VOL. 39

No. 219

DIE

IRECT-LEGISLATION is the most important issue before the American people. We cannot hope for a just and equitable solution of the great social, industrial and financial problems which confront us until the people regain full control over the powers of government. It is a non-partisan issue. The rule of the people has been championed by prominent men in both of our great national parties, by genuine Repub、 licans as well as by "fundamental by "fundamental Democrats," and it has invariably been opposed by the beneficiaries and defenders of machine-rule, regardless of party lines. The two states which first adopted the initiative and referendum, South Dakota and Oregon, are usually classed as Republican; while Oklahoma, which has just been admitted to the Union with an initiative and referendum provision in its state constitution, has a Democratic governor and legislature. The principle of Direct-Legislation has also received strong support from Prohibitionists, Populists, Socialists, and independents.

In this article it is proposed to summarize the arguments which justify this great popular movement, to review the progress which has already been achieved,

and to give a bird's-eye-view of the situation at the beginning of the year 1908.

Within the past seventy-five years there has been developed in the United States a system of party conventions with party machines and bosse which is extra-constitutional and extilegal. Representative government under party control is a clumsy and ineffective system. In the party platforms there is no separation of issues, and the party machinery does not always work so that the popular will may be enacted into legislation. In the second place, the system easily adapts itself to corrupt practices. When a corporation is seeking special privileges at the public expense it is obviously impossible to attempt to bribe all the voters, but unfortunately it is often a comparatively inexpensive process to buy up a majority of a city council or the leaders of a party convention. It is a notorious fact that party primaries and conventions are often manipulated by the creatures and agents of corporate interests, and that party machines and party bosses are often owned and controlled by trusts and other private interests who use them

PROF. FRANK PARSONS.

to obtain and hold special privileges for which the people are compelled to pay dearly. In this way city councils, state legislatures, and even courts of justice, are often converted into instruments of monopoly and extortion.

These conditions call for a remedy. In theory we have the best government in the world. In practice, since the rise of privileged interests operating through money-controlled machines, our public servants have frequently defeated the ends of good government and trampled on the rights of the people. The great majority of our judges and legislators are personally incorruptible; and yet predatory wealth and corporate greed have usually found a way to gain their ends and to maintain their privileges, while the people have looked on in dumb amazement and despair. In recent years there has been a great civic uprising against political corruption and trustocracy, but our legislative bodies, municipal, state, and national, have not readily responded to the popular demands.

for reform. What is needed is a system which will restore genuine representative government by making our legislative bodies directly responsive to the will of the majority.

The only system which meets this requirement is the Initiative and Referendum. The Referendum is the submission of a measure by the Legislature or other representative body, to the voters for approval or rejection. It is. compulsory when all but emergency measures must be submitted, optional when submission may be demanded by a certain percentage (usually five per cent.) of the voters. The Initiative provides that a certain percentage (usually five or eight) of the voters may propose measures, which are afterwards submitted to a direct ballot of the people. The Referendum gives the people veto power only. The Initiative gives them complete and direct legislative power so far as they choose to exercise it. The object in view is not to abolish the representative system, but to substitute a guarded representative system for an irresponsible one.

As far back as 1778, the people of Massachusetts voted upon a proposed State Constitution. It is not surprising that the states of New England, where the people were accustomed to selfgovernment through town meetings, should be the first to submit constitutional enactments to a direct vote of the people. The example of Massachusetts has been followed by many other states, which have submitted constitutions and constitutional amendments to a refer-. endum vote.

The little republic of Switzerland was the first country in the world to apply the direct-vote system to laws as well as to constitutional amendments, and her experience in direct-legislation has been a

valuable object-lesson to political reformers in other countries. Since 1874 the Swiss people have applied the initiative and referendum to federal as well as local legislation. Several well-known

American publicists, after investigating the workings of the Swiss system, have testified to the excellent results which it has produced, and their testimony has not been successfully called in question by any one. Professor Frank Parsons, after spending several weeks in Switzerland, and interviewing citizens of every walk in life, has recently stated that he "did not find one man who wished to go back to the old plan of final legislation by elected delegates without chance of appeal to the people." He states that the new methods have proved useful in checking corruption and controlling monopoly. that they are "wisely conservative and intelligently progressive," that everything is now fair and honest-"no lobbies, no jobs, no machine legislation."

