ed. To say, as is often said, that the choice of representatives is equivalent to the most formal popular vote, is simply to turn one's back upon the evidence."

In California, in 1896, the people voted on six constitutional amendments submitted to them by a Republican legislature and championed by the Republicans. They accepted three, rejected three and re-elected a Republican legislature. In Nebraska the Republicans submitted twelve amendments to the people and were defeated by the Populists at the polls, but the amendments received majorities ranging from 54 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the votes cast, while the Populist majorities on the eleven State officers elected and on the Presidential electors ranged from a plurality of nearly 50 per cent. to a majority of 54 per cent. In Massachusetts three Republican Governors had recommended biennial sessions of the legisiature, a Republican legislature had sub. mitted the question to the people, and the Republicans had actively championed it. The measure was defeated, but the Republicans were returned. Hundreds of other illustrations could be given.

But under present conditions the voter has usually a choice of evils. The party machines, representing only the political wirepullers, nominate; the enthusiastic voter is drawn in by torch-light parades and violent harangues; the corrupt voter is bought; the unthinking voter is deluded; the intelligent voter is confused by the multiplicity of is sues. Is it any wonder that wrong results? And after the election, an issue not made in the campaign, though it may have been foreseen by the leaders, comes up for the representative, and he decides it, though unable to know how his constituents wouli have him vote. From its very nature, representation cannot accurately represent the wishes of the people.

(4) Representation fails because of the weakness of human nature and the concentration of corruption. A prominent member of a former New York legislature once told me that he was morally certain that twothirds of the members of that legislature had taken bribes, and he thought a majority of the remaining third would, if they hal had the chance. A member of a Michigan legislature told me that he could not stand

it, and refused renomination, and his successor told him that he had made $16,000 out of his first session in the legislature. It is commonly said that the farmers in the New Jersey legislature, on a salary of $500, pay off the mortgages on their farms after one session. The commonly quoted price cf Congressional votes for almost any project in the closing months of the Fifty-third Congress was $200 each, and in Colorado it was said that Populist members could be bought for $20 each, and Republicans for $10 each. Lobbyists on the stand have testified that they could tell within a very small amount what it was necessary to raise to carry or defeat a measure. It is said that it took a quarter of a million to carry through the Chicago Common Council in 1895 a franchise worth five million. But there is no further use in giving illustrations of what every one at all conversant with our political life knows to be true.

Then there is another form of corruption which, while not so rotten and disgusting, is just as effective in giving the people laws they don't want, or keeping from them laws they do want. You vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours, log-rolling. This may or may not be an immoral action, depending on the circumstances. Its results are misrepresentation.

Another cause of misrepresentation is the carelessness of the law-makers. I have seen United States laws passed through the House with but two persons voting on them; the rest were talking and paying no attention. It would be a physical impossibility for each member of the New York legislature to even quickly read and understand each one of the 747 laws which passed its 1897 session, much less to thoroughly weigh them. The result is that unimportant measures, or ones seemingly so, are made up by one or two men, and then slid through on the say-so and quiet management of a few manipulators. Some of these are good laws; others contain a very serious nigger in the wood-pile. The important laws are drafted under the direction of the boss and "jammed" through by his orders.

The reasons for this corruption, log-rolling and carelessness are the concentration ci corruption and the putting of the power in the hands of those who are not interested

in its proper use. If I wanted to split a piece of wood I would be a fool to try to do it with my bare hand, but I would take a sharp knife and drive it in with a hammer; I'd concentrate the power into a point or edge, and thus accomplish results which I could not do otherwise. Suppose a representative to be elected by a thousand votes, and there were nine hundred against him. Few, if any, men can be bought by a dollar to do something contrary to their own interest, a few can be bought for $5 each, more for a hundred, and more still for a thousand each. Offer a dollar apiece to each one of these thousand voters and very few, if any, can be persuaded to vote something contrary to their own interest. Offer the thousand dollars to the man elected, and often he can be persuaded. We concentrate the corruption and make it effective when we elect representatives with unlimited powers. The thousand dollars may be more than his salary; it is in New Jersey and other States. Then the electors have to be persuaded to do something contrary to their own interests; it is not so often with the representative; he belongs to the "elevated classes," and his interest may be opposed to that of the mass of the people, but in any event it is so slight that it is more than counterbalanced by the money or benefits received. It is very easy to conceal one payment of a thousand dollars, but it will be almost impossible to conceal a thousand payments of one dollar, and publicity will make this almost impossible. The representative may be paid with an office or with a retainer fee from a corporation if he is a lawyer, or in some other indirect way, or he may be bought before elected by a campaign fund or a nomination. It would be impossible to buy the electors by these indirect ways. Then a representative is often influenced by plausible talkers and his vote bought, but without his knowing it or being really paid for it. One legislator told me that his pastor was influenced to come to him and try to persuade him to vote for a crooked bill. The good man did not know what he was asking till the legislator, who had made a study of that bill, showed him the conceaied wrong, and if the legislator had studied up on that measure, he might have been easily persuaded.

