The Alaska citizen., 1910-12-19

signed hy only per cent. of the vo CTS and filed with the secretary of state within ninety days after the final adjournment of the legis- laturc which passed he bill on which the referendum is demanded. The legislature may itself refer to the people any act passed by tt. The veto power of the governor does not extend 10 any measure re ferred 10 the people.
 State Publishes Publicity Pamphlets In addition 10 the publicity incl dent to the circulation of the peti- tions. the law provides that the secretary of the state shall. at the eXneuse of the state. mail to every registered voter in the state a print ed pamrhle' containing a true copy of the title and text of each meas ure to be submitted 10 the people. and the proponents and opponents of the law have the right to insert in said Tamphlet at the actual cost to themselves Cf paper and print ing only. such arguments as they see fit to make These pamphlets must he mailed not later than hfty- five days before general election and twenty days before special election.
 The initiative develops the cleo torate. placing directly upon them the responsibility for legislation en- acted under it's provision; the ref erendum elevates the legislature be- cause of the possibility of it's use in case of undesirable legislation. Brains. ideas and argument. rather than money. intimidation and log rolling govern the standards of leg islatiCn.
 Corporation attorneys must eXer- else their m ntal activities along constructive rather than destructive and avoidance lines. Possibility of scandal is minimized, recipients of franchises freed from imputation Of secret purchase, and general com munitv confidence is secured.
 Oreuon's Experience Satisfactory.
 Since that amendment was adopt cd. the peOpl1 of Oregon have voted nnnn 23 measures submitted to them under the initiative. submitted un- der the referendum. and referred 10 the people by the legislature. Nineteen measures were Suomltted at enc election That the people acted fntelliseptlv is evident rom the fact that in no instance mas there been general dissatisfaction with the result of the vote. The measures submitted presented al most every phase of le@islation, ana some of them were bills of consld' cradle length.
 Results attained under direct leg izlation in oregon compare so tavor- ahly with the work of a legislative
 
 the initiative and referendum would be overwhelmingly defeated. No ef- fort has ever been attempted.
 + has been asserted that the people will not study large num- Der cf measures. but will vote in the affirmative. regardless of the merits of measures submitted. Ex- perienCes in Oregon has disproved this. for the results show that the people have exercised discriminat, ing iddement They have enacted laws and have adopted constitution al amendments in which they be lieved and have defeated those of which they did not approve.
 Concrete illustrations.
 will give several concrete illus trations:
 Under the initiative in 1904, a local-option liquor law was adopted by vote of 43.316 to 4O,194. Two years later the opponents of the To- cal option law proposed an amend ment in their interest. and this was defeated by a vote of 35,291 to 45.144 It will be noticed that in the first instance the issue was af- frmatively presented and in the C1 n view to befogging the people, but the popular expression was the same in both.
 For many years city charters in Oregon had been made the trading stock of political factions in the legislature The dominant faction amended city charters as reward to political allies. Traffic in local legislation even went so far tha' it sometimes served as consider ation in election of United States senators, but in 1906, having tired of this disregard of the interest of good municipal government. the people, acting under the initiative adopted constitutional amendment which took away from the legisla ture the power to enact or amend a city charter and vested that power in the people of the municipalities thus establishing home rule. The am endment was adopted by vote of 52,567 to 19,S52.
 In Oregon. as in many other states there has long been feeling that certain classes of corporations which own very little tangible property dc not bear their proper share of the burden of taxation. Legislatures failed to provide a remedy. Fol the purpose of securing a more equitable distribution of the burden of taxation the state grange. pro ceeding under the initiative, pro posed law levying a gross earnings tax of 3 per cent. on sleeping car refrigerator car, and oil car compan ies, which measure was adopted by vote of 69, 635 to 6,441. The grange also proposed a similar law levying a grcss-earnings tax of per cent. on express, and ? per cent on telephone and telegraph com panies, and it was adopted by 2 vote of 70,S72 to 6,36O Each o these gross-earnings tax laws ap piled only to intrastate business.
 That the people can and vii