The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
SHALL THE PEOPLE BE TRICKED OUT OF THEIR POWER TO RULE? The warfare o f the allied reactionary corporation and political interests lo prevent the successful establishment and permanence of the initiative and referendum in American States and cities has been directed along four general lin e s : 1. To prevent their introduction at all. 2. To have them declared “ unconstitutional ” by the courts. .I. To induce legislatures to insert “ jo k e r s ” in proposed amendments ‘ w hich would render them unworkable when secured. 4. T o break them down after they are secured. In Missouri, fo r example, the legislature has submitted, in the place of the good one now in force, a substitute amendment, which, i f adopted, w ill practically kill the initiative and referendum in that State. REMARKS OF OWEN OF O K LAH O M A IN' THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 20, 1914 PRESENTING A STATEM ENT BY THE NATIONAL POPULAR GOVERNMENT LEAGUE ENTITLED THE NATION -W IDE ATTEM PT TO DESTROY THE EFFICIENCY OF THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM W ASHINGTON 1914 SHALL THE PEOPLE PE TRICKED OUT OF THEIR POWER TO RULE? Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, the assaults being made upon the initiative and referendum throughout the Nation merit the careful attention of every American citizen who believes in popular government and genuine majority rule. Direct legislation is now in operation in 15 States, and its adoption is a vital issue in many others. Its advance is, of course, bitterly opposed by the special interests. But not con tent with combating the further extension of the initiative and referendum, various corrupting corporations and the corrupt political machines under their influence or control are deter mined to destroy these instruments o f self-government in States which have already secured them. In Missouri, for example, the legislature has submitted, in place of the excellent provision now in force, a new substitute amendment which will, if adopted, practically kill the initiative and referendum in that State. The people of Missouri are not aware of the true character of the proposal made to them. They are being asked to support a deceptive substitute, on the grounds that it will prohibit the initiative from being ap plied to the single tax. As a matter of fact, they are being asked to renounce the sovereign control which they now possess over the lawmaking function, forfeit the powers they gained after years of struggle, and once more place the State legislature in supreme control over themselves. In Montana the supreme court has recently been asked to in validate, upon absurd technicalities, an initiative and referen dum amendment adopted by the people of that State in 1000. In Arkansas the supreme court has by unfriendly decisions destroyed a great part of the amendment adopted in 1910. In Washington the organized farmers and workingmen have found great difficulty, under the unjust and arbitrary condi tions imposed by the legislature, in securing petitions for laws desired by them. Even after petitions have been secured, the State officials are seemingly making every effort to keep these questions off the ballot—questions which the special in terests do not want submitted to the people. In Oregon an attempt is being made to secure the passage of a law which will render it almost impossible to secure petitions. In Colorado Gov. Ammons has declared himself in favor of inhibitive restrictions. Like attacks might be mentioned in other States. Mr. President, the cause o f this sinister warfare against the people’s new-found liberties is not far to seek. Many laws o f the highest importance to equalize opportunity, to conserve, pro tect, and develop human life and human energy are urgently G8178—13S71 3 IT: ? ' •Mi, iji| f H needed. Those great objects are to be accomplished by a series of measures involving social and industrial reforms. There is in reality a political struggle being waged between the masses o f the people and the organized forces of human selfishness, which have systematically glorified the acquisition of property at the expense o f human life and happiness. It is the failure o f representative government to give the people what they want that has caused the people o f several States to demand and secure the initiative and referendum. A demand for direct legislation is being made by the people of every State. This movement the forces o f reaction are deter mined to overthrow; if not openly, then by betrayal. This is the explanation of all these amazing attempts to prevent true selfgovernment from being established in this Republic, founded upon the principle o f the sovereignty o f the people. This is why men who claim to reverence Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln bend their energies to subvert and annihilate methods o f government which embody the very essence o f every principle for which those great exponents of government by the people stood. I deem it a public duty to expose upon the floor o f the Senate this attack upon popular government, and I desire to insert as a part of my remarks a statement upon this subject prepared by the National Popular Government League, of this city, which sets forth in detail the methods now being employed to destroy the initiative and referendum and block the efforts of the American people to attain true political liberty. If there is no objection, I should like to insert that in my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. P it t m a n in the chair). .Without objection, it will be so ordered. The matter referred to is as follows: TH E N A T IO N -W ID E A T T E M P T T O D E S T R O Y T H E E F F IC IE N C Y T IV E AND R E F E R E N D U M . OF T H E IN IT IA A statement prepared by Judson King, executive secretary of the National Popular Government League, and individually re viewed, accepted, and approved