Full text of Statements and Speeches of Robert L. Owen : The Initiative and Referendum: What They Are, Where They are in Use, How They Work : Presented in the Senate of the United States

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
WHAT THEY ARE
WHERE THEY ARE IN USE
HOW THEY WORK

PRESENTED

HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
OF O K LA H O M A

S E N A T E OF T H E U N IT E D STATES

OCTOBER 8, 1914

W A SH IN G T O N
G O VER N M EN T PR IN T IN G OFFICE
1914

cr.122— 14187

T







PRESENTED
BY

H O H.

KOBEET

L.

OWEN.

TH E INITIATIVE- AND REFERENDUM.

Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I ask permission to insert in the
R ecord a memorandum relating to the initiative and referen­
dum, explaining what it is. where it is in use, and how it works.
The VICE PRESIDENT. There being no objection, the re­
quest of the Senator from Oklahoma is granted.
The matter referred to is as follows:
T h e I n it ia t iv e a nd R e f e r e n d u m — W h a t I t I s — W h e r e It I s in
U se— H ow I t W o r k s.

W hat Is direct legislation?
Direct legislation is the right of the people to enact or reject laws
by their votes at the polls, just as they now vote upon candidates or
constitutional amendments. It is exercised through the initiative and
referendum.
W hat is the “ initiative ” ?
The initiative is a method by which the people can propose a law or
constitutional amendment by petition.
The petition is tiled with the
secretary of state four months prior to a general election, and sub­
mitted by him to the voters at the ensuing election. If a majority of
the voters voting on the question vote “ yes,” the law is enacted and
goes into operation. If a m ajority vote “ no,” it is rejected. Exam ple:
The people of Maine for years demanded a direct primary law.
The
legislature refused to pass it. An initiative petition, signed by 12,000
voters, was filed. The law was submitted at the general election of 1911
and adopted by a vote of 65,810 to 21,774. It has since been in opera­
tion.
W hat is the “ referendum ” ?
The referendum is a method by which the people may reject at the
polls acts of the legislature which do not suit them. A petition against
a law must be filed within 90 days alter the legislature adjourns. The
law is then suspended and a vote is taken upon it at the next general
election.
If a m ajority vote “ no,” the law is vetoed ; if “ yes,” the
legislature is sustained.
E xam ple: The Legislature of South Dakota
passed a State militia bill.
It was opposed because it put an added
heavy expense on the taxpayers and because the people were against
militarism.
A referendum petition was tiled, the bill was suspended
from operation, and rejected at the general election of 1910 by a vote
of 5 7,440 “ no ” to 17,854 “ yes.” And so the law was “ vetoed ” by
the people.
Are the initiative and referendum “ new ” and “ revolutionary ” doc­
trines ?
No. From the beginning of our Government, the Amenlean people
have retained the right to vote on certain questions, such as State
constitutions, bond issues, city charters, location of State and county
seats of government, boundary lines, local option, etc. Also they have
voted on amendments to State constitutions, city charters, and occa­
sional laws, but only when the legislature would permit them.
The
initiative and referendum g i t e ' the people the power to vote on any
measure they desire and when they want to, without the permission of
the legislature.
How large petitions are required?
Eight per cent of the voters of a State are usually required on
Initiafive petitions and 5 per cent upon referendum petitions. A better
system is to require a flat number of signatures. The splendid amend­
ment pending in Mississippi requires 7,500 qualified voters upon initia­
tive petitions and 6,000 for the referendum. Maine requires 12,000 for
the initiative and 10,000 for the referendum. One man In convention
or legislature can make a motion and 10,000 citizens combined should
not be denied this right.

