a split ticket. Com-
paring the entire vote with that in the 8th ward dis-~
trict the ratio of independency favors the latter thus
66:55 instead of 13:30,

As explaining why information could not be had
from more voters in the district it may be said that
3 had died, 4 or 5 worked away from home in the
evenings, the investigators were put out of 5 places,
and 5 or 6 refused to answer. Forty-six had moved,
a fact which throws some light on the general char-
acter of the ward population. The remainder of those
from whom nothing was learned could not be found
in three calls made for the purpose.

Answers were obtained from 137 voters in the
fourteenth district, of the 9th ward, which is very
much like the 8th, of whom 84 voted at the primary
and 51 did not. The primary voters, 9 being unrecorded,
divided at the general election into 49 voting straight
and 30 voting split; the non-primary voters into 19
voting straight and 30 voting split. Of the entire
group 69 voted straight at the general election and
61 split, 95 favored the direct primary and 19 the
convention, 23 not answering on this point.

For the third district of the 3rd ward letters were
sent to 278 registered voters, and only 25 replies were
received. Fifteen of those sending replies voted
at the primary and 10 did not. This division is al-
most exactly the same as for the district above, but
it may be suggested that replies were probably re-
ceived from the more intelligent voters, although
the fact may be an indication of the unusual inde-
pendence of the voters of this ward, as was ’ men-
tioned above.

Of the 15 who voted at the primary 8 voted split
tickets at the general election and 5 voted straight,
2 unrecorded. Of the 10 who did not vote at the

137
primary, 6 voted split and 4 straight. The propor-
tions are approximately the same. If the replies of
two voters who gave illness and absence as reasons
for not voting at the primary be not counted, then
the other 8 who did not attend the primary stood 4
split to 4 straight. Whether any inference at all
is to be drawn from the action of so small a part of
the voters of the district is doubtful.

The third district of the 9th ward of Jersey City
(a) was taken as typical of the more desirable areas
of that municipality. In it 397 voters were regis-
. tered and partial or complete information was ob-

tained from 261 of them, of whom 207 (79%) voted
at the primary and 50 did not, 4 being unaccounted
for. Of the primary voters 75 voted a split ticket
and 122 a straight ticket, 10 not recorded. Of those
who did not vote at the primary, 26.voted a split
ticket and 23 a straight ticket, 1 unrecorded. Of the
entire group 101 voted a split ticket and 145 a
straight ticket at the general election. Of the 261,
220 favored the direct primary and 15 favored the
convention with 26 unrecorded or in doubt. Of
‘those who favored the direct primary 88 voted a

split ticket and 119 a straight ticket, 13 not recorded.
Of those who favored the convention 5 voted a split
ticket and 10a straight ticket. Of those who favored
the direct primary 175 voted at the primary and 39
did not, 6 unrecorded; of the 15 who favored the
convention 12 voted at the primary and 3 did not:
In this district, of the 394 registered voters 227 at-
tended the primary and 378 the general election. In
expressing approval of the direct primary fourteen
voters on their own initiative went out of the way
in a sense to say that they thought all primary tickets
should be on one ballot. This can indicate nothing
else than a desire to avoid a declaration of party
affiliation as now required, which is, no doubt,
something that keeps many voters away from the
primary.

The other district selected in Jersey City was the
8th of the first ward. The registered voters num-
bered 281. Answers were obtained from 223 of them.
It would almost be sufficient to say that all voted

 

(a) Canvassers were used exclusively in Jersey City and Paterson,

138
at the primary and all voted a straight ticket at the
general election and all favored the direct primary.
For the sake of completeness of detail a somewhat
more definite tabulation, to take account of excep-
tions, will be given. Of the 223, 217 (97%) voted
at the primary and every one of them but one voted
a straight ticket, with eight not recorded, who may
have voted a split ticket and have been ashamed of it.
Of the six men who did not vote at the primary, two
voted a split ticket, and the other four straight. It
seems quite worthless to attempt to deduce any sig-
nificance from the action of so small a number, but
it is rather remarkable that of the three split tickets
cast, two were those of men who were not at the
primary, the entire group of six non-primary voters
constituting 1/37 of those from whom replies were
received. All favored the direct primary except
eleven who did not express a preference. A com-
parison of the two Jersey City districts shows that
in the wealthier the ratio of split to straight tickets
was 101:145, and in the poorer district the ratio was
3:212. In the wealthier district the participation in the
primary was 60%, and in the poorer 81% of the gen-
eral election vote.

The character of two of the poorer districts, the
10th of the 4th ward in Newark, and the one in
Jersey City, is quite different, as is shown partly by
the number of replies received in each. The Newark
ward contained a great body of floating population,
transients, migrants, mostly, perhaps, judging from
the names, of American birth; the Jersey City dis-
trict contained a more stable, settled population,
very many of them of foreign birth or parentage,
perhaps on about the same economic level as those
of the Newark district, but probably in general less
intelligent and more moral.

Some study of the reasons for not attending the
primary given by the voters of the three districts in
Newark, who replied by mail, will be offered.
Twenty-six voters from the first district gave reasons
for not voting at the primary. One thought he was
ineligible; five said they were ineligible by removal,
insufficient residence, or non-citizenship; five were
away from home; five were busy; two lacked in-

1 139
formation as to the polling places of candidates;
four did not wish to be known as affiliated with any
particular party ; three admitted lack of interest, and
one reason was not classified. In the second district
30 voters gave reasons: two thought they were
ineligible; two were ineligible; nine were away, or
out of the city; two were busy; one lacked informa-
tion; seven were non-partisan, and did not wish to
be associated with any party; three lacked interest,
and three were unclassified. From the third dis-
trict seven reasons were received: One voter was
away; one lacked interest; four did not care to dis-
close their politics, and one reason was unclassified.
The prevailing reasons given were “away” or “out of
the city,” 15 times, and unwillingness to designate
membershif: in a party, 15 times; the next most numer-
ous reasons were “business,” lack of time 7, and lack
of interest 7. A great many voters who said they did not
vote at the primary gave no reason. It is worth careful
consideration that a reason affecting as many voters
as any other is “independence” of party. These are
surely not undesirable voters, not unintelligent, nor
unthinking, nor dishonest. The reason given just
as often was “away,” or “out of the city.” Yet these
men voted at the general election, presumably, and
are hardly to be classed as undesirable. It is likely
that they made a point of being at home on election
day, partly because of its being a holiday, no doubt,
but did not wish to change their program of business
to enable them to vote at the primary. Of course,
it may be said that they ought to take sufficient in-
terest in the primary to stay at home, which is true,
but it does not change the fact that intelligent votes
are lost in this way.

In Paterson the district selected as among those
containing the most stable, substantial, intelligent
and independent population, was the third of the
5th ward; and as typical of conditions among the
opposite elements of population the third of the
7th was chosen. In the former 234 voters were
registered, and 143 responded, wholly or in part, to
the inquiries directed to them by the canvassers.
The primary voters numbered 121 to 22 who did
not vote. Absence was the predominating reason

140
given for not attending the primary followed, by
indifference and lack of time. Of the entire group,
77 voted straight and 47 split, 17 declined to answer
and 2 were not certain which way they voted. The
primary voters divided 67 straight and 38 split, the
non-primary voters 10 straight and 9 split. Here
again it is unfortunate that a greater number of
responses could not be elicited from voters who did
not participate in the primary. If the ratios of
straight to split in the parts of the two groups be
accepted as true for the entire groups of primary
and non-primary voters the latter are about 1%
times as independent as the former. The direct pri-
mary was favored by 111, the convention system by
18, and 14 were non-committal. In the latter district
there were 276 registered voters, from 194 of whom
more or less information was obtained. Of these
194, 170 voted at the primary and 21 did not. “Not
interested,” was the most frequent reply to the ques-
tion seeking the reason for not voting at the pri-
mary. The next in frequency was “Busy,” and two
answered, “Do not like the primary.” The straight
voters numbered 95, the split voters 49, and 44 re-
fused to answer, while six others could not be re-
corded on account of not voting or for some other
cause. The primary voters contained 91 who voted
straight at the general election, and 43 who voted
- split, while of the non-primary voters 4 voted
straight and 5 split.

Here again the replies from the voters who did
not attend the primary are so few as to render hardly
justifiable any strong conclusion in regard to the
comparative independence of the two groups.
Briefly stated, the independents outnumbered
slightly the regulars among the non-primary voters,
while among the primary voters they constituted
somewhat less than one-half. The attitude of this
district toward the direct primary was as favorable
as that of the others, 169 preferring it and 16 pre-
ferring the convention system, with 9 silent. Ex-
pressed in per cent. the degree of independence, as
between the two districts, favors the former by the
ratio of 33 to 25, if the total number of responses
is taken as 100%, and by a ratio of 38 to 34 if the

141
sum of “straight” and “split” voters is taken a8
100%.

The Geran law required personal registration in all
municipalities not exceeding 5000 in population; that
is, the voter must go to the board of elections, answer
the specified questions, sign his name, and so on.
CANVASS OF VOTERS IN SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE, SALEM

AND WESTFIELD

In municipalities of 5000 population or less, all
qualified voters were to be registered by the members
of the boards of election in a house to house canvass.
Under the provisions of the Geran law the number
of voters registered by personal appearance even in
municipalities greatly under 10000 where there had
been comparatively little likelihood of fraudulent reg-
istration under the previous lax system, showed a de-
cided decrease. The 1916 legislature removed the re-
quirement of personal registration in all municipalities
not exceeding 10000 population. The law affected
almost thirty municipalities whose population exceeded
5000, but not 10000. The restoration of the method
of registration by the canvass of the election officers
operated to increase the number of registered voters
to a degree out of all proportion to any population
growth, and not to be accounted for by the interest in
a presidential election alone. For example, while the
population increased in South Orange Village roughly
from 7000 to 7350, the increase in registration was
39%, as it was also in Salem. At any rate,
the situation afforded an opportunity to obtain
the names of the qualified voters in these munici-
palities who. were registered by the canvass in
1916, but had not appeared before the boards of
election for personal registration in 1915. The reasons
why these citizens failed to take any step toward the
exercise of their right and duty of suffrage are of
concern to every public spirited citizen, aside from
their place in an investigation of the primary law’s
operation. First an attempt was made to discover
whether this group was made up mainly of the more
or of the less well-to-do elements of the population;
in other words, to discover whether any marked dif-
ference in the economic condition of the non-voting
citizens existed, as compared with that of those who
voted. The average assessed valuation of the personal

142
and real property of these non-voters (1915) was
compared with the average for all voters. In South
Orange the total assessed valuation for the non-voting
group of 559 was $710,850, making an individual
average assessment of $1271.11. The total valuation
of the village, barring corporation and railroad prop-
erty, was $12,196,850, which, when divided by 1616,
the number of registered voters in 1916, gave an aver-
age of $7547.55. The two averages are in the ratio of
1:5.9, and would tend to prove that non-voting is more
prevalent among the less able class, economically, But
a large number of men who are taxed for a com-
paratively small amount of personal property, live in
well-to-do families, and valuable estates are often as-
sessed against the names of women. The above ratio
is therefore, in all probability, misleading. Practically
the same results were obtained in Salem: total valua-
tion, $4,227,900; 2102 voters registered in 1916;
$2011.37 average assessment for each; $188,860 valu-
ation of the group unregistered in 1915; $283.57 aver-
age assessment for each; 7.1:1, the ratio of the average
valuation of all qualified voters to the average valua-
tion of those not registered in 1915.

A second method suggested itself as a means of
determining whether political unconcern is attached
to economic conditions and in what relation. Taking
by actual survey the streets and parts of streets which
constituted the sections of lowest valuation in South
Orange, it was found that 91 of the 257 voters, 35.4%,
registered by canvass from these districts in 1916 had
not registered personally in 1915; in the sections of
highest valuation, 90 out of 241 had not registered in
1915, 37.3%. The degree of indifference, to judge by
‘this criterion, is in general the same throughout the
population. For Salem the corresponding figures were
52.1% and 48.4%. On the whole, however, the sta-
tistics for South Orange and Salem only point to the
conclusion that the degree of political indifference is
not to be determined by economic standing in smaller
municipalities.

The question why certain qualified voters do not
register or vote at all, do not exercise their rights,
and the question why others who do register and vote
at the general election do’ not vote at ‘the primary
election are different and separate questions, the former

143
less directly related to the problem of the direct pri-
mary than the latter. In each of the three small mu-
nicipalities studied as typical of all thosé in the state,
letters were sent to the voters who were registered
in 1916 but not in 1915, asking them to state their
reasons for not registering in the earlier year. Practi-
cally all of those who did not reply, as well as the re-
mainder of the registered voters to whom no letters
were sent, were called upon later by canvassers in per-
son, as in the case of the districts studied in Newark,
Jersey City and Paterson.

‘A brief description of each municipality is inserted
before the results of the investigation conducted in it
are presented, so that a background may be afforded
for the study, and any condition peculiar to the mu-
nicipality brought out.

The village of South Orange is one of the unusual
municipalities which have freed themselves from the
customary Republican-Democratic political rivalry.
South Orange is unique in being practically the live-
liest village in New Jersey, for Ridgewood; the only
other one, is hardly comparable in size or importance.
A special charter incorporating the village of South
Orange dates from 1869, and an amended revision
was passed in 1872 which, with slight changes, still
remains as the fundamental village law.

Under the charter the administration of the govern-
ment is vested in a board of trustees, elected by the
citizens at an annual election in April, and holding
office for overlapping terms of two years. An elec-
tion of the president and three trustees in one year
‘is followed by the election of three trustees the next
April. The trustees serve without pay and are the
only elective officers in the village. They appoint and
remove the administrative officers, such as the treas-
urer, the collectors, the fire chief, the counsel, the police
marshal and the health inspector, the selection of which
officers is subject to civil service restrictions. The one
exception to this rule is the police justice, who is ap-
‘pointed by the governor of the state. The trustees also
appoint and remove the members of the board of as-
sessments, the tree commission and the board of health,
and both the boards and executive officers are respon-
sible to the board of trustees for carrying out their gen-
eral policy or even occasional specific orders. The

144
minor employes are chosen by civil service examina-
tions. This government in its broad outlines is an ap-
proach to the “city manager and commission” plan in
that the clerk is, in a limited sense, the executive secre-
tary for a single elected commission.

The citizens are apparently well satisfied with the
system. Graft and corruption are eliminated, and a
smoothly-running conduct of business has been main-
tained. City officials give as their chief reason for this
success the fact that the administration of civic duties
has been taken out of the realm of ordinary politics.
The separation of the national and state elections from
the village election by the advancement of the latter to
April tends in turn to effect a separation of the politics
connected with each of the two. Candidates for the
board of trustees are nominated by mass meetings
which are open to all and which are attended
by large numbers of voters. Usually the citi-
zens union carries on the only meeting of this
kind, although occasionally another group will or-
ganize an opposition party and name itself the tax
payers’ party, the peoples’ party or the civic party.
But in case of such a division the two parties do not
correspond to Republicans and Democrats. Opponents
in national party affiliations work side by side in vil-
lage affairs, and, again, good Republicans may be of~-
posed to one another as to local questions.

South Orange, as a wealthy suburb of New York,
contains an unusually well-to-do type of citizens, and is
in that way relieved from many problems of the aver-
age city, but nevertheless the chances for petty graft
are plentiful and credit must be given for the preven-
tion of this evil. The salient fact is that the public
selects boards of trustees which are composed of
prominent and responsible citizens, citizens who would
probably possess neither the opportunity nor the desire
to seek office through the usual channels of municipal
politics.

In South Orange reasons for not registering in 1915
were obtained from 233 of those 559 qualified voters
in 1916, who were not registered the former year.

“These reasons are not very satisfactory, but are here

‘presented :
Out of town at the time for registration...............65 46
‘Not of voting age-....sccseecetecteneerenseecoeceennaey 8

145
Not a resident of South Orange in 1915..........-5-+6- 90

Lace of title jes cis gases bie acca ancmananu 4 dena tener a caaing 4
Indifference and neglect............. cc see cece e eee eneeee 81
(Of those giving this reason, some never vote.)

Unwillingness to declare politics............seeeees Buse
Desirous of changing party.........ececeeeeeeeeeeereee 2

There are three days for registration, and the first
reason given hardly seems justifiable ; it may almost be
said to be equivalent to indifference. The last two
reasons do not apply with any force to a failure to
register. }

Information on one or more of the questions printed
above which were used in all of the areas canvassed
was obtained from 592 voters. Due to incomplete an-
swers the divisions below do not always tally with one
another. Those who voted at the primary numbered
446, those who did not 146, A straight ticket was
voted at the general election by 372, a split ticket by
175; there were 485 who favor the direct primary to
60 for the convention system, with 25 undecided.

Of those who cast straight ballots, 299 had attended
the primary, 75 had not. Of those who cast split bal-
lots, 130 had attended the primary and 38 had not.
That is, the per cent. of the primary voters for straight
and split were 69.7:30.3, and of the non-primary
voters 66.4:33.6. This shows a very little greater
degree of independence manifested by the non-primary
voters than by those who participate in the primary.
For this type of citizenship there seems to have
been a higher per cent. of straight voters than might
have been expected. There is an explanation, pre-
sumably, in the fact that the municipal election is held
in the spring and the voter confines his attention more
to policies than to men at the general election.

The reasons assigned for not voting at the primary
by 111 of those who did not vote are these: (1)
away, 40; (2) indifference, neglect, 27; (3) ineligibil-
ity, 17; (4) business, 11; (5) not registered for the
primary (this amounts to lack of interest), 7; (6)
opposed to the primary, 5; (7) lack of information,
2; (8) unwillingness to declare politics, 2. The
last reason in South Orange seems almost negligible,
unless it be grouped with the sixth. How many of
those giving reasons would prove desirable voters at
the primary is an unanswerable question, but that their
vote should be obtained if possible cannot be denied by

146
anyone who believes. in the advisability of universal
suffrage.

Salem City has a population of 6,953, according to
the state census of 1915. The proximity of many in-
dustrial and commercial cities to New York or Phila-
delphia determines their somewhat dependent relation
to these large centers. In such a city as Salem, how-
ever, there is a greater degree of independence in
business activity, for, situated as it is at some distance
from Philadelphia, it is a small commercial center of
its own. Salem is a terminal of a Pennsylvania rail-
road branch line from Philadelphia, and also of the
Salem and Philadelphia Navigation Company, whose
steamers ply the Salem and Delaware rivers daily.
Its location in the midst of an agricultural and fruit
raising country affords it an opportunity to handle
a great deal of shipping. Then, too, it is the home
of extensive glass factories and fruit and vegetable
canning plants employing approximately 2150 persons.
These industries, together with the terminal facilities
for shipping agricultural and manufacturing products,
are the factors which go to make Salem a city of inde-
pendent interest. A Jersey City business man, living
in the shadow of New York, might be inclined to spell
his city’s name with a small j c, but a Salem inhabitant,
despite his city’s smallness, will unquestionably use a
capital S. There is in existence here a civic interest
among the prominent business men, distinguishing this
city from a suburb like South Orange, where citizens
are so much concerned with low taxes and smooth
streets for automobiles.

The citizens are apparently very conservative in dis-
position, inclined to look upon innovations with sus-
picion and are not a little wary of any undue interest in
their political views and.habits.

‘The city has no extremes of wealth or poverty. The
dwellings are for the most part very uniform and give
indication of only moderate comfort. A glance at the
tax duplicate shows that people are far from rich, but
it must be remembered in this connection that rents
are low and the cost of living comparatively cheap.
A large number of unskilled laborers are to be found
here, especially among the negroes, who comprise 15
to 20% of the population, Salem may well be con-
sidered as an average American city of its size.

147
Reasons for not registering in 1915 were obtained
from only 63 of the 499 citizens whose names were on
the lists in 1916, but not in the former year. As in
the case of South Orange, they do not seem to be indi-
cative of anything but general political indifference or
ignorance. They are as follows:

Out of town at the time of registration................. 19
Not a resident of Salem in 1915............sececeseeeees 24
Indifference and neglect............ce ce eeeee eve escennons 10
Not: Of ‘VGtinie ABE Ww. c eee esiee eed acnoucele es een emceeaaae oo 7
Lack of eda tion. ws... ceicsiece cee niacin 046 bee am 2
Protesting against the primary...............cesceeeeeee 1

There were eleven who replied to the other questions
but gave no reason for not registering. It would
probably require a personal acquaintance of some
length with most of those from whom no replies were
received in order to get at their real reasons for not
performing the political duties of citizens, and it is
a question how valuable the information would be
when elicited. If any provision of the personal regis-
tration law proves objectionable to persons who really
are desirous of voting, it seems that it should be elimi-
nated provided this could be done with safety. As a
rule, however, many persons registered by canvass
fail to vote, and apparently would vote only if called
upon by a public officer with a request for their prefer-
ence among candidates. Certainly both registering and
voting should be simplified to the last degree, but not
at the risk of making ineffective through another’s
fraud the vote of the man who can and will partici-
pate under a thoroughly regulated system.

All told, only 130 voters (a) in Salem responded to
the request for answers to the usual questions. Of
-these, 75 attended the primary, 55 did not attend. The
primary voters contained 36 who voted straight at the
general election, 29 who voted split; the voters who
did not participate in the primary contained 24 who
voted straight at the general election and 14 who
voted split. The kind of ticket voted by 27 of one or
the other group was not learned. The degree of inde-
pendence manifested by the primary voters seems
greater than that of the non-voters. Altogether, 60
voted straight and 45 split; 83 favored the direct pri-

 

(a) This is a very much smaller percentage of replies than was re-
ceived in South Orange or Westfield. Difficulty was experienced in
securing canvassers and the work was rather hurriedly done, indeed
in a measure left incomplete due to lack of time before the close of
the investigation.

148
mary and 19 the convention system. Of the 55 who
did not vote at the primary, 43 gave reasons as follows:
away, 14; indifference or neglect, 15; ineligibility
through change of residence, 5; not registered for the
primary, 4; sickness, 4; lack of time, 1; not of age, 1.
Whether the numerical relations of the different groups
of voters distinguished above would have been changed
materially by the result of a more thorough canvass
cannot be told.

The population of Westfield as shown in the last
census is 8147. It would seem quite probable that a
very large part of the population is composed of well-
to-do people having business in New York or other
cities. Of the 1979 voters registered in 1916, it is esti-
mated that fully 90% are commuters, the remaining
10% being mostly retailers and laborers. Only about
50% of the voters of the commuting class are really
interested in local affairs, due, it seems, to their closer
contact with the city. This is rather to be expected, as
they are influenced by the New York newspapers,
which they have ample time to peruse in going to and
from business. The wealthier citizens of Westfield
confine their local interests largely to social activities.
It is believed that if it were not for the persistent work
of the political committees, the primary votes would
drop to about half of their present number when the
ticket for other than local offices proves uninteresting.
There is a small per cent. of illiteracy in Westfield
which is confined to a portion of the 4th ward.

In Westfield 602 voters were registered in 1916 who
had not been registered in 1915. Reasons for not hav-
ing registered in 1915 were given as follows:

Out.of town at the time of registration.............00+% 47
Not a resident of Westfield in 1915............c.ees eee 42
Indifference and neglect.........cesccseecenepecersnenee 14
NOt Of ASE ssc: 20 apiece gee Theos uane sales eee Gs 10
TMAGSS oc isaees 04 RieeG ens Cav eRe sss saws Pa caveaate's 10
Tide Of -timesaue 22 oc cereenuee ss vateizwcsions spac wrtideeaiie 6 9
(a) Unwillingness to declare politics..,........+.eeeeeee 1

' Nineteen voters declared that they could not remem-
ber why they had not registered the year before.

To the usual questions for all voters, 348 responses
were obtained. Of the entire number, 202 voted at the
primary and 138 did not. Of the primary voters 78,
of the non-primary voters, 40, voted a straight ticket

 

(a) See the comment on the same reason for South Orange.

149
at the general election; of the former, 98, and of the
latter 76, voted a split ticket. The ratio then of
straight to split in the primary group is 78:98, in the
non-primary, 40:76.

In Westfield a much larger per cent. of the voters
than in the other districts canvassed favored the con-
vention, 130 as compared with 203 favoring the direct
primary. No reasons for not voting at the primary
were sought in this municipality.

SUMMARY

Table number fourteen presents in a compact form
the chief results of the canvass of voters conducted in
six municipalities of the state. In a brief summary it
may be said that with the more or less explainable ex-
ception of the third district of the 3rd ward in New-
ark, the voters in the districts taken as typical of the
well-to-do areas of the large cities showed a
greater degree of independence in voting, if voting a
split ticket be accepted as indicative of independence,
than those in the districts of opposite character. With
the exception of Salem, among the small municipali-
ties, and of the two less prosperous districts in Newark,
the voters who attend the primary seem to be less inde-
pendent than those who do not. The average per cent.
of the primary voters who voted straight at the gen-
eral election is 62%, and that of the non-primary
voters who voted straight is 53% ; turning it the other
way, of the primary voters an average of 38% voted
split, and of the non-primary voters an average of
47%. In order that a study- of this kind should be
really complete, it would be necessary to obtain infor-
mation from every voter,—an impossible task. Some
will be inclined to attach more importance to the con-
clusion above than others. It is in accord with the
majority of opinions on the subject which are pre-
sented in a later chapter, and corresponds to what one
would suppose to be the fact. Many persons are not
interested greatly in any party; party allegiance, if
they acknowledge any, sits lightly on them and they
feel no hesitancy in voting for candidates of ‘another
party. Not believing that all the virtues are bound up
in their party, nor that they are under any obligations
to support the party at the polls, they are inclined to

150
Table XIV.

Tabulation of the result of a canvass of the voters of South Orange Village, Westfield, Salem, and

certain wards in Newark, Jersey

 

 

City and Paterson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: a : eae
ee § § 3 g | 3 Voting at General Voting at Primar Voti i i i
2 3 24 y oting of Primary Voting of non-pri- Voters
ze be 33 ge | Se g Eicetion Election Voters at General mary voters at Gen- Favoring
53 #8 #5 igs | See Election eral Election
MUNICIPALITY ce | S| BH (Ow | oss 8 en | :
i.| 8/85 | 2B | g 2 | 258 om Bese _ Straight | Split =, Voling Not Vot- Straight | Split Straight Split Primary Conven-
iB| 3 | 85) 22 : 8388| Bees | | ing Hon
| 2/5315 Be S235) sse38 ; | | | -—| | ss
(Fo | 22 AS | at dase | ZESB | No. | % | No.| % | No.| % No.| % | No. % | No. % No.|% | Noi %  No.|% No.' %
Newark 8 | 13 323 | 314 196 62 128 55 | 45 | 66 | 55 94174 33/26 45 49] 46}51 10) 33 | 20 | 67 90 | 85 16 15
|9 | 14 384 | 376, 200, 53 137 | 69 | 53] 61 | 47 84/62 51:38 49 62) 30/38 19, 39 30] 61 95 | 83; 19 | 17
| 4 | 10 196 | 173, 78 45 60 30 | 70 | 13 | 30 46 | 81 11/19 | 25; 66] 13 | 34 5; 100} 0! 0, 36 | 82 8 18
; 3] 3 278 | 80; 30 25 9 39 14]61 | 15/60, 10 | 40 5 | 39 8/61 41! 40) 6| 60 19 | 90 2,10
\ |. | ] O53 la
Jersey City (9)| 3 397 | 378 | 227 ; 60 | 261 145 59) 101 | 41 207} 81 50; 19 122 | 62| 75 | 38 23! 47. 26! 53 | 220 | 94 15) 6
;1) 8 281 | 274 | 222 81 | 223 212 | 99 2 1 | 217 | 97 6: 3 208 100 1] O| 4] 67 | 2] 33 | 2i2 |100 Oo; 0
Paterson 5 | 3 234 | 2201 165 7 | 143 | 77 | 62 | 47| 38 | 121|)85. 22)15 67) 64| 38] 36!10| 53/ 9|47 111/86 18) 14
| 7 | 2 276 | 2401, 192 80 | 194 95 | 66 | 49] 34 170) 89 21) 11 91) 68| 43/32 4) 44} 5 | 56 | 169 | 91 16; 9
So. Orange Village ;1] 1 | { = | | | | | |
iota | | ia | |
| i | | | 1 | |
| 4 | 1 1619 | 1389 | 904 65 592 372 | 68 | 175 | 32 446 | 75 146, 25 299 70 | 130 | 30 75 | 66 | 38 | 34 | 485 | 89 60 11
fy Po |
Westfield 1 | 1-2 | | | |
a | : | | | |
4) 2 1979 | 1753 1071 61 348 124 | 37 | 210} 63 202/59 138 | 41 78 44 | 98] 56 40 | 34 | 76 | 66 | 203} 61 130 39
} pan \ a eae \ i =
Salem [a {1-231 | | | | | | |
2 1-2-3) 2117 1752 = 889 51 130 60 | 57} 45] 43 73:| 57) 55 | 43 | 36155 | 29 | 45 | 24 63 | 14 | 37 83 | 81 19 19
| | | | |

 

 

 

 

1 This may not be the exact number of ballots cast.

It is estimated from the high vote for candidates.

 

 
leave the determination of the party candidates to
those who are more strictly partisan. The absence of
the independent element.from the primary polls in-
creases the opportunity of the staunch organization
followers, where such exist, to defeat the effort of
those who would oppose them,
CHAPTER VIII

Tue CHARACTER AND PoLiTICAL RESPONSIBILITY OF
PrimMARY NOMINEES

The following four brief studies were made with
the intention of laying hold, if possible, of tangible
evidence on the subjects of the character of primary
nominees and the sense of responsibility they feel
toward those who nominated them.

CANDIDATES FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY: 1908, 1911

The year 1908 was the first in which general assem-
bly candidates were nominated by the direct primary,
and it almost falls into the period of ancient history as
far as primary legislation and primary records are
concerned. An effort has been made, however, to
study the effect of the primary that year on the po-
litical careers of candidates for nomination as assem-
blymen, who were either at the time incumbents of the
office or had previously held it and who had been in
either case convention nominees.

The candidates in nine counties are considered—
Hudson, Essex, Passaic, Camden, Union, Mercer, Mid-
diesex, Bergen and Morris. These included the most
populous counties of the state and were entitled to
forty-four of the sixty assemblymen. They were also
the counties where the convention system would be sup-
posed to work most arbitrarily or corruptly. Mon-
mouth, Burlington, Cumberland and Atlantic were the
only other counties which elected two or more mem-
bers of the assembly each. Monmouth elected three.
They are not considered because the records for 1908
are not available. The two parties in 1908 in these
nine counties nominated 88 assembly candidates, and
44 of the candidates for nomination had -previously
received a convention endorsement (one of these for
state senator instead of assemblyman), and 41 of the
44 were accepted by the direct primary voters—in
many cases even without any opposition. The result
can hardly be called an extremely enthusiastic renun-
ciation of the product of the convention, and this oc-
curred in the counties where the conventions were
most likely to be dominated by machines, The com-

; 152
position of the general assembly, whose members serve
only one year, is constantly changing from term to
term, and naturally it cannot be said that these 41
men would have again been put in nomination by con-
ventions, nor that the three who failed to get through
at the primary would have succeeded at conventions.

In 1908, it may be objected by those who are sur-
prised to learn to how slight an extent the direct pri-
mary proved a means of relief from the “gangsters,”
the rules of registration were ineffective, and there
really existed but a slight restraint on repeating and
other fraudulent practices, and hence the direct pri-
mary could not be expected to accomplish much if
anything under these extremely adverse and unfa-
vorable conditions. Let it be assumed that this ob-
jection is fairly taken. These conditions were changed
in 1911 when the present law went into effect. “Wait
until 1911,” the objectors may say; “of course the
1908 law made no difference. The-same old crowd
held on by corrupt methods. The party voters were
powerless.” Then let the 1911 nominations be exam-
ined just, as those of 1908 have been. At the 1911
primaries 36 men who had held the office of assembly-
man at some time during the years 1908-1911 ran for
nomination, and 30 of them were endorsed by the
voters of the parties. Two at least of those who failed
of nomination were opposing the organization’s can-
didates, and there may have been others. Probably
it is fair to express the situation in this form: 34
assemblymen or ex-assemblymen in these nine coun-
ties sought nomination at the 1911 primary and 30
obtained it. This result indicates either on the one
hand no prevailing dissatisfaction with the previous
nominees, or on the other an inability of the voters to
make their wishes prevail at the primary.

STATE COMMITTEEMEN

Section fourteen of the Geran act provided that
thereafter the state committeemen of each party, one
for each county, should be chosen at the primary elec-
tion every three years, by the voters of the party. A
petition of 100 signers was made necessary to desig-
nate anyone as a candidate, and place his name upon
the primary ballot. Prior to this time (1911) the
state committeemen, usually one from each county,

153
had been selected by the state conventions of the
parties on the recommendation of the various county
committees. The action of the State convention was
in practice a formality and probably the recommenda-
tions made by the county committees, chosen under
the law then in force, were determined largely by the
county leaders of the party.

The proposal to have the state committeemen se-
lected directly by the members of the respective par-
ties was not new in 1911. Just as the act of 1909
which compelled the parties to elect the members of
their county committees at the primary had been pre-
ceded for several sessions of the legislature by the
introduction: of bills to accomplish that end. which
failed of passage, so bills had appeared in 1908 (a)
1909, and. 1910, calling for the popular election of
_ state committeemen. Why? Presumably because the
party voters were not being fairly represented or were
being misrepresented by the committeemen chosen
indirectly by the county committees. These commit-
teemen were supposed to be controlled, was the argu-
ment for the change, by sinister interests, political or
business; they were not the men whom the rank and
file of the party desired and would honor by a high
place in the party government if only a fair oppor-
tunity should be created for an unhampered expres-
sion of opinion on the subject. In brief, the state
committeemen as then elected were a remnant of
bossism which must be weeded out by permitting every
member of the party to share equally in the naming
of these leaders in the party councils, directors of the
party policy, and participants in the construction of
the party platform (under the new law); they must
no longer be forced upon an unwilling following.

The first election of state committeemen came in
1913. The voters had had five years experience of
the county-wide direct primary and two years under
the new registration system. Twenty-one committee-
men were selected in each party, twelve of the incum-
bents were continued in each party—eight of the Re-
publicans at least, possibly ten, without any contest for
the position ; likewise three of the Democrats, possibly
five. Two of the former Republican committeemen
who were retained defeated opponents at the primary

 

(a) 1908, Assembly 51. 1909, Assembly 305. 1910, Assembly 151.
154
election, perhaps four; seven of the Democrats did so,
perhaps nine. In only one instance in the Republican
party was a holding committeeman, who presented
himself to the party voters at the primary, defeated, in
Hudson County, and in only one case in the Demo-
cratic party, in Ocean County, next to the smallest in
the state, hardly the most boss-ridden and corrupt.
Out of 26 state committeemen who ran for elec-
tion at the primary only two were unsuccessful in
gaining the support of the party voters for continu-
ance in the office. The position is not here assumed
that the state committeemen in office before 1913
were desirable representatives of their parties and
should have been retained nor that they were unfit
or corrupt and should have been rejected; the atti-
tude maintained on this point is quite non-committal,
yet a fact must be faced. If they were proper men,
why make such a demand for the use of the direct

primary to elect them; if they were improper men,
’ why did not the direct primary oust them? At the
1916 primary 15 of the Republican committeemen con-
tinued in office and 17 of the Democrats.

CANDIDATES FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE:
1912, 1914, 1916.

The office of United States representative ought to
be of sufficient prominence and importance to attract
the attention of most voters at the primary; one might
suppose that practically every member of a party
would desire to exercise some influence in selecting
the party’s candidate for this office, if for any, and
that the result of the party’s choice at the primary, if
ever it does so, would represent the studied and best
judgment of the voters of the party as a whole; cer-
tainly it is a decision afforded by the primary when
working under quite favorable circumstances...
, In New Jersey, the direct primary was first used
for the nomination of United States representatives.
(except in a case of vacancy in 1911) in the year
1912. Twelve representatives were elected at the gen-
eral election in 1912, and seven of these had held the
office the preceding term, and hence had been, with
the exception of the one nominated at the 1911 pri-
mary, the nominees.of the party congressional con-
ventions. The 1911 nominee had had no opposition at
the primary. Of the other five representatives one

155
had been an attorney for the county board of free-
holders and a county judge, hence almost without
question an organization man; four had either not
had -political careers at all, or at least not before the
direct primary applied to county areas.

Of the twelve defeated candidates, five, each nomi-
nated at the primary of his party, had previously re-
ceived a convention nomination, among them Mr.
Record, perhaps the strongest advocate of the direct
primary in the state; the other seven were practically
unknown politically.

So of the 24 successful candidates at the direct
primary in 1912, eleven had been formerly either
representatives or candidates for representative, nomi-
nated in any case by a convention, and two others
almost certainly would have received a convention
nomination, and no candidate at the primary who had
been a convention nominee was defeated; that is,
every man who having been at sometime nominated
for representative at a convention, ran for nomination
at the primary, was successful. This is an incon;
testable fact. There may be some advocates of the
direct primary who would insist that probably several
former representatives did not attempt to secure a pri-
mary nomination because they felt certain of defeat.
There is little or no evidence in support of this argu-
ment, especially in view of the absolute unanimity with
which the primary voters accepted every candidate at
the primary who had been formerly a convention nomi-
nee. It is strange that every ambitious representa-
tive should have been a perfect judge of his oppor-
tunities for nomination at the primary.

At the 1914 primary eight men who had before 1912
been nominated for United States representative at
congressional conventions ran for nomination and six
of them were successful in receiving the approval of
the party voters. In neither of the two cases of defeat
is it possible, naturally, to determine that the defeated
candidate was or was not supported by the organiza-
tion, and the one exception to complete organization
sticcess mentioned below was not the defeat of either
of these two. The Newark Evening News says (a):
“In the second congressional district an inde-
pendent Republican defeated Richards, who had the

 

(a) September 23, 1913,
156
support of Boss Kuehnle. In the other congressional
districts throughout the state the regular Republicans
were nominated without much effort,” and, “On the
Democratic side the control of James R. Nugent is still
supreme. Not one of his candidates, outside the vic-
tory in the eighth congressional district, met defeat,
and in only a few instances, due to exceptional reasons,
did the size of the opposition vote attain respectable
dimensions.”

In 1916 again eight men who had once received a
convention’s nomination to the lower house of con-
gress sought nomination at the direct.primary, and five
of them obtained it. The official records of course do
not inform one whether a candidate represents the
organization or not, so these former convention nomi-
nees may have met defeat at the hands of rivals backed
by the influence of an effective organization.

A prominent state official and a well-known political
leader, while not knowing whether the successful pri-
mary candidates could be regarded as independents or
not, were inclined to think that men were nominated
in the Democratic party for one district in 1912, three
in 1914, and two in 1916, who would not have been
nominated if the convention system had been in opera-
tion.

An unbiased consideration of the facts pre-
sented above leads one almost inevitably to conclude
that either the convention system nominated better
men than ardent direct primary advocates maintain—
men who were acceptable to the members of the party,
or that if the convention nominees were named at the
behest and under the domination of cliques, or special
interests, as many of the direct primary devotees and
others declare (and it is not intended to imply that
they are right or wrong), then the same cliques and
special interests are largely able to control and do con-
trol the nominations at the direct primary. Otherwise,
why do not the party voters reject the candidates who
in time past were forced upon them by scheming
politicians ?

POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PRIMARY NOMINEES

American party platforms have been notorious for
liberal promises which remained unfulfilled or ignored
when the party concerned came into power. That this
applies to all state party platforms as well as to the
national party platforms, ee runs may read. The

157°

-
conclusion of intentional insincerity is unavoidable in
many cases; the immorality of breaking promises in
politics is so common as to have become conventional
and therefore without real impropriety. This was true
in New Jersey in the caucus-convention days, and an
examination of platforms and comparisons of the same
with the legislation enacted by the dominant party at
the following session of the legislature indicates that
the change in the system of nominating candidates has
caused no certain or definite change in the violation of
party pledges. This se tea applies necessarily
only to the two parties Which have been in power ; and
it has only a possible reference to such parties as the
Prohibitionist, the Socialist and the Progressive.

The legislature of 1912 consisted of 11 Republican
senators and 37 Republican assemblymen, as against
10 Democratic senators and 23 Democratic assembly-
men, Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, being governor.
Examination of the Republican platform of 1911 indi-
cates a total of (about) 17 platform promises. A
fairly liberal interpretation of the laws of New Jersey
enacted at the 1912 session of the legislature indicates
that possibly 10 or 11 of the platform promises were
in some measure fulfilled. The exact number is diffi-
cult to determine, for in some instances this depends
on one’s point of view, while in other cases the prom-
ise has been kept partially, or a beginning has been
made. Sometimes, too, there is a statement of posi-
tion which is not necessarily a promise to act, or to act
at once, accordingly. For example, the Republican
platform of October 3, 1911, criticizes the (Geran)
election law ; but it adds: “We favor the object of the
new election law. Furthermore, we pledge ourselves
to the preservation and enactment of such legislation as
will enable the people to rule without the pernicious ac-
tivity of political machines; but we insist that this
principle can and should be coupled with a simplicity
of election machinery that will encourage every voter
to vote, rather than with confusing regulations that
discourage the exercise of the franchise.”

The legislature of 1913 consisted of 9 Republican
senators and 8 Republican assemblymen, and 12 Demo-
cratic senators and 51 Democratic assemblymen, James
Fielder, Democrat, being governor. The responsibility
for legislation devolved then practically on the Demo-
cratic party.

158
The Democratic state platform of 1912 contained
(about) 20 pledges, of which about 12 may be said to
have been enacted into laws at the following session
of the legislature.

The legislature of 1914 consisted of 10 senators
and 23 assemblymen who were Republicans, and 11
senators and 37 assemblymen who were Democrats,
while Mr. Fielder still remained in office as governor.
The Democratic party was now entirely free to comply
with its platform pledges.

The Democratic platform of 1913 contains approxi-
mately 16 pledges, but it is difficult to give the party
credit for fulfilling more than perhaps 6 of these
pledges at the legislative session following.

The legislature of 1915 finds the Republicans again
in control with 11 senators and 38 assemblymen, as
against 10 senators and 22 assemblymen on the Demo-
cratic side, though Mr. Fielder, Democrat, was still
the chief executive. It seems that the negligence of
the last Democratic legislature had impressed their
Republican opponents who refer to this and the sanc-
tity of platform pledges in the following words:

“This convention is mainly composed of candidates
for the senate and general assembly, and we consider
our platform to be a promise to the people of New
Jersey. If the people accept it by electing us to office,
we shall consider it as an offer and acceptance accord-
ing to the law of contracts, which means a binding ob-
ligation upon ourselves to fulfill all of our promises.

“We condemn the record of the Democratic party in
our state because it has failed to keep its platform con-
tracts with the people. In 1913 out of twenty-three
pledges they fulfilled six, doubtfully provided for three
others, and absolutely failed in fourteen. In 1914 out
of sixteen pledges they performed three, partially ful-
filled two and utterly failed in eleven. During these
years the Republican party introduced legislation to
fulfill all their pledges, but because of Democratic ma-
jorities were unsuccessful in having many of them
enacted into laws. We feel that this record entitles
us to have our offer accepted.” ,

There is a certain irony or at least ground for cyni-
cism in the result of an examination of the Republi-
can platform adopted in 1914, containing 18 pledges,
compared with the accomplishments of the Republi-

159
can legislature at the following session. It is difficult
to give these upholders of the sanctity of party pledges
credit for adhering to their profession of faith in more
than 5 of 18 possible instances.

The legislature of 1916 consisted of 13 Republican
senators and 40 Republican assemblymen, with 8 Dem-
ocratic senators and 20 Democratic assemblymen, Mr.
Fielder being governor. The Republican platform of
1915 contained about 16 promises, and the party in
the legislature neglected only 3 of these, but only
partial adherence to other pledges suggests that if we
state that the Republican legislature complied with its
promises in about 10 of the 16 possible cases, we have
a true picture of the reality.

The legislature of 1917 was Republican, as was the
incumbent of the governorship. The material for judg-
ing of its performances as compared with the promises
made for it is not all at hand. The record seems
to have been better than usual, though it is clear that in
several instances the party pledges were not fulfilled,
which need not of course blind one to the really con-
structive work which the legislature, supported by a
governor of the dominant party, did perform.

The preceding analysis, studied with the fact in
mind that the nominated legislators practically deter-
mine the platform each year, surely indicates that. if
the platform makers promise what they think the peo-
ple want, they show no great concern to give those
desires the force of legislation. Naturally a platform
cannot be weighed or measured and the unfulfilled
parts deducted with anything even resembling mathe-
matical accuracy, but if the voters measure a legisla-
ture’s sense of responsibility to them by the degree to
which the platform is carried out, one would expect, in
accordance with the theory of the direct primary as to
the sole responsibility of the official to the men who
nominated him, to see not only a change of the party
majority of the legislature almost every year, but a
practically complete retirement of the unfaithful rep-
resentatives of each party at the succeeding primary.
The legislators seem to be little troubled by such a
prospect, at any rate not to the extent of being spurred
on to anything like a full compliance with popular de-
mands and party principles as recorded in the platform
made by their own hands.

160
Table XV,
ELECTION EXPENSES DISBURSED BY COUNTY COLLECTORS OF NEW JERSEY,1910 TO 1916

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| | | | 2

| | | | | | | 8

| | | | | z

| | | | | | 3

| | | | | 5.

| | | | | | 3

COUNTIES i910) aga} Saga 1913 1914 | 1915 1916 sec 52

| | | | Be

Atlantic 10,393.33 23,092.67 28,184.59 24,634.62 23,295.71 27,994.51 31,471.17 | 24,152.37 1.89
Bergen 20,242.66 31,193.08 | 50,495.23 75,431.61 58,534.05 | 54,236.16 63,407.51 | 50,505.76 1.98

Burlington | | |
Camden 24,447.02 28,283.40 39,643.75 36,090.95 38,834.45 | 47,318.62 55,932.83 38,650.43 | 1.61
Cape May | 3,125.09 | 7,746.33 7.911.29 8,220.16 9,591.40 | 13,522.84 (1) 8,352.85 2.35
Cumberland 12,256.98 | 12,853.50 12,953.59 | 13,814.47 15,326.94 14,946.21 13,692.28 | 1.30
Essex (2) 50,839.90 110,858.75 | 141,835.69 134,119.82 160,494.64 161,043.01 189,832.56 135,574.91 | 1.98
Gloucester | 9,996.95 14,689.18 13,163.62 14,937.31 | 16,091.41 18,537.07 14,569.26 1.82
Hudson (3) | 72,204.66 152,459.71 197,561.60 166,491.20 178,566.66 192,036.26 242,115.29 (4) 171,633.63 | 2.62
Hunterdon | 7,034.93 7,639.02 | 11,697.31 11,513.90 12,325.09 13,937.22 15,762.85 | 11,415.76 | 1.89
Mercer | 11,067.90 23,803.44 | 32,410.83 28,928.04 27,389.62 | 34,759.48 | 38,136.39 | 28,070.82 | 1.44
Middlesex | 23,476.51 = (5) 23,468.49 31,532.90 33,427.58 | 30,166.63 | 34,908.20 | 39,215.89 | 30,885.17 1.68
Monmouth | | 22,002.00 32,944.07 | 30,417.66 30,237.86 | 35,567.18 \ 40,243.98 | 31,902.13 1.68
Morris 10,312.10 | 14,357.41 | 23,658.78 | 25,814.10 | 26,477.95 27,620.30 | 32,678.59 | 22,988.46 1.95
Ocean | 4,252.37 | 5,622.80 | 9,093.41 | 8,541.49 | 10,021.33 | 10,552.30 | 9,891.91 | 8,282.23 | 1.69
Passaic | 18,416.07 | 42,691.07, 53,172.41 | 44,535.16 72,531.74 50,039.07 54,650.87 48,005.20 1.52
Salem 4,013.52 | 6,213.45 | 6,862.55 | 7,388.55 | 7,537.44 | 8,599.29 | 9,601.66 | 7,173.78 | 1.20
Somerset | 6,428.94 | 8,074.89 12,098.74 | 11,583.04 | 11,023.02 13,032.00 | 14,802.45 | 11,006.16 1.68
—— | | 8,268.23 | 9,570.71 | 9,332.12 | 11,545.80 | 9,196.45 | 9,542.66 | 1.54
Union 18,541.03 | 41,834.78 | 56,618.07 | 50,310.67 | 45,029.18 53,448.86 | 73,729.70 (1) | 48,501.76 2.44
Warren | 4,957.13 | 6,864.33 | 10,844.20 | 17,422.65 | 10,180.21 | 10,449.55 17,082.99 () | 11,114.44 1.19
Total | 289,753.16 570,713.22 | 782,211.37 750,250.25 | 788,949.64 | 828,097.56 | 984,759.21 | ——=

 

 

 

Deel a Site May Ist to April 30th

2) Fiscal ycar is May lst to Ti a

4 T he eiitis itlicaied are he ocets for the various elections held during each year, not for the sums disbursed each year for election purposes. This
is given because Hudson’s fiscal year is December 1st to November 30th and approximately half the cost of the fall elections is paid in the first month of the new
fiscal year. The figures given for Hudson County, because they represent a slightly different fact, can be compared with those of the other counties only in

1 ‘ “

; ae The figure for 1916 is obtained by adding $133,338, the amount paid before November 30th, 1916 for 1916 elections, to $108,777.29—the amount
paid from December Ist, 1916 to February 24, 1917 for 1916 elections.

(3) $23,468.49 is the sum by months, October 1911 to March, 1912.
CHAPTER IX
Tue Cost or Erections 1n NEw JERSEY

The cost of electing men to public office con-
sists mainly of two parts—first, the cost to the
government of conducting the election machinery,
and second, the cost to the various candidates for
office in advertising themselves and. in “getting
out” the voters. The latter cost is very difficult of
computation and must be more or less a matter of
surmise and estimate. The latter part of this chap-
ter will be devoted to a brief discussion of can-
didates’ expenditures in the New Jersey primaries
and-their relation to the corrupt practices act.
The expenditures of the government, on the other
hand, are much more definite, because they are
altogether a matter of record and with time and
patience can be closely approximated and com-
puted. It is to be presumed, moreover, that the
government cost is larger than the cost to the can-
didates. The bulk of the chapter, therefore, will
be devoted to a study of the cost and method of
financing the election machinery of the state, with
particular reference to the primary and general
election of 1916.

THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT

It is not possible to obtain a satisfactory idea of
how elections are financed simply by reading the
provisions of the law that deal directly with ex-
penses. In fact, very few paragraphs can be found
that deal with expense. When the election law
was revised in 1898, there was written into the
law a general paragraph on expense that was sup-
posed to cover practically all cases which required
the expenditure of money. The exceptions and
provisos attached to this paragraph have been at
various times amended, but the substance of the
paragraph remains unchanged. The paragraph (a)
reads in part: .

“All costs, charges and expenses incurred by the

(a) Paragraph 180, Election Law 1916.
161
county and municipal clerks in carrying out the
provisions of this act * * * including the charges
and expenses incurred for rooms for polling places
and fitting up and arranging same, the compensa-
tion of the district boards of registry and election
and all other expenses incurred by any officer or
person duly authorized in carrying out the pro-
visions of this act, shall be regarded as election ex-
penses and shall be paid in the case of the general
election or any special election held in and for the
whole county, by the respective counties, and in
case of all other elections by the respective muni-
cipalities in and for which they are held, in the
same manner as other county and municipal ex-
penses are paid.”

A few additional paragraphs deal with the
money side of elections, but no adequate conception
of the problem can be gained without analyzing the
whole law to see what “any officer or person” is
duly authorized by the election law to perform.

An attempt to do this and to lay out the meth-
ods by which expenses are first incurred and then
paid reveals at once the entire lack of any scien-
tific system of financing.

To illustrate the lack of system—part of the ex-

penses are incurred by the state, part by the county
and part by the local municipalities; the payment
of these same expenses is left to the state, county or
municipality without regard to what officers in-
curred them. A brief description of the system
as provided by law, if system it may be called, fol-
lows:
_ The state through the Secretary of State, is re-
quired to furnish practically all the blanks and
stationery that are to be used in connection with
the general election; it buys a few of the blanks
needed for the primary election. The expense of
this printing, as well as the expense of clerical serv-
ice for the state board of canvassers, is borne by
the state treasury.