by the following officers o f the league: P resid en t: Hon. R obert L. O w en , United States Senator. Oklahoma. Vice presid en ts: Charles S. Barrett, Union City, Ga., president Na tional Farmers’ Union ; Hon. G eorge E. C h a m b e r l a in , United S ta tes Senator, Oregon : Hon. M o s e s E. C l a p p , United States Senator. Min nesota ; Samuel Gompers. Washington, D. C., president American Federa tion o f L a b o r; Dr. John U. Haynes. Los Angeles, father direct legisla tion in C a lifo rn ia : C. 15. Kegley. I’ alouse, Wash., president National Conference o f Progressive State G ran ges; Hon. M. C lyde K e l l y , Con gressman, Pennsylvania : John P. White, Indianapolis, president United Mine W orkers o f America. Of the finance com m ittee: George P. Hampton, chairman, New York, secretary Farmers’ National Committee on Popular Governm n t ; Hon. W il l ia m E. C h i l t o n , United States Senator, W est V irg in ia ; Carl Sehurz Yrooman, Bloom ington, 111., author “ American railway prob lems.” Of the executive com m ittee: Hon. Frank P. Walsh, chairman, Kansas City, Mo., chairman Federal Commission on Industrial R elations: P rof. Lewis J. Johnson, Cambridge, Mass., civil engineering. Harvard Uni versity ; Dr. A. J. M cKelway, W ashington, D. C.. southern secretary National Child Labor C om m ittee; Hon. G eorge W. N o r r is , United States Senator, Nebraska ; the president and executive secretary o f the league. O f the comm ittee on legislative fo r m s : W illiam S. U’Ren. chairman, Oregon City. Orcg., father o f the “ Oregon system ’’ : Hon. R o b e r t C rosser , Congressman, chairman initiative and referendum committee, Ohio constitutional c o n v en tion ; Hon. Joseph W. Folk, W ashington, D. C., ex-governor o f Missouri, solicitor Interstate Commerce Commis58178— 13S71 s io n ; Francis J. Ileney, San Francisco, attorney at 'law ; Stiles P. Jones, M inneapolis, secretary tlie Voters L ea g u e; Dean W illiam Draper Lewis, Philadelphia, law school U niversity o f P ennsylvania: Dr. Charles M cCarthy, Madison, W is„ director legislative reference lib r a r y ; M ilton T. U’ Ren, San Francisco, attorney at l a w ; Delos F. W ilcox, Ph. D., New York, consulting franchise expert, author “ Government by all the people.” The warfare of the reactionary allied corporation and po litical interests to prevent the successful establishment of con stitutional amendments and statute laws for the initiative and referendum in American States and cities has been directed along four general lines: F IR S T . TO P R E V E N T 't h e ir IN T R O D U C T IO N AT A LL. It took 10 years o f strenuous fighting in Oregon to secure direct legis lation, 12 years in M issouri, 18 years in Ohio, etc. A fter 22 years of effort since the popular demand began, only 17 States have amendments, such as they are. SEC O N D . T O H A V E T H E M D EC LA RED rc U N C O N S T IT U T IO N A L ” B Y C O U RTS. The Morgan interests carried a case to the Supreme Court o f the United States in an effort to have the Oregon amendment— and hence all amendments— declared “ repugnant to the Federal C onstitution.” The court decided in 1911 that it was a political question fo r Congress to determine. And Congress has kept hands off. A ttacks o f like char acter have been made in nearly all State supreme courts. T H I R D . T O IN D U C E L E G I S L A T U R E S A M EN D M EN TS W H IC H W O ULD SEC U R ED . TO I N S E R T " J O K E R S ” IN P R O P O SED REN D ER TH EM U N W O R K A B LE W HEN Of the 17 amendments adopted, only 8 can be called r/ood. And there are only 4 honest, adequate, complete systems in operation to-dav. The rest are all defective at vital points, and some are absolutely worthless. Six proposed amendments will be voted on November 3, 1914. F our o f these are worthless. F O U R T H . TO B R E A K TH EM DO W N A F T E R TH EY A R E E S T A B L IS H E D . An account o f attacks o f this character is the subject o f this writing. In nearly every State which has direct legislation the interests are con stantly at work to destroy them or prevent their use on vital issues. The courts are appealed to, the legislatures arc seduced, and even the people themselves are asked— not to repeal the initiative and referen dum, the interests are too clever fo r that, but to vote for innocentlooking changes in the amendments which w ill deprive the people o f practical power to control the lawmaking function o f their govern ment. It is these “ jo k e r s ” which shear the voters o f their power and against them all cham pions o f government by the people should be on their guard. An abortive initiative and referendum is worse than none at all. M IS S O U R I. One of the cleverest attempts to deprive tlie people of a great State of the powers they now possess under the initiative and referendum is furnished just now by Missouri. In 1912 an amendment to tlie State constitution proposing a mild application o f tlie principle o f the single tax was placed upon the ballot by initiative petition, and. after one of the most bitter and sensational campaigns of its kind ever known in the State, was defeated by a vote o f 508,137 against to SG.G47 for. The total vote for governor was 099,210; hence S5.1 per cent voted on the proposition. So great was the opposition to tlie measure that a very considerable demand was made upon the legislature to make it impossible for the single tax to be again initiated. That teas all. There was no demand from the people that the use of the initiative and referendum on other questions be impaired or prohibited. The legislature of 1913 submitted an entire substitute initia tive and referendum section to be voted upon at the general election, November 3, 1914, which contains a clause prohibiting 58178— 13871 I 6 the initiative and referendum from being applied to the single ta x; but it did not stop with this. Several other new provisions were inserted which, if adopted, will render it easy to