65122— 14187

3
W hy do we need the initiative and referendum?
“ The methods of our legislatures make the operations of political
machines easy, for very little of our legislation is formed and effected
by open debate upon the floor. Alm ost all of it is framed in lawyers’
offices, discussed in committee rooms, and passed without debate. Bills
that the machine aud its hackers do not desire are smothered iu com­
mittee ; measures which they do desire are brought out and hurried
through their passage.
It happens again and again that great groups
of such hills are rushed through in the hurried hours that mark the
close of the legislative sessions, when every one's vigilance is weakened
by fatigue and when it is possible to do secret things.
* “ When we stand in the presence of these things and see how com­
plete and sinister their operation has been, we cry out with no little
truth that we no longer have representative government.
* *
*
“ If we felt that we had genuine representative government in our
State legislatures no one would propose the initiative and referendum in
America
They are being proposed now as a means of bringing our
representatives back to the consciousness that what they are bound in
duty and in mere policy to do is to represent the sovereign people
whom they profess to serve, and not the private interests which creep
into thijir counsels by way of machine orders and committee con­
ferences.
* *
*
“ It must be remembered by every candid man who discusses these
matters that we are contrasting the operation of the initiative and
referendum not with the representative government which we have in
theory, but with the actual state of affairs.” — (President Woodrow W il­
son, in an address at Kansas City, May 5, 1011.)
W ho favor and who oppose direct legislation?
The men of every political party who believe in the American doc­
trine of government by the people are favorable. It has been adopted
in the platforms of all political parties at various times and places.
Organizations of the producing classes, such as farm and labor organi­
zations, reform organizations, etc., are especially strong for it. It is
strenuously— but often secretly— opposed by all reactionary politicians,
all the big trusts and corporations, nearly all the corporation lawyers,
and every corrupt political boss in the United States.
This is the
line-up.
Where are they in operation?
In many States and in a large number of cities throughout the
Nation. The following is a table of the 17 States in which initiative
and referendum amendments to the State constitutions have been sub­
mitted by the legislatures and adopted by the people:
[From Bulletin No. 1, issued by the bureau of information of the Na­
tional Popular Government League.
Compiled by Judson King, ex­
ecutive secretary, Washington, D. C.]
Popular vote on
amendment.
Date of
adoption.

State.
For.

189S
1 9 0 0 .............
1902
1 9 0 5 ...
1 9 1 2 ..............
1 906 .
1 9 0 7 ...
1 9 0 8 ..............
1 9 0 8 ..............
1 9 1 0 ..............
1 9 1 0 ..............
1 9 1 1 ..............
1911
1912 .
1912
1912 .
1912. .
1 9 1 3 ...

Utah i ...................................................

Washington.........................................
Idaho1..................................................

2 3 ,8 1 6
1 9 ,2 1 9
6 2 ,0 2 4
4 ,3 9 3
9 ,9 5 6
3 6 ,3 7 4
1 8 0 ,3 8 3
5 1 ,9 9 1
17?;615
91 > 6 3
8 9 ,141
1 2 ,5 3 4
13& 181
1 8 9 ,2 0 0
1 1 0 ,1 1 0
4 3 ,6 5 8
3 1 2 ,5 9 2
2 1 9 ,3S8

Character of
amendment.

Against.

1 6 ,4 8 3
7 ,7 8 6
5 ,6 8 8
792
1 ,0 2 7
6 ,6 1 6
7 3 ,0 5 9
2 3 ,7 1 2
1 4 7 ,2 9 0
3 9 ,6 8 0
2 8 ,6 9 8
3 ,9 2 0
4 4 ,8 5 0
1 5 ,3 1 5
4 3 ,9 0 5
1 3 ,4 9 0
2 3 1 ,3 1 2
152 ,0 3 8

Defective.
Worthless.
Excellent.
Defective.
Good.
Defective.
Do.
Do.
Good.
Do.
Do.
Excellent.
Do.
Defective.
Do.
Worthless.
Fair.
Gool.

1 Amendment not self-executing; legislature has refused to pass an enabling act,
hence people havo never been able to use it.
1Referendum only; initiative added.

C5122— 14187







Is the movement growing?
Y e s ; and rapidly. Initiative and referendum amendments will be
voted upon at the general election November 3, 1914, in the States of
Mississippi, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Texas, and Maryland.
It is a live political issue in nearly every other State.
B RY AN

FOR T H E

M IS S IS S IP P I

AM E N D M E N T .

