The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
PEOPLE’S RULE VERSUS BOSS RULE This Republic 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 constitu tion declares and exemplifies this fundamental principle. Every State constitution, except one, was established by the direct law-making 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. REMARKS OF OF OKLAHOM A IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 3 , 1913 W A SH IN G T O N GO VER N M EN T PR IN TIN G O FFICE 1913 REMARKS OP HON. EOBEET L. OWEN. On Senate resolution 413. declaring that such a system of direct legis lation as the initiative and referendum would establish is in conflict with the representative principle upon which this Republic was estab lished. Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, the greatest duty o f government is to make effective the primary principle of the Declaration o f Independence; to secure to the people, and to all the people, the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This inalienable right with which the people were “ endowed by the Creator ” has been purloined from millions to the benefit of the few through a series o f political, commercial, and finan cial monopolies slowly built up during the last 75 years. This system has diverted the proceeds o f the labor of millions to the coffers o f the few, until in spite of the wonderful modern inventions of this age, which pours out a stupendous flood of material things which men desire, we see a thousand millions o f dollars of wealth in the hands o f a single man and millions of human beings, willing and anxious to do honest labor, with out the certainty of food and shelter to-morrow. The unrestricted right to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is thus denied millions, and the duty o f the Govern ment to make effective the fundamental doctrine of the Republic as yet remains unperformed. I deem it my duty to call the attention of the United States Senate and the attention of the country to the cause and the remedy of this serious condition. I make no complaint of a class, emphatically no complaint of a rich class, nor do I com plain o f the past. I am exclusively concerned with the imme diate future welfare of men," women, and children. THE CAU SE. The cause is this: Hie people's-rule party Government under Jefferson has been in past years (from 1844 to 1908) steadily, if not stealthily undermined and replaced by the machine-rule party government. In place of the people’s rule the machine rule," financed and engineered by special interests, has placed in power on a vast scale in legislative, administrative, and judicial positions machine-rule representatives—in municipalities. States, and Nation. The rule of the few was thus established. The people have .voted, but they have not really ruled. The rule o f the few, consciously or unconsciously, has been too largely for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. The few have established all-pervading commercial and finan cial monopolies; destroyed all competitive markets in selling and buying; limited production on a giant scale, and deliberately 9 84132— 11872 3 ns n policy, thus limitin'; the employment of labor; manufac tured watered stocks and bonds by billions of value, on which the people have been compelled to pay interest; squeezed and expanded the credit market, damaging millions, that a few might absorb values; and have compelled the laboring millions to compete under harsh conditions with each other, until mil lions of women and children have been driven from the Amer ican home into the labor market, and millions of children as well as women and men have been denied the reasonable oppor tunities of “ life, liberty, and the pursuit o f happiness.” Machine-made representatives in legislative, executive, and judicial position have granted and protected privilege to the few at the expense of the many until we are face to face with the most tremendous extremes of wealth and poverty the world has ever known. The cause has been machine-rule party government in collu sion with corrupt commercial and financial allies governing for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, at the expense of all of the people, at the expense of the real producers of wealth. There are two very different kinds of “ representatives ” in the governing business. The machine-rule party government representatives who take the point o f view favorable to privi lege and to the few, and the people’s-rule party government representatives who take the point of view favorable to equal rights to all, favorable to the great mass of men who labor as artisans, workers in shop, field, forest, and mine, as professional men or in transportation or in other human activities. I do not trouble myself to question the motives of men; I am concerned with the effect of the actions of men. TH E EEM ED T. The remedy is to restore people’s-rule party government and, provide a mechanism by which the intelligence and patriotism of the mass of men can control party government and can con trol the actual direct government by people’s-rule representa tives in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. The statutes necessary to this end are— First. A thoroughgoing honest registration act. Second. A thoroughgoing direct mandatory primary act. Third. Honest election laws and machinery. Fourth. A thoroughgoing corrupt-practices prevention act. Fifth. The initiative, referendum, and recall; and the most important of all these acts is the initiative and referendum, which is the oi>en door to all other reforms. Above all the initiative and referendum offers the line of least resistance in obtaining reform for the reason that no candidate before the people dares refuse the people the right of the initia tive and referendum where the demand is vigorously insisted on. In its entire history the Senate has never had a more impor tant question before it. It is the duty of the Senate to throw the weight of its influence on the right side. And I feel entirely justified in calling the attention of the Senate and of the country to the urgent, vital importance of this issue and to defend it against the unjust assaults of its enemies. Whatever I may say in regard to the matter must be re garded as entirely impersonal, as I fully concede the right of 841 3 2 — 1 1 8 7 - others to differ with me and shall carefully abstain from at tributing: to other Senators any unpatriotic motive in promoting their political philosophy, however mischievous and disastrous I may think the effects of such doctrines would be if they should be adopted. Mr. President, on January 2, 1912, a then Senator from Texas [Mr. Bailey] delivered an address of three hours in the Senate in an attempt to show th a t,“ such a system o f direct legisla tion ” as “ the initiative and referendum ” would establish would be in conllict with “ the representative principle ” on which he alleged “ this Republic was founded.” This speech, on February 4, 1913 (C ongressional R ecord, p. 25G9), was offered to be printed as a Senate document. In order to make this deliberate assault on the principles of popular government the then Senator raised a moot question by submitting and speaking to the following resolution: Senate resolution 413. Resolved, That such a system of direct legislation as the initiative and referendum would establish is in conflict with the representative principle on which this Republic was founded and would, if adopted, inevitably work a radical change in the character and structure of our Government. No action was requested on this resolution. It is obvious that this speech, offered to be printed as a Senate document, was intended to be used as a campaign document by those who oppose popular governmeut and the initiative and referendum, which is the open door to real popular government. This op position to popular government has recently prepared numerous speeches which have been printed as Senate documents for the campaign against the people’s rule, some of which I shall men tion. For example: 1. An address delivered by Mr. Lodge (Senator from Massa chusetts) at Raleigh, N. C., November 28, 1911, on “ The Con stitution and its makers,” and presented to the United States Senate by a Senator from North Carolina [Mr. O verman ], with the request that it be printed as a Senate document. (S. Doc. No. 122.) 2. An address delivered by Hon. E lihu R oot at the annual meeting of the New York Bar Association in New York City on January 19, 1912, entitled “ Judicial decisions and public feeling,” presented by a Senator from Utah [Mr. Sutherland], with the request that it be printed as a Senate document, Janu ary 2, 1912. (S. Doc. No. 271.) 3. An address delivered by Mr. Nicholas Murray Butler, presi dent of the Columbia University, late Republican vice presi dential candidate before electoral college, before the Commercial Club of St. Louis, November 27, 1911, entitled “ Why should we change our form of government,” presented by a Senator from Utah [Mr. Sutherland] on January 3, 1912, with the request that it be printed as a Senate document. (S. Doc. No. 238.) 4. An address delivered by Hon. Samuel W. McCall, a Mem ber o f Congress from Massachusetts, before the Ohio State Bar Association, on July 12,1911, entitled “ Representative as against direct government,” presented by a Senator from Michigan [Mr. S m ith ] to the United States Senate, with the request that it be printed as a Senate document, January 23, 1912. (S. Doc. No. 273.) 5. An address delivered by Hon. Emmett O'Neal, governor of Alabama, at the one hundred and forty-third annual banquet of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York at the Waldorf, November 16, 1911, entitled “ Representative govern ment and the common law—A study of the initiative and refer endum,” presented to the Senate by a Senator from Texas [Mr. Bailey], with the request that it be printed as a Senate docu ment, January 3, 1912. (S. Doc. No. 246.) G. An address by President Taft to the general court of the Legislature of Massachusetts, at Boston. Mass.. March IS, 1912. against giving the people direct power, presented to the United States Senate by a Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gal linger] with a request that it be printed as a Senate document, March 22. 3912. (S. Doc. No. 451.) 7. An address by Mr. Wendell Phillips Stafford (an Associate Justice o f the Supreme Court o f the District of Columbia), before the New York County Lawyers’ Association, February 17, 1912, entitled “ The new despotism,” referring to the despotism of a majority of the citizens in the several States and in the United States over the minority, presented by a Senator from Utah [Mr. Sutherland] to the United States Senate, with the request that it be printed as a Senate document. (S. Doc. No. 344.) S. An address delivered in the United States Senate by a Senator from Utah [Mr. Sutherland]. July 11. 1911. entitled “ Government by ballot,” denouncing the initiative, referendum, and recall (the principles of the constitution of Utah). (Senate document room.) 9. An address by lion. William H. Taft (President o f the United States) at Toledo, Ohio, on March S, 1912. entitled “ The judiciary and progress,” opposing the recall and the ex tension of popular government, presented to the United States Senate by a Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Oliver], with the request that it be printed as a Senate document, March 13, 1912. (S. Doc. No. 40S.) 10. An address by Hon. H enry Cabot Lodge fa United States Senator from Massachusetts), delivered at Princeton Univer sity, March S, 1912, entitled “ The compulsory initiative and referendum and the recall of judges,” presented to the United States Senate by a Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gallinger], with the request that it be printed as a Senate docu ment. (S. Doc. No. 406.) 11. An address by a Senator from Texas [Mr. Bailey] op posing the initiative and referendum and the recall, delivered January 2, 1913. The glaring error of these various arguments against the principles of popular government I caused to be answered by one of the clearest thinkers and most patriotic men in the United States, C. F. Taylor, Esq., editor of Equity, Philadel phia. (S. Doc. No. 651, May S. 1912.) But these speeches against the principles of popular govern ment are not the only ones printed as Senate documents and in the Congressional R ecord. The Congressional R ecord, Sixty-second Congress, first session, volume 47, page 3738, con tains an argument against the initiative, referendum, and re call, by Clinton W. Howard, introduced into the R ecord by a Senator from Washington [Mr. Jones]. 84132— 11872 6 Hon. H enry C abot L odge, a Senator from Massachusetts, delivered a speech before the Central Labor Union o f Boston, opposing the right of the people of Massachusetts to express their opinion on any public policy, which was such a valuable contribution to political literature that it was printed as a Senate document. (S. Doc. No. 114, Sixtieth Congress, first ses sion. ) Hon. James A. Tawney delivered a speech before the Minnesota Bankers’ Association, June 21, 1911, opposing the initiative, referendum, and recall, which was so highly approved by Hon. J oseph G. Cannon, formerly Speaker of the House of Repre sentatives, that he had it put in the Congressional R ecord the first session of this Congress. (C ongressional R ecord, vol. 47, p. 4231.) And the Hon. George W. Wickersham, Attorney General of the United States, delivered a speech at Syracuse,* N. Y., re peated it at Cleveland, and repeated it again at Princeton. N. J., and which was also printed in this Congress as a Senate document. (S. Doc. No. 20.) Hon. George W. Wickersham, Attorney General o f the United States, delivered another argument against the initiative, refer endum, and recall before the law school of Yale, which was printed in this Congress as a Senate document. (S. Doc. No. 0 2 .) They are, with only two exceptions, the arguments of leading standpat Republicans o f the most reactionary type. It is the point o f view of the federalist as opposed to the democratic point o f view. (See Federalist Letter No. 10.) I need not mention other speeches in opposition. These are sufficient to show who opposes, and to make it easy to ascer tain what their point of view is. However worded, the argu ment of all these gentlemen proceeds from a common basis—a distrust of the people, a lack o f confidence in the capacity o f the people for self-government. The then Senator from Texas complained in the beginning of his remarks o f the “ unparalleled zea l” of those who favor the initiative and referendum, and suggested that “.the men who are opposed to the initiative and referendum have made no spe cial effort to combat them.” The various speeches above re ferred to against popular government shows an extensive propa ganda against popular government being carried on by the leaders of the Republican Party of the extreme type. President Taft six years ago traveled 1,G00 miles to make a set speech against the initiative and referendum at Oklahoma City, advising the people of Oklahoma against this “ cumber some and illogical legislative method ” contained in their pro posed constitution, pointing out the dangers that would ensue from such “ hasty, irrational, and immoderate ” legislation, and so forth. The people o f Oklahoma having considered well the