centrated really is. Now it is in this connection-in making the body of the electorate conscious of the vital importance of state legislation that I believe the greatest value of the initiative and referendum lies.

My expectation is that its effect will be as follows: This institution will assist the people, the body of the electorate, in the development of its political consciousness; the consciousness of power which it brings will assist in that direction. Second, it will make the body of the electorate more familiar with legislative problems and more interested. In Athenian democracy, every citizen was supposed to take part in all the functions of government, to judge, administer, elect. That is no longer possible, but nothing will so train the electorate to see the difficulties and problems of legislation, and to form an intelligent judgment about them, as having to solve those problems itself at times. Moreover, it will increase the interest of the people in the legislatures, as being organs which are constantly engaged with dealing with these important matters; and finally it will serve to increase the sense of responsibility of these bodies. We cannot of course hope to get that direct sense of responsibility which is the key to the English system, where the possibility of a dissolution and an appeal to the nation weighs constantly on Parliament and every member thereof; but the referendum, too, is an appeal to the electorate, and the adoption of the proposal rejected by the legislature in a measure parallels the return to power of a British "Opposition." At present there is no adequate way in which the electorate can express its concurrence, or its disapproval, or its indignation at what has been done. General elections are not fitted for this; at the most they may take out an important ssue, make it a matter of general interest, and submit it to the people.

I have not time to go into discussion of the details of legislation thus far attempted, but if you will bear with me I will point out one or two essential matters. The legislation of Oregon to my mind is attempting too much. It expects of the electorate a constant exercise of legislative action and if this expectation should be met it would mean a removal of the

center of deliberation from the halls of legislation to the popular forum. Now the Oregonians who are the most ardent supporters of this system always protest that they did in no sense intend to discredit the legislature. Mr. U’Ren said it would be far more creditable to go to the legislature after this reform has been completely established than ten years ago, because it would no longer be prima facie evidence of corruption and low political motives to be a member of that body. But the actual tendency is different. If there is to be a constant exercise of the legislative function by the general electorate it cannot be expected that the legislature itself will continue important enough to deserve the attention and coöperation of really able men. In the suggestion that all that is really necessary is a council to work out administrative measures to be submitted to the electorate, we have an explicit admission of the tendency to eliminate that body which our own experience and that of other countries has shown to be of value. Between the growing administration and the electorate, there would be no intermediary, no body of men somewhat above the ordinary political intelligence, somewhat more experienced, to judge of measures which the administration suggests, to interpret them in a way to the electorate; and at the same time to give the administration assistance in getting close to public opinion and the needs of the state; the inevitable result would be a close bureaucracy. California has tried to encourage the legislature by giving it the Swiss alternative, so that it may either send a measure directly from the initiative to the electors or submit at the same time an alternative measure of its own. This is apt to cause a good deal of confusion: as has been cynically remarked by the Evening Post, the electors would usually vote for both measures, and then that measure which carried the majority would be declared law!

Another defect appears when laws passed by popular vote cannot be repealed except by a like vote. We have already constitutional law and legislative law and we then should have popular law in addition. Logically any action of the legislature which superseded a part of the popular law must be considered void by the courts. The complexity which is intro

duced into our system through the fact of a judicial review would be emphasized by the California arrangement where you have three categories, legislative law, popular law and constitutional law, one standing above the other, one prevailing over thǝ other. This is unnecessary. The Oregon courts have refused to give the popular law a higher rank than the legislative; the proposed provision in Washington is that popular law may be repealed after two years, but not before, by legislative action. It seems to me it is best to place all law on an equal footing, allowing to the popular law its prestige as having been passed on by the electorate, but giving it no artificial validity, which only introduces confusion and complexity into our system. While speaking of the California system it ought to be said that the Californians believe that the complexity of their system wiil be reduced, because hitherto they have amended their constitution so frequently (sometimes fifteen or sixteen amendments pending at the same time) that it became a vast code of legislative After the introduction of the initiative and referendum, changes that are popular may be made without being put into the constitution, and there will not be so much judicial interference with legislation. That is their hope, and yet their provision with respect to giving a special degree of validity to the popular will seems to run counter to it.

