PARSONS, FRANK.

C. F. Taylor, 1901.

The City for the People. Philadelphia:

An historical and critical discussion of direct legislation. Favorable. See especially pp. 255-386; 505-29; 605-29.

PHELPS, EDITH M., comp. Selected articles on the iniative and referendum. 2nd and enlarged edition. Wilson's Debater's Handbook Series. Minneapolis: The H. W. Wilson Co., 1911.

Compiled especially for debaters, giving reprints of articles on both sides of the question.

POMEROY, ELTWEED. Direct legislation; papers by Eltweed Pomeroy and others. 55th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Doc. No. 340. (In serial No. 3615.)

An extensive collection of articles and digest of material on the subject. Favorable.

RAPPARD, WILLIAM E. The initiative, referendum and recall in Switzerland. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sept. 1912, vol. 43, no. 132, pp. 110-45. (See also Dr. Rappard's article in the American Political Science Review Aug. 1912, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 345 -66.

An admirable account of the history and results of direct legislation in Switzerland. The author is a native Swiss and an Instructor in Economics at Harvard University.

RITTINGHAUSEN, MARTIN. Direct legislation by the people. Translated from the French with biographical introduction by Alexander Harvey. The Humbolt Library, New York.

An early exposition of direct legislation by one of the European pioneers in the movement.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE. Nationalism and popular rule. Outlook, Jan. 21, 1911, vol. 97, pp. 96-101. See also, “A Charter of Democracy", an address delivered before the Ohio Constitutional Convention at Columbus, Feb. 21, 1912. Outlook, Feb. 24, 1912, vol. 100, pp. 390-402.

Includes statements of the views of Mr. Roosevelt on the value of the initiative and referendum. In the Colbus speech he discusses briefly the proposed Wisconsin plan.

SANBORN, JOHN BELL. Popular legislation in the U. S., the value of the system. Boston, 1908. Reprinted from Political Science Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 4.

SCOTT, CHARLES F. Representative government. Speech in the U. S. House of Representatives, Mar. 2, 1911.

SMITH,

J. ALLEN.

The spirit of American government. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1907.

Ch. 13 contains a discussion of direct primaries, the initiative and referendum and the recall.

U'REN, WILLIAM S. Six years of the initiative and referendum in Oregon. City Club Bulletin, Chicago, May 26, 1909, vol. 2, no. 38, pp. 465-78.

A history of the results gained by the adoption and use of the initiative and referendum in Oregon, by the leader in the direct legislation movement. See also his article in La Follette's, Apr. 23, 1910; and his remarks in the Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1911, pp. 136-39.

VINCENT, JOHN M. Government in Switzerland. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1900.

Discusses the operation of the initiative and referendum in Switzerland. See ch. 3, pp. 52-74; ch. 5, pp. 84-90; ch. 14, pp. 188-99; and p. 362.

WEYL, WALTER E. The new democracy. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1912.

See especially pp. 306-10; 318-19.

WICKERSHAM, GEORGE W. New states and constitutions. Address delivered before the law school of Yale University, June 19, 1911. Reprinted as 62nd Congress, 1st sess. Senate Doc. No. 62.

Opposed to the initiative and referendum.

WILSON, WOODROW. The issues of reform; an address delivered before the Knife and Fork Club, Kansas City, Mo., May 5th, 1911.

Includes a succinct exposition of the value of the initiative and referendum as reserved powers in obtaining genuinely representative government.

HISTORY.

The "Initiative" and the "Referendum" are new terms for old institutions.

The initiative may be defined as the power the people reserve to themselves to propose ordinances and laws and amendments to their charters and constitutions, and to enact or reject the same at the polls. And the referendum may similarly be defined as the power the people reserve to themselves to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance or act passed by their legislative assemblies.

The initiative and referendum as applying to local and state legislation and state constitutional amendments have been widely adopted in the United States. The referendum has also been applied to federal laws and constitutional amendments, and the initiative to federal constitutional amendments, in Switzerland.

