a law by the legislature and its committees, and the advantage of public discussion and consideration, before a resort is had to the initiative for the purpose of enacting the same. It is also entirely reasonable to use the referendum to a limited extent in local municipal affairs, especially in the grant of franchises and privileges.

There may be circumstances where the recall of officials may be applied with advantage to the commonwealth; but where we have short elective terms it is my opinion that the wiser provision is for removal of an officer for misconduct in office only after an opportunity to be heard. In any event, care should be taken not to apply the recall to the judiciary, for it would be destructive of the independence of that branch of the government. The integrity of our system of government can only be preserved by an impartial and independent judiciary. The judges should, so far as possible, be removed from the influence of the other two branches of the government. In a constitutional government human ingenuity has never evolved a scheme for preserving limitations upon power except through some impartial tribunal.

I am not by this advocating the abolition of representative government. I am a firm believer in the wisdom of delegating to representatives those duties which ages of experience have shown can best be performed in this manner. It tends to a more scientific investigation in administrative and legislative matters, and to training the citizen to the high stations in civic life. Do not take from the American youth the hope of honorable advancement and great accomplishments in official life; but, on the other hand, where the people are educated for self-government, give them the widest field of opportunity, maintaining always those constitutional guaranties necessary for the preservation of their independence and personal liberties.

This movement towards a higher education and more liberal democracy has undoubtedly been largely caused by a general public demand for legislation and control in our industrial life. This is a branch of New Nationalism to which the public is now giving great attention. It is comparatively new in our country. It has been tried to a greater degree in the older civilizations. But

all over the world the movement at the present time is towards more paternal legislation, greater control of the forces of industry and wealth, and legislation looking to the betterment of the conditions of the masses of the people. Such legislation is bound to come by reason of those irresistible forces of competitive life in the struggle for human existence. We can not give free rein to human desires and passions, or to the powers of wealth, without endangering the moral and physical condition of the great majority of the people. Such legislation is therefore bound to come. Shall we nationalize it? Shall we make it uniform? Shall it be the movement of the whole people? Shall we guide it into wise channels? Or shall we blindly oppose it, throw obstacles in the way, let it be sectional, and ineffectual? Although this legislation with us is of comparatively modern date, still we have had considerable experience and have made great advancement along this line. It is a rule of economic law that when an instrumentality becomes necessary to the life of a people, it must be regulated for the benefit of the greatest number, so that all may enjoy it with equal right. Such was the condition when transportation became the foundation of all our industrial life. We saw the evils of unregulated transportation facilities. We passed laws which have been of inestimable benefit to the people at large, and we are administering them with reasonable wisdom. We are learning from year to year how best to regulate the transportation facilities of the country without injury to capital or labor, and while some injury has been done, in the scale of human good and evil the good so far outweighs the evil as to encourage us to continue the regulation.

The control of railways first took the form of laws passed by the various states, principally affecting transportation rates. At first many lawyers opposed such regulation as an exercise of unconstitutional power. It was denounced by them and by many of the prominent business men of the country, as confiscatory, destructive of personal and property rights, and an unwarranted interference with private affairs; but the courts, keeping pace with the new conditions, sustained this power. It subsequently became evident that state regulation was entirely inadequate.

The commerce of the country was principally interstate and international. After an elaborate and careful investigation Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, which has been enlarged and extended from that day to the present time. Following the great master mind of American jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of the United States sustained this power which was absolutely necessary to a nation-wide regulation. It is a matter of congratulation that Chief Justice Marshall, in writing the early opinions construing the Constitution of the United States, saw with prophetic vision beyond anyone of his time. He saw a commerce between the states growing to vast proportions until it should become the very life blood of a great commercial nation. He saw, as to that commerce in this country, one nationthe products of every state transported and consumed in all parts of the country and flowing in streams to foreign lands.

Without any stretch of this constitutional power, it is my opinion that the time is coming when the regulation of these transportation lines will of necessity be exclusively in the hands of the federal government. This construction, which confirmed in Congress the power to regulate instrumentalities of commerce, was the foundation stone for legislation for the benefit of labor, such as the Safety Appliance Act, the act regulating hours and conditions of labor upon railways, the Employers' Liability Act regulating the recovery of injuries on account of negligence, and various other laws for the benefit of labor.

