place of breaking them. Here was a case where the count could not be made and the breaking was imminent. It seems highly probable that civil war was averted only by the outbreak of the European war. We are accustomed to think, again, that laws and judgments of courts are practically self-executing. This impression is in part due to the fact that the more perfect our administrative machinery becomes, and the more certain it is that force will be used if it be needed, the less often is it necessary to use force. But when class interests are involved and class feeling runs high, obedience to the law is by no means assured. In some of our states the struggle between employers and employed is so keen as to amount to continuous latent war; and not infrequently it comes to open war. A similar situation exists in some of our states in consequence of race hostility. When the results of an election are peacefully accepted by the defeated party, and when laws and judgments appear to be self-executing, it seems highly probable that acquiescence still depends to some extent upon the conviction that resistance is hopeless. If now we inject into the electorate that portion of the adult population which does not represent fighting force —which was taken off the fighting line when men advanced from savagery to barbarism-what will be the effect upon the men who have been defeated in elections or who object to the enforcement of particular laws? Their disposition to acquiesce will certainly not be increased. How far it will be lessened depends on two further questions. The first of these questions is whether, in any given case, these men are likely to believe that the election was carried or the law established by the votes of women rather than by those of men. Where this is not ascertainable, they may choose to believe whatever they wish to believe. The second and more fundamental question is, how far the most civilized nations of the present day have emerged from barbarism and become wholly and sweetly reasonable. It is not until this last evolution is completed that men will always and unhesitatingly accept a vote as an expression of the social will, ceasing to ask or to care how much force there is behind the will. RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH THE INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL W CHARLES FREMONT TAYLOR Editor of Equity, Philadelphia HEN we realize that the constitution of every state in the Union, except Delaware, has been adopted by referendum to the voters of the respective states, we When we realize see that the referendum is no new thing. that every amendment to every state constitution, except that of Delaware, has been adopted by referendum to the voters of the respective states, and that at every general election new amendments are submitted either by action of the legislature or by means of the voters' initiative in one or more states, we see that the referendum is a "going concern." As an illustration, amendments more or less numerous were referred to the voters at the recent election, November 3, in the following states, the number in parenthesis following the name of each state denoting the number of amendments submitted: Arizona (5), California (30), Colorado (8), Georgia (10), Kansas (2), Louisiana (17), Michigan (4), Mississippi (9), Missouri (11), Nebraska (4), North Dakota (6), Ohio (4), Oklahoma (4), Oregon (20), South Carolina (11), South Dakota (8), Texas (3), Washington (1), Wisconsin (9), Wyoming (4), and Arkansas-September election—(3). However, by no means all of these submissions were in the so-called initiative and referendum states. Of the states mentioned above, the voters' constitutional initiative does not exist in the following: Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Hence the amendments in these states were submitted necessarily in the old-fashioned way; that is, by the legislatures. Amendments by Both Processes The remainder of the first-mentioned states have the voters' constitutional initiative, by which the voters can, by petition, initiate constitutional amendments. But the legislatures also continue to submit amendments in these states. We give here the number of amendments submitted by each process in these states for this year's election: To the total here given by legislature, we must add the 72 72 130 This gives succinctly the recent referenda of state constitutional amendments, which may be summarized as follows. By simply adding we find the following totals: 130 amendments were submitted by the old process of legislative submission, and 43 were submitted by the voters' initiative, that is, by petitions. It is evident that the old process of submitting amendments is still active, even in the states where the voters have the privilege of initiating constitutional amendments. Thus we see also that the voters' constitutional initiative has not been abused, as was feared by some anxious statesmen and educators lacking confidence in the people. If abuse is here