the latter peril, as was that of Venice an illustration of the danger of autocratic rule by an ever-narrowing political group. Of Florence and the subversive influence of the di Medici family of bankers, the well-known historian, Professor Vallari, of the Royal Institute of Florence observes, when speaking of the baleful machinations of Cosimo di Medici:

"He succeeded in solving the strange problem of becoming absolute ruler of a republic that was keenly jealous of its liberty, without holding any fixed office, without suppressing any previous form of government and always preserving the appearance and form of a private citizen."

Now the changed conditions in American politics since the rise of the great public-service corporations and other privileged classes that work in harmony with the public utility monopolies, have rendered possible the corrupt political boss and the money-controlled machine, that without interfering with the outward form or semblance of a genuine representative government such as was the Republic in its infant days, have changed the actual character of representative government in so positive and startling a manner that in many instances the rule of privileged corporations and classes through the boss and the macihne is so glaring that no intelligent or conscientious man will deny the virtual destruction of a government truly representative of the people or responsive to their wishes.

Now we hold that even if the contention of Professor Wyckoff were sound-something which we do not for a moment admit the presence of the changed condition which is destroying the essentials of a truly representative popular government should lead every believer in a government of, for and by the people or in the fundamental principles that differentiate a democratic or popular government from class-rule, to unremittingly battle for changes that would make the government honestly representative of the wishes and interests of all the people.

We do not, however, hold that Direct-Legislation is contrary to our present form of government. The large majority of the masterspirits as well as the people who founded and moulded into form our government believed in a democratic republic or a government responsive at all times to the will of the people, and in which the officials should be the agents

or servants of the people. This is a fact too well established to admit of controversy. The representatives were elected, not to represent a political boss, a money-controlled machine, or powerful interests and great monopolies who were seeking enrichment through special privileges and monopoly rights. They were chosen to represent the wishes and desires of the electorate. They were the people's servants and agents, appointed to represent and not to misrepresent them. Now the initiative and referendum are merely practical measures that have been found necessary in order to preserve a truly representative or a democratic republican government under the changed conditions of the present.

The people's agents are assumed to be honest men who desire to represent and not misrepresent their principals,-the electors. They are supposed to be persons who will faithfully represent those who have placed them in a position of trust, and not scoundrels that are seeking personal wealth, power or position by betraying their trust. But these agents may sometimes be ignorant of the wishes of the people, and Direct-Legislation provides effective means for making the people's rule supreme, for making the representatives of the people truly representative of their principals, and not representatives of interests inimical to the people's wishes and interests. Is that contrary to the genius of our government? We do not imagine that the master-spirits of the feudalism of privileged wealth or the astute attorneys and special-pleaders who have succeeded in misleading many sincere and thoroughly honest men, believe in their hearts for one moment that this contention is sound or based on fact or reason. Their cry is a dishonest cry. It reminds one of the thief who, after seizing a large roll of bills in a bank, rushed into the crowded street and began lustily joining in the cry, "Stop thief!" in order to divert attention from himself and enable him to escape with his stolen wealth. The great corporations which are the backbone of the opposition to Direct-Legislation, as they are the backbone of the money-controlled machine and the corruption in present-day politics, know full well that they have destroyed popular representative government while preserving its outward form and semblance, as effectively as did the di Medici family destroy the Republic of Florence without holding office or

interfering with the machinery of popular government.

The Supreme Court of Oregon on The Constitutionality of Direct-Legislation.

On this point much higher legal authorities than Professor Wyckoff have spoken. The highest legal tribunals of both Oregon and California have spoken, and they have upheld the contentions of the friends of Direct-Legislation.

