;. -""
''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,