indicated, it is by the legislatures and not the voters. In an article contributed by Governor Glynn to the New York Times for October 25, 1914, the statement is made that in New York state since 1895 over 600 proposed amendments to the consti tution have been introduced into the legislature. No such activity by means of the voters' constitutional initiative has ever been known. The official returns on constitutional amendments from the secretary of state of South Carolina arrived just as this article. was needed for the press. The surprising data that he presents illustrate the imperfections of many of our state constitutions. The total vote for governor was 34,606 for Manning, Democrat, and 83 for Britton, Socialist. Seemingly there were no other candidates for governor. Eleven constitutional amendments were submitted.' Though 1 The following were the amendments and the vote thereon: Amendment to Article X, State Constitution, empowering the cities of Sumter and Darlington and the towns of Belton and Walhalla to assess abutting property for permanent improvements. Total vote, 2,754; for, 2,089; against, 665. A Joint Resolution to amend Section 8, Article II, of the Constitution, by adding thereto, on line three, after the word " College" and before the word "the" the following: "South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind, located at Cedar Springs." Total vote, 13,924; for, 10,730; against, 3,194. A Joint Resolution to amend Section 7, Article VIII, of the Constitution, relating to Municipal Bonded Indebtedness, by adding a proviso thereto, relating to the School District of Yorkville. Total vote, 10,607; for, 5,324; against, 4,283. A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to Article X of the Constitution, by adding thereto Section 16, to empower the Cities of Florence and Orangeburg and the Town of Landrum to assess abutting property for permanent improvements. Total vote, 10,267; for, 5,971; against, 4,296. A Joint Resolution to amend Section 20, Article III, of the Constitution, by adding thereto the following: “Except where there is only one candidate nominated for the place to be filled at such election, in which case the election shall be viva voce without any roll call." Total vote, 9,478; for, 5,348; against, 4,130. A Joint Resolution to amend Section 7, Article VIII, of the Constitution, relating to Municipal Bonded Indebtedness, by adding a proviso thereto as to the City of Florence. Total vote, 9,018; for, 5,455; against, 3,563. A Joint Resolution to amend Section 7, Article VIII, of the Constitution of this State by adding a proviso thereto so as to empower the Cities of Chester and Sumter each to issue bonds to an amount not exceeding fifteen per cent of the assessed value of the taxable property therein for the improvement of streets and sidewalks. Total vote, 8,998; for, 5,273; against, 3,725. A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to Article X of the Constitution, by adding there to a section to be designated as Section 15a, to empower the Towns of Latta and Dillon to assess abutting property for permanent improvements. Total vote, 9485; for, 5,606; against, 3,879. A Joint Resolution to amend Section 1, Article XII, of the Constitution, by most of them dealt with matters of small consequence, and many were of only local application, yet the constitution of the state itself made it necessary to submit them to the voters of the entire state and to embody them in the constitution. It is cbvious to any student of government that these are purely legislative matters, and most of them should be settled by local legislatures. The voters of South Carolina cannot order a measure of any kind to be put on the ballot, but the legislature must put these trivial matters on the ballot. But South Carolina is not alone in palpable constitutional imperfections. The following were some of the measures acted upon by the Massachusetts state legislature in the session of 1913: That Boston may appropriate for Museum of Fine Arts. On playgrounds of Worcester. On automatic sprinklers in Boston. On salaries of Boston Licensing Board. For police commissioners and license board in Chelsea. For inclosed athletic field in Chelsea. That Malden and Medford may make contracts as to sewage disposal. striking out the words "Blind, Deaf and Dumb" after the word "Insane " on line two, and before the word "And" on line two. Total vote, 11,617; for, 8,217; against, 3,400. A Joint Resolution proposing an Amendment to Article X of the Constitution, by adding thereto Section 17, to empower the Town of Fort Mill to assess abutting property for permanent improvements. Total vote, 9,041; for, 5,289; against, 3,752. A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to Article X of the Constitution, by adding thereto Section 16, to empower the Cities of Anderson, Greenwood and Towns of Bennettsville, Timmonsville and Honea Path to assess abutting property for permanent improvements. Total vote, 9.386; for, 5,373; against, 4,013. |