views of Mr. Taft voted in favor o f the initiative and referendum by 307,000 majority, substantially only the Republican officeholders and the voters they could influence being against it. It is an interesting matter to observe that the then Senator from Texas,' in his crusade against the initiative and refer endum, is found in close working sympathy with the Republican statesmen above referred to, the followers of Alexander Ilarnil81132— 11872 7 ton and bis theory of the wisdom of the rule of the few and of the folly of the rule of the common people (Senator L odge, Senator L oot, Senator S u t h e r l a n d , President Taft, James A. Tawney, J o seph G. C a n n o n , Representative M cC a l l , Nicholas Murray Butler, W. P. Stafford, C. W. Howard, Attorney General Wickersham, Senator O liver , Senator G allinger , Senator J ones , Senator S m it h of Michigan). The then Senator ex plained that he had been called a “ reactionary.” It is his argu ments, his public utterances, and his company in the assault on the initiative and referendum and on popular government that have doubtless contributed to fix this public estimate of the Senator. THE W E IG H T OF POPU LAR O PIN IO N FAVORS T H E IN IT IA T IV E ENDUM W H E REVER IT H A S BEEN D ISC U SSE D . AND REFER I call attention to the fact that the State lately represented by the then Senator—Texas—has just returned his successor— Mr. M orris S heppard — who was overwhelmingly elected by the people of Texas over the opposition of the recent Senator after Mr. S heppard had made a campaign defending popular govern ment and the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. So that the people o f Texas have thus approved the principles of the initiative and referendum, advocated by their present Senator, and have not been persuaded to the contrary by the eloquence of his predecessor. Not only have the people of Texas thus approved the advo cate of the initiative and referendum [Mr. S h e p p ar d ], but the great adjacent Commonwealths of Oklahoma. Arkansas, and Mis souri have placed the initiative and referendum in their consti tutions. The vote in Mississippi in 1912 was two to one in favor of the initiative and referendum, but failed o f adoption because of the antiquated provision requiring a majority o f all votes cast in the election; and the advisory vote in Illinois was over three to one, but a machine jack-pot legislature trampled upon the direct mandate of the people. The States of Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, and even the far eastern State of Maine, Arkansas, Missouri, and Idaho and the central State of Ohio, have adopted the initiative and referendum in their consti tutions, and many other States are on the point of adopting the initiative and referendum, so that we may speedily expect the adoption in at least 14 additional States of the initiative and referendum which President Taft denounced six years ago when Oklahoma was beginning this great fight for restoring popular government. When I entered the Senate only Oregon had the initiative and referendum in good working order, two other States—Montana and South Dakota—then having adopted it in a weak form. It has become a nation-wide issue among the States, and we find ourselves even in the United States Senate face to face with numerous Senate documents containing many addresses delivered against the principles of direct popular gov ernment by various Republican leaders— Senator L odge, at Raleigh; Senator R o o t ; Nicholas Murray Butler; Congressman M c C a l l ; Senator S u t h e r l a n d ; President Taft before the Mas sachusetts Legislature; President Taft at Toledo: Justice Staf ford, of the District of Columbia, in New York City; Attorney General Wickersham; James A. Tawney; Senator L odge at Princeton. 84132— 11872 8 This great progressive movement for perfecting popular gov ernment has seized upon the heart of the natioual Democracy which has chosen as the next President a man who thoroughly understands this issue and has thrown himself with enthusiasm into the leadership of it. Ninety per cent o f the Democratic Tarty membership is thoroughly progressive. Ten per cent of the members, perhaps, may not clearly understand the issue, or some may be still blinded or misled by private interests, and some may be in fluenced unconsciously by their attachment to the old game of machine polities, which is now staggering to its final fall on American soil. Shallow epithet or thoughtless denunciation will no longer serve to meet the grave issues presented in this country for the complete reestablishment o f popular self-gov ernment. W H Y T H U P EO PL E NEED T H E IN IT IA T IV E AND T H E REFERENDU M . The people need the initiative to pass the laws they do want and need and which the legislature (especially a machinecontrolled legislature) for any reason fails to pass, and they need the referendum so as to have the power o f veto over crooked and corrupt or undesired laws which might be passed by the legislature (especially a machine-controlled legislature). Why is it that they do not get the laws they want, and why is it that they get the laws they do not want? M A C H IN E P O L IT IC S OR R O SS RU LE . * The answer to this is known to every student of our public law'. It is due to the evil results of machine politics, which, in its worst form, begins with a crooked precinct organization, controls nominations and ballot boxes and election machinery, and has contrived to bring about a gross and corrupt miscarriage o f our “ representative democracy,” w'herein nominations are fraudulently extracted from prearranged conventions, wherein State officers are nominated by State conventions composed of machine politicians thrice refined through the State convention, the county convention, and the precinct convention or caucus. Machine party rule is organization, once honorable and legiti mate, which has fallen into the hands o f machine men, where the principle of good government is not the controlling force but where selfish private ambition or private gain controls. Under this system, if a governor is to be nominated by one or the other o f the two lending parties (the process has largely been the same in either party when the corrupt machine is once established), the following method is pursued: The State chair man calls for delegates to a State convention, assigning each county so many delegates. Thereupon the county chairman calls for a county convention, consisting of delegates, assigning to each precinct one or more delegates, whereupon, the precinct committeeman (who when the machine actually exists is a petty precinct boss, a cog in the machine) calls a precinct convention or caucus to select the delegate or delegates to the county con vention. Such a precinct boss will call the precinct caucus on short notice, obscure advertisement, at an inconvenient time and place, possibly over a saloon, and will pack this little precinct caucus with his own henchmen and friends by ex traordinary diligence. He will have prepared on a slip of paper the delegates he wants elected. lie will call the meetiug to order perhaps 1 0 minutes before the time set, his watch being 81132— 11872 9 a little fast, lie will ask if there are any nominations, and one of liis henchmen will nominate the boss himself, perhaps, or some equally trusted gentleman of the machine, and they will vote instantly. It will be carried by acclamation and the meet ing will adjourn sine die, and ilicn and there the governing power departs from the “ dear people,” never to return. The oOO votes in the precinct have then and there had their govern ing power purloined and stolen by the machine. The American eagle has fallen into the trap of the machine and is safely tied down. The county convention—when under machine man agement— consists of such high-minded patriots, self-selected, who will nominate the most select of their own class to represent the citizenship of that county in the State convention, and the State convention, consisting of these self-selected rulers by this highly refining process, will dispose o f the nominations of all important State offices, governors, attorneys general, supreme court judges, legislators, and so forth and nominate “ hand picked ” delegates to nominate a presidential candidate in national convention. In this State convention these self-selected rulers write the party platform which binds the State legislature and the State officials o f all classes, from the governor down. The govern ing business has thus been transferred through the machineorganized precinct from the body of the good citizens, who are unorganized and unobservant, and who possibly may not sus pect fraud, into the hands of a band o f organized mercenaries. A national convention based on fraud at the precinct is one degree worse than a State convention. These self-selected rulers who have thus by the crafty process o f machine politics succeeded in framing State conventions, county conventions, dis trict conventions, etc., and national conventions, and in nomi nating the officials of the State and Nation and in laying down the party platform, which means the rule of government, hav ing nominated their chosen friends for various positions, pro ceed to elect them by processes even more criminal. To start with, they stuff the registration lists with dead men and ghosts. They put down the names of men who do not exist and have their henchmen arrange strikers to represent these artificial voters. In Oklahoma City recently there were large numbers of such false registrations reported. In New York City at one time they discovered over 30,000 of such false registrations. In Philadelphia, I am advised, there were disclosed over 70,000 at one time, and only the Lord o f Truth knows how many they really have had in this Nation. These organized scamps get charge of the election machinery, they name the State election board, and the county election boards, the city and county precinct election officials; they have control o f the ballot boxes and of the ballots; they bribe or coerce weak voters; some times they stuff the boxes; and sometimes, where public opin ion will not stand for this, they content themselves by voting thousands of falsely registered names; they arrange that a machine tool may vote five times in a precinct under five dif ferent names, and then repeat his vote as many times under other names in each o f 10 other precincts. Such a useful voter—called a repeater—deserves to be rewarded with public employment and usually is rewarded by being given some political preferment in a small way, sometimes merely by being paid so much money for his services and by an occasional job. 84132— 11872 The machine may control the police, and at the ballot boxes they can see to it that no interference with their plans is per mitted. They also control sometimes the judges of the courts, who will accord “ a fair hearing” to any scamp that belongs to the machine and shield him from lawful pudishment. There are found sufficient technical reasons why these scoundrels never get inside of the jails. It is not enough to stuff the ballot boxes in this w a y ; these officers of election can also deface and count out the ballots of citizens who are “ against the machine.” They can, under their rules o f management, throw out a precinct or a whole county where the better ele ment prevails for fictitious reasons, deliberately devised by this system o f organized rascality. So that, even where an honest majority might, in spite of all pitfalls, be found, the machine, through the process of thus fraudulently nominating and fraudulently electing candidates, can overthrow the ma jority and retain possession of the governing business. Patri otic men have discovered these evil elements to be in control of the governing powers of the States in greater or lesser degree, and that the machine and its agents and representatives have become the allies and the agents o f organized greed and cor rupt selfishness, until in some States and cities the whole sys tem of government has become so despicable that the best citi zens of the State, in despair, absent themselves from the polls and take little or no interest in public affairs, on the ground that politics is a “ dirty business.” Honest citizens justly com plain of the corrupt alliance between the political party ma chine— often bipartisan, as in New York, Illinois, and Pennsyl vania—and the corrupt corporations, which deliberately en gaged in swindling the people out of vast property rights by granting privileges and properties that belong to the people without fair consideration. What is even worse, this evil sys tem has not only given the people no relief against the organ ized monopoly that has slowly absorbed nearly all of the oppor tunities of life and are oppressing the people beyond reason in a mad race for wealth accumulation, but has tremendously con tributed to the establishment of monopoly by legislative favor and by executive immunity. Congress itself has exemplified this system and until recently had not given relief which the people had a right to ask, although the political parties had been promising the people relief for years. Those who have opposed enlarging the direct power of the people, led by President Taft, loudly proclaimed in the cam paign of 1908, in answer to the Democratic demand for the “ people’s rule,” that the people did rule through the Republican Party, and that those who claimed that the people were not rul ing were merely agitators and demagogues. The great progressive party o f the country, the Democratic Party, raised this issue of direct legislation and declared in favor of it in the national platform o f 1900. They demanded the direct election of Senators: they demanded the publicity of campaign contributions: they demanded an end to corrupt prac tices; and they demanded "th e i>eople's ru le” in terms most emphatic in the platform o f 1908, denouncing the graft and po litical corruption traced to the representatives of predatory wealth, the debauchery of elections, and declaring “ the rule of the people” to be “ the overwhelming issue.” 