stop the use of the initiative and referen dum on any subject whatever which may meet with any power ful opposition. TH E O P E N R E S T R IC T IO N , What might be called the antisingle-tax section is as follows: The powers reserved or contained in this section as aforesaid shall not he used to pass a law or constitutional amendment authorizing any classification o f property for the purpose o f levying the different rates o f taxation thereon, or of authorizing the levy o f jyiy single tax on land or land values or land sites at a higher rate or by a different rule than is or m sy be applied to im provements thereon, or to personal property, or to authorize or confer local option or other local powers in matters o f taxation in or upon any o f the counties, m unicipalities, or political subdivisions o f the State, or to repeal, amend, or m odify these provisions relating to taxation. This is a remarkable proposition. Not only are the siugletaxers tied up tight, but everyone else, no matter how hostile to the single tax. The principle of prop erty classification is not the single tax, but is urged by bitter antisingletaxers. The principle o f home rule in taxation is not the single tax. Even the Supreme Court of the United States, which can not be said even to have single-tax leanings, declared (Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. llepts., 351) : A system which imposes the same tax upon every species o f property, Irrespective o f its nature or condition or class, will be destructive o f the principle o f uniform ity and equality in taxation, and o f a ju st adapta bility. TEOPLE POWERLESS TO CHANGE THIS. The people are thus asked to surrender any practical control over the function of taxation; but, what is more, they are spe cifically cut off from ever recovering control if they so desire. They can not use the initiative and referendum to “ amend, re peal, or modify these provisions relating to taxation.” I f the old adage be true, that the power to tax he the power to govern, then a more humiliating proposition was never presented to a free citizenship. O T H E R R U IN O U S P R O V IS IO N S A P P L Y IN G TO A L L P E T I T I O N S . But this is not the most important thing. Let us examine further. Another new provision, the conditions of which are in another place repeated so as to a p p ly a lso to t h e r e fe r e n d u m , reads: Initiative petitions shall he filed with the respective county clerks o f the respective counties in which the signers thereof reside and vote not less than fou r months before the election at whicli they are to be voted upon. W i t h i n 3 0 d a y s after said petitions are filed with the respective county clerks o f the respective counties said initiative petitions shall be. by said respective county clerks, laid before the county courts o f the respective counties, and said petitions shall be examined by the respec tive county courts o f the respective counties, and i f t h e s i g n a t u r e s th e r e to a r e fo u n d to b e g e n u in e s ig n a tu r e s o f v o te r s o f su ch c o u n tie s , t h e y s h a l l , a t l e a s t t h r e e m o u t h s b e f o r e t h e e l e c t i o n at which they are to be voted upon, be certified by the respective county courts o f the re spective counties to the secretary o f state. This seemingly innocent section when coupled up with an other provision “ that petitions must be secured—S per cent for the initiative and 5 per cent for the referendum— iu each o f at least two-thirds of the congressional districts in the State,” can easily be made an insurmountable obstacle to the use of the in itiative aud referendum. 5817S— 13S71 Now, watch carefully! All petitions must be in the hands of county clerks four months before the election. That means in 3914, say, on July 3, with the election on November 3. But the clerk may hold these petitions for 30 days before turning them over to the county court. He can hold them till August 1 to 3, all petitions tiled from July 1 to 3. Now, August 3 is the date on which all petitions must be in the hands of the secretary of state at Jefferson City— that is, “ three months be fore the election ” — after being examined and certified by the county courts. It would be a physical impossibility for the county court to do all this for all petitions filed late in June or early in July, and the history of similar petitions filed in States all over the Union shows that a goodly portion of such petitions are filed shortly before or on the final date set. And even if the people should file their petitions earlier, the power of the county clerk to hold them 30 days would still be a menace and could cause thousands of names to fail to reach the sec retary of state in time. The county court could easily refuse to certify a petition to the secretary of state on the grounds that it had not had time to examine the genuineness of the signatures. It is perfectly clear then, that any petition opposed by a small number only of county clerics or county courts mould have no possible chance to get through, and these officials icould all act mitliin their constitutional rights and could not be touched. U N P R E C E D E N T E D T O V .'E R O V ER P E T I T I O N S G IV E N T H E C O U R T S . But more dangerous still is the unprecedented power given the courts to reject at will not only single-tax petitions but all other petitions of the people. The text says petitions shall be certified by the county courts “ if the signatures thereto shall be found to be genuine signatures of voters o f such counties” This is the first instance where it has been provided not only that genuine signatures must first actually be obtained, but that they are then of no avail until proved genuine signatures of voters before a judicial officer— the first time signatures authorized to be procured by law are presumed to be false until found genuine by the courts. That this provision would absolutely kill