Speaking of the municipalities, the statute indi-
cates two items of expense which shall be both in-
curred and paid by the municipalities. The first
is the advertising of election notices. Each muni-
cipal clerk is required to select not more than two

162
Table XVI.

Cost of Election Officers in 1916—Percentage

Counties in order

of Total Expenses

Number

Cost of election officers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nee districts "Bepenee | Amount eo "
| total
Hudson 327 | 242,115.29 85,020.00 35.1
Essex 321 | 189,832.56 83,460.00 43.9
Camden 136 55,932.83 35,360.00 63.2
Passaic 121 54,650.87 31,460.00 57.5
Bergen 121 63,407.51 31,460.00 49.6
Union 109 73,729.70 37,060.00 (#) | 50.2
Mercer 96 38,136.39 | 24,960.00 65.4
Monmouth 94 40,243.98 | 24,440.00 60.7
Atlantic 78 31,471.17 20,280.00 64.4
Middlesex 76 39,215.89 19,760.00 50.4
Burlington 65 | |
Morris 63 | 32,678.59 16,380.00 50.1
Cumberland 43 14,946.21 | 11,180.00 | 74.7
Gloucester 40 18,537.07 | 10,400.00 56.1
Warren 38 17,082.99 | 11,400.00 (1) 66.7
Somerset 36 14,802.45 | 9,360.00 63.2
Hunterdon 32 15,762.85 | 8,320.00 52.7
Ocean 32, 989191 | 8,320.00 | 84.1
Sussex 28 | 9,196.45 | 7,280.00 79.2
Cape May 27 13,522.84 | 8,964.00 (1) 66.2
Salem 22 9,601.66 5,720.00 59.5
Total ~ 1905 | 984,759.21 490,584.00 | 49.8

() 4 elections
 

 

newspapers in his county for the advertisement of
the official election notices. These advertisements
must be paid for out of municipal funds. (a) The
second item of municipal expense is permissive,
not compulsory. The municipal clerks may be
paid a fee for their election services required by the
law, to be determined by the governing bodies of
their respective municipalities. The municipalities
are required to pay, of course, for all special mu-
nicipal elections.

The foregoing items of cost paid by the state and
the municipalities are, with the exception of ad-
vertising, comparatively insignificant. By far the
greatest share of election expense falls on the twen-
ty-one counties of the state. The county treasury
is the catch-all for every sort of election expense
claim. Among the charges that must be paid by
the county freeholders are those

(1) fixed by statute

(2) incurred by the county clerk

(3) incurred by the county board of elections
(4) incurred by the court.

(5) incurred by the freeholders

(6) incurred by the municipal clerks.

The most important charge fixed by statute, and
the largest single item of the total election expense,
is the compensation for the members of the dis-
trict boards of registry and election, ie., the pre-
cinct election boards of four members each. On
the basis of a fixed schedule for each day’s service,
the compensation for each election officer amounts
to $50.00 for the primary and general election,
$15.00 for the presidential primary, and $10.00 for
any special election. The compensation of the
judge who is required by the law to sit two dif-
ferent days to hear petitions for registry transfers
and to revise and correct the registry lists, is fixed
at $20.00 per day.

The most important expenses incurred by the
county clerks are those for printing general elec-
tion ballots and for hiring extra clerical and other
services.

The county boards of elections are also per-
mitted by the law to incur expense for extra per-

 

(a) See proviso in paragraph 180.
163
sonal service to carry out the provisions of the
law.

The expenses that are incurred by the court are
for the advertisement of the sitting of the court to
issue transfers of registry, and the hiring of extra
personal service in cases of recount.

The purchase and repair of ballot boxes is placed
in the hands of the boards of chosen freeholders.
Twenty-five dollars is the maximum price which
may be paid for new ballot boxes of standard speci-
fications.

The municipal clerks are required to buy the
primary ballots, rent polling places, have the booths
constructed, hauled, stored, etc., hire extra service,
buy necessary supplies, and incur a number of
other minor expenses.

It should be remembered that all the purposes of
expenditure outlined in the preceding six para-
graphs must be paid for by the freeholders out of
county funds. In respect to audit, the law provides
(a) that “all bills, before being paid, shall be item-
ized and verified by the oath of the claimant and
audited and approved by the clerk of the county,
township, city or municipality who contracted the
bill charged for.” The interpretation of this pro-
‘vision in the various counties of the state will be
discussed in a succeeding part of the chapter.

What has been said in the foregoing paragraphs
should give some idea of the system of financing
elections, as gleaned from the election statute. The
whole fabric, however, has been so patched to-
gether, and is so decentralized that one must study
the collector’s reports and the election vouchers in
each county of the state in order to obtain an ade-
quate picture of election finances in actual prac-
tice. The lack of any machinery for central con-
trol leaves much room for variations in interpre-
tation and in practice.

In order to obtain a preliminary conception of
New Jersey election costs, it will be well to con-
sider first the total county election expenses for
a period of several years back. Table fifteen
shows the total disbursements for election pur-
poses by the various counties for each year from

 

(a) Paragraph 180,
164
1910 to 1916. In a few cases the figures are lack-

ing; this must be kept in mind in comparing the

yearly totals, which are as follows:

1910—$289,753.16 (Except Burlington, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mon-
mouth and Sussex)

1911—$570,713.22 (Except Burlington, Cape May and Sussex)

1912—$782,211.37 (Except Burlington

1913—$750,250.25 (Except Burlineton}

1515408 097 (Except Burlington)

1915—$828,097.56 (Except Barmeion}
191 984,759.21 (Except Burlington

It should be kept in mind that the foregoing sum-
mary does not represent the entire cost of elec-
tions, but only the amount paid by the counties
(which comprises the greatest part of the entire
cost). The advertising expense paid by the muni-
cipalities comprises a considerable sum in addition.

The yearly averages for the various counties are
added in an additional column of the-large table, in
order that slight differences in the time of paying
vouchers and the influence of occasional special
elections may be made negligible in comparing
counties. As far as costs for the year 1916 are con-
cerned, comparison may be made on the basis of
three élections for every county except Cape May
Warren and Union, which had four elections.

To the large table is also appended a column
showing the 1916 cost for the three elections (four
elections in three of the counties) divided by the
number of votes cast in the general election on
November 7 last. Looking at the matter from the
standpoint of the individual voter, these figures
represent the minimum cost to each general elec-
tion voter of nominating and electing the various
officers on the ballot.

It is very evident from the table that the county
expense has increased from year to year in every
county and for the state as a whole. Some of this
increase is attributable to the increase in the prices
of materials, particularly printing materials. Most
of the increase is due, however, to changes in the
compensation of election officers. In 1898, when a
complete revision of the election law was made, the
compensation of election officers for three registry
days and the general election was fixed at from
$14 to $25, depending on the population of the
municipality and the number of voters in the elec-
tion districts. In 1903 when the direct primary

165
feature was introduced into the election law, the
charge was made to vary between $18 and $30. In
1908 the limits of price were fixed at $20 and $30.
The Geran law in 1911 provided a schedule of
prices for municipalities of over 5000 population
amounting to $50 for the two fall elections, $15 for
the presidential primary and $10 for any special
election. The prices for municipalities of less than
5,000 population varied from $22 to $30. A further
amendment in 1913 placed the election officers in
the less populous municipalities on a par with the
others, and fixed a uniform schedule of $50, $15 and
$10. The advent of sample ballots in 1911 may
also be mentioned as a contributing factor to in-
creased cost.

yn

1

THE COST OF ELECTIONS IN 1916 _

If viewed superficially, perhaps the most notice-
able fact in the table of election costs is the rapid
increase in cost, but a fact of far greater significance
is simply the immensity of the annual expenditures
for election purposes. Counting all the costs, it is
apparent that the government spent in 1916 well
over a million dollars for election purposes. Nor
does this estimate include the special election of
commissioners in commission-governed cities. Is
the cost of elections too high? What part of the
total cost can legitimately be charged against the
primary? An answer to these two questions must
be more or less indefinite, but an attempt will be
made, in the remainder of this chapter, to throw
some light on these specific questions, by making an
intensive study of the 1916 election expenses.

The smallest and the least complicated item of
expenditure is that incurred and paid by the state.
The total spent by the state for election purposes
is some $19,000, segregated approximately as fol-
lows:

‘Compiling election laws, etC.......esseeeeseeescessecences $300.00
ae and et in connection with the State-vote

on the oat Road Law. Paid out of the Governor’s Emer-

weney Pand 12is1500cs ee teaeecs ova sienewanseancvene 4,763.67
The cost of election stationery, as per printer’s contract. 6,560.75
Service used by the State Board of Canvassers in tabulating

election returns (estimated)........cecceeescccccreneues 1,000.00

hare of salary of supply clerk in Secretary of State’s office,

who has charge of election work (estimated).........0.08 500,00
Expenses of State Civil Service Commission in conducting

examinations for election officers (Nov. 1, 1915 to Ost

Bl, 1916) ssicseaccoriiciasdeawensraies cases aneesen ac 5,958.99
Coming now to county election expenses, it ap-
pears that the compensation of election officers
comprises about one-half of the total expense for
the year. The ratio which the expense of election
officers bears to the total expense is shown for each
county in table sixteen.

The counties have been placed in the order of
the number of their election precincts, so that a
rough comparison may be made of their relative
efficiency in cutting down the costs which they can
control. Being a fixed charge, established by
Statute, the expense of election officers cannot be
influenced by the economy or extravagance of the
county and local officers who run the election ma-
chinery. The ratio which the remaining expenses
(i.e, those controlled by the local officers) bear
to the total cost ought to give some indication of
the economy with which the elections are admin-
istered. There are two reasons why the cost of
election officers should represent a somewhat
smaller percentage of the total in the more popu-
lous counties. In the first place the more populous
counties usually have slightly larger ballots; in the
second place they are required to print registry
lists for cities of over 10,000 population. Outside
of these two extra expenses and a few minor items
the counties are practically on an equal footing as
far as requirements to spend money are concerned.
It would seem, therefore, that the high percentages
in the table show a more economical administra-
tion of election finances. At any rate, any two
counties of aproximately the same conditions can
be readily compared with each other by this method.

A perusal of the table shows at once that there
must be great diversity in methods and practices
in the different counties. The suggested lack of
uniformity can be completely borne out by personal
visitation to all the clerks’, collectors’, and free-
holders’ offices. Some of the clearest provisions of
the law are differently interpreted. Often there is
no “interpretation” ‘at all. The practice just is
what it is and that is all there is to say about it.
The matter of record-keeping is likewise in a cha-
otic state. Records that by law are required to be
filed can be found in splendid shape-in a few

167
of the counties, while in other counties they are in
a poor, unsatisfactory condition or cannot be found
at all.

COUNTY ANALYSES OF 1916 PRIMARY AND GENERAL
: ELECTION EXPENSES

In order to make an intensive study of the 1916
election costs and to segregate if possible the pri-
mary costs from the general election costs, the in-
dividual election vouchers in nearly all of the coun-
ties were analyzed and tabulated. An effort was
made to divide the election expenses of each county
into the following classes:

(1) Election officers’ compensation—primary
and general.

(2) Salaries of county boards of elections—pri-
mary and general.

(3) Extra personal service—primary and gen-
eral.

(4) Fees to municipal clerks—primary and gen-
eral.

(5) Services of court—primary and general.

(6) Supplies and miscellaneous—primary and
general.

(7) Printing—primary and general.

(8) Advertising—primary and general.

(9) Rental of polling places—primary and gen-
eral.

(10) Booths and ballot boxes—primary and gen-
eral.

These classes are of necessity more or less arbi-
trary’ They do not always include strictly the
same expenses in the different counties. What may
be included in extra service or booths and ballot
boxes in one county may be included in municipal
clerks’ fees in another. The sums set down in each
class are to be made the basis for approximate
totals for the state rather than for strict compari-
son of county with county.

Each county analysis will include, besides the
table of costs outlined in the preceding paragraph,
a brief discussion of the practice of financing elec-
tion costs, stressing the points of variation and
difference and pointing out features to be criticized
or commended.

168
Atlantic

_ The members of the Atlantic County board of elec-

tions receive an annual salary of $300; the secretary,
in accordance with the provision of the law that the
secretaries shall receive one-third more, receives an
additional $100. For purposes of segregation, forty
per cent. of the salary (in every county) has been
charged to the primary, and forty per cent. to the gen-
eral election.

The item of $86.10 (primary) for “extra service”
was incurred by the county clerk for auto hire in con-
nection with the primary. The amount of money
spent in Atlantic for “extras” both in the way of per-
sonal service and supplies, is comparatively small.
The most important items listed under “Supplies and
Miscellaneous” are booths, stationery, envelopes and
challengers’ badges.

The $40 charge for the court’s service in connection
with the general election is strictly statutory, the law
requiring a payment of $20 for each of the two days
the court sits to issue registry transfers. This charge
against the general election is found, therefore, in
every county.

The cost of printing the primary ballots and sta-
tionery for the municipal clerks is about the same as
the cost of printing the general election ballots and
stationery. Contrary to the practice in most counties
where the county clerks let one printing job for the
general election ballots, the Atlantic clerk last year
gave his work to two printers. These two printers also
printed most of the primary ballots.

The $19.07 spent for advertising is for five small
notices of the sitting of the court.

For the rent of polling places, the county paid (for
the two elections) $30 a district in Atlantic City, and
from $20 to $10 a district outside of Atlantic City.
This year a schedule has been adopted by the free-
holders, fixing the rental at $30 in Atlantic City and
$15 outside. , For the erecting of booths, the schedule
also fixes a price of $3.50 per district for each elec-
tion in Atlantic City and $1.50 for each district after
the first in any municipality outside Atlantic City.

Bergen.

‘” The three regular members of the Bergen County
169
board of elections receive an annual salary of $900; the
secretary receives $1200, and a stenographer $600,
making a total of $4500.
Most of the charges for extra service were incurred
by the county clerk in delivering stationery and ballots.
The fees to municipal clerks (which in most coun-

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $9,680.00 $14,520.00
2. Salaries of county board of elec-

TONS ds aiierwits bec eemadada ss Seas 1,800.00 1,800.00
3. Extra personal service............ 344.81 440.53
4. Fee to municipal clerks............. 336.40 398.30
5. Services of Court.........:0ccee ee ceeeenee 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ $14.31 240.57
F,° SPHNHNS goivncisd $3 wasGaacauie canes 4,386.64 4,781.00
8. Advertising ...........eeeeeeenee 314.50 1,442.18
9. Rental of polling places........... 1,815.00 3,025.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.......... 409.85 496.46

$19,601.51 $27,164.04

ties are paid by the municipalities, if paid at all), the
rental of polling places and the charges for erecting
booths are fixed by schedule of the freeholders. In
this connection the freeholders issue a printed notice
which includes the following:

The following are the legal charges, allowed by law,
for all services rendered at the primary and general
election, for the year 1916:

Municipal clerk, for each day’s service..............-. $3.00
Carpenters erecting and taking down booths.......... 3.00
For rent of room for primary election................ 15.00
For rent of room for general election................. 25.00

The election law requires that if municipal clerks
receive a fee for their election services, they shall be
paid out of municipal funds. The practice of paying
these fees out of county funds is therefore irregular,
as far as the law is concerned, although the uniform
schedule of price and the centralization in the county
is in itself desirable.

In Bergen, as in Atlantic, the primary printing ex-
pense is almost equal to that of the general election.
An idea of the distribution of cost in the county clerk’s
general election printing bills is given by the following
segregation for Bergen County: Official ballots,
$2528 ; sample ballots, $1908 ; registry lists, $300.

The large sum spent for advertising consists for the

170
trost part of six bills, of which the following is an ex-
ample: “August 18, notice of primary, $52; Septem-
ber 1, boards of registry notice, 563 lines, five times,
$236.46.” These six bills were incurred and signed by
the county board of elections. There is no doubt that
county advertising is preferable to local advertising,.
but here again there is no provision of the law to au-
thorize the practice. This county advertising, more~
over, is not in the place of, but in addition to, mu-
nicipal advertising.

The county clerk makes a practice of meeting with:
the municipal clerks in order to encourage uniformity’
of method and supplies. This practice, as well as the
establishing of schedules for rent, carpenter service
and municipal clerks’ services, is to be commended.
The payment, however, of the municipal clerks’ fees
and the advertising out of the county funds is ir-
regular. Compared with other counties of the same
size Bergen County pays its board of elections too high
a salary.

The $50 charge for election officers for the two fall
elections has been divided as between the primary and
general election on the basis of forty per cent. and
sixty per cent. or $20 and $30. This division repre-
sents approximately the service performed in carrying
out the primary and general election requirements, and
applies to every county. The rental for polling places,
which is usually charged as one price for the two elec-
tions, is divided on the same basis.

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $6,240.00 $9,360.00
2. Salaries of conn boards of elec-

HOHS gasccewaewn vedas obese bese 520.00 520.00
3. Extra personal service............ 86.10 5.00
4. Fee to municipal clerks..........5. ceeeeeee  teeenees
5. Services of Court........c.ceeeeee cesses 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 228.77 260,05
7. Printing ..........- ne aeidbgea sieeve eetvehce 3,271.45 3,441.37
8, Advertising .........cccceceeeeeee ceeerees 19.07
9, Rental of polling places........... 793.00 1,189.50
10. Booths and ballot boxes.......... 313.95 300.03

$11,453.27 $15,135.02
Burlington

Since an analysis of the election vouchers for Bur-
lington County has not been made, it is impossible to

171
present a table of the primary and general election
costs.

It appears, however, that the freeholders of Bur-
lington County have established a uniform county
rate of $25 for rental of polling places. They have
gone farther than the freeholders in most of the other
counties by establishing, also, a schedule of maximum
prices for the printing of primary ballots.

Camden

The election costs other than the cost of election of-
ficers comprise only 36.8 per cent. of the total for
Camden County. This presumably desirable state of
affairs seems to be the result of two factors—(1) the
assumption by the municipalities of a somewhat larger
share of the expense than is true in the majority of the
counties, and (2) the economical administration of

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $10,880.00 $16,320.00
2. Salaries of county boards of elec-

TONS: -sannts x53 owewcens ss ex awes 2 433.33 433.33
3. Extra personal service............ 59.75 177.50
4. Fee to municipal clerks............ cececeee | teen eeee
5. Services of Court.......0ccccceeee eeeeeeee 98.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 523.55 38.65
7s Printing 203 seorsees esse daaiegay ess ‘. 6,119.29 4,282.38
8. Advertising .............ceceeeeee © TESTS kacele a ose
9, Rental of polling places........... 1,424.00 2,136.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.......... 719,61 702.42

$20,175.28 $24,188.28
the election finances by the freeholders. It will be
noticed from the table of costs that the county does
not pay a fee to the municipal clerks nor does it pay
for election advertising. This is strictly in accord-
ance with the statute, but there are few counties that
do not transgress in one or the other of these matters.
The statement of the city of Camden’s election ex-
pense for 1916 (the city of Camden has 84 out of
136 election districts in the county) is as follows:

 

Preparing ballot boxes, etc..........ce cc eeee cere eens $356.00

($336 of this was paid to clerk for extra service)
Printing ordinance..... Advertising J -+r-+* 430.08
Printing and stationery} = | Qu... 414.10
Postage and envelopes............cceeceeccccuecees 401.48
Miscellaneous: vic ois chigewwt sed maiew sia ceneeeeond ts 9.01
$1,926.67
The freeholders, through their committee on elec-
tions and the auditor, exercise the power to cut down
any claims deemed unreasonable. Some claims are
held up as long as a year. The strict supervision of
election matters is illustrated by the practice of hold-
ing up payment to the election officers untit their flag
receipts are turned in. The American flag must be dis-
played in each polling place by the boards of registry
and election. The freeholders’ committee also co-
operates closely with the city clerk of Camden in
election matters. Ballot boxes are bought by. the
freeholders, but are kept in repair by the municipali-
ties. The rental schedule is $30 for the city of Cam-
den and $20 for all other districts.

The item of $98 for court service should be divided
-—-$40 for issuing transfers and $58 for a recount.

The members of the county board of elections re-
ceive an annual salary of $250 except the secretary

‘who receives $333.33. The total cost, therefore, is
$1083.33, a sum much*less than the salary paid in
several smaller counties.

Cape May

Because access was not obtained to the vouchers
themselves and because the collector’s report is the
only available material on the election cost, the table
given below is incomplete.

The outstanding feature of election expenses in
Cape May County in 1916 is the irregularity in pay-

Primary General

 

 

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $2,160.00 $3,240.00
2. Salary of county board of elections 134.48 134.48
3. Extra personal service.......c..06 ceeeeeee (cee eenes
4. Fee to municipal clerks........... 664.61 664.61
5. Services of Court........ceecereee ceeeenes 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ .2.sseee  eeeeees
7, Printing (approximate)........... 488,39 488.39
8. Advertising .......c.seeceeeeeeees Stone tenses deeeee es
9. Rental of polling places (approxi-
mate) .....ccee cee ee eee eteeenes 324.00 486.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.........-- Teaaihiwiakie> <tuveeradite
Approximate total.....--.++s+eee+s $3,771.48 $5,053.48

ing the election officers. Cape May County had four
elections in 1916: (1) the presidential primary,
April 25; (2) a special election on the adoption of the
small board of freeholders, June 27; (3) primary,

173
September 26; and (4) general election, November 7.
The statute specifically fixes the compensation of elec-
tion officers at $15 for the presidential primary, $10
for a special election, and $50 for the two fall elections.
The county paid its election officers $18 for the presi-
dential primary and $15 for the special election, there-
by permitting itself to be argued out of $864, which
it did not need to pay and by law was not authorized
to pay.

The county board is paid on a per diem basis, re-
ceiving $10 a day for canvassing the votes, and $8
a day for all other sittings. The total amount received
by the members of the board in 1916 was $336.20.

There is no uniform rate of pay for the municipal
clerks. For the two fall elections their total compensa-
tion amounted to $1329.23, which is evenly divided in
the table. This payment presumably includes pay-
ment for extra service and for erecting booths,

Polling places were paid for at the uniform rate of °
$50 for all elections. For purposes of approximation,
$30 of this has been charged to the two fall elections.

Cumberland

The freeholders of Cumberland County make a
practice of cutting the election bills which they déem
unreasonably high. For the rent of polling places they
have established a schedule of $30 for Bridgeton and
Millville, $25 for Vineland, and $20 for the remaining
districts. The uniformity secured by control of the
freeholders does not go a$ far, however, as it might.
Primary General

1., Election officers’ compensation..... $3,440.00 $5,160.00
2. Salary of county board of elections 173.33 173.33
3. Extra personal service............ 52.00 79.78
4. Fee to municipal clerks............ ccececee | seeeecee
5, Services: of Courtiesss.sccssscease cvemenss 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 107.86 159.19
Doe PIADEHMIR, ci 5-0 ane Gueciediain wna weanee 4 223.68 1,497.10
B;, cAAVERHSING: oo bo cicieseni dais we sisseionaled: “a acaiaeoncnrs 4.62
9. Rental of polling places........... 560.00 840.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.......... 105.54 140.18
11,

County clerks’ fee.............+0+- 369.80 554.74

$5,032.21 $8,648.94

That there is no strict audit of items is illustrated by
the two items for advertising the issuance of transfers,
which, although so small as to be negligible, neverthe-
less illustrate the general idea. One newspaper (the

174

 

 
official newspaper—i. e., the administration news-
paper) charged $3.12 for a two-inch advertisement,
three times. For the same advertisement on the same
dates, another paper charged $1.50; and the latter has
twice the circulation of the former.

A noticeable feature of the printing bills in Cum-
berland County is the wide difference petween the pri-
mary printing and the general election printing. The
sum of $223.68 is not quit® complete (as the primary
ballot printing bills from all the municipalities were
not found on file at the date of investigation—April
13, 1917) ; yet the discrepancy between this figure and
$1497.10 is so great as to suggest a large difference
in quality and size between the primary and general
election ballots or else undue extravagance in buying
the general election ballots.

The salary of the county board of elections is $100
per member, and $33.33 extra for the secretary, mak-
ing a total of $433.33.

An unusual item which appears among the Cumber-
land vouchers is a fee for the county clerk to the
amount of $924.50. This sum has been divided be-
tween the primary and general election on the basis of
forty per cent. and sixty per cent.. The county clerk’s
bill, in summarized form, contains the following items:

To various items of miscellaneous supplies.......... $175.94

To traveling expenses, delivery supplies, etc......... 107.78

To services (the various duties required by law), 43
election districts, @ $20..........ceseeeeveneeenees 860.00

To extra service in securing return of defective sam-
ple ballots, reprinting and delivery of same to
municipal clerks and boards of election, 43 election
districts; @) $190 «..ocen ses eeaseanisarsanae i esaan os 64.50

This charge of $21.50 per district is purely a fee
for the services required of the county clerk by the
election law. As is the case with all other fees, this
fee is not a personal emolument of the clerk, but is ac-
counted for to the collector as a part of the fee receipts
of the clerk’s office. What the procedure amounts to
is this—that $924.50 is taken from the election fund
and placed into the county clerk’s fund. The reason
for the procedure is stated to be the desire of the clerk
to make the receipts of his office appear large and his
record good. Financially the effect seems to be bad,

175
in that the cash must be turned over to the clerk at a
time when money must be borrowed from the banks
in. anticipation of taxes.

The undesirability of this practice (it exists only in
Cumberland and Hudson) will be more fully discussed
in the last part of the chapter.

Essex

The salary of each member of the Essex County
board of elections is $1000 per year. The clerk re-
ceives $1800 and the stenographer $900, making a
total for the county board of $6700.

The primary and general election charges for extra
personal service consists for the most part of clerical
service in the county clerk’s office. The charge of

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $25,680.00 $38,520.00
2. Salary of county board of elections 2,680.00 2,680.00
3. Extra personal service............ 4,513.50 2,742.00
4. Fee to municipal clerks........... 683.75 1,653.70
5.: Services of ‘Courtiseccsscscaxaneax vsevones 80.00
6. Envelopes, supplies and miscella-

MEOUS 2. cee eee cc cece eeeseees .... 2,956.10 2,744.80
Zoey  NPPAT EIS? © 2 cs ceesaversssiascce.d -aeanvneveunsent 17,030.21 34,276.52
B, ACVentising jncaciatcctetusduaus SRRataes “heeinieles
9. Rental of polling places........... 3,852.00 5,778.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.......... 1,465.46 1,399.66

$58,861.02 $89,874.68

$2742 in the general election was for the services of
fifty-eight employees of the county clerk’s office for
“delivering tally sheets, statements and registry lists,
preparing the ballots and canvassing sheets, and can-
vassing the votes.” The rate of pay is fifty cents per
hour. It is almost inconceivable that it should take
fifty-eight men twelve days to do the necessary clerical
work for the general election. The same service in
the primary election cost $4300.50. It is very likely
that a corps of expert clerks could do the entire clerical
work required for a much less cost, or in the same
amount of time'could even tabulate the vote from the
ballots themselves, instead of from the precinct tally
sheets.

The municipal clerks receive a fee of $5 per district
for their general election services, and, with the ex-
ception of Newark, a fee of $5 for their primary elec-

176
tion services. As was stated in connection with Ber-
gen County, much can be said for this practice, but
it is without doubt irregular according to the present
statute.

The $80 charge for court service is for two judges
sitting two days.

The county clerk follows the commendable practice
of buying for the municipal clerks the necessary pri-
mary supplies and stationery. The primary ballots
cost $13,101.41, while the general election ballots cost
$19,396.85, The printing of general election stationery,
including a charge for registry lists of $8439, amounted
to $14,879.67. The primary ballots are bought by the
municipal clerks on the basis of approximately $50 a
district. West Orange paid $60 a district, and East
Orange $32 a district, with the other municipalities
paying from $40 to $50.

For the rental of polling places, Essex County pays
$30 a district. For the erecting and carting of booths,
there is a charge of $5 per district for each election,
although there are several variations from this figure.
The clerk of East Orange, for example, having put
his election expenses on a strictly commercial instead
of a political basis, succeeded in having the booths
handled for $2.80 a district.

The cost of advertising elections is borne, as it
should be, by the municipalities. The following table,
which gives the advertising expense to six dif-
ferent municipalities, represents 272 districts out of
321 in the whole county:

 

 

Primary General

Newark ......cceseeeeeee $1,744.47 (est.) $2,616.71 (est.)
Roseland .........0e206: 21.93 21.93
East Orange....... i Satay iets 110.53 297.50
Montclair ..........00005: 36.40 71.08
S. Orange Township..... 58.82 58.82
Orange vessicctnvesieaaes 165.10 294.24

Total, 272 districts... $2,129.25 $3,360.30

_ The total for both elections is $5,489.55.

Gloucester

The members of the Gloucester County board of
elections receive a salary of $75 per year. The secre-

tary receives $100.
‘Fhere are.no charges for extra personal service.

177
Small items of expense incurred by the municipal
clerks are included in the municipal clerks’ fees or
“expenses” as they are called in Gloucester.

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation.... $3,200.00 $4,800.00
2. Salary of county board of elections 130.00 130.00
3. Extra personal service..........052 cesceeee | ceeenees
4. Fee to municipal clerks............ 124.10 124.07
5. Services of Court........... Brae eta Wages es 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 7.67 29.65
Ze PHOS cceccisisieciae soeegamcee cee ae 2,929.76 1,776.50
8 Advertising .............-.000 0 eee 125.25 213.56
9. Rental of polling places........... 306.00 340.0C
10. Booths and ballot boxes........... 50.00: 50.73

 

 

\ $6,872.78 = $7,504.51 .

The noticeable feature of the printing expense is the
comparatively large amount charged against the pri-
mary. The general election printing bill was:

 

Stamped envelopes.........:.2cccccceeewcceecceeeene $176.50
Sample ballotsscces<ssaswewea vs tesmwerses eeommereess 600.00
Official ‘ballotsin sx. caine aiouate aurcecoeteecuieneas se 1,000.00

$1,776.50

The primary ballots and stationery were printed by
four printing companies, who agreed on a uniform
price. The following bill for the Borough of Wino-
nah shows the prices charged for each district:

Sample: ballots esicc + susccueceds cea' samedee saneacees ss $17.00
Official ballotsinaswsccccwenawut sanaawsus vs exevaeeliasts 25.50
Bilection: istip pliesiassas vssisiamerect/octnnman ereeatuadiegueestess 27.50
325 stamped envelopes.........-.- ccs eceeeeeceeeeees 5.60

The supplies, bought for $27.50 a district, con-
sisted of registry and poll books, tally sheets, affi-
davits and various other blank statements. The
financial officers of Gloucester County feel that the
charges agreed on by the printers are entirely too
large. In fact, the clerk of the Borough of Swedes-
boro broke away from the local combine and bought
his supplies from a large printing concern that makes
a specialty of election stationery. His supplies cost
him $20 for two districts instéad of $27.50 a district.

Gloucester is another county which supplements
municipal advertising (the municipal advertising cost
approximately $25 a district) with county advertising.

178
The total charge of $338.81, paid by the county for
primary and general election notices and for advertis-
ing the lists of the members of the election boards, is
not authorized by the law.

The rental charge in Gloucester is not fixed by the
freeholders. It varies from $10 to $25 a district.

Hudson

The cost of elections in Hudson County is greater
than in any other county of New Jersey. The three
elections of 1916 cost the county approximately $240,-
000. Adding the municipal expenses of advertising and
paying the clerks’ fees, it may conservatively be esti-
mated that it costs the voters of Hudson County a

Primary General

1, Election officers’ compensation..... $26,160.00 $39,240.00
2. Salary of county board of elections 2,880.00 2,880.00
3. Extra personal service............ 4,070.90 11,474.87
4, Fee to municipal clerks............ ccccceee | teense
4b. Fee to county clerk............... 5,184.10 5,184.05
S. Services of (Courts sscscasiawieeiees esuaeqics 7,637.50
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 537.73 2,879:80
7:, APPIN G iecssavs acesieraneateie eee aces 38,543.12 27,605.80
8 Advertising ...........eeee eee # eons 33.00
9. Rental of polling places........... 4,234.80 6,352.20
10, Booths and ballot boxes........... 4,788.88 6,400.77

$86,399.53 $109,687.99
quarter of a million dollars annually to nominate and
elect their public officers.

The fixed compensation for election officers com-
prises only 35.1 per cent. of the total election expenses.
One naturally asks why the other expenses should be
so large a share of the total expense. A study of the
election vouchers seems to show that the greatest ex-
travagance is found in the charges for extra personal
service and for printing primary ballots.

The charges for extra personal service were in-
curred partly by the municipal clerks, partly by the
county clerk and partly by the county board of elec-
tions. The charges were as follows:

Primary General

Municipal clerks.........-eeeeeeeeeeeee $3,147.55 $2,496.53
County board...........-- A asaucaister FRR 183.00 8,413.33
County clerk....... siooetnirae CROCS REBT 740.35 565.00

 

 

$4,070.90 $11,474.86
179
It is apparent from the foregoing, not only that the
municipal clerks have been extravagant in turning in
charges for extra help, but that the county board has
made an undue charge upon county funds in its eight
thousand dollar charge for clerical help. The county
board, instead of the county clerk as in Essex, did the
tabulating work as a part of its canvassing duties.
Approximately thirty men were kept on the pay roll of
the county board from October 9 to November 25,
How so many men could be usefully employed for so
long a time, even in canvassing the returns of 327 dis-
tricts, is entirely incomprehensible.

This practice, along with numerous similar 75 cents
an hour jobs for “services assisting” the city clerk of
Jersey City and other municipalities, clearly reveals
the system whereby the election law is made an excuse
for a large body of political “friends” to get their fin-
gers into the people’s money. There certainly is no
more justification for this excessive expenditure than
there is for the 58 clerks in the Essex County clerk’s
office who “ tabulate” returns.

The county pays no fees to the municipal clerks, but
more than offsets this advantage by paying the county
clerk a fee of $10,368.15. This practice is pursued
also in Cumberland County, but it is especially objec-
tionable in Hudson because it means a double payment
for service. The situation briefly is this—the county
clerk is required by the election law to do certain
things, among others to prepare and supervise the
printing of the ballots and registry lists; he details one
of his clerks to do the work; the clerk does the work
and turns in a claim to the freeholders for $250 for
overtime in “supervising the printing,” etc.; then the
clerk charges the freeholders a fee of $25 a district,
or $8175 for the work which they have already paid
the subordinate clerk for doing. The county clerk’s
fee for 1916 is as follows:

No. 8599—CLAIM OF JOHN J. McGOVERN CO. CLERK
AAGAINST FREEHOLDERS FOR ELECTION FEES,
PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION, 1916
Preparing and superintending printing of
ballots, registry lists and other election mat-

ters, 327 districts, @ $25.00 each........... $8,175.00
1541—Petitions for transfer @ 69c..............00 1,063.29
1541—Orders directing transfers @ 26c.........,.. 400.66
1541—Certificates from board of registry @ &c..... 123.28

180
1543—Identification certificate from board of registry

Qi Sees cssunetes os aaeamawede es sae eens 123.28
175—Affidavits to place on registry lists @ 8c.... 14,00
654—Challenge certificates @ 8c.......... re 52.32
327—Returns, justice of peace @ 8c.......000e0ee 26.16
790—Oaths of election officers @ 8c........000005 63.20
1962—Returns, general election, @ 8c.........20.005 156.96
327—Returns, primary election, @ 8c........0..02+ 26.16
327—Registry lists @ 8c.......cceeeeceeeceueenes 26.16
327—Registry books @ 8c.......ccccceeceseeeeees 26.16
327—Identification books, reg, @ 8c.........0000: 26.16
327—Identification books, elec., @ 8c..........0005 26.16
175—Statements of candidates @ 8c.........00000: 14.00
140—Designation of committee @ 8c...........00+ 11.20
175—Petitions of candidates @ 8c..........eee00> 14.00

Total ise gsamnyanaee Geukeoiauauuaatadad $10,368.15

This means that over $10000 must be transferred
from a depleted election fund to the county clerk’s
fund and that the freeholders must sell short term
notes to cover the amount.

Of the large sum charged to court services, $7597.50
is the bill for a recount of the votes for boulevard
commissioners. This sum was not all for the service
of the judge, but was incurred and countersigned by
him. In this case, as in the case of the county board
of elections, extravagant and unnecessary wages were
authorized. Laborers to lift the boxes, carpenters to
open them, clerks to tally the vote, and the members
of the county board to watch the proceedings, all had
to have stipends ranging from $5 to $15 a day.

Unlike the situation in most other counties, Hudson
pays a good deal more for primary printing than for
general election printing. It will be remembered that
in Essex the situation was just reversed, the general
election bill being about twice that for the primary.
The freeholders exercise practically no power to
“prune” printing bills, or any other bills for that mat-
ter. A case of “pruning” was found, however, in con-
nection with the bills for printing the ballots for the
presidential primary. The action of the printers hap-
pened to be unconcerted on this occasion, and, unfor-
tunately for them, resulted in a lower price. The first
claim that was sent in was for $12.50 a district. The
four other printing companies sent in claims for $15
a district, which were promptly reduced by the super-
visor to $12.50.

181
There is no uniform price for rental of polling’
places, in fact no attempt is made even to place the
various prices on a consistent basis. One municipality
may be found charging more than another for the
fall elections and less than the other in the presiden-
tial primary. An incomplete list of the prices paid in
the various municipalities follows:

Fall Primary

Pres. and Gen-
Municipality ‘ Primary eral Election

Jersey City........ ee er $16.00 /
HObOK ER sa isie-cs nig.tertwnteed omar «-» 10.00 35.00
Bayonne ..........cc eee eeceeeeccece 5.00: 40.00
West Hoboken.............0000c00e 15.00 40.00
Union ..... GN bis waite a le ote Casahetasaninstorte ase 10.00 40.00
North Bergen..............c0ceeeees 10.00 aan
Kearney, scxencsvis saeceuuases cameos 15.00 34.00
Weehawken ............eccesceeeee aay 40.00
FIAEPISOM  specienn gs aacieciisnwe Los vena wee 10.00 30.00
West New York...........00000e0s 15.00 34.00
Guttenberg ............ cece eee eeee aera sues
Fast Newark: « sscienves vywswmercn ce since oe
Secaucus ..........00005 aaariaanerierece

The charge for erecting and carting the election fur-
niture is approximately $15 per district.

In addition to the county expenditures discussed
above, an incomplete record shows the following ex-
penditures by some of the municipalities for adver-
tising and municipal clerk’s fees:

 

—.—-Advertising- —Clerks’ Fee—

Pres. Gen. Pres, en,

Municipality Prim. Prim. Elec. Prim. Prim. Elec.

Union ......0005 $483.90 $737.84 $734.84 $150 $150 $150

Hoboken ........ 891.20 823.28 1382.64 250 250 250

West Hoboken... 447.86 494.70 494.70 a 75 75

Harrison ....... suai 100.00 100.00 sis oe ca

Kearney ........ 98.40 111.45 111.30 60 75 75
Jersey City...... areas 1784.60 2557.96

eee

Partial total... $1921.36 $4051.87 $4484.44 $460 $550 $550

The regular pay roll of the Hudson County board
of elections is as follows:

Four members @ $500..........cceeeeeeeeeeceeeees $2,000.00
Two clerks @ $2,000............ ccc cee eee eee eeee 4,000.00
One clerk @ Pl sssicccsiissescvvsscevewseneses 1,200.00

Total) sxasevadaaereinncvaracasns Seheeederean $7,200.00

Here again is found evidence of a desire to burden
the county treasury with unnecessary officials by cir-
cumventing the technical provisions of the law. The
statute (paragraph 180) reads that “the member of
said county board of elections who shall be the secre-

182
tary thereof, may receive an additional compensation
not exceeding one-third of the compensation of the
individual members of the board, except in counties
of the first class, where there shall be a clerk of said
board who shall receive such compensation as shall be
fixed by said board of freeholders.” The intent of this
provision without question was that, since the clerical
work required in Essex and Hudson counties pre-
sumably would be more than could be done by the
secretary, there should be instead a full-time, rea-
sonably well paid clerk to do the work. The law cer-
tainly did not mean to authorize three clerks, espe-
cially when not more than one is needed. The law is
circumvented by calling the three clerks by the titles of
chief clerk, first assistant clerk, and assistant clerk and
messenger.

Hunterdon

The Hunterdon County board of elections is paid
on the basis of $7.50 a day and four cents a mile, with
the secretary getting one-third more as provided by the
law. In 1916, the board sat nineteen days. The total
cost for the year was $767.54.

Sixty dollars of the $87.89 charged to extra service
is for delivering supplies for the county clerk in the

Primary General

1, Election officers’ compensation..... $2,560.00 $3,840.00
2. Salary of county board of elections 307.02 307.02
3. Extra personal service............ 12.89 75.00
4. Fee to municipal clerks........... 320.00 480.00
5. Services of Court........esseeceee cecseees 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 77.68 70.58
7. Printing ........:eeeeceeeeeeeenes 831.72 1,233.37
8. Advertising .......-.-eeseeeeeeeee 490.00 712.20
9, Rental of polling places........... 320.00 480.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.........+6 wsesesee 19.00

 

$4,919.31 $7,257.17

general election ; the remainder is for “special officers”
employed at $3 per day to keep order at the polls.

The municipal clerks receive $10 a district for their
services atrthe presidential primary; $10 for the fall
primary, and $15 for the general election. This charge
is not purely a fee as it is supposed to include any
charge for extra service and for handling the booths
and ballot boxes.

183
The printing bill for the general election is half
again as-large as that for the primary, as is the case
in several other counties. The freeholders, who make
a practice of “pruning” other charges and making
them conform with a fixed schedule, do not alter the
printing bills at all. This is probably due to the fact
that the printing bills come from the same source as
the advertising bills, which they are in the habit of
leaving untouched, because of a “legal rate” for official
advertising.

Hunterdon is the one county of the state which pays
for the election notices placed in the newspapers by
the municipal clerks. There is no charge for “county
advertising” except the small sum supposed to be paid
for notices of the court’s sitting for the issuance of
transfers. The county pays for the municipal adver-
tisements and does not exercise any supervision over
the prices. The complaint is made by the county of-
ficers that some of the municipal advertising is in the
“long form” and some of it in the “short form,” and
they don’t seem to be able to remedy the situation.
They should not pay the advertising bills at all, for
there is no question but that the present practice is
contrary to the provisions of the law. The schedule
for the rental of polling places for the two fall elec-
tions is $25 a district.

Mercer

The salary of the county board—$250 for each mem-
ber with one-third additional for the secretary—totals
$1083.33 a year. The amount spent for extra service
is negligible, because the city of Trenton paid for any
extra clerks required in the city clerk’s office. This
charge against the city amounted to $50 for the

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $7,680.00 $11,520.00
2. Salary of county board of elections 433.33 433.33
3. Extra personal service............ 3.15 1.46
4. Fee to municipal clerks..........66 ceeeeeee cence
5. Services of Court...........cc0eee cece eee 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 19.43 374.29
7 PRN cite eccntstanmncece va 2,258.29 2,637.43
8. Advertising secssccsiceveavewsessn aoewss ‘ae Sekar
9. Rental of polling places........... 1,002.00 1,503.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.......... 782.90 404.20

 

 

$12,179.10 $16,913.71
184
primary and $67.50 for the general election. The
apparent economy of election finance in Mercer
County is due largely to the part that the city of Tren-
ton plays in the election machinery. Instead of hav-
ing a lot of unnecessary clerks and loading a large
expense on the county, the city does the work as
economically as possible and pays for part of it itself.
The influence of the city of Trenton is seen also in
the charges for booths and ballot boxes. This last
year a large expense for carting and erecting booths
has been cut down by making use of the regular la-
borers and the auto trucks in the city service,

The county does not pay for advertising or for the
service of municipal clerks. A partial list of these
charges paid by the various municipalities follows:

Ad- Municipal

 

ver- Clerks’
tising Fee
Princeton Borough........ $47.38 $23.00
Hopewell Borough......... 56.87 ss aaee
Ewing Township.......... 0 ..... 45.00
Lawrence Township....... 8.05 40.00
Hopewell Township....... 30.00 14.80
Hamilton Township........ 231.15 60.00
TOMtOH: .eisssisieieces econdoeceas 1,379.53 100.00 (2 elections)
Partial total............. $1,652.98 $282.80

The freeholders of Mercer County endeavor to re-
duce any unreasonable charges by holding up payment
until a satisfactory agreement is reached. By insisting
on maximum prices, they have been able practically to
establish a schedule for rent, which is $30 for Trenton
and $25 for other municipalities.

Middlesex

The amounts set forth in the table for the general
election are estimates based on the vouchers for 52 out
of 76 districts.

_ The three regular members of the Middlesex County
board of elections receive a salary for their actual
service of $15 per day; the secretary receives $20 per
day. In 1916 they served eighteen days—one day for

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $6,080.00 $9,120.00
2. Salary of county board of election. 468.00 468.00
3. Extra personal service.........+06 cececees  ceeevens
4. Fee to municipal clerks........... 1,140.00 1,140.00
 

5. Services of Court.........ccescees seeeeeee $ 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous 24.94 688.07
7 Printing 33 vscaaweiss scaewees . 3,232.87 2,531.25
8 Advertising ............c000- woe ‘693.05 700.00
9. Rental of polling places...... -.. 2,086.00 3,129.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes........... 553.47 972.83

 

 

$14,278.33 $18,789.15

the presidential primary, eight days for the primary,
and nine days for the general election—receiving al-
together $1170,

It is a noticeable fact that there are no charges for
extra service, although some of such charges are un-
doubtedly absorbed by the municipal clerks’ fees,
which are fixed by the freeholders at $15 a district
for each election.

The largest part of the $688.07 aes against gen-
eral election supplies is for envelopes. The envelopes
for the primary are included in the primary printing
bill,

The method of paying for advertising in Middlesex
County is irregular in that the county pays the expense
of advertising which is supposed to be paid by the
municipalities. Unlike several other counties, how-
ever, which make similar payments, Middlesex County
incurs as well as pays the expense. Thus the muni-
cipalities neither select the papers nor pay for the ad-
vertisements. While it is without doubt desirable that
election advertising should be centralized in the county,
such a practice is not authorized by the present law.

Perhaps the point to be criticized most severely is
the exorbitant charge for the rent of polling places.
The price paid for the two fall elections in New Bruns-
wick, Perth Amboy, South Amboy, in fact in most of
the municipalities, is $75. This is almost double the
price paid anywhere else in the state. When a mu-
nicipal clerk was asked if he had any trouble in getting
the polling places, he said the trouble was just the
other way.

Monmouth

Monmouth County pays its county board of elec-
tions $650 a year, probably a more economical salary,
and, considering the service rendered, a more nearly

186
appropriate salary than in any county of similar size.

: Primary General
1. Election officers’ compensation..... $7,520.00 $11,280.00
2. Salary of county board of elections 260.00 260.00
3. Extra personal service............ 91.46 184.40
4. Fee to municipal clerks............ 502.50 502.50
5. Services of Court.........cccccees cuceaues 1,320.40
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 393.88 169.24
7. Printing jisesseeoons captives 1,798.98 1,838.99
Bs SAAVEFISING wicioccccesectsaaind oneeeses  <hnateiben
9. ‘Rental of polling places........... 940.00 1,410.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes........... 442.55 555.51

 

 

$11,949.37 $17,521.04

As is usually the case, the largest part of the charge
for extra personal service was incurred by the county
clerk in delivering supplies, etc. Ninety dollars of the
total, however, is for special officers employed to keep
order at the polls. Such employment is authorized by
the law, but the opinion in Monmouth County seems
to be that there is really no need for special officers.

For the services rendered: in the primary and gen-
eral elections, the municipal clerks receive from the
county a fee of $15 if they have one election district
and $10 a district if more than one district.

Of the $1320.40 charged against court service,
$1280.40 is the partial total of Monmouth’s share of
the cost of conducting the Carson-Scully third congres-
sional district recount.

The freeholders exercise the power to audit election
claims and to reduce unreasonable charges to a fixed
maximum. The schedule for rent is $25 a district for
the two fall elections.

A special feature of Monmouth’s election machinery
is a separate election clerk in the clerk’s office, who
engages principally in supervising gll election work
performed in the county. The uniformity, the com-
pleteness and the accuracy of the election records in
Monmouth County are evidence of the advantage of
centralizing the election work in the hands of one man
who specializes therein. It is estimated that $1000 of
his salary can be legitimately charged to election cost.

Morris

The Morris County board of elections is paid $650
a year. The charges for extra service were all in-
curred by the county clerk. The charges for municipaj

187
clerks’ fees are more than pure fees; they include any
charges for extra personal service.
The $60 charge against court service is for three

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $5,040.00 $7,560.00
2. Salaries of county boards of elec-

HONS) ocr cepustesapecn bettas waar 260.00 260.00
3. Extra personal service............ 178.55 325.45
4. Fee to municipal clerks........... 610.90 575.68
5. Services of Court....... ler Sesh doleseey usta ates 60.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 364.95 140.47
7 Printing: scsevssieasewer ses sacewes 2,242.74 3,500.23
8. Advertising sicscscevarcineeresesienicice 35.36 82.40
9. Rental of polling places........... 894.00 1,341.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes........... 164.53 262.93

 

 

$9,791.03 $14,108.16

days’ sitting of the court. The dates given are Sep-
tember 26, November 6 and November 7; the sitting on
primary day is found only in Morris County. There
is some question as to the authority behind this extra
charge of $20.

The cost of advertising the court’s sitting to issue
transfers was $42.90. The remainder of the adver-
tising cost found in the table is an advertising bill of
the town of Morristown (Primary, $35.36; General
Election, $39.50), which probably was paid by the
county by mistake.

There is a maximum price of $40 a district allowed
for the rental of polling places. Most of the municipal
clerks pay $35 or $40; a few of them pay $30, and
one district has a charge of only $25.

The “pruning” of claims is practised by the free-
holders.

: Ocean

Failure to get access to the expense vouchers makes
it necessary to leave out Ocean County as far as a
table of election expenses is concerned. A few side-
lights on the methods used, however, may not be amiss,

The members of the board of elections receive $50
each, the secretary $66.66, a total of $216.66.

A very commendable feature is the practice of the
county clerk in buying all supplies for the primary and
general election.

The price for the rent of polling places is not uni-

188
Table XVII.

Analysis of Cost of 1916 Primary and General Election—Personal Service

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Cost of Election Officers County Board of Election Extra Personal Service Municipal Clerk’s Fee County Clerk’s Fee | Services of
oe yu.

: COUNTIES Za Primary General Primary | General Primary | General Primary | General Primary | General General ()
Auantic 78 $6,240.00 ‘$9,360.00 $520.00 | $520.00 $86.10 $5.00 | | $40.00
Bergen 121 9,680.00 14,520.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 344.81 440.53 $336.40 | $398.30 : | 40.00
Burlington 65 4,200.00 7,800.00 | |
Camden 136 10,880.00 16,320.00 433.33 433.33 59.75 | 17.50 98.00
Cape May 27 2,160.00 3,240.00 134.48 134.48 664.61 664.61 | | 40.00
Cumberland 43 3,440.00 5,160.00 173.33 173.33 * 52.00 * 79.78 369.80 | 554.74 | 40.00
Essex 321 25,680.00 38,520.00 2,680.00 2,680.00 4,513.50 | 2,742.00 683.75 | 1,653.70 | | 80.00
Gloucester 403,200.00 4,800.00 130.00 130.00 | 124.10 124.07 | | 40.00
Hudson 327 26,160.00 39,240.00 2,880.00 2,880.00 4,070.90 | 11,474.87 | | 5,184.10 | 5,184.05 | 7,637.50
Hunterdon 32 2,560.00 3,840.00 307.02 307.02 12.89 | 75.00 320.00 480.00 | | | 40.00
Mercer 96 7,680.00 11,520.00 433.33 433.33 3.15 1.46 | | 40.00
Middlesex 76 6,080.00 9,120.00 468.00 468.00 | 1,140.00 | 1,140.00 | 40.00
Monmouth 94 7,520.00 11,280.00 260.00 260.00 | 91.46 184.40 502.50 502.50 | | 1,320.40
Morris 63 5,040.00 7,560.00 260.00 260.00 | 178.55 325.45 | 610.90 | 575.68 | | | 60.00
Ocean 32 2,560.00 3,840.00 86.66 86.66 | | | | | 40.00
Passaic 121 9,680.00 ‘14,520.00 840.00 840.00 746.05 759.95 | | | 40.00
Salem 22 1,760.00 | — 2,640.00 86.67 | 86.67 | | | 40.00
Somerset 36 -2,880.00 | 4,320.00 25133 | 25133 | 18.00 113.00 | 327.75 | 327.75 | 40.00
Sussex 28 2,240.00 | — 3,360.00 130.00 | 130.00 | 57.00 65.04 112.50 117.28 | 40.00
Union 109 8,720.00 ‘13,080.00 680.00 | 680.00 | 909.21 807.22 | 1,035.00 | 1,035.00 [_ 40.00
Warren 38 3,040 00 4,560.00 62.76 | 62.76 | 228.00 228.00 40.00
Totals for 1905 districts “151,400.00(2) 228,600.00) | 12,616.91(), 12,616.91) 11,143.37(0) 17,395.74) 6,085.51(9) 7,246.89(6)| 5,553.90(4)| 5,738.79(9| 9,795.90)

* Estimated

() The law reauires the court to issue registry transfers only before the general election. There were no charges for court service for the primary.