84132— 11872 11 The people realized in 1900, when the Republican Party lead ers passed the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act, that the Republican leaders did not represent the people but represented privilege and private interests. It was obvious from their conduct that the people did not really rule the country, but that organized plutocracy was in control. In an address to the Senate before the campaign of 1910 on the 28th day of May, 1910, I called the attention of the country to the fact that the people did not really rule in Congress; that the people had been promised many things for years by the party in power and had been continually disappointed. I pointed out then many things which the people justly desired and had prayed for in vain. That they had urgently desired— The control o f monopoly. Lower prices on the necessaries of life and on manufactured goods. Lower railroad rates. Lower passenger rates. Physical valuation of railroads and of telegraph and tele phone and industrial corporations. Reciprocity with other nations. An act preventing corrupt practices in governmental proc esses. A sweeping control of improper campaign contributions. An end o f gambling in agricultural products, cotton, and foodstuffs. The abatement of the gigantic stock and bond gambling estab lishment in Wall Street. An end to overcapitalization o f stocks and bonds. An end to unfair railway discriminations. The development of good roads. The legitimate development of national waterways. An income tax. A progressive inheritance tax. An employers’ liability act. An act providing adequate workmen's compensation. A minimum wage for women. An eight-hour labor day. Fair treatment for child labor. Fair prices for their crude products. The right both to buy and to sell on a competitive market. All these things the people had sought and had not received because they did not really rule through the Republican Party. B E L IE F IS ABOUT TO COME T H R O U n il T H E PARTY. PRO G R ESSIVE DEM O CRATIC The demand for the people's rule became the battle cry of the Democracy in 190S, and in 1910 the people captured the House of Representatives through the Democratic Party and immedi ately undertook the fulfillment o f these promises for a better government by overthrowing Cannonism and by passing numer ous acts reducing the tariff, all vetoed by Mr. Taft. The Democratic Party made good in 1911 and 1912, and in the campaign of 1912 they took further advanced ground toward purifying the processes of government and establishing the rule of the people in the following magnificent declaration: Wo direct attention to the fa ct that the Dem ocratic T arty’s demand fo r a return t o t h e r u l e o f t h e p e o p l e , e x p r e s s e d in t h e n a t i o n a l p l a t form four p e a r s a y o , has now become the accepted doctrine o f a large 84132—11872 m ajority o f the electors. We again remind the country that only by a larger exercise of the reserved power of the people can they protect themselves from the misuse o f delegated power and the usurpation of governmental instrum entality by special interests. For this reason the national convention insisted on the overthrow o f Cannonism and the inauguration o f a sys:em by which United States Senators could be elected by direct vote. The Democratic Party offers itself to the country as an agency through which the complete overthrow and extirpation of corruption, fraud, and machine rule in American politics can be effected. They went further: they provided for a preferential ballot for presidential candidates in 1916 by a primary and for election likewise o f members of the Democratic national committee, who should immediately take their places and put an end to the machine management o f the Democratic national committee in the following language: We direct that the national committee incorporate in the call fo r the next nom inating convention a requirement that all expressions of prefer ence fo r presidential candidates shall be given and the selection o f delegates and alternates made through a primary election conducted by the party organization in each State where such expression and election arc not provided for by State law. Committeemen who are hereafter to constitute the membership o f the Dem ocratic national committee and whose election is not provided for by law shall be chosen in each State at such primary elections, and the service and authority o f the com mitteemen, however chosen, shall begin immediately upon the receipt o f their credentials, respectively. They did more. They pledged an end to abuse of money in elections by publicity and by limiting individual contributions in the following plank : We pledge the Dem ocratic P arty to the enactment o f a law prohibit ing any corporation from contributing to a campaign fund and any individual from contributing any amount above a reasonable maximum. They went further to break up machine rule by proposing to put an end to the abuse of patronage by a President in renomi nating himself in the following plank: We favor a single presidential term, and to that end urge the adoption o f an amendment to the Constitution making the President o f the United States ineligible for rceiection, and we pledge the candidate o f this convention to this principle. They declared for the control by the people of the United States Senate by the direct election o f Senators. The Democratic Congress of 11*10 and 1912 was a Congress of magnificent accomplishment, overthrowing Cannonism. passing acts to lower taxes, providing the direct election of Senators, admitting progressive Arizona and giving New Mexico an amendable constitution, limiting the election expenses o f Sen ators and Representatives, passing a hill to prevent the abuse of injunction, passing a bill giving an eight-hour day for workmen, and so forth. The Democratic Party in its platform of 1912 promised the people the relief which they have all these years hoped for— tariff reform, control o f the trusts, lowering the cost of living, physical valuation of railroads, express companies, telegraph and telephone lines, proper banking legislation, development of waterways and roads, declaring in favor o f conserving the propery of the people, the protection o f the rights o f labor, to estab lish a Department o f Labor, to establish an independent public health service, to establish the parcel post (now the law ), and to reform the administration o f the civil and criminal law. The tremendous effect of the souud, honest, wise Democratic doctrine has been felt in the Senate itself, whose character and 84132—11872 13 point of view on next week—March 4, 1913—will be far removed from the point of view of the Aldrich regime of six years ago. Mr. President, the people are going to rule through the pro gressive Democratic Party, which has pledged itself as an agency through which they can really enforce the matured public opinion of the country. The progressive policies of the Democratic Party mean the absolute overthrow of the political machine, and I rejoice in the declaration of the noble platform that—• The Dem ocratic P arty offers itself to the country as an agency through which the complete overthrow and extirpation o f corruption, fraud, and machine rule in American politics can be effected. And 1 remind my fellow Senators that the initiative and the referendum and the recall comprise the quickest, most direct, adequate available means by which to put an end to corrupt machine politics in the Nation and to overthrow the baleful in fluence o f the machine. The ideals of the machine are low. The notion of the ma chine politician is to get a job at governmental expense for him self and his cronies; perhaps to make money out of the govern ing business by selling privileges to those who wish to buy at the expense of the people—it may be the selling o f municipal contracts; it may be selling franchises; it may be selling im munity from the law intended to control vice and criminal conduct; it may be the blackmailing o f legitimate business through a jack-pot legislature, or the withholding, until paid for, the statutes required by the people. There are numerous degrees of the machine, from the comparatively harmless to that which is utterly corrupt and criminal. There are many perfectly honest men, however, who stand by a party organization as a matter o f party loyalty, not realizing when legitimate organization becomes illegitimate organization; when honest party organization becomes a dishonest organiza tion unworthy the support o f good men, when their party man agement falls into the hands of a selfish or corrupt machine. This mischief-breeding system has grown from the convention system, as established in 1832, which developed into the danger ous machine-rule system in 1844, against which Benton and Cal houn made their great protests. They forecasted what has hap pened, and we are now trying to undo the harm which was then begun, and which in recent years has reached such an evil emi nence. It is against the bad practices and evil results of ma chine government that thoughtful citizens have determined to promote the initiative and referendum. In 1902, by the vigorous questioning of candidates by nonpartisan organizations, a wedge was forced into the iron-clad panoply o f the two great political parties, in both of which the machine existed in greater or less degree, and in this way an opening was made for the establishment of the greatest of all of the agencies for enforcing “ representative democracy.” We had the form of a repre sentative democracy—we did not have its substance for the reason that in many cases the representatives in State legis latures and in Congress and in executive and judicial offices, owing their elections to the machine, and the political machine having a good working agreement with the corrupt commercial and financial interests, prevented the representatives of the people really representing the people and had them in fact 84132— 11872 14 representing the special interests as against the general in terest. The people need the initiative and referendum as the quickest means by which they can conveniently overthrow the corrupt political machines in the United States. By the initiative the people can pass any law they do want, and by the referendum they can veto any law they do not want, and this is a deadly peril to the machine and to the “ representative ” who is really a representative of corrupt special interests, while it is a shield and buckler to the "representative” who really at heart repre sents the people. A good representative is glad to have any bill which he passes referred to the people, and he is glad to have the people initiate any bill which they really desire. W hat is the I nitiative T IIE and R efeuendum? IN IT IA T IV E . In its ordinary meaning it is this: The initiative means the right of the people, under forms prescribed by law. to initiate any law they want and to whch they can get a sufficient num ber of thousands of citizens to attach their signatures on peti tions, to be submitted by the secretary of state at the next regu lar election to the voters of the State for their adoption or re jection. It is very troublesome to get up an initiated petition. It is expensive. It is only done by those who are moved by a powerful interest and who believe that their proposal would meet the approval of the majority of the citizens of the State. The initiative permits a certain number of thousands of voters to make a motion before all o f the citizens of the State, which shall be voted on, just as one man in a mass meeting can make a motion and have it voted on. or as one member of a legislative assembly can make a motion that a certain bill which he drafts shall be voted on. But the initiative by the people before it can be moved must have thousands of people say that they want it voted on by signing a petition to that effect. It takes over 18,000 voters in Oklahoma to initiate a bill. It gives the peo ple an opportunity to pass any law they do want in this way when their legislature for any reason—particularly for the reason that the legislature is controlled by a crooked bipartisan political machine— refuses to pass laws which are of funda mental importance, such as a tliorougbgoiug corrupt practices prevention act. Oregon could never get a corrupt practices prevention act that was efficient until Oregon had the initiative and referendum, because the organized rascality of that State was iu control o f the legislature and would not permit it to be done. They could not get a proper direct primary nor other needed statutes. T IIE REFEREND U M . It is merely this: That the people, within 00 days after an objectionable act is passed, may in like manner sign a petition by a certain number of thousands of voters requesting that the particular objectionable act passed by the legislature which the petitioners believe injurious to the people shall be suspended in its operation until the next regular election, at which time the people shall have the right either to contirm or reject such statute so passed by the legislature. Usually S per cent of the voters can initiate a bill they want, and 5 per cent of the voters can have a referendum. A better system would be to require a tixed number o f qualified voters, as 10,000. or 15,000, or 20.000, 841:52— 11872 15 as in Maine. This fixes a definite standard and more clearly visualizes to the public the size and dignity of the demand for a proposed measure before it can be submitted to the whole people. T H E I N IT IA T IV E AND T H E REFERENDU M AND T H E M A C H IN E . The initiative and referendum, as I have said, is a deadly enemy to the machine. The machine can only retain its power power by preventing the passage of a corrupt practices prevention act, by preventing honest election laws, and preventing the establishing of honest election machinery. The organized ras cality of the machine will always be found in the way of a thorough-going corrupt practices prevention act and will always be found opposed to perfecting the election machinery. This is why in New York the bipartisan machine, led by ma chine politicians on the Democratic side, and by machine poli ticians on the Republican side, defeated a primary law. This is why proper laws controlling corrupt practices and perfecting the election machinery so as to make it absolutely honest have not been passed in New York, in Pennsylvania, and in numerous other States, and this is why the people of California adopted the initiative and referendum and the recall; this is why Oregon adopted i t ; this is why Oklahoma adopted it, and this is why so large a number of States have adopted the initiative and refer endum, and why so many others are about to adopt it, and this is the reason why it is going to be adopted in every single one of the 48 States of this Union. And no amount of political sophistry is going to stop the American people from adopting the means by progressive meas ures for putting an end to organized misconduct in the govern ing business in the United States. The American people know what the trouble is, and the great English ambassador, James Bryce, in the American Common wealth, photographed it for their information under the head ings “ The machine,” “ Rings and bosses,” “ Spoils, etc.,” in 1888. (American Commonwealth, Vol. II, pp. 51-141, ed. 18S8.) Public opinion has not been hasty, but has moved slowly, very slowly, too slowly. Why, Mr. President, even the control of corrupt practices in the nomination and election of the President of the United States and in electing Senators and Members o f Congress has never been properly passed. The law on the publicity of campaign contributions, the law which we have passed, is grossly defec tive, requiring no publicity of certain individual contributions, no publicity of any committee spending money wholesale on national elections, except where that committee is confessedly in charge of two or more States, and there is no machinery for making effective publicity of campaign contributions. The reason is that the power of the machine has been so great in the House and in the Senate that the perfecting of this law has appeared to be impossible. The American people are going to end it by putting their hands on the governing business with power and with direct authority through the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. These statutes open the door for the passage ol corrupt practices prevention acts and for the recalling o f un fa ithful representat i ves. By the initiative and referendum we can pass the Australian ballot, which being a secret ballot prevents the financial ana 84132-—11872 commercial bullies of tbe country coercing the