Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (May 19, 1911)
;. -"" ''TK.'" " .? jfw ' ini ' v t "y"'"'7'" The Commoner. MAT It, 1111 w-"jt w&qp-f? t"W wjw.wnj-wr down to a passive, innocuous course in the city council that brought upon him the criticism of those who put him in office. The opponents of direct legislation cite this as an Instanco of the nselessness of the recall, while the advocates of the system contend that it merely demonstrates that the recall alone can not accomplish that which can be better done by a combination of the initiative, referendum and recall. The advocates of direct legislation in this connec tion point to another instance in the political history of Los Angeles as showing the moral effect of the recall. The instanco is this: Sub sequent to the recall of the alderman in ques tion tho city council, it is said, attempted to grant a street railway franchise reputed to be worth $1,000,000 without compensation to the city. A cry was raised and a movement was started to recall several of the aldermen, where upon the proposed franchise ordinance was with drawn. In 1903 Los Angeles obtained also the initiativo and referendum. BEGINNING ABOUT 1892 Such is the movement for direct legislation in cities an4 states in this country. The agita tation for it started in an effective way about 1892.- After a long campaign, Iowa in 1897, led tho way with a general law applying the referen dum to all franchise grants. Nebraska followed the same year with a' law that was designed to enable cities to introduce both the initiative and referendum. Tho next year South Dakota adopted a constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum in state affairs. In 1902 Oregon adopted tho system in a form that has become the- pattern for other common wealths, and then in rapid succession followed the other states. Colorado and Arkansas were the last two states to adopt the initiative and referendum, Colorado by a vote of 89,141 to 28,098, and Arkansas by a vote of 91,363 to 39,680. The proposal is now before the people of California in the shape of a constitutional amendment, providing not only for the initia tive and referendum, but also for the recall applicable even to the judiciary. Heretofore the question of direct legislation has been either a municipal or a state issue, but recent events have exalted it into practically a national question. These events center around the admission of the territory of Arizona, with its constitution containing the Initiative, referen dum iind recall, applicable to all elective state officers. This would make the recall applicable to the judiciary, as it exists in Oregon and as it is now before the people of California. Only one state has come into the union with a con stitution containing an initiative and referen dum provision. That was Oklahoma, but It did not contain a recall provision. In tho United States senate the fiercest opposition developed among republicans and some democrats to the Arizona constitution, because of its direct legis lation feature, and more particularly because of the proposed application of the recall to all elective officers, which includes tho judiciary. This opposition went to the extent that most of the republicans and one democrat, Senator Bailey of Texas, voted to keep out both Arizona and New Mexico because of the provision in the Arizona constitution, the question being upon a joint resolution to admit the two territories, The difference between the two constitutions is interesing. New Mexico's constitutional con vention was controlled by republicans, who did not insert either the Initiative or the recall, but adopted a referendum to become effective on the petition "of not less than 25 per cent of' the qualified electors in each judicial district of the state," a stipulation which, it Is asserted, twould make the referendum unworkable under existing political conditions in that territory. The Arizona constitution provides for the Initia tive and referendum, the Initiative on applica tion of 15 per cent of the voters, and the recall applicable to all elective officers. Other notable features of the Arizona constitution are the 'direct primary system, the advisory primary for .United States senators, non-partisan elections for the judiciary, juvenile courts with the ago of responsibility fixed at eighteen years, physical valuation of railroads, abrogation of the fellow fiervant doctrine in lawsuits, corporation com mission with wide powers. 