They are careless because, as Hon. L.-E. Rader, member of the Washington legislature, writes: "Imagine a good business man selected a corps of clerks-in many cases without any regard for competency, honesty or experience-all more or less unknown to each other, and expect them to conduct his business successfully! Add to this the further fact that said business man should demand that two years' work be done in sixty or ninety days, with no power to annul or change the work done, and you have a sample of the average legislature. Candidly, what can the people expect from the workings of such a body?"

The fifth reason why representation does not represent can best be expressed by a quotation from a recent number of the Outlook: "A single man, known as 'a boss,' nominates the members of the representative body. The electors go to the polls simply to ratify his choice. The representatives selected, represent, not the electors, but the 'boss.' They are a very loyal body of men; but loyal, of course, to the 'boss' who has given them their offices. They are very faithful to the interests which have been entrusted to them, but these interests are those of the 'boss.' If new questions arise they consult their constituency; but their constituency is not the men who have voted for them, because their names were on the 'regular tickets,' but the 'boss' who put them on the 'regular ticket.' If it happens that their nominal constituents wish anything done or not done, they bestir theinselves, frame petitions, organize mass-meetings and appoint committees, who humbly beg their supposed representatives to give them a hearing. Sometimes the hearing is accorded, sometimes refused. Sometimes the petition is read, and sometimes it is thrown into the waste basket."

The Philadelphia Ledger has said editorially: "In Philadelphia the municipal government is of, for and by the practical politicians who make of politics a trade, in the pursuit of which they prosper exceedingly. The ward combine is an organization which selects municipal officers, though not of its own free will, but in accordance with the orders of the so-called leaders, who practical politicians and who, by making politics their business, reap rewards of their

enterprise. The members of the ward combine, obeying instructions of their political masters, determine who shall and who shall not be the candidates of the party of the majority."

And so for this reason representation does not represent.

he

What is the remedy? It was suggested by Alexander Contee Hanson, when spoke of "preserving the dependence of the greatest on the people," and by Richard Henry Lee, when he said: "A free and enlightened people in forming this compact will not resign all their rights to those who govern, and they will fix limits to their legislators and rulers which will soon be plainly seen by those who are governed as well as by those who govern."

It consists in going back to the people and putting the power into their hands. through Direct Legislation, which consists cf the Initiative and Referendum. By the Referendum no law goes into effect for a reasonable time, say ninety days for a State, and if during that time a reasonable minority of the people, say 5 per cent., sign a petition to have the matter referred to the people, it is held till the next election, and the people vote on it, a majority accepting or rejecting. By the Initiative a reasonable minority of the people, by signing a petition for a law, can force the legislative body to take action on it, and if that action is not favorable, then it goes to a vote of the people, and a majority accepts or rejects. This does not do away with the representative body, but it makes each of their acts capable of review by the people, and it enables the people to force action on a law.

How does it remedy the five evils of representation? First: All of the people vote on these measures, not men of the "elevated classes only." Thus the people themselves, who know their own wants and needs better than any one else, will finally decide.

Second and third: Each issue will be decided by itself and also the method or law

to carry that issue into effect. Political misrepresentation could be remedied by Proportional Representation, but Direct Legislation secures a far finer decision from the people, as it enables each voter to decide on each issue as it comes up, provided a reasonable minority wish for such a decision.

