Governor Hay Wants to Appoint, Not Elect, Washington's Officers—This Labor Editor Says No

Mr. Voter, whatever your political lies may be, how do you like to be told that you are not intelligent enough to choose your own state officers? If the press has quoted him correctly this is the latest word from Mr. Hay, the governor. He is quoted as saying that if it should be found advisable to call a special session of the legislature, to act on the investigation of certain state officers, he would urge the passage of an act submitting to the voters of the state a constitutional amendment providing for the appointment of all state officers save the governor and lieutenant-governor. The press dispatch goes on to say that it is believed that Gov. Hay would also be in favor of making the members of the supreme bench appointive. It is argued that the people do not have an opportunity to know the character and qualifications of candidates for state offices and therefore they should be appointive. That they would be taken out of partisan politics and thus men selected for their ability to give the state a business administration.

We believe that municipal, county, and state officers, and the judiciary should be removed from partisanship but must the inherent right of the people to choose their own public servants be taken away from them to bring that about? Would not a blanket ballot at the primary election, for those offices, do the business? Ninety per cent of the voters were satisfied with this method used last year to elect our judiciary, why then should it not be extended to these state offices if it is necessary to remove them from political partisanship, and leave the right of choice where it belongs. With the people—the late legislature treacherously betrayed the people in returning the nomination of our supreme court judges back to the old party convention system, with all its power of boss, domination and corporate manipulation. Why did not Gov. Hay veto that act, if he believed in an incorruptible judiciary? They bound every voter to the strictest party lines by passing the new 'party registration act.' If partisanship is such a bad thing why did that receive the official sanction of the governor's signature? And this proposal means one of two things: either the voters are too ignorant to be allowed the franchise, only in the most limited manner, or else party lines must be eliminated in filling the state offices in order that we may have an efficient, business administration. Does Gov. Hay dare to tell us to our faces that the first mentioned is true?

We have not forgotten who were loudest in praising the direct primary law. In shouting from the house tops that by its provisions government would revert back to the common people and the day of political machine rule was nearing its end. Was this all buncombe on their part?

Do you know, dear reader, that an appointive supreme bench and cabinet of state officials would be mighty near to being an automatic dynasty? Have we not heard enough about the pernicious political activity of minor state appointors in days gone by to warrant us being fearful of the entire official roster of the state government under the domination of one man. They may spill barrels of printer's ink and slop over about a business administration, but this change is dire with possibilities of a political machine, a slate ring, if you please, such as has never been seen before in our political history as a commonwealth. It is notorious that appointive officers who must reckon with but one man, the one to whom they owe their appointment, grow arrogant towards those who have no power to punish them.

It is true that we often make mistakes, grave ones, too, in our choice of public servants. We must prefer, however, to be able to rectify our mistakes through the use of the ballot than to relegate to any one man the power of arbitrary appointment or removal.

There is a determined resolve on the part of a certain political clique in this state to break down the whole primary election system. The first step was taken when the nomination of supreme court judges was taken out of the law. Does Gov. Hay propose to further this deliberate scheme by his plan for appointment of state officers instead of electing them? It is but a step further to eliminate the members of the legislature from the direct primary law, and 'twill surely follow as the night the day.

It is an open secret that corporate interests which feared Judge Humphries' ultimate election to the Supreme bench used all its influence to secure the amendment to the law taking the nomination of the judiciary away from the people. They did not hesitate to insult a whole electorate to encompass the political defeat of one man.

Certain officials of this state are under investigation for alleged dereliction in the discharge of their duties. We have no desire to defend them or excuse them. If they are proven to be guilty, they should be punished. But is it just or manly to insult the intelligence of the electors of this state because they may have been unwise in their choice of one or two men? Gov. Hay has been relentless in this investigation and has apparently constituted himself judge and jury. That is neither here nor there, however. Because certain officials may have betrayed their trust, is no reason why we should give up our right of choosing our public officials and accept in its place a dictatorship. The matter comes with poor grace from one who owes his own election to the will of the people expressed through the primary election law.