2) Total for the twenty-one counties.
() Total for twenty counties.
(4) Total for eighteen counties.
Table XVIII.

Analysis of Cost of 1916 ‘Primary and General Election—Other than Personal Service

 

| Booths and Ballot Boxes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNTIES Supplies ae Mantel Printing Advertising Rental of Polling Pics
Primary General Primary General Primary General Primary General Primary General

Atlantic | $228.77 $260.05 $3,271.45 $3,441.37 $19.07 $793.00 | $1,189.50 $313.95 | $300.03
Bergen 514.31 240.57 4,386.64 4,781.00 314.50 1,422.18 1,815.00 | 3,025.00 409.85 496.46
Burlington | | |
Camden 523.55 38.65 6,119.29 4,282.38 15.75 1,424.00 | 2,136.00 | 719.61 702.42
Cape May * 488.39 * 488.39 * 324.00 , * 486.00
Cumberland | 107.86 159.19 | 223.68 1,497.10 4.62 560.00 840.00 105.54 140.18
Essex | 2,956.10 2,744.80 | 17,030.21 34,276.52 3,852.00 5,778.00 1,465.46 1,399.66
Gloucester | 7.67 29.65 | 2,929.76 1,776.50 | 125.25 213.56 306.00 | 340.00 50.00 50.73
Hudson 537.73 2,879.80 | 38,543.12 27,605.80 | 33.00 4,234.80 | 6,352.20 4,788.88 6,400.77
Hunterdon 77.68 70.58 | 831.72 1,233.37 | 49000 | 712.20 | 320.00 ; 480.00 19.00
Mercer | 19.43 374.29 2,258.29 2,637.43 | | 1,002.00 1,503.00 782.90 404.20
Middlesex 24.94 688.07 3,232.87 2,531.25 [693.05 * 700.00. #2,086.00 | #3,129.00 | *553.47 * 972.83
Monmouth _ 393.88 169.24 1,798.98 1,838.99 | | (940.00 1,410.00 442.55 555.51
Morris 364.95, 140.47 | 2,242.74 | 3,500.23 35.36 | 82.40 | 894.00 | 1,341.00 | 164.53 262.93
Goren | | | | | |
Passaic | 271.55 148.99 | 5,247.48 8,250.70 114.43 185.31 | 1,860 00 | 2,790.00 783.97 868.92
Salem | | | | | | —
Somerset | | | 516.17 | 1,28798 | | | 432.00 | 648.00 183.00
Sussex | | | 323.09 | 290.95 | | 224.00 | 336.00 24.25 99.75
Union | | 5,153.11 | 7,343.18 | | 1,308.00 | 1,962.00 294.11 1,124.45
Warren 61.00 | 222.75 * 331.25 | 1,108.23 | | 352.00 | 528.00 146.58

Total 6,089.42(| 8,167.10(4)| 94,928.24(4)| 108,180.37(4)| 1,788. 409) 3372-3405) 22,726.80(%) 34,273.70(4)| 10,899.07()| 14,127.42(6)

* Estimated.

(4) Total for eighteen counties.

 

 

 

 
Table XIX.

Summary of Primary and General Election
Cost, by Purposes of Expenditure

 

 

 

Percent of Total
for all Purposes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purposes of Expenditure Primary General Total
| |
Cost of election officers 151,400.00 228,600.00 | 380.000.00 | 49.2
County board of elections 12,616.91 12,616.91 | 25,233.82 | 3.3
Extra personal service 11,143.37 17,395.74 | 28,539.11 | 3.7
Municipal clerk’s fees 6,085.51 7,246.89 | 13,332.40] 1.7
County clerk’s fees 5,553.90 5,738.79 11,292.69 1.5
Services of court | 9,795.90 9,795.90 1.3
Supplies and miscellaneous 6,089.42 | 8,167.10 14,256.52 1.8
Printing 94,928.24 | 108,180.37 203,108.61 26.3
Advertisinz 1,788.34 | 3,372.34 | 5,160.86 7
Rental of polling places 22,726.80 | 34,273.70 57,000.50 33
Booths and ballot boxes 10,899.07 | 14,127.42 25,026.49 3.2
Total 323,231.56 | 449,515.16 772,746.72 100.
Table XX.

Summary of Primary and General Election
Cost, by Counties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

og
yg
COUNTIES Bz | Primary General JO Bed
ZA Elections
Hudson “327 86,399.53 | 109,687.99 196,087.52 7,200.00
Essex 321 58,861.02 | 89,874.73 148,735.75 6,700.00
Camden “136 20,175.28 | 24,188.28 44,363.56 1,083.33.
Passaic 121 19,543.48 | 28,403.87 47,947.35 2,100.00
Bergen :121.~«19,601.51 | 27,164.04. 46,765.55 4,500.00
Union 109 18,099.43 26,071.85 44,171.28 1,700.00
Mercer 96 12,179.10 | 16,913.71 29,092.81 1,083.33
Monmouth | 94 +(11,949.37. | 17,521.04 29,470.41. 650.00
Atlantic 78 11,453.27 15,135.02 26,588.29 1,300.00
Middlesex 76 ~~ (14,278.33 | 18,789.15 33,067.48 1,170.00
Burlington 65
Morris 63 9,791.03 | 14,108.16 23,899.19 650.00
Cumberland 435,032.21 | 8,648.94 13,681.15 433.33
Gloucester 406,872.78 7,504.51 14,377.29 325.00
Warren 38 4,075.01. | 6,896.32 (10,971.33 + 156.91
Somerset 36 4,425.25 | 7,171.06 11,596.31 628.33
Hunterdon 32. 4,919.31 | 7,257.17 12,176.48 767.54
Ocean 32 |
Sussex. —-28~—=-3,110.84. | ~—«4,448.02 7,558.86 325.00
Cape May 273,771.48 «45,053.48 8,824.96 336.20
Salem 22 |
Total "314,538.23 (1)| 434,837.34 (%), 749,375.57 31,108.97

 

©) Cost of primary is 42% of total cost of the two fall elections of 1916.
(2) Cost of general is 58% of total cost of the two fall elections of 1916.
form, nor is the charge for erecting and transporting
election furniture.

The municipal clerks get no fee from the county for
their services.

In the matter of advertising, Ocean County is ir-
regular. The county board supplements the various
municipal election notices with a general notice which
covers the same subject, and which is of course paid
for by the county.

Passaic

The Passaic County board of elections receives
$2100 a year—$500 for each of three members and
$600 for the secretary.

The county clerk incurred most of the expense for
extra personal service in connection with tabulating re-
turns and delivering supplies. A considerable portion

Primary General

1, Election officers’ compensation..... $9,680.00 $14,520.00
2. Salaries of county board of elec-

PONS? sess! s aakswied sy o's vs oon ae es 840.00 840.00
3. .Extra personal service............ 746.05 759.95
4. Fee to municipal clerks.........206 ceeeeeee seve ees
5. Services of Court..........-:eeeee ceeeeees 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 271.55 148.99
7. PLinting: sgrgeeetecitamoleiiona ce ee 5,247.48 8,250.70
8 Advertising ..........ecseeee eens 114.43 185.31
9. Rental of polling places.......... 1,860.00 2,790.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes........... 783.97 868.92

 

 

$19,543.48 $28,403.87

also of this expense was incurred by the city of Pater-
son.

Passaic County offers only one variation from the
regular method of financing elections, namely, in re-
spect to advertising. The county board advertises
elections in a half dozen papers of the county, and
charges the cost to the county. As has been said be-
fore, this sort of advertising is in addition to and
largely a duplication of municipal advertising. More-
over, it is unauthorized.

The rental of polling places in Passaic County is $40
for Paterson, Passaic and the township of Aquacka-
nonk, and $30 for the remaining municipalities. The
charge for transporting and erecting election furniture
is not uniform, but averages about $5 per district for
each election.

189
Salem

An analysis of the cost of the fall elections in Salem
County cannot be given, because many of the election
claims had not been sent in to the collector, when the
study was made in Salem, and because there are no
schedules of uniform prices from which one could fig-
ure out total costs.

From appearances it seems that the practices in
paying election expenses are as loose as anywhere in
the state. In fact, there is very little uniformity of any
kind. The municipal clerk’s fees vary from $3 to $13
or more a district. The rental of polling places varies
from $10 to $35 a district for the two fall elections.

Advertising by the county board is paid for by the
county as in Ocean, Passaic and several other counties
of the state.

The county board of elections receives $216.66 a
year,

Somerset

The salary of the county board is $125 for each of
three members and $166.66 for the secretary. This is
only for the fall elections ; for the presidential primary
$20 is added to the members’ salary and $26.66 to the
secretary’s salary. In 1916, therefore, the whole board
received $628.33.

Primary General

  

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $2,880.00 $4,320.00
2. Salaries of county boards of elec-

HIONSY oeisceissqees 2 sientenerdae sare 251.33 251.33
3. Extra personal service............ 18.00 113.00
4. Fee to municipal clerks........... 327.75 327.75
5. Services of Court.........scceeeee cocecees 40.09
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ ..-0-2-- eee eeees
7.. Printing: i ieivsessecesdscasaweness 516.17 1,287.98
GB. Advertising .....:...ccsce cece cnee ceeeeees | ceteeees
9. Rental of polling places........... 432.00 648.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.........46. seeeeeee 183.00

 

 

$4,425.25 $7,171.06

Somerset County gives each municipal clerk $25 for
one district and $12 for each additional district.
This fee is to cover any extra charges for
erecting booths, etc. There is likewise a schedule
price of $30 a district for rent and $5 a district for the
storage of booths. This charge has been placed en-

190
tirely against the general election under the heading,
“Booths and ballot boxes.”

Sussex

The claims for compensation for the members of
the election boards often exceed $200 a district, some-
times being as high as $296. In all such cases, the
freeholders cut the claims to $200, the statutory rate.

The pay of the Sussex County board of elections is
$75 for three members and $100 for the secretary.

Primary General

1, Election officers’ compensation..... $2,240.00 $3,360.00
2. Salaries of county boards of elec-

HONG sate. sass sinieseules chy shows ioae 130.00 130.00
3. ‘Extra personal service...........- 57.00 65.04
4. Fee to municipal clerks........... 112.50 117.28
5. Services of Court...........c0c000 aceceees 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ .....222 00 seeeeeee
Ze PYitin gs sos eeaiscnstonian ve aie aa sane 323.09 299,95
8 Adveftising® casi vcs cscnvaseeeeesae Seameins seve dios
9. Rental of polling places........... 224.00 336.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.......... 24,25 99,75

 

 

$3,110.84 $4,448.02
The fees for municipal clerks as shown in the table
are not according to a uniform rate, nor are they pure
fees for supervisory services. They include services
for erecting booths, delivering supplies, etc. The rate
varies around $2.50 or $3.00 a district for each election.
It should also be mentioned that the county clerk
closely supervises the work of the municipal clerks. In
fact he buys the primary ballots, ie., he selects the
printers who should do the work.
There is a uniform rate of $20 for rent of polling
places.

Union

~The county board of elections is paid $400 for each
of three members and $500 for the secretary, a total
of $1700.

Six hundred dollars of the charge for extra service
is a fee for “legal service advising the county clerk on
election matters.” A more objectionable practice than

Primary General

1. Election officers’ compensation..... $8,720.00 $13,080.00
2. Salaries of county boards of elec-

TIONS: wehdonewe sss ykwae ewes wa errors 680.00 680.00
3. Extra personal service............ 909.21 807.22
4, Fee to municipal clerks..,......... 1,035.00 1,035.00

191
5. Services of Court......cccscseeese cucueuee $ 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ ccseeees  taeeneee
Zo PHMUNG 690s werienls 936 Garena eee 88 $ 5,153.11 7,343.18
8 Advertising cssciwsisssseswe cess aeueeses weenie
9. Rental of polling places........... 1,308.00 1,962.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes.......... 294.11 1,124.45

 

 

$18,099.43 $26,071.85

this would be hard to find, both because the job is a
sinecure and because, if there is any need for legal
advice, there is a regularly employed county attorney
whose business it is to give the necessary opinions.

The fee to municipal clerks is graduated on the
scale of $15 a district for municipalities having more
than fifteen polling places; $20 for those having from
ten to fifteen polling places ; $25 for those having from
five to ten polling places and $30 for those having less
than five polling places.

The county clerk buys the required supplies for the
primary. He meets with the municipal clerks and has
them certify to him what they need, whereupon he
makes a lump-sum contract.

An irregularity that cost the county $4360 resulted
from paying each of the election officers $20 for
service in a special election. The special election was
held in June and was on the adoption of a small board
of freeholders. The legal charge for any special elec-
tion is $10 for each election officer.

Warren

The county board of elections is paid on a basis of
$3.00 a day and mileage (secretary $4.00 a day). The
total for 1916 was $156.91, which makes it the cheapest
board in the state.

By freeholders’ resolution the municipal clerks re-
ceive $6.00 a district for the primary and $6.00 for the
general election, to cover all services and supplies, ex-
cept printing supplies and stationery.

Primary General

 

1, Election officers’ compensation..... $3,040.00 $4,560.00
2. Salaries of county boards of elec-

HONS tay ciindgeake veseaseasee xs sc F 62.76
3. Extra personal service...........0 cece eeee tee nae
4. Fee to municipal clerks i 228.00
5. Services: of ‘Cottrtii::.. esicaie ee yeni aceeee ss 40.00
6. Supplies and miscellaneous........ 61.00 222.75
7. Printing: «cssscuwe sess aeees evens 331.25 1,108.23
8; WACVETUSING Jeienniscocmemmeteanawt ees ea) RY eae
9. Rental of polling places.......... 52.00 $528.00
10. Booths and ballot boxes........... - Ve aieaeee 146.58

$4,075.01 $6,896.32

As for the printing of stationery, the municipal
clerks have agreed to let the county clerk buy the sup-
plies in one contract. The supplies are furnished,
therefore, by one company, a company that makes a
specialty of election work.

The schedule for rent is $30 for Phillipsburg and
$20 outside of Phillipsburg.

The foregoing analyses of the 1916 primary and
general election costs in the various counties of the
state are summarized in tables seventeen and eighteen.

The state totals for the various purposes of expen-
diture as shown in the summary tables are not exactly
comparable, as the totals for compensation of election
officers represent twenty-one counties, the totals for the
county boards of elections represent twenty counties
(leaving out Burlington), and the remaining totals
represent only eighteen counties (leaving out Burling-
ton, Ocean and Salem). Table nineteen, how-
ever, gives the totals spent for the various purposes in
the eighteen counties, where the records were analyzed:

The segregation of cost as between the primary and
the general election, regardless of purpose of expendi-
ture, is shown in the following table. The counties
are placed in the order of the number of their election
districts. An additional column gives the annual salary
of the county boards of elections.

Now that cost and methods of financing elections
have been analyzed for each county, it remains to dis-
cuss briefly the various “purposes of expenditure” in
the light of statewide experience.

Perhaps the crux of the whole system of financing
elections is found in the matter of auditing and

“schedules of prices.” It has been pointed out before
how many different and uncorrelated officers are au-
thorized to incur election claims against the county.
The question naturally suggests itself, whether the
freeholders have any effective supervision or check
over the many various claims that are turned in to
them. In regard to this matter, the election statute
provides that “all bills before being paid shall be
itemized and verified by the oath of the claimant and
audited and approved by the clerk of the county, town-

193

 

 
ship, city or municipality who contracted the bill
charged for.” (a) Does this mean that the free-
holders must pay any bill which is properly “O.K.’d”
by the officer who incurs the expense? Or can it be
so interpreted that the paying officers may “prune”
the charges promised by spending officers ?

The legal opinion on this point is unsatisfactory. A
few of the counties, notably Hudson, proceed on a
strict interpretation of the provision and do not make
a practice of cutting properly countersigned bills. This
very point was adjudicated in a minor case in Morris
County, in which the claimant was upheld as against
the freeholders. It is contended in some of the coun-
ties, on the other hand, that the “audit and approval”
mentioned in the law refers merely to the satisfactory
performance of service or the receipt of material and
that it does not preclude the freeholders’ determination
of price.

Whatever the interpretation of the law, most of the
counties proceed on the assumption that they do have
the right to fix prices and forthwith establish schedules
of prices, at least in respect to some purposes of ex-
penditure, such as rental. Often the freeholders gain
their point by the rough and ready method of insistence
and of holding up payment. In very few cases, how-
ever, have the bills for printing ballots and stationery
been subjected to the pruning knife or to a maximum
schedule of prices.

There can be little question as to the desirability of
the practice of making schedules for the various pur-
poses of expenditure. Economy and uniformity will
naturally result, particularly if the paying officers fix
the prices. There is no county in the state in which
the freeholders are not as well qualified as the unco-
ordinated local and county officers to fix one uniform
price or a scale of prices (depending on the circum-
stances) for printing, personal service, rental, etc. It
has been objected that the freeholders are not in a
position to determine rental in the various municipali-
ties. But it is evident that almost any scale of prices,
even one uniform price fixed by one authority, would
have a closer relation to a commercial standard of
values than the present hodge-podge of rates found
in Hudson County, for example, where each municipal

 

(a) Paragraph 180.
194
clerk has his hand in. It seems desirable and also prac-
ticable, therefore, that all election claims except those
fixed by statute should be subjected either to price

schedules or to thorough-going audit by the free-
holders.

STATE SUMMARY OF PURPOSES OF EXPENDITURE

The main difficulty with the entire system of financ-
ing elections, if it can be called a system at all, is its
decentralization. The “incurring” and “paying” au-
thotities are almost entirely separated. The bane of
a good budget system is the existence of a large num-
ber of definitely fixed charges. As regards election
expenses, the paying officers of the New Jersey coun-
ties not only have to deal with statutory charges, but
they have no effective control over the various inde-
pendent spending officers. Adequate reform of elec-
tion financés must be premised on centralized control
over the spending officers. The incurring and paying
of expenses cannot be separated without waste and ex-
travagance. ;

It was shown in the table at the beginning of the
chapter that the compensation of election officers com-
prised half of the total cost of elections in 1916. This
one “purposé of expenditure,” therefore, is the largest
item of cost and is apparently itreducible except by
chahigirig the law.

The history of the various changes that have been
made in the compensation of election officers has been
outlined in thé first part of the chapter. The present
fixed charge of $50 for the primary and general elec-
tions is divided by the law into the following items:
First fOSiStfY (ay: soos ds ccwenusos sess eelaueresasesees $8

Primary day....... baceeews Ma Acatetae tas S aausnyiremme vis 4 dew 15
Third registry day......... i dileaegen ee vawannanenies reassess 8
Mailing sample ballots..........-.seeeeeeeeeees ere sayates |e
General election day.........- ce eee e eee e cece ee eeeenaee 15

$50

There is some excuse for giving the election officers
more than they received before 1911, because of the
extra time required in mailing the sample ballots, but
there seems to be little justification for so high a fee
as $50. The officers and party leaders over the state
are quite generally of the opinion that the character of
the election officers has not been raised by the increased
pay. If that is the case, and there is no evidence to

195
deny it, then there is little justification for a fee which
probably is the highest in the United States.

When the study of election vouchers was made in
the different counties, the various officials in close con-
tact with the political machinery were questioned as
to the compensation of election officers and their
opinion was practically unanimous that it was too high.
In fact, there could be no simpler, less objectionable
method of reducing election costs than to reduce the fee
for election officers. If the fee were reduced to $40
(which would still be generously high) there would
be saved the sum of $76,200.

,In four counties of the state, the county boards of
elections are paid on a per diem basis; in the others
they are given a fixed annual salary. The variation
in amount is very noticeable, even among counties of
similar size.

The duties required of the county boards by the elec-
tion law are to draw the names of members of the
district boards from the civil service eligible lists, to
issue permits for challengers or agents, to revise reg-
isters, and to sit as the county board of canvassers.
The canvassing of the votes is of course the largest
task which they are required to perform, but even this
is in most counties a perfunctory task. The practice
in-most counties is to have the county clerk make the
canvass and to certify his tabulations. It is evident
that the required work of the county board occupies
only.a short space of time in the fall of each year; for
the large part of the year there is nothing to do. It
is customary for the secretaries or the clerks to visit
the headquarters offices in the court houses quite fre-
quently in order to “hold down” the office for the
board during the idle part-of the year.

In Hudson County, where the county board actively
supervises, the tabulating of the vote, an ingenious
means is used to add to the compensation of the board
and its clerks. Since most of the work comes within
a short period at election time, it is necessary to do
night work. This extra rush work by the clerks is
regarded as overtime and is charged for extra as such.

If there is one definite conclusion which can be
gained from a detached study of election conditions in
New Jersey, it is that the county boards of elections
are overpaid for the work they do. In several of the

196
counties there is agitation (by the county boards) for
higher salaries, but there is no logical basis whatever
for such a claim. The county which pays a compara-
tively small salary, therefore, should not be regarded
as niggardly, but as really economical.

The charge for extra personal service gives the
greatest room for unchecked extravagance. The varia-
tion in this expense item as between the various coun-
ties and also as between the primary and general elec-
tion is very marked. In Essex County the charge for
extra service was $4500 in the primary and $2700 in
the general election; in Hudson the charges were
$4000 and $11000. Who is there who can justify with
any plausibility the employment of thirty to fifty men
for a month or more? The $600 legal fee of Union
County is also an anomaly for which there is no excuse.

There is no reason why personal service should not
be subject to a schedule of prices and also to stringent
supervision by the freeholders.

Regarding municipal clerks’ fees, the statute, in
paragraph 179, reads, “For the duties and services
imposed upon and required of them by this act, the
county clerks of the several counties and the clerks
of the different cities, townships and other municipali-
ties, shall be paid out of the county funds of their re-
spective counties, or the funds of their respective muni-
cipalities, as the case may be, a fair and reasonable
compensation, to be ascertained and determined, in the
cases of the county clerks, by the boards of chosen
freeholders of their respective counties, and in case
of said municipal clerks, by the governing bodies of
their respective cities, townships or municipalities.”

‘Only one interpretation of this provision seems pos-
sible and that is that if the municipal clerks are to
receive any fees at all for their election services they
are to be paid by the municipalities. Yet more than
half of the counties make payments to municipal clerks
for the work that is required of them or in a few cases
for the payment of necessary expenses. The practice
in the different counties in regard to the municipal
clerks’ compensation is set forth in the following out-
line:

Atlantic—None. { :

Bergen—$3 a day per district for services required.

Burlington—Practice not known.
Camden—None.

197
Cape May—Fee includes payment for erecting booths.
Cumberland—None.

Essex—$5 per district each election, except Newark clerk in
primary.

Gloucester—Fee is for “expenses.”

Hudson—None.

Hunterdon—$25 per district both elections—includes pay-
ment for erecting booths.

Mercer—None.

‘Middlesex—$15 per district each election.

Monmouth—$15 for one district, $10 per district if more
than one—both elections.

Morris—Fee includes payment for extra personal service.

Ocean—None.

Passaic—None.

Salem—Fee not uniform,

Somerset—$25 for first district, $12 for others—both elec-
tions, including payment for erecting booths. _

Sussex—Fee not uniform; includes payment for extra
services,

Union—Fee varies on scale of $15 to $30 per district—both
elections.

Warren—Fee includes payment for all services and supplies,
except printing supplies.

It will be seen that these payments vary greatly,
both as to amount and as to the services for which

the payments are made.

If a fee is desirable for a salaried officer and if the
county is authorized to make such a payment, it cer-
tainly is desirable that the payments should be accord-
ing to a schedule.

The provision of the law above quoted apparently
authorizes a fee for the county clerks to be paid out
of county funds. Advantage has been taken of this
provision in only two counties in the state, Hudson
and Cumberland. The situation in these two counties
has been described in connection with the county analy-
ses. Although it is, perhaps, technically permissible,
there is grave doubt whether this practice is not con-
trary to the spirit of the law and is not in itself highly
undesirable. This section of the election law, authoriz-
ing a reasonable compensation to the county clerk for
his election services, was put on the statute books in
1898, before the time when the county clerk was placed
on a salary basis. It was the evident intention of the
law that the compensation to the clerk should be per-
sonal remuneration for work performed, just as the
municipal clerks’ fees at the present time are pocketed
by the clerks themselves. Now the county clerk re-
ceives a salary for all his required services. His salary

198
is a payment by the government to him as an indi-
vidual in consideration for his services to the govern-
ment. It is futile, moreover, to say that the payment
of $10000 from the election fund to the county clerks’
fund is on the same basis as a fee paid by a private
citizen to the government. There might be some “cost
accounting” reason for the government’s paying itself
by this method of transferring funds, if the transfer
were a mere bookkeeper’s device. But when the cash
has to be turned over and the money borrowed, the
practice seems out-of-date and even pernicious. It
would be advisable to strike the offending provision
from the law.

As in other cases, so in the case of buying, carting,
erecting, storing, and supplying the voting booths, the
widest diversity of practice is found. The best way
to secure harmony of practice undoubtedly would be
to place the whole matter in the hands of the free-
holders and require them to make lump-sum contracts
wherever possible. An alternative solution of the prob-
lem might be to leave the whole matter to the munici-
palities, both the. incurring of the expense and the pay-
ing of the expense.

Next to the compensation of election officers, the
cost of printing is the largest item of expense. The
printing bills are made up for the most part of
charges for printing stationery supplies and for
printing ballots and registry lists. As regards sta-
tionery for the general election, the Secretary of
State furnishes to the local boards practically all
necessary blanks, except tally sheets and precinct
return sheets for local officers. These are furnished
by the county clerk or the municipal clerks. For
the primary, on the other hand, the secretary of state
provides the local boards only with registry books.
Why the matter of general election stationery is
centralized in the secretary of state, while the mat-
ter of primary stationery is left to strictly local of-
ficers is difficult to see. In fact, much complaint is
made of the lack of uniformity of the supplies pro-
vided by the municipal clerks. The secretary of
state’s office secures its stationery by competitive
contract, and in one lump sum. Had the blanks fur-
nished by the secretary of state for the general elec-
tion been printed by a hundred local printers, and

199
at double the commercial rate (as is usually the case
with non-competitive legal printing), there is no
question but that the cost would have been much
more than the $6000 charge against the state. The
advantage of making all election blanks uniform
and requiring the secretary of state to furnish them
all by competitive contract is obvious. At the pres-
ent time a few of the county clerks have the candi-
dates’ names printed on the return sheets, a practice
that would be impossible under the proposed plan.
But the advantage of this is so slight and in fact
so little practised, that it would be far outweighed by
the uniform reporting and the economy resulting
from complete centralization.

In the matter of printing ballots, the same discrep-
ancy is found. The printing of the general election
ballots is a function of the county clerk, but the
printing of the primary ballots is left to the muni-
cipal clerks. The intent of the election law (if there
is intent) seems to be that the general election
should be regarded as an official matter and should
be thoroughly controlled by a central county officer,
while the primary is a sort of family affair which can
be left in the hands of the local officers. It is hard

to see any inherent difference between a primary
ballot and a general election ballot, as regards diffi-
culty of printing or necessity of decentralizing the
control. Some of the county clerks object to a pro-
posal to turn over to their offices the printing of the
primary ballots, on three grounds:

(1) It would make more extra work.

(2) It would be difficult to secure the correct
names of the candidates for local offices.

(3) It would be expensive and almost impossible
to deliver the ballots to the local clerks in the time
now allowed by law.

The first objection is obviously irrelevant, be-
cause the only consideration should be the expe-
ditiousness, the economy and the accuracy with
which the work can be done. In regard to the sec-
ond objection, it is stated that a county officer can-
not know the correct names of local candidates as
well as the municipal clerks. Under the present ar-
rangement, the county clerk certifies the county and

200
State candidates to the municipal clerk, who adds
the local candidates and has the ballots printed.
Placing these ballots in the hands of the county
clerk will mean that local candidates must be certi-
fied to the county clerk by the municipal clerks.
It is the bother with these municipal certifications
that the county clerks object to. But there are, on
the other hand, so many mistakes made by muni-
cipal clerks and so many variations in the ballots,
that the gain in accuracy and in uniformity of
records will amply repay the county clerks for their
trouble. Much of the hesitancy in accepting this
proposal is due to the short time allowed by law
between the last date for filing or withdrawing
statement of candidacy and the date when the bal-
lots must be completed. If the various filing dates
were placed on one day and that day were at least
thirty days before the primary, the work of the
county clerk could be much expedited without detri-
ment to anyone. The great advantage, of course, of
centralizing the printing of the ballots in the county
clerk (or in some other county officer) is the uni-
formity and economy of lump-sum printing. The
printing of ballots should be placed under a com-
petitive contract system.

Another source of extravagance in the printing
of ballots results from the unnecessarily large num-
ber of ballots required by the law. For the general
election the law requires twice as many official bal-
lots as there are registered voters; for the primary
the law requires twice as many official ballots as
there were votes cast for the highest assembly can-
didates of each party in the previous general elec-
tion. The idea underlying this provision of the law
is that since the law gives every voter the right to
spoil one ballot and secure another, there ought to
be, in fact, at least two ballots for every possible
voter. Obviously, such a matter as providing a cer-
tain number of ballots should be based on the prob-
abilities, not the possibilities of the case. It is con-
servative to say there are very few districts in the
state which, in actual practice, use more than half
their ballots. Why not, considering the price of

201
print paper, provide a margin of say, twenty per
cent. instead of a hundred per cent.?

On the subject of advertising election notices, the
statute declares: “The expense of advertising and
publication prescribed by section seven of this act
shall be chargeable to and paid by the respective
townships, cities or other municipalities whose clerks
shall cause the prescribed advertising and publica-
tion and the board or body having charge of the
finances of the respective townships, cities or other
municipalities shall include in their annual tax levy,
a sum sufficient to pay the expense of said prescribed
advertising and publication.” (a)

Outside of this, the election law contains no pro-
vision for paying for advertising nor does it author-
ize any other officers to advertise elections except
the small notices of transfer of registry by the court
and special election advertising. It was noted in
the individual county studies that advertisement by
the county boards of elections was quite common.
The county boards of the five counties of Bergen,
Gloucester, Ocean, Passaic and Salem, it was found,
make a practice of supplementing the municipal ad-
vertisements with general advertisements, covering
the same subject-matter, except for the notices of
local offices to be filled. Two other counties, Hun-
terdon and Middlesex, in direct contradiction to the
provision of the law quoted above, pay for muni-
cipal advertising.

Although the law was changed in 1915 to provide
for municipal advertising instead of county adver-
tising, it is hard to think of any adequate reason
for so decentralizing the system unless it was to
provide more printing jobs. It cannot be denied that
there is much overlapping and waste in the present
system. One can easily find some rural county
newspapers, for example, which have a large part
of a page given over to a half-dozen municipal ad-
vertisements. Three-fourths of the material in each
one of these municipal advertisements is the same,
being a general set heading and a list of national,
state and county offices to be filled. It is only the
lists of local offices that are peculiar to the respec-

 

(a) Paragraph 180.
202
Table XXI.

Primary Campaign Expenses of Candidates for
Governor and U. S. Senator

 

GOVERNOR—1916
H. O. Wittpenn, Dem. slo hasaey ie: shsicaeciadetphaca doe onwlaans wisest ies $ 7,200.00
Austin Colgate, Rep .. 25,957.43
Walter E. Edge, Re . 21,908.85

 
 
 

   

George L. Record, Re 20,027.81
$75,094.09
GOVERNOR—1913.
F:S; Katzen bach, Demi sess: oases o's i055 hd eaie's bee. pees
J. F. Fielder, Demtsssiis-s535 gen tenes sears ones ves Ve eHe
FE GC, Stokes, RED iscec:c.ss55 siarsispa eee ais aca ee cam are ans oes SOE $822.10
Robert Carey, RO Devs:24 vie scstre slew eS isle! sie ro bie erga duce ciae etwas 159.65
GN... Powler, Repissncigstaaanes. dawned ceaerisee nt ccm en's i 691.68
GC. B) Pierce, RED: ajs.ae ieee cca ae odie wes Ke asi ae eee aie Bere 263.74
$1,937.17
SENATOR—1916.
James E. Martine, Dem... s.ccciciceeee cd aeeceicnee ten eeeesneas $550.00
F..M. MeDermit, Demis is. cssicvescteccscebee years hese 1,030.00
Je Wa Westcott, Demis oisca:diciaiccsseiacais wdisrss sie ate Bibs eae te aoa ae 1,850.00
Bruggemian ss: Dest sas 0ie:isiaeg wos 65:9 sian ese el G96 16 apd. calie 9 3G
Franklin Murphy; Rep. écsiosiaeis sis sate onan te esanse seals 12,200.00
J. S. Frelinghuysen, Rep.......6:-0:eseeeeeeee cece ee eeeneee 12,103.00

$27,533.00

 
Table XXII.

PRIMARY CAMPAIGN EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES FOR U. S. REPRESENTATIVE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1916 1914 1912
Representatives in :
ONZTeSS |
No. Rep. No. Dem. No. Rep. No. Dem. No. Rep. | No. Dem.
|Cand.) |Cand. Cand. \Cand. Cand. |Can. |
District i= |aac | 1 1 | 2 | $ 2500 | 1 | $ 500.00 3 | $1,465.47
2 1. 132 $ 27328 | 4 | $5,563.57 | 1 23.50 | 3 2,231.27 3 1,201.22
3 | 6 | $1,202.35 | 1 3 34.25 | 1 2 550.52 1
4 1 | | 2 75.30 | 4 1,622.09 | 2 5.97 | 2 | 128.00 9 2,201.77
| |. —
5 | 3 | 1,484.90 | 1 3 1,982.25 | 3 717.55 | 3 132.80 1 1,724.25
6 | 5 | 1,594.18 | 2 2,021.97 | 2 50.00 1 10.00 | 1 272.76 3 441.99
7 ey est 1 1 1 2 1,845.40
8 2 | 1,000.00 | 3 697.00 | 4 1,081.00 | 2 366.35 | 2 967.68 1
9 1 | 1,875.00 | 1 3 2,089.06 | 1 1 2
10 | 2 | 2,600.00 | 1 3 1,035.00 | 3 886.05 | 2 2
1 | 4 | 3044 | 4 | 3.28498 | 1 202.25 | 1 ; |
12 2 | i: 10.00 | 5 328.50 | 2 1,038.65
| | 9,786.87 | 6,362.53 13,987.97 3,073.07 4,783.03 (Inc.)

 

 

8,880.10 (Inc.)
J
©
s
o
4
*
—
—
—

PRIMARY CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SENA

 

 

é 3 1916 le | |
© ¢ {o &
g 5 2/8
<_ = Assembly Senate County s cle Assembly Senate
s z | on ;o E | ool
ae 55) 6s)
23 | ZS Reps. Dem Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem ise | 28) Rep. | Dem. Rep. Dem.
2 | Atlantic 3 $ 159.50| 2 ;$ 388 | 1) $377.50] 1 $5.00 | 2) 2 | 2 |
3] Bergen 8 1,631.00] 5 23.00 | 3/| 3,885.00 | 2 448.50 Sheriff 5 | $1,015.80 | Sheriff 3 $486.64 | 3) 6 | 9 Clerk
1 | Burlington 1 1 1.26 | Surr. 6 420.89 1 | 62.10 | 1) 4) $364.77 j 2 $1,016.03 | 2 | $ 88.29
| | | \
—| |——|—__ | ———__—__ [a a
3 | Camden 5 708.04 | 4 6.15 | 2| 263.25] 1 | 3! 4| 62.75 | 4 $ 16.70 Clerk |
— eee as el fades
1 | Cape May 2 145.93 | 1 15.00 Sheriff 2 56.45 2 1.78 | 1) 3) 716) 1 240.45 | 1
| | |
1 | Cumberland 2 12.70| 1 1 | 1.80} 1 | | 1 | 4 |
12 | Essex 25 4,526.33 | 12 (est) 1,000.00 3 | 3,680.92 1 (est) 500.00 | 12 24 2,090.70 | 24 (est) 896.50 Reg. 6
1 | Gloucester N.R. | | ot N.R. N.R.
12, Hudson 36 274.80 | 24 340.00 | 3 41.00 | 5 2,215.25 | Surr. 5 241.20 5 7,537.50 | 12| 26] 1,103.00 | 26 (est) 402.90
aa | | psy [ tye
1 | Hunterdon 1} 21.20 1 22.44 | | 1 1 1 22.27 457.43; 1
wi | | Re | oe oe
3. Mercer 5} 325.65 2 | 332.68 | 1 3/ 6 N.R. | 5 N.R.
3) Middlesex 6 27.75 | Surr. 1 1 3 NR.
2 Monmouth 5) NR 2 N.R | 2] 5) N.R. | 2 N.R.
_ 2) Morris 4 748.88 | 1 | 2| 1,560.95 | 1 2|/ 5) NR | 2 N.R.
1) Ocean ie. oe NE /-2) NR | 2 N.R. i| 2 36.63 | 1
1 | Clerk 1 541.25 | 1 =
5 | Passaic 12 1,534.46 | 8 32.50 Reg. 1 550.00 1 5| 21] 1,594.43] 6 8.50 | 3) 5,258.28 86.00 | Surr. 2
-1 | Salem 1 0 1} 1) sNR J 1 N.R.
1 Somerset 2 119.50 | 1 Sheriff 2 5.00 2 4485 | 1| 2] NR] 1 N.R.
1 Sussex N. R. | N. R. N. R. N.R. N. R. 1 N. R. N.R. N. R.
_—— _— | | et v= ed
3 | Union 3 N.R. | 5 | N. R. N.R. Clerk 4 N.R. 2 N.R 3] 3] NR ] 3 N. R.
1 | Warren | 2 35.92 | 2 | 321.00 1} 2) NR. | 2 N.R. Clerk 1
* 60 | | 125 | 10,271.66 | 82 | 1,765.23 | 19 | 10,142.10 | 15 3,168.75 19 | 2,830.59 18 8,132.87 | 60 | 118] 5,369.44 | 92 1,346.87 | 9 | 6,514.76 | 6 631.72 | 17

 

 

 

 

1915

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.R. No Record Obtained.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BLY, SENATE AND MOST IMPORTANT COUNTY CANDIDATES, 1913-1916
Ze § 3 1914 - E 1913
3 5 3
ate County <= 5 = Assembly Senate County =§ County Senate
3° ° | °
Ae € E
oa 2 ; .
Dem Rep. Dem Z5 3s Rep. | Dem, Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem 32 Rep. Dem Rep. Dem
peaeenee —" |.
2. 2 Pos Sher. 4 3 | 2| Clerk 2 | $548.40} 2| $60.50| 1] $10.00} 1] $82.2¢
Clerk 2 1 31 3 | 3 | Sheriff 3 2 1 | 2
2 | $ 88.29 | Sheriff 3 yi |
1 } 1 Clerk 7 4 | 1
Clerk1/$ 15.00] 1| S| <5 $287.08 | 3 $5.00 $6.81] 1 Sheriff 4 $2,563.68 | 2 $87.78 | 3
1 | 1; 1 | 3.25) 3 137.36 | Clerk 3 35.27 | 2 131.61 | 1| Sheriff 1 24.19} 1
| | | Clerk 1 70.78! 3 | 145.59
1/ 2 42.00| 3 68.25 | Sheriff 4 569.97 | 2 338.07} 1|Sur. 6) 534.12] 4 515.01 | 1 1
| | | | Sheriff 5 2,588.73 | 3 1,998.28
Reg. 6 | 4,141.70 |_2 | $ 500.00 12} 24 (est) | 500.00| 24 100.00 475.00 | 4 711.50 | Sur. 5 4,179.80 | 2 171.00 | 12
tyr 32 | 23.98) 1 15.86] 1 .16 | Sheriff 5 393.67 | 3 338.49 | 1| Sur. 2 1} NR.
| | Sheriff 2 578.99 | 4 2,510.00
12 | 29 217.65 | 31 | 1,935,75 Reg. 2 285.01 | 2 1,500.00 | 12 N.R. N.R.
Clerk 3 120.00 | 3 1,696.50
| | | | Sheriff 2 56.75 | 4 243.57
2/| 457.43) 1 5 724.59] 1| 2 9.42| 2 197.65 Surr. 17 2 515.19 | 1
| Sheriff 10 N.R. | 2 N.R.
an) N.R 5| NR. Sur. 1 NR | 1 NR. ! 3 2|N.R. | 2
| al | ae eo a — hee —_
| Clerk 1 N.R. 1 N.R.
2 | N.R. | 4] NR N.R. | 1 N. R. | Sheriff 1 N.R. 1 NR. | 2
— 2) 2 | 2 1.40 Sheriff 4 1,714.66 | 3 240.40 | 2] Clerk 1 3| 25332 | 4| 70284] 2
1/1 N.R 1/ N.R Sheriff 2 N.R. | 1 N.R. | 1| Clerk 2 133.94 | 2 100.77 | 2| 124.30] 3
Sher. 4 2
1| 86.00 | Surr. 2 402.00 | 2 15.00} 5] 11 404.35 | 6 11.50 5
os] Clerk 2 N. R. 1 N.R
1/1 N.R. 2| NR. N.R| 2] N.R. | Sheriff 4 3 1
ei Sheriff 3 20.25 93.12
1} 1 1 2.50 23.25] 3 313.48 1| Clerk 2 635] 2 61.42
“TNR N.R. NR | 1 N.R N.R NR. N.R. N.R. N.R | 1 N.R. N.R. N.R.
=| | Clerk 2 N.R. 5 N.R
3) 5 N.R. 5| N.R N.R. | 1| NLR. | Sheriff 6 4 3
a Sur. 2 42.60 | 4 673.37 ;
Clrk1} N.R. | 2] NR] 1] 1 2| 259.90 2| 778.02 | Sheriff 1 20.00 | 4 326.43 | 1
3|  631.72| 17 4,558.70 | 15 | 1,239.59 | 60 | 105 1,487.73 | 104 | 2,719.31 658.28] 15| 1,803.16 102 | 13,219.91 | 71 11,016.28 | 60 22 | 1,267.25] 19] 1,084.14 | 11 | 837.14 | 11] 832.82

 

 

 

 

 

 
T COUNTY CANDIDATES, 1913-1916

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1914 5 1913
g
Assembly Senate County =§ County Senate
°
é See See ee ee
ep Dem Rep Dem. Rep. Dem. 32 Rep. Dem | Rep. | Dem.
| 3 | Sher. 4 | 3 2| Clerk 2) $54840|/ 2| $6050, 1| si00c| 1]| $82.26
| 5 | | 3 | Sheriff 3 2 | 2
Sheriff 3 raf |
1 Clerk a 4 | 1 |
Ga ea tee ee ee I Ae SSIS lea i Po!
87.08 | 3 $5.00 | 1 $6.81] 1 Sheriff 4 | $2,563.68 | 2 $87.78 | 3 |
3.25| 3 137.36 | Clerk 3 | 35.27 | 2 131.61 | 1 | Sheriff 1 24.19 | 1
a a | | fa | }. | a | | | | — ——
Clerk 1 | 70.78 | 3 145.59
42.00| 3 68.25 Sheriff 4 569.97 | 2 338.07 | 1]|Surr. 6 534.12 | 4 515.01 | 1 | 1
| | Sheriff 5 2,588.73 | 3 1,998.28 |
00.00} 24 100.00 | 1 | 475.00 | 4 711.50 | Sur. 5 4,179.80 | 2 171.00 | 12
23.98 | 1 2 15.86] 1 .16 | Sheriff 5 393.67 | 3 338.49 | 1 N.R.
Sheriff 2 578.99 | 4 2,510.00
17.65 | 31 | 1,935,75 oy oe 285.01 | 2 1,500.00 | 12 N.R. N.R. N.R
Clerk 3 120.00 | 3 1,696.50
| Sheriff 2 56.75 | 4 243.57
942| 2 197.65 Surr. 17 2 515.19! 1
Ls Sheriff 10 N.R. | 2 N.R.
LR. 5| NR. | Sur. 1 N.R. 1 N.R. ! 3 2|N.R 2/N.R.
alee | lewd 3
Clerk 1 N.R. 1 N.R.
LR. 4} NLR. [1|N.R. 1 N. R. | Sheriff 1 N_R. 1 N.R. | 2
2 1.40 Sheriff 4 1,714.66 | 3 240.40 | 2 3 253.32 | 4| 702.84] 2] 440.71
LR 1| NR. Sheriff 2 N.R. | 1 N.R. | 1 133.94 100.77 | 2| 124.30| 3] 309.85
4.35/ 6 11.50 5
Clerk 2 N.R. 1 N.R.
.R 2} N.R. |1/| N.R| 2] N.R. | Sheriff 4 3 1
20.25 93.12
1 2.50 | 1 23.25] 3 313.48 1 6.35 61.42
R. N. R. N. R. N.R. N.R. N.R. | 1 N.R. N.R. N. R. N.R.
ee Clerk 2 N.R. 5 N.R.
R. 5| N.R. |1/N.R. | 1] NLR. | Sheriff 6 4 3
Sur. 2 42.60 | 4 673.37 ;
2 259.90 | 1 2 778.02 | Sheriff 1 20.00 | 4 326.43 | 1
7.73 | 104 | 2,719.31] 9 | 658.28} 15] 1,803.16 102 | 13,219.91 | 71 11,016.28 60 | 22 | 1,267.25] 19 | 1,084.14 | 11 | 837.14 | 11] 832.82

a
tive municipalities. The elimination of this duplica-
tion by having the county alone advertise either all
the election notices or at least the entire non-local
features thereof would save approximately half the
expense of advertising in some of the counties. Ad-
vertising, as well as the printing of ballots, should
be performed by a county officer.

As a matter of fact, there seems to be little need
for any elaborate advertising at all. The old sys-
tem of putting up posters in the election precincts
serves the purpose well. Officers and_ political
leaders throughout the state are practically agreed
that newspaper advertising is unnecessary. The
large advertisements, in cities of over 15000 popu-
lation, giving the boundaries of the election pre-
cincts, are referred to by very few. Similar notices
put up in the polling places, school-houses and other
public places, together with election district maps in
the hands of the patrolmen, probably would serve
as a better and certainly less expensive method of
informing the one voter in ten who does not know
where to vote.

The amount of money that could be saved by
eliminating needless newspaper advertising could
be better spent by publishing an “official publicity
pamphlet” for the various candidates for office or
by publishing the names and occupations of petition
‘signers.

At least four counties of the state make no at-
tempt to regulate the rental paid for polling places.
In these counties the matter is left entirely to the
municipal clerks. In the other counties there is fixed
either one price, a scale of prices or a maximum
price. The rental variations are shown in the fol-
lowing table:

Atlantic ...... Schedule—$30, Atlantic City; $15 outside.

Bergen ....... “«  — 40.

Burlington .... “  — 25.

Camden ...... «  — 30. Camden; $20, outside.

Cape May...... « — 35. ($50 for all elections)

Cumberland ... “ | — 30, Bridgeton and Millville; $25,
Vineland; and $20, others.

Essex .....-005 «  — 30,

Gloucester ....-——-———varies $10 to $25.

Hudson ....... ———-—_varies $30 to $40.

Hunterdon .... “ —§25.

203
Mercer ....... “ __ 25 Trenton and 2 others; $30

 

elsewhere.
Middlesex ..... ————-varies $30 to $75.
Monmouth .... “  —$25.
Morris’ .......- “  __maximum of $40; varies $25 to $40.
Ocean ........ “
Passaic ....... “ $40, Paterson, Passaic, and Aq-
uackanonk; $30 elsewhere.
Salem ........ —varies $10 to $40.
Somerset ...... « —$30.
Sussex ........ “« = 20.
Union ......... “= 30.
Warren ....... « — _. 30, Phillipsburg; $20 outside.

It has been suggested in the paragraph on audit-
ing and schedules, that rental can well be made a
matter for regulation by the freeholders. If it is
thought advisable to leave the charge for rent or, in
fact, for any other service, in the hands of the muni-
cipal clerks, a more direct, financial control would
be exercised by requiring the municipalities to pay
the cost.

The existence of a number of free polling places
in Hudson County suggests the use that might be
made of school houses and other governmental build-
ings in reducing the large cost of rent. Obviously
there are not as many school houses as there are
election districts, but at the present time almost
no use whatever is made of school houses in con-
nection with the conduct of elections. The require-
ment that school houses should be used for election
purposes, either free of charge or for a nominal
charge to cover expenses, could easily be made. In-
cidentally, its educative influence on the pupils
should not be forgotten.

Another feature of the election machinery which
has a direct bearing on the cost of elections is the
size of the election districts. Every new district
means $200 more each year, just for election officers ;
$200 is the minimum cost to each district, whether
it has forty voters or four hundred.. An examination
of the number of voters in the election districts of
the state shows that there are many small districts.
The law requires redistricting when four hundred
votes have been cast at any election. The normal
district is therefore intended to contain presumably
between three hundred and four hundred voters.
‘There are some districts in the state, particularly

204
along the Atlantic coast, that contain as few as two
or three dozen voters. This is due, in most cases,
of course, to the scanty permanent population of
the municipal corporation; the election precinct can-
not, according to the present law, be larger than the
municipal corporation. A few cases, however, show
a municipal corporation divided into two districts,
which, if added together, would make less than a
normal district. If it is deemed inadvisable, be-
cause of the election of local officers, to make an ar-
rangement whereby election districts might overlap
municipal boundaries, it certainly would be the part
of wisdom to scale down the compensation of elec-
tion officers to correspond with the size of the dis-
trict.

The election law makes it easy to create new election
districts by division, but contains no provision for
the consolidation of small districts. In practice, the
power to redistrict is not always exercised with an
eye to economy. Sometimes districts, which have
reached the four hundred mark, are divided into
two small districts, instead of being absorbed in a
new arrangement which might not require a new
district at all. Cases are also known of districts
being divided before the four hundred limit is
reached. An unsatisfactory situation also obtains
when a “heavy” electoral year will cause division
of a district which may not poll four hundred votes
again for four years. Some flexibility in the law
to permit consolidation of districts in “off” years
would remedy this condition.

The foregoing analysis of county election expenses
shows that approximately forty-two per cent. of the
cost of the two fall elections can be charged against
the primary. The various “purposes of expendi-
ture” have been considered as related to the various
methods of incurring and paying the expenses. The
criticism which has been made points to a centraliz-
ing of the election machinery as the greatest need
in order to secure accuracy and economy. If the
system is to be efficient, it must center in a few of-
ficers who can be held accountable for results ob-
tained on money spent. If the election system were
untrammeled by tradition, and if the prevailing

205
idea were expertness and economy, there would be
plenty of room for such proposals as school-house
polling places, school-teacher election officers, a
single-headed election bureau and commercial print-
ing (or voting machines).

Following are some of the suggestions that have
been made with reference to reducing the cost of
elections:

(1) The compensation of election officers should
be reduced at least $10 for the two fall elections,
with a saving of $76000. The rate of compensation
should be graded to suit the size of the districts.

(2) The county boards of elections can well be
eliminated to make place for a single county com-
missioner of elections.

(3) The payment of fees to the county clerk’s
offices for election services should be prohibited.

(4) The purchase and control of the use of elec-
tion stationery should be centralized in the hands
of the secretary of state.

(5) The printing of all ballots should be placed
in the hands of the county clerks (or a county elec-
tion officer). Competitive contracts should be re-
quired. The number of official ballots printed
should be materially reduced.

(6) The advertising of elections should be cen-
tralized in the county rather than left to the munici-
palities. The amount of advertising in the present
form should be greatly reduced or altogether elimi-
nated.

(7) Proper changes should be made in filing
dates to permit county printing and county advertising.

(8) <An effort should be made to use school
houses and other public buildings for polling places.