Fourth It will kill corruption in politics, and I have two quotations which are very apt here. James Russell Lowell has said: "The more I learn, the more my confidence in the general good-sense and honest intention of mankind increases." And the Earl of Derby says: "I have come to think more and more highly of the moderation, the fairness and the general justice which the masses of men, including all conditions of life, are disposed to use.' These two men represent the very highest opinion of the "elevated classes" on both sides of the Atlantic.

Fifth: It will kill the power of the "boss" by rendering it impossible for him to deliver the goods without the consent of the people.

I want no better summary of its reasons and advantages than the century-old words of Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who was a member of the Constitutional Convention. "Man is born free and possessed of certain inalienable rights; government is instituted for the safety and happiness of the people and not for the profit, honor or private interest of any man, family or class of men; the origin of all power is in the people, and they have an incontestable right to check the creatures of their own creation vested with certain powers to guard the life, liberty and property of the community. And if certain selected leaders of men deputed on these principles determine contrary to the wishes and expectations of their constituents, the people have an undoubted right to reject their decisions, to call for a revision of their conduct, to depute others in their room, and if they think proper, to demand further time for deliberation on matters of the greatest moment."

G. W. Perkins, President Cigarmakers' International Union of America: "To my mind it is a plain proposition that those who have a voice in making the laws are bound to have more respect for them and live with greater contentment and satisfaction under them than they would if they had no say. I hold this true even if better laws were otherwise made. Possibly the case of Ireland is a fair illustration of my meaningif Ireland were to make its own laws and had perfect autonomy, there would be greater satisfaction there and contentment even

if the economic condition of the masses were no better than at present.

"In our case, the members make the law themselves and it enables the executive to say: 'These are your own laws; you helped to make them.' Result: There is no serious fault-finding against our laws. The referendum in our association is almost as old as the association itself, and we have had both the initiative and referendum in full force since about 1880.

"The decisions arrived at under the referendum are very good and the amount of in

telligence and discretion displayed in voting is remarkable. I certainly would favor its extension to political life. I hold that the initiative and referendum is also a great educational factor. These questions being submitted, bring about discussion, and even the most dull are compelled to listen to argument and to at least think of them. The result is a constant raising of the standard of intelligence of our membership. I hold that the organized cigarmakers of this country, chiefly through this policy of the initiative and referendum, are better prepared and able to maintain self-government, etc., than any other craftsmen in this country.

"In my opinion, the rank and file of our organization would not tolerate an amendment which abrogated the initiative and referendum."

HENRY LLOYD,

General President of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Henry Lloyd, of Boston, Mass., General President of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America:

"For some seven or eight years I have been a firm believer and hard worker for the

Initiative and Referendum. With the corruption in our great parties and the tremendous influences for evil brought to bear upon our governing bodies by the great corporations and their agents, I feel that our democracy is a sham. And I believe that our institutions.can only be saved while the rights of the masses are fully protected by Direct Legislation."

W. B. Prescott, President International Typographical Union, in his annual report in 1896:

"I cannot refrain from submitting as an all-sufficient answer to those who argue that the referendum is inefficient, that though conventions at various periods adopted strike benefit laws, the membership paid no heed whatever until the present law was adopted by popular vote; the same is true of all other international laws, those securing popular approval on a general vote are the ones most readily obeyed and easily enforced. As practiced with us, representative government-even though the convention's functions are reduced almost to those of a deliberative body-is a farce, many unions being financially unable to support a delegate, and the larger ones being apportioned such a small number of delegates that it is possible for four unions of seven members each to thwart the wishes of our largest subordinate body numbering thousands of members. To place the delegatorial voting power on the number of members represented would give the larger unions such an overwhelming predominance that the interests of the smaller ones would be lost sight of. Even then the delegate's views cannot be taken as expressive of those of whom he represents. History demonstrates that unions enthusiastically support measures which its delegation opposed and vice versa, and sometimes the delegation was acting under instructions. The common sense, economical and business-like manner of solving this problem is to invest the initiative in the membership, making it the law-maker and supervisor of its affairs directly and not attempt to do it through an effete and nonsensical system of representatives and proxies. If the International Union will afford the initiative and referendum a trial-which the great majority of us ap