suffrage o f the poor citizens whose bread and butter these bullies control. By the initiative and referendum we can pass a mandatory primary law in spite of the legislature controlled by the ma chine, and in this way can permit the citizens to nominate their proposed representatives and take the nomination of public officials out of the hands of the convention system, out of the machine, out of the hands of organized rascality. By the initiative and referendum we can pass a thorough going corrupt practices prevention act that will destroy machine politics and corrupt practices in this Republic, and will drive out of public life machine-picked candidates, who are the allies and often the agents of monopoly and of the corrupt commercial and financial interests, who have not hesitated to use money on a gigantic scale. We have had in recent years overwhelming evidence of this. By the initiative and referendum a new era o f pure and up right government will be introduced into the United States and into the States o f the Union in which the welfare of men, of women, and poor children will be the great motive force of law making and o f law executing, and an end will be put to the use of legislative and executive power for the purpose of promoting merely the financial and commercial power of organ ized greed. By the initiative and referendum we can promote organized righteousness in government and overthrow organized corruption. By the initiative and referendum we can overthrow the cor rupt convention system and establish the rule of the intelligence and conscience of the majority of our citizens. By the initiative and referendum we can overthrow organized selfishness and establish organized altruism. By the initiative and referendum we can overthrow the liquor traffic in the United States and establish sobriety and temper ance and providence in this Republic. By the initiative and referendum we can overthrow the Patent Medicine Trust and establish a department o f health that will save hundreds of thousands of citizens annually from prevent able diseases and death. By the initiative and referendum we can establish the riehts of the weak, o f poor feeble men, o f women, and of children who can not stand up against the grinding conditions established in this Republic and brought about by the combination of machine politics and organized corrupt selfishness. It is no wonder that 4,000,000 voters broke away from all party ties and followed Theodore Roosevelt when he threw him self at the head of this vital demand for righteousness and effi ciency in government. It is no wonder that Woodrow Wilson, having for years questioned the practicability o f the initiative and referendum, changed his mind about it and threw himself on the right side of this vital question and is now a great ex ponent o f this doctrine and the head of a party which thoroughly believes in it. This noble doctrine of the democracy has won over millions of good citizens heretofore affiliated with other parties and led directly to the organization of the Progressive Party, so called. The Democratic Party has long been the more progressive party of the Nation, even if it has had its efficiency impaired by 84132— 11872 IT corrupt machine politics in some of the States. It has been demanding the direct election of Senators for many years. It lias violently opposed the corrupt use o f money and the coercion of voters by commercial and financial interests, and has been opposing the trusts for many, many years. The Democratic Party declared itself boldly and strongly in favor of “ d irec t leg isla tio n ” in its platform of 1900 in the following language: W e favor direct legislation wherever practicable. This means the initiative and referendum. And in its great platform of 1908 was the following noble declaration of pro gressive principles: We rejoice at the increasing signs of an awakening throughout the country. The various investigations have traced graft and political corruption to the representatives of predatorg wealth, and laid bare the unscrupulous methods by which they have debauched elections and preyed upon a defenseless public through the subservient officials whom they have raised to place and power. The conscience of the Nation is note aroused and w ill free the Govern ment from the grip of those who have made it a business asset of the favor-seeking corporations. It must become again a people’s Govern ment, and be administered in all departments according to the Jeffer sonian maxim— “ equal rights to a l l ; special privileges to none.” “ (Shall the people rule? ” is the overwhelming issue which manifests itself in all the questions now under discussion. The people can only rule by having the right o f direct legis lation which they may exercise at their option. They do not wish to exercise this right except in important cases. They prefer their representatives to make, judge, and execute the law. It is only when their representatives fail to represent the people that the people would care to exercise direct power. By arranging that the people may exercise direct power at their option, the representatives would make it unnecessary for the people to exercise this power, because the big stick of public opinion, being available through the initiative and referendum and recall, the legislator, the judge, the administrative officer will represent matured public opinion to the best o f his lim ited understanding, and generally in a satisfactory manner. Our President elect, Woodrow Wilson, although at one time regarding the initiative and referendum as unnecessary and unsuitable, came to change his mind substantially about it for the same reason that other thoughtful men changed their minds, and are daily changing their minds, on this great ques tion; and that is, for the reason that you can not get the eco nomic and humane reforms desired for the welfare of the race until you overthrow the machine and establish righteous and responsive government by giving the people a mechanism through which the public conscience and public intelligence can act. On August 26,1911, in the Outlook, Gov. Wilson said: For 15 years I taught my classes that the initiative and referendum wouldn’t work. I car. prove it n o w ; but the trouble is they do. * * * Back of all other reform s lies the means of getting it. Back of the question, W hat do we W ant? is the question. How are we going to get it ? The immediate thing we have got to do is to resume popular gov ernment. * * * We are cleaning house, and in order to clean house the one thing we need is a good broom. The initiative and referendum are good brooms. And Theodore Roosevelt, before the Ohio constitutional con vention on April 21, 1912, said: I believe in the initiative and referendum, which should he used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative. 84132— 11S72-------2 United States Senator has said: R obert M . L a F o l l e t t e , of Wisconsin, In my judgment the public interests would be promoted if a majority of the voters possessed the option of directing bv 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. United States Senator J o n a t h a n B o u r n e , o f Oregon, has said: The initiative and referendum is the keystone of the arch of popular government, for by means of this the people may accomplish suen other reforms as they desire. The initiative develops the electorate, because it encourages study of principles and policies of government and affords the originator of new ideas in government an opportunity to secure popular judgment upon his measures. The referendum prevents misuse of the power temporarily centralized in the legislature. United States Senator 1911, said: HI i ! I M o ses E . C l a p p , in San Francisco in The initiative and referendum I regard as more than monitorial. If the American people are going to make a success of free government, they have got to take an interest in government. These measures are a thousand times more valuable as an educational and inspirational force, great as their monitorial value may be. They open an avenue to the voter, so that he does not have to ask any political boss permission to air his views. Gov. John F. Sliafroth, about to enter the Senate as the Sen ator from Colorado, said: The initiative and referendum places the Government nearer to the people, and that has always been the aim of the framers of all repub lican forms of government. Gov. Hiram W. Johnson, of California, the recent candidate for Vice President of the United States, and who received over 4,000,000 votes, said in his inaugural address before the Cali fornia Legislature: I commend to you the proposition that after all the initiative and referendum depend upon our confidence in the people and their ability to govern. The opponents o f direct legislation and the reeall, however they may phrase their opposition, in reality believe the people can not he trusted. * * * W e who espouse these measures do so because of our deep-rooted belief * * * not only in the right o f the people to govern hut in their ability to govern. Judge Beu B. Lindsay, of Denver, recently said in the Toledo News-Bee: It is hard for me to understand how anyone familiar with the methods of the great privileged interests of the country in controlling courts and legislatures could fail to he an enthusiastic supporter of the initiative and referendum. Frof. Franklin IT. Giddings. of Columbia University, in an address before the City Club of Philadelphia on March 23, 1912, said: I believe that the people of the United States are changing their form of government somewhat by introducing such new measures as the referendum, the initiative, the recall, and the direct primary, in part because their interests have become largely new, in part because o f real restiveness under existing conditions, but in part also because, to au extent never before seen in our history, the people are now thinking about things, whereas during a great part of our political history they have thought not about things but only about candidates. And Dr. Chariot A. Beard, associate professor of politics in Columbia University, said: * * * anxiety for the preservation of representative institutions need not lead anyone into the extreme view that the initiative and referendum are incompatible with them. They do not destroy repre sentative government, neither is there any indication, nor anything in the nature of things, showing that they can destroy such government. 84132— 11872 Switzerland has this system in excellent working order, an<3 many of our American States have adopted it for the reasons which I have brielly suggested. AN A N S W E R TO T H E ARGUM ENT IN FAVOR OF S E N A T E R E S O L U T I O N 41 3 . Mr. President, I shall now directly answer the proposals of Senate resolution 413, that the initiative and referendum as established or proposed in the American States is in conflict with the representative principle on which this Republic was founded and would work a radical change in the character of our Gov ernment. The argument made by the then Senator from Texas on this point is that the language used by certain “ representative ” citizens in the Constitutional Convention of 17S7 would argue that they thought the Government of the United States was intended to be “ a representative democracy ” and not a mon archy, an aristocracy, or a “ pure democracy.” Conceding that these gentlemen made the illuminating remarks attributed to them, after all, what they said is immaterial and irrelevant. The remarks of Charles Pinckney, or Madison, or Hamilton, or o f Fisher Ames, or of Ellsworth, or of Pendleton, in secret convention or elsewhere, are unimportant in the presence of the actual history and constitutions of the 4S States, even if any accidental phrase or opinion emanating from any of these excel lent gentlemen had relevancy, which they have not. Some of these men suggested the importance of people in thickly settled communities delegating to representatives their governing powers as a matter of necessary convenience, and the wisdom of this observation novman disputes. Some of them pointed out that a “ pure democracy ” was not practicable or wise in a country such as ours, and to this proposal no advo cate of the optional initiative and referendum, which is the only form proposed in America, takes issue. Mr. L odge has the precaution upon further study of this question to discuss the “ computsorp initiative and referendum ” (at Princton, March 8. 1912), which is not an issue in the Uuited States, and he thereby practically concedes that he has no adequate argument against the optional “ initiative and refer endum,” the only form suggested in this country. The compulsory initiative and referendum would mean that the people would be compelled to pass on every law, which is not suggested by anyone as suitable in a Republic of 90,000.000 people. Mr. L o dge ’ s escape through the "compulsory d o o r” is ludicrous and a humorous side light on his estimate of the igno rance of his Princeton audience. Even if Madison and Pinckney and Hamilton had known what the modern initiative and referendum is and had opposed it in specific terms, their opinions would be of no importance. We might as well go back to 1787, a hundred and twenty-five years, and have them tell us how to devise a telegraph system, or to invent a telephone system, or to send messages 3.000 miles through the air without wires, or to run railway trains at 00 miles the hour, or to construct a Mauretania for the high seas. These innocent old gentlemen would fall dead with astonish ment if they could see the conditions of modern life. They are not qualified to instruct us in statecraft. 