Hon. W illiam Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State, has written a let­
ter indorsing the Mississippi amendment and urging its adoption. It
shows his attitude upon the initiative and referendum. He says, in
p a rt:
“ I am gratified to learn that the Legislature of Mississippi at its last
session submitted a constitutional amendment providing for the initia­
tive and referendum. I have examined the amendment and believe it
to be one of the best submitted. As you know, I have for a number of
years been an active advocate of the initiative and referendum. W e
put it in our State platform in Nebraska 18 years ago, and since that
time I have spoken for it in many States.
A DEM O CR ATIC P R IN C IP L E .

“ The principles underlying the initiative and referendum are so
democratic that these reforms are sure to commend themselves to the
Democratic Party.
It is commending itself, too, to a large majority of
the Republican Party, who at heart have faith in the capacity of the
people for self-government. There are only two objections that can lie
honestly made to the initiative and referendum. One is the aristo­
cratic objection, which is based upon the lack of confidence in the masses,
and the other the plutocratic, which is based upon the idea that the
masses can not be trusted to deal justly with property interests.
T H E P E O rr.E CAN HE TRU STED .

“ Both of these objections are groundless. The masses have proven,
wherever given an opportunity, their ability to deal with questions of
government. The aristocratic idea of representative government is that
the people themselves are not intelligent enough to decide public ques­
tions, but should select a few superior men to think.for them and act
for them. This reasonin') is, of course, fallacious as well as undemo­
cratic. The people can act more in te llig e n tly upon ■
' reform
of government than then can upon an individual, because theg can. un­
derstand a proposed reform better than then can a p erson ; and then,
too, a proposed reform docs not change after the election, tchilc the
individual may.
T H E P LU T O C RAT S ARE WRONG.

“ The plutocratic argument against the initiative and referendum is
equally unsound. The people are conservative; they can be trusted
not to violate the rights of property. Experience will show that viola­
tions of property rights are more often traceable to the avarice of those
who are able to obtain a monopoly than to the masses, who can have no
selfish interest in the doing of injustice.
T H E DANGER FROM NEGLECT.

“ I have no doubt that a m ajority of those who vote upon the pro­
posed amendment will vote for i t ; the only danger In Mississippi is the
danger that the friends of the initiative and referendum had to en­
counter in Arkansas, namely, the failure to vote.
Your constitution
requires that the amendment shall receive not merely a majority of
the votes cast upon that subject but a majority of all votes cast at that
election, and experience shows that a great many people fail to vote on
amendments unless an active campaign is waged to bring the amend­
ment clearly to the attention of the people.
I hope, therefore, that
those in favor of the initiative and referendum will see to it that
every voter Is reminded of the fact that the amendment is to be acted
upon, so that it will not be lost by failure of some of the voters to
express themselves on this particular subject.
“ I regard the initiative and referendum as the greatest modern im­
provement in the strengthening of representative government.”
SENATOR

LA

F O L L E T T E URGES ADOPTION OF T H E
REFERENDUM IN W IS C O N S IN .

IN IT IA T IV E

AND

United States Senator I . a F oi . l e t t e , of Wisconsin, Is a distinguished
champion of popular government. In urging the adoption of the pend­
ing amendment in his own State he s a y s ;