The Supreme Court of Oregon was appealed to, after the people had embedded DirectLegislation in their constitution, to nullify the expressed wish of the people voiced by more than two-thirds of the voting electorate, on the ground that it was a provision contrary to the form of government guaranteed by the Constitution; and in one of the ablest decisions that has in recent years come from a high tribunal, the Supreme Court of Oregon upheld the constitutionality of the DirectLegislation amendment, accompanying its ruling with the following opinion:

"Nor do we think the amendment void because in conflict with section 4, article 4, of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing to every state a republican form of government. The purpose of this provision of the Constitution is to protect the people of the several states against aristocratic and monarchical invasions, and against insurrections and domestic violence, and to prevent them from abolishing a republican form of government. Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th Ed.), 45; 2 Story, Const. (5th Ed.), Sec. 1815. But it does not forbid them from amending or changing their Constitution in any way they may see fit, so long as none of these results is accomplished. No particular style of government is designated in the Constitution as republican, nor is its exact form in any way prescribed. A republican form of government is a government administered by representatives chosen or appointed by the people or by their authority. Mr. Madison says it is 'a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.' The Federalist, 302. And in discussing the section of the Constitution of the United States now under consideration, he says: 'But the authority extends no further than to a guaranty

of a republican form of government, which supposes a preëxisting government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing, republican forms are continued by the states, they are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Whenever the states may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican constitutions.' Id., 324. Now, the Initiative and Referendum amendment does not abolish or destroy the republican form of government. The representative character of the government still remains. The people have simply reserved to themselves a larger share of legislative power, but they have not overthrown the republican form of the government, or substituted another in its place. The government is still divided into the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, the duties of which are discharged by representatives selected by the people. Under this amendment it is true, the people may exercise a legislative power, and may, in effect, veto or defeat bills passed and approved by the Legislature and the Governor; but the legislative and executive departments are not destroyed, nor are their powers or authority materially curtailed. Laws proposed and enacted by the people under the initiative clause of the amendment are subject to the same constitutional limitations as other statutes and may be amended or repealed by the Legislature at will. The veto-power of the Governor is not abridged in any way, except as to such laws as the Legislature may refer to the people. The provision of the amendment that 'the veto-power of the Governor shall not extend to measures referred to the people,' must necessarily be confined to the measures which the Legislature may refer, and cannot apply to acts upon which the referendum may be invoked by petition. The Governor is required, under the Constitution, to exercise his veto-power, if at all, within five days after the act shall have been presented to him, unless the general adjournment of the Legislature shall prevent its return within that time, in which case he shall exercise his right within five days after the adjournment. He must necessarily act, therefore before the time expires within which a referendum by petition on any act of the Legislature may be invoked, and before it can be known whether it will be invoked

or not. Unless, therefore, he has a right to veto any act submitted to him, except such as the Legislature may specially refer to the people, one of the safeguards against hasty or ill-advised legislation which is everywhere regarded as essential is removed-a result manifestly not contemplated by the amendment."

The Supreme Court of California recently rendered a notable decision with but one dissenting opinion, in which the constitutionality of Direct-Legislation was upheld, the court finding that the initiative and referendum are not opposed to a republican form of government. The corporations and the corrupt enemies of the Republic have been so in the habit of relying on their hired attorneys to read meanings which they desire into the Constitution, or to distort the Constitution so as to make it defeat the ends its framers had in view, that they have come to imagine that whenevr their avarice and wishes are opposed, some means must be found for defeating the people. The Supreme Courts of Oregon and California refused to allow those who wished to defeat the fundamental essentials of a truly representative government to find a refuge in their decisions. Direct-Legislation safeguards republican government, which is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people, by making it effectively representative of the electorate. It simply guards against its perversion by corrupt and faithless legislators who betray the people, trample on their wishes and sacrifice their interests for the benefit of privilege-seeking and exploiting classes, It is as inconceivable that an honest legislator would refuse to take his orders from the people he pretends to represent and on whose votes he must rely if he is to appear as their agent in the halls of legislation, as it is that an agent of his principal in a business enterprise should refuse to take orders from his employer. Direct-Legislation, instead of destroying a truly popular representative government, provides against such actual destruction as recent decades have shown in numerous instances to have been accomplished by the feudalism of privileged wealth.

Majority Rule and Corrupt Politics.

We now come to consider Professor Wyckoff's second objection to popular rule through Direct-Legislation. It embodies his fear that this practical measure for enabling the people

to veto corrupt legislation or laws inimical to their interests, or for permitting them to compel the passage of measures which the majority of the people desire to be enacted, would enable the machine politician to dominate legislation to the injury of the people.