every petition passed upon by an unfriendly court can not be denied. The language is plain; the effect is clear. The examination by the court and the passing upon the signatures by the court, and its finding them to be genuine, is one of the prerequisite steps of a valid petition. Further, the amendment could not be aided by judicial construction because it is a fundamental condition on which a law can be initiated or referred. In other States, and in Missouri now, the oath of the one se curing the petitions that they are genuine signatures of voters is sufficient to establish validity, and such petitions are pre sumed genuine unless they are proven to be otherwise. But in this provision the little word “ i f s h i f t s the burden of proof to the other side. It is not too much to say that a judge desiring to strictly comply with the requirements laid down could compel, oy would have to compel, every man signing a petition to come into court and prove to the satisfaction of the court both that his signature was genuine and that he was a legal voter o f the county. Unquestionably, an intolerable bur58178—13871 I 8 den is here placed upon the judges which is undesirable to them» and one which it is inexpedient and unwise to place upon them. This provision, if carried out, could and would cause the re jection of all petitions, because it is practically impossible for a judge to examine into the genuineness o f all the signatures of his county. I f the judge were friendly to the initiated measure he might assume to pass upon the signatures without an exami nation, but if unfriendly he would simply say, “ I am unable to tind the signatures ‘ genuine signatures of voters of such coun ties,’ ” and what then? There is no method prescribed for re viewing the judge’s conduct. It being a judicial act, the judge can not be compelled, by mandamus or otherwise, to find the signatures “ genuine signatures of voters of such counties.” Had this section been simply an effort to have questionable signatures passed upon it would have provided that within the 30 days anyone could present to the court evidence of the falsity of signatures questioned, and then the court would have to pass upon only the questioned signatures instead of the un questioned ones as well. If the court had to pass only upon the genuineness of the signatures, he might take the testimony of those of actual voters of his county. Think of a county judge examining into the fact as to whether every signer of a petition is a voter. If the courts, acting clearly within the powers thus granted, could easily throw out petitions which were genuine, consider with how much greater ease they could decline to certify a peti tion on which a few illegal or doubtful names appeared. It is always a simple matter for those opposing a petition to “ job ” a solicitor, no matter how honest he may be, and get fraudulent names upon a petition. Judges could hold the whole petition incompetent because o f a few bad signatures, no matter how genuine all the rest o f the petition might be. The whole pro vision is comparable only to one which might prescribe that no man's vote upon a measure could bc-counted until first passed upon bp the courts. E S P E C IA L L Y IIA R D FO R XUE FA R M ERS. The farmers have made active use of the initiative and referendum in nearly every one of the 15 States where it is in operation. They will want to do so in Missouri. The above provisions will make it harder for them to secure valid peti tions even than for town people. For example, the organized farmers of the State of Washington this year initiated seven laws of tremendous value to them, which were rejected by the legislature. They appointed a joint legislative committee to manage the work o f securing the seven petitions, and found it a difficult matter. Think of the additional money, anxiety, and trouble it would cost the committee, under the proposed Mis souri conditions, to watch all the county clerks and the county courts to see if they were properly attending to petitions after they had been filed. The farmers would be helpless against hostile county courthouse “ rings,” and the rings be protected by the constitution itself. And, then, if they were blocked in just 1 district out o f the necessary 11. the whole Stale petition would fail, even if all the voters in the othes 10 districts had signed the petition. 58178— 13871 9 T IE S UP T H E rr.O P L E FOR S I X TEARS. It is also provided that any law or amendment to the State constitution rejected by a vote of the people can not be resub mitted by petition for a period of five years. This means six years, since Missouri has biennial elections. The provision reads: When any measure shall have been submitted to the people for their approval u n der th e p ow ers r e s c i n d or c en to l e d in this s ec tio n , as aforesaid, and shall be rejected bv the people, neither the same measure nor any other measure which shall have or tend to h a re the same mean ing, nor any other measure which shall have or tend to have the same or similar effect as the measure rejected, shall again he submitted under th e said p o w ers reserve d or con ta in ed in this s ectio n for a term of live years. to On first blush this is ostensibly inserted to prevent the early resubmission of a defeated initiative measure. A law or consti tutional amendment rejected in 1914 could not be again pre sented till 1920, then 192G, and so forth, nor could anything which a court might say “ tended in that direction ” be submit ted. An emergency might arise, conditions might change, delay might mean millions o f dollars lest; the people might desire to ^ct in 191G or 1918, but they could not until 1920. IN C L U D E S T H E REFEREN D U M A LSO . But this provision goes far deeper. It is so worded as to apply to the referendum as well as the initiative. The phrase “ powers reserved or contained in this section ” includes the referendum. An amazing limitation on the people is here disclosed which can best be set forth by an example. Suppose the legislature should enact an unpopular law—make some huge appropriation, create some special privilege, give away a railway franchise, or do anything which might be strongly opposed by the people? Suppose a referendum petition is filed and the act is rejected by an enormous majority. The very next session of the legis lature could enact that exact law—or one like it—and the peo ple could not vote on the question for six years. A C O N F IS C A T IO N OF TH E P E O P L E 'S PO W ER. To sum up, what the people of Missouri who vote for this amendment think they are doing is to prevent an other submission of the single tax. W hat they really will be doing is: 1. To place in the hands of a few county officials power to prevent the people’ s use of the initiative and refer endum on any subject. 