This bulletin confines itself almost exclusively to the state-wide initiative and referendum in the United States.

The forms of the referendum may be described as obligatory or optional in their operation upon the electorate, and as advisory or mandatory in their operation in the enactment of laws.

Under the obligatory referendum a law must be submitted to the people; and under the optional referendum

a law is submitted only upon petition by a certain number or percentage of the voters.

Under the mandatory referendum, the direct vote of the people is final and conclusive in the enactment of legislation. Under the advisory system, the voters can instruct their representatives by direct vote; but to make the system effective it is necessary to pledge representatives to obey the will of their constituents as expressed by referendum vote.

Public opinion laws merely secure the expression of public opinion upon questions of public policy.

Early uses of direct legislation

Local legislation.

The Swiss Landsgemeinde illustrates an early use of direct legislation in local affairs. The old New England town meeting, where measures were proposed and adopted or rejected at the will of the electors, affords another typical example of local direct legislation. The state-wide initiative and referendum.

The state-wide referendum for the adoption of state constitutions is a familiar institution in the United States.

The first constitution submitted to a direct vote of the people was that proposed by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1778.

At the present time Delaware is the only state in the Union in which a referendum is not required for the adoption of constitutional amendments.

The right to instruct.

The right to instruct representatives was commonly exercised in the early constitutional history of this country.

The constitution of Massachusetts, adopted in 1780, expressly asserts the right of the people "to give instructions to their representatives." (Part the First, art XIX.) In 1783 the instructions from Boston ran: "It is our unalienable right to communicate to you our sentiments; and when we shall judge it necessary or convenient, to give you instructions on any special matter, and we expect you will hold yourselves at all times bound to attend to and observe them."

For other instances of the express reservation of the right to instruct, see the Const. of Pa., 1776, art. XVI. (Thorpe, American Charters, Constitutions, etc., vol. 5, p. 3084); the Const. of N. C., 1776, art. XVIII. (id., vol. 5, p. 2788); and the Const. of N. H., 1784, art. XXXII. (id., vol. 4, p. 2457).

The reference of acts by legislatures.

After the adoption of written constitutions, a number of judicial decisions were handed down which held that the reference of an act to a vote of the people of a state was a delegation of legislative power and therefore unconstitutional.

For early decisions putting forth the above doctrine, see the following cases directly in point: Rice v. Foster, 4 Harring. (Del.) 479 (1847); Thorne v. Cramer, 15 Barb. 112 (1851); Bradley v. Baxter, 15 Barb. 122 (1853); and Barto v. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 483 (1853); and Santo v. State, 2 Ia. 165 (1855). See also dicta in the following cases; Parker v Commonwealth, 6 Pa. St. 507 (1847); State v. Copeland, 3 R. I. 33 (1854); Stein v. Mayor, 24 Ala. 591 (1854); State v. Swisher, 17 Tex., 441 (1856); State ex rel. Dome v. Wilcox, 45 Mo. 458 (1870); and State ex rel. Sandford v. Court of Common Pleas, 36 N. J. Law, 72 (1872).

For the contrary doctrine, and sustaining of such acts, see Johnson v. Rich, 9 Barb. 680 (1851); State v. Parker, 26 Vt. 357 (1854), and Smith v. Janesville, 26 Wis. 291 (1870), cases directly in point. Also dicta in Wales v. Belcher, 20 Mass. 508 (1827); People v. Reynolds, 5 Gilman (Ill.) 1 (1848); L. & N. R. Co. v. County Court, 33 Tenn. 637 (1854); State v. Noyes, 30 N. H. 279 (1855); Bull v. Read, 54 Va. (13 Grat.) 78 (1855); Manly v. Raleigh, 57 N. C. 370 (1859); Alcorn v. Hamer, 38 Miss. 652 (1860), and Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 491 (1873).