CANDIDATES’ EXPENDITURES

The Corrupt Practices Act of New Jersey was
passed in 1911 and contains many detailed provisions
relating to contributions to campaign funds and can-
didates’ expenditures. Each candidate for nomina-
tion to any office must appoint a committee to re-
ceive and expend his campaign funds. The candi-
date must file a statement, specifying his commit-
tee, and another statement declaring the extent of

206
his contribution to. the treasurer of his committee.
All contributions to a candidate’s campaign, whether
made by the candidate himself or by others, must
be made to the treasurer who must keep an account
of all receipts and expenditures. Within five days
after a primary election and within twenty days
after a general election, the treasurer must file with
the county or municipal clerk, or secretary of state,
a financial statement, setting forth the names of all
contributors and the amounts contributed as well
as an itemized statement of all expenditures. Smaller
items than $5 need not be itemized on the statement.

The law places no limit on the amount that may
be contributed to a candidate’s campaign by other
people.

The candidates’ contributions to their own cam-
paigns are limited to the following amounts for each
election—primary and general: |

A candidate for U. S. senate or governor..... se. + $2500
“s e “representative in congress......... 1500
4 i. “any county office.......,....000005 500
os T -ASSCMDIY. | sccisis ed sada a srtuecaess Sone :. 200
“ “any municipal office............... 250

These maximum figures for any office may be in-
creased to twenty-five per cent. of the first year’s
salary. This means, for instance, that a candidate
for congress may contribute $1875, for sheriff of
Hudson County, $2500. 3

The law includes a strong provision forbidding
corporation contributions. In regard to expendi-
tures, the law prohibits the expenditure of money or
other valuable consideration for the following pur-
poses:

To cause voters to vote or refrain from voting.

To procure support indirectly.

To bribe.

To support “colonization.”

To secure political “endorsements.”

To secure withdrawals.

To bet on elections.

To hire vehicles for the transportation of voters.

To hire challengers at the polls (except two for
each political party for each polling place),

An effort was made to go through the expense
statements in all of the counties, but, because in

207
many cases the statements for all the years
could not be found, the record is incomplete.
The statements of expense for primary candidates
for governor, U. S. senator and congressmen are
shown herewith in lump sum, followed by a table
of candidates’ expenses in the various counties for
the years 1916, 1915, 1914 and 1913. The table
shows, first, the amount spent by all the Republican
and all the Democratic primary candidates for As-
sembly in each county, in the years 1916, 1915 and
1914; second, the same facts with regard to candi-
dates for the senate, for the years 1916, 1915, 1914
and 1913; and third, the same facts with regard to
candidates for any of four county offices—sheriff,
surrogate, register or clerk, for the same four years.

If the filed statements are taken as evidence of
candidates’ expenditures, and also expenditures made
in their behalf, the 1916 unofficial cost for the most
important primary candidates is somewhat as follows:

Candidates for governor...............cceeeeeeers $75,094.09
i Ui Sy Senator cascctaksvsiscaretesates 27,533.00
= “—U. S. representative.............. 16,149.40
« “ assemblyman .........eee eee eens 12,036.89
“ “ state senator ....... Msi eiciseineed oa 13,310.85
" “ four county offices ............505% 10,963.46

(sheriff, surrogate, register and clerk)

$155,087.69

It is charged in the last Democratic state plat-
form that the Republican candidates spent at least
$300,000 in the 1916 primary.

It is hard to see just what good is accomplished
by the filing of these statements, as there is no of-
ficial publicity given them and they are not filed
until after the election. They are simply “filed”;
very few are accompanied by the voucher receipts
as required by law; some vary widely from a balance
between receipts and expenditures. A practice
which is pursued quite generally in the largest coun-
ties of the state is that of appointing one man as a
“slate” treasurer. This is particularly true of the
regular party organizations. The same man is ap-
pointed treasurer by all the candidates of the or-
ganization. In this way, there is an organization
fund which can be spent most effectively in support
of the entire group. Speaking of organization funds,

208
it is quite generally the case that each candidate's
share is a fixed assessment. Consideration is, of
course, given to the general taxing principle of “abil-
ity to pay” as well as to previous support or promises
for the future. The party fund really is a mortgage
on the government at least so far as administrative
county officers are concerned; the “work-up” prin-
ciple and the rotation in office principle will finally
place a man in a position where his government sal-
ary can be levied on to assist those further down
the ladder. The political aspect of the elective county
jobs is significantly shown by the undisputed fact
that they are really administered by more or less per-
manent deputies or assistants, who receive only half
the salary of their political chiefs. It takes no imagi-
nation to see that the exorbitant salaries given the
elected county officers are made to furnish the means
whereby the endless chain of organization candidates
is successfully nominated and kept in office. This
whole system is in itself a great handicap to an in-
dependent candidate, but that handicap need not be
increased by permitting the appointment of organi-
zation treasurers for the primary campaign. The
general election is supposed to be a partisan fight;
but the primary, in theory, is supposed to be a
personal matter. If the independent candidate in the
primary, who must depend largely on his own funds,
is to have any substantial chance at all, every can-
didate should be required to act as his own treasurer.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

An inquirer into actual political conditions must
go farther than the statute book; he must determine
how fully the spirit of the law is enforced. Corrupt
practices acts have everywhere been difficult of en-
forcement, and so it has been with the New Jersey
law. A request in the various county clerks’ offices
for the candidates’ filed statements is often met with
the remark that “they don’t mean anything.” What
practice is it that makes the law meaningless? It
is simply the practice of understatement. It would
not be accurate to say that understatement is the
general rule, but its prevalence in practice is an open
secret among county officials. It has often been

209
stated by. word of mouth and has been published in
the papers that the 1916 gubernatorial primary cam-
paign cost a great deal more than the filed state-
ments indicate.

It has been stated that the law can be technically
subverted by spending money before filing a petition
of candidacy and before appointing a treasurer.
Whether this is true or not, the spending of money
goes on, and it is difficult to estimate the amount
from the filed statements. Some of the items in-
cluded in the statements are ambiguous and mean-
ingless. The largest and most frequent items of
expenditure are advertising and printing, but fre-
quently one will be confronted with an item such
as “publicity.” One organization statement, for ex-
ample, listed 232 sums of $6 each for “publicity.”
It is almost impossible to draw the line between
“canvassing,” “publicity” and the illegitimate prac-
tice of buying votes. But however questionable some
of the items in the statement are, the money spent
in “getting out” the primary vote, in ‘buying votes,
etc., is more often covered by what is not in the state-
ments than by what is.

The candidate for office is confronted with a prac-
tical difficulty. Often his electorate is apathetic and
must be “gotten out,” which means money and more
money. Then, too, it is to the interest of the party
organization to make him think that this or that
particular district needs a little more encourage-
ment. When the primary campaign has ended he
finds he has spent much more than he meant to when
he started (especially if he is running independ-
ently), and if successful he must make his fight all
over again.

A perusal of the primary expense statements in
most of the counties reveals the interesting fact that
an overwhelming majority of the successful pri-
mary candidates either spent largé sums of money
or had the backing of a political organization. It
is the rule that the man who spends the most money
gets the nomination. Most of the exceptions to the
rule are organization candidates. It has been freely
stated of late that only monied men could hope to be
nominated and elected to the higher offices.

210
A breakdown of the corrupt practices act in actual
politics cannot be blamed to any great extent on the
law itself. The task which is shouldered on such a
law is very great. It tries to place restrictions on a
fundamental demand of the present political system.
As long as men are elected to office and as long as
the suffrage is not exercised on a basis of intelligent
inquiry and discretion, the advertisement of candi-
dates will continue in one form or another.

Restrictions of campaign expenditures can be se-
cured in three ways:

(1) To limit the amount spent.

. (2) To limit the purposes of expenditure.

(3) To prohibit private expenditure altogether.

The present New Jersey law makes no attempt to
limit expenditures except in so far as the contri-
butions of the candidates themselves are concerned.
If a candidate is wealthy and possesses large funds
that he desires to use for his candidacy, it is a com-
paratively easy matter to devise methods for “other
people” to contribute his money to his campaign
treasurer. Whether or not it would put an effective
damper on large expenditures cannot be predicted
with certainty, but it would seem the part of wisdom
to amend the New Jersey law so as to place some
absolute limit on the expenditure of money.

The present law prohibits the expenditure of
money for certain specified purposes, but the field
is wide open for all kinds of advertising and cam-
paigning. Various sporadic attempts have been
made to restrict this field much further by forbidding
some of the less educative practices, such as the
posting of candidates’ pictures. It is almost impos-
sible to draft a law that will effectively carry out
that idea. A better procedure would probably be to
prohibit expenditure for all purposes, except a few
specified educative practices such as the mailing
of literature and the holding of meetings.

It has been argued in a previous paragraph that
much of the cost of advertising the various candi-
dates for office is ultimately shifted to the state by
means of the present political system. If that is
the case, why should not the state, in the first in-
stance, shoulder the burden of giving publicity to

211
those whoin its citizens are called upon to choose.
The government, by law, could exercise its discre-
tion in placing before the people only that kind of
information that would inevitably result in a higher
standard of officers. An official publicity pamphlet
to take the place of all or nearly all the methods pur-
sued by the candidates themselves is not an im-
practicable suggestion. The idea is the same as
that involved in the direct legislation circulars issued
by some of the western states.

It is a conservative estimate to say that candi-
dates’ expenses in the primary and general election
of 1916 reached the alarming total of three-quarters
of a million dollars. Probably a little less than half
of this amount was spent in the primary. All the
expenses, both official and unofficial, that can be
charged to the 1916 primary, will total much over
half a million dollars. This tremendous cost in cold
cash should be kept definitely in mind in weighing
the results obtained by the primary at work.

212
CHAPTER X

OPINIONS ON VaRiouS FEATURES OF ‘THE Direct
PRIMARY

The component influences which determine how a
man shall vote it is exceedingly difficult even to
enumerate, and probably more difficult to weigh.
Likewise the influences which determine a man’s
opinion on any subject, and especially on a political
subject are elusive. But the opinion exists and must
be accepted as a part of the common judgment and as
a social influence. It will be almost impossible for the
individual untrained in doing so to present, if he
should wish to, the general opinion of his community
separate from his own personal opinion, which, how-
ever, will reflect in some measure almost without doubt
the prevailing views of those people with whom he
associates; and this fact should be kept in mind in a
study of the opinions of various officials and groups
on the direct primary.

Besides, it is important to learn whether the rela-
tion of the municipal clerks, and other persons whose
opinions have been sought, to the direct primary is
such as to bias their opinions and make them liable
to a prejudiced view of its desirability. In all com-
mission governed, and a few of the other larger muni-
cipalities, they are chosen by the governing body, but
most municipal clerks are the nominees of the direct
primary and so would be supposed normally to be
rather favorably disposed toward the ladder by which
they rose, not to say indulgent. This tends to lend
emphasis to any criticism of the direct primary
which they might offer. The same assertion
applies with equal force to the opinion of any elective

‘officer, especially if he believes that his chances of at-
taining the office he holds have been created or in-
creased by the direct primary. He would be prone to
consider the law by which he was elected a good law.
It is conceivable that another factor might exist which -
would overcome this tendency for the elécted officer to

213
support the primary and would even induce a hostility
toward its provisions, and that is, the increased diffi-
culty, due to the greater expense and effort, which
the primary puts in the way of the office seeker who
knows, or at any rate believes, that he could have
reached the office with greater ease and less expense
by means of the convention method. But to admit the
existence in a majority of instances of this factor, as
causing an opposition to the direct primary on the part
of the office holder is to condemn the primary on two
grounds, because it increases the expense of candidacy
and because it results in the nomination of the same
candidates as would have received nomination from a
convention. At any rate, the office holder is the prod-
uct of the direct primary and his opinion is not sub-
ject to attack by adherents of the system, for if it is
based on ignorance the direct primary is acknowledged
the means of the elevation of an ignorant, unfit man to
office; and if it is due to the officer being a politician
and not possessed of real public spirit, the direct pri-
mary is conceded to be capable of nominating, gen-
erally, men who lack in devotion to the popular wel-
fare. Thus it would seem that the opinions of public
officials must be accepted as sincere, on the subject of
the direct primary, if not affected by a tendency to
commend that to which they owe their positions.

The principal duties of municipal clerks in connec-
tion with the direct primary are these: To furnish the
sample and official primary ballots to the boards of
registry and election, to hire the polling rooms, to pub-
lish notifications of the election in the newspapers, to
receive the petitions of candidates for nomination to
offices within the municipality, to canvass the primary
returns for certain municipal offices, and certify the
successful candidates to the county clerk.

OPINIONS OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS

To one seeking opinion on this subject of the opera-
tion of the direct primary law its complexity presents
a serious obstacle and necessitates the asking of ques-
tions regarding several disputed points. The follow-
ing list of questions was mailed to the municipal
clerks of New Jersey except those of Essex, Hudson,
Hunterdon, Middlesex and Salem counties, with the

214
 

 

 

 

 

TABULATION OF THE REPLIES OF THE MUNICIPAL CLERKS TO A QUESTIONAIRE

 

 

Table XXIV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PeAta0o1 NIDA INNO N[Ra i al&lalAIlMialmlAlNilaolrim
satjdar yo Jaquinyy =|2| | | |2| | | Aye = g
was saste | o alolala
<uorsonb jo raquinnl a|3|8|8 2|2 8/5 e |= a8 & a|2|5 2)8 & 8g
g Jolwlelal [alalal | [al lalalelel |- a | 0
en ae _on|' | | Coal a1 Ole a iTN 8
3 gota his, :
BA sox ele +] sa 215 a Re wolal}eo | av lie ~ |e
8a on|ofe{t][t{ atta a ~ tla lo lo olin [or lola
Datel IN a vo}
8o| ~ : :
a4 ex[o|s|> oR [@ le o|aloo | sl *| E
8x on | oO |e fa | fo | oo aja ” tla ]ola oo | or | oo |
34 N te)
86 | — - 5
BH 0X a | | at fet [7 | ~ | a ]oo a aie ~ |s
Son on} O(a |e} | + Ps a |» o}]a}u | Hjele lz
32
ss va|* ol oo le i nN ” | | [>| al ola
Bon oN| PLAS Pe] et] ~~ | é Alralofa TlOlHM/AlTaA
£2 a | C3)
ise wxfe[efefel fe} [=| Infefele} fale|=|a[s
Za
52 say} t}o}o}a os a re) lm }ola |=|s or) “||
z yuopuadaput sso] | © | S | | alafolrn loa | a ala | ~ aldo | 3
Zo ;
ni S1I9JOA UOIDI]O a lA INIA Nia N N N a ale
gS [es9ued se owes =
6 Juapuadapur as0p | sw lolata | a}ata 4 ta |} |oo ala | als
oth se SS = kas |
|
2. Rl
89 |
&* say |A]wlalalalala wa [os a}lofalafalr]o aie N | 19
er WN os |
s asn ou jo | * | om | ala |oo | | oo alal|a+]olalo tio | mlm] g
Be ee el de lle |
$s asn anutjo |= |e alala | | 6 |
& Aaessoo0N | s]ales he MlAalMHlAlAlol+}/ololalm|[m|o [ss tla fa la
wo
So on | whe tla foalal~s olaloalata ia] HS + | |e)
BS ~ \
&* ex |e |e tla ais oalalal|alolrnlolalala eo oo (| 3
pester ees. ta |
Ss on |” | ® Re PRN EO st [tea 1S | ol rn}olalu | abe =| g|
83 = rar
|
Boo on|&|2]¢ a | |e 18 in| a |~ a|« on © ja |e 3
43|—— Tele helaleheherctete.
|
&* eax [lal ee alia ala refs a] ae “a a Gal ae 2)
~ dryspuany | aoe
cee ee eho peo ey a be
comaroeml | TL LETT LLLP LLP) Lisl
- eunjomet] | | | | | is Lee eles
6 |Areuitid jo aoueqiod | la lalalala toh aero Weaelicgd? Irealaa
Za “ull JO aDURIOUZT Ses = mbes “18
soyjod arepap leofalalolalale| | lalele Teal | hewlieeal
0} ssauzuITIMUy—) o in a Soe er ‘é 2 = Te] els
reomern|**[6l[*]=|°[*]-[/*/*]°=| le pe
lich a EO eS
% ee Oe ees er ee
7
Be Soest ne be o tN sd
one ve ee Pes ee ieee
MM
& n
6 g| jell lel jgl lsle
% 3S ‘8
Y e R v0 % }
8 2) ¢/(s|2|3 reer 2 wl al sie
§ be |: be e]}o|;t 9 g §
alee alalalaieisleisle/sis g)S/e) 8/2/68
“(MI MIOlOlOIMIGIMIBISIZISIS SAS Slalslel3

 

 
request to give their opinion as to conditions in their
respective counties: (a)

1. Is the direct primary accomplishing th f i t?
How, ae how none Pp y pishing the purpose of its enactmen

hy do not more voters participate in the primaries?

3; Do voters in any considerable number hesitate to declare their
political affiliation?

Has the character of officers been raised by the direct primary?

5. Has independent candidacy been stimulated?

6. What use is made of the sample ballots? Are they necessary?

7. Do voters need the notification of election in the newspapers?

8. Are the voters of the primary more “independent” than those
who vote at the general election? Or less “independent’’?
. 9 Does the direct primary increase the cost of candidacy? If so,
in what particulars? '

10, Does the necessity of securing a petition prevent unfit candidates
from getting their names on the primary ballot? Would publishing
signers’ names be advisable?

11, Would you favor electing all municipal officers at the general
election, without a primary, having nominations made by non-partisan
petitions?

12. Would you favor the nomination of state senators and assembly-
men by, the elected county committees (with full publicity), subject to
the decision of a primary if any independent petitions are filed?

13. Would you advise changing the primary law in any way to secure
the more accurate expression of the public will and the choice of better
public officers?

Table twenty-four attempts to present the replies to
the questions in a readily intelligible form, and speaks
for itself. Naturally categorical answers to the first
and thirteenth questions do not convey very much or
definite information as to the attitude of the writer, so
it seemed advisable to print in full the replies to these
questions when something more than a mere affirma-
tive or negative was given, and also the replies to
question two which do not admit of easy classification
and tabulation. They are as follows:

1. No. Direct primary is little improvement of the old
fashioned caucus. I think primaries are worthless ex-
pense and that preferential voting should supplant them,
and have but one election.

2. A great many voters feel that the respective powers
will nominate whom they please and the intelligent voter
(I believe) seldom votes a straight November ticket.

13. I am opposed to any primary election. Am a
believer in preferential voting.

I believe that all positions of office that are of a clerical
nature should come under Civil Service and when the
office is obtained in this manner we will procure efficient
men and they will perform their duties much more to

eral of these questions, along with others, had already been sent
to Oe taal aerke. of Hunterdon, Middlesex and Salem Counties,
whose replies are summarized under the discussion of those counties.
uestions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 had been sent to the clerks of Essex
founty municipalities. It was intended to poll the opinions of the
Hudson County clerks in connection with requests for information on
certain cost features of the primary, but, through an oversight, the
questions were sent to but one clerk before it was too late to expect ;
replies in time to include them in the tabulation. Questions six and seven
relate especially to particular provisions of the New Jersey law.

215°
the interest of the community they serve, because they
are assured of their position so long as they are efficient
and honest.

Under the present conditions an office holder’s qualifi-
cation has no bearing upon his duration in office; the
only qualification now required is to produce the votes or
get out.

Clerks in every line of public service are muzzled either
by the public or by men in power controlling their ap-
pointment or election and are required to close their eyes
to many matters that should be given publicity.

1. Yes. The will and policy of the majority is enacted
through their chosen representative for the common good.

2. Because of no decision rendered.

13. No. For the fact that'in small municipalities an
able man cannot sacrifice his time for the compensation,
dare not risk defeat in an election, and will not tolerate
the public criticism of his endeavor.

1. Yes. In regards to local offices.

2. Some declare it unnecessary.

13. No.

1. It gives every voter a chance.

2. Lack of interest.

13. Change as suggested in question No. 11.

1. To a certain extent. In most municipalities I feel
that the primaries are cleaner than when it was possible
to pack the old time caucus.

2. My idea is that the voters think it too much trouble
to go to two elections, and consider that a few will fix it up
anyway, therefore they stay away from the primaries
and vote as they please at the general election.

13. Yes, but how? Beyond me to explain.

1. Not in my mind.

2. They do not want to publicly announce their tickets,
as it appears to me.

13. There is too much election law. It wants simpli-
fying.

1. Yes.

2. Lack of interest.

13. Yes. If there is a way.

1. Partly. Voters as a rule do not wish to declare
themselves and the vote is very light.

2. Unless an important contest is on hand whereby the
interest of the voter can be stimulated he will not vote
at the primary and candidates for minor offices must
suffer.

13. Yes.

1, Partly.

2. Lack of interest.

13. No.

1. A positive answer either in the affirmative or nega-
tive would be too broad to be absolutely correct. The
answer is included, more or less, in the replies to the
succeeding questions. To be precise in the answer the
objects of the direct primary law should be stated and

216
dwelt upon. It would then be found that some of the
Purposes leading to the enactment of the direct primary
law are being accomplished while others are not. One
hardship and drawback that might be mentioned is that
a voter who is unable to exercise his right of franchise at
the previous general election, even though with a legiti-
mate excuse, is debarred from voting at the succeeding
Primary election notwithstanding that he may have lived
a lifetime in the precinct.

2. Personal apathy and failure to appreciate the im-
portance of the primary ballot. There is also a more or
less general impression that organized politics decides
upon the candidates in advance, that primary elections
are perfunctory and that it is not worth while to take
an interest.

13. It will be seen from the foregoing replies that the
corrupt practice act has much to do with the direct pri-
mary law and any reform desired should embrace con-
sideration of both laws.

1. In a measure. Sample ballots are marked and the
regular ballots are then marked to correspond.

2. Largely a matter of indifference.

13.

1. Yes. Everybody has an opportunity to express his
will.

2. Lack of interest. Would rather others take the
responsibility of making the ticket.

13. No.

1. I do not think so. For minor officers it eliminates
the better class of men who will not bother with formal-
ities,

2. In my opinion No. 3 question answers this. (Ans.
Yes.) r

13. The old system, with more publicity appeals to me.

1. Just who knows its exact purpose?

2. Generally the candidates are men put up by politicians
and the voters think not much choice between them.
them.

13.

1. Yes. It gives anyone the privilege of running for
office.

2. Lack of interest.

13. No. I think the present system very good.

1. To a certain extent.

2. Because all party leaders usually have arranged the
nominations.-

13. I consider primary election an unnecessary ex-
pense, why not election cover all?

1. No. The best citizens will not take all the trouble.

2. Candidates have to force themselves forward.

13. The less complex the election and primary are the
less trouble to get good men to fill minor offices,

1. Yes, to some extent. Candidates having the sup-
port of the party workers have an advantage over those
who do not have.

217
2. Want of time and indifference.

13. Would like the privilege to support the candidate
of my choice, regardless of party.

1. Partly so. Take a county office, for instance: An
aggressive candidate with money can make a systematic
canvass of the county while a man with less means can’t
do it and with no machine back’ of him, he fails.

2. The average man kicks 364 days in the year and
goes to the polls blindly on election day and votes his
party ticket.

13. The only fault I have to find is that the modern
way in politics is too expensive—you have to run twice—
once at the primary and once at the general election. A
heavy strain both physically and financially. Limitation
of advertising matter won’t stop it. I know the evil, but
haven’t ever tried to study out the remedy, because I
have had too many other problems. Will try to go over
the matter and write you my more mature thought on
the matter if I get a chance. I believe in party organiza-
tions and yet believe in independence, but don’t like the
extreme stand-pat organization man, neither do I like the
wonderful independent would-be reformer who is full of
theories and few practices. I think the present primary
law is an improvement over the old county conventions,
but it is like the automobile engine, it has got a “knock”
in it somewhere, but I have never taken it apart yet to see
what the trouble was because I haven’t had time to con-
centrate thought on it.

1, I don’t think so,

2. As a rule voters are more or less independent and
don’t like to declare which party they belong to.

13. Yes. For all boroughs when politics don’t count,
but the man who is fit and willing to accept office as
mayor, councilman, etc.

1. Not entirely, fault of the people.

2. Partly lack of interest, partly answered by question
No. 3. (Ans. Those who do are not likely to come.)

13.

1. (a) Voters as a rule think that a defeated candidate
still may run a general election and that is the time to
cause defeat.

8. (a).

1. Because the primaries are not held on a holiday. I
believe this is the real cause although other reasons are
advanced.

8 Yes. Some regulation to keep the open primary
really open to prevent the freezing out of candidates by
the powerful political and other forces would be wel-
comed by the general public. A change in the state con-
stitution providing for election of assemblymen from
actual individual election districts would be advisable.

1. In local matters, because the voters are satisfied

(a) In the questions sent to the Essex County Clerks No. 1 cor-
responds to the usual No. 2, and No. 8 to No. 13.

218
with the C. C. C. candidates; in county and state matters,
because it is felt that the Organization candidates will win
no matter how the vote of Glen Ridge goes.

8. While maintaining the present safeguards against
corruption, make it obligatory under sufficient penalty for
non-compliance for each registered voter to vote at the
primary and general elections. I consider it as much a
duty to vote as to fight; every man should perform his
duty to the state in times of peace, and it is his duty to
place in office men of integrity and ability, for the good
of the commonwealth. ,

1. The machinery is too complicated and the ticket
is too long,

1. This is very hard to answer. People don’t seem
to take enough interest. Some do not care to declare
their politics.

8. Cannot see any way to interest the general public
at the primaries.

1. Because they do not wish to declare their political
affiliation.

8. I think the primary election law used prior to the
Geran Act was more suitable. :

1. In our section they are pretty busy at that time.

8. This qtiestion is too big for me. I can’t make’ any
suggestions.

1. Because of the fact that they must declare their
political affiliation.

8. No suggestions at this time, but would call your
attention to my answers of Nos. 1 and 2. (Ques. No. 2,—
Ans. Yes.)

1.

2. I believe because they do not care to state their
party, therefore do not vote on primary.

13. I am not thoroughly acquainted with the laws
being new at this line.

1. Yes. Voters think that they have a choice in the
selection of state and county officials.

2 Most voters don’t take any interest only in local
elections, voting for whatever their party nominates at
the general election. \

13. No.

1. Not for local offices, as candidates file petition for
both parties.

2, Seems to be mainly because of lack of interest, as
local committeemen are not active.

13.

i: Yes. Because it gives every one the same chance.

2. Do not want to declare themselves.

13. Yes, if possible.

1. Do not know. /

2, On account of being compelled to declare their
political faith.

219
13. Do away with the section that provides for nomi-
nation of candidates by writing in names on primary
ballot.

1. Yes. In my opinion it is.

2. A great many do not like to be asked which tickets
they want.

13. The only way of securing the most accurate ex-
pression of the public will is for the voters to vote at the
primaries. I- cannot see that they declare their party
affiliation more by so doing than voting at primaries as
formerly conducted.

1. It is locally, with us.

2. We usually get out a fair percentage of the vote
here.

13. Am in favor of any change that will improve the
conditions named above, but it seems to be working satis-
factorily with us in local matters.

1. Yes.

2. Either lack of public spirit or do at care to declare
their party.

13. No.

1. No. Voters do not take enough interest in the
primaries to make it of any real benefit.

2. Voters seem to think the candidates put up by the
parties will win anyway over any independent man that
might run.

13. Yes. By having it printed in such a form that any
one can understand it. At present a college man would
have his troubles.

2. Account of indifference or a desire to avoid declar-
ing political affiliation. The latter in the case principally
of persons dependent on town people for a livelihood.

13. At present if the committeeman is not sure of con-
trolling the caucus he can avoid calling it and nominate
by petition. This is wrong as it denies members of his
party being heard and the situation lies in the hands of
the committeeman and a few followers.

1. In my estimation the majority of office seekers in
municipalities do not care to run in the primaries, they
would sooner take their chances in the general election

2. Because they do not want to be confined to one
particular party.

13. Yes.

1. Yes. As it gives a person a chance to vote for a
suitable candidate.

2. Partly to omit losing time, and as all candidates
are still under boss control the independent spirit is lack-
ing.

13. Certainly.

1. No. On account of the regular party candidate
getting the support of party regardless.

2. On account of declaring their politics; also on
account of being only primary.

13. Yes. If same can be improved upon,

220
1. I think so. By giving each candidate an equal
chance.

2. Because it is characteristic of the average American
to be perfectly willing to “let George do it.”

13. No, but stop the privilege of bracketing.

1. Believe it is wherever the people use its powers.

2. Most voters believe that it is unnecessary to vote at
a primary. Some are opposed to revealing their political
Status and others, especially independent voters, do not
desire to commit themselves to any particular party as
now required by the provisions of the law regarding pri-
mary voting.

13. No.

1 ?

2. A good citizen will file his petition, make his 'state-
ment, and file all papers as requested by law while the
others will avoid all the requirements of the primary
law and avoid the trouble and file with the county clerk
and get on the ballot just the same and save all the
trouble.

13. Yes, and cut out the unnecessary printing and ad-
vertising of election.

1. No. It is not the fault of the law, but the voters
themselves that do not come out and take part.

2. They do not desire to commit themselves, believing

- if they do, you will know how they will vote on election
day. :

13. No.

1. I consider that the direct primary is accomplishing
the purpose of its enactment in that it gives the voter
more independence in making his choice, and also that
it prevents the “stuffing” of ballot boxes.

2. My opinion is that the average voter is of the opinion
that if he casts his vote on general election day this is
all that is necessary or required, as I believe that many
of the voters do not fully realize the importance of the
primary.

13. Prefer to leave this question to more mature minds.

1, Yes, to a great extent by eliminating undesirable
candidates.

2. Because some depend on the party leaders; some
hesitate to declare their party affiliations.

13. No.

1. No. By the people not voting.

2. Too many elections.

13.

1, No. Costs too much to allow men of moderate
means to run.

2. Because of No. 3. (Ans. Yes.)

13. Yes.

1. No. The candidates selected are not as a rule any
better qualified than those selected under the old method.

2. Lack of interest in governmental affairs,

221
13. Yes, by the repeal of the entire procedure which
is a farce, unless compulsory voting were in force. I
think the old system of a party caucus open to every man
who cared to attend, produced results equal to the present
inefficient, cumbersome, expensive primary. The only
result accomplished by it being a doubling of the expense
of conducting elections with only about 10 to 20 per cent.
of the. voters taking any interest in the matter.

1.

2. Partly because of disinclination to participate in a
political’ free-for-all of ridiculously unfit candidates. Also
because of lack of party stimulus as, was present under
the old convention plan. ;

13. I believe the convention plan insures the selection
of sane, competent men as a matter of party self-defense.
The open primary scramble deters many a good citizen
from entering the political arena,

1. No. It is too expensive for the ordinary man to be
a candidate; it is equal to having two elections.

2. They do not like to tell what parties they expect
to support. i i

13. Yes.

1. Yes. By preventing bribery, as from my observation
this feature of the old method has been eliminated.

2. Lack of interest, The same ratio of falling off is
observable in the general election.

13. Do not know of any method that could bring about
a better expression.

1. No. Good men will not take the trouble of canvass-
ing for two elections.

2. Cannot answer.

1. Yes. By giving the voters a chance to express their
individual opinion.

2. Lack of interest in our township.

13. No.

1. No. One of the principal reasons is that persons
with no possible qualifications for office are encouraged
to become candidates to the detriment of efficient candi-
dates,

2. (1) Refusal to declare partisan lines; (2) the
greatly misunderstood identification of voters; (3) strict
confinement to two parties’ candidates.

13. Eliminate primary altogether.

1.

2. The public in general do not like too many election
days.

13. Would rather see it abolished and return to con-
ventiotis.

1. Yes, to a certain extent.

2. Because they do not wish to divulge their party
affiliations.

13.

1. In the case of local county and state legislature
elections, yes; because it makes the choice a popular one,

222
but in the case of Governor, Senator, President, etc., no;
because in large areas there is more sectionalism,

2, Due to indifference and a possible misunderstand-
ing of its purpose,

13. Answered in questions Nos. -4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12.
(Ques. No. 4,—Ans. Decidedly. Ques. No. 5,—Ans. Yes.
Ques. No. 6,—Ans. None. <A needless expense and
nuisance. Ques. No. 7,—Ans. No, positively not one in a
hundred ever reads them. Ques. No. 11,—Ans, Yes, be-
cause the choice would still be a popular one and eliminate
needless expense primary. Ques. No. 12,—Ans. Same
reason as above.)

Yes. Gives the voter a chance to vote directly for
the candidate.

2. In many cases no opposition.

13.

1. Yes. In the prevention of corruption because it
makes it near impossible to check up the way a man
votes because no official ballots can be secured in advance
of receipt at the ballot box.

2. Lack of contest in many cases. Whenever we have
a contest the vote is fair.

13. Yes. If the law could be simplified and not so
complicated. There seems to be considerable confusion
in the interpretation of the intention of the law as it is
written. The general scheme is undoubtedly good and
works for a cleaner and better expression of the voter.

1. No.

2. Do not seem to be interested.

13. No.

1. No. The voters don’t turn out.

2. I don’t know.

13. Repeal it. ‘

1. No. Because the people will not get out to them.

2. Pure carelessness.

13. No.

1. Yes. Has caused the voters to believe that more
honest conditions prevail and much less disorder at elec-
tion,

2. Because they or their friends do not happen to be
candidates for office,

13. No.

1. No. . Too much complicated for the average voter.

2. As stated above, complications too great.

13. Have voters registered entitled to vote at any
election.

1. No. Too many are willing that others do their
thinking for them.

2, They fail to recognize their responsibility to select
candidates. :

13. Eliminate all names not placed on ticket by peti-

tion.
1. No. Evasion easy. *
2. Useless.

223
13. Old methods better.

1. No.

2 They claim it is not necessary and very expensive,

13. Yes.

1. No, Has not controlled or stopped bribery.

2. Politicians still control.

13. Do not think changing would do good; unless it is
obliterated.

1. Yes.

2. This seems to be a question I, like our other officers,
seem to be unable to answer.

13, Only by forcing every citizen to vote.

1. I thik not. It seems to me the candidates are picked
pretty much the same as before.

2. They do realize the importance of the primary, feeling
that the candidates are picked by the politicians, and will be
nominated anyhow.

13.

1. Yes.

2. Indifference and the fact they must declare their political
affiliation.

13. We believe the intent of the law to be good, but there
are features that could be improved upon, for instance: In
place of having one box for each party, one box could be used
with different colored tickets saving expense, as well as labor
of municipal clerks and election officers.

1. No. It is controlled by the different parties by lack of
interest of the independent voter.

2. Indifference.

13. Yes, if possible.

1. Yes.
2. I suppose they think it is not necessary.
13.

1. I think not. See No. 3. (Ans. Yes.)

2. No. 3 answers this.

13. Better let well enough alone. See No. 3, which is
a dominant factor.

1. Partially

2. They have not yet become used to declare themselves.

13. Yes. I would not permit stickers to be used on the
primary ticket.

1. No. Because the vote will not turn out. Yes. Because
it makes cleaner election.

2. Because do not seem to be the life in primary there was
under the old ballot.

13. No. Would suggest party circle for general election,
as it would help old-time voters.

1,

2. The sentiment seems to be—let the other fellow do the
nominating, s

13, Yes.

1. Yes, I think so.

2.

13. No.

224
1. I think it is. Read supplement of October 28, 1907,

P. L. 1907, P. 697. It seems to be O. K.

' 2, Because what a voter votes on general (I mean party
ticket) he has to do same on primary. election, so gives
him no chance to change, even if he sees fit to do so.

13° No.

1. No. Because candidates that are not fit for office will
get up a petition, while those that are fit will not bother
with a petition.

2. Because they are not interested in unfit candidates.

13. Yes. Change so that anyone can understand it without
having to consult a lawyer.

1, Not entirely.

2. Mostly lack of interest, :

13. “Of two evils choose the lesser.’ Allow but two
names to an office after primary, thus preventing a third
person entering for the purpose of defeating the better man.

1, Yes. I want to know what kind of man I am voting for.

2, They generally do if there are two or more candidates
of each party that have filed their petitions of the office.

13. No.

1. No. The law is incomplete.

2. I consider that all good citizens vote, but there seems to
be a class of voters who are ready to change politics at any
time for their advantage, and that is the class who refuse
to vote at the primaries.

13, There-are several changes which could be made which
would be a great benefit to the primary laws.

1. Yes. It gives candidates a better chance to get on the
ticket.

2. ‘Because, first, some do not care to declare themselves.

Second, there is no opposition for a majority of local
candidates.

13. Would favor leaving off the blank space below each
group of candidates at general election and each person voting
at general receives a receipt for poll tax.

1. No. The ballot is too complicated or badly arranged as
to parties, etc.

2, Many have two friends for same office, and wait for
choice to be made by others.

13. Yes.

‘1. We think not. No interest being taken by the voters.

2. Because they can accomplish what they desire at the
regular election.

13, We do not believe in primaries at all. For example.
at election, without filing petition, two candidates defeated
two others who were nominated at primaries.

1. In my judgment, yes.

2. Because I believe the majority of voters do not fully
understand its importance.

13. I would advise the changing of the primary laws pro-
viding the change would be for the better. .

1: The one feature I object to is that a candidate who is
fearful of being nominated can get his name on the ticket
after primary.

225
2. A lot of péople are disinterested at primary elections.

13. I do not think that any person should be able to get
their names on the ballot if not nominated at the primary.

1. It means a great deal of useless expense.

2. Cannot answer,

13. The people have become accustomed to the workings
of the present law, and the legislature should stop tinkering
with it; unless to make a general change in, and codify the
election laws, and then leave them alone.

1. Yes. It prevents the packing of a primary. Although
it seems that the primary is held too far ahead of the general
election, which causes some of the voters to take little interest.

2. Because most nominations are non-contested, in a con-
test almost the full vote of the particular political party is cast.

13. No.

1. Yes. I believe it prevents undesirable persons from be-
coming candidates oftentimes.

2. Because there is no contest for most places, and the
voters are satisfied with those running.

13.

1. Partly.

2. Many voters do not approve of the present form of
primary for the selection of local candidates.

13. As a rule, political parties have to place good men on
the ballots if they expect to elect them to-office. Changes could
be made in the primary law to greatly reduce the cost of
elections.

1.

2. God knows! Perhaps the inherent indifference of the
average voter,

13. Yes.

1. Partly so.

2. Indifference, consider the ballot of no value.

13. Yes, eliminate the necessity of party boxes. Allow
signers to sign petition whether they voted for majority of
the assembly candidates on that party ticket the year before
or not. Allow voters to be non-partisan.

1, Yes. Because we get better men nominated.

2. Ours is a farming district, and therefore attend that
and not primaries.

13. No.

1. No. Because men will not go to the trouble of having
petitions signed, and leave it to one person to do.

2. Seem to think that signing petition, the persons will be
nominated, and do not take the trouble to attend primary.

13. Yes.

1. No. Because a man can refuse to vote one year, and
then can vote any party ticket.

2. Answered by No. 3. (Ans. Almost without exception.)

13. Do not think the primary can be changed for good,
except by repealing same entirely.

1. Yes. By preventing a number of uneducated voters
who follow no trade from voting as their employer wishes;
them to. There are a number of uneducated persons who
think they must vote as their employer.

226
2. Because they do not realize its value.
13. I would require members of county committee to file
petitions. I would suggest that members of local boards of

education be nominated at a primary and elected at the general
election.

l. Yes.

2. They do in this township if there is much opposition.

13. Yes, by abolishing county committees.

1. Partially by raising standard of competent candidates.

2. Lack of interest. ,

13. Yes.

1. No.

2. \Because one don’t like to be told which party box to
cast their vote in.

13. Yes,

1, No. Not in small township. 2

2. Too much trouble in order to become a candidate fo
small offices.

13. Yes.

1. TI believe it better than the convention system. It still,
however, to a certain extent, leaves room open for an organ-
ization to put in its chosen few. I am in favor of but one
ae a primary is unnecessary, it should be done away
with.

2. They do not deem it important enough, whereas it
seems to me that it is more important that a larger vote be
out at the primary, because it is then that the people have
a large number of candidates to choose from, whereas at the
election practically two men.

13. Yes. Let there be the one election; abolish the pri-
mary.

1. Yes.

2.

13. One box for all voters.

1. Yes.

2. A greater number of candidates run for the nomination,
and this creates more interest.

13. No.

1. I think so, in that the people are becoming more thor-
oughly acquainted with the primary laws.

2. The principal reason, in my opinion, why more voters
do not participate in the primaries, is owing to the lack of
local contest.

13. I am in favor changing any law that will better condi-
tions.

1. I think the direct primary is a good thing.

2. ‘Many voters here vote the straight party ticket, and care
but very little who is on it.

13. No.

1. Yes.

2. Becattse no cash can be used at the polls.

13. No.

1. Yes. ;

2. It is hard to make them understand that this is the most
important election of the two.

227
13. I do not believe it is right for any candidate to come up
at the general election that has not been through the primary.

1. It provides an improvement over the old ballot.

i They do not seem to realize the importance.

1. In some cases, yes. In others, not. First, in most cases,
a better standard of officers are selected. In second place, it
acts as a damper on a great many voters, and they do not come
out and express themselves.

2. Because they do not care to declare themselves, and
would rather vote independent in voting for candidates.

13. At the present time I would suggest as above. I think
a full discussion of same by representatives of each district
might bring out some good suggestions. By getting together
in each county and then drafting up conclusions of same in
blanket form.

1. Yes.

2. Lack of interest.

13. No.

1. Not knowing for what purpose it was enacted, cannot
Say.

2 Lack of interest of some; opposition by others.

13. Only as regards answer to No. 11. (Ans. Decidedly yes.)

When the opinions of a certain group of people are
solicited and those of only a part are obtained, it is
always to be carefully judged whether for any reason
the replies secured are likely to be representative of
the views of the entire group, that is, whether mem-
bers of the group possessing certain characteristics are
more likely to reply than others. Two considerations
present themselves here which seem to neutralize each
other. On the one hand, the most alert progressive
clerks, interested in public questions, and ready to per-
form a public service may be expected to reply to a
questionaire addressed to them for information on a
vital phase of government. These, one might suppose,
would more probably than not favor the direct primary
merely because it has been so generally regarded as an
up-to-date, popular and progressive measure. On the
other hand municipal clerks of this character,
having accepted with a whole heart the theory of the
direct primary and having no misgivings as to its
effectiveness and desirability, might be inclined to hold
the question of the direct primary as closed and pay
no attention to any communication which contained
any evidence of an intention to open it. In that case,
the replies would come from the conservatives and re-
actionaries and would be more unfavorable to the
direct primary than the average.

228
It is barely possible that in clerks honestly critical
of the direct primary would be found a hesitation to
communicate their sentiments or a tendency to express
them very mildly for fear of public criticism in case
they should become known, because without doubt the
direct primary is popular and all progressively inclined
people are expected to support it. But, all the clerks
having been assured that their replies would be
treated confidentially, perhaps the opponents of the
primary would take advantage of this opportunity to
speak their views rather than the adherents of a quite
generally acceptable system. There is no means of
deciding whether these answers are or are not repre-
sentative.

Some conclusions seem warrantable from the replies
received. While a majority of the municipal clerks be-
lieve the direct primary is accomplishing, wholly or in
part, its purpose as they understand it, the large num-
ber of negative answers to.question one indicates a dis-
satisfaction in greater or lesser degree with the opera-
tion of the law, provided, of course, that the desires of
the clerks harmonize with the purpose of the law.
Many replies point to successful organization influence
as the fly in the ointment, combined with the lack of
interest on the part of the qualified voters, and their
consequent failure to exercise a choice in the selection
of candidates.

“Almost exactly one-third of the replies give unwill-
ingness to be known as members of one or another
party or independence of party as a reason why more
voters do not participate in the primaries, and one-
half believe that voters in considerable numbers hesi-
tate to declare their political affiliations. The largest
negative vote comes from the rural counties.

Here is surely strong evidence that many voters who
take an interest in government and vote regularly at
the general elections are deprived ofa voice in the de-
termination of candidates and hence officers by the re-
quirements of the law for a party primary. The ma-
jority is very slightly negative on question four and
slightly affirmative on five. .

Why the party organizations are so uniformly suc-
cessful when they support a candidate or candidates
at the primary, unless considerable money or organized

229
,

effort is put into the field against them, is partly ex-
plained at least if the verdict of the clerks on question
eight be accepted as corresponding to fact.

The opinion is very decisive on the first part of the
tenth question, but does not favor the remedy sug-
gested in the latter part.

It is perhaps surprising that a majority of a group
of partisan political office holders should favor a non-
partisan single election of municipal officers, but such
is the case; and as a rule the larger counties were more
favorable to the change than the smaller. This is
probably due to the conservatism of the less populous
counties, although one might have supposed that the
clerks in the more populous counties would have op-
posed taking any office out of the partisan class.

There is a great majority in the negative on ques-
tion twelve. It must be conceded that the county
committee as at present chosen and constituted would
hardly be worthy of exercising so important a func-
tion as that proposed, although the restraint which the
possible primary would impose on them would be cer-
tain to make their selection popular in a large measure
if they hoped for success. But the clerks are evidently
to be considered distrustful of the organizations,—
although the members are popularly chosen just as
the clerks themselves are, or councilmen, or legislators,
—unless perhaps the privilege of casting a ballot
directly for a candidate is more attractive in itself
than authorizing an agent to preform that task or
service,

In only one county, however, was there a majority
averse to changing the present law in some way to
improve it. The concensus of opinion is without ques-
tion indicative of a belief that the law can be im-
proved, and many of the amendments advanced are
progressive in the extreme—going beyond the party
primary to the non-partisan or to the single election
and the appointment of administrative officers under
civil service regulation. The need for the simplifica-
tion of the present law is voiced by several.

Altogether it will perhaps be near the truth to say
that as a body the municipal clerks are more or less
equally divided in their belief as to the effectiveness of
the direct primary, are ready for changes to improve
it or for its abolition as far as municipal offices are

230
concerned, ‘but are quite decidedly opposed to indirect
nominations, at any rate by the present county com-
mittees.

OPINIONS OF EDITORS

A list of 13 questions (a) was sent to all news-
paper editors of the state, of whom there are about
275, and responses were received from 61. This number
is not so small as it seems when it is realized that many
papers take no particular interest in political affairs.
Here again arises the question as to the representative
character of the men who responded, in answer to
which no certain conclusion seems possible. Editors
as a rule feel themselves capable of expressing intelli-
gent opinions on a great variety of subjects and are
from the nature of their profession called upon fre-
quently to do so. Having always before them the
opportunity to speak they would be less likely to
feel flattered by having their opinion consulted. This,
together with the fact that their opinions on political
subjects are commonly known to their readers, may
explain why so many editors failed to reply. Sev-
eral, perhaps most of the leading papers of the state,
paid no attention to the questions. Their attitude
may be that of the paper whose response was an
editorial headed, “Direct Primary Here to Stay,”
although any one may judge from the questions
whether there is any hint of a “return to the rotten
convention system, with its ruled or bossed dele-
gates and its invisible ‘man higher up’ to pull the
nominating strings.” This paper conceded that the

(a)
1. Why do not more voters participate in the primary?
2. Are the voters who regularly attend the primary more or less
“independent” than those who vote at the general election?
3. Are there any questions of principle or policy at issue in the
nomination of county officers? At the general election? :
. Has the character of officials been raised by the direct primary?
Why?
3, Has “independent”? candidacy been stimulated (regardless of the
character of the candidates)? i
. Does the direct primary increase the cost of candidacy? If so,
in what particulars? z e .

To what extent does the necessity of securing a petition prevent
unfit aspirants from getting their names on the primary ballots?
Would publishing the names of signers be desirable?

8. Do the candidates at the primary stand an equal chance of
nomination, as far as the party organizations are concerned? _

9. Do party organizations put up a complete slate at the priinary?

10, By what method do they determine on these candidates?

11. Who constitute the organizations? . ;

12. If the organizations support a slate, in what cases, specifically,
have they been defeated in the years 1911 to 1916?

13. re you advise changit? the primary law in any way to secure
the more accurate expression of the popular will and the choice of better

public officers?

231
opinions on the results of the. Geran law would be
interesting, but added: “Whatever these opinions
may be, the direct primary system is here to remain.”
It may be that several papers which have taken the
rather popular position on the direct primary ques-
tion were loathe to write answers which in them-
selves would tend to shake perfect faith or weaken
their optimism in regard to its efficacy. Such faith
and optimism may have been sincerely cultivated as
the best means of helping the people to control poli-
tics or falsely professed in order to gain popular ap-
proval. Some persons may think that the owners of
certain newspapers have restrained editors from ex-
pressing their real opinions in the columns of the
papers and consequently in answer to a request for
opinions. Such newspapers are held to be “domi-
nated by the interests.” Leaving this perhaps profit-
less discussion, let another’ question be raised—will
the newspaper editors as a class be prejudiced for
or against the direct primary, if either? Such a ques-
tion is not intended necessarily to question the sin-
cerity of newspaper men, but.sight must not be lost
of two facts: the common concession that the direct
primary affords the newspapers an opportunity to
wield a much greater influence in determining nomi-
nations than the former system, and the economic
advantage to the printers and newspapermen caused
by certain concomitants of the direct primary. Two
of these result from the printing of sample and of-
ficial primary ballots and the political advertising
done by candidates. These two items in New Jer-
sey each year may safely be estimated at over $100,-
000, in many years at much more. Of course there
are probably newspapers which receive nothing from
either source. All in all, it will hardly be argued
that many influences exist whose force would tend
to make newspapermen hostile to the direct primary,
except ownership by persons who might feel that
their political opportunities, for office or control of
government, were greater under some other system.

As in the case of the municipal clerks, so here the
replies to certain questions cannot be effectively
classified and tabulated, and some of them will be
printed as they were written. It is really to be re-

232
gretted that all the replies cannot be presented in
full. A number of the more extensive answers to
questions number one follow, equally representative
of those inclined to favor the primary as it is, and of
those who desire changes of one kind or another. In
order that the relation of the answers for this ques-

tion to those for number thirteen may be observed,
the latter are added:

1, Seemingly, lack of interest. Interest, however, is
growing.

13. No. The law is all right.

1, The announcement of candidates for nomination enables
the voters of any sub-division to determine who is best quali-
fied to represent them, and from the general character of those
who aspire to be nominated it is easy for the people to decide
to what extent they should participate in the selection. Rival
candidates will make known their respective qualifications, and
in this way the unfitness of candidates is exploited in the
process of campaigning. While it is claimed that the people
do not participate in the primaries to the extent that they
should, it is certain that more actually do participate than
were permitted to before the adoption of the Geran law, when
a few men who styled themselves “Leaders” determined who
should or should not seek a nomination. The people know
that under the present law they can have something to say
about the selection of candidates, and, whenever occasion war-
rants it, they do have their say. This power in the hands of
the people is the bogie man that hovers over the so-called
party leaders, and they fear it.

13. The primary law is satisfactory as it stands. The will
of the people can be accurately recorded, and any tampering
with the law can have no end in view but to thwart the will
of the people.

1. Because of the feeling that it-is not important enough
to take the time or trouble. Unless the voters are greatly
stirred up about anything, man or issue, they feel that the
“favored” candidate—the pup of the organization—will win
anyhow.

13. The change in the primary I would advocate would be
cutting out the party system in the primary, having the two
highest candidates run against each other. This would make
it possible for people to vote for issues and men in the
primary as well as in the election. I hardly think this would
be practical, as our national and state system is bi-party, and
can be nothing else. om : :

Improvement can come only with the training of the intelli-
gence of the voters, through independent papers, and truthful
journalism in small towns and rural districts like ours. The
average country newspaper is rotten as to morals—for. sale to
the highest bidder, bribed by a twelve-inch ad. or a big print-
ing order. If the people, educated as they are in New Jersey,
got the real inside of the political game as it is played, they
would be able to judge and decide intelligently.

233°
The main cure is time. The primary law is not effective
more than one year in ten, and very costly as compared with
the old system.

These comments apply only to local politics, and for men
running for local offices. In district elections (congressional),
many of the same features are found. In state-wide elections
there is less of the organization influence as applied to this
part of the State.

These are my personal opinions only. I have been actively
in the game, and know every man active in the two organiza-
tions in our county. They are for the most part good, but
they look on the political game as one without rules other than
those imposed by the court. There is no money used at pres-
ent by either organization in improper ways. The best organ-
ization is the Democratic from a moral standpoint, due to the
high character of the “Big Boss.” But good as he is, the
people do not rule, the primary has not given them the power
to rule, and will not until the people themselves will take an
interest, get reliable information on things political, and for-
get, in county affairs, the party their grandfathers voted for;
that is coming, coming fast if you happen to be optimistic,
slow if you are a pessimist.