81132— 11872 The then Senator from Texas makes a crafty appeal to the sense of reverence which all men have for their ancestors, and then tries to argue that our ancestors were opposed to the initiative and referendum. The answer to all this is that our ancestors did not have the slightest idea what the modern op tional initiative and referendum is; in the second place, our ancestors expressed no opposition to the modern optional initia tive and referendum; and, in the third place, our ancestors had no conception of how a representative democracy could fall into the control o f organized greed through the use of a political machine. They never considered the possibility o f such a thing, and if they were to have the present facts before them they would probably support unanimously the initiative and referen dum in order to perfect the representative system. These ancestral statesmen, who met together in the seclusion o f closed doors to discuss the framing of a Federal Constitution, were men as a rule of strongly reactionary sentiment. Twothirds of them were quite thoroughly undemocratic; such lead ing Democrats as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, et al., were conspicuous by their absence. The debates were behind closed doors, in secret conclave, no member allowed to report or copy any of its proceedings, which were kept pro foundly a secret for 00 years, until all the actors were dead. No wonder this profound secrecy was demanded and observed, for the GO members of this convention were not authorized to draft a constitution, but merely to propose amendments to the Articles o f Confederation, and in drafting the Constitution they were guilty o f usurpation of political power. The undemocratic character o f the men who got into this constitutional convention is demonstrated by numerous secret speeches made by them when in that convention, and which they believed would never be known by the people. Elbridge Gerry, for example, declared— that democracy was the worst of all political evils. vol. 5, p. 537.) (E lliott's Debates, Edmund Randolph observed, in tracing the political evils of this country to their origin, “ that every man (in convention) had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Hamilton urged a permanent Senate “ to check the impru dence of democracy.” Madison thought the Constitution “ ought to secure the per manent interests of the country against innovation.” (Elliott's Debates, vol. 1, p. 450.) And Madison, in the Federalist, warned the people against “ the superior force o f an interested and overbearing majority.” And these distinguished gentlemen from whom the then Sen ator from Texas quotes with such gusto made a Constitution practically tinamendable by the people. and failed to put into the Constitution a bill of rights and the fundamental principles of liberty contained in the Declaration o f Independence. James Allen Smith, professor of political science, University of Washington, well says: From all evidence that we have, the conclusion Is irresistible that they sought to establish a form of government which would effectually curb and restrain democracy. They engrafted upon the Constitution so much of the features of popular government as was, in their opinion, sufficient to insure its adoption. S4132— 11872 j ip — And James Bryce makes a similar comment on their work. In speaking of checks and balances devised in the Federal Constitution Mr. Bryce says: Those who invented this machinery of checks and balances were anxious not so much to develop public opinion as to resist and build up brick walls against it. * * * " The prevalent conception of pop ular opinion was that it was aggressive, revolutionary, unreasoning, passionate, futile, and a breeder of mob violence.” (American Com monwealth, Morris ed., 1906, p. 260.) The convention of July 4. 1770, and the Declaration of Inde pendence was thoroughly democratic. The Constitution of the United States, drawn by the reactionaries 11 years afterwards, was thoroughly undemocratic in numerous particulars, to some of which I shall call attention. There were only 65 members of this secret convention; only 55 members attended and only 39 members signed it, and they were nearly all reactionaries. The Constitution they submitted was undemocratic in the fol lowing particulars: First. The Constitution permitted a life President. Second. The Constitution did not provide for the nomination or election of the President by the people, but by electors far removed from the people. Third. The Constitution did not provide for the nomination or election of Senators by the people. Fourth. The Constitution provided for an uncontrolled judi ciary (by possible interpretation), in striking contrast to the laws of every State in the Union, including Utah. Fifth. A minority of the House (34 per cent) can prevent the majority proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A minority of the Senate (34 per cent) can prevent the majority proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A President can prevent a majority of both Houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A small minority of the States (20 per cent)’ can prevent the amendment of the Constitution. Sixth. No provision for the adoption of the Constitution was arranged by popular vote. And some of the delegates who approved the Constitution from Virginia at least disobeyed the instructions of the people. Seventh. The Constitutional Convention usurped the power in framing the Constitution. They were only authorized to prepare amendments to the Articles of Confederation, not frame a new Constitution. Eighth. The Constitution did not protect the right of free speech. Ninth. The Constitution did not protect the right of free religion. Tenth. It did not protect the freedom of the press. Eleventh. It did not protect the right of the people to peace ably assemble. Twelfth. It did not protect the right of the people to petition the Government for the righting of grievances. Thirteenth. It did not protect the right of the States to have troops. Fourteenth. It did not protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Fifteenth. It did not protect the people against the quartering of soldiers upon them without their consent. 84132— 11872 22 Sixteenth. It did not protect the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against un reasonable searches and seizures nor against warrants, except upon suitable safeguards. Seventeenth. It did not protect the people against being held for crime, except on indictment. Eighteenth. It did not protect the people against a second trial for the same offense. Nineteenth. It did not protect an accused against being com pelled to be a witness against himself. Twentieth. It did not protect the citizen against being de prived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Twenty-first. It did not protect private property being taken for public use without just compensation. Twenty-second. It did not secure, in criminal prosecutions, the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the place where the crime was committed. Twenty-third. It did not protect the accused in the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, of the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, of the right to have compulsory processes in obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense. Twenty-fourth. It did not protect the right o f the citizen in common-law suits to a trial by jury. Twenty-fifth. It did not protect the citizen against excessive bail, against excessive fines, nor against cruel and unusual punishments. Twenty-sixth. It did not safeguard the rights reserved by the people against invasion by the Federal Government. Twenty-seventh. The Constitution is undemocratic in making no provision for its subsequent amendment by direct popular vote, although this was the method of the various States. The ratification o f this undemocratic Constitution was only obtained with the greatest difficulty, and in ho States was it submitted to the people themselves for a direct vote. Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York demanded amendments; North Carolina and Ithode Island at first rejected the Constitution, and except for the agreement to adopt the first 10 amendments and make it more democratic, it would have assuredly failed. George Washington, as president o f the convention, was de barred from sharing in the debates. The Constitution had one very great merit, it established the Union; it had one very great demerit, it was grossly undemocratic. But it was not as undemocratic as some modern statesmen would make it appear. For instance, it did not formally prevent the recall of judges, but provided that judges should hold office “ during good be havior,” and placed the entire executive power in the hands of a President, and the legislative power in the hands o f Congress, both o f whom, in my judgment, have the power o f removing any Federal judge upon the ground o f a high crime and misde meanor or for any bad behavior and without impeachment. It was not so undemocratic as to deny the right of direct taxation of private citizens by an income tax, although the Supreme Court o f the United States so misinterpreted the Con stitution. 84132— 11872 23 The Constitution says: No capitation ay other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken. The enumeration referred to is as follow s: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians, not taxed, three-fifths of all persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and then every sub sequent term of 10 vears in such manner as they shall by law direct. The inhibition of a direct tax by the clause above referred to relates alone to a direct tax on a sovereign &tatc. I have heretofore fully shown this by its history, by the Con stitutional Convention debates, and by the other parts of the Constitution and its interpretation by all departments ef Gov ernment. I f this clause of the Constitution were written out in full, it would read: No capitation tax against a sovereign State or other direct tax against a sovereign State shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration of the population of such States hereinbefore directed to be taken. The Supreme Court of the United States, misled by fallacious arguments, interpreted this clause so as to make it read: No capitation tax against a sovereign State or other direct tax against a private citizen shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration of the population of the States hereinbefore directed to be taken. And on this interpretation held that an income tax, being a direct tax on a citizen, was inhibited by this clause of the'Con stitution. Such an interpretation of above clause o f the Constitution is incongruous and absurd. It is incongruous to interpret the clause to jump from a State to the citizen as its subject. It is absurd to say the clause intended to forbid a direct tax on a private citizen unless in proportion to the census. The United States has always directly taxed its citizens and does so now, so that this interpretation by the Supreme Court is in direct conflict with the historical and as yet unbroken interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States, while undemocratic, was not as undemocratic as this. We do not need to be advised by the undemocratic Alexander Hamilton, nor by the undemocratic members in this secret con clave of 1787, as to the true principles of democracy. These principles are abundantly set forth in the Declaration of Inde pendence and in the constitutions of the 48 States, and show beyond the peradventure of a doubt that the people of the vari ous States intended to preserve their liberties by retaining in their own hands the sovereign powers of government, and this is abundantly shown by the plain words of the Declaration of Independence and of the constitutions of the 48 States. The then Senator from Texas lays great stress upon the opinions o f several of the reactionaries in the secret conclave of 1787, in which 39 “ unauthorized ” delegates, selected by the legislatures before a constitutional convention was suggested, framed a constitution that still ties the hands and interferes 84132— 11872 w ith the liberty o f 90,000,000 o f human beings to freely govern themselves. Tn point o f fact there were about 3,000,000 people in America at that time outside o f the secret conclave at Philadelphia, where certain “ representatives” were embezzling power “ for the good o f the people.” These 3,000,000 people outside o f the little Constitutional Con vention at Philadelphia had some very sound opinions on human liberty and on freedom. These w ere the people who fought the w ar with Great Britain and established their independence and w ho proposed to keep it by not setting up any rulers over them selves or any laws over themselves which they could not at any time amend, alter, or abolish. The people o f the United Colo nies were all right and were believers in popular government and practiced it, and w rote it in their constitutions. Alexander Ham ilton and some other reactionaries sympathizing with him were fundamental Tories and at heart opposed to popular government. The principle on icliich this Republic teas founded was not the representative principle (an incident o f the people's basic pow er), but was the principle o f popular sovereignty, the prin ciple that all power was vested in the people by an inalienable right, indefeasible, and that the people had the right at any time to exercise this sovereign power. The Unanimous Declaration o f the Thirteen United States o f America, issued July 4, 1776, sa id: W e hold these truths to he self-evident; that all men are created e q u a l; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable r ig h ts; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit o f happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that when ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new govern m ent, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. This declaration is a declaration in effect that all powers o f government emanate directly from the people. And this right is reiterated in the constitution o f almost every State in the Union, declaring in various form s that all powers o f govern ment spring directly from the people. For exam ple: A L ABA M A. 1819: “All political potcer is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an inalien able and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.” ARKAN SAS. 1836: “ That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness. For the advancement o f these ends they have, at all times, an unqualified right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.” CALIFORNIA. 18.'f9: “All political poicer is inherent in the people. Gov ernment is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit o f the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it." 84132— 11872 L 25 COLORADO. 1876: “ That all political poicer if! vested in and derived from the p eop le; that all government o f right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good o f the whole.” CO N N ECT ICU T. 1818: “ That all political pow er is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and insti tuted for their benefit, and they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form o f governm ent in such a manner as they may think expedient.” D ELAW ARE. 1192: “ All ju st authority in the institutions o f political so ciety is derived from the people and established with their con sent to advance their happiness, and they may for this end as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their constitu tion o f governm ent.” FLO RID A. 183S: “ That all political poicer is inherent in the people, and free governments are founded on their authority and estab lished for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form o f governm ent in such manner as they may deem expedient.” GEORGIA. 1117: “ We, therefore, the representatives o f the people, from whom all pow er originates and fo r w hose benefit all governm ent is intended, by virtue o f the power delegated to us, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, that the follow ing rules and regulations be adopted for the future gov ernment o f this State.” IDAHO. 1889: “ All political poicer is inherent in the people. Govern ment is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform , or abolish the same ichencver they may deem it necessary, and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.” I L L IN O IS . 1818: “ That all pow er is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted fo r their peace, safety, and happiness.” INDIANA. 1816: “ That all pow er is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted fo r their peace, safety, and well being. F or the advancemnt o f these ends the people have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter and reform their governm ent in such manner as they may think proper.” IO W A . 18'i6: “ That all political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and bene fit o f the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.” K ANSAS. 