Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 11.pdf/176

 Constitution or Theory, — IVhich? capitalists, newspaper proprietors, and of professional men, we could not have believed possible if we had not verified it by actual experience. Ol1ver McCl1ntock, Esq., Of the Munieipal League of Pittsburg. The thing we have most to fear is not the de pravity and criminality that are rampant, but the decency that is languid and the respectability that is indifferent, and that will go a-junketing when a State is on the edge of a crisis, or go fishing on a day when the city is having its destiny determined at

the P0lls-

Dr. Parkhurst.

"Are the people of the United States prepared to give up the experiment of con stitutional self-government?" is the question with which Mr. Ben. S. Dean begins an article in a recent number of the GREEN Bag; and then proceeds to attack the Initi ative and Referendum, which he says is "emerging from the academic into the realm of practical politics." He answers this question " No," and so do I. He says the two systems are " dia metrically opposed "; it is " as impossible to harmonize them as it is for oil and water to mingle." This I deny, and claim that the Initiative and Referendum constitute the method for self-government par excel lenee. That they are constitutional is shown by the fact that the Referendum is the method of amending the United States Constitution, and that of every State save Delaware. A certain prisoner was explain ing his case to his lawyer, when the lawyer said, " Oh, but they can't put you in prison! " and thereat the prisoner replied, "But I am in prison! " Notwithstanding the arguments against its constitutionality, the Referendum is a part of our fundamental political system. What are these things with the formidable names? They are very simple. There are two forms of the Referendum. The Obligatory Referendum is that by which all laws are referred to the people for ratifi cation or rejection. This is in use in Berne, Zurich, and other cantons in Switzerland;

153

in New Zealand and Australia, regarding liquor licenses, the land tax, and other local matters; in Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, England, and other European coun tries, on many questions of taxation, license, bonding, etc. It is in use in the United States in amending the national and State constitutions; in many State matters, such as the removal of the capital, the forming of a State bank, the going into debt beyond a certain limit, etc., and in innumerable local matters. For instance, the cities of Massa chusetts vote every year on the question of licensing saloons. In E. P. Oberhaltzer's book, " The Referendum in America," al most endless examples of its use, as well as that of the Initiative, are given. But the more stringent form of the Obli gatory Referendum is not advocated for gen eral use here. We advocate the Optional Referendum, by which only such matters are referred to the people as a minority of the voters by petition ask to have referred; or sometimes such a demand might be made by a minority of the legislative body, or the governor, or a supreme court judge. Coupled with this is the provision that the laws shall not go into effect until sufficient time has elapsed to allow petitions to be signed and filed, say ninety days for a State; with, however, the important exception that urgent laws for the " immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety" can go into immediate effect. This provision is in the Swiss constitution, in the constitu tional amendments adopted by the legisla ture of South Dakota and Oregon, the model drafted by the National Direct Legislation League, and in almost every other draft I have seen. This does away with the objec tion which Mr. Dean makes, that " in case of a war a few people might suspend a law from operation," and the enemy meantime "have burned half of our coast cities and laid the country in waste." By writing thus, Mr. Dean shows that he has not carefully looked up the matter he is criticising.