Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1897-02-17
REFERENDUM.
Discussed Inteiiigeutly BY Hon. Geo.
ogle, Of cIaekamas County.


Discussed Inisiligenuy BY Hon. Geo.
ogle, Of clseksmas County.
THE JOURNAL is a believer in a
limited referendum, and fts editor in
troduced an amendment to the con.
stitutIon, OF Oregon. TO that effect, 10
the last legislature.
THE JOURNAL believes that all i'm
portant amendments to the constitu-
tion, all important new laws, all inn
portant changes in legislation and all
nominations Of candidates should be
made by the people directly.
Representative Ogle, who is read up
10 the literature Of the subject, has
the following, Of interest, in reply to
some misrepresentation made by the
Statesman:
"Kindly grant me space to briefly re-
ply TO an editorial in the Statesman
of February 18th entitled "Tired of
the Referendum. "whereia il is stated
that an announcement comes from
Switzerland that, at the next session
OF the national assembly. the referen-
dun system is likely tn be aban-
doned.
Ofcourse am not prepared to say
that such announcement" has not
come "from Switzerland" any more
than am prepared to say that some
private citizen Of the United States
has not announced" that Pres. Cleve.
land favors free coinage OF silver, but
the burden OF proof rests on the affirm.
atiye and reliable report of so impor.
tant proposed change should rest on a
tirmer foundation than can announce.
ment comes, ETC." Circumstantlal evi.
dence is against tie accuracy of such a
report, for great political changes are
usually a resultant OF long continued
agitation and discussion, at least in
Switzerland where the people are soy-
efeign, as, for instance, note the at
tention manifested by the Swiss peo-
pie in the recent proposed military
and railway propositions. Certainly,
II there were the slightest danger OF
any effort TO abolish the referendum
system succeeding, the friends of di-
rect legislation the world over would
have been apprlsed of such fact ere
this and the "Direct Legislation Rec
ord, +" edited by Eltweed Pomeroy, the
national Direct Legislation league,
would have given its readers the BEN
eft Of the discussions pro and con.
Again you say: "In Switzerland the
initiative is not part of the system. "
Your authority is not given. 1t is
true that the national initiative,
which was adopted by vote taken
July 8, 1891, applies only to constitut-
ional amendments, but it is neverthe-
1853 "a iNhCAhA AhAilablNNs III NAiO Nal
iovs cantons corresponding to our
states), the cantonial initiative is in
force, In various degrees of radicalism
in fourteen OF the twenty-five cantons
the signatures OF from one-sixteenth
to one-twelfth of the voting popula-
tlon being required for initiative leg
islationsi. e., to compel the reference
OF proposed measure direct TO The
voters without first being acted upon
by any legislative body. The federal
initiative requires $4,000 signatures.
The verlhcation OF, and authority
for, my statements may be found in
j. w. Sullivan's "Direct Legislation, 4"
which should be read by everyone.
Also see "Swiss Solutions of Anne
can Problems" by w. ID. McCrackan,
and articles on direct legislation in
various numbers OF the "Arena" and
Cosmopolitan" magazines.