"There is some antagonism among the operators of any kind of gear against any other. Between the gillnetters of the lower and the wheelmen of the upper river this rises to open hostility. Opposing delegations have met before the legislature for many years and each party has succeeded in blocking legislation proposed by the others. At the last election (in June, 1908), each party had its bill, proposed under the initiative, each legislating the other's method of destruction and preserving its own. The electors, in an excess of disgust, tinged with sardonic humor, passed both bills by different but decisive majorities. The laws thus passed taken together practically prohibit fishing by either method as far as the legislation of this state alone was competent to do so." The recall was adopted by decisive majority. A law instructing the members of the legislature to vote for and elect the candidate for United States senator who receives the highest number of votes at the general election, carried by 69,668 to 21,162. An act authorizing the legislature to provide for proportionate representation passed by a large vote. The "Corrupt Practices" act, also passed by a heavy majority. This act is very long, and, while its object is good, it is exceedingly complicated, and it is doubtful if some of its provisions can, or should be enforced. There is no question, however, but what its operation was noticeable at elections following its adoption, and it certainly had a marked effect for the better. A constitutional amendment was also passed providing that no person can be charged in the Circuit Court with a commission of a crime or misdemeanor, except upon indictment found by a grand jury. Prior to the passage of this act, the district attorney could, upon his own investigation, file an information which in effect was an indictment. An analysis of the measures submitted and the vote of the people thereon would indicate that there is nothing in the vote on these measures which would justify condemnation of the law, or fear of its consequences. At the city election held in June this year, there were thirtyfive measures submitted to the people. As the number of measures submitted at this election is often used as a "horrible example" of what the initiative and referendum may lead to, simple justice demands that the facts be stated. There were thirtyfive questions submitted. Of these twenty-five were proposed June, 1909, amendments to the charter, which can be changed only by a vote of the people. Of these three were submitted by a charter board appointed for the purpose of submitting a new charter or amendments to the existing charter; twenty-two were submitted by the council direct, or upon the advice of a committee of seven citizens appointed to propose changes and none by petition through the initiative. Nine ordinances were submitted. Of these two were submitted by the council and seven by the initiative petition. One referendum was called against an ordinance passed by the council. It will thus be seen the people, through the initiative and referendum, were directly responsible for eight of the measures submitted. However, it is but fair to say that a number of the others should have, and probably would have, been submitted had not the council acted. Many of the charter amendments were of slight importance, but, as before stated, as the charter can only be changed by a vote of the people, it had to be submitted. Others were of great importance. A commission form of government was defeated by a vote of 10,770 against, to 4,903 for. A municipal electric light plant was proposed. It was defeated by 9,684 against, to 6,039 for. Proposed ordinances granting to a Gothenburg Association the exclusive right to sell spirituous liquors in the City of Portland, and a rather stringent excise ordinance were both badly defeated. An amendment requiring franchise holders to keep accessible accounts and report to the city auditor, carried by a vote of 10,302 in its favor and 4,444 against. I attach one of the circulars issued by the Tax Payers League at the election referred to, with the votes cast on the various measures. Twenty-seven of its recommendations were adopted, and eight were not. Of the eight, two at least were of no particular importance. In my opinion, a proposition in this state to repeal the initiative Repeal of the and referendum, notwithstanding certain defects and disadvantages, would meet with defeat. In the future, defects may develop that will provoke a repeal, but this I doubt. On the contrary, I think it much more probable that the defects will be remedied, and the axe will not be laid at the root of the tree. It is true the initiative and referendum is a radical departure from our former practices, and imposes a grave responsibility upon the people. Thus far on the whole, they have fully met this burden and in my opinion it has worked for good, and nothing is of more importance in a government such as ours than to place responsibility directly upon the people. It is my belief that they can be trusted to act upon measures that may be submitted to them, and that as a whole they will act fairly and justly, if they understand them. They may be deceived, but, I do not believe any considerable number of people will knowingly be unjust or unfair, or act otherwise than what they believe to be to the interest of the community. I do not desire to make any comparisons between laws passed by the legislature and those passed by the people direct, but the comparison if made, would not be unfavorable to those passed through the initiative. While I favor and still favor the initiative and referendum, I am not a partisan or special pleader for it, and if I believed, or was convinced, it worked for harm rather than for good, I would say so, and urge its repeal. At times measures are suggested and action taken thereon that create some doubt as to the wisdom of the procedure, but when one thinks of what went on under the old system, and how indifferent and worse than indifferent legislatures have been, and are, both as to the rights and demands of the people, one feels that a mistake now and then, does not justify a wholesale condemnation of the new system. It is urged that the people without this law have the power to elect only honest and qualified men to office, and therefore there is no occasion to inaugurate what appears to some people to be a revolutionary program. This may be true, but to have a concurrent remedy, can do no harm. Let the people elect honest men, let them also retain the power reserved in the initiative and referendum. Its benefits will then be not in its use, but rather in its potentiality. Effectiveness In your letter you asked me to discuss the effectiveness of the initiative and referendum as instruments for securing a democratic government. I am sure you do not desire an academic discussion of this question. You are, of course, aware that there are two lines of thought. One holding that it is destructive of, the other that it is an aid of a democratic form of government. It is asserted, as you know, that under it a state does not enjoy the character of government guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and a case involving this point, is now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal from the Supreme Court of Oregon. However, thus far the courts have held, including the Supreme Court of this state, that the initiative and referendum as adopted in this state are not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing republican form of govern ment. It is also asserted that the only method by which our character of government can be maintained, is through representatives chosen by the people. Very earnest and able men support both views, but speaking from our experience thus far, it is my opinion that the initiative and referendum tends to secure more democratic government, if by that term is meant government by the people and for the people, than does the purely representative form. A number of laws and amendments to the constitution have been approved by the people when proposed by initiative petition, after the same measures had been rejected by the legislature, and are some evidence of the truth of this statement. The foregoing statement may not be what you desired, and you may have wished something more in the nature of a discussion of the subject than the stating of facts. It seemed to me, however, that what a body such as the League desires is facts. from which they can draw their own conclusions, and these I have tried to give. CIRCULAR ISSUED BY TAXPAYERS LEAGUE IN JUNE, 1909, ELECTION. The Taxpayers League, recognizing the necessity of a concise statement and a careful analysis of the subjects to be voted upon at the coming city election on June 7th, 1909, appointed a sub-committee, composed of W. B. Ayer, Geo. W. Bates, Rodney L. Glisan, L. J. Goldsmith, Thos. N. Strong and J. N. Teal, to make such examination and analysis and to submit recommendations. This committee has carefully considered these Amendments and Ordinances, and for reasons stated on the latter pages of this circular, makes its recommendations as follows: THE TAXPAYERS LEAGUE, By FREDERICK W. MULKEY, President. IT ADVISES THE VOTERS OF THE CITY Yes. IN REGARD TO No. 4903 Charter Amendment, Committee of Fifteen (The New 10770 4009 Charter Amendment of Committee of Fifteen-Vote NO 10815 Charter Amendment of Committee of Fifteen-Vote NO 7297 on 105. 6825 5783 7180 5398 Amendment, Treasurer to Purchase Warrants-Vote NO Banking City Funds-Vote YES on 116. Amendment, Deposit Funds on Surety Bonds-Vote NO Charter Amendment, Committee of Seven-Vote NO 9183 8466 4444 7017 8687 7093 5451 on 119. 8501 5687 8471 Amendment, Civil Service-Vote YES on 120. 8464 6143 8684 Amendment to Ascertain Liens-Vote YES on 128. 5364 5798 6653 6014 |