With the disclosures of the recent primary campaign expenditures in Pennsylvania and Illinois, and the use of the primary by a candidate not in sympathy with the party, there has been brought into the public eye an important and nice question. Should the direct primary be retained as it is; should it be modified; or, finally, should it be abolished altogether?

In Pennsylvania, as is well-known, immense sums were spent in the last primary by the Candidates, although it is of interest to note that the greatest sum expended failed to obtain the election. In Illinois a somewhat different slant was given to the matter, since the expenses of the two opposing candidates came from the same source, that is, the so-called erection interests. In this way, whoever won the election, the traction interests, so to speak, came out on top.

There were no direct charges made by the committees which investigated the affairs, and the entire matter has been largely hushed up. In fact in Illinois the investigation seems to have been deliberately called off.

In view of such practices entering into the primary campaigns. It is in evitable that there should be a great deal of interest, and some agitation in favor of abolishing the direct primary altogether. The difficulty arises in finding a substitute, since the caucus seems to be equally bad if not worse.

This most interesting question will be the subject of a lecture entitled "The Direct Primary in the States", to be given at 11 o'clock this morning in Sever 8 by Professor Hanford in his course Government 9a.