1. They lack interest or dislike to appear as wearing a party
collar and having to declare themselves keeps the best element
away.

13. I would prohibit all endorsements of primary candi-
dacies, prohibit all contributions and permit all voters to vote
in the party box they desire, regardless of how they voted at
any time before.

1, Because many voters take too little interest in politics
to give attention to two elections.

13. Better abolish the primary and nominate by petition
solely. The direct primary offers an opportunity for the
independent voter to assert himself if he will. Unfortunately,
however, in only exceptional cases does he make his strength
effective because of lack of organization. For the first two or
three years the party machines were at a loss as to how to
cope with the direct primary. Latterly, by means of selecting
candidates bearing the stamp of regularity and through the
promotion of bogus independent candidacies, they have suc-
ceeded in nullifying to a large degree the benefits hoped from
the direct primary.

1.. Lack of interest, though the number is constantly in-
creasing,

13. The further limitation of expense, especially for over-
elaborate advertising.

1. Because their great interest has been cultivated through
ages in being party men, not in being citizens with the full
attending duties. Many do not at that vote at general elec-
tions; more, consequently, not at primaries.

13. The western states have (some of them) laws worth
studying, but by all means go ahead, not backward. We will
probably have to come to compulsory voting.

1. Many frankly indifferent. Others fancy that politicians
will and can outwit any reform element.

234
13. Offhand, have no suggestions, but would be pleased
to give matter further consideration.

1, Some because of general lack of interest; others because
of lack of contests, except occasionally, when the vote is
fairly heavy.

13. I am not able to suggest changes. My opinion is that
the primary generally assures us better men, by compulsion
of political leaders, especially for the more important offices.
Sometimes the small jobs suffer.

1. Because a certain class of voters controlled by the
organization hold the balance of power in the matter of
voting. Results are a foregone conclusion, hence no interest.

13. Compulsory universal suffrage.

1. They realize that it is a hopeless task to go up against
an organization and prefer to leave politics alone until condi-
tions become so frightful that a general movement is started
and they generally are glad to help overthrow the bosses.

13, No. The remedy lies in another direction.

1, The fact that all voters can participate in the selection
of candidates tends to have only desirable persons seek the
nominations, and it is not necessary.

‘13. Think the present law is satisfactory. The people can
be trusted to rectify any mistakes they may make.

1. Satisfied with candidates and do not trouble to go to the
polls, thinking it unnecessary. When there is a contest on.
they vote 60 per cent.

13. By doing away with party tickets,’ thus giving the
independent voter a chance. At present he will not vote at
the primary because he feels that as an independent he does
not wish to be affiliated with any party. A ticket with all
candidates on it, with their party affiliation annexed, could be
voted by anyone, and the two highest placed on the general
election ticket.

1. There have been election days for more years than there
have primaries; election campaigns have the added advantage
of the primary awakening; more men are interested in party
success than in individual success.

13. I would do away with primaries entirely; allow any
man to put his name on ticket who could get ten per cent, of
the voters on his petition (or 5 per cent. if you wish‘), and
then let the voter make a first, second and third choice, second
choice to count half a vote, third choice a quarter vote, or
some such plan. at

1. The old system tended to discourage personal participa-
tion, so that it will take years of education to arouse people
to a sense of duty; complaint is often heard that the time
allowed to vote is too short. feos Bee

13. ‘Weakness of plan in large communities lies in great
increase in number of candidates for the puzzled voter to
select from; the great temptation to spend money regardless
of law, especially where there is a chance of winning; slight
hold, if any, held by the party or by the public on the man
nominated, and elected (generally unbound by any definite
platform or pledge) to carry out anybody’s viewpoint except

235
his own. As a start toward reform, why not make the cortupt
practice law really effective by enforcing it?

1. Because they feel that it ties them definitely to one party,
and in some cases they have not voted that party's ticket at
previous election.

13. Let every legal citizen who could secure a definite
hurhber of signers (quantity depending upon scope of office,
of course) go on the primary tickets, arranged alphabetically
according to names, selecting the three highest as election
nominees (or some modification producing the same results,
irrespective of party lines).

1. Too many elections! Besides, many of the voters prefer
to choose after the nominations are made, rather than help
nominate.

13. Some method between the old “go as you please” pri-
mary and the present “too much machinery system.” A sim-
ple primary in a hall in the afternoon or evening, with sworn
officers, the balloting safeguarded.

1. Plenty do. Some do not like to announce party mem-

berships.

' 13. Possibly. But it is best to let it alone.

1, There seems to be a growing number of “independents.”

13. Require the publication of petitions and signers’ names,
perhaps, or the first 50 or 100 names on the petitions, is an
idea. Throw the primaries wider open, so men could vote
in whatever primary they chose each year. This is a radical
idea, and I have not given very deep thought to the sugges-
tion. Maybe you can figure it out.

1. A fool question. (How old is Ann?)

13. Yes. Abolish it. It is no improvement in any particu-
lar, and far more costly to the state and the candidate.

Roughly the opinions as to the reasons why voters
do not attend the primary may be classified as in-
difference, 32; independence of party, 15; and igno-
rance of the importance of the primary, 8 It will be
noticed that the numbers holding these opinions cor-
respond in a measure to the divisions among the
municipal clerks. On question 2, seven answered
“more,” eight, “the same,” and thirty-five, “less.”
Twenty answered affirmatively the first part of num-
ber three; eighteen negatively; seven “sometimes ;”
six “seldom ;” while the corresponding replies for the
second part were 24, 16,7, 4. One of the affirmatives
to each part specified the character of officials, which
of course can hardly be said to constitute a principle
or policy unless there are advocates of inefficiency
and corruption. It is quite probable that many
others of those answering, yes, were possessed of the
same idea. Four answers were “Merely spoils,”
“Party organization,” “Party seems to be the prin-

236
cipal issue,” “Efficiency and fitness should super-
sede partyism in a candidate.”

A majority of seven, 32-25, gave the opinion that
the character of officials has not been raised, but a
majority of one, 28-27, believed independent candi-
dacy has been stimulated. Some of the answers run
as follows. “Yes, so-called independents but not
the real stuff”; “Yes, but more among the undesir-
able than the desirable’; “Yes, and I think it is
gradually improving”; “It was at first but seems to
be no longer because it is known that machines .
win 90% of primary tickets, and no one without
money can afford to ‘buck’ machines”; “Yes, for
every one has at least a fair chance”; “Yes, as to the
primary, but the ‘independents’ are uniformly
knocked out, if not at the primary, then at the election
by lack of support from the leaders” ; “Certainly, men
go on tickets that no party organization would put up” ;
“Yes, decidedly”; “The primary encourages inde-
pendent action”; “Yes, all manner of animals try to
work the ‘independent’ game.”

Forty-eight editors think the direct primary in-
creases the cost of candidacy as opposed to six who
do not. The requirement of a petition was consid-
ered of no effect in deterring unfit candidates by
40, of little effect by four and of sufficient effect by
five; but the printing of signers’ names was held un-
advisable by 28, while 27 favored it. To question
8, 21 answered yes, and 36, no. These replies are
somewhat difficult to reconcile with those to the
next question—34, yes; 8, no; 9, sometimes. The
replies to question 10 can only be presented with any
real significance by complete quotatioris.

10. Executive meetings of those in control.

10. The so-called party leaders do the selecting.

10. The leaders, usually at county committee meetings, go
into executive session, decide upon available men who have
been seen, or if not, send a committee to wait upon them, and
get them to run. The picked candidate runs, and gets the
whole organization, except individuals who are on the -outs
with the leaders, back of him in the primary election. There
is a lot of hot air thrown by party organs about each candidate,
and the support for one is not in the open, but quiet, and
effective, because not more than 30 per cent. of the registered

voters go to the polls on primary day. Those who go are
usually the organization men, sent to vote to insure the nomi-

nation of the chosen few.
237
10. Same as at convention, but principally by the amount of
money they can put up. Sometimes by records.

10. In some cases on a basis of popularity. In others on
their ability to put up enough money. The financial element
is always potential.

10. By the machine method.

10. By election of the “neediest” or most “valuable,” behind
closed doors, although some are forced on them.

10. At leaders’ conferences.

10. By choice at “committee” meetings of party leaders.
The Democratic nominations are little more than a matter of
form, and since the Wilson sweep of 1912 there has been no
multiplicity of Democratic primary candidates.

10. Conference of leaders.

10. Usually by a conference attended by a few who arrange
the deals to suit their ambitious aims to build up and make
stronger their organizations.

10. Leaders select them.

10, Usually fitness, sometimes expediency.

10. The leaders “get together.”

10. By the old methods of service rendered the organiza-
tion, unless they need better material “to save the ticket.”

10. The leaders agree and through the usual understand-
ings these men get most of the votes—although sometimes
badly defeated at the general election,

10. By conferences, etc.

10. By conference.

10. ‘Publicity.

10. Personal and political affiliations and expediency.

10. Self-preservation.

10. Meetings of leaders,

10. Through bracketing them.

10. Conference by less than half a dozen of the leaders.

10. Personal favoritism of the | leaders or value of the
candidates for partisan work.

10. By their bank roll.

10. Picked by a few men of each party who control the
press and public work, who work up the sentiment for the
candidate who will serve them best.

10. Underground.

10. Conventions under the guise of meetings of county
committees, etc.

10. In club or by a small body of men.

10. The number of votes they receive at the primaries.

10. The‘methods depend on leaders.

10. Same old methods of party work, etc.

10. Secret agreements by leaders.

10. By the old-fashioned method known to every good
politician.

10. Pull—the leaders of the two parties are not an inch
apart.

10. A clique of men, or self-constituted “bosses” may try
to pull something off, but one good leader with a fat pocket-
book back of him can outweigh all concerted organization.

10. Conferences.

238
10. Influence, pull, ability to make good and to keep the
political machines well greased.
: 10. In our county the candidaté who can be made the best
tool for the inside gang of office holders is quietly endorsed.
Our politicians have no use for a man who can think for
himself.

10. By endorsements of the various political organizations.

10. Candidates generally nominate themselves.

10. Half a dozen leaders pick them, and then notify every
political organization to support them.

10. Concerted action.

10. Organization leaders sometimes induce their friends
to circulate petitions for good men.

10. Open to all, but organizatioris must see to it that can-
didates are named,

10. Usually by caucus or county committee meetings.

10. Bracketing or designation.

10. Candidates announce themselves, and sometimes county
committees indorse them.

10. Conferences.

10. General agreement.

10. Political pull.

10. Don’t know.

10. Consultations.

The answers to question 11 are full of meaning.
Thirteen editors stated that the county committees
constitute the organizations and five of these qualified
their replies by the additional mention of other ele-
ments. The county committees are the only legally
provided organizations for the parties in areas less
than the state, and if any authority in the party
should decide to favor or oppose a candidate or can-
didates at the primary it should be the county com-
qittee, but in the opinion of 35 editors other persons
altogether supplant the legal organizations and control
the party conduct locally. The replies of these men
must be read to appreciate their import:

11. The organizations are made up chiefly of office holders,
office seekers, voters who follow a party because of its prin-
ciples, and who do not examine closely those who are direct-
ing the organized effort of the party to accomplish the results
they hope to attain.

11. In our county, in the Democratic party, there are two
main bosses—one a merchant, in the game for the fun of it,
honest, working for the good of the people, and not narrow.
The little Boss is our deputy sheriff—not as high grade a
man as the Big Boss—the merchant mentioned above. In the
Republican party there are two factions—one headed by a
newspaper editor—a politician of the old school being the kind-
est appellation I can think of for him. There is another ele-
ment, represented by a Young Men’s Republican Club, that is

239
honest, clean, and modern, believing in the rule of the people.
The leaders of this club are green at the game, and get the
wool pulled over their eyes by the other faction whenever
necessary.

11. The old bosses under the name of leaders or a new
coterie—office holders and committeemen.

11. The members of the local party committees who in turn
are dominated by men looked upon as leaders.

11. The machine leaders.

11. Those whose character and aims and willingness to
work and fight get them in time in control of the machinery.

11, Past, present and prospective office holders with a
scattering of the faithful.

11. A small group of leaders in both Republican and
Democratic parties.

11. Self-constituted leaders and their lieutenants.

11. As a rule, men who are amenable to someone who has
a pull “up the state” and who can get something for them in
the way of patronage or position or recognition, so that they
will be known to represent, say, some state leader.

11. Officials and those who participate in the distribution
of emoluments of public office.

11. There is the county committee; there is also an intan-
gible and much stronger organization made of leaders from
various parts of the county, who align on their own interests
or opinions,

11. The city and county committees and the city and
county officials.

11. In Hunterdon County the Republicans really have none
except the committee; the Democrats have had two factions,
both headed by a boss who generally has a say in the matter.

11. Those who study to control primary and elections.

11. Men who are leaders in all aggressive local matters—
not merely politics.

11. Prominent members of local rings and cliques,

11. Most often, office holders and their immediate friends.

11. Politicians,

11. The respective party leaders.

11. The leaders.

11. Usually office holders, drawing salaries, those seeking
positions, or men who expect some privilege for their par-
ticular business.

11. Office holders and those who get the plums when the
tree is shaken.

11. Office holders, would-be office holders; scattering of
men who like the game.

11. Leaders and party workers.

11. Party leaders and their followers.

11. Voters of course, but in some cases men looking for
something.

11. Heretofore it has been the old leaders in each party,
but this year the young men of the Republican party have
organized to take action.

11. In most cases, men who detest honest business.

240
11. The office holders.

11. Few interested leaders.

11. Representative party men,
: 11, One man in each faction (both parfies) is the organ-
ization of that faction.

11. County committee et al.

11. County committemen who keep in line for office and
political jobs.

11. Principally office holders, would-be office holders and
those who want a few dollars on the side.

11. Almost all the good voters of the various parties.

11. Most generally there are no regular organizations.

The most frequent reply is “Office holders” with
perhaps some addition or qualification. The mean-
ing of this reply seems evident and its implication
unavoidable. The office holders constitute the or-
ganization, and there is no policy outside the organi-
zation, at least no concerted policy; inside the or-
ganization the policy, if such it may be called, is very
simple—one of two things, “getting in” or “staying
in.” If there were principles of government at stake
why should the office holders be their only posses-
sors and propagators, why should not the elected
party officials, the county committeemen, really de-
bate the governmental issues and determine the
party’s attitude on public questions? As the city
clerk of one of the most populous municipalities in
the state said in answer to the question as to the
functions of the county committee: “They meet ta
organize.” This statement of course is not necessarily
true of all counties.

The answers to question 12 are printed below in full
so that the reader may derive his own conclusions.

Atlantic County:

1. Senator, 1915 (state).

2. Never defeated in Atlantic County.

3. Not any in this county. i

4. Only once to our knowledge, in 1913, when their candi~
date for county clerk was defeated.

Bergen County
1. Both sides have won and lost.
2. ‘Many times.

3. Do not recollect.

4. Could not mention such cases right now; but there
have been some in the past two or three years.

5. In the freeholders’ fight for the small board.

6. In this county on.the reduction in number of board of
freeholders and electing members of new small board.

241
Burlington County
2. Shaken only in Roosevelt’s last campaign.

Camden County

1, Organizations generally win.
2. No, not as a rule.

Cape May County

1. Have no data.

2. In 1914, when L. T. S. was nominated senator; also
prior year, when he defeated the Republican organization
nominee for assembly, J. C.; also last year, when the Republi-
can organization lost both its nominee for sheriff and also
for assembly.

Essex County

1. Delegates to National Convention, 1912; mayor Newark,
1914; board of works, 1915; state senator, 1916.

Gloucester County
1, Don’t recall any.

Hudson County

1. Hereabout organizations generally win, provided their
party has preponderant vote.

2. Hard to answer this, due to two factions, each claiming
to be the organization.

Hunterdon County

1. Never; they always win out.

2. I£ one organization does not win the other does.

3. In 1915, the Democratic organization nominated candi-
date for county clerk, who was considered inefficient, and was
badly beaten at the general election.

4. What particular organization you mean, I know not.
We have four organizations here; two in the Democratic
party and two in the Republican.

Middlesex County
1. None. Unless in some local cases.
Monmouth County

Democrats generally successful; Republicans reverse.
Know of none in this part of the state.
Do. not recall.

YN

Morris County

1. Haven't the data at hand,
“2. Just now can’t recall.
3. In 1913, when L. S. P.—headed a Jocal independent
ticket and defeated the organization ticket. ~

Ocean County

1. The Republican (dominant party) organization was
defeated either at primary or polls with the single exception
of 1913, in each of the years mentioned.

242
Passaic County

1. Many cases can be cited. You have heard of Senator
Osborne in Essex County.

2. The Republican slate was broken each year except 1916,
though not wholly defeated. In 1913, three outsiders won
assembly nominations, and in 1915 two local option candi-
dates won two of the five nominations.

Salem County
1. Do not know of any.

Somerset County

1, Several times for assembly and senator in the local
option issue.
Sussex County

1. Never in the time mentioned.

2. They have often been defeated where the organization
is weak,

Union County

1. ‘Personal popularity and unlimited campaign funds have
occasionally accomplished it.

2. The Republican, 1912, 13; 1916, county clerk.

3. County committee has never supported a candidate.

4. No slate in this county. __

5. Last year in the nomination of a candidate for county
clerk, W. B. M.—an independent, was nominated and elected.

6. Never defeated that I know of.

It will be noted that there often is considerable
disagreement among the editors of the same county.
Partial explanations of this fact may be (a) that
some editors are more optimistic than others and,
influenced by their desires, are inclined to see a
defeat for the organization where another would
not; (b) that some editors have different parties in
mind (there is as a rule more tendency on the part of
the dominant party to put up a slate and also a
greater probability that its slate will succeed) ; (c)
editors may differ in their opinions as to who con-
stitute the organization, if there are party divisions,
and some may call the victory of a minority fac-
tion a defeat of the organization. The evidence of’
the replies is quite strong that in the majority of
cases the organization candidates stand a fairly
safe chance of nomination. If this is true the im-
portance of the constitution of the party organiza-
tion becomes apparent. If a slate of candidates fre-
quently is put up for nomination, or if candidates to
nomination to all positions are usually endorsed, or

243
certain candidates for nomination to important of-
fices are customarily favored by organizations, and
if these organization candidates possess a very con-
siderable advantage over others, or are regularly
nominated, and if the organizations which determine
on the candidates to be favored consist of a group
of office holders and professionals, wherein is the
primary an improvement over the convention sys-
tem except that the favored candidates must be re-
ferred to the vote of the party members? The
question is submitted: Is it possible to enlarge
the basis of the selection of the organization candi-
dates so that the party voters may be more ade-
quately represented in this procedure, which is now
of a certainty entirely extra-legal, if not in spirit il-
legal,—at least contrary to the intent of the direct
primary law,—but which nevertheless is so commonly
followed and in many counties with such uniform
success?

Any attempt to tabulate the suggestions con-
tained in the answers to the last question would
be quite futile, consequently those which were not
printed above in connection with the answers to
question one will be given here, so that anyone may
be able to develop his own interpretation of them.

13. No. The law is all right.

13. No. Better abolish the primary and nominate by peti-
tion solely.

13. The convention system with proper safeguards about
the primary elections.

13. Not while the brewers control both parties.

13. By having but one ballot box for both parties.

13. Cannot suggest a plan. Do not believe that the best
men will take such initiative as required to get them on the
ticket. Improvement will depend on party organization, per-
haps, regardless of plans adopted. Where exceptionally good
men have been nominated in this county (and there have been
some good ones), it has been due to the activity of party
leaders and not to independents,

13. Quit tampering with the election laws, and let the
direct primary stand as it is, and give it a test of several
years. Let the legislature meet once in two years. There
is too much legislation on all subjects.

13, The present system seems adequate.

‘13. Believe a candidate defeated at primary should not be
permitted to get on ballot through petition afterwards.

13, Not much opportunity locally for experiments. Big
Republican majorities.

244
13. My answers are given so as to include all officials from
the top to the bottom of the ticket.

13. Make it easier for a man to become a candidate by
less names on a petition and create more candidates so that ~
the best man will win. A man must now do considerable work
and the labor to become a candidate outweighs the considera-
tion of the office.

13. I would recommend doing away with the present
cumbersome and expensive machinery. Simplify it as in the
old days under the convention plan.

13. Cut out party and present a ticket similar to that used
in the election; that would tend to increase the interest in
primaries, be an effective means of securing the “independent”
vote, which is for good government rather than the support
of party candidates; they will not be tagged, as is now required
by voting in party boxes and declaring how they voted last
year if right to vote is challenged.

13. Yes. Return to the convention system. Delegates
to a convention would never lend their approval to the candi-
dacy of men of the calibre who often win at the direct
primary.

13. Haven't the time to do so, but there are improvements
that could be made,

13. Have a single primary ticket and allow a voter to nomi-
nate for any nomination the name of any citizen, regardless
of party affiliation. Let a Democrat run for Republican nomi-
nation or vice-versa. A non-partisan system.

13. The less tinkering with the election law the better.

13. Educate the people as to their power and chance to
nominate those they desire in opposition to some organization.

13. The law is all right for expression of popular will,
except that absolutely no canvass or advertisment should be
permitted. Better officers are secured through the convention
system.

13. Go back to the old order of things, plus proper super-
vision by legal authorities. 5

13. You cannot legislate honesty. The law is all right, but
it is not lived up to, nor is it enforced. I doubt if the
majority of the people really want it lived up to; except in
particular instances that interest themselves. In 1911, it was
absolutely lived up to, in 1912 just cracked, since then it has
been broken into fine pieces.

13. No. In theory the primary law seems all right. In
practice is not at all what it is intended to be. I do not feel
competent to make suggestions. .

13. You cannot do it except by compulsory voting, and that
‘it impractical. . .

13, By having the voting at the primary election as secret
as at the general election. :

13. Prohibit as much as possible the expenditure of money,
even legitimately. The excessive cost of running for office
today keeps the best men out of the race. The man most
anxious for office is usually the one most anxious to do what
the organization wants, for they pay the bills. : The present
form of ballot is excellent. I think the fairest thing that could

: 245
be done for all candidates, and a thing that would most eti-
courage proper candidates to run, would be to prohibit the
use of any printing, whatever, as individual candidates, but
that the state, county or municipality, as the case might be,
furnish a pamphlet in which each candidate is given an equal
share. This would allow the voter to acquaint himself in an
unbiased way with all the candidates and would thus con-
siderably reduce the individual expense and make politics
more enticing.

13. By not having the voting too open. The declaration
of a voter at the primary election interferes with the independ-
ent ideas of all good citizens, irrespective of politics.

13. No. I think the majority of voters would not care to
have the law changed.

13. The direct primary. should be confined to cities and
towns. The county, congressional district and state nomina-
tions should ‘be made by representatives at conventions. Un-
less over 50 per cent. of the voters participate, the direct
primary is a farce and unnecessary expense. We do not get
25 per cent. even with great effort on the part of candidates
and their friends. ;

13, Require at least ten candidates for each office.

13. I believe the primary law is all right, as it is, and, as
time goes along more interest will be taken by the public,
and thus only good men nominated by each party.

13. The only way to get better public officers, where the
quality is inferior, is to induce better people to take an inter-
est in nominations (especially), and then in elections. The
“best” citizens are the worst, because they fail to perform the
duty of citizenship, and then cavil about the manner in which
they are governed. They are chronic bellyachers.

13. I think a man should be obliged to run at the primary,
and not be allowed to get a nomination in any other way.

In addition to the replies to certain questions al-
ready printed, it seems advisable to present with-
out comment two other replies, one from a believer
in the direct primary, one from an editor skeptical
of its efficacy.

“The struggle for years has been to drag politics out of
the dark holes into the light. This, in large measure, has been
done. The direct primary system is not perfect, and no per-
fect system will ever be devised, but it is a great step toward
more democratic government.

“The evil for us to struggle against is the evil of the su-
perior advantage of great money power in the hands of the
unscrupulous. This is to be met, not by tampering with the
primary laws, but by strengthening the corrupt practice act
and finding some way of really enforcing it.

“Any credence that is given to the advice that we should
return to the convention and the boss will tend by so much to
lead us back into political despotism, a despotism in which
the people are voiceless.”

“Personally, I may be a little radical. I look upon the direct
primary as a farce and a great and useless source of exipense,
especially in rural counties. We get no better candidates; it

246
is no advantage one way of another to an independent. candi-
date; it makes it almost impossible for a man in ordinary
life to aspire for political office, because of the great expense
to him, and it practically means two elections in the fall of
the year and double the expense to the county.

Personally, I would let each party hold their own pri-
maries in their own way at their own time. The legislature
cannot legislate honesty into politics any more than it can
legislate appetites into men and women. We have more
failures in office now and possibly less efficient men than we
had before the direct primary was in existence. It makes a
bigger nuisance of politics than it ever was before and the
machines are just as dangerous, and carry their points easier,
since they are on the ‘curves of the law, this creating double
trouble and double expense.

“The people are independent enough or can be independent
enough on the general election day. The direct primary safe-
guards nothing that I know of, except the pay of the election
officers and clerks.” 7

OPINIONS OF COUNTY CHAIRMEN AND STATE
COM MITTEMEN

Pursuant to the election law in each county, a
county committee for each legal party, consisting of
one member from each district, is elected at the pri-
mary annually. These committees choose their
chairmen. One member of the state committee for
each party is chosen every three years by the party
voters of each county at the primary There are then
for the two parties, eighty-four state committeemen
and county chairmen. Lists of questions (a) were

a
. Why do not more voters participate in the primary?
2. Are the voters who regularly attend the primary more or less
“independent” than those who vote at the, general election? | 7
3. Are there any questions of principle or policy at issue in the
nomination of county officers? At the general election? | :
4, Has the character of officers been raised by the direct primary?
Why?

H Has the “independent” candidacy been stimulated (regardless of
the character of the candidates)? ,
oes the direct primary increase the cost of candidacy? I£ so,
in what proportions? . ‘ ae
. ‘To what extent does the necessity of securing a petition prevent
unfit aspirants from getting their names on the primary ballots?
Would publishing he signers’ names be advisable? .
8. Do the candidates at the primary stand an equal chance of nomi-
nation as iar as the party organization is concerned? - .
9, Does your party organization put up a complete slate at the
PO. me what method do you determine on these candidates?
11. Who constitute the organization? weak
12. By what means do you attempt to secure the nomination of your

izati didates? ‘ os
OF he organization supports a slate, in what cases specifically has

i i ears 1911 to 1916? ; . .
- been defeates 1 aed ye the county committee in choosing the

janization’ ndidates? 7 - ?
organize pa do the county committeemen take in the primary

Ppt :
ate What is the general function of the county committee in: your
party?.

247
mailed to each one. Thirty-four replies were re-
ceived, and thirty answered the questions of the list
in whole or in part, four from Atlantic, Bergen,
Ocean and Gloucester merely saying that the fres-
ent law is satisfactory to them.

But very little comment will be given on the
replies received. It is interesting to note that six
of the men responding believe that voters are de-
terred from attending the primary by an aversion
to stating their political affiliations, and also to note
that eleven answers state the belief of the writers
that the direct primary voters are less independent
than the general election voters. Ten replies to ques-
tion 2 read, “No,” indicating a probable misunder-
standing of the question but are only to be accepted as
meaning either that the primary voters are not “more
or less” independent, or that they are not “more” or
“less” independent than the general election voters. A
“No” here could not mean that the primary voters are
more independent.

The opinion is very prevalent that the character
of officers has not been raised by the direct primary,
although a majority think independent candidacy

J

17. Would you advise changing the primary law in any way to
secure the more accurate expression of the public will, and the choice
of better public officers?

 

 

Answers to Question 1. Answers to Question 5.

Lack of interest......... 19 Yes ....

Disinclination to declare Z NO! ise sisies

ae Larner voce Answers to Question 6.

Belief that the primary is Part I.
farcical ....... seaeauyeret oh FCB i ccicyarerat gravononaaremonevelareva 29

Objection to registration No...... sie algal chaselerssasoresaua 1
questions .......... aia Part II

Very much, 25%,
25%—100%, 33%,

 

Answers to Question 2. 50%. (6 times),
More .......... canines Ors) 100% (8 times),
Tess: cs se usc Sitae 11 200% ones}.
mo 10 500% (50% ?)' (once)
Same avs eos eee eae ax Answers to Question 7,
Part I.
Answers to Question 3. fame Ce eteg a pe ese, a
Part I. Part IT. aE ee
VieS? séces enweahw nies oo 18 VOS) isisisieis siotacwened eine oe
NG sssx2ceewss ied ee NG sasrevs-veassa avanti lS
Part II. :
Yes Answers to Question 8.
IG an canewnr nes emery VES) Sovesiscrs waabaventaece trees 12
No ..... o Sia tahaie aman ceeias 17
Answers to Question 4. Answers to Question 9.
WOO ssdeneecsanneesasas 8 Yes ...... hacen St arava
Nos sceuuuenaeeute 22 Nn

248
has been stimulated. The opinion is all but unani-
mous that the cost of candidacy has been increased
under the direct primary system, the estimates of
the increase for the most part being 50% or 100%.
Again the belief is strong that the present require-
ment of a petition for nomination is no check what-
ever on unfit candidacy.

Another of the significant features of the replies
is the admission of 17 party officials that primary
candidates do not stand on an equality before the
organization. It is hardly to be expected that they
would, but if they do not the importance of the
organization to the party. and the community is
emphasized. Only nine of the replies state that
complete slates are put up.

The general tone of the answers to question 10,
in the cases where it was acknowledged that candi-
dates or slates were put in the field or endorsed, may be
indicated ,by the quotation af a few answers verbatim:
“We generally determine on the quality and fitness
of the man”; “Generally talk it over and the most
likely candidate is suggested”; “Location, fitness of
men as a general proposition”; “Take the best we
can get”; “By a canvass of the executive committees
for the most desirable”; “Through committees”;
“Fitness and party loyalty”; “As a rule the county
committee makes selection.” With very few ex-
ceptions the organization was said to consist of the
county committee. This statement does not har-
monize with that of the editors, who were prob-
ably inclined to go behind the formal to find the
actual, while the county chairmen and state com-
mitteemen could not well deny the legal organiza-
tions of which they form a part in favor of a smaller,
irregular group. In a few replies officeholders were
mentioned as part of the organization; one added
“clubs,” and two gave “Merely those who are most
interested and care to work for party success,” and
“The men who do the work.”

The answers to question 12 indicated varying de-
grees of intensity in the efforts of county organiza-
tions to secure the nomination of favored candidates.
Several replies suggested that the work is done by

249
the county committees, as was shown above to be
the practice in Essex County. Here the county com-
mittee sometimes plays a role for which it was not
intended by the law and yet one whose effect on
the success or failure of primary candidacies is
probably very material.

The answers to question 13, in the cases where
organization recommendation is more or less the
practice will be given: “The organization in this
county only recommended on one or two different
occasions the primary choice and in both of these
cases they were successful”; “Lost surrogate’s of-
fice in 1913 due to three tickets in the field”; “In
several cases”; “For state committeeman, 1916”;
“At the primary election, never”; “If we pick a can-
didate we very seldom fail, about once”; “Has never
been defeated at the primaries”; “Know of none”;
“None that I can recall in either party”; “In one
case in 1916”; “The organization is by no means al-
ways for the same candidates. For United States
senator and for member of state committee last
fall”; “In quite a number of cases, but I can’t give
them specifically”; “I do not recall any such de-
feats,”

Some of the replies to question 14 run as follows:
“Of an advisory character”; “County committees
as individuals express preferences”; “No regular
action taken”; “Such as helping to get signers for
applications” ; “Suggesting of names and process of
elimination”; “Meet upon’ call of the president, to
discuss logical candidates”; “To bring out the par-
ticular fitness of a candidate or unfitness”; “The
county committee gets together and agrees upon
a list of candidates for the various offices of the
county, when action is taken by them thereon. In
majority of cases the county committee takes no
action thereon, but they naturally have their favor-
ites.” The other replies either indicated that the
organizations regularly made no recommendations
except when no candidate appeared on his own
initiative, or that the county committee had no part
in such recommendations, if they were made.

The part of the county committees in the primary
250
campaign in the different counties seems to vary
widely. “Activity in advancing the interest of the
organization candidate”; “Active participation”;
“Active”; “Getting the vote out if necessary”; “Each
representative looks after his party voters for his
district”; “Depends on conditions, sometimes an
active and sometimes an indifferent part,” are state-
ments showing the influence which county commit-
tees may and do often exercise in support of can-
didates whom the organization is desirous of nomi-
nating. That such an endeavor so widespread and
yet so concentrated in purpose should prove so fre-
quently effective when in cunflict with the unorgan-
ized efforts of independents is not at all astonish-
ing. But in many counties the county committee-
men take no part in the primary campaign except
as individuals supporting whom they please.

The opinions on the last question are given in
full:

17. Make a second choice obligatory.

17. I know of no change whereby the act can be made to
accomplish what was intended. I think it would be quite as
well to abolish it.

17. Some improvement could be made.

17. I believe the primary law is very fair. Independent
candidates have a method without appearing in party primary.
It must be remembered that the primary is a party affair. A
stricter supervision of petitions should be made. Heavy
penalties for filing fictitious petitions,

17. Yes, by a careful house to house registration in each
district, so that all of the citizens will be registered and vote
at the elections.

17. Yes, I am of the opinion the old convention system
gave a better class of candidates.

17. Primary law more expensive and involves more detail
work, but brings better results than the old method.

17. I would in this way; institute the convention system
and have delegates chosen for county officers the same as they
are chosen for state officers, and this would apply also to the
senatorial and congressional candidates.

17. I am and always have been opposed to the present
primary law, as I believe it unscientific and wasteful, because
_~adding the expenses of the primary for sending out ballots
and elections—it costs the tax payer about $2.00 for every
vote put in the ballot box on election day. It often results in
the nomination for office of a candidate who only represents
a small minority of his party. It involves the candidates in
an expense and subjects them to abuse, which few men
of the class we would like to see hold office are willing to
face, It subjects the voter to an. inquisition which many of

254
them object to, and many of them rather than submit to it
refuse to vote, and it has not resulted in a better type of
office holder, but rather the reverse.

I believe a primary law should be so framed that the county
board of elections would canvass the county, and make a list
and accurate description of the voters in each district, these
descriptions to be furnished to the election board on primary
day, and on election day, any changes should be made by the
county board of elections. This would mean that a man once
having registered in a district, he could vote in that district
as long as he lives there, without again registering. This
would save the expense of registration. If there is one person
nominated for each office, there should be no primary held,
as it is a needless expense to the county. No person running
on a party ticket at the primary, should be allowed to run
on an independent ticket afterwards. He has had his day in
court. The question of whether it would not be to the advan-
tage of everyone to have state conventions where the repre-
sentatives of different parts of the state could get together
and exchange views, is, it would seem to me, not open to
debate.

17, Yes. I would advertise the names to the petitions, and
make it compulsory for a voter desiring to vote at the general
election to vote at the primary; in other words, do away with
all other “registry days,” and put more responsibility upon
the election boards, make them canvass their districts and
make them directly responsible for all illegal votes and false
registrations and frauds in general.

17. Yes. We should have a “first election” so unrestricted
as to make it easy for a reasonable number of voters to pre-
sent a candidate for nomination, no matter how extended the
ballot would be, and a “second election” at which the two or
more highest candidates, as the case may be, are presented
for a majority choice.

17. It should go still farther so as to elect our judge and
prosecuting attorney by ballot.

17. Cut out nomination by petition after the primary.

17. Yes, go back to the old delegate convention system,
but do not prevent the independent man from running for
office.

17. Voters who are not interested in any party, are not
interested particularly in candidates; consequently, those who
do vote at the primary, are by a majority with the organiza-
tion of their party.

17. I know of no better plan.

17. Yes, abolish it, as it, in such a county as this, is not
efficient; is very expensive to county and candidates. The
onerous requirements of it deter, rather than invite, good ment
to stand as candidates.

I want to say also, that in my judgment, the election boards
should be taken out of the civil service class, as they have
distinctly deteriorated both in interest and efficiency.

17. Change it by repealing it and adopt the “delegate to
convention” system. The law makes it necessary for the
successful candidate to make two campaigns, primary and

252
election, and burdens him with a needless expense for the
primary election. He is obliged to campaign from July or
August until election day. The majority of the public have
shown utter indifference to the nominating primary. It has
-Not accomplished the purpose it was intended to. This and
many other very objectionable features of the election law
should be changed.

17. I believe that the primary law has not accomplished
the Purpose of its enactment, and this will not be accomplished
until a more lively interest is taken in its application. I per-
sonally believe that the old convention system was just as
free from manipulation as the present primary system. I
have heard of countless cases of men who were nominated and
elected as the result of the old convention system, who have
been continued in office under the primary system, and we
have very few instances of men who were defeated in the old
convention system who have not been defeated in the primary
system. Until political highbinders, hypocrites and deceivers
have their lying voices stilled and their vicious writings pun-
ished by drastic libel laws, we may not under any system
secure the best choice of candidates for office.

Apparently the political leaders are as well satis-
fied with the primary in its present form as the
members of the other groups whose opinions were
sought. Fourteen of them, counting the four who
did not answer the questions, do not advise any
change, while sixteen favor amendment of some
kind. The suggestion of a return to an indirect form
of nomination is made several times. The authors
of this suggestion may not be representative of the
sentiments of the members of their parties but
nevertheless they can claim directly, if state com-
mitteemen, indirectly if county chairman, whatever
public sanction attaches to the product of the direct pri-
mary.

OPINIONS OF COUNTY CLERKS

Questions (a) were also addressed to the twenty-
one county clerks, eleven of whom responded. The

a
? Is the direct primary accomplishing the purpose of its enactment?
2. Why do not more voters participate in the primary?
3. Are the voters at the primary more “independent” than, those who
vote at the general election? Or less “independent”? ea
Has the character of officials been raised by the direct primary?
5. Has “independent” candidacy been stimulated (regardless of the
character of the candidates)? ;
Does the direct primary increase the cost of candidacy? If so,
in what particular? 3 . waetar
To what extent does the necessity of securing a petition prevent
unfit aspirants from getting their names on the primary ballots? Would
publishing the names of signers be, desirable?
8. Do the candidates at the primary stand an equal chance of nomi-
nation as far as the party organizations are concerned? ;
Do party organizations put up a complete slate at the primary?

253

fl
replies to most of the questions will be allowed to
speak for themselves as they appear in the list be-
low. In general they are more favorable to the di-
rect primary than those from previous groups until
the eighth and ninth questions are reached.

The answers to ten are: “General agreement”;
“By caucus”; “An executive committee meeting”;
“Various. Some by committees of the organizations
and others by the organizations themselves” ; “Sev-
eral leaders do the determining, the rest follow
suit”; “By their judgment of the availability of the
men”; “By arbitrary selection by machine”; “Fit-
ness and ability to make a good canvass: ‘Will he
run well’ and ‘Can he make good,” are usually
asked”; “Qualification.”

For question eleven the answers submitted read:
“Do not recall any”; “Lots of cases”; “That is a
question I wouldn’t care to answer”; “I would say
about an even break. It depends entirely upon the
character and popularity of the candidate”; “Prac-

10. By what method do they determine on these candidates? |
11, If the organizations support a slate in what cases, specifically,
have they been defeated in the years 1911 to 1916?

12, Would you favor electing all municipal officers at the general
election without a primary, having nominations made by non-partisan
petitions?

13. Would you favor the nomination of state: senators and assembly-
men by the elected county committees with full publicity subject to the
decision of a primary if any independent petitions are filed? -

14. Would you advise changing the primary law in any way to secure
the more accurate expression of the popular will and the choice of better
public officers?
Answers to Question 1 Answers to Question 2

Indifference ..
They do ........
Indifference and un
ness to declare party... 1
Unwillingness to declare
party and ignorance of
importance of primary. i

 

    

 

Unfair politics..... ei emcek
me
Answers to Question 3. Answers to Question 4.
MPG: oie si pssiave srarnersinvereceieiess 2 © TVIOS" aistetetra nate ivemeeue ais sei 2
Same ...ccsseceses sense Ss, NO scseaessisceracrcecaa 4
LOS. sinsrvcnce Pos scathatdhese 4
Answers to Question 5S. Answers to Question 6.
MOS wa visveciaiaed wate eis eee andl OS nacanas ean ko senvans 9
NO weaeeuas aa eANGYS sae. 2
Ariswers to Question 7. Answers to Question 8.
Part I. Vie 8 se crassccsarecestsieie aiaiteed

 

254
tically in almost every case in this county”; “Elee-
tion of sheriff, 1914, county clerk, 1916, some minor
Positions” ; “Don’t know of any.” Several clerks did
not answer the question.

As best showing the attitude of the clerks toward
the present law and the question of its amendment,

the suggestions in answer to the last question will
be presented in full.

14. General revision, with a retention of all the good
features of the present law.

14, Only by one preferential election instead of two, and
a greater number of signers required to all petitions.

14. My personal view has always been that a voter should
be able to vote for his choice at the primary, regardless of
party. In my experience I have found there are a number
of the independent voters who do not vote at the primary
because they are compelled to call for a party ticket.

14. I certainly would advise changing the primary law in
a number of particulars. The main thought in my mind with
regard to the voting at the primary and general elections is
“compulsory voting.” I believe that this would be the solution
not only of this problem, but also of the others mentioned
above, among which is the expense end of the proposition.

14, I am heartily in favor of the auditing of ballots after
both primary and general elections; such auditing to be done
under the supervision of a supreme court justice, to insure
an honest count.

14. Iam heartily in favor of anything that is for the public
good,

14. No, unless you make all vote at both elections.

14. A free for all by petition, determined by the popular
vote. How can a line be drawn either financially, intellectually
or socially?

OPINIONS OF GRAN GES AND COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS

A list of seven questions (a) was sent to each of
the granges of the state. Only ten replies were re-
ceived, possibly because few of the granges have

 

(a) :

1, Is the ‘direct primary accomplishing the purpose of its enactment?
How, or how not? ;

2, Are the candidates for state senate and assembly nominated at the
direct primary more responsive to your interests than those. nominated
by the convention system? Are you better able to secure the nomina-
tion of responsive (representative) candidates at the direct primary than
by the convention? hy, or why not?

3. Would you favor electing all municipal officers at the general elec-
- tion without a primary, having nominations made by non-partisan
petitions? ieee cas ; F a

. id you favor the nomination of state senators and assembly-
ce ty tan elected county committees (with full publicity), subject to
the decision of a primary if any independent petitions are filed?

5. Has the character of public officers been raised by the direct
primary?

255
held meetings in the meanwhile. They show a pro-
nounced preference for the direct primary as op-
posed to the convention system, with which a com-
parison was suggested, and. also a leaning toward
a single election for municipal officers. As to
satisfaction with the present law there is even di-
vision of those considering the question and the re-
plies, other than yes and no are: “Do away with
the primary and elect all officers at the general elec-
tions”; “We would like the privilege of supporting
at the primary the person of our choice regardless
of party”; “Yes, if for the better” ; “The present law
is far better than the old, we can suggest no
change”; “We need better public officers but the
members of the grange do not know how to get
them or at least are not willing to express their
opinion”; “Personally I think the primary a use-
less expense and a large number of voters fail to
take advantage of it as they do not wish to come
out and declare themselves to be either Democrats
or Republicans.”

To the boards of trade, chambers of commerce
and commercial organizations of the state the same
questions were sent. Eight of these organizations
have replied (a), and the secretary of a ninth for
himself. Their attitude is very favorable to the pri-
mary but not to the single general election for muni-

6. Are the voters at the primary more “independent” than those who
vote at the general election? Or less ‘independent’

7. Would you advise changing the present primary law in any way to
secure the more accurate expression of the public will, and the choice
of better public officers?

 

Answers to Question 1. Answers to Question 4.
WO8e i cena waie na nae wee sats 6 DOSi ai ew ce aneceawng my ieee
Nis ce nwaniraccae mn awe 2 Noss scstneese nes wees 2
Partly.......6 ale ae eterye ate 1
Answers to Question 2. — - : 2 a : eee
art I. No... see ce eee eeeees oe 4
VieS 5.5 Gtid mais amenaaaal ders 7
Same IED 1 Answers to Question 6.
Part II. OTE waccnesenvecese eae 4
Ved 0 as cinwariig nissitepieiaacs 6
Novice smavnrevewnarns dae 4
Answers to Question 3. Answers to Question 7.
OS sig socpeisne Gaara eee. lor eseane 6 OB fab ige car aye races erarareuieed . 4
INO) re'e7o:0inieiocarerase aiarattelatere 4 Nos... eee simcatelgiareceereterarar
(a)
Answers to Question 1. Answers to Question 4.
Yes : seen S Nes kas cereaans coe reewTe 2

 
cipal officers. Four are disposed to believe some
change advisable in the present law, three not.

These proposals were offered: “Use one secret
ballot for all parties”; “Adopt preferential voting
and proportional representation” ; “Eliminate party
designations in some way; make the primary less
expensive. On all sides it is conceded that the man
with money to spend in advertising and general
publicity work has the better show”; “No, stimulate
the interest of honest voters—enforce Geran law”;
“Yes, prohibit people having their names put on a
ticket that do not run in the primary or who were
defeated at the primary, by petition as is done now,
except in case of the death of the nominee, or he
declines to run after being nominated. We also ad-
vocate the election of a state senator and assembly-
man for four years. It gives them a chance to be
some one in the legislature and better men would
run. The present system of making a man run for
assembly each year is a nuisance and the best peo-
ple won’t take the time to do it each year. We also
advocate that municipal and county elections be
held one year and state and national elections the
next; this allows more independent voting, as favor-
ite national candidates always carry the minors
along with them.”

Nine questions (a) were sent to each of the ap-

Answers to Question 2. ane to Question 5. 6
Part I. Nee Pe eee
N68 is wir owned neirewaris PNR Eevee Ste eT TENS
eo ghee oe Answers to Question 6.
Paps nae Sa OLE assse, castes osere sdveueserolavare 3
Answers to Question 3. LSB ah ees teseteychele syajesansieraterw 3
Ves: s vawasaneveeeesuaes 3 Same ...csseee eee ee eee 1
Duisesiivcsvecerara vinewmanernas +3 ONG” saccracmeacaanens 1

Answers to Question 7.
B's Avacejosevoie-si,

 

.

 

(a) The questions were those sent to the granges and commercial
organizations with the addition of the two following:
Did you vote at the primary election last Fall? If not, please state

your reason. : ee
At the general election did you vote a “straight” or “split” ticket?

AEESETE to Question 3.

 
proximately 400 members of the New Jersey State
Chamber of Commerce. The members reside in all
parts of the state and are generally men of sub-
stance in their community and also men of intelligence, .
possessing an independent attitude on public ques-
tions. Besides the individual members there are so-
called federation members, representing various or-
ganizations such as building and loan associations,
local chambers of commerce, civic federations, and
soon. The organization is more than a mere cham-
ber of commerce for it maintains a bureau of state
research for the purpose of studying in an impartial
manner the problems, social, economic and political,
of the state. Question two was taken over from the
list prepared for granges, labor organizations and
commercial bodies, and is hardly properly applicable
to individuals, unless they are considered imper-
sonally as units of the state’s citizenship. :
On the whole the replies are not favorable to
the direct primary, especially with reference to the
subject of its efficiency and the character of public
officers produced by it. As to the comparative
indepéndence of the primary voters and general
election voters, the consensus of opinion here is
quite opposed to that of most previous grougs,
It will be noted that the great majority voted
at the primary, and consequently are not crit-
ical of an institution of which they attempt to make
no use. Nearly all are favorably disposed toward
a change in the present primary law but a large
majority are opposed to either change suggested.
The opinions of these men concerning the respects
in which the direct primary succeeds or fails in ac-
complishing its purpose were expressed in several
cases at some length. Because of their variety a
discussion of these opinions would not serve to clar-
ify them, and would moreover involve the danger of

Answers to Question 5. Answers to Question 7. :
J Piveiresenieniendehens i oe PdausjaxsNessesalihovasascuareiensveisie 37

 

SBME, ate re t osstainaramnnre 17
failing to allow each its proper force, hence all will
be printed in full. A few answers to question one
consisted of a simple yes or no.

1. ; There has been a certain degree of reformation in the
political parties in conformity with the general clamor that
has been raised for more honesty in politics. A political
party in convention, therefore, would be obliged to place high-
class men on the ticket in order to obtain the support of the
people. Under the direct primary system, however, and
through its instrumentality, those who devote their life to
politics, are able to defeat the very principles for which the
direct primary law was enacted. They can so juggle the names
of the people upon the ticket at the primary that the vote for
the high-grade man is split up, and the vote for those of either
of the other party that they would like to see in power is
concentrated, thus eliminating the better class of men at the
general election. An investigation of what is going on at the
present time in connection with the ‘Commission Government
election on May 8th, will demonstrate this fact. By bracketing
and various other subterfuges, those who make a business of
politics are so.maneuvering the matter that the class of people
whom the better element of society would like to have repre-
sent them will be eliminated from the race.

1. No. It has operated to split parties into separate ma-
chines, prevented emergency nominations; also has prevented
the nomination of men who do not seek office, but who would
serve if called upon. And has elected only office seekers and
has created a purely office-seeking class with their adherents
formed into personal clubs and associations. 4

1. I can best answer your inquiries by stating that I am
thoroughly opposed to the direct primary system in all of its
ramifications; do not believe in it; do not believe that better
men or more independent men are obtained thereby, and feel
that the best interests of the community will be served by
a return to the convention methods which we have known for
so many years. ;

1. I do not believe the direct primary is accomplishing the
purpose of its enactment; that is, it is not securing any better
class of men that we formerly had under the convention sys-
tem, and the direct primary is expensive and cumbersome. At
recent elections in Passaic County, where I reside, the nominees
who were elected were those approved and practically desig-
nated by the Republican ‘County Committee, and it seems to
be proved, as far as I can learn, that the party committees
designate the party nominees at the primaries. Therefore,
we have practically the same results as we had under the
convention system, without as much regard to local repre-
sentation and at much greater cost. I do not believe that the
voters for state officials or members of the legislature are any
more independent at the primaries than they are at the gen-
eral election. They may be so where the offices to be filled are
city or county. I would favor abolishing the present primary

259
law as cumbersome, expensive and no improvement on the old
convention system.

1. No. My experience is that unless great efforts are
made by leaders the vote would not be nearly so large as it
now is. Voters ordinarily take little interest in the primary.

1. Observation indicates it tends to divide parties into
specific units, preventing selection of non-office seekers, who
might otherwise be frequently induced to eo and by this
means establish a higher standard.

1. I think the direct primary is an expensive proposition,
and does not accomplish the purpose that I suppose it was
enacted for, as the real primary is held in the saloons, and
nominations there made by a set of political suckers, to be
sustained at the primary, which nominations are not known
to the public, but are carried in the primfary Iby organization
and have the benefit of being called regular.

1. No. Good in theory—bad in practice, should not be
theory or practice, but theory and practice.

1. No. It only attracts office seekers. It deters good citi-
zens who might otherwise accept public office as a duty.

1. Not very well. Sometimes many candidates are after
one position and the winner will receive only a small part of
total vote,

1. No. Too few people vote at primaries, and those who
do are generally interested politicians.

1, It has operated to split parties into separate machines.
Prevented the nomination of non-office seekers and elected
only office seekers. Its sponsors declared its purpose to keep
out the professional office seeker; they were reformers and
themselves seekers after office. Very few able, honest men
are willing to take the burden of public office. Hence, they
do not seek it; what more effective stop could be put to them
’ than the burden of two elections?

1. Because of combinations of polititians.

1. I think not. Abolish it and have one election a year
instead of two.

1, The parties are not as careful in selecting candidates
because they pass the responsibility on to the electorate.

1. Yes. It cannot fully accomplish the purpose without
intelligent co-operation of the electorate. This, however, is not
the fault of the act itself.

1. It has not improved the quality of officials elected.

1. It does not bring out any better men on the average.

1. Not entirely. It has weakened the power of political
bosses, but the man still seeks the office instead of the office
seeking the man. High grade men shrink from exposing
themselves to chances of political competitions. Think it
would help matters to combine state and county and municipal
elections, keeping them entirely separate from national elec-
tions. Undesirable state and local candidates are too often
carried into.office at national elections, because party lines are
naturally drawn more distinctly in national contests.