2 . To surrender their present control of the taxation machinery of the State and hand it over to the legis lature. 3. To fix this legislative control in the constitution irre vocably so that the people can never change or recover it. , 4 . To deny to all the people for six years the use of either the initiative or referendum on the subject matter of any measure once rejected by popular vote. , 5 . To give the legislature absolute power to imme diately reenact its own laws which the people have rejected through the referendum. When closely examined, therefore, and its “ sleepers” pointed out, the people o f Missouri are asked in this substitute to vote to curtail and destroy their own legislative powers and to solemnly announce by their votes that they can not trust them58178— 13871 • selves with the instruments of self-government, which they now possess, but must return to the old conditions of being controlled instead of remaining their own masters as at pres ent. If this substitute carries, it will be the first time in American history when the people by their own act have de liberately deprived themselves of popular sovereignty. It is unthinkable that a majority of the members of the Missouri Legislature who voted for this substitute were cor rectly informed as to the true significance of the changes pro posed, as there are many members who are strong supporters of direct legislation. W HO IS HAC K OF T H I S SC H EM E? The whole situation is a pleasing prospect indeed—to the reactionary interest. The railroads, the brewery interests, the franchise grabbers, the wealthy tax dodgers, and, in short, all forms of “ special privilege” opposed to the people and who hate the initiative and referendum with an undying hatred, have now their golden opportunity. They know exactly what they are about. Taking advantage of the resentment aroused by the submission of the unpopular single-tax proposal they hope to carry this new substitute amendment and so “ ham string” the initiative and referendum itself. If the people of Missouri fall in with this scheme, they will find their hands completely tied on any practical use of the initiative and refer endum in the future. The great mass of the voters do not know this. In truth, proposed measures are so inadequately published in Missouri that not more than one-third o f the voters will ever see the text of this substitute. Every citizen of Missouri who believes in Democracy and the rule of the people should awake to the fact that the passage of this amendment would destroy his fundamental political rights, won after years o f struggle. It would place Missouri in the column of reactionary States. Talk about the danger of the single tax is without point. The people o f Missouri did not want it and voted it down almost unanimously. It is absurd, therefore, to ask this same people to indorse a proposition which implies that they are unfit for self-government and unable to use the initiative and refer endum. Hence, the question before the people o f Missouri is not whether they want to vote on the single tax, but whether they want to retain the power to vote upon anything. Here is what some leading public men in Missouri and else where think about the value of the initiative and referendum: GOV. E L L I O T T W. M A JO R . Gov. Elliott W. Major, when he was attorney general of Missouri, filed a brief for the initiative and referendum before the United States Supreme Court, in which he argues strongly against the attempt to declare these measures unconstitutional, and he said that they were the distinguishing right o f the people under a republican form o f government. GOV. H E R B E R T S . H A D L E T . In his message to the Forty-ninth General Assembly o f Mis souri, Gov. Hadley said: I believe that, on the whole, the initiative and referendum in our constitution has been beneficial. Some persons have urged that the 58178— 12871 requirements fo r initiating laws or amendments to the constitution should bo made more difficult. I do not agree with this suggestion and I recommend that the law stand unchanged. GOV. J O S E P H W . F O L K ., NO W A T T O R N E Y F O R T H E C O M M IS S IO N . IN T E R S T A T E C O M M ERC E Ex-Gov. Folk, In Ills address before the National Popular Government League in Washington, D. C., on December G 1013, , strongly condemned this attempt to kill the initiative and ref erendum in Missouri: I f the opponents o f the initiative and referendum succeed in hob bling it with this proposed amendment in this respect—- Taxation— the next step, o f course, will be to hobble it in some other respect, and directly take away from the people the power to vote on some other question. This, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e o t h e r c h a n g e s m a d e b y t h e n c r o p r o p o s a l, lea d s r e fe r en d u m . to th e p r a c tic a l repeal or a b o litio n of th e in itia tiv e and I hope the people o f M issouri will not be misled into giv ing up this power that they now have in their hands and the obtaining o f which has taken 14 years o f