1855: “ All political power is inherent in the people. Govern ment is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and 84132— 11872 2G they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same when ever they may deem it necessary, and no special privileges or immunities shall ever he granted that may not be altered, re voked, or repealed by the general assembly.” KENTUCKY. 1192: “ That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their pence, safety, and happiness. For the advancement o f these ends they have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform , or abolish their governm ent in such man ner as they may think proper.” L O U IS IA N A . 1868: “ A ll men are created free and equal and have certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit o f happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their ju st powers from the consent o f the governed." M A IN E . 1819: “ All power is inherent in the people; all free govern ments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit; they have, therefore, an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute governm ent and to alter, reform or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it.” M A RYLAN D. 1776: “ That all governm ent o f right originates from the peo ple, is founded in compact only and instituted solely fo r the good o f the whole.” M ASSACH U SETTS. The first constitution submitted in Massachusetts was rejected by the people by direct vote at town meetings in the spring o f 1779, because it contained no bill o f rights, and for other rea sons. The next constitution submitted, that o f 17S0, the people adopted by direct vote at town meetings and by more than twothirds o f all who voted. The bill o f rights d eclares: B IL L OF E IG H T S . 1780: “ A rticle I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and inalienable rig h ts; among which may be reckoned the right o f enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that o f acquiring, possessing, and protecting prop erty ; in fine, that o f seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. “ A rt. IT. The people o f this Commonwealth have the sole and exclu sive tigh t o f governing them selves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and do, and forever shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States o f Am erica in Congress assembled. “ A rt. V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers o f gov ernment vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents and arc at all times accountable to them ." M IC H IG A N . 1835: “ All political power is inherent in the people. “ Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit o f the people; and they have the right at all times to 84132— 11S72 27 alter or reform the same and to abolish one form o f governm ent and establish another whenever the public good requires it.” M IN N E S O T A . 1857: “ Government is instituted for the security, benefit, and protection o f the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, m odify, or reform such gov ernment whenever the public good may require it.” M IS S IS S IP P I. 1817: “ That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and insti tuted for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form o f government in such manner as they may think expedient.” M IS S O U R I. 1820: “ That all political pow er is vested in and derived from the people.” M O N TANA. 1880: peop le; founded good o f “ All political pow er is vested in and derived from the all government o f right originates w ith the people, is upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the the whole.” N E B R A SK A . 1866-67: “ All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit o f happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their ju st powers from the consent o f the governed.” NEVADA. 1861i: “ All political power is inherent in the people. Govern ment is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit o f the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same w henever the public good may require it.” N E W H A M P S H IR E . In New Hampshire fou r constitutions were submitted to the people, who voted directly upon them at town meetings. The first three w ere rejected (Am erican Political Science Review, Vol. II, p. 549) largely because there were no express lim ita tions upon the power o f the legislature— no bill o f rights. The bill o f rights o f the fourth one, that o f 1784, declares: 176V/; “ V II. The people o f this State have the sole and e x clusive right o f governing them selves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto which is not or may not hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States o f Am erica in Congress assem bled.” NEW JER SE T. The New Jersey constitution o f 177G declares: 1776: “ W hereas all the constitutional authority ever possessed by the Kings o f Great Britain over these Colonies or their other dominions was, by compact, derived from the people and held o f them for the common interest o f the whole society, allegiance and protection are, in the nature o f things reciprocal ties, each equally depending upon the other and liable to be dissolved by the others being refused or withdrawn. And whereas George III, K ing o f Great Britain, has refused protection to the good people o f these 84132— 11872 Colonies, and, by assenting to sundry acts o f the British Parlia ment. attempted to subject them to the absolute dominion o f that body, and has also made w ar upon them in the most cruel and unnatural manner for no other cause than asserting their •just rights, all civil authority under him is necessarily at an end and a dissolution o f government in each Colony has consequently taken place.” N EW YO RK . The New York bill o f rights o f 1777 declares: 1777: “ I. This convention, therefore, in the name and by the authority o f the good people o f this State, doth ordain, deter mine, and declare that no authority shall, on any pretense w hat ever, be exercised over the people or members o f this State but such as shall be derived from and granted by them.” N O R T H CAR OLIN A . 1776: “ That all political poiccr is vested in and derived from the people only." N O RTH D AKOTA. 1889: “ All political power is inherent in the people. Govern ment is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit o f the people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same when the public good may require.” O H IO . 1802: “ That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights * * * and every free republican government being founded on their sole authority, and organized for the great purpose o f protecting their rights and liberties and securing their inde pendence; to effect these ends, they have at all times a com plete pow er to alter, reform , or abolish their government whenever they may deem it necessary.” OKLAH OM A. 1907: “ All political power is inherent in the people; and gov ernment is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and to promote their general w elfare; and they have the light to alter or rfiform the same whenever the public good may require it.” OREGON. 1857: “ That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness, and they have at all times a right to alter, reform , or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.” P E N N S Y L V A N IA . 1776: “ That the people o f this State have the sole, exclusive, and inherent right o f governing and regulating the internal police o f the same. “ That all pow er being originally inherent in, and conse quently derived from , the people; therefore all officers o f goverment, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.” RHODE ISL A N D . 18Ji2: “ The basis o f our political system s is the right o f the ffeoplc to m ake and alter their constitutions o f governm ent.” 84132— 11872 29 SO U T H CAROLINA. 1790: “ All power is originally vested in the peop le; and all free governments are founded on tlieir authority and are insti tuted fo r their peace, safety, and happiness.” SO U T H D AK O TA. / . 1889: “ All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, among which are those o f enjoying and defending life and liberty, o f acquiring and protecting property, and a pursuit o f happiness. T o secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their ju st pow ers from the consent o f the governed.” T E N N E SSE E . 1796: “ That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for tlieir peace, safety, and happiness; fo r the advancement o f those ends they have at all times a<n unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform , or abolish the governm ent in such manner as they may think proper.” T E XA S (R E P U B L I C ). 1836: “ All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and they hare at all times an unalienable right to alter their governm ent in such manner as they may think p r o p er ” TEXAS ( state ). IS'/o : “ A ll political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform , or abolish tlieir form o f governm ent in such manner as they may think expedient. UTAH. 1895: “ All political power is inherent in the people, and free governments are founded on their authority for all their pro tection and benefit; and they have the right to alter or reform their governm ent as the public toeifarc may req u ire” • VE R M O N T . 1777: “ That all power being originally inherent in, and conse quently derived from , the people; therefore, all officers o f gov ernment, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them. ♦ # * * * * * “ * * * and that the community hath an indubitable, un alienable, and indefeasible right to reform , after, or abolish governm ent in such manner as shall be. by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.” VIRGINIA. 1776: “ That all pow er is vested in, and consequently derived from , the people.” W A S H IN G T O N . 1889: “ All political pow er is inherent in the people, and gov ernments derive their just powers from the consent o f the gov erned, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” 84132— 11872 • W E ST V IR G IN IA . 1861-18G3: “ The pow ers o f governm ent reside in all the citi zens o f the State, and can be rightfully exercised only in ac cordance with their w ill and appointment.” W IS C O N S IN . 18'/S: “ All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent rig h ts; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit o f happiness; to secure these rights governm ents are instituted among men. deriving their ju st powers from the con sent o f the governed.” W Y O M IN G . 1889: “ All power is inherent in the people, and all free gov ernments are founded on their authority and instituted fo r their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement o f these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and inde feasible right to alter, reform , or abolish the governm ent in such manner as they may think proper.” T IIE T E O rL E BETTER A U T H O R IT Y THAN H A M IL T O N OR P IN C K N E Y . Mr. President, here it w ill be observed that the people in the States declare all political power vested in aud derived from the people, and that they have an inalienable aud inde feasible right to alter, amend, or abolish, their form o f gov ernment in such mauuer as they may deem expedient. So that we do not need the quotations from a few reactionary citizens who were disobeying their representative instructions in the secret conclave o f 17S7 to tell us what the Constitution and the law is. It is rather astonishing to hear from various men o f learn ing that the right o f the people to legislate directly is un constitutional; that it is “ in conflict with the representative principle on which this Republic is founded.” This is the same old federalist argument that was answered in the Supreme Court o f Oregon in the Pacific Telephone case, where it was urged that the Federal guarantee to the State o f a republican form o f governm ent would forbid the initiative and referendum as in conflict with a republican form o f government or with the so-called representative principle. (E xhibit R answers this argument.) The adoption o f the constitution o f Texas w as an act o f direct legislation by the people o f Texas by the referendum on the initiative o f the constitutional convention. And all o f the State constitutions, almost without exception, have been adopted by the act o f the people who directly legis lated in establishing these various State constitutions by the referendum. A n d they amend all the constitutions in the same fashion— by direct legislation, almost without exception. James Bryce, in his Am erican Commonwealth (M orris Edi tion. 1906. p. 258), very properly sa ys: The people frequently legislate directly by enacting or altering a con stitution. The principle of popular sovereignty could hardly be ex pressed more unmistakably. Allowing for the differences to which the vast size of the country gives rise, the mass o f citizens may be deemed as directly the supreme power in the United States as the assembly was at Athens or Syracuse. Indeed, from the beginning o f the history o f the American people they exorcised the right o f direct legislation, and exer84132— 11872 31 cised it in the old town meetings o f New England and county meetings in the South. The Massachusetts towns still govern themselves by exercising the right o f direct legislation in their town meetings, both the initiative and the referendum. And all the States o f the Union from time to time have pro vided for the exercise o f the right o f direct legislation by va rious form s o f local option. To deny the right o f the people to legislate directly is to deny the fundamental principles o f every one o f the 48 State con stitutions. The “ representative principle,” so called, is merely an incident o f the delegation o f legislative and ministerial power to “ representatives ” as a m atter o f convenience. This grant o f power to public servants does not, as some statesmen believe, establish public rulers w hose right to rule can not be questioned. The grant o f legislative power by the people to a State legislature in no w ise prevents the people from exercising their inalienable and indefeasible right o f direct legislation. The initiative and referendum is perfectly har monious with the representative principle. In one case the people legislate through their agents; in the other case they legislate directly without agents. It does not overthrow the representative system o f govern ment ; it perfects the representative system o f government. Those who favor the initiative and referendum do not intend to impair the representative system. They are determined on the contrary to perfect the representative system, which is and always has been a mixture o f the exercise by the people o f direct power, direct legislation, add o f indirect legislation through representatives. RECALL NO N O V E L T Y . Even the right o f recall is no novelty under the American system o f government. Every one o f the 13 Colonies— the State o f New Hampshire, the State o f Massachusetts Bay, the State o f Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the State o f New Jersey, the State o f New York, the State o f Connecticut, the State o f Pennsylvania, the State o f Delaware, the State o f Maryland, the State o f Virginia, the State o f North Carolina, the State o f South Carolina, the State o f Georgia, on