4 The democratic position Is that so long as a territory offers' a republican form of government, ibongress should admit it to statehood, and in ithe present extra session of congress they will attempt to force the admission of Arizona' as a state. It is the fight that will bo made against feuch action that will probably bring the Initia tive, referendum and recall to the front as a national issuo, where heretofore It has existed only as a problem in local government. This situation has produced a widespread in terest In tho subject of direct legislative agencies and an ' interesting variety of views are being expressed upon it. It is with thoso views, as well as tho question as it is now before tho supreme court of the United States, in tho case from Oregon, that tho next article of this series will treat. WATCH IT GROW Do you believe that the democratic party should bo kept free from entanglements with special. Interests? Do you believo that its repre sentatives should mean to redeem the spirit as well as tho letter of its platform pledges? If you believo tho democratic party should bo true to its namo you may help win the fight to protect its national convention from tho in vading forces of those who would make tho party the laughing stock of real democrats. Mr. Bryan will do his part In the effort to protect tho democratic party from "Aldrich ism." On the stump and through The Com moner he will insist that the progress made by the party during the past sixteen years shall not be thrown away; that the special interests shall not control the convention; that its plat form shall be honest and unequivocal and its candidates devoted to genuine democratic doc trine. In order to place his views before a larger number of people Mr. Bryan has given instruc tions that his paper, The Commoner, be sent to every subscriber for a period of two years for the sum of $1.00 the regular price for one year. You are Invited to join Mr. Bryan in this great fight. Every Commoner reader can aid greatly If he will secure one or more two-year subscribers at this special rate. This will carry the subscription beyond the presidential cam paign. Will you assist In this effort to prevent the Aldrichization of the democratic party? Although the democratic party, has not con trolled administrations in recent years its demo cratic platforms have given it a power pos sessed by no other party in history tho power to compel opposing parties to recognize tho righteousness of' its platforms. Never in all its history has tho democratic party so well represented the hopes and aspira tions of the progressive men of all parties as it does today. This advantage has been won by the party's ' persistent fight for the people during tho past sixteen years. Today the American people are looking to. the democratic party as the leader in real reforms. The people have lost confidence in tho republi can party. Can the democratic party be trusted? The democratic national convention for 1912 will provide the answer. The special interests that have wrecked the republican party are seeking to gain control of the democratic party. They hope to nominate for president a "reactionary" who will bo satis factory to the Wall Street Interests. If they find that the progressive sentiment is too strong to be entirely Ignored they will take some one who has been progressive enough to furnish them something to talk about but not progressive enough to fight the Interests. The democratic party seems ready to come into its own. After a long fight the progres sive policies which aroused tho opposition of all the predatory interests in 1896 are becoming tho accepted policies of the country, but the interests will do their best to nominate a candi date who is not in sympathy with them and who tried to retard their progress. Following aro sample letters: Mrs. Elizabeth Compton, St. Louis, Mo: This is my second attempt in securing subscribers to .your estimable paper. My first effort was two years ago, when I got seven new names. This time I have been more successful, becauso of the proffered assistance of five school children, who aro great admirers of Mr. Bryan, namely; Watt W. Ferguson, Sidney Sternburger, Bessie Bum barger, Isabel Lowonthal, Elizabeth Hall. With this valuable help, I am sending you the names of twenty-two new subscribers. Your paper improves with age. The principles you repre sent aro recognized even by republicans, as those tho people want. With the exception of two or three, all of these new subscribers aro republi cans. They include the names of physicians, clergymen, planters, cotton brokers, dentists, and many other lines of commercial ife. I tako pleasure In knowing that your principles of honestgovornmont will bo carried Into nino states through this list of subscribers Texas, Mis souri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Illinois, Now