It is surprising to find such an objection as the above coming from a professor in the department of "history, politics and economics" in a leading American college. All persons familiar with American political conditions of the present time know full well that the Direct-Legislation movement is a pronounced protest against the machine politicians who during the recent decades have so perfected the political machine by the aid of privileged interests and the great publicservice corporations, that they are enabled to nominate their own tools or faith servitors, and in this way and this way alone are enabled each session to engineer through the legislatures of the various states laws that give unjust monopoly rights and privileges to favored classes or interests, or to prevent legislation that would correct abuses against which the people are vainly protesting. If Professor Wyckoff has ever seriously considered this question, he must have been impressed with the fact-quite inexplicable if his contention is sound that the machine politicians everywhere to-day are fighting Direct-Legislation with all the power at their command. Everything that even looks toward permitting the people to express to their agents and servants their wishes is fought with all the resources at the command of the boss and the machine, no less than by the corrupt corporations and the "black" journals that serve the feudalism of privileged wealth.

We in Massachusetts have recently had a striking illustration of this fact,-an illustration so marked and palpable that if Professor Wyckoff lived in this commonwealth he would, unless we are mistaken in the man, have thought twice before he would have advanced the above as an objection. The facts in the Massachusetts situation are briefly as follows:

might be placed on the ballot at a general election, in order that the people might express their wishes for or against measures which clearly concerned them. In this way, it was pointed out, the legislators could know the wishes of the electorate. The expression of the people's will was not to be binding on the legislators, though of course if the people's representative knew the unequivocal desire of his principals in a transaction, it might be embarrassing for him to deny the popular wish in behalf of secret interests or the real masters of the money-controlled machine. For a time it appeared that only the publicservice corporations, predatory wealth and the most officious champions of the interests were opposed to this bill, but the moment the popularity of the measure became apparent, the Republican machine, under the autocratic management of Senator Lodge and ever responsive to the wishes of privileged wealth, engaged in an active attempt to defeat the measure. Speaker Cole, the most typical corporation politician in the Legislature, referred the bill, not to the committee he had properly referred it to the year before, the committee to which his predecessor had also referred a similar measure, but to a hostile committee. The demand for the measure, however, was such that it was impossible to kill it in the committee. Then Senator Lodge came to the front and pleaded with the legislators to kill the bill. He did not propose to permit the principals to instruct their agents or to suggest to them what they desired. The whole power of the machine was exerted to destroy the bill.

In this action we had merely a typical illustration of the attitude of the corrupt machines and the campaign-contributing monopolies in the presence of any attempt to secure for the people a genuine representative government. Again, if a political machine which can count on vast sums, of ten-times running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, contributed by special interests to secure special grants, privileges and monopoly rights that will divert millions of dollars annually into the pockets of the few, is less to be feared than a machine robbed of the power of corrupt wealth, then there may be some force in our Professor's contention, but not otherwise. No fact has been more clearly or frequently established than the tap-root of the power of the corrupt boss and the "practical" politicians who man the party machine is found in the enormous

campaign contributions, courtesies, etc., given by corporations who make corrupt bargains for the enormously rich monopoly privileges that place the public at the mercy of the few. It is the failure to so safeguard popular representative government as to make it truly representative of the people that has more than all things else rendered possible and inevitable the reign of graft and corruption that has prevailed since the corporations and political machines united to dominate government. But the old and homely saying that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" is applicable here. Opinions and theories are valuable in proportion as they are based on facts and sound deductions. But the actual results that follow an experiment are the criteria that are most valuable and which make opinions, when contrary to experience, of little value.

Now what is the result-the practical result-in the case of Direct-Legislation? Has the introduction of the initiative and referendum, as Professor Wyckoff assumes it would, strengthened the arms of unscrupulous and corrupt politicians? According to the unanimous testimony of the great statesmen of Switzerland, no such result has followed in that republic, but quite the contrary. The New England town-meeting government is admitted on all hands to have been and to be the purest government that has been known to New England.