65122— 14187

5
“ For years the American people have been engaged in a terrific
struggle with the allied forces of organized wealth and political corrup­
tion. Battles have been won and lost. The unequal contest goes on.
The lesson is obvious. The people must have in reserve new weapons
for every emergency if they are to regain and preserve control of their
Government.
“ The forces of special privilege are deeply intrenched.
Their re­
sources are inexhaustible.
Their efforts never relax.
Their political
methods are insidious. It is impossible for the people to maintain per­
fect organization in mass.
They are often taken unawares and are
liable to lose at one stroke the achievements of years of effort. In such,
a crisis nothing but the united power of the people expressed directly
through the ballot can overcome the enemy.
“ Through the initiative, referendum, and recall the people in any
emergency can absolutely control. The initiative and referendum make
it possible for them to demand a direct vote and repeal bad laws which
have been enacted, or to enact by direct vote good measures which their
representatives refuse to consider.
The recall enables the people to
dismiss from public service those representatives who dishonor their
commissions by betraying the public interest.
These measures will
prove so effective a check against unworthy representatives that it will
rarely be found necessary to invoke them.
“ If there is a State in this Nation in which the people are capable
of deciding questions for themselves, it is Wisconsin. W e should adopt
the initiative, referendum, and recall by an overwhelming vote on
November 3.”
How has direct legislation worked in the States where it has been
• tried ?
It has worked well.
Although reactionary politicians in these
States would be delighted to have the initiative and referendum abol­
ished, they do not dare to start a movement for their repeal. They
know it would spell their political death, because the people believe
in the initiative and referendum and value it highly, especially after
they have used it a few years.
The experience of all these States
can be summed up in a recent statement by Mr. W illiam Spence, master
of the farmers State Grange of Oregon, in which he said :
“ The cow.non people of Oregon xcoutd not give up the referendum.
Ii has (lone loo much good. Ao one fights against it here hut the cor­
porations and grafting politicians it has put out of a job.”
The corporation newspapers and lawyers are trying to convince the
people of other States that the initiative and referendum have failed
where tried.
W hat hurts them is that the people are using their
power for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the interests. The
Government is passing from the hands of the bosses into the hands of
the people. The bosses do not like it and that is the whole story in
a nutshell.
W as not this Nation founded upon the principle of “ representative
government,” and is not the initiative and referendum in conflict with
that principle?
Former Senator Joseph W . Bailey, of Texas, made this contention
the chief basis of an attack upon initiative and referendum at the
time he retired from the United States Senate, and it is being widely
used by reactionaries throughout the Nation.
Senator Bailey’s argu­
ment was completely annihilated by Senator R obebt L. O w e n , of Okla­
homa, in reply to Bailey. Here is a quotation :
“ This ltepublic was not founded on any so-called ‘representative
principle.’ The representative is merely a convenience, a servant, an
agency, subject of right to the direct control of the people.
“ This Republic was founded on the principle that the people were
sovereign and had a right, if they pleased, to manage their business
directly, a God-given right, vested in them, inalienable and indefeasible,
and directly to alter, amend, or abolish any law.
Every State con­
stitution declares and exemplifies this fundamental principle.
Every
State constitution, except one, was established by the direct lawmaking
power of the people.
“ The option to use the initiative and referendum is not in conflict
with the present convenient system of legislating through representa­
tives, but is in harmony with that system and makes it more repre­
sentative, not less representative.”
L N o t e . — Senator O w e n ’ s complete speech entitled “ Peoples Rule v.
Boss R u le ” can be had upon application to the National Popular Gov­
ernment League, Washington, L). C.]

05122— 14187







A

n sw er s to

O b je c t io n s .

The following are the most familiar objections made to the establish­
ment of the initiative and referendum and answers by eminent public
men.
i. t h e p e o p l e a r e n o t i n t e l l i g e n t e n o u g h t o v o t e u p o n l a w s .

“ The alleged ignorance of the people has been urged in all ages
against progress in government.
It was the chief argument made
against the establishment of the American Republic.
Some ultraconservative people may honestly believe the people are incompetent,
but the objection is usually made by those who fear the intelligence, not
the ignorance, of the people.
“ The judgment of a whole State, expressed at the ballot box, after
full discussion and opportunity for information, which the State should
furnish, is about the safest guide in the affairs of government I know of.
“ Our whole system of government assumes the capacity of the peo­
ple to judge the worth of legislative acts.
W e elect men upon the
measures they advocate or oppose. W e reelect them or not, as we think
the measures they have enacted good or bad.
Is it not absurd, then,
to hold that the people have brains enough to vote upon the men but
not intelligence enough to vote upon the measures themselves, printed
in black and w hite?
I confess it is a mystery to me how some men
can conceive the people to be ‘ intelligent citizens ’ just before election
and ‘ an irresponsible m o b ’ immediately after election.”
(lio n . G eorge
W . N o r r is , United States Senator from Nebraska.)
I I. W H A T IS T H E U SE 0 1 ' T H E L EG ISL AT U RE IF T H E PEO PLE ARE TO ENACT
LAW S?
V

