People's Pilot, Volume 5, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 January 1896 — Direct Legislation Notes. [ARTICLE]

Direct Legislation Notes.

CANADA. The Patrons of Husbandry is an organization mainly of farmers, started about four years ago on lines similar to the Farmers’ Alliance and with a radical political program. It has now spread over the Dominion, and has about 175,000 members; in the present Ontario parliament it'has fourteen out of the ninety-four members. It has fifty-five candidates for the Dominion parliament and expects to elect at least forty. It has direct legislation in full operation, as no political demand can be added to its platform by the central body till it has been voted on favorably by the local bodies, and any local body can start a demand. It soon votes on four new demands —direct legislation, porportional representation, woman’s suffrage and prohibition —and they’ll all probably go through. Many of the members favor making direct legislation the dominant issue. SWITZERLAND. Two national referendary votes have taken place since the last Record. On the last Sunday in September the proposition to make the manufacture of matches a public monopoly was rejected by about 40,000 majority. On the first Sunday in November the government’s proposal to centralize the control of the militia by taking it from the cantons and giving it to the federal government, was overwhelmingly defeated. The next Record will probably contain a detailed account of these from a Swiss gentleman. The question of establishing a national bank without any private capital or control, will soon be voted on. NORWAY. The Norwegian law of July, 1894, according to Prof. E. B. I. Gould, applies direct legislation to the liquor problem, as the question of license in any community is submitted to the direct vote of both men an women in that community. Formerly it was decided by their representatives. If the people vote for license, the licensing authorities are the magistracy acting with the formal assent of the governor. The licensing period is for five years, and by popular vote a reduction in the number of licenses may be affected at the end of this period. The bylaws under which these licensed liquor selling companies act are subject to the approval of the magistracy, municipal council and governor, and the appoint ments of bartenders and other officers are confirmed by the magistracy acd municipal council. —Direct Legislation Record. NEW ZEALAND. Mr. ’E. J. O’Connor was the first to bring the referendum before the house in a practical form, in 1893. His bill, however. met with a sorry fate, members not taking the trouble to debate its second reading, and throwing it out by a majority of thirteen in a thin house—ayes 20; nays 33. ' In 1894, whh a new house, Mr. O'Regan introduced his first bill on the subject, the members on this occasion debating the principle of the measure and finally rejecting it by a vote of twenty-four to nineteen, another thin house. Nine members. however, paired on it. This year Mr. O’Regan scored a win, the second reading of his bill being carried by twenty-eight to fourteen, there being eleven pairs, making a total of sixtyfour who recorded their opinions upon the principle of the measure; New Zealand is the first British colony in which a referendum bill has advanced so far. It has been dropped because opposed by the ministers, but will be taken up next session and urged. ENGLAND. Samuel Gompers and P. J. McGuire, the two delegates from the American Federation of Labor to the British trades union congress at Cardiff, Wales, in their report at the federation convention in New York last December, told how the British unions without knowing it by name, are to use a direct kind of direct legislation. I quote from their report: “In the congress very little, if any, new matter is brought up for consideration and action; other than such propositions which have been duly forwarded to the executive office at least six weeks before the meeting of the congress. These propositions are sent to all the organizations affiliated, which, if they desire, may forward amendments within four weeks of the congres. These propositions and amendments are sent to the delegateseleot two weeks before the meet-