For the past nine years South Dakota has had an imperfect initiative and referendum provision in her state constitution. Although it has not yet been applied to any great extent in actual legislation, this provision has exerted a favorable influence. Prominent citizens of the state have testified that the adoption of the initiative and referendum has served to prevent chartermongers and railway speculators from pressing their schemes on the legislature. In 1908, three bills of the South Dakota Legislature are to be voted upon under the referendum. One of these bills provides for a game-law, another for greater restriction in the granting of divorces, and the third bill relates to theatrical performances on Sunday.

In Oregon the initiative and referendum have been in operation since 1902, and the system has been applied there in a way to test its merits and general tendencies as they were never before tested in our country. As a result of initiative petitions, several state laws and constitutional amendments were submitted to the voters in the elections of 1904 and 1906. What are the results? In the first place, the popular ballots on these questions indicate very clearly the trend of public opinion on some of the burning

HON. ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE.

questions of the day. The people of Oregon are evidently progressive but not ultra-radical in their political tendencies. For some of the propositions voted upon, there were such overwhelming popular majorities that they will stand for years to come, as an expression of the people's will, which no elected representative or executive official will dare to ignore. In the election of 1906, another significant fact was brought to light. The greatest vote on any question submitted to the people was 83,889, and the lowest, 64,513, while the total vote for governor was 96,715. This is a clear indication that the less intelligent voters had no definite convictions on the questions submitted and merely voted their party ticket for governor and other State officials. In this way they automatically disfranchised themselves on the questions submitted, so that the referendum vote reflected the maximum intelligence of the people of Oregon. The experience of Switzerland, South Dakota, and Oregon is sufficient to justify the statement that

GOVERNOR GEORGE A. CHAMBERLAIN,
Of Oregon.

direct legislation is a beneficial and practical reform.

There are two other states (Montana and Oklahoma) in which the initiative and referendum have been legally established, but in which the system has not yet been practically tested. Nevada has the referendum, but not the initiative. A constitutional amendment for the initiative and the referendum has been adopted by the people of Utah, but the legislature of that state has failed to take action. Texas has the advisory initiative within the parties. Illinois has a Public-Opinion law. Missouri, Maine and North Dakota have recently submitted constitutional amendments for the initiative and referendum. In November, 1906, the people of Delaware, by a vote of eight to one, declared for the advisory initiative and advisory referendum in state affairs. The movement is also making promising headway in other states.

In the present Congress, 114 members of the National House of Representatives, and several United States Senators are

pledged to the establishment of the directvote system.

We have referred to the fact that the Direct-Legislation movement is nonpartisan and is strongly advocated by many of the greatest men of our time, regardless of party affiliations. Space forbids extended citations of views and opinions, but the following extracts from the words of statesmen and publicists will indicate the views of many of the leading thinkers of the hour.

Hon. John Wanamaker of Philadelphia, formerly Postmaster-General, has expressed his sympathy with the movement in these words: "I heartily approve of the idea of giving the people a veto on corrupt legislation. The movement to secure for the people a more direct and immediate control over legislation shall have my support. . . . I am willing to trust public questions to the intelligence and conscience of the people."

Senator Albert J. Hopkins of Illinois said, in 1902: "I do not agree with Alexander Hamilton, that the people cannot be trusted. I think the experience of more than a hundred years under our constitutional form of government has demonstrated beyond all question, that upon all great national issues, the concensus of the opinion of the great mass of the people has proven better than the judgment of a single man or set of men, I care not how eminent they may have been.

"I favor any principle, I care not what it may be called, that will enlarge the power of the people on all questions, state and national, that affect the well-being of the citizens."

Senator R. M. La Follette of Wisconsin says: "In my judgment the public interests would be promoted if a majority of the voters possessed the option of directing by ballot, the action of their representatives on any important issue, under proper regulations, insuring full discussion and mature consideration upon such issue by the voters, prior to balloting thereon."

Senator Jonathan Bourne, Jr., of Oregon said in 1907: "In my humble opinion,