1. Not to the fullest extent.

1. In giving everyone a chance for office, yes. In bettering
the kind of public men, no.

260
1. I think so.

1. No. Because of indifference of the voter.

1. Partly, it is not yet thoroughly understood.

1. In Bergen County we find on our primary ticket, often
but one name—therefore, in such cases the voter is voiceless.
In many cases of minor offices, sometimes only two or three
names are given under the heading—Vote for four.
Governor Edge’s campaign and the campaign of the Republican
candidates for Congress in the sixth district are good argu-
ments against the cost and failures of the present law.

1. No. The better type of men will not be canto

1. No. I was a strong supporter of direct primary and
have changed my opinion. The space that you allow would
not permit of the many reasons why I think it is not accom-
plishing this purpose. The principal reason is the general
mediocrity of material and unwillingness of good men to run.

1. No. There are poorer men, usually of organization and
the people do not show capacity or interest expected.

1. Yes. Killing bossism.

1. In a measure.

1. No. It requires from three to six months campaigning
which the desirable office holder cannot afford unless he has
retired from business activity.

1. Only partially so.

1. No. Because a minority of voters usually exercise their
rights to vote. ;

1. Direct primaries weaken party organizations, this is
bad. They to some extent prevent bossism, this is good. On
the whole, we have gained very little from the direct primary.

1. No. Because it has not bettered conditions.

In any investigation the ascertainable facts must be
the determining factors of the conclusion in regard
to all matters to which they apply. Of necessity in
this investigation there are many matters on which
absolute facts are practically unobtainable or are
extremely difficult to evaluate correctly. Here it
seems proper to consult intelligent and unbiased
opinions, if available, and allow them considerable
weight both as a substitute for facts which cannot
be had, and as an aid in the interpretation of facts
when their meaning is somewhat doubtiul. The
responses to some of the foregoing questions are in
the nature of expressions of personal knowledge or
evidence as to the existence of facts and are to be
given the credence of facts subject only to the question
as to the exactness of the knowledge, the competence
of the witness and the trustworthiness of the.evidence.
The opinions collected for this chapter will be employed
to some extent in the chapter containing the sum-
mary and conclusions.

261
CHAPTER XI

VIEWS oF PoLiTicAL LEADERS

 

INTRODUCTION

It has been difficult to obtain opinions that might
fairly be regarded as thoroughly representative. It
was not always possible to secure the opinions sought,
but in only three or four instances did the investigators
meet with a complete refusal. It was understood that
the persons seen were not to be quoted by name or in
such a manner as to reveal their identity, though
perhaps in half the instances recorded below there
would have been no objection to direct quotation.
The points of view presented are, it is believed,
generally sincere, though inevitably frequently
biased by the interests, political or other, of the per-
sons expressing them. With but one or two excep-
tions every person quoted is or has been engaged
in active politics in city, county, state or nation. It
was considered desirable to obtain the opinions of
such men, since they had seen the political wheels
go around and knew how the machine, figuratively
and politically, worked. A great many are pro-
fessional politicians, that is, men who have sought
office and are in office as a career, and some have
been in politics incidentally or occasionally. Their
opinions must, therefore, be appraised in the light
of this fact; but it is believed that their points of
view, sometimes differing sharply, are of real value.
The opinions of other kinds, of people largely igno-
rant of actual conditions and methods are, of course,
important in a democracy, but such opinions must
often lack a certain insight that the opinions of
politicians supply, and it must be borne in mind
that those active in politics are the products of their
environment, that they have emerged from the
masses of the people who are not “in politics.”
Their opinions are then in a sense expert, though

262
subject to the human limitations of personal inter-
est and bias.

It was intended to obtain official political opinion
in all the counties in which a special study was
made, and in addition, in the more populous remain-
ing counties. This plan was carried out, as the
following pages will show, with the exception of
Salem County and two or three others. It was be-
lieved, when this stage was reached, that to con-
tinue the interviews in other counties would be
to repeat much the same views as those already
recorded, and hence to perform a labor less im-
portant than the prosecution of some other phase of
investigation. For the sake of completeness a can-
vass of opinions in all the counties of the state
would have been desirable.

No particular method was used to determine what
men should be approached, and almost without ex-
ception their views were unknown until they ex-
pressed them. The county directory in the Legis-
lative Manual of the state was consulted for the
names of the leading officers, and in fact any public
official or party leader who seemed likely to be in
a position to speak intelligently was approached.

Of course, there may be those who will belittle
the importance of these opinions, question their
claim to serious consideration, and attack the sin-
cerity of their authors on the ground that they are
politicians, but at the same time they are public
servants, elevated to their positions by the votes
of a supposedly intelligent citizenship and in theory
at least representative of the wishes of their con-
stituents. Besides, they are in almost every case
directly or indirectly the product of the direct pri-
mary.

HUDSON COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO H

The outstanding feature of Hudson County lies
in its large urban population of Jersey City, Ho-
boken and Bayonne, a population largely of for-
eign origins, and of lower middle-class and prole-
tarian character. The dominant party is the Demo-
cratic, though Republicans have been elected to the
highest municipal offices, apparently on account of
strong personal followings and in spite. of the dom-
inant party’s efforts.

263
(A) A successful party leader of the better sort
stated that candidates could not normally be on an
equality as far as an organization was concerned—
every organized political force would have or ac-
quire preferences and naturally support these ex-
cept under special or demoralized conditions. Party
candidates were now, as formerly, determined
largely in the judgment of its leaders and strong-
est organization men, sometimes indeed by one
man; and the organization accepted such decisions
as it accepted the responsible leadership behind the
decisions, but only as long as the rank and file be-
lieved in the leading group’s or individual’s strength
and practical political judgment, which was a check
on any hasty action or decision.

The county committee is part of the formal or-
ganization, but its members are often representa-
tive rather than determining factors. The organi-
zation’s support is practically official, and open,
but ostensibly this appearance is avoided. The
organization gets out voters at the primaries who
will support the right men (that is, men it has al-
ready decided upon) and it takes charge of contri-
butions which are made by outsiders as well as
candidates, and naturally by special interests also,
though this does not necessarily imply corruption.
In practice it uses its influence with editors and
local and national leaders (as, for example, the
“big man” among the Italians, Jews, Irish, Ger-
mans, etc., in the ward or district). It is pretty
certain that many of the voters in the more ignorant
and in the poorer parts of the cities have been
bought at so much per vote through the organiza-
tion, but not with absolute directness. A thousand
dollars placed with a national leader in an uncertain
ward may mean hundreds of votes for what an or-
ganization regards as the right men. Editors may
be made friendly by copious personal advertising,
well paid for, and the corruption involved is so in-
sidious that one has no legal evidence of it.

In Hudson County city and county and state elec-
tions the organization preferences ‘practically al-
ways are the only ones to survive the primaries. In
this county, unlike Essex, it is thé democratic
party which has the advantage, since it has nearly

264
all the money and most of the present and prospec-
tive jobs, contracts and the like, not to mention its
influence over the police and the county in emerg-
encies. The voters at the primaries are not inde-
pendent as a rule, but rather voters the organiza-
tions can get out to support their candidates or
voters some opposition man can get out, or voters
who are drawn out by fraud to vote for some can-
didate foisted on one party by the opposing party
for the sake of creating dissension and division. Such
a fraudulent aspirant for a nomination may be a
worthless character, paid to run for say $50, $100
or $200, who often bears a name similar to that of
a legitimate candidate; or he may run by petition
after the primaries under a modified party designa-
tion. The organization’s objections are due to diffi-
culties not only of control but of control in such
a way as to get good and able (and not merely
good organization) men to run, and the difficulty
of concentrating party responsibility on any defi-
nite person or group of men. Responsibilities are.
born lightly today. And unfit men find it easier to
get before the public.

(B) Another well-known party leader, repre-
sentative of the typical proletarian masses, and a
very keen student of human nature as found in
such circles, stated that the party candidate in the
primaries had an advantage always, even if he were
one the party had to take because it could not get
any one else (if it were a minority party) to run.
The organization decided on its candidates through
a boss or by several men who were leaders. The
boss decided, but the boss decided after consulta-
tion, and the boss was a—— if he decided for a
“mutt,” for the reason that the candidate had to
stand up before the voters and if he stood poorly’
and “made a rotten show” the party and boss were
both “in for it” in the long run. The boss, party
leader, etc., could not keep going long on the basis
of decisions of which his followers did not approve,
and his followers would not long sanction what
the people would not approve. It would be poor
politics. The county committeemen are often a
lot of “nits” who take orders, but not always; one
cannot tell at all by primary results what the

265
party wants, since there is no formal consultation
possible, unless the leaders of the organization are
strong. The result is apt to be misrepresentation
of the people and of the party, or else small clique
representation by a process of mistakes and flukes.

The minority party is not successful except by
accident, and the primaries always give the ad-
vantage to the majority party and keep the minority
(be it Republican or Democratic) down. It is hard
to get up. You cannot get good men to run, you
cannot get money to support them if they do, and
you cannot promise them anything if they run, not
even the sole support of their own party at the
primaries, and as likely as not the opposing party
will pay some “rummy” to run in the primaries to
divide the opponent’s vote, or pay someone to put
himself up as an independent Democrat or Repub-
lican after the primaries to lessen the chances of
a regular party candidate. This was a regular trick
in Jersey City and Newark at all events. The pri-
mary voters were more regular but less intelligent
than others; but in a majority county the primaries
counted, the regular elections were a formality,
even though as many voted as at the primaries.
The petition does not prevent unfit candidacies ; the
opposite is true, and even after the primaries still
more unfit candidates come or are bought to run
at the general elections. The whole system is
wrong, it defeats the people, and it is of interest
only to the party that is dominant in any particular
city or county. One great difficulty in Hudson
County was the practical impossibility of real fusion
against the dominant party, when it became very
bad, under the primary arrangement. Under the
old arrangement fusion of opposing elements was
easy by means of conferences and consultations at
caucuses and conventions; but the primaries did
away with the possibility of rational and feasible
coalition against the dominant gang (in this case
against the democratic crowd controlling the Jersey
City end of Hudson County).

(C) A county committeeman declared that “no
candidate is normally on an equality with other
candidates.” The organization candidate has the
advantage of the organization’s support in the pri-

266
maries and in the general election. This is natural
and inevitable, unless the “machine” feels that it is
bad for the organization to support a particular can-
didate, which might happen in a county where a
Republican nominee would probably not be elected
anyhow. But the steams bn usually supports
particular candidates; it may be informally, but
everybody knows who the organization candidates
are and who are “bucking” it; at least the organiza-
tion tries to let everybody know—but the electorate
is ignorant, and indifferent largely, unless it is paid
in one way or another to attend the primaries. The
organization’s leading men, as in other non-political
organizations, dominate and usually dominate the
others also in the choice of candidates; but this
leading group varies. Often the committeemen are
mere figureheads, though they will not admit it
openly. The organization uses money and influence
to get its men “over” and support them iater.
Money is sometimes used corruptly, but usually for
ostensibly legitimate purposes. Money is of vital
importance in most campaigns, no matter where it
comes from. Ordinarily the organization is suc-
cessful in maintaining its own, but sometimes not.
When it is not, it often means corruption by the
opposing party.

The primary voters are usually a minority of the
party voters, and it is hard to get them out, unless
they are either very regular or bought by one party
or partisan or the other.

The real ground for opposition to the primaties
on the part of organizations is that the party risks
getting poor men as candidates, poor vote-getters
and men who deserve small support.’ If the organi-
zation is strong it can stand for corrupt or poor.
candidates; if it is weak it finds it hard to get good
strong men to stand at the primaries; they risk be-
ing beaten by some “nigger” or “rummy” or “mutt,”
etc. Nobody likes to be humiliated in that way,
even for the good of the party. In general the
party suffers when hotoriously poor candidates
get through the primaries, as often happens when
the candidates are numerous and the party is in a
bad way as a result, and if the people stand for it

267
they are in a bad way also, even if party gets away
with such candidates.

It is difficult, especially for the minority party,
in a city or county, to get good men to run at the
primaries, whereas under the old system this could
be arranged because the candidate did not then risk
the double humiliation of being beaten by a “mutt”
of his own party, besides defeat by his opponent’s
party.

In general the primaries were good democratically
and theoretically, but practically of no advantage
whatever, regardless of the machine or organization.

(D) A prominent county official said that the
organizations, or factions, controlled matters so well
that a man who tried to run independently would
have no chance. That was clear; without united
support one would rely necessarily on sporadic sup-
port, and a united force would overcome this. An
organization inevitably has its supporters ramify-
ing through the whole electorate, party workers,
office-holders, committeemen and individuals and
interests of all kinds, and these pass along the
word. The organization candidate is determined
naturally by consultation among leaders in the or-
ganization, and these leaders may be in office or
not, but they must be men of standing, influence,
ability and political perspicacity. It does not fol-
low that the county chairman and committee are the
dominant group; they may or may not be; they may be
in reality only lieutenants. The organization’s sup-
port may be more or less open, but for tactical rea-
sons be at least ostensibly “secret.” The primary
voters are usually quite regular, more regular than
others. The organization is not necessarily opposed
to the primaries, but its members, like other peo-
ple, recognize the primaries’ shortcomings in prac-
tice, such as heavy expense, giving the advantage
to the man with means, the possibility at times of
men of very poor quality getting in because there
is no satisfactory way of eliminating them, and in
one-party counties the difficulty of getting good
men to come up for the primaries as far as the min-
ority party is concerned. In the case of Hudson
County the democratic organization or a faction of
it was practically always, however, able to deter-

268
tine the candidates. The real efection was at the
primaries, with some few notable Republicans as
exceptions, and the struggle, therefore, would in-
evitably be within the dominant, party. The func-
tion of the county committee was to keep tabs on
the political situation, voters, possible candidates,
etc., and to work for the ticket in every legitimate
way and to see that it always got through at the
general elections, to prevent “flukes,” etc. The peti-
tion system did not prevent unfit men or fit men
becoming candidates; but the strength of the or-
ganization or faction was a decisive factor, and in
the long run these had to try to get good as well as
loyal men torun. This was necessary for the main-
tenance of the organization as such, and it was
necessary, within limits, in order to procure public
support. The big weakness in the primary sys-
tem was an insufficient realization on the part of
the individual voter of his power, and the inade-
quate political education of the people and great
popular indifference. In counties with certain con-
centrated populations, as in Hudson and Passaic
Counties, the larger centers tended to have all the
candidates. This was illustrated by examples. If
a man wants to run for a county office in Hudson
County the Jersey City man has a sentimental ad-
vantage over the candidate from Hoboken. The
average voter knows little of the candidates, but
will support the local baseball team and local polli-
ticians. So in Passaic County the Paterson man
had the odds in his favor as against the man from
Passaic City. This limited the practical political
field and might make otherwise fit candidates poor
political material. The convention or caucus, how-
ever, was inclined to recognize the different parts
of the county in such matters. On the whole the
final solution had not been arrived at, and the whole
question deserved serious study.

(E) A man prominent in civic reform move-
ments stated that he did not believe the primaries
had brought any improvement in results. He re-
ferred to’ the doubling of assessments and the in-
crease in the rates within recent years with no ap-
parent or sufficient excuse, and thought this was a
reflection on the primary system in part, but more

269
on the lack of education and political interést of
the average voter. As a matter of fact the primaries
were controlled by selfish organizations, which was
relatively easy, since those who went to the pri-
maries went to serve selfish interests, while those
voters who had no special interest to serve did not
“waste time” having anything to do with them. This
was a deplorable matter in the county generally.
Many people merely lived (rented homes) there and
worked in New York, and did not take more inter-
est in their environment than paying rent, etc. The
primary system assumes a greater interest than
actually exists and it assumes greater intelligence.
As a matter of fact great numbers of voters are
neither interested nor intelligent nor public spirited.
Moreover there was no effective way of using the
primaries to get the best men into office when pri-
mary voting had to be party voting. A great re-
form would be to make the primaries “open.” Any
voter could vote for any listed candidate in the
primaries, regardless of his party affiliation. It
made no difference to the public in the case of most
offices whether an incumbent was Republican or
Democratic (if they only understood .this), but it
made a great deal of difference whether the elected
personnel was efficient and honest. In a strong
Democratic county like Hudson the Republicans
never had much to say about what men were to be
in office. In a Democratic county it is clearly in
the interest of a Republican that good and capable
Democrats hold office, and he ought to have some
influence on this—not as a Republican or Democrat,
but as a citizen. This was really a fundamental
defect in local politics which was not concerned
with tariffs and so-called principles and the present
primary system was in this way no improvement
over the old system in its practical results. If
things kept on going from bad to worse or remain-
ing on a low level the ultimate solution might be
revolutionary changes resulting from suffering
which thad become intolerable. Real hopes for
democracy must be founded on more intelligence.
acquired through better education. Ignorance
tended to make any system vicious.

(F) A man of state-wide reputation in political
270
affairs stated that he was in favor of the primary
system on the same basis that he favored democ-
racy in general; he believed in popular control,
making it possible for the people to rule, determine
their own affairs by directly determining who were
to ‘be their official representatives. In the course
of the conversation he admitted many of the al-
leged shortcomings of the system, but contended
that it was good, nevertheless. If the people wanted
something now, they could get it; if they did not
want any change they would let things run on. It
was not right to dictate to the people; the people
should dictate or have that opportunity in the full-
est sense.

Voters neglected the primaries, especially, be-
cause they lacked public spirit, a feeling of polit-
ical responsibility. When the shoe really pinched
people would react against the shoe—political vices.
He cited examples of friends who confessed they
had not voted in years, and thought this was not
an argument against the system, but an argument
for the cultivation of greater public spirit. The
primary votes were generally more interested in
party politics than the voters at the general elec-
tions.

Questions of policy are at issue in both the pri-
mary and general elections, but the policy was
usually one relative to party interests as such and
often incidentally of getting efficiency and honesty
into power. ;

The character of officers had not been raised by
the primaries in Hudson County, including many
in the assembly; but this was due to local defects
—the assemblymen were all elected at large in-
stead of by districts in the county. Independent
candidacies had been stimulated by the: primaries;
the organization could not control as it could under
the convention: system—not nearly so effectively.
Unfit. candidates were not eliminated by the peti-
tion system. Anyone, almost, could get signers
to a petition.

The organization usually discriminates, and,
therefore, all are not on the same footing before it;
but it cannot keep out free lances. The organization
usually has a complete slate, but not always for

271
every position. The leading men in the organiza-
tion naturally are the leading factors in determin-
ing organization support. The organization con-
stituency varies—county, state, national, city of-
ficials, committeemen and leading party men who
may not be in office. One of these may be a “boss”
or “leader.” Support for particular candidates is
by word of mouth. It gets noised about that so and
so are the organization candidates. It is difficult
to say specifically when organization men are de-
feated, for the whole business is not always open
or avowed, as in the case of convention nominees.

In general he thought the system ought to be re-
tained and any changes in detail ought to be the
result of careful research and deliberation, looking
not to overturning the idea but to making it work
more nearly as contemplated. Nothing could be done
or urged hastily, since the system itself was funda-
mentally correct and democratically sound.

(G) A public-spirited editor was a warm sup-
porter of the primary nominating system. He
understood and admitted the usual shortcomings of
the primary arrangement, but his point was that
these were not inherent in this form of nominations,
but in the character and political development of
the people, which were not constant qualities. He
was under no delusion as to the character of the
mass of voters in Hudson County, they were largely
of the proletarian and lower middle class, of mixed
origin, limited in intelligence and political under-
standing and ideals. He believed in democracy and
believed that the representative officials and leaders
of the people, if their hands were free, would al-
ways be representative of the people. Even the rough
and immoral types of political leaders were repre-
sentative in a very real sense. A difficulty, but
one which was not insurmountable, was the cor-
rupting influence of money. Under the old con-
vention system money could be used more directly
and effectively, and was so used, and there was
little remedy for this in actual practice. The sys-
tem was entrenched and had trenches in reserve.
The primary voters were apt to be more regular
than others because the primary was for party can-
didates and presupposed partisans voting, and these

272
would be the more interested partisan voters if
not always the “best.” But these so-called better
elements were, as often as not, not better. They
were richer or more educated maybe, but these
things cannot be used as ultimate gauges. A real
gauge of citizenship qualities is attending to one’s
voting duties and taking an interest in public affairs.
The primaries placed the ultimate control in the
hands of voters, and it was a democratic principle
that the people should possess control whether they
always cared to exercise it or not. This did not
mean, however, that the present form of the pri-
maries in New Jersey was ultimate or perfect.

(H) A county official said that the primaries
were expensive, but they gave the people a better
opportunity of determining candidates than they
had had. No organization can now name a candi-
date or slate that is final. The county committees
as such take no action regarding candidates. The
rival factions endeavor to fill all offices by naming
all candidates. The leaders of the factions make up
slates which are carefully balanced geographically,
covering to the extent of what seems politically de-
sirable, Bayonne, Jersey City, Hoboken, West and
North Hudson. The candidates of a faction all
work together for the whole slate and try to pull it
through, with varying success. The factions try to
get control of the county committees. A real inde-
pendent, that is, a man outside of the factions,
stands no real chance, though there has been one
case, and a poor one, of an independent succeeding
in the last seven years, but no one faction has suc-
ceeded in putting its own slate through without a
break. There are no real bosses in Hudson County
now, but there are a number of men in both par-
ties who have considerable personal political
strength. The factional leaders naturally look for
candidates who can get votes—it is a waste of
energy to nominate “dead ones.” Where two men
in a faction have about equal strength and claims
for a party’s preference, the leaders are in a difficult
position, and unwise decisions may weaken the fac-
tion and eventually the party; but the leaders are
not necessarily known to the public as being the

273
namers of slates; this is usually secret, though
often an open secret.

This county official summed up the present situa-
tion thus: “The game of the politicians now is to
find out what the people want and give it to them.”

ESSEX COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO E

Essex County is a leading urban county of the
State, containing as it does the city of Newark.
The outstanding characteristic of the county is that
it is normally Republican, and that the Republican
primary nominations are of practical and final sig-
nificance as far as offices are concerned in most
instances. The Democratic party is subjected in
the primaries to the problems and difficulties of
a minority party which, however, is not without
hope. The following sections contain the opinions
of representatives of Republicans, Democrats and
Progressives, who were willing to express their
views.

(A) An attorney who had given a great deal of
consideration to this questfon declared that he was
absolutely opposed to the primary system of nomi-
nations. His position was based primarily on a
desire to see the best results possible, combined
with a distrust of the electorate, in its present
state of development and constituency, as he ob-
served it in New Jersey, a State with complicated
problems of population, of highly developed indus-
trialism, and a considerable lack of public spirit
and political intelligence on the part of large masses
of voters, whether native or of foreign origin, and
whether rich or poor. It was all very well to speak
highly of such really democratic measures as the
initiative and referendum and the primaries as steps
in advance; but their supporters let their enthu-
siasm for a democratic cause blind them to the
actual social bases on which such arrangements
would have to be developed. Where and when the
-people show that they have the interest, the public
spirit, the political intelligence and the moral in-
tegrity to use such instruments of democracy in
the way their supporters hope and desire, then the
problem ceases to be a problem; it is merely a
means that may be used and is used to accomplish

274
the ends desired. Surely no one who was capable
of observing with a small measure of scientific seri-
ousness would allege that the democracy of New
Jersey has as yet indicated that it had arrived in
this sense. These enthusiasts are looking at distant
mountains and are deceived into believing that the
people are living nobly on the heights, while, as a
matter of fact, large masses are living in the dumps.
The explanation of this condition may be something
that is both painful and discreditable to persons who
could help, but do not; but explanations do not
change existing facts. At most they enable us to
understand them and furnish a basis for progress.
In the meantime we must not try to deceive our-
selves by refusing to see things as they are, because
they may be as we wish in a generation, or two or
three generations.

The attorney insisted that in practice more unfit
men, men of low mental and moral calibre, got through
the primaries than through the old conventions, and
that bosses control just as really now as before, though
less directly and responsibly than before. Leaving it
to the people to decide directly was foolish, for
the people did not show the intelligence or the mo-
rality needed for their own good, and did not care
seriously. There was no way at present of. making
use of the deliberate intelligence of the relatively
intelligent and public spirited elements of the popu-
lation in deciding on candidates and policies, and
there was this to a great extent under the conven-
tion system, despite its vices, since the convention
was deliberative perforce, or sanctioned what was
the result of deliberation. No boss or leader could
force a typical convention to accept as candidates |
men who were as notoriously unfit as men the or-
ganization had now to accept through the non-
deliberative primaries. ‘

(B) A county official insisted that organization
candidates had a great advantage over independent
candidates in the primaries, even in the case of
candidates of a minority party. If the organization
amounted to anything it would get behind the men
it liked and could get to run, and this was always
worth a good deal, and was an advantage which an
independent could rarely counterbalance even if he

275
were a better man in every way. Minority parties
always found it difficult to get really good men
willing and able to give their time and money to a
hopeless or nearly hopeless candidacy ; but the worst
feature was the “put-up jobs” done by opponents
and perpetrated on one after the primaries. Sup-
pose the Democrats wanted to divide the Republi-
can vote for a certain popular candidate nominated
at the primaries. They might get some nondescript
person to allow his name to go on the general
election ballot as a “Theodore Roosevelt Republi-
can.” The ordinary voter is not a man of high
brow, with political intelligence gleaming in his
eyes, but he has probably heard of Roosevelt, and
the designation may appeal to him, with the result
that the nondescript person gets his vote—and
some hundreds of others—and though not himself
elected, he has taken so many votes from the regu-
lar Republican that he, too, is defeated, and the
Democrats have gotten away with the goods. Or
the Republicans might play the same game by get-
ting some bum to.run as a Woodrow Wilson Demo-
cratic leaguer. The Hill-Hulley-Heck nominees in
Newark a few years ago illustrated this point, as
did the Quayle nomination, well known to local
politicians.

Only regular party men could run at the prima-
ries, but anyone with a modified party designation
could get in afterwards. This was getting to be a
regular party trick in emergencies. It was not
difficult to get some bum to pose in this way for a
time. One got a decent suit of clothes for him and
provided him with a little cash so he could “set
*em up to the boys,” etc., and almost any character
could draw a fair number of votes in a city like
Newark (though Newark was by no means the
worst) on account of the ignorance, indifference
and stupidity of many voters. Occasionally con-
siderable sums of money were used to encourage’
voters and newspapers to line up and help such a
cause. Newspapers were in many instances edito-
rially for sale, and many voters could be bought.
This was a condition, not an ideal theory, and had
to be faced. If it was not faced—well, one was so
much out on account of a virtue that did not count

' 276
and for which few cared. No one desired to be
corrupt, but success often made it a sine qua non
to stoop to conquer. If you did not the other fellow
would. This official mentioned with some deliber-
ate vagueness several instances of corrupt practices
in order to illustrate his point, and which’ corrupt
practices had been successful and reasonably safe
or in a sense within the law. He stated that the
minority party was naturally always weak in money
and usually otherwise, at the primaries, especially.
Who cared to put up money for a hopeless propo-
sition or with the odds all against one? Who
cared to be a candidate for primary preference when
he was out of the final running from the beginning,
and even then risked being beaten and humiliated
by some rough and ready representative of his own
party, maybe secretly financed by the opposing
party? Under the convention system the party
found it easier to get relatively ‘good men to run
for office, because they did not risk party humilia-
tion publicly, and a party candidate received a fairly
united party support at the elections. Ii he were
defeated at the elections this was not a personal
humiliation, but a party defeat, and, therefore, was
relatively easy to bear. In a minority county or
city the general State situation was of some impor-
tance, of course, and occasionally was a great help
in local minority party struggles. A local organiza-
tion could not fight hopelessly indefinitely.

This official stated that he had seen so many bad
candidates get by the primaries in his own party,
partly through corrupt methods employed by op-
ponents, that he was decidedly opposed to the sys-
tem. There was no intelligent and effective way
of eliminating the unfits from the primaries, and
this tended not only to weaken the weaker party,
but to enable the dominant party to retain its hold
with men of a lower type than it otherwise would be
forced to put up. This was clearly to the disad-
vantage of the parties and of the people as a whole,
and it could serve no one’s interest except some per-
sonal or special one. The primary system ignored
the fact that the ordinary voter did not care or
know enough about party candidates or any candi-
dates, and the result was against social and popu-

277
lar welfare. Most thinking men desired the welfare
of the people, but they were not getting what they
wanted or would like in the primaries if they were
only awake to the fact.

(C)Another county official expressed it as his
observation that the primary system had not given
and was not giving the results hoped for, and that
it was, in fact, a disappointment. Candidates are,
except on rare occasions when the organization de-
cides to keep its hands off, not on a par. The
leaders in the organization, who may be officials,
committeemen or outsiders, agree on certain candi-
dates, and there is usually little opposition on the
part of the rank and file. Word is passed down
the line to the district workers and money is dis-
tributed to pay for their time, ostensibly as wages,
but really to stiffen their activities (bribes is pos-
sibly too strong a word, though it is money that
makes the machine go), and in this way the or-
ganization preferences have a considerable vote
already guaranteed and a less definite vote of men
local workers control (and perhaps at times buy
directly or indirectly). No independent can nor-
mally overcome the advantage of the organization
candidate; but sometimes the organization is stupid
or inefficient, so that a fairly well-known and ca-
pable independent who has money may get away
with a nomination. This usually means the begin-
ning of factionalism, unless some harmonious ar-
rangement follows, and factionalism may develop
into a recognition of the machine. The county
committees’ position varies greatly in practice; it
may or may not be a real controlling force, though
usually it is a part of this. Organization support
is not really secret, but it is not formal or formally
acknowledged, because to do so might create too
much dissension and bitterness in the party,

The primary voters are not, in fact, usually the
best or most intelligent elements, but such as can
for a consideration or by influence be urged to help
out the candidates. They are more regular than
the voters as a whole, and in practice usually vary
from one-third to one-half only of the total legal
voters.

The organization is not opposed to the primaries

278
because it cannot control them well enough, and
when it is opposed it is for other and more legiti-
mate reasons. The great expense in time and
money to the individual candidate (primary nomi-
nations often cost candidates from $3000 to $4000
for county offices in Essex County, really, not
nominally), and the difficulty of getting good
and able men to give their time and money for
running at the primaries becomes at times insur-
mountable for the minority party. The candidates
and officials are, on the whole, of a lower sort now
than they were, in the opinion of this county offi-
cial. He called attention to the criminal and scan-
dalous records of several men prominent in local
political affairs who had been successful in ob-
taining nominations at the primaries, and in some
instances in being elected. He spoke of a certain
‘county official who had received about 7500 votes at
the primaries, this being more than any other
aspirant received, and which was tantamount to
his election by one-tenth of the voters of the county
(70000 to 80000 normally). The other nine-tenths
really had nothing to say, or at least had no effective
way of saying anything that might indicate oppo-
sition to this conclusion.

The primaries do not, in fact, overcome the po-
litical indifference of large masses of voters and,
moreover, in most cases Jones isas good a man for
an office as Smith, and vice versa, as far as most
voters are concerned. They know and can know
little about any of the candidates, their fitness or
lack of fitness, and do not seem to care much. This
is, of course, deplorable, but so are many othet
facts. One has to face the facts, and a man who
desires to get into public office does well to take
facts as they are and to shape his actions accord-
ingly. A convention system or some other sensible
arrangement based on the facts, and. not ideals
merely, could be so framed that fit candidates could
be chosen by interested men, men who are willing
and able to choose fit men, and still be consistent
with the fundamentals of popular government.
Such government was limited in reality in-any case,
however, by the ignorance and indifference of great
masses (often the majority) of the legal voters.

279
(D) A man prominent in politics, but not as a
regular, declared that he was opposed to the exist-
ing primary system. The theory back of it was
all well enough, essentially democratic, but in prac-
tice the system was a pernicious thing, giving a —
decided advantage to men of great means or of un-
scrupulous propensities, and often absolute. lack of
fitness of which the voters knew little and about
which they cared little. Once a candidate had ob-
tained in any way the nomination of his party at
the primaries, his election was practically assured
if he were of the majority party, unless something
openly scandalous intervened. The organization
could do little else than support its party primary
nominees as a matter of self-defense. The organi-
zation might often support persons who emerged
at the primaries, though the organization disap-
proved of them on account of possible incapability
from a partisan standpoint or from the point of
view of the position to which they aspired. The
convention system, with all its faults and corrup-
tions, could avoid such predicaments, and if it failed
to do so the responsibility for the results fell back
on it and the organization directly, which might
lead to dissensions and reorganization. At present
we have practically two elections. The whole could
much better and effectively be accomplished at one
general election, and the high man should be the
man elected. As it is, a man may get one-tenth
or one-twelfth of the total vote of the county at a
primary election (from one-fifth to one-sixth of
his party vote, let us say), and receive a primary
nomination which might be the same as his elec-
tion. The later general election was then a waste
of time and money, and gave opportunities for fraud
and really defeating the will of the voters. More-
over, the “better class” of voters, and the really
more independent ones, often refused to attend more
than one election, so they avoided the primaries at
which the damage is done and decisions are made,
and voted at the general elections when they might
often as well have stayed at home. Therefore a
one-election system, open to candidates as the pri-
maries are now, should be used. This would en-
courage independent voting and prevent to a large

280
extent corrupt influences of all sorts—although it
would be difficult, if not impossible, to keep the in-
fluence of money distant. Money is always legiti-
mately necessary, and money always can be made
to work effectively and even legitimately in many
instances. At the present time it was notorious
that the law was not complied with (that is, the
related but important corrupt practices law), and men
often expended several times the amount to which they
certified in support of their candidacy. Several
such instances were referred to, in some cases defi-
nitely. The law was obeyed at times as far as the
letter was concerned, but violated in every other
sense. This was at present a necessary evil, and
if a person chose to avoid not only the appearance
but the essence of this evil, he might as well, as a
rule, count himself out of the running before he
started. Rumors, which well-informed men accept
as true, insist that certain candidates for high of-
fice in this State have within less than a year ex-
pended tens of thousands of dollars to further their
ambitions at the primaries.

A regular organization must be behind a candi-
date, or in lieu thereof, an organization of a special
sort. A candidate cannot get along alone. That is
a simple minded notion not in accordance with the
hard conditions of politics. We must accept voters
as they are, largely ignorant and indifferent and
sometimes of low political morality. The petition
system makes independent candidacies in a sense
easier than they were, but the sense is delusive.
It certainly makes it easier for unfit men to get
their names before the voters, and therefore some-
times to get elected or to handicap the election of
more qualified men.

(E) A man well known in Essex County politics
called attention to the boss-ridden organization of
one of the parties in the county, which he thought
was a chief reason why it has not had any county
or legislative offices for several years. Organiza-
tion is a good and desirable arrangement as long as
it retains its democratic character. The present sys-
tem of choosing county committees is good, but the
organization as such has strength still, waning and
decaying, it is true, inherited in part from the days

281
before state regulation. It has patronage, pres-
tige and money. The difficulty with independent
fights for nomination now is that they must be
backed by money and contributions and that one
cannot expect complete success in one campaign.

The regular organization is on the job all the
time. Many independents are self-seekers, and have
no real principles and seek positions merely, are
disgruntled “outs” who would be “ins.” Ii a man
has a really popular principle to urge and fight for
he can often defeat the organization, but individu-
als of no standing and principle, or of less principle
than the organization, can also. The general elec-
tion voters are less likely to support the organiza-
tion than the primary voters who are gotten out to
a large extent through the agitation and efforts of
the machine. As far as Essex County is concerned,
the Democratic organization. practically does not
exist outside of Newark, and what there is of it is
dictated to without question by the Newark crowd.
The Democratic party of the county does not now
appeal to independent voters as strongly as it once
did, though there are many voters who will not
ally themselves with any party. A permanent reg-
istration system would be an improvement over the
existing arrangement, and, on the whole, the direct
primary method of nominations is a real improve-
ment over the old convention system.

PASSAIC COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO J

The outstanding features of Passaic County are
its two cities and industrial centers, Paterson and
Passaic, and. the rural and semi-rural townships.
The population, as in other counties with consid-
erable urban composition, is largely of mixed foreign
origin, and this is, of course, chiefly true of the
proletariat. The problems of the Passaic City
“dump” are similar to those of the poorer quarters
of Jersey City and most other cities of the State,
with allowances for local peculiarities in detail.

(A) One of the leading county officials remarked
that he did not care to be quoted (which was a
desire explicitly expressed by many others also),
but was inclined to regard the merits of the new as
compared with the old system as a case of “50-50.”

282
'

The evils of the old system (bosses, corruption,
etc.) were the reasons for adopting the new onie,
but the new system frequently brought absolutely
unfit men forward. He stated that it happened
quite frequently that almost illiterate and certainly
ignorant men got the requisite number of signatures
to petitions and there was apparently no way to
eliminate them. Almost any one could get signa-
tures for support. The organization could exert a
good deal of control, but it could not prevent such
things happening, and these could defeat the or-
ganization’s efforts. The organization would
naturally lend its support to men who could win
and keep popular approval; if not, they weakened
the organization.

The matter of expense was often serious under
the old system, but it was at least as serious under
the new arrangement to candidates as well as the
county or municipality. The expense to the county
was indeed a serious matter. ,

(B) Another county official was very favorable
to the primary system, for the reason that it was
democratic in principle and in accordance with the
attainment of the will of the people. The people
were or should be responsible for their nominees,
and so, also, for those elected to office, whereas in
the old days the people had often no real choice,
for all candidates might be undesirable and one was
bound to be elected. The people had then to register a
preference as between two evils—two bad candi-
dats or two groups of bad candidates. He remarked
that certain present officials in Passaic county
would not have been nominated by a convention,
but that they had been successful in the primaries
and in the general election by a large vote, which
seemed to illustrate the fact that the primaries fur-
nished a way for the people to choose, a way they
had not had before. He thought there was no
doubt that the new system was preferable in all its
stages and also in its results, though indifferent men
did get into office under it sometimes; but if the
people wanted other or better candidates or office-
holders they could get them now, as they were not
shackled by boss control and convention corrup-

tion.
283
(C) Another county official of much experience
approved of the primary system on the same basis
as the preceding official, but felt that the matter
of expense to candidates was serious, while the ex-
pense to county or municipality was a relatively
insignificant item if the results hoped for were at-
tained. As it was, the expense was not in “seeing
the boss,” but in other and regular ways which
could be extended almost indefinitely and with care
also legally. The practice of contributing to the
organization’s funds was understood, of course. An
organization must have some sources of income.
In practice the new system tended to give the man
of means an advantage, and in this respect the situa-
tion was not very different in effect from what it
had been. The real and essential advantage was
that it left the possibility of control and choice defi-
nitely in the hands of the people, though it was
clear that this fact was a matter of indifference to
large numbers of voters, and this weakened the
validity of the theory in practice. This was its
essential justification.

(D) An unusually intelligent official stated that
his position was one fundamentally favorable to
the primary system. It made the people respon-
sible by putting the problems of choice up to them
instead of to delegates. The ignorance, stupidity
and corruptness of certain voters could not affect
the principle if we believed in democracy as such.
The party organizations could support certain men,
but they had to do so with more discretion than
formerly, since unjustified support might react
harmfully on the party as a whole later, now that
the people if aroused and awake could rectify mat-
ters. So far there had probably been no very
marked increase in efficiency on the part of offi-
cials as a result of the primaries, but it had be-
come both more difficult and more dangerous to
serve special interests opposed to the people than
it had been in the old days. This was an advance.
Though the people might not select abler men their
selections would be their own, or the selection of
that part of the people which was interested enough
to go to the primaries, and this was consistent with
the theory of “let the people rule.”

204
(E) A well known leader or boss indicated that
his general position was that the electorate was
ignorant and that the old system got better men
into office, since the nomination was then removed
from the direct control of the riff-raff and the
“dump.” In the old days men of education usually,
and more often also of means, went into politics,
sought the convention’s approval to become gov-
ernors, senators, etc.; they were not interested in
salaries (they had all the money they wanted
already) but in the honor and glory of holding high
and important offices. So a fine type got in; but
the present primary which leaves it to the people’
means that the ignorant three-fifths determine the
choice, and the decent two-fifths have no power
and in disgust turn their shoulder on the whole
business. Thus instead of having popular control
you have the control of an ignorant rabble and of
bums. Fools, unfit persons and no-goods get people
to sign their petitions and get nominated, and the
public of the worse sort suffers even more than the
public of the better sort, although the representa-
tives of the worse sort are in power.

The primaries are a delusion; “theories” do not
amount to anything, and if you get bums into of-
fice as a result of your theory put into practice, it
is clear you are on the wrong track—and the pri-
maries are the wrong track. You get neither effi-
ciency, nor economy, nor honesty, nor real repre-
sentation, but a lot of fanatics in office, and instead
of raising public office and office-holders to the
level of the best elements in the community you
arrange to have offices and officers dragged down
to the lower if not the lowest levels. The primaries
in practice are a mistake and the system should
be changed.

(F) A man formerly in national politics insisted
that the primary system had proved vicious and
undesirable. The organization of a party could not
name a candidate successfully, and the most unfit
elements got nominations. It was very difficult for
any good man to get through; a good man hesi-
tated to go down into the gutter in the way that
was necessary. He might not win out anyhow, and
there was a heavy expense. Ignorance ruled and

285
ignorance supported the “good fellows” who could
flatter ignorance and gain its confidence. So drunk-
ards, quasi-illiterates, and all sorts of impossible
men. got into office and even into the Assembly.
The organization committees, etc., might oppose
this, but the most justified opposition was distorted
as meaning corruption, and the result was an igno-
rant public deceiving itself and getting representa-
tives of its worse instead of its better and more in-
telligent elements. A city like Paterson had many
foreigners who were easily imposed upon, and who
were not very intelligent anyhow, and the primaries
made control by these and similar elements possi-
ble; and the result was not in their own interests,
though they had in a real sense a responsibility for
the results. Good men would not run often, and
the’ situation as a whole was so deplorable that
there was no doubt that it ought to be remedied.
The old convention system with all its faults was
far and away superior in its results.

(G) A prominent member of a county commit-
tee discussed matters quite freely but did not ap-
pear to be a strong partisan of either the primary
or the old convention system. He admitted readily
that the organization’s candidate had an advantage.
Any candidate having the leading party men back
of him had an advantage, for an organization was
in any case merely the expression of considerable
unified purpose to attain certain ends. The organi-
zation in a Republican county like Passaic had offi-
cials already in office, and it had local district chair-
men, and these all had friends and connections, and
their support necessarily was an advantage. Such
an organization was moreover desirable and legiti-
mate and its acts might be and usually were legiti-
mate. When a man wanted an office and lacked
this support he had a certain opposition within his
own party from the beginning at the primaries;
and if he were particularly obnoxious he might in
case he succeeded in “bucking” the organization
meet the organization’s opposition at the general
election. Asa rule, in any county or city there was a
small group, soy of twelve or fifteen men, who were
strong enough to run things, and of these maybe
two or three men were so strong that their word

286
was decisive. They would meet in a regular way
by arrangement and decide what they wanted, and
naturally they tried then to get what they wanted.
These men might be in office or not, and there was
no uniformity possible in the personnel of the domi-
nant party group in the different parts of the State.
The county chairman might be the big man, but
probably he was one of a small group of dominant
men. The organization’s support could not now be
officially very open, for that might disrupt the
party; but it did what it could for its nominees in
preferences. In Passaic County it was usually, but
not always, successful in making its preferences go.
The primary voters were an uncertain quantity,
but, of course, usually regular party men. The or-
ganization was not opposed to the primary, but rec-
ognized that it was at times difficult to control the
situation. For its own interests it desired to get
good and real party men nominated in the prima-
ries, and to prevent notorious “bums” or “freaks”
getting through. The petition system made it pos-
sible at times for very unfit men to get nominated
and to represent the party; but this was fortunately
not the rule, though the danger was always present.

(H) A man prominent in State politics said that
when the primary arrangement was first proposed
he regarded it with enthusiasm as a great advance.
toward enabling the people to rule and correct the
abuses theretofore prevalent; but he said that ex-
perience with it had tended to disillusion him.
Passaic County was normally strongly Republican,
and the Democratic organization was therefore an
organization standing practically more for principle
than for offices in the local sense; but, as it .was,
he knew that the Democratic organization found
it hard to get good men to present themselves for
nomination at the primaries. They hesitated for
several reasons; they probably would not be elected
anyhow, and then they might be defeated by some
notorious character or other, and thus be subjected
to a rather personal humiliation. There was not a
satisfactory basis for working where nominations
meant publicity rather than election finally, and the
organization could not grow strong under these
conditions. He favored a modified convention sys-

287
tem for the nominations of govetnors and United
States senators, and when this had proved itself
workable and useful to arrange to extend the sys-
tem down to minor offices. It was desirable to re-
strict expenditures by candidates or organizations
to certain items, otherwise the wealthy man had
too great an advantage. He undoubtedly had an
enormous advantage, other things being approxi-
mately equal, anyhow. It was desirable from a
public as well as a party point of view to prevent
nominations to the Assembly of queer characters,
naming a certain one well known in Paterson.
These were not all bad, but they were entirely unfit,
and they were foisted on the party by the prima-
ries.

(I) Another prominent county committeeman
called attention to the difficulty of getting good men
to run at the primaries of the minority party in a
county where nomination rarely meant that a Dem-
ocrat (the minority man) got into a county office
finally. To accept a primary nomination meant ex-
pense and time and often little honor or possibility
even of future reward. The Democratic organiza-
tion could not easily control nominees under such
circumstances ; there was not enough actual interest
in doing so. For this reason strange types got
through occasionally. In Passaic County the Dem-
ocrats got the labor, Catholic and Irish vote largely,
but it was only in city elections that they had much
of a chance. The organization was then able to
control nominees to a large extent, and had gotten
good men, which was what gave them combined
strength in this field. There was often but little
intelligence exercised by voters, however, and this
was a weakness in putting the responsibility on the
ordinary voter. Men got by the primaries that or-
ganizations in self-defense and in the public interest
had to oppose as long as they could. It was not a
matter of boss politics, but merely of common sense.
The petition system did not prevent unfit men com-
ing forward, sometimes successfully, nor did it pre-
vent fit men; and expense was probably not more
serious’ than under the old system.

(J) A county official and party leader was in-
clined to be conservative though frank enough in

288
his views. He thought that with few if any excep-
tions in Passaic County the primary system re-
sulted in just as good nominees and officials as the
old system, but he would not say in better. The
organization could and did control by and through
strong men in it and ramifying down to district
committeemen, their friends, etc., but not in any
absolute sense. However, this was not an evil, for
it was in the party organization’s interest to get
good men into office, and not to oppose outsiders if
they were able men and apparently desired by the
voters. When an organization failed to recognize
this, it was up against all sorts of opposition, and
would probably witness successful candidates get-
ting by the primaries in spite of it; and this was
a good thing, though not always agreeable to the
organization. Organization support inevitably
‘meant an advantage, but it was not an absolutely
determining factor. The primary and petition sys-
tem made it possible for very unfit men to get
through occasionally, but it also made it necessary
for the organization not to try to foist notorious or
inefficient nobodies on the electorate. The system
should be worked out more carefully, and reforms
made in it. It could not be said that it was de-
sirable to revert to the old system. Personally, he
was opposed to the primary system to begin with,
but now regarded it as fairly good. He thought
that the organization was stronger under the pri-
mary arrangement than in the old days, though its
control was less clean-cut now. The primaries had
brought about a more far-reaching organization, and
it was more democratic in that sense than before.
A strong organization in a county or city with a
normal majority for the party could control ‘under
any system, which was only another way of saying
that strong men made their influence felt in any
case. A group of strong men get the dominant po-
sitions in and outside of office, and they have
friends and connections throughout the county and
so on down to the voter. The district committee-
men are not necessarily tools, nor the dominant
men bosses, but they are an organization in which
leaders guide and control because the rank and file
approve of their guidance and control.

289
MIDDLESEX COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO H

Perth Amboy and New Brunswick are the only
sizable cities in the county, which is fairly representa-
tive of New Jersey as a whole, and is divided about
evenly between the two dominant parties, unlike Hud-
son which is essentially Democratic, and Essex which
is normally Republican.

(A) A leading representative of his party declared
that he was strictly opposed to the primary system
as a result of his observations and experiences. Can-
didates, he said, were not on a strict equality, for the
organization usually preferred certain men, and was
even instrumental in getting them to run. Without
organization pressure it would sometimes be hard to
get any one to run on a minority ticket. But the
organization tried to support its men in such a way
as to create as little friction as possible. Naturally,
the leader or the leader and this aides were the main
ones to pick out men, but this was not done arbitrarily
as a rule, or without consultation. That is one reason
why there is a leader, the rank and file look up to
his judgment under any systen. Committeemen are
often leaders, and usually important, for they become
committeemen as a result of active interest in party
politics. The organization’s support must necessarily
be quiet though not secret, in order not to create undue
dissensions. The organization tries above all to get
out the vote for its candidates. Its success varies
according to its strength, and the popularity of the
candidates; but it is usually the determining factor.
The voters in the primary are usually regular, but not
the more intelligent part of the voters. The so-called
better class is inclined to forget the primaries, and
then to curse the party leaders for the sort of candi-
dates they foist on the public. If the better class of
voters would help they could nearly always get candi-
dates of a more desirable sort, but half or more of
the voters stay away and do not do their duty. The
organization cannot control. the primaries, because
they cannot assure candidates of no competition in
their own party and of not risking the humiliation of
being publicly defeated by other candidates at the
primaries; but they can, as a rule, manage to keep
their candidates ahead, even though their candidates

290
are what they could get rather than what they wanted.
The organization wants good, qualified men to run
for the sake of party prestige and success, but its
control is so uncertain that instead of having good
men it has the best it can get to run, and supports
these. The petition system does not eliminate bad
candidates nor procure good ones; it makes it possible
for the riff-raff to get on, and it makes it possible
for the riff-raff to get enough support to defeat the
good candidates even if the worse specimens may be
defeated also. Sometimes men who are so unfit no
convention would dare nominate them get by the
primaries and occasionally get elected. The great
difficulty is to get good men to run especially in a
minority party; and the heavy expense on the candi-
dates puts good and qualified, but poor, men out of
the running before they are started.

(B) A political leader stated that he was thoroughly
opposed to the primary arrangement, because it does
not work according to theory—the people do not take
a real interest and a better lot of candidates was
obtained under the old system.

Under the prevailing system the organization urges
men to become candidates, promises support, but can-
not guarantee success at the primaries. Usually the
leader is the determining factor, but he does not decide
without much careful consultation and advising.
If he acts foolishly or inadvisedly he is pretty sure
to lose out in his position of leadership. The leader
depends on the support of the active rank and file,
and his word goes only because the active partisans
desire this to be so. The determining group may
include county or state officials in the community,
committeemen, etc., and others of ability or of posi-
tion or of political strength. Of course, the organiza-
tion gets behind certain men, unless, as sometimes
happens, there are so many candidates that nothing
can be done. If there is an able, decent man running
and the others are a poor lot, the organization cannot
in fact ignore this; to do so is to ignore not only party
but public interests. The organization tries to get out
as many voters as possible and to have these support
the good (organization) men—this is recognized as
a duty all the way down the line in any party organ-
ization, and it is measurably and usually, but not

291
always, successful. The organization cannot get in the
best men, nor can it keep out bad men; it faces the
situation as it is and tries to succeed with the material
it has and must take. The result, however, is that
many absolutely unfit men get into the Assembly,
Congress, county and other offices. There is no central
or real responsibility and no satisfactory way of elimi-
nating undesirables and encouraging the most fit. He
gave examples of such men to illustrate his points.
The primary voters are more regular (the “better”
classes and independents go out and play golf or
“forget” to vote) than the general election voters, but
they are not the most intelligent nor always the best.
It is not unknown in the State’s history that primary
candidates get certain kinds of voters to go to the
primaries for them at $2 or more or less per voter.
A few hundred dollars invested in this way may swing
the primaries, and if the successful aspirants are of
the majority party, the trick is done. A few bought
voters swing the primaries and so decide the whole
election. In a close primary 100 bought voters may
determine the candidate and so also the office holder,
even where thousands are legally entitled to vote.
This is true especially if there are:many primary can-
didates—the high man wins. It is recognized that
money talks in pushing one’s candidacy before the
primaries. The poor man is out of the race, and it
costs the county a great deal. One general and pri-
mary election would be better.