“ The initiative and referendum do not abolish the legislature or the
need for one. They are called into action only in emergencies, when
the legislature fails to accomplish the will of the people, and usually
upon important questions.
Since the initiative and referendum were
established in Oregon over 98 per cent of the laws have been enacted
by the legislature.
In other States the percentage is higher than
this.”
(Hon. R o b e r t C r o s s e r , Congressman at large from Ohio and
author of the Ohio provision for the initiative and referendum.)
i n . T H E R E WOULD BE TOO M A N ! E L E C T IO N S , AND T H E COST WOULD B A N K ­
RU PT T H E ST AT E.

“ Men making this objection are either misinformed or w illfully m is­
stating the truth.
All initiative and referendum provisions require
that questions submitted to the people through popular petition should
be voted upon at the regular general elections.
Special elections can
only be held on questions of immediate moment and magnitude, and
then only when especially ordered by the State legislature or by the
governor, as may be provided by law.
In 11 years the initiative and
referendum has cost the people of Oregon but a few cents apiece.”
(Hon. Moses E. Clapp, United States Senator from Minnesota.)
IV .

THERE

WOULD

BE TOO M A N Y Q U E ST IO N S ON T H E
PEO PLE WOULD BECOM E CO NFU SED .

B A L L O T,

AND

THE

“ In the last three elections, due largely to the failure of the legis­
lature to carry out the will of the people, a relatively large number of
questions have been submitted in Oregon through the initiative and
referendum.
Political experts have been astonished at the ease and
intelligence with which the voters dispose of these questions. The citi­
zens of Oregon are not worried, but there seems to be great alarm among
eastern newspaper editors lest the minds of our people be overstrained.
I fear that the fact that we are voting on vital issues, which certain
people would not like to see raised, is what troubles some. The people
of Oregon consider that they are as capable of deciding on 30 measures
with 4 months’ preparation and more as the legislature is on 824 meas­
ures in 40 days.
(W illiam S. U ’ Ren, father of the “ Oregon svstem.” )
“ Up to 1912, 11 States have secured working State-wide initiative
and referendum amendments— 6 good ones, the others limited or de­
fective.
From 1898, to and including 1912 election, there were voted
upon in those States a total of 176 initiative and referendum measures,
placed on the ballot by petition, as shown by the following ta b le :
651 2 2 — 14187

[From Bulletin No. 4, issued by the bureau of information of the Na­
tional Popular Government League.
Compiled by Judson King, ex­
ecutive secretary, W ashington, I). C.]
Number oi measures voted on in
election of—
Adopted.

1898..............
1902..............
1 905 .,..........
1906..............
1907..............
1908..............
1908..............
1910..............
1910..............
1911..............
1911..............

State.

Total.
1904

1906

1908

1910

2

11

4
15
1

6
27

4
31

1

7

5
4

South Dakota1..............
Oregon............................
Nevada2.........................
Montana.........................
Oklahoma.........................

2

11

21

2
3

45

1911

1912

14
86
1

5
12

3

5

1

1
7
26
9
6

5
7
26
9
6

1

96

176

1 N o n e from 1898 to 1908.

2 Had referendum only.
cluded.
V.

Amendments and laws submitted by legislature not in­
TH E SYSTEM

IS TOO E X P E N S IV E .

“ The most expensive government in the world is that managed by a
privileged few. The loss democratic the more costly— witness Russia or
the frightful squandering of the public funds in 'States controlled by
political machines. The referendum is the greatest foe to extravagance
in public affairs known— witness the results in Oregon, South Dakota,
Montana, and other States. Since measures are ordinarily submiLed at
general elections the added cost is but slight. If the State adopts the
expensive and inefficient system of publishing pending measures in news­
papers, this cost will be quite heavy, but if they adopt the Oregon,
Arizona, and California plan of sending a pamphlet to the voters the
expenses will be but a few thousand dollars for the entire State and
the education of the voters by this means is worth a thousand times
more than it cosis.”
(lio n . Carl Scliurz Vrooman, Assistant Secretary
of Agriculture.)
<
>
V I. IIO W W IL L T H E PEO PLE BE IN FO RM E D SO A S TO VOTE IN T E L L IG E N T L Y
ON PEN D IN G Q U E S T IO N S ? ' I!Y PU B L IC IT Y P A M P H L E T S ISSU E D BY T H E
ST A T E TO EAC H C IT IZ E N .
.