the 24th day o f July, 1778, solemnly agreed to the A rticles o f Confedera tion o f 1777, in Article V, to the right o f recall, in w hich it w as expressly agreed that the various States should appoint delegates to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November o f every year— W ith a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. DEM O CR ATIC C O N ST IT U T IO N S E A S IL Y AM END ABLE. Our State governments, while establishing the representative principle as a matter o f convenience, have nevertheless incor porated in every instance the declared principle that all power is vested in the people, and that they retain the right at any time to alter, amend, or abolish. All democratic constitutions are flexible and easy to amend. This follows from the fact that in a government which the people really control the constitution is merely the means of securing the supremacy of public opinion and not an instrument for thwarting it. * * * A government is democratic just in proportion as it responds to the will 84132— 11872 of thp people; since one way to defeat the will of the people is to make it difficult to alter the form of Government, it necessarily follows that any constitution which is democratic in spirit must yield readily to changes in public opinion. (Spirit of American Government: Smith.) The fact is that with the initiative and referendum the peo ple merely propose to amend the laic establishing the legisla tures so as to give to the people the option to exercise the right o f direct legislation where they may find it expedient and proper to do so. A ll that is necessary is to enlarge the ordinary State constitution so as to provide fo r the people the method o f di rectly legislating by passing an initiated bill or vetoing a re ferred bill. The legislature got its pow er to legislate from the people and the people violate no principle by exercising directly the legislative power they possess, and which is inalien able and indefeasible. In amending the State constitution so as to reserve to the people the power to initiate and pass a bill by direct vote, or by the referendum to veto or affirm, as the case may be, an act passed by the legislature, the people merely exercise their sov ereign power in a moderate and restricted way, which they have found necessary after a hundred years o f experience with representatives in the legislature who have, particularly in this generation, too frequently failed to pass the laws the people want, and who have too frequently passed the laws which the people do not want. It is absurd to say that this Republic was founded on the “ representative principle.” T h is Republic w\as not founded on the representative principle. I t teas founded on the sovereign right o f the people to manage their oicn business (and not be managed by their servants), and it was fo r this reason that every State constitution declared this fundamental principle that all political powar was inherent in the people, and that as sovereign they could at their pleasure alter, amend, or abolish even the constitutions themselves. This was the great founda tion stone, and this is the principle now being asserted by the initiative and the referendum, to w it: The right o f the people to rule. This is the very meaning o f the word “ dem ocratic.” Demos kratein means “ the people have the right to rule.” It is the origin o f the w'ord “ democrat.” A democrat is a man who believes in the right o f the people to rule. Aristocracy means the rule o f the few, who consider them selves the best. A utocracy means the rule o f a single person. Plutocracy means the rule o f money. D em ocracy means the rule o f the people. Delegating power to public servants was not new. It was a convenience and a mode o f exercising popular sovereignty, not a means o f destroying or o f impairing it. W e established the system o f delegating the legislative power to representatives in our State constitutions, who should meet in legislative assembly and debate and discuss ^and fram e wise and virtuous laws drawn to promote the general*welfare. When they are candidates they pledge their honor to the people to be guided by the general welfare. They go to the assembly and lift their hands to Almighty God and solemnly swear to be faith fu l to the people, and then special interests come and bring malign influences to bear upon the weakness o f human nature 84132— 11872 33 that lead the legislator away from the paths o f public virtue into passing laws against the general welfare, or in refusing to pass laws required by the general welfare. Representative gov ernment is a convenience for the people. No progressive wants to interfere with it or to change it where it is faithful and per form s its proper du ty ; but when these representatives fail to pass law s o f vital importance, when they pass laws doing a gross wrong to the public interest, the time has come when the people shall directly exercise so much o f their legislative power as they may find it necessary to exercise at their option in passing the laws they do want and vetoing the laws they do not want. THE ATHENS AND ROME ARG U M EN T. Oh, but say these opponents o f popular government, remember the overthrow o f the direct democracy o f Athens and Rome. It is difficult to argue with entire patience with men o f learn ing and intelligence who w ill offer as a reason against popular government the so-called direct dem ocracy o f Athens and o f Rome. We might as well go to Athens and to Rom e to get our instruction in the management o f modern railways and in handling the telegraph and telephone. Only one person in 400 could read in Athens and in Rome. The people were divided into the very few intelligent and cul tured and into the very, very many who were ignorant o f letters and o f the art o f government, five-sixths o f whom were slaves and the vast m ajority in hopeless poverty. They lacked the spirit o f liberty, and the father controlled by law the son and his fam ily as long as the father lived, with power o f life and death and property. It avails nothing to say that the populace o f Athens had an appreciation o f the beautiful form s o f marble which their sculp tors developed with great cleverness. The vital fact is that they had no knowledge o f governm ent; that they had no means o f public communication except by word o f m outh; no knowl edge o f liberty as we know it; and were actually ruled by an intellectual, financial, and m ilitary aristocracy under the form s o f a direct democracy. To-day the great body o f our citizens can read and write. To-day we have millions o f books available and libraries every where. To-day the most distant citizen can by the parcel post receive for a trilling expense the last word upon organized gov ernment and the art o f government. To-day we have the tele graph and the telephone binding the ends o f the w orld together and putting inform ation with regard to government all over the world, its weakness and its strength, in the-hands o f every citi zen who cares to know. To-day we have millions o f men who do care to know, and who are interested in good government, and who are determined to have good government and to over throw the rule o f the self-seeking few and to terminate the commercial and financial piracy which has been dealing un justly with the many for the benefit o f the organized few. T o day we have modern newspapers, a m iracle in art and in de sign, filled with news brought instantly by telegraph and tele phone from the ends o f the earth : filled with knowledge, litera ture, and a r t; tilled with finance and com m erce; filled with sport and humor and fu n ; filled with ten thousand times ten 84132 11872--------3 thousand wants and opportunities, which the poorest citizen can buy fo r one-hundredth part o f his daily wage. Compare Athens and Home o f 2,000 years ago with Washington, Chicago, or New Y o r k ! Oh, no, Mr. President, the comparison can not be ju stly m ade; and that the opponents o f popular government should go so far to find their argument against the rule o f the jieople shows how poverty stricken and howr poor and how mean are the fallacies and pretexts upon which they rely. I N IT IA T IV E AND REFERENDU M J O K E R S . Mr. President, there are six dangerous jokers which I wish to call attention to and which the friends o f popular govern ment should beware of. Joker 1. Lim iting the initiative to statute laws and pro hibiting the voters from proposing and adopting amendments to the State constitutions. The constitutional initiative is the most vital part o f any amendment. For in the State constitutions are many jokers restraining popular government that need correction by constitu tional amendment. Joker 2. T o require an improbable or impossible m ajority necessary to enact or reject measures submitted to the voters. Every measure voted on should be decided by the m ajority o f the votes cast thereon. Joker 3. To require large petitions to render it difficult to se cure them, no matter what per cent is required. This is done by increasing the percentages beyond reason or to require a certain per cent o f the legal voters o f certain counties. The signature o f any voter in the State should count regard less o f residence. Joker 4. To so fram e the emergency clause that the legisla ture may annul the referendum whenever it chooses. The emergency should only be declared upon a two-thirds m ajority o f ail members on a recorded vote, setting forth the reasons for the em ergency. Joker 5. To put an arbitrary lim it upon the number o f meas ures w hich may be submitted to the people at any one election, because the special interests can thus preclude submission o f public measures by offering trivial measures in advance o f the public measure. Joker G. Failure to provide an adequate and efficient method o f inform ing the voters concerning the measures submitted to them. The only safety for the political machine is to keep the people in ignorance.' The Oregon publicity pamphlet inform s the people. Insist on the publicity pamphlet. I submit herewith a model constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum, free from jokers, and self-executin g: PRO PO SED C O N ST IT U T IO N A L A M E N D M E N T FOR T H E EN DU M . IN IT IA T IV E AND REFER The legislative authority of this State shall be vested In a legisla tive assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, hut the people reserve to themselves the power to propose legislative meas ures, resolutions, lairs, and amendments to the constitution, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent o f the legislative assembly, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or any part of any resolution, act, or measure passed by the legislative assembly. S4132— 11S72 35 The first power reserved by the people is the initiative, and not more than 8 per cent, nor in any case more than 50.000. of the legal voters shall be required to propose any measure by initiative petition, and every such petition shall include the full text of the measure so proposed. Initiative petitions, except for municipal and wholly local legislation, shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than four months before tho election at which they are to be voted upon. If conflicting measures submitted to the people shall be approved by a majority of the votes severally cast for and against the same, the one receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall thereby become law as to ail conflicting provisions. Proposed amendments to the constitution shall in all cases be submitted to the people for approval or rejection. The initiative is also reserved as follo w s: If at any time, not less than 10 days prior to the convening of the general assembly, there shall he filed with the secretary of state an initiative petition for any meas ure signed by 1 per cent, nor in any case more than 5,000 legal voters, the secretary of state shall transmit certified copies thereof to the house of representatives and to tho senate immediately upon organization. If said measure shall be enacted, either as petitioned for or in an amended form, it shall be subject to referendum petition as other measures. If it shall be enacted in an amended form, or if no action is taken thereon within four months from the convening of the general assembly, it shall be submitted by the secretary of state to the people at the next regular general elect ion, provided such submission shall be demanded by sup plementary initiative petition signed by 4 per cent, nor in any case more than 30,000, legal voters and filed not less than four months be fore such election. Such proposed measure shall be ‘■abmitted either as introduced or with the amendments, or in any amended form which may have been proposed in the general assembly, as may be demanded in such supplemental petition. If such measure so submitted be approved by the electors, it shall be law and go into effect, and any amended form of such measure which may have been passed by the general as sembly shall thereby stand repealed. The second power is the referendum, and it may be ordered either by petition signed by the required percentage of the legal voters or by the legislative assembly as other bills are enacted. Not more than 5 per cent, nor in any case more than 30,000 legal voters, shall be re quired to sign and make a valid referendum petition. Only signatures of legal voters whose names are on the registration books and records shall be counted on initiative and on referendum petitions. If it shall be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety that a measure shall become effective without delay, such necessity shall be stated in one section, and if. by separate vote of yeas and nays, three-fourths of all the members shall vote on a separate roll call in favor of the measure going into instant opera tion. because it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, such measure shall become operative upon being filed in the office of the secretary of state or city clerk as the case may he: Provided, That an emergency shall not be declared on any measure creating or abolishing any office or to change the salary, term, or duties of any officer or granting any franchise or act alienating any property of the State. If a referendum petition shall be filed against an emergency measure such measure shall become a law until it is voted upon by the people and if it is then rejected by a majority of those vot ing upon the question such measure shall be thereby repealed. No statute, ordinance, or resolution approved by vote of the people shall be amended or repealed by the legislative assembly or any city council except by throe-fourths vote of all the members taken by yeas iind nays. The provisions of this section apply to city councils. The initiative and referendum powers of the people are hereby fur ther reserved to the legal voters of each municipality and district as to nil local, special, and municipal legislation of every character in and for their respective municipalities and districts. Every extension, en largement, purchase, grant, or conveyance of a franchise or of any rights, property, casement, lease, or occupation of or in any road, street, alley, or park, or any part thereof, or in any real property, or interest in any real property owned by a municipal corporation, whether the same be made by statute, ordinance, resolution, or