(C) A city official stated it as his observation that
the primary plays into the ‘hands of the organization
and that it required hard work to beat the machine,
largely on account of the effect of money. Not long
ago there were some party aspirants for nomination
to the five commissionerships of New Brunswick. The
Good Citizens League put up a ticket, and the Repub-
licans and Democrats united on fifteen men in order
to win out. These fifteen dropped down to six just
before the primaries, and five of these finally were
elected to the positions. A saloonkeeper beat an ex-
president of a local college by a few votes. The Good
Citizens League endorsed three of the opposition men
. before the general election, however.

Money is spent in New Brunswick and the big State
men know that it is being spent illegally; if they do

922
not, they ought to know. It is reported that an aspir-
ant for a United States Senatorship gave $2200 to be
spent in this city, but that only a part of this sum was
actually spent. A supporter of a Senatorial candidate
of another party contributed $2000 to be used similar-
ly. The Democrats have tried to prevent the use of
money in two elections by making use of political
spies to watch the Republican ward heelers. A good
deal of the money both parties use comes from the
subordinate city and county officials, these contribut-
ing ten per cent. of their salaries as a rule. Commis-
sioners are continually approached by beggars of var-
ious kinds, are kept poor by giving all the year in order
to retain the good will of voters at future elections.
Sometimes twenty or thirty beggars appear in a single
morning.

At the last elections the Democrats had less money
and could pay only $1 for a vote, while the Republicans
paid from $3 to $5. A party worker has charge of a
precinct and is given a certain amount of money to
spend. There are three classes of purchasable voters:
(a) those of the party who will vote the ticket for
50 cents but will not vote the opposite ticket for less
then $10; (b) those who will vote either way
but must be bought to do so; (c) those who can be
bought sometimes. The first class is attended to first.
The second class must be watched. The third class
is not used except in emergencies and when money is
plentiful, There are several methods of checking up
the ballots to determine whether the goods have been
delivered.

Bribery is not limited to the poor, but is found
among the well-to-do also. All wards in New Bruns-
wick, except perhaps the fourth, contain many pur-
chasable votes, especially the second and third. In
the latter ward about half of the voters are pur-
chasable. The election officers are practically all
honest or at least afraid to be crooked.

The registration feature of the Geran law has prac-
tically ruled out repeaters, floaters, colonists, and the
like, and only bona fide voters are available. One
party buys votes because the other does. If the use
of money could be stopped at the primaries and the
elections a great advance would be made.

(D) A well-known official stated that the Demo-

293
crats had a strong county organization as a result: of
having been in office for several years and had the
direct and indirect perquisites and benefits attached
to being “out of the cold.” He declared a strong
organization .was not possible unless it could be given
enough “pap.” The primary nominations are very
expensive and he did not think the voters got their
money’s worth. An official may be nominated by
about twenty per cent. of his party’s vote, and ulti-
mately be elected to office. The large centers, such as
New Brunswick, tend to get far more than their share
of men under the primaries ; and those at the end of the
ticket tend to be ignored. The voter gets tired before
he has gone so far, and lets it go with a few lucky
men at the top. On the whole the convention system
was better and cheaper, and more effective in getting
out good men.

(E) A city official stated that the cost of polling
places was‘ very high, but that there were only five
schools and four engine rooms in a city like New
Brunswick. The primary law should be separated
in all details from the general election laws. The
county should pay all the primary expenses for a com-
mission governed city, because the city has only a few
candidates to nominate and the primary is really for
the county. A great many, perhaps most, business
men do not attend the primaries for the reason that
they do not care to divulge their party affiliation. In
general the primary system is good when applied to
local conditions, but it is not so good and is too ex-
pensive for nominating governors, senators and repre-
sentatives.

(F) A politician, well-known throughout the coun-
ty, said that many good men were not willing to seek
nominations on account of the great expense to which
they would be subjected. How could a poor man have
done anything in the last campaigns for the governor-
ship and senatorship? It is a serious question whether
the convention system is not preferable in the case
of these offices, even if it is not for all offices. There
are many things to explain popular indifference
toward the primaries, but a real explanation is that
many voters believe that the organization has already
fixed things up, arranged a slate, and either regard
their individual help as useless or superfluous; but the

2904
primary system does give the voter a real opportunity
if he chooses to use it.

(G) A leading political figure states that the direct
primaries were good but not as at present arranged.
The existing law is one that provides for ignorant mob
tule, unless the organization takes a hand (which it
hypocritically pretends not to do, but does more in
secret now than it ever did). The primary candidates,
appeal to voters on entirely un-American grounds, race
and religions, and endeavor to win through class or
group favor, forgetting the whole. The convention
was representative of the whole, taking into considera-
tion racial and religious elements, and weighed the
relative merits of would-be candidates. A candidate
was then responsible to the organization and felt this;
whereas he is now puffed up and thinks no one has any
control over him. The people could have obtained
what they desired through conventions, but were often
indifferent then also. Now, if they do go to the
primaries it is because of pressure on the part of an.
organization or of candidates or of friends or on
account of some prejudice or other. ‘Conditions are
better politically than they were a few years ago,
but candidates themselves are not better. If the organ-
izations did not exercise some control every gutter
snipe could get through. Every man is likely to re-
gard himself as perfectly qualified to hold any office,
and the organization is not in a position effectively
to check this delusion. The candidates should be
nominated by the county committees and then be en-
dorsed, or not, at the primaries. The primary is a
farce, not a poor man’s method of getting on the
ballot at all; but a return to the old convention system
would not be desirable. We need something better and
more in accordance with ends sought and democratic
feeling than either of these arrangements permit.

(H) A county official favored a return to the con-
vention system and believed the county organizations
would favor such a move. The reason why organiza-
tions were opposed to the primary system was that
they.could not now choose logical or strong candidates
from their viewpoint, and it was difficult to get any
one to run unless he had a good deal of money to
put up. The leaders have to finance some candidates,
and this means a great deal of money under the

295
present system in many cases. Organization candi-
dates, however, almost always do win out now. An
organization man has every advantage; he may not be
openly endorsed by the “machine,” but he has its sup-
port and this is generally known. The leaders go
around in a car and call on county committeemen, the
papers take it up, and the situation is understood all
around. The independent candidate does not know
what voters to see, whereas the organization and
county committee know who is who, who can be relied
on.

Primary voters are undoubtedly less independent
than voters at the elections. The past year was better
for independent candidates than most years, since the
national and state primary campaigns brought many
who ordinarily stay at home to the polls. The candi-
dates produced by the primaries are not better than
the convention candidates were. Many men cannot
afford to run at the primaries, or are too busy or too
modest, and do not care for public office, but would
accept nominations of conventions if we still had such.

UNION COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO E

Union County is one of the most populous counties,
and is largely urban; Elizabeth contains about half
of the county’s population. Politically the county is
Republican, though in Elizabeth the party division is
not so clear-cut. There has been some rebellion in the
Republican county organization, with the result that
the rebel independents of the party are now to a large
extent in office and threaten to solidify into a reformed
organization.

(A) A party leader declared that the’ new primary
system was 100 per cent. worse than the old. It was
expensive to the individual candidate and to the
county, and the result was generally officials inferior
to the old. The organization had small influence on
the primaries, and even when it felt that its influence
might be decisive it was difficult to get good, capable
men to run for office, and as a consequence the organ-
ization did little except give the successful primaries
candidates support at the general elections. In prac-
tice the worse elements voted and dominated at the
primaries, and in at least one of the leading towns
there had been difficulties on account of the notoriously

296
venal and ignorant negro voters (several hundred all
told). It was true that it was the duty of the better
elements to try to counteract this, but in practice they
rarely did, and as a result what was already bad
became worse. The more intelligent voters, as well
as the more independent voters, tried to undo the
damage to some extent at the general elections, but
often there was no remedy, for the nominees of one
party were frequently as bad as those of the other;
and the enthusiasm and the good of the party organ-
ization systems were lessened thereby. Good men
were disgusted. Instead of eliminating unfit men the
petition system for the primaries made it possible for
incredibly unfit men to come up as party candidates
at the general elections, men whose unfitness was so
apparent that no organization under the old system
would have dared to nominate them. However, some
decent and able, men did gain nominations at times,
but on the whole the present system was quite bad and
disappointing.

(B) A county official declared that he thought the
primary system was absolutely good and sound and he
illustrated this by his own experience. The organiza-
tion had opposed him, but he had won out in the
primaries, with comparative ease in spite of that handi-
cap. The new system made it possible for good men
to get nominated, whereas under the old system the
man who stood in with the boss and organization was
the only possible one. It was in practice not more
expensive for the candidate now than under the old
system. Of course, there was a great expense for
publicity, but the result, getting the real popular ver-
dict, justified this. He had had some expenses, of
course; he had, he said, among other things, to “bottle
up” the newspapers—and that, he declared, was a
heavy item. Every one knew what the newspapers
were. The way he did this was to pay big prices for
advertisements of his candidacy, and after doing this
he had insisted that they say nothing unless it had his
-O. K. He was heartily in favor of the new system
and believed in the people’s having its say.

(C) Another county official observed that the
primary arrangement was good. He had been op-
posed by the organization, but the people had shown
they wanted him. .The. people. ran things and the

297
organization did not. The expense to the candidate
was not great, so good men could run. He had his
friends and they saw to it that he got support.

(D) A third county official insisted that the pri-
mary system was the best system we had known. The
people ought to decide in accordance with their own
interests, and they were now able to do this and not
have boss- and machine-made candidates forced on
them. It was, moreover, consistent with the theory
of popular government, which. the convention system
too often was not. The organization might not like
a certain candidate, but if the people did, he now
had a chance that was as good as any one’s. The
people that opposed the primaries were usually people
who wanted special interests served, and to run things
themselves for that purpose, which they could and
did in the old days. He had opposed. the machine
with the people’s help successfully. What objection
could there be to the system? Every one had.a voice
in it, and if certain better elements stayed, away it
showed that they were not really better, but negligent
and deserved small sympathy or consideration. If one
believed in popular government, one had to believe in
a way of practising it, and this certainly was one of
the great reforms looking toward that end. Dis-
gruntled persons were old style politicians and special
interests who could not “get away with it” now.

(E) A man of prominence in party councils declared
that the minority party was now more subservient to
the party that controlled than it had been, but that
the aspirants for nominations in the minority party
were on an equality, whereas, in the dominant party,
where nominations meant election, this was. not the
case. Primaries and elections were both now on a
low level of dignity and purpose.

HUNTERDON COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO H

Although Hunterdon County is a rural part of the
state the consensus of opinion regardless of party
among men of political experience seemed to be one
of skepticism or cynicism as far as election matters
were concerned. This applied also to the primary
system. The county’s Democrats are divided into fac-
tions which threaten, sometimes successfully, to lead
the party into local defeats, while the Republicans are

298
an active minority. The views of the men who were
interviewed generally reflected the local situation and
bias, naturally, and include those of party leaders, of-
ficials, and others of widest influence and experience.

(A) A party leader stated that the relatively small
primary vote was due to indifference in some cases,
and to a lack of a feeling of political responsibility in
others. The people did not yet fully appreciate the
potentialities of the instrument of the vote and the pri-
mary nominating system. Experience and _ political
ee and growing public spirit tended to remedy
this.

The primary voters are not more independent or in-
telligent than others, but they are on the whole more
public spirited. In general one may say that there
are two classes that attend the primaries: those who
desire to see really good men nominated and those
who want to serve a partisan or special interest.

Usually there can be no question of policy in the
nomination of county officials. It is a question of get-
ting good men into offices, as far as the people are con-
cerned ; but for the party it is a question of getting the
jobs into the hands of the organization, which perme-
ates upward to state and national politics.

On the whole, the character of officers, in the sense
of responsiveness to the people’s rather than to special
interests, has been raised. The candidates tend to be-
come more representative of the people now, rather
than to be above or below them. Independent candi-
dacies have been greatly stimulated, though this has
often resulted in bitter factionalism, as in Hunterdon
County.

A great evil is the expense to persons who seek
primary nominations. This is not uniform, of course,
and in some counties at times it is very low—it has
often been as low as $250.00 in this county. The pos-
session of considerable wealth is often a determining
factor, however, inasmuch as no really effective method
of limiting actual expenditures has been enforced
or enacted. This is one great problem in connection
‘with the primary system of nominations in particular
and with elections in general, the elimination of the
influence of money. Expense which only the rich can
afford must be eliminated in order to maintain the
democratic idea and principle.

299
The petition system does not eliminate unfit aspi-
rants, nor can it be said that in encourages them. The
petition is the entering wedge to determine whether
a particular person or (and) what he stands for are
representative or desired by those voters who have
sufficient interest to go to the primaries. Voters may
and often do support unfit men; but the remedy for
this as for neglecting to vote, etc., is cultivation of pub-
lic spirit and a sense of political responsibility. This
must come in time, otherwise we cannot regard the
principle of popular rule as correct. Publishing
signers’ names might be good if it were done in a sim-
ple or inexpensive way. Of course, petitions may be
seen now at the court house.

As a rule aspirants for nomination are not equal
before the organization, which has its preferences,
even when not avowed, and it endeavors to make these
preferences felt. If the organization is split into fac-
tions, as in this county, each faction does what it can
for its own aspirants, as a matter of course. Each
organization or faction has its own slate at a primary,
but it does not follow that it openly or even determ-
inedly opposes others. It is known that the regulars
are in favor of so and so and this may be sufficient.
The regular aspirants for nomination at the primaries
are almost always decided upon by leaders of the or-
ganization after conferences and feeling out senti-
ment throughout the organization, the results being
largely a matter of expediency and sometimes due to
forces not susceptible to control, and which the organi-
zation must, therefore, submit to with as good grace as
possible. The organization has no definite constituency,
but its leaders are ipso facto leading influences in the
party, even if not nominally leading or holding public
office. Ordinary personal and party interests keep
the minor workers and rank and file in line, but money
is sometimes used corruptly, but by disguised methods,
to get results. This is an evil from the point of view
of the party as well as from the point of view of the
people as such, of course, but is difficult to eradicate.
“Independents” have not been numerous in Hunterdon
County, except within the limits of factionalism, which
is natural, since no man can stand alone in folitics,
and if he has support that counts he has a more or

300
less organized faction or interest or organization back
of him. i

The county committee and chairmen do not neces-
sarily figure as real leaders; they may be followers
of the leader or of a faction’s leader. In Hunterdon
County the committees have not by themselves been
very important.

On the whole money is the root of the greatest evils
in politics, including the primaries, and its pervading
influence was evident in the last primary and general
elections ; but it is not always so important an item, as
was proved by the fact that Martine was nominated
and elected to the senate a few years ago, although
he and his friends are not rich. ,

(B) A county official called attention to factional-
ism and the opportunities it gave to the opposing party
at the primaries, and particularly at the election fol-
lowing. The defeated faction might be very “sore”
and vote for and elect the candidates of the other party.
Neither in the majority nor minority party did aspi-
rants for primary nomination stand on a par, though
it did happen at times that the organizations had to
“keep their hands off” or risk disruption ; but this was
not normal. Leaders determined who were to be can-
didates, as a rule; or would-be candidates went to the
leaders to get their approval, which sometimes de-
pended on substantial evidence of a candidate’s ap-
preciation. The leader was often a very good man
who obtained his local position through his personal
strength and ability and political sagacity. If the
leader of the majority party is able to avoid factional-
ism the successful aspirants for primary nominations
are really if not pro forma elected. The primary
voters are more “regular” than other voters. The or-
ganization when (if) opposed to the primaries is op-
posed because internal dissensions tend to arise and
to weaken the party, and because the uncertainty of
united party support makes it difficult to get good and
strong men to run for office. The petition system has
not eliminated unfit men; it enables them to get a
chance at times; whereas they could not have got
through a convention. Any one can get signers and
names are often forged or paid for when: necessary.
The result is often a lowering of the level of both
party tickets at the subsequent general elections.

30)
(C) A conspicuous party man of intimate golitical
experiences stated that aspirants for primary nomina-
tion were not on an equality—naturally not. The or-
ganization had to be very careful in giving any one
its support, however, lest it create so much personal
bitterness that the party risk defeat in the elections.
Support had therefore sometimes to be very tactful
and keep under cover. The leaders determined upon
party support after consideration and consultation
with the minor leaders relative to the various candi-
dates or possible candidates and probable vote-getting
strength of such candidates. The organization’s pur-
pose was party success primarily, but sometimes if a
man had a “big pull” with the leaders this weighed
quite heavily in the balance. The controlling men
varied of course from county to county and time to
time, but often one man or a small coterie of men re-
tained the real party control for a long period, espe-
cially if “their” candidates and party remained suc-
cessful, or as successful as could be expected if it was
a minority party. Primary voters were usually very
regular, but not always the most intelligent. The so-
called “best” people often stayed at home or “for-
got.” The primaries made internal dissension more of
a risk, and so tended to weaken the party, and even to
prevent the selection of really best men. There was
corruption now as before though it was now not so
common or blatant; “money talked” in elections and
primaries. Unfit men could slip in by means of the
petition system and by occasional “flukes” in the pri-
maries.

(D) Another party leader was emphatically op-
posed to the primary system because he said it was
based on the assumption of a really intelligent and gen-
eral interest in nominations, which was not in accord-
ance with known facts. Moreover, it did not produce
the results hoped for—a better class of men was not
put into office now than before, and corruption was
prevalent now though it assumed more virtuous dis-
guises than formerly.

(E) A county official suggested that municipal
elections should be in the spring at municipal expense.
It often happened that a good town or township man
was defeated at the primaries or at a general election
for a local office primarily because he favored a man

302
who was unpopular in the particular locality for a
county office. Local fights are sometimes encouraged |
as a means of “getting out the vote” and the “big
men” profit thereby while the municipal offices are
sacrificed to the exigencies of the larger campaigns.
Primary candidates are not on an equality except in
the very beginning. Before the primary comes along
each faction will have its men picked, and their lieu-
tenants get to work. An independent has no chance at
present but probably this will change for the better.
To be successful today a candidate must get out and
see the voters People want to be asked to vote for one,
and are inclined to favor the one who has gone to this
trouble. It is the “glad hand” trick, and it is not to be
despised. That is how it happened the Democrats lost
the county clerkship and one freeholder in the last
campaign—the Democrats “sat at home” while the
Republican candidates hustled out among the town-
ships. Independents as a group could get together and
accomplish things by co-operation and fusions and
averaging their own slates, and a good many men who
are strong party men in national questions would sup-
port activities of that kind. In Hunterdon County the
county committee amounted to little or nothing prac-
tically under the direct primary system. The com-
mitteemen are not consulted seriously by the leaders,
though the committees choose executive committees
which the factions all try to control, and the leaders
are then in a measure influenced by the views of these
executive committees. The leaders “put out” candi-
dates who have followings and sometimes the candi-
date is practically stronger than the leader.

(F) An “old line” politician of prominence, “one
of the gang” as some one said, declared that the inde-
pendent voter was useless and that no man really is in-
dependent. Nothing can be accomplished without or-
ganization. An organization man will on principle
support candidates to whom he personally objects if
the majority of the organization want such candidates—
this means majority rule and democracy in the party
organization. When it was suggested that choice by
leaders is hardly the same as majority rule, this poli-
tician stated that leaders do not consult only one or
two others but fifteen or twenty and often more, and
choose on the basis of a consensus or probable con-

303
sensus of opinion. As far as the ordinary voter is con-
cerned he has no interest in principles (political jobs),
because he does not see why he should trouble himself
to come out and give a man an office when he (the
voter) gets nothing out of it. You cannot buy a decent
man’s vote, but you can approach a man on a busi-
ness basis. He will lose sometime by voting, and inas-
much as he does something for the candidates he
should be, and often is, remunerated for his trouble.
Leaders themselves do not necessarily get anything
out of their positions—they simply like to lead—and
may even lose money in the political game. Asked
whether there were any principles involved in county
elections, this politician replied that the principle was
that the organization wanted the jobs for men in the
party, the right men, because without the plums one
could not hold an organization together. Politicians
are not going to work for nothing and use their influ-
ence over others for the sake of expending energy any
more than men engaged in other kinds of business.
Why should they?

The usual method of picking out candidates is for
the leader to round up fifteen or more of the faithful,
and then to discuss the qualifications and availability
of those who may be considered possible—a sifting
process. When definite men are tentatively agreed on,
the problem is whether they can finance their own cam-
paigns, and if they can they must do so. But a man
who will make a good candidate and has no “spots”
and no money may be financed by the leaders, and if
he. gets into office he pays the leaders back. The office-
holders naturally contribute largely to the organiza-
tion’s (the gang’s) funds, sometimes by a regular levy
arrangement. Sometimes as many as a hundred men,
candidates and their friends, in a sense the organiza-
tion, go over to Easton, Pennsylvania, where there is
then a get-together meeting of some kind, besides less
formal meetings in smaller groups, which aid in pre-
serving harmony and good feelings.

The old delegate-convention system would be bet-
ter than the primary-nominating system. In the first
place the convention would not be as corrupt as it
sometimes was in the good old days. There is so much
publicity now. There is room for corruption in any
system. The old system kept the rank and file inter-

304
ested and working. If a township was entitled to
fifteen delegates one could count on about thirty aspi-
rants getting out the vote, because they had something
to gain. Now what is everybody’s business is nobody’s
business. Leaders can not go to see everybody, nor
can the candidates for primary preference. To keep
a township going now as before one has to hire a few
teams, offer a man a place on the jury or get him on
for constable and so on. He will not work gratis or
for the sake of principle. Every organization wants
to get out a big vote for governor or president, and in
the meantime the organization must be kept up.

(G) An editor insisted that if the corrupt practices
act, related to the Geran law, is not observed or en-
forced better elsewhere than it is in Hunterdon County,
then it is a farce. A great deal of money was spent
in irregular ways at the primaries as well as at the
general elections. Grand juries will not bring in in-
dictments. It happened also that the primaries are
loaded down with men who are not supposed to get
through, but whose essential purpose is to take the
wind out of the sails of the opposing faction’s aspi=
rants. The game is to divide the opposition, so one’s
own bunch can come in over the wreckage, which, how-
ever, creates at times such dissension within the party
that the faction that has been “done” in this way throws
its strength to the opposing party’s candidates to a large
extent and maybe elects them. An honest candidacy
should not involve a man in more than $200 expense
in Hunterdon County, but undoubtedly far higher
sums had been spent. It was said on good authority
that a party faction had offered a certain aspirant for
a county office $2400 if he would withdraw from the
race. Hunterdon County, said this editor; though a
rural county, is just as corrupt as Hudson County is
said to be. A non-partisan primary would be a good
arrangement, letting the two highest men contest it
out at the general elections ; but the use of money in-
volved the most serious difficulties.

(Hi) One of the most prominent men in his party
stated that the factions in the Democratic party were
always at loggerheads in this county, and that this was
clear in the primary contests. An independent has no
chance at all. The county offices had been sinecures
to some extent in the past and are to some extent still,

305
the real work being delegated to deputies, while the
offices were rewards to leaders in the factions (the
Republicans being a minority and therefore out, ex-
cept as a result of flukes) of the majority party. The
ring centers at the court house and it makes up the
slates which go through, unless factionalism spoils it
all. The county chairmen have frequently little or no
influence, simply taking orders from the real leaders.
The slate for next year is made up now; and a part
of the campaign funds are personal in large part, and
never go openly into the conduct of any campaign.
The county spent a good deal of money in one way or
another, and a good deal of it no doubt has gone back
to the faction that is in. A story is told of a contractor
who was to build a piece of road for the state, but as
it was not up to specifications the state would not pay
the $11000 alleged as still due him by the contractor.
The contractor sued and lost, but the freeholders of the
county paid him this sum and several thousands more
to complete the job. The morals.and economics of this
are not clear, but nevertheless suggestive.

About eight out of ten Republican farmers vote in
the Democratic primaries to help a neighbor out for a
nomination. In the general elections they vote the Re-
publican ticket. This is the only way in which they can
have any real voice in determining who are to be county
officials, since their own primaries (Republican) are
largely without practical results (jobs). As a conse-
quence the Republicans find it difficult to get good men
to run at the primaries. Probably a single election,
without any primary, would be better than the present
system forall offices below county grade, at least in
counties like Hunterdon.

(1) An official who was formerly more active in
party politics than he is today referred to the difficul-
ties' in the way of non-partisan nominations and con-
trol in municipalities. The leaders of both parties may
agree on certain nominations, and then a partisan may
go into the primaries and spoil the whole arrangement.
Flemington; the county seat, is now on this non-par-
tisan basis, however, and it seems to work well enough.
Republicans have practically never had primary con-
tests involving money, since they are a normal minority,
whereas the Democratic primaries involve considerable
outlays—all the floaters go to the Democrats, because

306:
the Democrats can pay when necessary. A large
Proportion, possibly one-third of the total, of the
Republicans votes at the Democratic primaries in order
to have some active influence in politics. The Demo-
cratic ring determines the county committee, while
among the Republicans the committee is not the re-
sult of arbitrary decisions of that kind. This is, of
course, at least partly because the Republicans have
jobs only at rare intervals. Democratic organizations’
support at the primaries depends on circumstances. If
a man wants to be clerk or sheriff he puts up about
$2500, which is distributed throughout the 32 dis-
tricts of the county. Those who get into office without
contributing in advance reimburse the organization
later. The primaries act as a break on the minority
party and help the majority party to become strongly
entrenched under the existing law and conditions; but
the registration features of the Geran law are good, as
is the corrupt practices law, though neither go far
enough or are effective enough in practice to accom-
plish the ends aimed at. The restrictions on changing
of one’s party are not desirable, however, since it may
often happen that a voter feels that he has good rea-
son to change within a year. Office holders are prob-
ably assessed about ten per cent. of their salaries for
the organization.

SUSSEX COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO C

Sussex County lies in the. far northwestern corner
of the state and may be classed as a rural county, and
may perhaps be called a Democratic county with a
strong Republican minority. The population is largely
native, and the social and industrial characteristics gen-
erally stand out in contrast with such counties as Pas-
saic, Essex and Hudson.

(A) A county official of apparently unusual quali-
fications for his position referred to the admitted short-
comings of the primary system, expense to candidates
and to the public, and lack of intelligence on the part
of and the corrupt influencing of voters; but he as-
serted that when these evils, existing in varying de-
grees in different communities, were considered and
compared with the evils of the old convention system,
which made the “boss” method of control more feasible,
there was no doubt in his mind that the existing system

307
was a great advance toward domocracy and popular
control, and that this vindicated the new system.
Under the old system delegates were bought by or
through a boss who was often the instrument of large
private interests, regardless of party, and the people
were simply at the mercy of their enemies. In
the old days conventions were anything but represen-
tative, and were a measure by which often very cor-
rupt groups controlled not only the making, but the
administration of the laws. He admitted the evils of
expense to candidates and to the county or state or
other division, but thought this could at least in part be
remedied ; but even though the cost to the public was
high the result could and finally would justify it.

He favored it as a move toward a realization of
genuine democracy. He stated that even if the re-
sults now often were disappointing and it was not pos-
sible sometimes to see any actual improvement, the po-
tentialities of the system must justify it, and that
finally, the people, the voters, would have to take the
blame on their own shoulders if elections resulted in
ways they disapproved. Under the convention system
this was not the case; the voters were not responsible,
for the reason that there was no real way in which
they could control. The primaries put this burden and
opportunity on the voters’ shoulders and since we be-
lieve in democracy, control by the people, this was the
correct way of going ahead. The principle was correct,
even though improvements in the existing system could
be made and would be made as the result of experience.

(B) A leading county committeeman stated that
his position was favorable to the primary system as
compared with the old arrangement, in spite of obvious
shortcomings. The matter of financing capable candi-
dates was a serious one, though perhaps less serious in
Sussex County, in some respects, than elsewhere. He
was not as enthusiastic as some others, but stated that
he believed in the primary system because it allowed .
the people to determine who should be their candidates
for office, and because this could not be determined for
them by corrupt or selfish interests or by bosses. He
suggested that conditions were better also for the rea-
son that the boss was being eliminated. In the old
days a boss had to be pacified in hard cash in order to
get his approval, as every one who knew about condi-

308
tions then remembers. It was important to get cap-
able and honest men into office, and the primaries
threw the responsibility for this on the. voters, which
was a good thing, though the public had yet too small
an appreciation of its responsibilities and opportunities
in this direction. It was difficult especially for a
minority party to get good men to run for office, for
the reason that if they really “ran” this meant private
expenditure and effort with the odds against them;
but, on the other hand, if the opposing party put up a
candidate or candidates who proved or seemed of poor
quality, this gave the minority party an opportunity
to put up better men and get opposition votes with the
result that the public interest was served. Even if the
majority party held its own, it was obliged to be more
careful in its choices, which was unquestionably good.

(C) Another county official was a most enthusias-
tic adherent of the primary system. He called atten-
tion to the corruption in the old days of conventions
and related an incident about how his own father had
been offered $10000 to vote for a candidate for the
United States Senate, but had declined. The old sys-
tem was largely a matter of business and had nothing
to do with political morality. The boss “got his,” the
delegates got their reward or looked for it at all events,
and the candidates or the interests: behind them paid
for goods delivered. The result was an effective repre-
sentation of .special and corrupting interests in many
offices, while the will and the interests of the people
went by the board.

The primary system had not made it possible to ob-
viate all this, but it was not so easily possible before.
The responsibility rested on: the individual voter in
signing petitions and in voting for party representa-
tives at the primaries. This responsibility was not
always met, but if one accepted government by the
people as a dogma, as we do in the United States, then
the process was logical and desirable, though details
might be remedied. What remedies or reforms of the
primaries were desirable he did not say. He stated
that the new system put just as capable men as the old
system into office, and had this advantage, that they
were under popular control and therefore tended to
serve popular rather than special interests. Not to
do so would be dangerous now in a way that was not

309
formerly the case. Under the old system the prime
requisite was to “stand in” with the boss and one
could “stand in” with him primarily, as a rule, on two
bases only, willingness to “come across” with contri-
butions to the boss,.and willingness to stand by the
interests. that supported the boss and which the boss in
his turn supported. This means that the candidate’s
conception of morals was loose, that he or his friends
frequently bought or sought to buy the office desired;
and, while the new primary system involved the can-
didates in expenses, it was relatively more possible
for a man of small means and real honesty to get a
nomination and to be elected now than formerly.

He asserted that it was only special and selfish in-
terests that were opposed to the primary system, or
politicians who were of the old school, and these pre-
ferred to go back to the convention system because it
served. their purposes better and directly.

MORRIS COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO B

Morris. County is a fairly representative county. In
politics it is Republican. The county seat, Morristown,
is reputed to be one. of the wealthiest communities of
its size in the United States—but there are many immi-
grants and ignorance and poverty are not unknown
among the less fortunate parts of the population.

(A) A county official, who seemed to take a most
intelligent and active interest in his work, said that
he was emphatically opposed to the primary system.of
nominations. His objections were based partly on the
prevailing excessive expense which seems general in
connection with this arrangement and which expense
the people have to bear, partly on the heavy expense
to which any candidate is subjected personally, and
partly because the new system did not bring out better
candidates than the old system of caucus and conven-
tion, (The expense to the county has been determined
andis stated elsewhere.) The expense to the individual
candidate was great whether it was “legitimate” or
not. A county officer is practically obliged to canvass
the county. and “get acquainted” with the voters; this
means railway fares, carriage and auto hire, hotel bills,
etc. His expenses for posters with his picture were
high; and, moreover, a candidate was obliged in prac-
tice as.a rule to give several months of his time, also

310
an expense, to his candidacy. Illegitimate expendi-
tures of a corrupting sort were not unknown, as every
man at all conversant with conditions knew, and such
expenditures could mount up indefinitely. A well-
qualified man who was a candidate but who was not
fairly well-to-do was out of the running to begin with
in most cases, and at times this meant that other less
qualified men got through the primaries and were ulti-
mately duly elected. Moreover, the primaries and the
general election made two elections and increased the
necessary expense, unless a county were “safe” for
one party or another, but even then the general elec-
tion involved some, though maybe: minor, necessary
expenditures. A difficulty in the primaries, which
tended. to nullify their potential utility, was the diffi-
culty of getting out. the vote; as a rule not more than
half the voters got out for the primaries. The “good”
people stayed at home, and this meant an opportunity
for less scrupulous candidates ta get in by means
which actually meant buying up bad or nondescript
voters who happened to be available. As a result of
his observations he concluded there was no advantage
in the new system.

(B) Another county official called attention to the
possibility of manipulating almost any election if one
had the money which one could distribute to agents,
or have distributed for one in the several districts of
the county; and if the means were forthcoming from
the candidate, or from supporters in the “organization”
or from special ‘interests, the result might easily be the
election of an unfit or corrupt official, though the direct
purchase of voters was not what it used’to be. He in-
timated that about $5000.00 could “do the trick” in
any case in’ Morris County. The evils of the old sys-
tem of convention in ‘which delegates could be pur-
chased for their expenses plus’ varying sums were
shifted, but not definitely removed in practice, by the
new arrangement. The necessary legitimate’ expense
to the candidate was a serious drawback to getting the —
best: candidates, and the prevailing large expense that
fell on the public was another matter of concern. On
the whole, however, though he had been in county. of-
ficial. work: for years, he was not ready to condemn
the new system which theoretically and in promise con-
tained possibilities for good, especially if and when

311
voters generally took an active interest, which was now
far from always the case.

MERCER COUNTY: OPINIONS A TO D

Mercer County contains the State Capitol and one
large city, Trenton, with a mixed population. The
county contains two institutions of more than state-
wide interest, the University at Princeton and the
prison at Trenton. It is normally Republican.

(A) A county committeeman of considerable in-
telligence was favorable to the primaries, while admit-
ting many faults and weaknesses in them. He thought
candidates were treated pretty much alike by party
organizations, though this could not always hold. The
man who was strong with the organization would be
strong also as a candidate for a nomination at the pri-
maries. The leading or determining group, where
there was one, would be the leading political figures-
in the party of a county, though not necessarily office-
holders or committeemen, though this was usual as a
matter of course for the majority party. The county
committee does what it can to get out the vote and, as
individuals at all events, to see that the best men get
the most votes, especially if there is a choice.

Sometimes there is little choice, and the committee
will do little if anything except urge voters to come
out. The voters at the primaries are rather naturally
mostly quite regular; but it is difficult to get them-out,
especially the better element, and so it happens that
persons the better elements in a party disapprove of get
through; but they have themselves to blame. The
people can, if they will, control by the primary system,
and the system should be continued and given a more
thorough trial. He believed it would vindicate itself,
though modifications might be desirable.

(B) A man well known in’ state politics stated
that he was not decidedly opposed to the primary sys-
tem, but hardly in favor of it as it is. The candidates
are not in practice on an equality as far as any organi-
zation is concerned as a rule and naturally. For him-
self he had run independently and gotterr through the
primaries and been elected, whereas under a conven-
tion system he could not have succeeded. The change
he would advocate would be one election (primary and
general), but he thought the present system would in-

312
dicate its comparative merits in two, three, or four
years,

The county committee might be the determining
group in the organization and they might not be;
usually the determining group was a matter of cir-
cumstances and growth ; but the county committee was
in any case a part of the group. Asa rule, the orgarii-
zation was successful. Organization, unity, means
more or less strength; and in politics as outside that
makes for success, getting things done. It played a
role now as before, but ‘could not ‘use its discretion
quite as effectively for good or evil as under the old
system; but men in politics now were probably think-
ing and working on a higher level generally than in
the old days, regardless of the primaries. The primary
voters were inclined to be more regular, but the “bet-
ter” elements were often the negligent and so the
worse elements—they did not do their duty. If the or-
ganization opposed the primaries it was for the sake
of greater control over nominations, but no doubt also
because the better men in it were dissatisfied with the
results as shown in many cases of successful primary
candidates of an undesirable type, and a feeling that an
open party consideration of qualities of men and de-
cisions based thereon would be better for the organiza-
tion’s reputation and make for better office holders.
There were two sides to this, of course, and compari-
sons were difficult and subjective; it is difficult to
compare the past with the present, for other things are
not equal. The petition system enables good men to
get their names before the public, but enables bad
men to do the same thing. It is an arrangement that
works both ways. He thought this was clear, though
he had benefitted by it. The basic quality of the pri-
mary and petition system was democratic, and he
thought only more experience could prove whether the
theory had really inherent faults. The system as it
worked was relatively, but not absolutely, good.

(C) A state committeeman stated that he was op-
posed to the present primary system, was in favor of
a short and simple ballot, and of the party column to
aid in intelligent voting for the average voter. His
position in general was that the system was too com-
plicated, expensive and cumbersome, and ought to be
simplified. The primary system had not given the re-

313
sults hoped for on account of a lack of political inter-
est on the part of the better elements, and of politi-
cal intelligence on the part of the less desirable
elements.

.A party organization would naturally usually have
preferences in the primaries, but it was careful in ex-
pressing these unless there was pretty fair reason for
doing otherwise, and even then its preference was ex-
pressed informally or through individuals. Preference
was a matter decided on by the leaders relying on the
support of the rank and file, or the leaders expressed
or acted on the known preferences of the rank and
file. The leaders were officials, committeemen, etc.
Leaders ‘tended naturally to become committeemen if
they were not officials. The influence the organization
used was personal and getting out voters, which was
a'hard job. It was hard to say exactly how often it
was successful, but it was safe to say it generally was
successful and that its success met with approval,
otherwise the organization would be subject to dis-
sensions, and the party to weakness and losses. The
county committee works with the organization in its
furposes, as a matter of course, for certain men and
and to get out votes at the primaries and general elec-
tions. The primary voters were generally regular, but
there was not enough of them, though last year the
primary vote was very heavy. The organization as
such did not oppose the primary system, but he was
opposed to it because it did not produce the hoped-for
results. There was no good chance of getting to-
gether and intelligently picking out good men, and the
primary struggles created dissensions within the party
and tended to weaken it by getting poor candidates
before the public, which was not in the public interest.
The petition system tended to get unfit men before
the public rather than to eliminate them, rather more
easily than did the old convention system, though the
old system did, of course, arbitrarily restrict individ-
ual ambitions at times. The expense to candidates was
a serious matter.

(D) A political leader and committeeman and of-
ficial said that in the beginning he had been in favor
of the primary system, but that as a result of: experi-
ence he was now absolutely opposed to it.

The organization tried to get good men to come up

314
at the primaries and to back the best men, but some-
times so many poor and indifferent men with no quali-
fications entered the race that it was not possible to get
really fit men to run, and in some cases it had no
choice. It supported the primary winners, of course,
but not infrequently with a lot of distaste. The or-
ganization usually followed the advice of its leader or
leaders, in matters of preference, but it was up to the
leaders to try to induce good men to run; the other
kind were often so plentiful that they killed one
another, ten or twelve or more for one office, no one
of them fit, but some popular among certain elements.
He mentioned examples, but asked not to be quoted.
The primary question is a ticklish one to oppose, espe-
cially for a politician, for his reasons are apt to be dis-
counted. as selfish, even when they are not. There may
be selfish grounds on the part of some opposition, but
he thought most of the opposition was based on solid
facts and experience; the. results had not appeared.
There was no improvement, but often the opposite, in
the quality of office holders; there was more waste,
increase in taxes, in rates. The worse elements were
often the most active at the primaries, while the bet-
ter elements were negligent and later complaining.

The theory of the primary did not work out in the
hard facts of life. Almost anybody could get a petition
filled out and get before the public, and if he could not
get by he might get enough votes to prevent a good
man being nominated. A real reform was needed and
it should be based on facts and experience, so that
there might ‘be a greater possibility of getting good
men to run and getting nominated when they did run.
As it was, it was often exceedingly difficult to get a
good man to let his name be used and to seek an office
for which he was fitted, and, moreover, the expense
was often too great in both time and money for him
to risk two elections. The expense to the county was
great also. Last year it ran about $2.50 for every vote.
The poor man and the fit man were often entirely
eliminated by the present arrangement, which was not
the case with the old convention system, though that,

too, had real faults and weaknesses.

GENERAL: OPINIONS A TO G

The following opinions are either of a general scope
or of persons whose connections or bases of observa-

315
tion extend beyond counties and even beyond the
state. They are, therefore, given here rather than
under the counties where these persons reside.

(A) An ex-governor of the state called attention
to the fact that questions relating to corrupt practices
were of a category different from those relating to the
primary system of nominating candidates for office.
The two matters are frequently commingled by people
discussing them, as if they were parts of one thing.
As a matter of fact corrupt practices laws refer to
questions of law and order, to police policies, while
the primaries are governmental arrangements, a sys-
tem of government. The confusion is probably due to
the fact that the laws relating to them originated at
the same time and the inspiring motive was the same
in both cases, to make popular or democratic govern-
ment real,

As to the character of the men nominated through
the primaries compared with convention nominees, he
thought the latter had been better, more capable; but
in this question the effect of perspective must be taken
into consideration ; the past often throws a halo for us
around its characters.

The direct primaries place responsibility on no one
for a nomination, not even on a boss; for the boss
works in secret now. Somebody was known formerly
as naming a candidate. The nomination comes from
the man to the people; he seeks it, and the people sit
back and let the man who desires an office bring him-
self to their attention. Candidates are petitioners for
places now, whereas the convention brought the nomi-
nations from the people to the candidates. The people
do not desire to think. They are mentally.lazy and
indifferent. They want someone to say, “we are going
to have so and so as a candidate.” It is true that in
some counties the organizations have sought men in
recent years and put them before the public, and that
the organizations are usually successful. Human na-
ture demands leadership. The rank and file do not
want to reason, they do not want to be bothered. He
admitted that popular government was in this respect
an illusion. The voters’ choice is more intelligent and
effective at the general elections than at the primaries,
due to the presence of organized support and the ex-

316
istence of “principles.” The convention system in-
volved nominees in less expense, for the reason that
the delegates were working for themselves as well as
the candidates, and they got out all their friends.

He believed that the majority of people who thought
about it at all were dissatisfied with the direct pri-
maries. The newspapers give the prevailing system
support for economic and financial reasons. It is im-
possible to defeat the organization preference by some
independent, unless the independent has a great deal
of money to spend. The independent man of means
may then exploit himself and create a fictitious per-
sonage known by his name in the minds of the voters
with such advertising. The people do not rise up in
their might and say, “we want so and so for this of-
fice.” The people did not know it until the aspirant’s
money implanted the idea in their minds. The origi-
nal act of 1903 was better, a combination of direct
primaries and conventions. It made conferences pos-
sible, but also made the choice popular through the
privilege of candidates for delegates’ positions to des-
ignate whom they favored as nominees.

(B) A leading member of a state committee said
that the direct primaries were automatically the eman-
cipation proclamation of the voter. The holder of the
franchise now knows that he has to be seen and not
the leader or the boss. Leaders cannot deliver votes
and jobs as they used to. At most 40 per cent. of the
primary vote is on the average an organization vote.
The organization jn most counties is not now in control,
or keeps its hands off in the primaries, as in Mercer
County. In Hudson, Passaic and Essex it is difficult
to overthrow the organization. O— has been about
the only successful independent among the Republicans
in Essex, though R— was when he ran the first time.
The organization has been defeated so often in minor
contests and especially for county committees and the
like that it has dropped quite out of control in some
places. In Essex there has been a fight on to oust T—
by members of the party who think the committee
should stay owt of the primary campaigns. The county
chairman, until Edge’s administration, controlled all
of the party patronage. If the governor was to ap-
point or the freeholders were to elect it would be the

317
county chairman that picked the man for the job. Edge
has departed from this practice.

The evil side of the primaries is the advantage given
to the man of wealth in running for office. No man
or organization can successfully. oppose the wealthy
man who wants an office. Often the machine sells
itself, its support, for a fat campaign contribution, that
is, the would-be candidate buys the organization. The
wealthy man has not only his own but his friend’s
money. To be known as an organization candidate
is often a disadvantage now, because all the Progres-
sives think such a candidate is to be opposed on prin-
ciple. It is almost impossible to limit the use of money
in a primary campaign.

(C) A former state official said that the reason
why we do not have more election reforms is because
the majority of voters do not wish absolutely ‘honest
elections. They do not want the corruption we form-
erly had, but want a chance for a little dishonesty if it
will be an advantage to the party. He thought we must
elevate political morality rather than try to establish
political morality by legal enactments. The greatest
reform possible is in the use of the voting machine and
then the adoption of a system of permanent registra-
tion through the municipal clerk’s office. Registration
should be closed two months before elections to give
political committees time to check up the lists and: dis-
cover fraudulent registrations,

The present system is conducive to getting the vote
of the man who has nothing to do and who may be
bought, who may be hired to colonize, and to lessen
the participation of those who are busy, whose time is
valuable.

In considering the expense of primaries, we must
remember that the expense of conventions is elimi-
nated. Gross convention expenses were not much less
than total primary expenses which are borne largely
by the candidate or his friends. An undesirable nomi-
nation now comes cheap, cheaper than under the con-
vention system. The burden is now on the candidate
if he wants a nomination which is desired by others.

(D) A leading member of an anti-saloon organiza-
tion stated that where a moral issue or a new political
policy was involved the primaries offered an oppor-
tunity vastly greater than had the convention system.

318
The cost to the public is returned many-fold in the
‘educative value of the primaries. The voters are prac-
tically compelled to become acquainted with the pro-
grams and platforms advocated by the various asgir-
ants. After nomination the candidate is likely to be
governed by party necessities and smooth over or neg-
lect to mention what he championed in the primary
fight. The agitation of the contestants educates the
people to the use of the primaries and enables them to
break up the gangs that survive from convention days.

Another member of this organization stated that the
primaries gave organizations of this kind their only
opportunity. Under a convention nothing could be
done. There should be some means of preventing in-
terests averse to good politics from scattering the re-
form votes in order to defeat reform representatives.
Probably a preferential voting system would answer.

Another member of the organization remarked that
the primary system made them engage in what were
two campaigns and so’ increased their expenses. A
single election with a preferential vote would be a
great improvement now.

(E) One of the members of the legislature who
is deeply interested in the present law (the Geran law)
discussed the general aspects of the matter at some
length. Fundamentally it was a question of democracy,
and democracy had its weaknesses. It did not tend to
develop power as did a monarchy, or intellect, etc., as
did an aristocracy; and we were not democrats for
such reasons, but because democracy was right. The
Aristotelian aristocrat—the best and most capable—
does not emerge or tend to represent the democracy ;
in fact, he is not representative. The man who is best
in the best aristocratic sense may not be best in the
democratic sense. The democracy needs and calls
‘forth (if untrammeled) men who are of it, not above
or below it, but representative of it, who understand
it and feel with it and work for it. In this sense a
man with little education or deep culture like may
be a better representative of the democracy than an
aristocratic snob like in the United States senate.
It is not the college graduate who is best per se, but
the one who is with the people, not above them.

The old convention system was theoretically demo-
cratic and good, but it was easy to destroy these qual-

319

1

 

 
ities in it, and they were destroyed by leaders or

bosses; but in the non-democratic sense the men that:

got convention nominations were often better than
those we get by the primary arrangement. The con-
vention system was often a business, and deals between
conflicting bosses resulted. The interests served tended
to become boss interests and special interests, and this
was so even when large special interests did not go
out of their way to “buy” what they wanted. That
the old system could get bad men nominated is true,
but it did at times put up better men than can easily
get through the primaries, as when Boss Smith picked
out W. Wilson, in 1910, in opposition to the Demo-
cratic convention’s feelings. He put W. Wilson over
and W. Wilson never could or would have emerged
into politics under a primary system. This illustrates
not so much the weakness of a system of nominations,
as the primaries, but a weakness of democracy as con-
trasted with aristocracy—but we want democracy any-
how ; we believe it is right.

The great and fundamental weakness of any system
of nominations and elections (including primaries) is
not peculiar to the primaries, and it is treated in our
“Corrupt Practices” Act. This law should be made
still more drastic, specifying amounts that may be
used and for what purposes they may be used, and
real penalties and methods of enforcement should be
provided. However, there is no way to prevent cor-
ruption absolutely. Secret deals based on money, of-
fices or other bribery can take place in such a way as
to remain non-detectable. We can, however, arrange
matters better, so as to limit temptations and to dis-
courage yielding by penalties.

At the present time undoubtedly the man of large
means has an advantage at the primaries as well as at
the general elections over the man who is relatively
poor,

Neglect to vote at the primaries is due to a variety
of causes, chief of which are insufficiently developed
feelings of responsibility and opportunity; but this is
only a weakness of the crowd, not an argument against
the arrangement. The opportunity to control must
always be open to the people.

It is difficult to say who are more independent in
voting; the primary voters are more interested than

320
others and probably just as independent as the aver-
age, though the primary vote means a partisan inter-
est.

The principle involved in county elections is often
not real, but is a question of politics merely; but
fundamentally it. means getting in persons who are
representative of the people and not of special interests,
which is, of course, not always a question of one party
or another. But the county political situation reacts
on the state’s politics, which reach up to the nation’s
policies and politics.

It may be true that the “character” of officers has
not been raised in many instances by the primaries,
but they have brought in more representative officers, —
and tend to keep the candidates and officers of and
with the people, which is the primary desideratum in
a democracy.

Independent candidacies have no doubt been stimu-
lated, and with more prospect of success now than
formerly.

The matter of cost to candidates has possibly been
greatly increased since the primaries came in and this
is a serious matter which must be attended to.

The petition system does not eliminate unfit can-
didacies, but it is, as is the whole primary nomination
system, a consistent part of democratic machinery ;
the remedy is always with the people.

Party organizations usually support certain candi-
dates, and others then lack this advantage, other
things being equal. Organization means strength.
The existence of a “slate” varies, but it tends to come
out naturally, just as naturally as certain men tend to
get leading and influential positions in any body of
men, and men tend to follow leaders that appeal to
them. The methods and constituency of organizations
vary so greatly that no rule can be stated, but the indi-
viduals in an organization naturally do what they can
to get votes for men favored by them and others of the.
organization. The county committee’s position and
influence may be and often is nominal in determining
“slates.” This often in fact gets back to the county
leader, who is an individual person (or persons) one
can know only directly. It is not the county clerk or
county chairman or any other official as such person—

321
it is John Doe, or Billy Hoe—but John may be county
clerk or Billy may be county chairman.

The most important change desirable is that relating
to corrupt practices as suggested above.

(F) A man known through the country for his
intelligent and progressive views on political questions
and a member and leader of societies and committees
reflecting such views preferred to put his views into
writing, and he is therefore quoted directly: “As re-
gards the operation of the Geran law, I think the main
trouble with this lies in the fact that it was put to-
gether very hastily, and submitted to Mr. Wilson when
he was governor, on the assumption that it would be
thoroughly combed over, both by him and by the legis-
lature before it became effective. The demand for
some reform in this respect was so urgent, however,
that the law went through almost without change, and
for this reason is full of ambiguities, and, in my judg-
ment, is also unconstitutional in several respects.

“For instance, in Article 242:

“A political party is defined as one which, at
the election for members of the general assembly
next preceding . . . . polled for members-of

» the general assembly at least five per centum of
the total vote cast in the territorial district or di-
vision, in and for which the nominations are
made.’

“This has been construed to mean that the law ap-
flies to each county separately, so that a political party
may be a legal entity in one county and not in another,
which in itself is an absurdity.

“This article is also silent as to whether, in the
event of there being several assembly candidates, the
5% is figured on the highest, lowest or the average.
In one case which we brought before Judge Swayze,
he ruled that the highest vote should govern, but at the
same time he ruled that it was necessary for the appli-
cants for a primary box to prove that the vote cast
was a party vote, and did not result from any per-
sonal merit or popularity of their candidates. I am
not quite sure myself what this means, but I am per-
fectly certain that it cannot be proved, and that under
this ruling any party, irrespective of the vote cast,
could be denied the right to a primary box.

322
“Again, in Section 241, which contains a number
of weak points, of which I will only mention one, it is
Provided that any qualified voter can vote at the pri-
mary unless

‘the name of such voter appears in the primary
book of the other political party as made up at the
next previous primary election.’

“This wording, you will notice, contemplates the
existence of only two political parties, which in itself
is contrary to the spirit of the law and the facts. More-
over, any one who, either intentionally or through in-
difference, fails to vote at one primary election can
at the next primary vote in any primary box he sees
fit, whether he belongs to that party or not, whereas
the men who have done their duty and voted the prte-
vious year are restricted from voting elsewhere. This,
in itself, is an injustice, which, as a matter of fact,
is also extremely dangerous to the cause of good gov-
ernment.

