United States would, of itself, sooner or later have this result. But whether the last proposition be accepted or not, it is at least certain that the use of silver as the domestic currency by the United States would at once put a stop to the extreme fluctuations in the relative value of the two metals that have resulted from the almost total demonetization of silver by the world, and by the persistent crusade still carried on against it; and would thus reëstablish (at some ratio) the steady par of exchange that always existed between the two metals before demonetization; which is all that is essential. "Far more importance" is to be attached "to the injurious effects of constant fluctuations of their relative value, in imparting a character of uncertainty and insecurity to the international exchanges between gold- and silver-using countries, than to a mere alteration in their relation to each other."1 "The principal evil of the present situation lies in the instability that results from it. . . . The hesitation which checks all great enterprises, and which paralyzes many markets, is the direct consequence of the instability in the price of silver as compared with gold." 2 (3.) The third and last objection of Mr. Giffen to the policy of bimetallism is that creditors would be paid in depreciated silver. To this objection, did space permit, numerous answers might be suggested, as, for example, that if such be the effect the creditor class is to be blamed for it, and that it cannot be expected that this consideration should stand in the way of a reform vital to the interests of mankind generally; that we have every reason to believe that the effect of remonetization by the United States will be to bring silver to par, a result that can certainly be effected if the money power will lend a helping hand; and that, at all events, in view of the increased burdens laid upon debtors by their selfish policy, creditors will probably, in the great majority of cases, get more than they are entitled to. But, without dwelling upon these considerations, there is one conclusive answer to the objection, which is, that the 1 Sir Louis Mallet, cited in Walker's " International Bimetallim," p. 145. result anticipated is not a necessary consequence of remonetization, but can be altogether averted by a proviso making the act prospective in its operation, that is, making the new silver coins legal tender only for future debts. Whether such a proviso would be advisable or not, it is unnecessary to consider. It is sufficient to say that the creditor party, had they been willing to recede from their ill-advised policy, could at any time have secured the adoption of such a provision, and that they can even now do so. If they fight the battle to the end, this, of course, cannot be expected. LOS ANGELES, CAL. THE INITIATIVE AND THE REFERENDUM. BY ELIHU F. BARKER. N the Declaration of Independence there is found this statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, IN that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It is evident the framers of that declaration considered the rights of life, of liberty, and of happiness the most important of all man's rights, and that governments are established for the purpose of securing and maintaining these rights. This purpose or use of governments, as set out by our Revolutionary parents, contains no new thought. It is true, perhaps, that this purpose had not formerly found similar expression, but the fundamental principle is as old as civilization. The history of forty centuries, as revealed through various sources, indicates that men have felt that through some source they have become possessed of certain individual rights which no man ought to molest, and that the highest duty of a government, or ruling power, is to secure and protect these rights. To learn the best method of securing the widest possible enjoyment of these rights ought to be the highest obligation resting upon the leaders of men when the foundations of governments are laid and at all times thereafter. With this deep-seated principle ever present within their breasts and with a keen sense of the duties and labors devolved upon them, together with the history of struggling humanity to guide them, the founders of this nation concluded that a purely representative government would best secure the inalienable rights of man. They reasoned that the representatives of a people would be true servants to the masters who delegated them powers and plied them with honors. At the time of the organization of this government and even up to the period of the Civil War, the structure called a representative government, generally speaking, was all that could be desired. It was in fact as well as in theory a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” During that period the cry for the rights of man could be heard above the cry for the rights of property. Loyal citizenship and honest character were more desired than stocks and bonds or a salaried office. 66 During the war all honest men were busily engaged, directly or indirectly, in rendering aid to the government that it might be successful in preserving the Union intact. But there were men who claimed the protection guaranteed to loyalty, yet who enriched themselves by forcing tribute from a crippled nation. They sucked the blood of the victim because forsooth he was dying! Capital thoroughly intrenched itself in power, while the eyes and ears of patriots were deadened by the smoke and roar and clash of musketry and canHow well capital succeeded in its efforts is evidenced by the constant agitation and unrest among the wealth-producing classes. Corporations became enthroned, and from that day to this we have flinched and floundered at every turn of the screw propelled by the capitalists of the land, but at each movement we have sunk deeper into political mire, while corporate influence sits serene in legislative halls of State and nation. non. If we may be allowed to judge by present conditions, it is safe to say that as a nation we still have the form of legislation so highly prized by our fathers, but that the substance has escaped. The shell is ours, but the kernel falls to those who often earn it not. We enjoy saying, "Ours is a government by the people," but the enjoyment certainly ends with the saying, for the most casual observation reveals that most legislation has been conducted along lines that produce benefits for the few rather than for the people. Results too truly warrant the statement: Ours is now a government of the people, by the corporations, and for the millionaires! Conditions have so changed that representative government in many respects is a failure as a means of securing that enjoy ment of the inalienable rights so earnestly sought to be provided by those who organized our form of government. How much truth is there in the statement, "This is a government by the people"? By constitutional provision, the government is divided into three departments, namely, the executive, the judicial, and the legislative. For the purpose of this discussion and a better understanding of present conditions, we will subdivide the legislative department into the Senate and House of Representatives. This gives us four departments of the government, and of these four, one only is elected by the people -the House of Representatives. The members of the other departments owe their position to the manipulation of State legislatures, through appointments largely secured by corporate influence, the barter of a governorship for an electoral vote (as in New York in 1888), and other influences foreign to the knowledge and welfare of the people. It requires no argument to show that members of the Senate owe but little, if anything, to the direct influence of the voting populace. Having received no aid from the people, and there being no special reason to suppose their influence will be felt in a succeeding election, so remote is such influence, our Senators feel no great obligation resting upon them to respond to public sentiment as do members of the House, who owe all to the votes of their constituents. The members of the judicial department are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Men with years of active legal work are usually selected, and in the past many members of the highest court of the land have been active counsellors for mammoth corporations at the time of their promotion to the judiciary department. When a vacancy occurs, by death or resignation, great influence is brought to bear upon the Executive in the selection of a man for the vacancy. As great stress is laid upon money and wealth in these days, the corporations prove effective in urging their claims. Judges are human, and the active corporate work of years, together with the kindly influence exerted in their behalf to secure the promotion, often leaves more than a friendly feeling toward all corporate bodies. The people— masters in |