The Advocate and news., 1899-02-22
Counter Initatven the Theory Direct Leg
isatiOn Eastery Editor the Eureka Kans Union


they "agents" who can give away our
property and money contrary to our
wishes and we have no resource for the
recovery Of our property or money and
no method Of furnishing the "agents" but
to wait till a specified time when we can
punish only to the extent Of dismissing
them from our service? We do not pos
sess the principals power to veto the
agents plans nor to instruct him author
itatively as to what we would have him
do, and hence he governs us and we do
not govern him nor ourselves. In multi
tudes Of instances the legislator becomes
the agent Of some special interest and
acts directly in opposition to Cne will
of his constituents.
To correct such abuses we are some
times advised to nominate and elect only
good men to public offices. We admit
that such a course would make matters
much less faulty than they are, but the
public, not even majority Of the pub
lie, cannot always know the character
of the man that is elected to Office. Nor
can they know whether or not after be-
ing elected, he may change his views on
some public question: and whether or not
in the event of changing his views, he
will be careful to do the will OF his con-
stituents or to do his own will without
reference to their wishes.
From the beginning of our govern
ment, we have recognized the need Of
direct legislation and self-government in
the matter Of adopting and altering con-
stitutlons and in many instances in issu-
ing bonds, and expending In sums Of
money. The wisdom Of these provisions
is so manifest that no considerable num-
ber Of people favor abolishing them. The
time Is at hand for a movement to COR
rect the fundamental defects in our gov
ernmental machinery The writer be-
lieves that direct legislation is the neces-
sary device Give the people power to
initiate any measure that they desire to
become law and also the power to veto
any measure that they do not want to
become law and the problem Is solved
so far as legislation is concerned. There
is one objection sometimes urged against
the initiative that the writer wishes to
consider here; namely, that the people
ought not to be compelled in all cases to
vote upon a question because per cent
or any other small per cent of the people
ask it, and the objectors cite the resub-
mission question in Kansas as case in
point-and many advocates of direct
legislation are less arduOus in advocating
direct legislation than they would be
were it not for this objection and this
specific case in point. The writer con-
siders the point we'll taken and suggests
that no initiative should be effective II 1t
be met by an equally large counter in
itiatiVe. In other words the petition in
protest should be as effective as the
affirmative petition. Granting this there
appears to the writer no other valid OBJ
lection to the principle and practice Of
direct legislation.
In the foregoing the writer expressed
his belief that direct legislation will cor
rect the defects in our legislative machin-
cry. He believes that the imperative
mandate, the device for terminating an
officers services when he misrepresents
his constituents, or conducts his Office
otherwise than according to the wishes
of those who elected him, Is necessary in
order to prevent official aristocrats and
make the officer the servant Of the people.
An officers conduct ought to be subject
to approval by at least majority Of
those who elected him, and when ma
jority of those who voted for him veto
his conduct he ought to be compelled to
stand for an election or Vacate his Office.
Does some one say, "Such provisions
would keep the people busy voting" No,
the very existence of such safeguards
would give us an altogether different
kind Of public service.
Would city council propose to give
away a fifty-year franchise for a street
railway, II such proposition must be
subject to referendum?
Would a postal savings bank bill fail
in Congress il the people had a voice
directly on the question?
Would Kansas people have waited till
the end of 1898 for railway legislation, If
they had possessed the power to vote
directly ON the question?
~ a