“As an illustration, it is only necessary to mention
that Governor Whitman last year not only ran in the
Republican primaries in New York, but also ran in
the Progressive primaries, and was nominated as their
candidate as well (although he made no pretentions to
being a Progressive), simply because a sufficient
number of irresponsible voters were persuaded or in-
duced to vote for him in the Progressive primaries,
where they certainly did not belong, and overcame the
normal Progressive vote therein. A further conse-
quence of this was that the only way the Progressives
could maintain their right to a primary box next year
was by voting for Mr. Whitman as their Progressive
nominee in 1916.

“The New York law requires 10000 votes and inas-
much as, according to the returns, there were not 10000
Progressives (fortunately for the party), who were
willing to vote deliberately for a man whom they did
not nominate and did not want, the Progressive party
in New York has lost its right to a primary box.

“In this connection I might also mention that there
is no way in New Jersey in which the lists of men
voting at the primaries can be obtained, except by ap-
plication to each township or municipal clerk at a
labor and cost which i is practically prohibitive.

323
“Article 381 provides for the manner in which mem-
bers of the various state committees are to be elected,
but mentions no provision for the removal of state
committeemen or for the filling of any vacancies which
may occur.

“Article 290 provides for the nomination of inde-
pendent candidates by petition, but it is elsewhere pro-
vided that a candidate who is defeated in the primary
election by any party cannot have his name printed on
the official election ballot. This clearly restricts the
right of the voters to nominate their own candidates,
and to my mind is unconstitutional. Assuming, for

instance, that a candidate was nominated by petition

and the petition was accepted by the county clerk, en-
titling him to a place on the ballot, but that subse-
quently his name was presented in one of the pri-
maries, and he was beaten; what, under these circum-
stances, is he entitled to expect on election day?

“You will appreciate that I have only attempted to
mention a few of the criticisms that apply to this law,
to lead up to the suggestion which I am about to
make, namely:

“That by the adoption of the Preferential Secret
Ballot in One Box a very large majority of our diffi-
culties would be wiped out. We long ago decided upon
a secret ballot on election day. Why, then, should we
take a step backwards and demand that on primary
day every voter is required to declare himself, and
put his vote on record? In any event, it is an ad-
mitted fact that the average individual resents this,
and will not bow to it, which largely accounts for the
small and unrepresentative vote polled at our primary
elections. Furthermore, the use of the separate boxes
involves a very heavy and unnecessary expense. For
instance, in Morris County where I live, it has been
estimated that the cost of each additional primary box
in a local election amounts to from $2000 to $4000,
and if you multiply this by the number of parties and
the number of counties, remembering that Morris
County is one of the smaller ones, you will appreciate
what this means.

“The Preferential Ballot is a plan to restore ma-
jority elections and true representative government.
The candidates are nominated by petition, requiring
usually twenty-five signatures, and without any party

324

 
designation. Opposite the name of each candidate on
the ballot are several columns, headed “First Choice,”
“Second Choice” and “Third Choice,” etc. This bal-
lot is a two-edged sword, enabling each voter to vote
against the candidates, as well as for his choices in
their order. To vote against a candidate you omit
any X opposite his name, thereby placing him one
vote behind all the other candidates. Only one choice
can be voted by each person, but the voter can never-
theless express his first, second, third, etc., preferences.

“When the ballots are counted, the person receiving
more than half of the total votes for “First Choice” is
elected. If no one receives the majority of the “First
Choice” votes, then the “First Choice’ and “Second
Choice” votes are added together, after eliminating
the lowest candidate in the first column. If there is
still no majority, the “First,” “Second” and “Third”
choices are added together, and so on until one can-
didate receives a majority of all the votes cast, or until
all but one are eliminated.

“The advantages are obvious:

“First, any one who obtains say twenty-five signa-
tures can run for office.

“Second, no one can be elected unless he receives
a majority vote which eliminates the control of the
election by a minority, who may nevertheless, by
manipulation, secure a plurality of their votes for their
particular candidate.

“Third, it eliminates the expense of separate primary
boxes.

“Fourth, it eliminates the necessity and heavy con-
sequent expense of two elections, viz., on primary day
and election day.

“Fifth, it places a premium on the merit and popu-
larity of the individual candidate, entirely aside from
party affiliation, which, in my judgment, Should be
practically eliminated in county and municipal con-
tests.

“At the same time, you will observe that this does
not in any way destroy party organization, and leaves
the door open for the parties to get behind any can-
didate if they see fit to do so. The entire plan is
thoroughly democratic, thoroughly impartial, and
wherever it has been tried, its superiority over both

325
the convention and the direct primary system has been
clearly demonstrated.”

(G) A leading champion of the direct primary sys-
tem and a man of undoubted sincerity expressed the
view that this system was fundamentally sound and
democratic, and made it easier for opponents of special
privilege to make headway, and it was for this rea-
son that special and reactionary interests were op-
posed to it as to all arrangements for making popular
government a reality. The primaries tended to force
organizations to support good men, but organizations
did win yet by means of fraud and the expenditure of
much money. He gave illustrations from the political
history of the state since 1894, to show the vices and
corruption of-the old system and how men win nomi-
nations in conventions by making deals with railroads
and other large interests through. bosses, leaving the
people at the mercy of rings.

He advocated a number of reforms in detail which
would leave the primary system intact. For example,
schools, fire houses, police stations and the like could
be used for voting purposes and teachers and police-
men could serve as inspectors in charge of elections.
It might be advisable to make primary days holidays,
and a more accurate registration, affecting lodging
houses in particular, but every one in general would
prevent certain abuses. On the whole it would be a
serious mistake to give the opponents of popular rule
any advantage by criticizing a system which was truly
democratic, because criticisms were justified only as
regards incidental aspects of the situation, not the
thing itself.

326
CHAPTER XII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The first legislative enactment in New Jersey ap-
plying the principle of the direct primary to nomina-
tions for public office was placed on the statute book
in 1903. The direct primary was extended to wider
areas and more important offices in 1907 and again
in 1911. Prior to the latter year it was operated in
connection with a system of registration so faulty as
to afford a possible explanation of its failure to pro-
duce very satisfactory results. The act of 1911 cor-
rected this defect in the election law and, for the
first time, to a large degree practically guaranteed the
participation of only qualified voters. ?

That the election law has not been considered en-
tirely satisfactory during all the years of the present
century is evidenced by the appearance each year
in the legislature. of numerous bills proposing
amendments, more or less extensive; by the frequent
provision for an appointment of commissioners for
the purpose of rewriting the law, or suggesting
amendments, or both in conjunction; by many refer-
ences to the objectionable features of the law in
party platforms and in the messages of governors;
and by unfavorable comments in the press. This
critical attitude has not spared entirely the direct
primary features, although there has been little hostility
shown to the principle of the direct primary, but rather
a considerable discontent at its failure to accomplish
in operation what was expected of it. It may be
said that there has been hardly any avowed or open
advocacy of a return to the old convention system
and it is certain that any attempt to so return would
be assailed as a backward step by the greater part
of the press and the people, although a canvass of
opinion has shown that there exists an unexpectedly
strong sentiment for a move in this direction among
men who are certainly intelligent and who, in many

‘327
cases, hold or have held public office and have
reached their positions by means of the direct pri-
mary.

In the following paragraphs an effort will be made
to summarize the findings of the studies described in
the preceding chapters and to determine in what
respects the direct primary law in New Jersey may
be defective in its operation or results, or to learn
what conditions exist which tend to prevent the
satisfactory operation of a direct primary law, and
perhaps tend to militate against the theory of the
direct primary in some degree.

First consideration will be given to a situation
existing in New Jersey which constitutes no part
of the direct primary plan and yet, without question,
bears a relation to it quite the opposite of increas-
ing its effectiveness.

LACK OF A SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS

System of elections is a misnomer in New Jersey.
Nominations for all offices whose terms are the .
same in length of course recur in a fixed rela-
tion to one another. For example, if, in a certain
county, state senator, sheriff and coroners are nomi-
nated in the same year, they will continue to be
nominated in the same year at three-year intervals,
but the nominations of register, surrogate or clerk,
officers having five-year terms, will necessarily come
sometimes with the nomination of certain three-year
officials, and sometimes separate from it, and the
nominations of national officers occurring every two
years will increase the confusion, not to mention
the municipal officers at all. The result is an elec-
toral feast of nominations—county, state, national—
in certain years, if not electoral famines in others—
an arrangement of menus which is not conducive to
the voter’s political digestion. The number of nomi-
nations made almost every year in the larger coun-
ties, frequently over twenty, would constitute a
task for a committee of the trustees of a private
corporation which would require days of their time
in a study of the qualifications of applicants, all of
whom would probably be better fitted to fill the
position for which they were aspirants than any

328
one of the candidates for nomination whom the
voters are to select in many cases “sight unseen.”
The nomination at large of several assemblymen
each year in many counties is something which more
than any other one thing adds to the difficulties of
the primary ballot. There is no valid argument in
support of choosing as many as twelve assembly-
men at large in one county, and the proposal to
change the constitution so that assemblymen may
be elected by single districts is by no means new, hav-
ing appeared in the Republican platforms of 1912
and 1913, and having passed the Democratic legis-
lature of 1914,

As suggested just, above there is not only a multi-
plicity of nominations in certain years in some coun-
ties and in all years in others, but nominations are
made to national, state and local offices at the same
election. The separation of state and national elections
from municipal elections has been favored more than
once in party platforms. Just why a state should not
have a reasonable arrangement rather than a jumble of
terms of office is beyond the understanding, unless the
reason is that the politicians prefer complication for
their own purposes. However, an amendment was
rejected by the voters of the state in 1909 which
would have made the terms of governor, state sena-
tor, sheriff and coroner four years, those of surrogate,
clerk and register six years, and that of assembly-
man two years, and also would have separated the
election of these officers from that of local municipal
officers.

PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT OF TERMS OF OFFICE

There is in fact no good reason why the adminis-
trative officers of the counties should be popularly
nominated and elected. The citizen feels it no hard-
ship that he cannot vote for United States district
attorney, marshal, revenue collector or postmaster,
or for state treasurer and state comptroller, or for
county prosecutor and county collector, and further-
more these officials are just as capable certainly as
those chosen directly by the voters, if not more so than
the latter. The freeholders of the county should be
popularly chosen and all the other officers appointed
by them under civil service rules of tenure. This

329
would remove at once some of the choicest plums for
which at the present time county political organiza-
tions exist and needy office-seekers scramble.

If these county officers must be popularly elected
and nominated the following plan is submitted as
one which would secure the separation of municipiul
elections from state and national elections and at the
same time cause a regular recurrence of certain com:
binations of officers besides distributing the number
of officers to be elected almost uniformly among
the years.

Assemblymen would be elected for two years in-
stead of one without overlapping terms; freeholders,
councilmen and township committeemen for four
years instead of three, with overlapping terms; all
mayors and commissioners for four years; as also
all the other county and local municipal officers.
Every other odd year, with the exception of council-
men or township committeemen, only county officers
would be chosen; and in the alternate odd years,
with the exception of freeholders, only local muni-
cipal officers would be chosen. Under this arrange-
ment the election of commissioners in commission
governed cities could be held at the time of the
general election, at a saving of thousands of dollars
in some cases, for the only other office to be filled
would be that of freeholder.

THE EXTENT OF PRIMARY PARTICIPATION

The average per cent. of the general election vote
cast at the primary each year since the adoption of
the Geran act, has been 38% in Salem County, 61%
in Hunterdon County, 48.9% in Middlesex County,
54.6% in Union County ; 55.7% in Essex County and
68.5% in Hudson County. (a) The average for the.
six counties is 54.5%, but if proper allowance is
made for the great population of Hudson County
with its high average, this figure would probably be
close to 59%, or about three-fifths of the general
election vote.

As to the tendency of the primary participation
to increase it may be said that in Salem County the
1916 absolute vote was not the highest of the period

(a) The vote for the year 1911 is not counted in the Hudson average
because it could not be found.
330
1916.

President
Senator 3
Representative

Assemblyman
Senator

1917. 1918.

Senator :
Representative

Governor
Assemblyman

Freeholders
Councilman
Committeeman

(twp.)

Mayor |
Commissioners

Collector
Clerk
Assessor

Other local
Municipal
fficers

PROPOSED ELECTION PLAN

1919.

Freeholders
Councilman
Committeeman

(twp.)

County Supervisor
County Clerk
County Surrogate
County Sheri
County Coroner
County Register

NATIONAL OFFICERS

1920. 1921.

President
Representative

STATE OFFICERS

Assemblyman
Senator

LOCAL OFFICERS

Freeholders
Councilman
Committeeman

(twp.)

Mayor —
Commissioners

Collector
Clerk
Assessor

Other local
Municipal
fficers

1922.
Senator

Representative

Governor
Assemblyman

1923. 1924.

President
Senator
Representative
Assemblyman
Senator

Freeholders

(Councilman

{Committeeman

l (twp.)

County Supervisor

County Clerk

County Surrogate
County Sheriff
County Coroner
County Register
and that three of the other years showed a higher
per cent. of participation; in Hunterdon County the
1916 absolute vote was the lowest cast in the period
and also the lowest per cent. of the general election
vote; in Middlesex County, the 1916 primary abso-
lute vote was. higher than that for any other year,
but the ;2r cent. of participation in 1916 was ex-
ceeded by that of three other years, and that of the
remaining two was almost as high; in Union County
the 1916 absolute vote and also the per cent. of par-
ticipation was highest; in Essex County the abso-
lute vote was highest, but the per cent. of partici-
pation in two other years was higher, and in yet two
others almost as high; in Hudson County the 1916
absolute vote was highest, but the per cent. of par-
ticipation was lower than in four other years. It
can hardly be maintained that there has been a gen-
eral increase in the extent of primary participation.
True, the Republican primary vote in the state last
year was very large, because, as was pointed out
before, 1916 was an exceptional year in the import-
ance of the nominations made. Due mainly to the
large Republican general election vote, in Hunter-
don County only, of the six studied, did the Repub-
lican primary vote constitute of the general election
assembly vote the highest per cent. cast during the
period 1911-1916. In Middlesex and Essex the 1916
per cent. cast was exceeded pv that for 1911, in
Union by that of 1913; in Salem by that of 1914, and
in Hudson by that of 1913, 1914 and 1915. The in-
terest in the primary does not seem ordinarily either
to increase or decrease in the same degree as inter-
est in the general election. To those optimistic on the
subject of the direct primary a 59% average for par-
ticipation in the primary seems quite satisfactory; to
the skeptical it seems really discouraging that fewer
than three in five of those who regularly vote at the
gu..ral election should share in the all-important
process of placing in nomination those from whom
public officials must be selected. It must be admitted
that well toward half of the voters have shown no
great avidity or enthusiasm for making nominations.
The primary has proved to be used by almost 60% of
those for whom it was created.

331
THE PARTICIPATION OF THE MAJORITY PARTY AND OF
THE MINORITY PARTY

In Hunterdon the per cent. of participation in the
primary for the Democrats has been over twice that
of the Republicans and in Hudson almost twice. In
these counties the interest in the minority party pri-
mary for officers to be nominated and elected wholly
within the county seems comparatively slight. Or-
dinarily the man who knows he has no chance of
reaching a public position does not care to present
himself at the primary to receive an empty nomina-
tion, unless he is fond of politics, or feels a strong
party loyalty and runs for the good of his party.
Frequently the men who contest for the nomination
of a minority party seem to be seeking the politicay
recognition which a place on the general election bal-
lot may bring them. If in Hudson or Hunterdon
County, or in any other county where one party is
securely dominant, there are factions in this party,
or if there should be at its primary a real question
of policy at issue, it is altogether probable that a
smaller number of voters would secure the victory
of that faction or of that policy than belong to the
minority party. And at the general election that
faction or policy would be successful on account of
the support it would obtain from those who had
opposed it at the primary, although the policy of the
minority party might be much superior. Such a
situation arises in every area, large or small, where
one party is quite decisively in the ascendant. There
is no doubt that it lessens the interest of the citizens
of the opposite party in the affairs of local govern-
ment and tends to prevent there being a strong oppo-
sition party to watch and check the party in power.
That is, if party government, especially under the
two-party system which exists at present in the
state and nation, is to accomplish the purpose and
good effect of party government, then there must be
approximate numerical equality between the parties,
so that one may take advantage of the mistakes of
the other. This beneficial, and perhaps almost only
beneficial, result of the two-party system is lost when
the minority party, due to its adherence in principle
to a large organization outside the area in which it

332
constitutes a minority, is so weak that it cannot
hope to oppose effectively the other party whose
members are also united in adherence to a large
body and allow this unity to determine their attitude
on internal matters or at any rate to hold them to-
gether in spite of wide differences of opinion. This
situation is not the fault of the direct primary, but
it is likely that the direct primary aggravates it,
unless the leaders of the minority party get together
more or less in opposition to the spirit of the primary
law and put up candidates who are strong enough
to offer a stiff fight to the majority party. If the
leadership of the minority party is left to those who
voluntarily come into nomination at the direct pri-
mary it is unlikely that the party will prove very
effective at the general election. What is the remedy?
THE ABSENCE OF PRINCIPLES IN COUNTY ELECTIONS

It seems to be to allow, or at least remove
all restraint from, the formation of more or less
evenly matched parties differing in policy, where
any question of policy exists, on matters of local in-
terest. This means the breaking, if necessary, of
the political bonds of the major party names, al-
though there seems to be no objection to having Re-
publicans and Democrats take sides on municipal
questions if they do it without reference to their at-
titude on state and national issues. In order to do
this it will be preferable to do away with the
names of existing parties and institute non-partisan
nomination by petition. If parties must or tend to
form everywhere on the basis of economic differ-
ences the line of cleavage may not be the same in
one municipality as in another. A large number of
the municipal clerks, editors and party committee-
men who replied to questionaires believe that there
are no questions of policy at stake in the nomination
or election of county officers. Certainly it would be
difficult to tell what they are in the case of other
officers than freeholders. What other evidences are
there of the absence of principles from the conduct
of county political organizations and from the elec-
tion of county officers? The deputy-clerk of one
of the largest counties in the state, a man who has
held his position for a long period of years, says the
candidates for nomination do not discuss govern-

333
mental policies to any extent, that the question is
almost entirely one of the personality of the candi-
dates, whether the people like John Doe better than
Richard Roe. The secretary of one of the party com-
mittees in another large county, although he had
just expressed a conviction that city officials should
not be elected on a party basis, insisted that prin-
ciples were at stake in county elections, and when
asked what they were, replied: “Why, who will hold
the offices?” In another county the collector main-
tained that there was an issue at stake in county
elections, whether the Democrats or the Republicans
would get the offices. Practically the same opinion
was avowed by a prominent official in another
county. The difference between an organization ad-
vocating and propagating a policy or principle, and
one which is not, is sharply exhibited in a compari-
son of the county headquarters of the two major
parties with the offices, for example, of the Wo-
man’s Suffrage Association, or the Anti-Saloon
League, or the Socialist party. In the latter are
found charts, leaflets, statistics, argument; in the
former probably billiard games and card tables. The
state headquarters, at least of one party, take on
more of the appearance of an institution designed to
influence public opinion. It is sometimes possible to
know in advance what attitude on a national ques-
tion a Democrat will take in opposition to a Repub-
lican, but in state issues and in party issues, if there
are any, the names have no significance. When a
man says he is a Democrat his statement affords lit-
tle evidence of how he will vote on any future ques-
tions, and less of any principle or broad policy of
government to which he adheres. “That there is no
such thing as a Democratic party and no such thing
as a Republican party in New Jersey at the present
time, is becoming plain to the most obtuse mind.” (a)
“Why should we have two elections? Why pay .

annually to bear the expenses of personal political
feuds, selfish scrambles for office, and bitter party
fights when one election (or two in one) is all that
is needed?” (b) The relation of the two major

 

(a) Geo. L. Record, Jersey Journal, March 31, 1911,

s R Pit McCarthy, State Tax Commissioner, Jersey Journal,

334
parties to the county government is ordinarily little
more than that of too quite artificial bodies of voters
held together and used by two organizations of
vote-brokers which are subsidized by the emolu-
ments of office and by political “pap” for the pur-
pose of putting “outs” in and turning “ins” out. The
ordinary result is shown by the following sentence
concerning Newark, from the report of a “probe”
committee of the aldermen: “The spoils system is -
in evidence on every hand and politics dominates the
proceedings and actuates the policies,” (a) and this
from an editorial relating to Hudson County:
“What can the onlooker think but that the whole
A-n-S-e recount scandal reeks with fraud? ....
Obviously, there are men higher up who instigated
the recount frauds. If the process of justice is not
clogged, these men will be exposed and punished.”
(b) The scandal referred to came about because a
political organization is over-anxious to have a man
serve his county as a member of the boulevard com-
mission, which spends several tens of thousands of
dollars annually. Incidentally, it is interesting to
know that one of the recount contestants is a truck-
driver who would undoubtedly possess the qualifica-
tion of knowing where the bumps are on thé boule-
vard. A more serious treatment of the whole matter
is this: “Our bi-party system has served to foment
discord and prevent agreement; it has created the
appearance of agreement where none existed. From
the records of the voting in recent elections it would
appear that a large proportion if not a majority of.
the voters have no distinct party affiliation. The
times are again propitious as they appeared to be
forty-four years ago for the inauguration of a new
and better order.” (c)

Just why party nominations are necessary for
county and local municipal offices, unless because of
the excessive number of candidates—a situation
which, if existing, can be met in another way—it is
difficult to see.

(a) Newark Morning Ledger, March 30, 1917.
(b) Jersey Journal.
(c) Prof. Jesse Macy, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.—Vol. XI, No, 1..

335:
REJECTED BALLOTS

Next comes the matter of rejected ballots. An
extensive inquiry could be conducted to show
whether the ordinarily greater per cent. of ballots
rejected at the primary than at the general election
is due in any measure to a lesser intelligence on the
average among the primary voters. For the pres-
ent, the reason will be accepted that it is due to the
greater number of offices on the primary ballot for
which no candidate appears than on the general elec-
tion ballot, and consequently the more frequent at-
tempts of the voters to write in a name, leading to a
rejection of the ballot. The writing in of names is a
frequently used method of “marking” a purchased
vote, as is also the voting in an unusual way for all
the candidates for a certain office with the intention,
while invalidating the ballot for that particular of-
fice, to prove its “delivery” to the buyer. It is clear
from the election law relating to petitions for nomi-
nation that not every citizen possesses an absolute
right to be a candidate for nomination or election
with his name on the ballot, although the law, re-
quiring the ballot to contain blank spaces for every
office in which the voter may write the name of his
choice, preserves the voter’s privilege of casting a
ballot for anyone for whom he wishes to vote. This,
it seems, is an empty adherence to a valueless right,
for certainly any aspirant who cannot get the neces-
sary signers to a petition cannot be elected by hav-
ing his name written in, in opposition to, or in con-
test with, another aspirant, who has a sufficient num-
ber of supporters in the beginning to put his name
on the ballot by petition. Surely there is reason to
believe that the public good would justify the elimi,
nation of this right of the voter which is worthless
to him if he is honest, and leads to the rejection of
his ballot, and is only useful to the corrupt citizen
for a corrupt purpose. Governor Fort in his 1909
message, said: “A method frequently used for mark-
ing a ballot, and yet which is not held to be illegal, is
to print the title of an office and write many differ-
ent names to identify each voter. The law should
provide that only offices for which nominations are
made should be printed on the ballots.” The other

$36
method of marking a ballot mentioned above could
be made equally ineffective by providing on the bal-
lot, between the chief groups of offices, perforated
lines at which the election officer or the voter could,
without exposing it, separate the ballot into parts
when it was being deposited in the box. Such an

arrangement would probably facilitate the counting
as well.”

INTEREST IN THE ELECTION OF DELEGATES

The per cent. of the primary vote cast before 1911
for the election of convention delegates in the three
counties where this matter was studied seems to
show that the voters will take almost as much in-
terest in the selection of delegates, that is, in indi-
rect nominations, as they will in direct nominations.
But at the present time in those three counties the
vote for county committeemen is not as a rule so
large a part of the primary vote as was the former
vote for delegates; contests for the place of com-
mitteemen are normally quite rare. Considering the
small legal powers of the county committees, it is
remarkable that the present degree of interest should
be manifested. The county committee in a number
of counties, however, takes an active part in the
primary campaign in an effort to secure the nomina-
tion of the organization candidates. The result is
that perhaps only a few men in reality determine
who shall be the organization candidates and then
make use of the legal organization of the party,
which has had little possibly to do in picking the
favored candidates, to conduct the battle for their
nomination. It seems unwise to allow to persons
whose choice arouses as a rule so little interest,
so much real influence which is not legally granted
them; this is certainly a means of weakening the
popular control of nominations.

OFFICES FOR WHICH NO CANDIDATES APPEAR

One of the most striking facts brought out in the
county studies is the great number of offices, the
names of which were printed on the primary ballot,
but for which no candidate for nomination appeared.
In the six counties studied a total of 1848 local muni-

337
cipal offices were to be filled in 1916, and candidates
filed petitions for only 972, a trifle over half the
places. It is true that the nominal duties which be-
long to many of these offices are no longer necessary
or important in the administration of the govern-
ment, and in such cases the office should be abol-
ished. If the functions of the office are still in-
dispensable, but for some reason nomination to the
office is no longer sought, then some other method
than election, probably appointment, should be pro- .
vided to fill it, for the offices which go begging will
not usually be occupied by very capable men if their
coming is awaited, but by the inferior men who are
ambitious to hold any trifling office and who readily
slip into those offices which do not attract any at-
tention at the primary or election, whereas a com-
petent appointing authority might be able to enlist
the service of a man as a public duty who would not
think of lifting a finger to secure the office, who in
fact, does not want it. If, however, the duties of
these offices ought still to be performed for the sake
of the public welfare, and yet no candidates for nomi-
nation appear at the primary, but candidates are cus-
tomarily nominated by petition for the general elec-
tion, then the continuation of the primary for these
offices is shown to be useless. And whichever of
the conditions just described exists, the name of no
office should appear upon the primary ballot, or gen-
eral election ballot for that matter, for which no pe-
tion for nomination or election has been filed, for it
will be possible for a man to be nominated or elected
by votes fewer in number than the signatures re-
quired for a petition to put his name on the ballot.
Certainly if it is reasonable to require a certain
popular support of a man before he shall be per-
mitted to run for nomination or election, it is un-
reasonable to allow a man to be nominated or elected
by a slighter support. There is another considera-
tion to be offered on this point. Frequently, espe-
cially in the larger municipalities, the names of as
many as eight or ten men will be written in for a
single office, each receiving, perhaps, a single vote.
The election officers are supposed to record and re-
port these votes, a longer operation than the count-

338
ing of many times the same number of votes cast for
regular nominees. There is another prevalent cause
for the absence of candidates for nomination, even
to important offices, and that is the fact that one or
the other party is in a practically hopeless minority.
Ina great many municipalities, as suggested above,
this is an undesirable situation, and one seemingly
to be remedied by legally making easy the bi- -par-
tisan election of such officers—a practice which is
accomplished. in many smaller municipalities now,
éven when the parties are not unevenly matched, by
an agreement between them for each to make nomi-
nations to certain offices only.

THE ABSENCE OF CONTESTS

The next fact brought out by the investigation of
the county records was the small number of contests
at the primary for nomination to local municipal of-
fices. In the six counties there were contests in 1916
for nomination to 151, or 8%, of the 1848 offices for
which nominations were possible. This number of
contests constituted 1514% of the number of officers
actually nominated, that is, one contest, on an aver-
age, for six and two-thirds nominations. The num-
ber of these contests seems in general to have de-
creased in recent years. The number of contests in
Salem County and Hunterdon County was ex-
tremely trifling, four in one and seven in the other.
There can be no serious question that the primary
for local municipal offices in these counties is quite
needless. In 1916 the per cent. of the total primary
vote which proved effective in determining nomina-
tions to local municipal offices in cases of contests
ranged from 23.3% to 51.9%. Taking the' lowest
per cent. in each county since the Geran act, a range
from 9.2% to 42% is found. Taking the highest per
cent., the range is as follows: Hunterdon—41.3%
(1912) ; Salem—45.9% (1915); Middlesex—48.5%
(1912); Union — 60.5% (1912); Essex — 77.2%
(1912) ; Hudson—79. 9%: (1912). In amending the
act which ptovided for the commission government of
cities by substituting a single election with preferential
vote for a non-partisan primary as required j m the
original act, the legislatute has recognized that a

339
primary is unnecessary for municipal officers. It
would seem that the legislature might advanta-
geously provide the same method of election for all
local municipal officers as well as the county officers
as suggested above. At the present time 828,046
people of the state live under commission govern-
ment, and nominate no local municipal officers ex-
cept constables and justices of the peace. Jersey
City, the largest municipality of the state which has
adopted the commission form of government, con-
tains a greater population by 35000 than any county
of the state except the two first-class counties.
During several years, usually those from 1911 to
1916, for which the records were obtained, in over
half the counties of the state, probably in three-
fourths of them, the number of contests for nomina-
tion to all the offices calling for a county-wide vote
was approximately equal to one-half the number of
the officers nominated for these positions. In almost
one-third of the counties of the state the number of
contests was not more than a trifle over one-third
of the nominations. The direct primary must be
considered as unused in a sense in these cases of no
contest, if its purpose is to allow the voters to choose
between candidates for nomination, for where there
is only one candidate for one nomination the voters
cannot reject the candidate and he will be nominated
if he receives only one vote. The voters can hardly
be said to choose such a candidate, nor do they de-
termine whether there shall be any opportunity to
choose. Of course, it is true that the primary affords
an opportunity for any qualified person to present his
petition and enter the lists. This possibility may in-
directly deter a man who has no qualifications what-
ever for the office from seeking the nomination, pro-
vided he realizes his lack of fitness. It would seem
quite as sensible and as careful of public welfare to
allow a carefully-selected group of party represen-
tatives to propose a candidate to the party members
for their approval as to permit any would-be states-
man to propose himself. The direct primary law is
often commended because it allows anybody to run
for public office, opens wide the doors to public pre-
ferment. This may be true, with proper qualifica-

340
tions. But only the merest handful of citizens are
seeking office, the great majority do not think of it,
do not even want it, and the fact that anybody may
run, may put himself in the race, is of no great in-
terest to the mass of the people except as it relates
to the securing of more desirable men in office.

THE CHARACTER OF THE PRIMARY VOTERS

Whether the primary voters as a whole, or in cer-
tain areas, represent in equal proportions all the ele-
ments of the general electorate is a question to which
a positive answer is impossible. The result of a
careful study seems to be that certainly in the sec-
ond city of the state, and very probably in the first,
there has been in the last six years a tendency for
a greater degree of participation in the primary
on the part of the less intelligent and independent
voters than on the part of the other classes. This
tendency has not been observed in the two next
largest cities. On the score of political independ-
ence alone, the result of a study pursued in twenty-
five election districts, as well as the prevailing opin-
ion of a considerable body of editors, municipal
clerks and others, indicate that the primary voters
as a whole are less free from amenability to political
control and dictation than the general election
voters; that is, independents are not so much in evi-
dence at the primary as at the general election. The
primary in New Jersey is a party primary, and those
who attend it cannot escape a recognition of this
fact. ‘The voter who participates must ask for the
ballot of the party for whose candidates he wishes
to vote, and he is not entitled to it unless he voted
for a majority of that party’s candidates at the last
general election at which he voted, to which fact he
must make oath if challenged; nor if he voted at the
primary of the opposite party the year preceding.
This declaration of political affiliation seems to be
objectionable to many voters, partly, perhaps, be-
cause they consider themselves superior to party,
and partly because they do not wish to have their
politics known. This unwillingness to be known as
partisans was given in many replies to the question
as to why more voters do not participate in the pri-

341
mary. Several voters gave the reason as a personal
one. One of the most efficient clerks in Essex Coun-
ty estimated that about 10% of the voters hesitate
to declare their politics. The same estimate came
from Bergen and Burlington, while a Cumberland
clerk made it 15%, and a Camden clerk 50%. Nota
few people have given the opinion that the direct
primary fails to accomplish its purpose because more
voters do not take part in it. This must mean that
they believe the candidates nominated are not repre-
sentative of the entire party membership, and it proba-
bly, though not necessarily, means also that they be-
lieve the party voters who do not come out to the pri-
mary are more capable of making a good selection than
those who do. Several persons have advocated com-
pulsory voting at the primary to make it more effec-
tive. This recommendation conveys the same infer-
ence. It will probably be accepted that in a party sys-
tem of government, the direct primary has been pro-
vided as a means by which the members of parties may
put candidates in nomination. If there are those who
do not care to associate with parties, the direct primary
cannot be said to fail in the accomplishment of its pur-
pose on account of their aloofness—the primary was
not intended for them. But the direct primary as a
system of nomination may be criticised on this ac-
count, because in its intended appropriateness for
partisans it fails to elicit in the selection of candi-
dates for office the judgment of those who are usually
among the most intelligent and independent citizens.

“In these days when party lines are so loosely
drawn, the independent vote is the deciding factor
in New Jersey,” (a) but this independent vote does
not seem to be much attracted by the party primary.
Moreover, a distinctively party primary may be criti-
cised as being faulty if it operates to keep away very
many of those who would like to join a party and take
part in its nominations, but are deterred by the fact
that they do not desire to be publicly known as mem-
bers of one party or the other.

THE CHARACTER OF OFFICIALS

‘The consensus of opinion is that the direct pri-
mary has not raised the character of officials. One

(a) Editorial, Newark Evening News, March 16, 1911.
342
of the reasons seems to be. that the voters prefer
popular to capable candidates ; another, that anybody
can get his name on the ballot, and since the voters
are none too well acquainted with the candidate, one
or more of the undesirables occasionally slips through ;

another, that many of the candidates for nomination
are still job-seekers, self-advertisers, and that better
qualified ‘but less ambitious men will not actively push
a campaign for nomination, especially in contests with
men at whose hands defeat would be very distaste-
ful; and still another, that the organizations in
some counties practically control the situation under
the direct primary just as they did under the con-
vention system, except for the necessity, perhaps,
of playing a little to popular favor. Actual records
show that 30 of 34 primary candidates for assem-
bly nominations who had held the office before, un-
der conditions considered little better than the con-
vention system, were successful in 1911; 12 former
congressional convention candidates received primary
nominations in 1912, and not one was defeated ; 24 out
of 26 former state committeemen who presented
themselves to the voters at the 1913 primary were
continued in office. These facts prove that the direct
primary did not result in wholesale rejection of the
men who had received convention nominations.
In the two largest counties of the state it is quite
safe to say that only one independent candidate has
received a nomination since 1912. In other counties
practically the same conditions exist, but in some the
organization has been broken and the voters feel that
they completely control the nominating process.

THE COST OF PRIMARY CANDIDACY

In regard to the effect of the direct primary on the
cost of candidacy, records are of comparatively little
value.

The majority of persons whose opinions were
polled were convinced that the direct primary in-
volves an increase of expenditures on the candidates’
part. The statements of expenditures by candidates
are generally looked upon as quite unreliable. That
wealth gives a man a great advantage at the pri-
mary cannot be denied. A man of means may make

343,
just as capable an official as one without means, and
although it has often been said that the direct pri-
mary was supposed to make it possible for the poor
man to be nominated to any office, this purpose
was not expressed by any of its leading advocates.
But certainly if a considerable part of an officer’s
salary must be spent in advance to secure the office,
one of the underlying purposes in the payment of
public officials in a democracy has been indirectly
defeated. Several of the chief friends of the direct
primary in New Jersey express the belief that the
problem of checking the use and lessening the influ-
ence of money in the campaign is the most serious.
The argument is advanced by some men that the
state cannot prevent a man from spending money for
a friend, but while that may be true, the state can
say that it will not permit anyone to become a can-
didate for office for whose nomination more than a
certain total amount of money has been spent. Un-
known men cannot legitimately claim that they
must spend great sums to advertise themselves—
such an assertion may be accepted as sufficient proof
that they are not well enough known to be qualified
for the nomination they are seeking. The expenditure
of so much money by candidates in campaigning and
particularly in advertising is to be decried, not alone
on account of its tendency to result in the nomination,
for the higher offices, of only well-to-do men, and to
make gamblers of those whose means will not safely
allow of such expenditure, but also because of its effect
on the electorate—intensifying the impression that the
candidates want the offices and care little for principles,
striking the physical senses of the voters with little ap-
peal to their judgment, and stimulating a more or less
artificial interest in certain candidacies which other
candidacies, the same or other years, cannot satisfy.
On the other hand, without doubt some, perhaps con-
siderable, educative value, lies in this expenditure and
an artificial interest may become natural and perma-
nent. It seems that there ought to be some method
devised by which a man could be called to a public
office, to serve the state, in place of the present direct
primary method of having every man advertise his
popular qualities and fitness for the office. The state

344
ought to be able to get men for office other than those
who secure nomination by largely the same methods
which a publicity agent employs to create a demand
for a theatrical production or a new breakfast food.
The state should show something like the same inter-
est in securing good servants as a private individual
shows. Since the method of choice is nomination and
election by the electorate, the state should be interested
in presenting every applicant’s claims fairly to the
selecting body. Only a descriptive pamphlet can do
this properly. Probably personal expenses only
should be made legitimate.
A SYSTEM OF PERMANENT REGISTRATION

On hardly any point was opinion more decisive
than with regard to the ineffectiveness of the neces-
sity of securing a petition in preventing unfit candi-
dates from securing a place on the primary ballot.
This opinion does not necessarily mean that the
primary candidates are, as a rule, too numerous,
although in some cases this may be true, but that
the requirement of a petition has lost all force as a
guarantee of some support for the candidate, some
desire for his candidacy, before his name should go
before the party members. The theoretical reason
for the petition seems sound in view of the num-
ber of officers the voter is called upon to nominate,
and the petition should be made effective if possible.
The publication of the names of signers is suggested,
not because it would perhaps deter many of the un-
desirable signers, but because it would undoubtedly
deter those from signing an obviously unfit candi-
date’s petition, whose signatures would prove of
any value to the candidate when they became
known. The number of signers necessary could be
materially reduced and their names printed in the
publicity pamphlet proposed above. A candidate’s
signers would became his recommendation to the
voters, and the candidate would be forced to go to
better people to induce them to sign in order to lave
a backing of which he need not be ashamed.
THE NEED OF AN EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OF NOMINATING

PETITIONS

It has been said in the course of the preceding study

that the indifference of the voter toward the primary

345
must be considered in connection with the possibility
of his voting at the primary, in all municipalities of
over 10,000 population, without an extra trip to the
polls. Under the present election law it is quite prob-
able that more voters would take part in the primary
if they did not need also to register on primary day
in order to make one visit to the polls suffice. In dis-
cussing the registration system in force in New Jersey
three other points deserve serious attention. First,
this strict, careful system is provided to prevent
fraudulent voting. There is more danger of repeating,
impersonation and the voting of unqualified persons
among a transient population than among a settled
population. Yet inconvenience is caused equally to
the voter who continues to reside in the same district,
and to the voter who moves frequently. Second, the
provisions for registration are among the most num-
erous and complicated in the election law. Third, as
has been shown for three counties, registrations on the
third registry day in municipalities of 10,000 popula-
tion or less, probably cost about $5 each.

Throughout the state registration costs approxi-
mately $120,000. An improvement seems to lie in a
system of permanent registration for voters who do
not change their places of residence. All registration
should be in the hands of the municipal clerks, who
are more responsible persons than the election boards.

CONCLUSION

Finally, there is nothing magical about the direct
primary. It is a means, not an end. Ordinarily it is
not actively but only passively used, not used as a
weapon but only as a defense. As was pointed out be-
fore, the direct primary in Essex County, and others,
seems to be employed largely as a referendum on a
slate of candidates proposed by the organization.
If any other candidates appear, the party voters may
determine which man they wish to have as the party
nominee. But the candidates other than those of the
organzation labor against odds, and it is usually only
when the direct primary is seized upon as a weapon
that the organization candidates are defeated. Cer-
tain facts must be remembered. About three-fifths of
the voters take part in the primary. The independ-
ent voters are not present in force as they are at the

346
general election. Many of the less actively partisan
voters choose not to participate rather than declare
their political affiliation. There is frequently, almost
as a rule, an organization group of candidates. These
are not usually picked on any broad basis of party
approval, but by a handful of leaders. They have,
however, the advantage of organized support.

One is therefore face to face with these incontest-
able facts:

(1) That in almost all of the important primary
contests the party organization puts up a slate of can-
didates for the lucrative offices.

(2) That in an overwhelming majority of cases
the organization slate is successful.

(3) That in a large number of cases there is no
contest against the organization slate and under these
circumstances the primary is of course a needless
expense.

(4) That in many instances, where the organiza-
tion does not put up a slate, only one candidate appears
for each of the offices to be filled and therefore a
primary contest is a needless expense.

(5) That about all that the direct primary offers
to the voters of a party is an opportunity to oppose the
organization slate when they so desire and to give their
support to “independent” candidates.

(6) That where there is no organization slate and
no independent office-seekers appear on the primary
ballot, the voters take practically no interest in select-
ing nominees. At all events few if any of them go to
the trouble of writing in the names of candidates of
their own choice.

These facts being established the problems before
the state are as follows:

(1) The adoption of a method of selecting the
party organization which will make that organization -
responsive and responsible to the party voters.

(2) The provision of some simple and effective
means whereby those party voters who do not approve
the organization nominees may, if they desire, call for
a contest and support independent candidates.

In all this there is no attack on the principle of the
direct primary. On the contrary every ideal which
the advocate of the system cherishes may: be fulfilled
in practice.

347
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Academy of Political Science, Proceedings.
Brackett, Edgar T. The Advantages of the Convention....... 3:220
Hart, Albert Bushnell. Direct Primary Versus the Convention.3:210

Adler, Simon. The Direct Primary in New York State. (Pamphlet)

Rochester, 1909.

American Political Science Association, Proceedings.

Beard, Charles A. The Direct Primary Movement in New Fork,

Garner, J. W. Primary Versus Representative Government
Jones, Walter Clyde. The Direct Primary in Iilinois.

  

  
 

Loeb, Isidor. Direct Primaries in Missouri. .ccccscccccuveces 5 163
Macy, Jesse. Influence of the Primary El. ns upon Party
OV GORA ZORIOR: scsiein: i576 3: ofca ee ie Hyak s GRIT D wed A Rinse we eceen atone 3175
Merriam, Charles E. Some Disputed Points in Primary
Election Legislation .....0ccceccseuunces aiickeretersisie eteeeecewre 4:179

_ American Folitleal Science Review..

Holcombe, A. N. Direct Primaries and the Second Ballot... .5:535

Lowrie, S. Gale. Second Choice Nomination Laws 5:600
Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Anderson, Frank Maloy. Test of the Minnesota Primary

LGUs, sree: wsaverexesissilhsayssatesar eve eidvinta ceo ia bi sr's}esasete Ad aparece pistisralgvasaji le 20:622

Deming, Horace, E. Municipal Nomination Reform.......... 25:203

Annual Report of the Board of Elections of the City of New ‘York for
the year 1916,

Arena. Governor Hughes on Direct Primaries. ......0ceceeeees 41:377
Atlantic Monthly. Woollen, Evan. The Direct Primary miner :
MOINS iisise io a ayahit 8 ace iter What ln 2 salle cra ald cousin sh OdavaetSenahonand:in wrbia ol avarvassieidte 0:4

Beard, Charles Austin. American Government and Politics. New York,

Croce Earl Willis. The Government of Hudson County, New Jersey.
Jersey City, 1915.

Dallinger, Frederick Wi ieee for Elective Office in the United
States, New York,

Direct Primary earaecin of the State of New York. Direct Primary
Nominations: Why Voters Demand Them, Why Bosses Oppose Them.
(Pamphlet) New York, 1909.

Election Laws. Massachusetts, , Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania,
Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, etc.

Election Vouchers. Offices of the county collectors of New Jersey.

Expense Statements of Candidates and Campaign Committees. Offices
of the secretary of state and the county clerks of New Jersey.

Forum, The.

Miller, Joseph Dana, The Failure of the Primary, Direct or
CTU, — one Ree antn e Kaea pO be eee Ewieiee Ngee nelaNe Nis 0:4
Woodruff, Clinton Rogers. Nomination Reform in ‘America. .42:493

Goodnow, Frank Johnson. Politics and Administration. New York, 1900,

Griffin, Anthony J. A Primer on Primaries, Direct and Indirect.
(Pamphlet) New York, 1913.

Guthrie, William D. Nomiating Conventions. (Pamphlet) New York,

Jersey Journal, The. Sewenene Jersey City, N. J.

Laws of New Jersey. 1878-191

. La Follette, Robert M. La Follette’s Autobiography, Madison, 1913.
The Menace of the Machine. Address, University of Chicago, 1897.
Primary Elections for the Nomination of all Candidates by Austral-

ton Ballot. Address, University of Michigan, 1898.

Legislative Manual. New Jersey, 1898-1917.

aon Se Public Opinion and Popular Government, New
or _

Macaulay, Ward. Reclaiming the Ballot. New York, 1916.

Maine, Sir Henry. Popular Government. New York, 1886.

McClure’s Magazine. Hendrick, Burton J. “Statement No. 1. 37:505

Merriam, Charles Edward. Primary Elections. Chicago, 1908.

Meyer, Ernst Christo cpher. Nominating Systems. Ma ison, 1902.

Nation, The. Ball, Allan. The Logic of the Direct Primary... .93:133
The New Jersey Election LAW osc inesanevrs catewes ceaaeeed 92:335

National Conference for Good City Government, Proceedings.
Cheney, Charles Baldwin. Political Organization ond

Primary Legislation in Minnesota. ..ccccleccnscccucnes 1905 :327 ,
Deming, Horace, E. Fundamental Principles Underiying |

the Proposed Municipal Nomination Law....+..+.esse0+ 1904:337
Recent Primary Legislation and Statutory Provisions Regu-

lating Independent Nominations to Public Office........ 1904:328
Political ‘Organization and Ee Legislation in New

VOGR: caveiess:ajsictaiiece nlspsr ait ahase-0ibya sen: araretesaye, ats eiesnte w.seva fase eyecare 1905 :309
Some Dangers ‘of the Control “by Permanent Political

Organizations of the Methods of Nomination to Elective

Municipal Office........ eee RRC aK ERS 1905:347
Corrupt Practices and Electoral Methods........0...00+5 1906 :308
Greeley, Louis M. The Present Status of Direct Nomina-

WOMS, ene cerencesensceeceesaree Babi: aiasatein @! static aun iasavels 1910:328
Guthrie, George W. Right of Every Elector to Free and
Equal Shave in the Selection of Candidates for Elective

untcipal Offices cca ccc ccicvescuss PORES ices cuca ee yosieCanese «1905:351
Hempstead, Ernest A. Use of Political Designations Upon
Oficial Ballots in Connection with the Names of Candt-

Gates. ..ececseee sitacasaiere a aaa to yasiereary Seas es iarale’ +. .1905:361

Jamison, Frank H. A Plan for Separate Elections....... 1906:388
‘Lester, Clarence B. Primary Legislation and Political

Organization in Wisconsin. ....ccs.cees {ak EE Se hee 1906 :329

Maltbie, Milo R. Municipal Political Parties. sve ceecee res «1900:226
Nearing, Scott, and Trowbridge, Lawrence W. Political

Organization and Primary Legislation in Pennsylvania. .1905:293
Set Charles B. Methods of Nomination to Public
ice.

Woodruff, Clinton Rogers. The Unsatisfactory Character
of Present Methods of Nomination to Municipal Elective
OMCE.  acwrvscwaies Aerie eiatarere eaters die hese were «1904366

The Requirements of a Municipal Nominating Law........ 1905:366

National Municipal Review. Pink, Lewis Heaton. Polling Places in
the Schools. Vol. 2, No. 2.
Newark Evening News, The. Newspaper, Newark, N. J.
New Jersey. Assembly Bills, 1900-1910,
teapore of the Commission on the Revision of the Primary and
lection Law, etc., Transmitted by the Governor to the Legis-
lature, 1908.

Report of the Committee (Senate) to Investigate Ballot Conditions
to the Legislative Session of 1908.

Report of the Commission to Revise, etc., the Election Laws, 1917.

Senate Bills, 1900-1910.

New York State, Governor. Bulletin No. 1. Wm. Sulzer.
North American Review. Ford, Henry Jones. The Direct

 
 

Primary ccccevcucuenececavecces PG a DER ARIS WORE SR TRE HE 190:1
Outlook, The. Blair, Emily Newell. Every Man His ‘Own Cam-
paign Manager, .rccccccccccsscnsscereencaneteneeeseeeesaes 973426
Davenport, Frederick M. The Pre-Nomination Campaign,
the Failure of the Presidential Primary......cecseeeees 112:807 -
~~ Roosevelt, Theodore. Governor Hughes, the Legislature and
Primary Reform, v.sccccvescvccveccanes Sie WINS aN eae aa Te -95:507
Pennsylvania, Commission to Revise and Codify Elections Law.
ae Report, 1911, 1913. :
~ Political Science Quarterly. Barnett, James D. Forestalling the
Direct Primary in Oregon... ...0+6 dovpdsn-cctinterwencnate’ S eaveniayecstia 273648
Political Science Review. Ludington, Arthur. The New York
Direct Primaries Bill of 190Q....cscecceccevacees seehaie ienereveise face 3:371
Public Papers of Governor Hughes. . :
Review of Reviews. Bickel, Karl A. The Direct Primary and the
Preferential Method .......+.+.++ tae neeeees errs seeenens 48:597
Bin Kerd, Robert S. The Doom of the Old Machine Con-
VENHON. cv cecsercccrersesncnenceanes peeeeeeeees geen ee 412597
Dunn, Arthur Wallace. The Direct Primary: Promise and,
Peri arronce: oviienaise (Bros nie) Scsa rarer aes resets aiarareta sistas eee Wistar gore 46:439
Sackett, William Edgar. Modern Battles of Trenton, Vol. 2. Trenton,
1914 ‘

Saxe, John G. Saxe on Elections. New York, 1913. ;

Seymour, Charles. Electoral Reform in England and Wales... New
Haven, 1915. : ;

‘South Atlantic Quarterly. Ludington, Arthur. Ballott Laws in the
Southern States. ...-.essseveceeees pees eeeees neg nee eee enecs 9:21

Speakers’ Club. A New Plan for Direct Nominations. (Pamphlet)
New York, 1913. fuk s :

State of Connecticut. Report of the Commission on Laws Relating to
Direct Primaries Made to the General Assembly at Its January

ssion 1909. a oe

gee of New York, Report of the Joint Commission of the Senate
and Assembly Appointed to Investigate the Primary and Election
Laws of This and Other States. Transmitted to the Legislature, 1910.

Statements of the Result of Elections, Filed by the boards of registry
and election in the offices of the county clerks of New Jersey.

Filed by the county boards of canvassers in the offices of the county
clerks of New Jersey. ;

Filed by the state board of canvassers in the office of the secretary of

New Jersey.
Tate William ea. Popular Government. New Haven, 1913,
~ Ten Eyck, John C. The Representative System of Party Government

Versus Mandatory Direct Primaries. (Pamphlet) 1909.

Wisconsin Public Documents. Vol. I. 1901-1904.
VITA

The writer was born in Beaver County; Pennsylva-
nia, October 9, 1887. He graduated from Grove City
high school in 1904. In 1907 he received the Ph. B.
degree from Grove City College; in 1911 the degrees
A. B. and A. M. He has taught in the public schools
Six years, during four of which he was high school
principal at Punxsutawney, Pa. For two years he was
instructor in Fredonia Institute, Fredoma, Pa. He
attended Columbia Umversity for four summer ses-
sions, 1912-1915, received the A.M. degree in 1916,
and was granted a Uniwersity Scholarship for 1916-
1917. Courses were taken under Professors Beard,
McBain, Sait, Powell, Moore and Shotwell, He is at
present employed as an investigator by the New Jersey
State Chamber of Commerce.
itpachoreerntries
bit eeunrteneny

bP test ‘ Aenean

Snail ‘te i eaeetretoh
eae id ect arpa
et

Alena ha
eee aay oh
et RM Maistea cig

ri

ee’

Sees
Seamer

ser oat

aime

tpt slepecursrh
, sh
He Het ne Sh

pea jist r i
Disa at aN 7

ot eh

of
peat:

yay Mar

eu

bike, ON

Sin
an

Ae
$M

;
pra sil eas

oa

; hy aera)
tee eet

fal i iu My)
esta ai ae

Me
nh fer M

a iho
ita nf

en Hy ah ai
Alay te Oita
hel hag
of Or
mM
iit

ane
Hs

ai

he pate
uy

i

Nt Lidia
ih

hi) }
fi hia i i i hee
is