political struggle. I f they tie their hands now from voting on something they do not want, they will find themselves powerless in the future to secure something they do want. We want in this country not only good government, we want selfgovernment. Wo might have good government under a k in g ; we might have so-called good government, though all o f us be slaves. As between good government w ithout self-governm ent and bad government with self-governm ent, I would prefer the latter. The initiative and referendum are the tools o f self-governm ent, and when the people have these in their hands they can make the Govern ment just as good as they wish to make it or just as bad as they suffer it to become. The kind o f government this movement for better things demands is that which comes through governing ourselves. E X -P R E S ID E N T TH EO D O R E R O O SE V E LT. In his public addresses and in the platform of the Progressive Party, Theodore Roosevelt has repeatedly urged the initiative and referendum as necessary instruments in the hands of tlie people to maintain self-government. IIO N . W IL L IA M J E N N IN G S BRYA N . This great Democratic leader has for IS years been an active advocafe for the initiative and referendum. In a letter written July 15, 11)14, urging the voters of Mississippi to adopt a pend ing amendment providing for these powers, he said: I regard the initiative and referendum the greatest modern im prove ment in strengthening representative government. P R E S ID E N T WOODROW W IL S O N . In his book, “ The New Freedom,” in chapter 10, entitled “ The way to resume,” the President said: ■ I ¥ Back o f all reform lies the method o f getting it— And then he pointed out that the initiative and referendum were necessary instruments in the hands of the people to secure these reforms. They are the key that opens the door to our legislative house. He then says: The initiative is a means o f seeing to it that measures which the people want shall be passed when legislatures defy or ignore public opinion. The referendum is a means o f seeing to it that the unrepre sentative measures which they do not want shall not be placed upon the statute book. OREGON. The notable things accomplished by the people o f Oregon through tlie initiative and referendum have been heralded to the Nation. It is not generally known that since their adoption in 11K the people of Oregon have been engaged in a constant )2 struggle to preserve these legislative powers against repeated 58178— 13871 II 12 attacks by the enemies of popular sovereignty. The struggle is still on. The first attack was made by the State legislature o f 1903 in an attempt to virtually set aside the referendum by declar ing the • emergency clause” upon laws the politicians did not “ wish to go to the people. The then governor, Hon. G eorge G. C h a m b e r l a i n , now United States Senator from Oregon, being a genuine friend of popular government saw the danger and promptly met the issue by sending such bills back with a sting ing veto. His messages roused the State, and it is now dan gerous for any member to “ trifle” with the emergency clause. In 1900 the State grange initiated a law taxing the tele graph, telephone, and express companies upon their gross in comes. They were at that time practically untaxed. The bill was adopted by the people. The Morgan interests refused to pay the tax, and took this as a test case to the Supreme Court o f the United States in an effort to have the Oregon initiative and referendum declared “ unconstitutional,” and so kill the movement in the entire Nation. They failed, but the struggle was a costly and harrowing one to the people. At every session of the legislature laws or changes in the amendments are introduced calculated to “ pull its teeth.” For example, in 1910 the legislature proposed a new constitutional convention. The evident scheme was to fix up a new consti tution in which all the new popular-government provisions would be either abolished or rendered inoperative. A hard campaign ensued, and it was rejected by the people. In 1910 an amendment was submitted to the people to require measures to receive a majority o f “ all votes cast in the elec tion ” to enact measures instead of a majority o f the votes cast on the question, as at present. It took a vigorous campaign to defeat this joker. At the present time a new amendment is proposed which will prohibit the employment o f solicitors to. secure petitions.. Need less to say, this attempt is meeting with the strong opposition of all organizations and men who know from actual experience what it means to get petitions and what a blow this would prove to the successful use o f the initiative and referendum, as it has already proven in the State of Washington. ID A H O AND U T A H . By a vote of 43,65S to 13,490, the people o f Idaho placed in their constitution at the election of 1912 what they supposed was an initiative and referendum amendment. It contained several jokers, but, worst o f all, was not made self-executing. It provided that the legislature should draft laws, filling in details and putting it into effect. The legislature of 1913, in defiance o f the direct mandate o f the people, refused to pass such legislation. This is a repetition o f the same fraud which was practiced upon the people of Utah since 1900. The “ gen eral principle” was put in the constitution, and for 14 years the people have waited in vain for the legislature to put the Initiative and referendum in action. No legislature should he perm itted to fix by law the conditions upon which the people m ay review its acts. W A S H IN G T O N . The voters of Washington adopted the initiative and referen dum at the general election of 1912. It was a defective amend58178— 13871 13 merit. Among other* things, it failed to provide for the use of the initiative on amendments to the State constitution. Gov. Hay’s opposition to the constitutional initiative defeated him