“ The problem of educating voters upon questions submitted under
the initiative and referendum has been solved in California by having
the secretary of state send to the voters through the mails a little pam­
phlet containing copies' of the proposed laws, a reprint of the ballot
title, and also with explanatory arguments for and against each meas­
ure. In Oregon the system also includes the right of citizens or organi­
zation to present arguments, they paying the exact cost of the space
taken. These pamphlets are read and studied by an unexpectedly large
proportion of our citizens and who are thereby enabled to vote intelli­
gently. I consider the pamphlet system of great importance, as it is far
better and cheaper than newspaper advertising.”
(Dr. John Randolph
Haynes, Los Angeles, father o f direct legislation in California.)
V II.

IF

WE

H A V E D IR E C T L E G IS L A T IO N , T lI E COLORED PEO PLE
E IG N ER S W IL L CONTROL ,'P llE GOVERN M EN T.

AND

FOR­

“ During our campaign for the initiative and referendum in Arkansas
in 1910 every conceivable argument calculated to frighten the voters
into rejecting these people's rule measures was brought against us by
the reactionary few.
“ W e were told that ‘ legalized an archy’ would follow its adoption;
that there would a ‘ French RevolutionY; that we would ‘ lapse into
barbarism ’ ; and as a crowning absurdity we were warned that with the
initiative and referendum * the State would be controlled bv negroes.*
My answer to this tirade was, and is now, that this Is a white mart’ s
country and white men will continue to govern it, and that what the
65122— 14187







8
predatory corporations, their lawyers, and politicians feared was the
white people's intelligence and not the negros ignorance. Also that it
was foolish to talk about anarchy unless a majority of the people were
anarchists, since nothing could be done to which a majority of the
voters did not agree and that it was an insult to call the voters anarch­
ists.''
(Mon. George W . Donaghey, former governor of Arkansas.)
The way to handle that portion of the “ foreign vote ” which can be
purchased, or any other class of purchasable voters, is' the cnaciment
of a stringent corrupt-practices act which will put in jail the men who
try to bribe them. As a matter of fact, election returns show that the
ignorant and careless voters of any class do not vote upon initiative and
referendum questions. It requires too much intelligence.
THE DANGER FROM “ JOKERS.”

To work successfully, initiative and referendum provisions must he
drawn with exceeding care.
The people of Oregon have accomplished
great results, because they have the best system produced to 1012
California and Arizona are also good. The chief “ jokers ” and so-eailed
“ safeguards and restrictions ” which destroy the efficiency of the
“ initiative and referendum ” are as follows :
First. To require a large number of signatures to petitions or put
hampering restrictions upon the people in securing them.
Second. To insert a clause which permits the legislature to deny the
people the right of a referendum on anything the legislature declares
to call an “ emergency.”
Third. To deny the right of referendum upon all appropriations.
Fourth. To deny the right of the people to initiate an amendment to
the State constitution.
Fifth. To require a majority of the votes cast for candidates “ in. ttie
election ” as necessary to enact measures instead of a majority of the
vote cast “ on the question.”
Sixth. To require pending measures to be advertised only in news­
papers.
This is frightfully expensive and inadequate. The pamphlet
system is the only cheap and effective plan.
WHERE TO GET INFORMATION.

The National Popular Government League, a nonpartisan organiza­
tion, maintains a bureau of information upon every phase of the initia­
tive, referendum, recall, and other measures designed to place more
political power in the hands of the people.
Address Judson King, executive secretary, 1017 the Munsey Build­
ing, Washington, D. C.
G o l2 2 — 1 4 1 8 7

o