lic matter involving a principle. They did this work swiftly, because they discussed it the year round; fairly, since all were equally interested; cheaply, as they knew who paid the piper.

When, nearly fifty years ago, Rittinghausen, the Belgian philosopher, submitted to the publicists of Europe his plan of direct legislation, the Swiss were the only people ready for the system. The English were firm believers in a government by the good-oligarchists; the Germans, lovers of a war lord-monarchists; the French, worshipers of abstractions-experimentalists. These three were the types of all but a few of the European peoples. The Swiss, a race hardy, brusque, even harsh, independent, at once bold and wary as befits Alp climbers, characterized above all else by common sense, saw in direct legislation the people's rule and took it up.

"We grew tired," says one chronicler, "of having legislators behead the people after every election."

"You will vote away franchises to a railroad monopoly?" asked the majority in Neuchatel of its legislators. "Well, we shall veto your law."

"We would have a short-hour day!" declared the workingmen of Zurich, and they took it at the polls.

Dire results were looked for by conservatives. But none followed. The people kept their heads on their shoulders after election day by withholding the full law-making power from the legislature-and benefited the legislators morally and themselves financially. The voters steadily refused to give away monopolistic franchises in those great modern millionaire breeders, the railroad, the telegraph, the telephone-and richer by far is the Swiss commonwealth. The industrial workers shortened their workday and in divers ways improved their condition-and yet Switzerland's industries stand among the first in Europe, in proportion to population.

Certainly he was a dreamer who first said, "Let us vote on Federal laws!"

"What?" from the astonished opposition.

"A nation of three million inhabitants to act as a law-making body! Absurd!"

But the nation went on and did it. Anarchy was to ensue. Mob passion was to be let loose. A tangle of freakish law was to delight lawyers. Every folly as to taxation, property-holding and foreign policy was to be committed. But nothing of the sort occurred to gratify the croaking prophets. For twenty-five years Federal laws, under wholesome restriction, have been subject to veto at the polls. Never has Switzerland been more sanely governed. In the last quarter of a century the Swiss have voted by ballot on just the public questions that are discussed in every civilized country: "Shall there be divorce?" "How shall citizenship be regulated?" "Shall there be a paper State currency?" "What shall the military service be?" "Shall there be a Federal subsidy to a railroad?" "Shall women and children be protected by factory laws, and to what extent?" ment?" tions?"

"Shall there be capital punish"Shall there be patents on inven

"Shall the schools be secular or religious?" "Shall liquor-distilling be a State monopoly?" "Shall there be a national bankruptcy law?" "Shall a small proportion of the people propose by petition amendments to the Constitution, to be voted on at the polls?" "Shall the railroads be made government property?" These and many other Federal questionsin all about forty-have been answered by the Swiss voter. As to State (cantonal) and township questions, the voters interested settle them as they arise, at least twice a year.

The main result is that the Swiss know exactly where they are. They are not selfdeceived. They are neither better nor worse than their laws. Their law reflects the intelligence, the spirit, the public morals of the majority. But in America every legislative body is a source of confusion, if not corruption. No one is sure of what the majority of the voters want on any question at any election, and no one can guess what they may want a month after an election. Legislation is subject to numer

ous influences in which the people are left

out.

Knowing where they are as a nation, and each canton and commune aware as to its degree of progress, the Swiss as a whole and in their respective communities are ever improving themselves politically and economically. As the questions voted on signify, they have reduced taxation, tamed the arrogance of ecclesiastical authority, established home rule in matters local while strengthening the State in affairs that call for centralization. They have simplified the law, modernized its machinery, and made the average citizen its arbiter.

The American who studies the Swiss law-making method is struck with the fact that its principle is not new to him. He has voted on laws himself, occasionally. He may have taken part in a New England town meeting. He knows that our government ought to be of, for, and by the people. He cannot support American political institutions and oppose on princi-, ple the voice of the people in law-making.

The town meeting of New England is almost exactly a reproduction of the Swiss communal meeting. The questions submitted in a city relating to rapid transit, or water works, or other public improvements resemble the Swiss Referendum. Only, the Swiss have systematized this voting. They themselves hold the law-making power continuously. They are masters of their legislators.

