fact that they are always ready for use will exert such a wholesome influence on public servants that their actual use will be found seldom necessary.

The people of Los Angeles are well satisfied with the workings of these provisions which have almost without exception proven wise and truly conservative. This city is so wedded through her experience in the case of one of them, the recall, that the percentage has been lowered from 25 per cent to 20 per cent, and in the new charter it is proposed to reduce the percentage to 15. Los Angeles is so wedded to these provisions, that if the most noted experts of the world, after careful deliberation were to submit. to the people of Los Angeles a new charter-and as you know, we are now preparing one-and should omit from its provisions the initiative, referendum or recall, or any one of them, it would be overwhelmingly defeated by the people.

In the past when corporation-controlled councils refused the people direct primaries, refused them a utilities commission, refused them new charters suited to the city's growing needs, and refused the people an opportunity to vote upon these matters, then it was that the people through the power of the initiative which they possessed, brushed aside their servants who had assumed to themselves the character of bosses, and enacted their sovereign will into law. By means of these provisions the people of Los Angeles have, and practice, the right of self-government.

I have dwelt at some length upon the experience of Los Angeles and shall but briefly refer to the experience of other cities of this and other states. In San Bernardino, California, in the seven years of its operation the recall has been used once, in which case two councilmen were recalled for letting a public printing contract to a firm not the lowest bidder.

In Colton, California, three members of the board of trustees were recalled because they had voted unauthorized expenditures, and had refused to grant liquor licenses.

In Santa Monica, California, under threat of the recall, an official resigned.

In San Diego, California, a councilman managed to delay recall proceedings against him in the courts until the expiration of his term.

In Richmond, California, a recall election affected the seats of six councilmen; the incumbents were retained in office.

In Berkeley, a recall election was held to recall a councilman and two school directors; the incumbents were retained in office.2

The initiative has been used in California towns thus in Santa Monica. once, once in Riverside, once in Fresno. The referendum has been used twice in Santa Barbara.

The cities of Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, have each recalled a mayor. In Everett, Washington, a councilman was recalled for his action "I think these officials belonged to the Socialist party.-C. R. W.

in regard to a franchise. In Estacada, Washington, all the elective officials with the exception of the recorder were recalled, as it was charged, of gross mismanagement of the people's business.

In Junction City, Oregon, the mayor was recalled by a vote of 4 to 1. In Dallas, Texas, two school directors were recalled in 1911.

In Des Moines, Iowa, three commissioners conspired to appoint a certain man to the police marshalship in accordance with a preëlection ar gain. Threatened recall proceedings, however, caused them to drop their scheme and appoint a man to the office who held the public confidence. On another occasion, a police superintendent of that city was visited by a committee representing the gambling interests and threatened with recall unless he agreed to permit the reëstablishment of slot machines. He immediately informed the newspapers and the resulting publicity rendered futile any further talk of the recall.

In the city of San Francisco neither the recall nor the referendum has ever been used, although the percentage required for the recall is only 10 per cent. The initiative has been used six times since its adoption in 1900. A special election upon an ordinance initiated by the pool sellers was held in the year in which the provision was adopted. The ordinance was defeated by the people. In 1907 the liquor dealers initiated an ordinance which was also defeated. In 1908 one J. J. Egan when refused a streetrailway franchise by the board of supervisors, attempted through the initiative to secure one from the people, but it was defeated at the polls. In 1910, 38 charter amendments were submitted; 18 by the people and 20 by the board of supervisors; of these 18 carried at the polls. In a special election held March, 1912, two ordinances were submitted through the initiative. The object of both ordinances was the acquisition by the city of the plant of the Home Telephone Company. The propositions carried by a vote of more than two to one; but owing to defects in their wording, the city attorney ruled that they were inoperative. The supervisors, however, have ruled that the ballot cast for the measures constitutes a popular mandate, and intend to submit the same propositions under a new form at a later date.

I append to this paper, to show to what extent and with what intelligence the people vote, a list of all the propositions voted upon in the state since the adoption of the present California Constitution in 1879; and the city votes upon such measures in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Referendum in California

Official returns of votes on constitutional and legislative acts referred to the people for ratification, also on propositions submitted to popular vote, from the adoption of the constitution of 1879. (Wherever possible the real purpose, rather than the official title, of the measure is given):

'The total gives the highest number of ballots cast at the election and includes those not voting on

submitted measures.