The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1898-06-21

- y 04& 904008
its merits. Tic will awaken interest
and prove a strong educator to those
seeking q safe plan for relief from the
unjust methods now prevailing:
Let us understand then, first, the In.
ftiative and referendum is not a law,
but q system by which laws + made;
that the adoption Of the initiative and
referendum does not mean the enact.
ment OF a law, but q change in the
system under which laws are made.
OSher reforms are to be obtained
through legislation; the initiative and
referendum does not require any
change in our public officials, and
their duties would be largely the same
same an now, but would make an inn
mense change, as will be seen, in the
power Of the members of the legisla.
lures. Of the present, and in most Of
che States, OF the governor.
Under the initiative and referendum
legislatures would still assemble and
debate and frame and adopt laws
but their power would be limited in
two ways.
First, by the Initiative" Under
this, if the legislature were to fail to
adopt legislation desired by any re
spectacle number of the people, the
people could initiate" or begin such
legislation for themselves, regardless
Of the legislature.
The course Of procedure would be
as follows: Those desiring the law
would have it properly framed. They
would then circulate q petition re.
questing that this law be sumbitted TO
the people for vote. If the necessary
number of names were obtained, the
petition would be presented to the
legislature, which would be obliged to
submit such a law to the people for a
vote. IL q majority OF those voting
on the law voted in the affirmative the
law would be enacted by that vote.
In this case the legislation would be
entirely by the people, the part Of the
legislature being merely to carry out
the demand made on them in the petit
fon.
JIG would seem that the ''initiative"
would thus take away q large part Of
the power of the legislature. Il would
have n power to preveet the enact
ment-the act would become a law,
just as q bill which has been adopGed
by Congress now becomes a law if the
President fails to veto it within a speci-
fed time.
But if any of the people objected to
a law that had been adopted by the
legislature, they could circulate @ petit
ton demanding that the law should be
sumbitted to q vote Of the people. If
this petition with the requisite num-
Der Of signatures was presented within
the prescribed time limit, the Law
would have to be 80 submitted, and
would not go into effect until it had
been submitted. II the necessary
number of signatures were obtained
to the petition, the law would have to
be submitted, and if the necessary
number Of votes were cast for the law,
it would become a law, and it would
make no difference what the legisla-
ture thought about the matter.
Second, by the referendum" On.
der this, laws adopted by the Iegisla-
ture-Would not go into effect for a
specified time after their adoption.
This time would be sufficient TO enable
the people to learn that the law had
been adopted, and take action against
ft it they so desired. IL no motion was
made by the expiration of this time, a
mojority Of those voting on the act
voted in the affirmative, it would be-
come @ law; but il the act failed to re
ceive a maj 1rity, it would be defeated
and the action Of the legislature would
be vetoed.
The referendum" would, therefore,
take away from the legislature the
power to enact laws to which the peo-
pie were opposed.
And the Initiative and referendum"
would take away from the legislature
the power to defeat laws which a ma
jority Of the peopleNdesired, and to en-
act laws to which q majority Of the
people were opposed.
The legislature would only have pow,
or to enact such laws as met with no
opposition from the majority of the
people.
And this answers the question wheth-
or the iniative and referendum could
could be combined with our present
system.
Probably more than 80 per cent. of
all acts passed by the a legislature are