otherwise, shall be subject to referendum by petition. In the case of laws chiefly of local interest, whether submitted by initiative or referendum petition cr by the legislative assembly, shall be voted upon and approved or rejected only by the people of the locality chiefly interested, except when the legislative assembly shall order the measure submitted to the people of the State. Cities and towns may provide for the manner of exercising 841 3 2 —-1 1 8 7 2 36 initiative and referendum powers as to their municipal legislation sub ject to the general laws o f the State. Not more than 10 per cent of the legal voters may be required to order the referendum nor more than 15 per cent to propose any measure by the initiative in any city, town, t ' local subdivision of the State. The filing of a referendum petition against one or more items, seedons, or parts of any act, legislative measure, resolution, or ordinance shall not delay the remainder of the measure from becoming operative. Referendum petitions against measures passed by the legislative assem bly shall be filed with the secretary o f state not later than 90 days after the final adjournment of the session of the legislative assembly at which the measure on which the referendum is demanded was passed, except when the legislative assembly shall adjourn at any time tem porarily for a period longer than 90 days, in which case such refer endum petitions shall be filed not later than 90 days after such tem porary adjournment. The veto power of the governor or the mayor shall not extend to measures initiated by or referred to the people. A ll elections on general, local, and special measures referred to the people of the State or of any locality shall be had at the regular general elec tions, occurring not less than four months after the petition is filed, except when the legislative assembly or the governor shall order a special election, but counties, cities, and towns may provide for special elections on local matters. Any measure initiated by the people, or referred to the people as herein provided, shall take effect and become law if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and not otherwise. Every such measure shall take effect 30 days after the election at which it is approved. The style of all bills shall b e : “ Be it enacted by the people of (name of State, municipality, or co u n ty).” This section shall not be construed to deprive any member of the legis lative assembly or of a city council of the right to introduce any meas ure. The whole number of electors who voted for governor at the regu lar election last preceding the filing o f anv petition for the initiative or for the referendum shall be the basis on which the number of resistered voters necessary to sign such petition shall be computed. Petitions and orders for the Initiative and for the referendum shall he filed with the secretary of state or in municipal or local elections with the countv or city clerk or such other officer as may be provided by law. In sub mitting the same to the people he and all other officers shall be guided by the general laws until additional legislation shall be especially pro vided therefor. This amendment shall be self-executing, but the legis lature may enact laws facilitating its operation. A ll proposed measures submitted to the people shall be printed in pamphlet form, together with arguments for and against, as may be provided for bv law, and mailed by the secretary o f state to the electors at least 50 days before the election at which they are to be voted. O B J E C T IO N S TO T H E I N IT IA T IV E AND BEFER EN D U M . Mr. President, what are the objections to the initiative and referendum ? First, it has been objected that it was contrary to the socalled “ representative” principle o f the Constitution. This objection I have abundantly answered. (E xhibit B .) Second, that the people are not capable o f direct legislation. The contrary has been abundantly shown by the experiences in all o f the States and countries which have put it iuto effect. Third, that representative dem ocracy is better than direct democracy. The answer to this is that there is no such issue, since the optional initiative and referendum in nowise inter feres w ith representative democracy. Fourth, that the initiative and referendum would destroy de liberation, debate, and result in hasty legislation. The fact is an initiated bill is usually drawn by a group o f patriotic citi zens, w ho prepare the bill with infinite pains, consulting the best experts in the State, and only present it to the State aftc-r it has been thoroughly considered. It appears In the public prints; it is discussed by the citizens from one end o f the State to the oth er; it is presented to each citizen o f the State in a 84132— 11872 37 publicity pamphlet, giving the arguments for and against it, and a sufficient length o f time before the election, that each citizen can thoroughly understand it ; and then each citizen in the State, in the quiet and seclusion o f the ballot box. expresses his opinion with regard to it, w ithout excitement and without passion and w ith the utmost deliberation. In Congress w e pass volumes o f bills. Is it incredible that the citizens who have the intelligence to select Senators and Presidents should also have the intelligence to pass one bill, or even two or three bills? I have heard o f hasty legislation by representatives, without much debate in legislatures, and sometimes in a conference committee important legislation has been put on a tariff bill by misrepresentatives at the instance o f private interests and against the general w elfare in great haste and without debate. Such hasty law s under a referendum could be vetoed by the people and ought to be vetoed. T H E T E O rL E W I L L NOT VOTE— F A L LA C Y . The crowning charge against the initiative and referendum by the form er Senator from Texas is that only a small per cent o f the people w ill vote, and his data is based on the cases o f compulsory referendum. In Oklahoma the percentages have run from 54 to 100 per cent o f the citizens voting. In Maine it has run from 50 to 100 per cent. In Missouri, from 71 per cent to 05 per cen t; in Arkansas, from 75 per cent to 90 per cent; in Montana, from 72 per cent to 80 per cent; in Oregon it has run from 01 per cent up to 90 per cent; in South Dakota, from 57 per cent to 92 per cent. Those who do not vote on these questions o f public policy submitted by the initiative and referendum are those citizens w ho are ignorant or indifferent to such questions o f public policy, and who voluntarily disfranchise themselves, leaving the more intelligent and more interested citizens to decide these questions. This voluntary disfranchisement o f the unfit is o f public benefit. But, Mr. President, out o f 187 yea-and-nay votes in the Senate previous to the retirement o f the Senator he himself appears only to have voted IS times, or less than 10 per cent. The people appear to be from 500 to 900 per cent better than this record, and are otherwise not justly subject to his criticism. I submit an Exhibit A to my remarks upon this question giving iu detail the percentages o f votes in various States and the principles governing the initiative and referendum and ask that it be printed as a Senate document. Mr. President, the restoration o f popular government is ab solutely essential to tlie w elfare and happiness o f the Am eri can people. The time has come when we must terminate the gross abuses o f machine politics, when we must purify our governmental processes and establish the best form o f govern ment o f which the Am erican intelligence and conscience is capable. The people’ s rule system o f government is not, or should not be. a partisan question. This issue o f the people's rule goes to the root o f all oilier questions because all modern questions practically com prise some form iu which the rights, the interests, the health, and the happiness o f the people is S 4132— 11S72 33 interfered with by the special interests seeking profit or promo tion through the machine method o f government. It is abso lutely essential for the people to announce a new Declaration o f Independence, freedom from the rule o f the few, freedom from the rule o f the special interests, freedom from the machine poli ticians who are in alliance with the special interests which have perverted the great Republic from its noblest ideals to sordid and selfish ends. In the w ords o f the immortal L in coln : It is for us, the living, to highly resolve that this Nation, under God. shall have a new birth cf freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. T H E R E A SO X S I X B R IE F J U S T I F T I X G D IRECT L E G IS L A T IO X . The reasons in brief which ju stify direct legislation have been perhaps best stated by Prof. Frank Parsons in 1900, since de ceased. Prof. Parsons was a great publicist, with no ax to grind, no political ambition, and no other purpose than to serve God and mankind “ in spirit and in truth.” Direct legislation— that is, direct legislation by the optional initiative and referendum. 1. Is essential to self-government. 2. D estroys the private monopoly o f lawmakers. 3. Is a common-sense application o f the established principles o f agency. 4. W ill perfect the representative system. 5. Is immediately and easily practicable. 0. Makes fo r political purity. 7. K ills the lobby. 8 . Makes it useless to bribe legislators because they can not deliver the goods. 9. Attracts better men to political life. 10. Simplifies elections. 11. Simplifies the law. 12. Lessens the pow er o f partisanship. 13. Elevates the press and the people. 14. Stops class legislation. 15. Opens the door o f progress. 1G. Is wisely conservative. 17. W orks an autom atic disfranchisem ent o f the unfit. 18. Tends to stability. 19. 7s a safety valve for discontent. 20. Is in line with the general trend o f modern political his tory throughout the world. I might add to these reasons— 21. Causes public servants to do their utmost to serve the public interest, knowing that the power o f the people is over them directly. 22. It thus enthrones righteousness and the general w elfare by giving sovereign power to the intelligence and conscience o f the Nation. 23. It tends pow erfully to educate the people on questions o f public policy and increases the general intelligence. 24. t* w ill enable the people to pass a thoroughgoing corruptpractices act, a mandatory direct primary, and other progres sive statutes necessary to establish the i>eople’s rule, which r. machine-controlled legislature otherwise can and will prevent. 84132-11872 T II F O B JE C T IO N S TO T H E I N IT IA T IV E AND REFERENDUM Are imaginary or based on erroneous information. Under the initiative and referendum only a fe w ( not many, a sob jected ) important laws would be referred to the people or initiated by the people. The initiative and referendum is not hasty, without delibera tion or by impulse, as objected, but the most deliberate o f all leg islative processes, usually taking about two years. It is objected that from 20 to HO per cent o f the people do not vote on initiated measures. This only means that the ig norant or indifferent voter voluntarily disfranchises himself, leaving the questions o f public policy to be decided by more in telligent and interested voters. It is objected that the voters can not pass on complicated laws. The answer to this is that, com plicated or not, the people well know the difference between honest and dishonest laws, between ju st and unjust laws, and when they have the power to kill the latter no more o f them are apt to be made. Moreover, it is easier to pass upon a law in black and white, even if com plicated, than to pass upon a complicated man and what he w ill do under the influence o f the lobby. I t is objected that it is impracticable. This objection is based upon unadulterated ignorance. It is objected w e should “ elect better men.” W e have tried this game long enough. It has failed. The system under which the “ big stick ” hangs over the “ representative man ” w ill make him better. It makes an unfaithful servant powerless, and this is the man w e are after. It is objected that direct legislation w ill destroy representa tive government. This is purely imaginary. It w ill perfect representative government and make the representative per form his duty or enable the people to correct his sins o f om is sion or his sins o f commission. To accomplish integrity o f government and perfect the sys tem o f popular government, w e need— First. An adequate registration system to register all entitled to vote, so that no person not entitled shall be registered, and open at all times to public examination. Second. A secret ballot— Australian system— under which the financial and commercial bullies can not coerce or bribe the weak citizen whose bread and butter they control. Third. A direct mandatory primary, by which the voters can select their candidates regardless o f the political machine. Fourth. A statute preventing corrupt practices, directly lim iting the use o f money, preventing bribery, coercion, and fraud, requiring publicity o f campaign contributions, and giving the voter peace and absolute security from pressure on election day. Fifth. A constitutional amendment fo r the initiative and r e f erendum fo r every State, and statutes vitalizing the same so that the people can amend their State constitution when they like and can enact any laws they do want or veto any laws they do not want, in spite o f the machine or the Influence o f political mercenaries. Sixth. A statute providing publicity pamphlets, giving each citizen before election time full inform ation and arguments for and against all public measures and fo r and against all public candidates. Seventh. A statute providing fo r the recall, by which the people can nominate a successor to an incompetent, unfaithful, or obnoxious public servant. Eighth. Local self-governm ent fo r cities and towns by com mission, with the initiative, referendum, and recall. Ninth. The short ballot, with preferential provisions, by which the votes o f unorganized citizens may be autom atically cohered. Tenth. The direct election o f United States Senators. Eleventh. The direct nomination o f presidential candidates. These are the chief agencies by which we shall restore the integrity and the efficiency o f our Government, and o f these agencies “ the initiative and the referendum ” arc first, because they open the door to all the others. Mr. President, in my judgment the Senate o f the United States should throw the weight o f its influence in favor o f the initiative and referendum and not against it. I therefore offer a substitute for Senate resolution 413. Strike out all after the resolving clause in Senate resolution 413 and insert the follow ing : That the system of direct legislation, such as the optional initiative and referendum adopted by Oklahoma. Oregon, California. Washington, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Montana. North Dakota. South Dakota, Mis souri, Arkansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Maine, is in harmony with and makes more effective the representative system and the prin ciple of the sovereignty of the people upon which this Republic was founded, and is not in conflict with the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution. 84132— 11872