up money very rapidly if indulged in. The sacrifice of time made by volunteers is very great and cannot be estimated." 1

In addition to the expenditures incurred by the promoters and opponents of measures, there are large expenditures incurred by the state under the system of direct legislation. In 1914 the cost of the voters' pamphlet 2 alone to the state was $12,873.40 a considerable reduction from previous expenditure. Moreover, direct legislation has materially increased the size of the ballot and the labor of canvassing the election returns, and has thus added materially to the cost of elections.

"It is believed in official circles that, once the law is put to the test and the people have an opportunity to realize the enormous expense attached, it will be no easy matter to invoke the initiative and referendum upon any measures except those of extraordinary importance or which are construed to be vicious or detrimental to the interests of the commonwealth." 3 But, in fact, such considerations have so far apparently had very little effect. The parties directly concerned with the measures advance funds for the campaign, and subscriptions are solicited from all kinds of sources. Public-welfare organizations tax themselves for various causes. The Fels Fund Commission, a "foreign" organization, has contributed many thousands of dollars to the campaign for progressive and radical movements, with special interest in the "single-tax" propositions. This has aroused bitter opposition in some directions, and a cry for "home rule in Oregon" has been raised. "There is in Oregon a coterie of paid employes of an eastern organization. The object and purpose of that organization is to impose somewhere in the United States untried experiments in government and untested theories in economics. Oregon with its wide open initiative is a fertile field for its operations. Therefore, it has dumped its wealth into Oregon. It has provided its employes with a war chest, collected in this and foreign countries, with which to pay for literature,

1 A. D. Cridge, Oregon Journal, Jan. 20, 1914, p. 6, col. 4.

Below, pp. 93-4.

Oregonian, Apr. 15, 1907, p. 5, col. 1.

speakers, and petition shovers. It has compelled property owners of Oregon to contribute to a fund to defend against invasion of their property rights."1 "There is need of a law which will prevent foreign organizations and residents of other states from employing attorneys or lawgivers to draft initiative measures, paying the stipends of petition hawkers, hiring press agents, spending vast sums for literature in behalf of their own and against other specific measures and in contributing to the success or defeat of state or local candidates for office. Efforts in behalf of economic theories or principles when directed from without should cease at a certain point and that point should be when a measure or the representative of a political policy is before the people and there through the effort of Oregon citizens. There is no better reason for permitting organizations or persons that have no citizenship interests in Oregon to force consideration of measures or aid in the election or defeat of measures or candidates than there is for permitting them to sign the petitions or participate in the balloting." "

This view was the cause of an attempt made in the legislative assembly of 1913 to enact a law making it a crime to receive any money from without the state for assistance in the adoption or defeat of any measure submitted by the initiative.3

Under the corrupt practices act the amount of money to be spent by candidates for office is limited, but no limitations are placed upon the expenditure for initiative or referendum measures. In order "to put the poor man on an equality with the rich man" in this regard, it was claimed," an attempt was made in the legislative assembly of 1913 to place strict limitation upon the amount of expenditure in case of any initiative measure, but the proposition was not accepted.

1 Oregonian, July 5, 1912, p. 10, col. 1. 2 Ibid., Dec. 5, 1912, p. 10. col. 1. Senate Bill, 1913, no. 125. There was no intention of limiting contributions to campaigns prior to the actual filing of measures. Cf. Oregonian, Jan. 26, 1913, sec. 3, p. 6, col. 3. Laws, 1909, ch. 3, sec. 8; Lord's Oregon Laws, sec. 3494. 'E. E. Blanchard, quoted in Oregon Journal, Jan. 17, 1913, p. 20, col. 2.

House Bill, 1913, no. 103.

CHAPTER X

THE EDUCATION OF THE VOTE

I

The Study of Measures

'THE grave responsibility which the people have imposed upon themselves by the adoption of the system of direct legislation is continually emphasized by the press and on the platform. "The people of Oregon are to determine for themselves great problems deeply concerning their welfare. A single mistake will be serious; several mistakes will be unfortunate; a series of mistakes and there is opportunity for them — will be disastrous. It behooves the voter to begin now the most careful and thorough consideration of the initiative and referendum measures, that his action in November may be informed, deliberate, judicious and safe."1 "He must first learn the fact that he is one of a large legislative body empowered to enact laws and amend the constitution, then to be as painstaking and as honest as he expects and demands a member of the state legislature should be."2 But with the steadily increasing burden of the ballot the proper consideration by the great mass of the voters of all the measures submitted, many of them extremely complex, has become an absolute impossibility, and thus any serious study of the measures is more or less discouraged. Although probably great numbers of voters give all the consideration to the questions before them which could be reasonably