The proposed law of Wisconsin is based on the idea that the initiative and referendum is to be an agency for assisting the legislature, but in no way making it superfluous. Accordingly any measure that is introduced into the legislature, whether passed or rejected, but only such measures, may be referred to the electorate. Thus every bill that goes before the people must have had the benefit of being discussed there and acted upon, whether favorably or unfavorably. In this way it is intended to protect the importance of the legislature, and even to increase it by centering there the public interest. If in this connection. we consider the growth in importance of state governments, we see how an opportunity is given for a governor, if he is a constructive statesman, to have his measures introduced in the legislature, to have it known that they go with the endorsement of his political judgment, and if they are defeated in that body to have them called out and referred to the public.

It is not believed that the people will be constantly legislating. That is where most of the opponents of the system argue wrongly, one might almost say deceitfully. The recall is a power to be used only very rarely, and the referendum is, perhaps, best understood as giving the electorate the right and power to make itself felt at any time without revolutionary action. We are living at the present time in a period of almost revolutionary energy, but that will pass away. These energies are not permanent; it is necessary to count upon the steady interest of the public in politics, but of that we cannot expect too much. Our constitutional machinery ought to be so adjusted that the force of public opinion would be sufficient to start, stop or control it. There ought to be means by which the public can obtain a specific law which it demands and which is blocked by our state legislatures.

The initiative and referendum will introduce clearness and logical sequence into our political action, and center the public interest on legislative problems, but will not mean that every matter of legislation will be laid before the electorate to the wearying of political energies. The Wisconsin legislation is an experiment, but one which bases itself upon the premise that the legislatures are performing a function that cannot be fulfilled by mere voting, and that this function must be strengthened, elevated and purified but not extinguished or passed over to a body which cannot deliberate as a legislative body can. It is thus that I consider the initiative and referendum to be a reform in true harmony with the great movement which is passing over our nation at the present time. There will be a liberation of political energies when it is possible for the energies at any time to make themselves decisive. The initiative and referendum will have a clarifying and quieting effect, because as everybody knows, the people are essentially conservative. If they have the knowledge that it is in their power to ask and obtain, it will be a safety valve in the most dangerous periods through which our republic may have to pass. And in all times it will be an education for the people, just as it is in the English democracy, to feel that at any time they may have to vote, and that any important measure may be brought to them for their pronouncement.

IT

THE DIRECT PRIMARY VERSUS

THE CONVENTION'

ALBERT BUSHNELL HART

Professor of Government, Harvard University

T is with some hesitation that I appear this evening to speak upon a subject so vast and so imperfectly understood. The word "primary" has not until recently been used as we are using it now. We have had primary colors and primary affections and prime mess beef; it is an anomaly that such a new use of the term should have been created, and a demand caused for a new dictionary.

I feel sensibly the danger of using new words, even the most ordinary, lest they might be misunderstood in their political connection. These are the days, at least this is the week, when nobody can use the word "liar" without somebody indignantly answering: "He is nothing of the kind; why does the ex-President attack the senator from Pennsylvania?" You can't say "primary" without somebody shouting: "He's not a primary force, there are a great many others." I must say that the attention which is paid by the American public to one of its public men makes me think of the Sunday school into which the brisk minister came and said, "Now, children, as I came along I saw a wonderful creature. This creature was

sitting in a tree. It was sitting on a bough. It was a creature with a bushy tail, and it was holding a nut in its claws. Now can any of you tell me what that wonderful creature was?" And there was only one child who could answer and he said: "It was God." Well, there is more than one man in this country, more than one candidate, certainly there is as much as a candidate and a half and possibly there are two.

We are not speaking to-night of candidates or politics, but of primaries, and in the discussion between Senator Brackett and

1 Address at the dinner of the Academy of Political Science, October 25, 1912.