York, New, Jorsey, Kentucky, Tennessee I should think tho women of this groat republic would rally to your assistance in this greatest of campaigns, although I havo not read of any taking an activo part in spreading tho circulation of Tho Com moner. Tho womon of tho country should work for Mr. Bryan "in season and out of season," as ho advocates everything that is for their well being and happiness. Ho champions tho cause of tomporanco, one of tho greatest blessings to society and tho family, without which there can bo neithor happiness nor prosperity. Ho advo cates tho cheapening of everything that enters into tho household: our stockings, shoes, woolon suits and coats; sheets and blankets for our beds; and food for tho tahlo as well. Mr. Bryan's efforts in behalf of tho working women aro greatly appreciated by every member of our household, I assuro you. May Mr. Bryan bo blessed with good health, and may Tho Com moner roach a million households boforo an- -other presidential election is tho sinccro wish of yours very truly. J. D. Cox, Missouri Enclosed find $3.00 for threo two-year subscriptions. This makes fifty subscribers I havo sent in slnco January 1, 1911. About forty-one are new one's. Long llvo Tho Commoner that Is fighting for Jofforsonian principles. The following named Commoner readers havo sent in subscribers in number as follows: S. H. Laudor, la., 5; Silas Wilkinson, N. Y., 14; Jas. H. Kail, O., 6; Sam'l. P. White, Ky., 8; Fitch Raynsford, Vt., 5; Jos. H. Rowland, Okla., 6; F. E. Wilson, N. D., 7; J. S. Hartman, N. M., 11; L. C. Larsen, N. Y., 6; J, F. Lucas, Mo., 10; Peter J. Mayan, Pa., 7; Zach. Shields, Ky., 35; W. IT. Lester, Okla., 6; W. E. Roberts, Okla., 6; G. T. Jenkins, Mo., 6; E. E. Anderson, Kan., 5; M. V. B. Exum, Tcnn., 5; Wra. II. Horshlor, W. Va., 0; J. H. Dunkel, O., 8; A. D. Morgan, Mo., 5; M. E. Shepler, Ida., 5; Curtis Shoppard, N. D., 8; Jno. Wineland, Tex., 6? Thos. D. Tur ner, O., 7; J. H. Allison, O., 7; E. J. Kay, Minn., 5; Fred Rotteror O., 14; Thos. Connor, Ia 5; W. H. Grant, 111., 6; C. W. Amberg, Tex., 5; D. J. Frantz, Pa.. 5; S. P. Rocjatdson, Okla., 6; J. Q. Green, Cal., 25; S. E. Stoehr, Mo., 7; J. W. Hamilton, Tex., 13; R. IT. Robinson, N. Y., 8; Thos. Wolfe, Pa., 6; Ole K. Lee, la.. 5; J. H. Langdon, Neb., 7; M. L. Shields, Pa., 5; L. P. Watson, Mo., 6; W.R.Lovo, Kan., 6; J. J. Robin son, N. J., 6; W. E. Parsons, Mich., 5; M. R. Williams, Pa., 6; Jno. L. Becker, 111., 8; Jas. DoBois, Mich., 7; G. S. Chenault, Okla., 5; J. W. Achelpohl, Kan., 8; F. A. South worth, Wis., 5; A. C. Karrlck, Ky., 5; H. Woodruff, Neb., 8; T. J. Knisley, W. Va., 8; W. G. Throckmorton, Ky., 6; H. L. Moffltt, la., 5; T. O. Gonderzik, Wis., 5; L. F. Dimlck, 111., 8; A. Yoder, Kan., 6; C. N. Pollock, Miss., 5; S. T. Baer, Neb., 7; H. R. Maginlry, Pa., 5; J. A. Peast, Ky., 5; J. M. Worcester, Mont., 8; L. A. Sears, O., 10; Junius IT. Wood, Colo., 7; Jno. J. Kuhn, Ind., 6; J. L. Teeters, Neb., 5;, J. E. Kenerline, Pa., 6; A. D. Whitfield, Kan., 6; J. D. Cox, Mo., 6; F. J. Schellenberg, Pa., 6; R. M. Phelps, Cal., 12; Jno. F. Brown, Mo., 6; C. S. Rogers, Pa., 6; Moses King, Mo., 7; Thos. H. Slaven, Cal., 24; S. F. McKenrick, la., 8; J. K. Frfdley, S. D., 6; Jas. Johnston, 111., 9; Simon Langoll, Mich., 10; G. T. Kerfoot, Kan., 6; A. V. Mounce, Ida., 6; Jno. Becker, O., 12; H. N. Jones, Kan., 6; David Lloyd, N. D., 13; Wm. Beacom, Mich., 6; E. M. Crawford, Tenn., 6; T. F. North, Kan., 6; W. M. Childs, Mo., 7; E. R. Klein, N. Y., 5; H. E. Igler, O., 5; Wm. A. Walters, Ind., 5; E. M. Runk, N. D., 5; H. R. Swallen, O., 5; J. V. Wayman, Cal., 5; A. G. Sloan, Okla., 5; Will Young, Mo., 5; J. T. Burke, Ind., 5; J. A. Frohlich, Wis., 5; Fred Cook, O., 5; J. R. Met calf, Mo., 5; C. E. Bender, Kan., 5; Mrs. H. L. Wilcox, Wyo., 6; H. H. Heydon, Minn., 5; W. E. Robinson, la., 5; J. W. Walker, Kan., 5; Geo. A. Schaefer, N. Y., 5; Frank Millart, O., 5; A. J. Scogglns, Cal., 5; Woorall Reed, O., 5; J. M. Coats, la., 5; A. T. Rees, Ky., 5; W. A. Pago., 111., 5; J. M. Terry, la., 5; F. L. Thompson, la., 5; C. B. Bush, W. Va., 5; Rev. R. P. Werner, O., 5; W. H. Miller, Pa., 5; E. J. Crider, Okla., 6; J. W. Brier, Cal., 5; W. C. Zerbe, Pa., 7; J. E. Lane, la., 5; Roy L. Randall, MJch, 5; Jno. A. Tadlock, Ore., 5; R. T. Nichols, Kan., 5; L. W. Gilson, la., 5; Tom Allen, Ind., 5; D. C. Moltzan, Mont., 5; Jno. Ryan, O., 8; Wm. Mc Creay, 111., 5; S. F. Koonta, O., 8; W. A. S. Cobb, Tex., 10; M. E. Kane, Mich, 5; J. C. Skin ner, la., 6; Perry G. Alfred, W. Va., 5; W. J. Whitney, Me., 6; H. H. McCann, W. Va., 5; R. A. Humpston, Tenn., 5; H. H. Hungoto, Wash., 5; Samuel H. Doud, la., 5. tf&HH jfcfrAeU-'''''--- 'a-- Wj4 . -Jr -vii f.-a- i. I,