But the people did not stop here. As our railways increased and the centers of industry filled up, and labor became specialized, it became evident that our system of compensating injured employees was crude and unscientific, tended to litigation, and was inadequate to compensate the employee. On account of our dual system of government and constitutional restrictions, it was more difficult to provide for workmen's compensation than in some foreign countries. Various of the states, however, have secured workmen's compensation acts, and these laws have been sustained in very able decisions by the majority of the courts where the questions have been raised. But as to the transportation lines, their employees were principally engaged in interstate

commerce, and in order to meet this question the President appointed a commission under authority of law to inquire into the subject and to frame a law to be presented to Congress. This very able commission gave exhaustive consideration to the subject, made a report, and framed an act which is now pending. In my opinion it is within the constitutional power of Congress, and is one of the most beneficent pieces of legislation conceived in modern times. This system has been tried in older countries and found of great value to both the employer and the employee. It insures to the workman compensation for injuries received, regardless of negligence of the employer, and makes this compensation one of the risks and expenses of the business.. It protects the laborer in case of sickness, and secures to him and his family the independence necessary to the development of the best character of men and women. Nothing tends so much to degenerate a people as poverty, disease and hopeless labor. This legislation holds out to the workman the light of hope and tends to raise him in the scale of humanity.

Other legislation should follow, regulating hours and conditions of labor (especially as applied to women), regulating child labor, improving the sanitary conditions of the industrial centers, and encouraging a higher standard of industrial education. These are known as general welfare laws, and while, of course, some of these regulations are entirely within the province of the state, others are within the province of the federal government, and many of them must be of national character in order to be effective. The Safety Appliance Act, Employers' Liability Act, and others regulating hours and conditions of labor on railways, have been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States as a proper exercise of power under the commerce clause. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the numerous decisions sustaining these laws and construing the Constitution. One of the most noted is the late decision in the Employers' Liability case, written by Mr. Justice Van Devanter and concurred in by all the members of that distinguished court. In the course of the opinion, the court said:

"This power over commerce among the states so conferred upon Congress, is complete in itself. It extends incidentally to every instrument and agent by which such commerce is carried on.

It may be exerted to its utmost extent over every part of such commerce, and is subject to no limitations save such as are prescribed in the Constitution. . . . . The duties of common carriers with respect to the safety of their employees while both are engaged in commerce among the states, and the liability of the former for injuries sustained by the latter while both are so engaged, have a real or substantial relation to such commerce, and therefore are within the range of its power."

This is a reasonable, progressive construction of the Constitution, and I believe beyond question sustains the power to pass the Workmen's Compensation Act. In time Congress must go further. It must take up other enterprises whose employees are engaged in interstate commerce. But those problems are not easy of solution. They must be worked out slowly and with due regard to the rights of the employer as well as the employee. This act, if passed by Congress, will be a guide and an example which will have a beneficent effect in the various states when legislating on matters solely within their control.

The problems of an intensified, complex civilization like ours are numerous and difficult. When we look from a distance at the laws passed by the Liberal Parliament of England, such as the agrarian laws applying to Ireland, the small holdings act, tax laws and minimum wage laws of England, they seem dangerously paternalistic in their nature, but they undoubtedly meet a public demand and a necessity, and they may avert an evil as great as befell the empire which the Gracchi struggled to save by the agrarian laws of Rome. I do not advocate such agrarian and minimum wage laws for this country, and I hope the time may never come when it may be necessary to so interfere with the individual liberty of the people; but the best way to prevent them is to remove the causes and thereby avert the necessity for such legislation. We can best do this by encouraging rural life and improving industrial conditions. Certain it is that the wages of labor, except perhaps the higher grades of skilled labor, have not advanced as rapidly as the cost of living, and certain it is in this country that while fortunes have accumulated with startling rapidity, and the concentration of wealth has exceeded that of any age, in the centers of industry poverty is increasing, and