But if it is argued that Switzerland is not the United States and that the town-meeting, though excellent for small communities, does not furnish a fair test because the initiative and referendum would apply to cities and states, we turn to Oregon. Has the initiative and referendum increased or diminished the power of the corrupt politicians? According to the testimony of the leading statesmen, publicists and journals of Oregon, the result has been precisely the reverse. Direct-Legislation and the legislation which has been rendered possible through this innovation have resutled in precisely what the friends of free government claimed would result from its introduction. It has destroyed the power of the corrupt politician and the money-controlled machine. Elsewhere in this issue will be found the testimony on this point of leading citizens of Oregon, including United States Senator Bourne and leading journals.

There are to-day in Oregon only two influential sections of society that can be found opposing Direct-Legislation. One is made up

of the professional politicians and the other of the privilege-seeking corporations.

President Eliot of Harvard University, in his recent Faneuil Hall address in support of the Public-Opinion Bill, showed that the great evil of American politics was not found in the people, but in the money power and the secret influence which it exerted in the legislatures, in the communities and in the nominations of candidates.

The Initiative and Referendum and
Organic Legislation.

We now come to Professor Wyckoff's final objection. We are not clear as to what the educator means by "atomistic legislation," but we infer from its contrasting term, "organic," that he means functional in contradistinction to organic or constitutional legislation; legislation that is trivial, partial in character, which relates to a few individuals rather than to the whole, and which does not affect any great basic, organic or constitutional principles, or legislation that would benefit comparatively few people. If this is his meaning, and we can conceive of no other possible intent, his objection is most unfortunate for his cause; for practice no less than theory and reason are against its verity.

One of the chief curses of our present-day legislative order is found in the annual multiplication of laws and enactments granting special favors and privileges to small groups or classes and abridging the rights of the many for the enrichment of the few. These bills are due to the secret influences brought to bear on legislators. Men or groups of men desiring special privileges are actively in evidence at every session of our legislatures. They not only consume a vast amount of time which the legislators ought to be giving to vital measures and enactments, but their presence and influence is one of the chief sources of the corruption of legislators. The more powerful groups, such as the publicservice corporations, have their own lobbies and frequently retain attorneys who are the law partners of legislators, as well as leading politicians of both parties. Money is furnished freely for suppers to legislators and by various other means influences are secretly brought to bear upon the people's representatives to make them misrepresent the people in the interests of the few. And thus it is that year by year our statute books are burdened with special legislation,-functional, class or

special in character, pernicious in its essence and frequently opposed to the spirit of just government and the fundamental principles of constittuional law. The bills which thus become laws would never, in a vast number of cases, be so much as introduced if the people had the power which the initiative and referendum confers on them, of compelling the legislators to represent and not misrepresent their principals, the electors. It is largely because of this special legislation, which is foreign to the spirit of and often totally out of harmony with organic or constitutional principles and legislation, that the people have resorted to practical measures which will compel their representatives to legislate for them instead of against them.

To make our meaning thoroughly clear, let us cite a case which if extreme in its baldness is nevertheless thoroughly typical of a large number of laws that are passed every session and that are making the legislatures of many states the hotbeds of popular misrepresentation, of scandal and corruption. The case we cite is used for the double purpose of showing the kind of so-called "atomistic" or special legislation that to-day marks our prevailing misrepresentative government in such a way as to curse and oppress the people, and also of showing one reason why the initiative and referendum is so urgently demanded by friends of free institutions and why it is so resolutely attacked by all the grafters and corruptionists, from the great political bosses and leaders among the criminal rich in the corporation world, down to the ward politicians.

The Legislature of Maine, being absolutely responsive to the Republican machine, passed the following special law relating to the Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Company, and later passed identically similar laws relating to the Washington County Railroad Company and the Somerset Railroad Company, formerly the Kennebec Valley Railroad Company:

"Said Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Company is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the State of Maine for the transportation over its railroad, so far as constructed, and over the lines of railroad which it may lease or purchase in accordance with section two of this act, or in which it may acquire the interest of the city of Bangor in accordance with section three of this act, of troops and munitions of war, in times of war,