for reelection. The legislature met iir January, 1913, and under the guise of “ safeguarding ’’ the amendment, deliberately passed an enabling act which needlessly placed severe handicaps upon the people in any use of the initiative and referendum. It is made a “ gross misdemeanor ” for a busy citizen to aid a petition in which he is interested by hiring a solicitor to secure signatures. Only names o f voters who are actually upon the last registration lists can be counted on petitions, and so on. On July 3, after a heroic struggle, the State Farmers’ Grange, the State Farmers’ Union, the State Federation of Labor, and the Direct Legislation League, acting under the direction of a joint legislative committee, succeeded in surmounting the ob stacles and tiled petitions for seven laws—“ the seven sisters ” —■ of great importance to the common people but undesired by the politicians and the interests. Miss Lucy It. Case, of Seattle, a most able woman and secretary of the committee, gave her entire time for six months, without pay, to the work of secur ing this petition. But even then the petition cost $1,281.93. Thirty-one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six names were necessary; 35,000 were secured and properly certified to before the county registers, where they were signed. The interests opposed to these laws organized a “ Stop, Look, Listen League,” and spent thousands of dollars in paid news paper advertising and otherwise in an attempt to frighten the people away from signing petitions. They are now bending every energy in an attempt to prevent the questions from going on the ballot. In this they evidently have the support of the State administration. The law requires the secretary of state simply to count the signatures certified to by the'county au thorities, and if sufficient, he is requix*ed to place the questions on the ballot. Instead of this Secretary Howell assumes juris diction upon the genuineness o f the signatures and is putting the State to a frightful expense to verify work already done, llis every move is hostile and the seeming intent is, upon one pretext or another, to throw out enough names to cause the principal petitions to fail. The attorney general, Mr. Tanner, makes the unheard-of “ ruling” that during the 30 days given the secretary of state by law to count the names citizens can withdraw their names; and blanks for that purpose have been prepared in the office of the secretary of state. But no new names can be added. The “ Stop, Look, Listen League ’’ is scouring the State to induce men to withdraw their names, and at this writing (July 27) it is doubtful if the farmers’ important laws will go on the ballot. But whatever the outcome, this experience of the people of Washington serves as a warning to other States to watch “ en abling a cts” closely. It further shows the bitter hostility of reactionary politicians and corporations to permitting the people expressing their will on important laws. Mr. C. B. Kegley, of Palouse, Wash., master o f the State Grange, strongly opposes the law prohibiting responsible organizations and citizens from em ploying solicitors, thus enabling the volunteer work to be sup plemented by men who can give their entire attention to secur ing petitions in a crisis. 58178— 13871 A RKA N SA S. Iii Arkansas tlie opponents o f the initiative, referendum, and recall have met with success in their efforts to devitalize the amendment through the decisions of a supreme court hostile to these instruments of popular government. The original amendment adopted in 1910 read: The legislative power o f this State shall be vested in a general as sembly, * * * but the people o f each m unicipality, each county, and o f the State reserve to themselves power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls— And so forth. It is perfectly evident that this is a bungling attempt to establish both the local and State-wide initiative and referen dum in one short clause, so adored by constitutional lawyers. In fact, the words “ o f each municipality, of each county, and of the State ” were inserted in the original draft as an amend ment to accomplish this purpose, and not, as was claimed in the campaign, to permit the cities to override the State constitu tion. Nevertheless the supreme court declared itself unable to discover what the language meant, and so abolished the whole clause, which took from the people their constitutional right of initiative and referendum in counties and cities. Exit the local initiative and referendum! Next, the legislature of 3913 passed a law under the “ emer gency clause” and thus denied a referendum petition upon it on the grounds that it was “ necessary for the immediate pres ervation of the public peace, health, and safety,” but also pro vided that the law should not go into effect for one year. The supreme court upheld the legality of this action. Hence, exit the referendum! Next, in 1912 the people passed an amendment by initiative petition establishing the recall on all public officers, including judges. Also two other amendments. ■ Now, the constitution adopted in 1S74 provided that the legislature could submit only three amendments at any one election. The initiative and referendum amendment adopted in 1910—3G years later—did not disturb the old system, but made no limitations on the number of amendments the people might submit by petition. At the 1912 election the legislature submitted proposed amend ments No. 11 and No. 12. The people submitted No. 13. limit ing the legislative session to G days. No. 14 provided for the O recall o f all elective officials, including judges; also No. 15. All three of the initiate amendments were adopted by large majorities. The election board refused to certify the adoption o f Nos. 14 and 15, on the grounds that they were illegally submitted. Suit was brought, and the supreme court solemnly decided that limitation of three, adopted in 1874, governed the amend ment of 1910, and that amendments 14 and 15 must fall. This is a complete reversal of the universal rule o f construction that the last enactment governs and repeals older enactments in conflict. But by this means the recall was destroyed. Hereafter the legislature can prevent the submission o f any amendment by initiative of the people by filling up the ballot with three amend ments o f whatever nature. Exit the constitutional initiative! 