Of recent years many Americans have studied this development by the Swiss of principles that we share with them, noting the outcome in dollars and cents, in public betterments, and the abolition of political abuses. So it is that Professor J. M. Vincent, of Johns Hopkins, after paying direct legislation the scholar's attention in every minor phase, gives it the verdict of his approval. Hazen S. Pingree, seizing its significance in a broad, practical way, vigorously urges its adoption. Henry D. Lloyd, distinguished author, as firmly upholds it as Harry Lloyd, carpenter and labor orator. Prof. John R. Commons, not abandoning his hopes for proportional

representation, gives it his hearty support. John Wanamaker, merchant and ex-Postmaster-General, declares for it. Dr. Lyman Abbott, preacher and leader of thought, says we need more democracy.

It is matter of course that the men holding the highest elective offices in the great labor organizations should look on direct legislation as practical, for these organizations take votes-a score of them, perhaps --every year, their tens of thousands of voters scattered over the United States. S. W. Perkins, W. S. Carter, J. B. Lennon and other labor officials know that direct legislation is practicable, because they see it in operation year by year on a large scale. They are to-day making the same arguments in support of it that years ago in Switzerland, Karl Burkly, Th. Curti, and C. Descurtins were making; meeting the same objections, explaining away the same misunderstandings, illustrating the same principles of democracy. These Swiss leaders, yet living, have seen the method of pure democracy advance through all its stages. The labor men in this country have seen it start and move well along its way. Ten years ago the word Referendum was hardly known to one American printer in twenty. In January, 1899, a vote was taken on the question of abolishing the Referendum in the American Typographical Union, after six or seven years' trial. Five voters to one said it should not be abolished.

It is to Mr. Pomeroy's credit that he is able to quote pertinently every man here named. Nor does he close the case with American and Swiss witnesses. He finds in England Mr. Strachey, editor of the conservative "London Spectator," recommending certain salient features of direct legislation; while the Socialist "Clarion," by issuing pamphlets and giving the subject editorial discussion, is endeavoring to bring the English radicals to its support. France has its Direct Legislation League, with many advanced French democratic bodies represented in it. Australia numbers in every province thousands of sup

porters, and New Zealand has now the Referendum so far in operation systematically by law that its full and free working in future may be foretold. The Referendum never goes backward, never commits suicide.

In this country, Nebraska in 1897 adopted a law giving the Initiative and Referendum to cities which should choose to adopt it. In San Francisco, the people, by a vote at the polls, have said they wanted the Referendum. In name, at least, they have it as a result. Its progress has been sufficient to frighten the monopolists there, who see it as the Arab saw the camel's nose coming in under his tent, a sure sign that all the rest will follow. In South Dakota, a form of the Referendum was adopted at the polls, November, 1898. It was accepted by a majority of two to one. Populists, who had proposed it and supported it in their platform, were defeated by two to one. An example here of the people subordinating party to principle.

The

Looking over the whole field of its propaganda, the supporters of direct legislation are convinced their movement is true, living, genuine, permanent. Non-partisan men as well as strict party men of all organizations are its zealous advocates. Reform newspapers issue special direct legislation editions. Every national labor organization of every form in the country either practices it or favors its adoption in law

making. Referendum "planks" have appeared in State Democratic and Republican platforms. Every year, following the efforts of its supporters, an increasing number of special State and municipal laws go before the people at the polls.

The publication of this book, then, is timely. Its contents will commend themselves to the reader who is looking into the subject for the first time, but perhaps even more to the one who, already convinced, will learn how large and goodly is his company. Mr. Pomeroy's essays will interest even those who do not agree with him, his views bearing every mark of sincerity.

The issue of this work is but one of Mr. Pomeroy's self-imposed tasks in promoting this advance toward true democracy. His has been the fortunate part of bringing into communication with one another a very considerable body of workers for reform who otherwise might have remained apart. In going from place to place in pursuit of his business he has found time to visit wellknown leaders of public opinion in many cities and bring to its permanent organization the Direct Legislation League. The continued publication of the "Direct Legislation Record" is also mainly due to his efforts. Mr. Pomeroy's instrumentality in bringing the movement in this country to its present stage has been invaluable. Success to his book!