has been changed twenty-three times in one-fourth of that period while the new system has been in operation, and that, in all, during the latter period, sixty-one amendments to the constitution have been proposed, twenty-three submitted by the legislative assembly, and thirty-eight initiated by petition. But of the twenty-three amendments adopted 1 by the voters only nine - all initiated by petition - can be considered of really fundamental importance - those (1) providing for the majority vote to be required for the adoption of amendments submitted by the legislature and for an obligatory referendum on acts calling a constitutional convention, (2) home-rule charters for cities, (3) the local initiative and referendum, (4) the recall, (5) authorizing proportional representation, (6) county home-rule in taxation, etc., (7) three-fourths verdict and reorganization of the judicial system, (8) woman's suffrage, and (9) the substitute for county home-rule in taxation. Moreover, of the thirtyeight attempts to amend the constitution which have failed, only eight the two propositions for the "wholesale" reorganization of the legislative department of the state, the two "singletax" propositions, with, perhaps the fifteen-hundred-dollar tax exemption and the sur-tax amendments, submitted together, and together an analogue to the "single-tax" amendments, the universal eight-hour labor amendment, and the Socialists' proposal for a department of public works for the benefit of the unemployed - have been very "radical," and not all of these have been really "disturbing." And none of the statutory law, enacted, or merely submitted, has been very "radical." However, it is asked, "is change a crime?

Must states and nations not go forward? China clung to the same old order several thousand years. . . . Is that the way we ought to do?"?

...

1 Five of the amendments adopted originated in the legislature, and the other fourteen were submitted by initiative petition.

Oregon Journal, Dec. 17, 1912, p. 8, col. 2.

CHAPTER XXIII

DIRECT LEGISLATION AND POLITICAL PARTIES

"It is one of the greatest merits of the initiative and referendum that it makes possible a clear separation between local and national issues. Under the older system. . . the people could express their opinion upon such a matter as the Barlow road purchase only by their choice of legislators. In determining this choice, numerous other questions necessarily played a part. . . . The method of initiative and referendum permits each voter to express his individual opinion upon every question standing entirely by itself and without admixture of personal or partisan bias. It absolutely separates the business department of legislation from the personal or partisan side. . . . Under the old system he [the voter] could not vote for his opinion upon this matter of pure business without voting against his party. This was a real misfortune, and it greatly contributed to dishearten the common man with politics. . . . It was all promises and no performance. Under the Oregon system the voter acts directly upon results. The individual feels his manhood as he could not under the purely representative method." 1

But the very general realization of the absence of party issues in state politics, the declining faith in the reality of national party distinctions, and the separation of national and local politics encouraged for some years by the direct, or practically direct, system of election of United States senators, have so largely operated toward the substitution of "business" for partisan politics in elections that the actual effect of direct legislation in this connection is obscured. And its effect upon party 1 Oregonian, June 10, 1906, p. 6, col. 5.

organization is also uncertain. "Party political organizations are in failing health. The absolute power to decide all questions by 'Be it enacted by the people of the state of Oregon,' and to decide many questions at one election and each separately on its own merits appears to be fatal to the perfection of party discipline and organization." But certainly the practical annihilation of party organization has been due more to the operation of the direct primary, a child of direct legislation, than to the operation of direct legislation itself.

1

It was predicted that with the power of initiative and referendum reserved to the voters they would be, as in Switzerland, "no longer obliged to defeat a useful public servant for re-election and thus destroy his political career in order to overrule his vote or opinion on some one question," no matter how important it might be. And perhaps in actual practice the Swiss precedent is to some extent followed in Oregon.

1 W. S. U'Ren, Oregonian, Apr. 29, 1907, p. 5, col. 7.

W. S. U'Ren, Initiative and Referendum in Oregon, Arena, vol. 29, pp. 270, 273-5 (1903).

CHAPTER XXIV

STATE DIRECT LEGISLATION AND FEDERAL

MATTERS

"A NATIONAL initiative and a national referendum is the logical and necessary sequel of a state initiative and a state referendum." 1

But whatever the desirability or practicability of "compounding the American people into one common mass" for the purpose of direct legislation, there is no reason why voters of the state may not be vested with more power over federal legislation than they exercise at present. Before the direct election of United States senators by the voters of the states was provided for by the amendment of the federal constitution, direct election was accomplished in Oregon, and later in other states, by a system under which candidates for the legislature pledged themselves to vote for the people's choice of senators, and, when elected, kept that pledge. The same principle is contained in the presidential primary law. This principle might well be applied to advance popular control over the federal constitution and statutes. Candidates for congress and the legislative assembly might thus be practically required to pledge themselves to further or to oppose federal legislation, statutory or constitutional, in accordance with the wishes of the voters of the state as expressed on the particular questions submitted at the election.2

1 Oregonian, July 3, 1911, p. 6, col. 2. "We are very much interested in seeing this spread [of the initiative and referendum] to other states, because we do not get the full benefit of it until we have it nationally." W. S. U'Ren, reported in Chicago City Club Bulletin, vol. 2, p. 478 (1909). 2 See below, p. 193.

CHAPTER XXV

THE POPULARITY OF DIRECT LEGISLATION

THE Constitutional amendment of 1902 establishing the initiative and referendum was adopted by the overwhelming vote of 62,024 to 5668.1

But there is still opposition to the system. Some of the opposition is doubtless due, partly to objections to direct government upon general principles, and partly to the natural objections of interests whose policies have been thwarted by the system; but probably it is due, at least as much, to the abuses which the system has suffered in practice. However, all the opposition together is probably comparatively insignificant, and the general popularity of the system well established. It is universally admitted that there are faults in the system, but the principle of the system is very generally accepted.

"Withal, it cannot be said that faith in the principle has been shaken among even a reasonable proportion of the voters. Rather the weaknesses of the present laws governing the use of the initiative and referendum are recognized and admitted. Some improvement is needed." 3 "The Oregon system is not in the balances. It is here to stay. The people rule . . . in Oregon through the Oregon system, and they have no wish or desire or purpose to go back to old methods." 4 "Dissenters must reconcile themselves the best way they can to living under the new system. Adjustment may come slowly in some instances, but it will come in course of time.” 5

1 Seventy-two per cent of those voting at the election voted on the amendment. And see above, pp. 3-5.

? It is perhaps significant in this connection that the amendment of 1906 extending the initiative and referendum to the localities was adopted by a vote of only 47,678 to 16,735. And see above, pp. 177-9. Oregonian, July 5, 1912, p. 10, col. 1.

4 Ibid., May 8, 1912, p. 10, col. 2.

3

Ibid., Feb. 21, 1912, p. 10, col. 1.