08178— 13871 I 15 And at the present time it is given to this supreme court to decide whether the people will have the right to vote at the November election upon a bank-guaranty law and a law estab lishing a State mining board and insure safety for miners. These laws have been propei-ly initiated and promptly enjoined from going on the ballot by the bankers and mine owners. O H IO . Ohio adopted the initiative and referendum in 1912. Gross frauds were practiced by the special interests in 1913 in an at tempt to secure referendum petitions upon two statutes. These frauds were widely heralded in the press and were made the basis of a demand by these same special interests for a law prohibiting solicitors for petitions to receive compensation. To secure from G0,000 to 125,000 signatures of legal voters upon petitions, as required in Ohio, is a gigantic task, and few peti tions could be secured by volunteer work alone. The friends of direct legislation in the legislature and outside promptly met the issue, a campaign of education was made, the help of the administration was secured, and a law preventing fraudulent securing of petitions was passed, but not the thing desired by the enemies of popular government. The citizens of Toledo are engaged in a life and death strug gle with the public-utility interests over a street car franchise worth $25,000,000. These interests are now carrying a case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to have the municipal initiative and referendum law of the State declared “ unconsti tutional,” and so deprive ihe people of a vote upon the settlement of this important question. O KLA H O M A . One of the most vital provisions of a direct-legislation system is adequate publicity upon pending measures for the informa tion of the voters. Oregon lias the best method. A neat State pamphlet containing copies of the measures, with their ballot titles, and also explanatory arguments for and against, fur nished by citizens or organizations o f citizens, is mailed from the office of the secretary of state direct to the voters 00 days before election. In Oklahoma, however, the legislature has failed to provide for any arguments from citizens, and the sys tem of distribution is fatally defective. It is supposed to be handed to the voters at the primary election by election offi cials. On any vital measure opposed by the machines this is not done adequately. Probably not more than one-third of the voters ever see the pamphlet. Another vital defect in the Okla homa system is the requirement that measures, to be adopted, must receive a majority o f all votes cast “ in said election ” instead of “ a majority of all votes cast thereon.” TE N D IN G A M E N D M E N T S. At the general election November 3, 3914, proposed constitu tional amendments for the initiative and referendum will be voted upon in five States, as follow s: Texas: Petitions must be signed by 20 per cent of the voters for both initiative and referendum. This is preposterous. No State should require over 8 per cent, and in no case more than 50,000 signatures for the initiative; nor more than 5 per cent, and in no case more than 30,000 for the referendum. The amendment is not self-executing and all other details must be 58178— 13871 16 provided by the legislature. It is tlie Utah and Idaho trick all over again. The adoption of this subterfuge would kill the movement in Texas for years: . Minnesota: The Minnesota amendment is so full of jokers and restrictions that space does not permit even an attempt at discussion. One provision actually gives the legislature specific power to prohibit the circulation of petitions on any subject it sees fit. Wisconsin: Submits a conservative but fairly good amendment, which it will be worth while to adopt. North Dakota: Amendment lacks the constitutional initiative, requires too large petitions, and has a wicked “ distributing” clause for petitions. There are other jokers. Not worth adopt ing. Maryland votes upon an amendment providing for the refer endum only. It is in very good shape. The people, however, are prohibited from referring any liquor law. Ioxca: An amendment was passed in 1913, which, if adopted by the legislature of 1915, will be voted on in 1916. Among the numerous jokers which render it worthless may be mentioned the right given the legislature to fix petitions at anywhere from 12 to 22 per cent for the initiative, and from 10 to 20 per cent for the referendum. Worthless. This statement is by no means a complete account of the un warranted and unjustifiable attacks made upon the initiative and referendum in States and cities where they are established. The few examples given illustrate the general tendency and demonstrate beyond question that strenuous efforts are being made to destroy the initiative and referendum in America, and that the most dangerous forms which the opposition takes are, first, to insert stealthy “ jok ers” in these provisions which un expectedly operate at critical junctures against the exercise of direct legislative powers by the people; and, second, to break them down in the courts. One o f the most important functions o f the National Popular Government League (nonpartisan) is to point out these “ jo k e rs” and warn the people against them. The league main tains a bureau of information and its headquarters are at 1017 Munsey Building, Washington, D. C., where accurate informa tion concerning these matters can be had freely upon application to the executive secretary. 58178— 13S71 o
@FedFRASER