ing. We are aware that our fed eration has adopted a similar measure, but we are of the opinion that until it is more generally accepted that new matter or measures which have not been regularly proposed and submitted before our conventions, we may behkely to have resolutions for which there is insufficient time for consideration, as well as consultation with the rank and file of our membership.” IS THIS FAIR? In the recent summer election in Great Britain for a-new parliament, the liberal party and its allies polled 49j per cent of the total vote and got 38f per cent of she members of parliament. The conservatives and their allies polled 50| per cent and got 61| per cent of the members. A majority of 37,000 in nearly 5,000,000 votes, or less than one per cent gives the conservatives a majority in parliament of 152 in a total of 670 members. The election of 1892 was accidentally very fair. The liberals polled 52 1-5 per cent of the vote and got 53 per cent of the members and ]the conservatives polled 47 4-5 per cent and got 47 per cent of the members. But comparing the ’95 election with that of '92, we find that the liberals lost 27 per cent of the total vote and lost 14£ per cent of the members, and the conservatives gained accordingly. The the fairness of the election of 1892 was only accidental is shown by the election of 1886 when the liberals polled 48.6 per cent of the vote and got 36.7 per cent of the members of parliament. and the conservatives polle<Dsl.4 per cent and got 60.5 per cdnt of the members. Also by the election of 1885, when the liberals polled 55.8 per cqnt but obtained 63 per cent of the members, and the conservatives polled 44.2 percent and got only 37 per cent of the members. The same thing is true about our legislatures. If each party had been represented in the fifty-third congress in proportion to the number of votes cast for that party, there would have been 153 republicans instead of 127. 164 democrats instead of 218, 31 populists instead of 9, and 8 prohibitionists instead of none. Representation does not represent. It is essentially unfair. It can be remedied by allowing the people to vote sep arately on any measure, whether it is passed by the legislature or not, which has been petitioned for by a minority of the voters substantial enough to show that it has some backing, and then letiing a majority df the people decide. This is direct legislation.—Eight Hour Herald. OKLAHOMA. Last March I was the only “Loyal American” in Oklahoma, but now I have nine county organizations. Our country is poor, and during the summer £ have camped on the open prair;e without shelter many nights. I could not find shelter, because many of our people live in dugouts< which consist of but one room. I carry a haversack made of half of a fifty-pound flour sack, slung across my shoulder, and this filled with biscuits. My pony and I share these. This summer has won Oklahoma for the A. O. of L. A. and the next legislature will my bill or a better one unanimously. We have annuals in October for each brigade. There are nine regiments in each county, and the governor and his staff and the mayor and his turned out on our annual. They all know what the referendum means now. Mrs. Mary Ellen Lease has been initiated and has accepted a commission as a national organizer and starts out soon. This winter I go into Kansas to storm the school houses. We will win there, too. COLORADO. Last fall the Denver common council was elected on the sole issue of forcing a reduction of the water company’s rates. When they got in office they did not do it. Boode was the cause, much agitation of municipal direct legislation one of the results. A tax-payers association was formed and a ticket putin the field. At convention in September the following resolution, slightly condensed, was passed: “We, the committee of one hundred, representing the taxpayer’s party, censure the methods pursued by those whom corporation influence has placed in our local offices. Such methods have brought us to the verge of moral, political and material ruin. Our city is controlled by bribed and perjured agents of corporation greed, our county

treasury looted, our citizens intimidated by an army of irresponsible deputies, and people held up and robbed in sight of a subsidized police force. We are promised reformat every recurring election. As vote catchers these promises have succeeded, but the elected have refused to redeem their pledges. A public office has become a public distrust a curse which a community already overburdened by taxation has been compelled to sup port, a channel through which robbery by a few powerful cor* porations is being legalized, and is using them to escape their just share of taxation.” And the third plank in their platform reads: “The securement to the people of a larger share in their own government by direct legislation. CALIFORNIA. Readers of the Record will remember the account in the June number of the adoption by the trustees of the town of Alameda of an ordinance by which they agreed; on a petition signed by 10 per centum of the voters, to submit any measure to a poll for advice. Without a change in the charter, difficult to obtain, they could not delegate the lawmaking power, The first question submitted was the addition of 20 cents to the tax levy to provide $25,000 for a public library. It was carried. But behold, some of the trustees did not want to follow the advice of the people. Public-spirited citizens had to get up a big mass meeting to overawe their own trus : tees before they would carry out the will of the people. Advisory referendum is good if you can’t get any better, but the vote of the people should be final.