1 Oregonian, May 11, 1912, p. 10, col. 1.

• Woodburn Independent, reprinted in Oregonian, Jan. 25, 1908, p. 8, col. 5. Above, pp. 78-82.

expected, it is certain that very many others give little or no attention to them. Some voters shift the responsibility of decision upon others whose opinions or whose standing they respect.1 Others must vote wholly or partly at random.

That any trouble at all on the part of the voters to inform themselves upon the issues of the election is necessary has even been denied upon the ground that the manner in which one decides the question as to how he should vote upon a measure depends wholly upon his temperament and not at all "upon the degree of his intelligence or of his information relating to it," as is shown by the fact that the most intelligent and best informed persons may be found on opposite sides of the same question.2 There is another heretical doctrine to the effect that the proper consideration of all the measures by the voters presents no serious difficulty. "Each is printed in full three months before election in the state pamphlet, and is either self-explanatory, or is accompanied by arguments pro and con. In addition, the advocates and opponents of the measures indulge in state-wide campaigns in the press and on the stump. It doesn't take very much time or very much brains to go over the measures and arrive at a decision." 3 At any rate, it is maintained, the difficulties here are at least less than in the intelligent choice of public officers.4

1 "In all our work we have found the great value of well-known names attached to our measures as officers or members of committees. Though not all of our friends were able to give much time, their names worked for them. You see, the average voter is too indolent, too busy, or too distrustful of his own judgment to study or decide for himself upon the details of a law on a great public question. People always ask of a proposition to enact a principle they approve, 'Who is back of it?' If they find it endorsed by men whose reputation would forbid them to allow the use of their names with any unpractical, improper, or sinister law to apply the principle, they promptly conclude that it is right and worthy of support." W. S. U'Ren, quoted by L. Pease, Initiative and Referendum — Oregon's "Big Stick," Pacific Monthly, vol. 17, pp. 563, 574-5 (1907). See below, pp. 98–9.

2 T. T. Greer, Oregonian, Jan. 6, 1914, p. 6, col. 6.

* Medford Mail Tribune, reprinted in Eugene Guard, Oct. 15, 1912, p. 4, col. 5. 4"As a matter of fact it is much easier and requires much less knowledge and acumen to determine whether a proposed measure is what one wants to vote for

The Means of Information

At first the state did not undertake, for the benefit of the voters, the publication of information on the measures submitted, but provision was made for distribution to the voters, through the secretary of state and the county clerks, at public expense, of pamphlet arguments offered by parties interested in measures and of copies of the measures to the voters.1

The law of 1907 provides for an official state publication generally known as "the voters' pamphlet." Not later than the ninetieth day before a general election and not later than thirty days before a special election at which any measures are to be submitted to the voters, the secretary of state is required to send to each registered voter a copy of the pamphlet, printed under his direction, containing the title and text of each measure, with the number and form in which the ballot title will be printed and the arguments which may have been filed regarding the measures. Only the person filing an initiative petition is allowed space in the pamphlet for arguments favoring the measure, but any one may insert arguments opposing it, and any one may insert arguments either for or against any referendum measure. The cost of paper and printing for the arguments - for the election of 1914 thirty-four dollars and thirteen cents for each page of the pamphlet - is borne by the persons presenting the arguments.2

than to make an equally well advised decision about a candidate. It is easier to tell whether the general purpose and intent of a measure is acceptable or not, and a month or two of hostile criticism - the only true test is pretty likely to disclose any serious defects in detail. On the other hand, the public is notoriously subject to be deceived as to the genuineness of a man's professions. What a man really represents is known only to him and his Maker, and his future conduct in detail under new and untried conditions is past finding out." R. W. Montague, Oregon System at Work, National Municipal Review, vol. 3, pp. 256, 267 (1914).

1 Laws, 1903, p. 244, sec. 8.

Laws, 1907, ch. 226, sec. 8; Laws, 1913, ch. 359, sec. 4. It has been proposed that two pages for affirmative and two for negative arguments should be provided at