The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1912-03-15

may desire.
Direct legislation exerts an indirect,
az well as a direct, influence. and
when the system is fully established
and the people thoroughly understand
It, II is not likely to be employed
often, because those elected to rep
resent the people will be more in sym
pathy with their constituents.
As to Percentage Required.
Some difference Of opinion exists
among tho friends of the initiative
and referendum as to the percentage
that ought to be required for the pc
titions which start the machinery
through which the people act.
The Oregon law has usually been
made the basis of the fight for these
reforms in the various states and /
am unqualifledly in favor of low per-
centage as against the high one.
Eight per cent for the initiative on
ordinary measures and 12 per cent on
constitutional amendments is not un-
reasonably low. Neither is per cent
too low for a referendum vote. am
sure experience will show that these
remedies will not be resorted to with
out substantial provocation, and there
is no reason why those who are pub
lie spirited enough to assume the la
Dor of bringing questions before the
voters should be taxed with unneces-
sary labor.
California has gone step further
| and reduced the percentage below the
Oregon limit, where the legislature Is
first given an opportunity to act This
is step in advance and am pleased
to learn that It commends itself to
your judgment.
The fact that the initiative is mere
ly the means Of bringing the subject
before the voters and that a majority
OF those voting must speak affirma-
lively before tho proposed measure
can have any effect is sufficient to
prevent the submission OF frivolous
questions OF propositions which have
not substantial support.
Favors Plurality Vote.
One point should be carefully guard.
ed The opponents of tho initiative
and referendum are usually insistent
in their demand that proposition
submitted to the people must receive
NOT merely q majority OF the votes
cast on the proposition, but a major
ity Of the votes cast at tho
election. This is an unreasonable
requirement. Legislators are elect
ed by a plurality vote, not by a
majority, and there Is no reason why
more than a plurality should be re-
quired for the enactment OF law by
the direct vote of the people or for
the adoption OF a constitutional
amendment.
The vote cast upon the proposition
ought to be the test; to require a ma
| jority cf the votes cast at the cleo
tion Is to give the negative the ben
| eft of all the votes cast at the cleo.
tion but not cast either for or against
the proposition. Why should those
who propose reform be subjected Ia
this disadvantage? A reform that Sc
cures majority Of the votes cast on
the subject certainly has the presump
tion Of right upon Its side, The most
that can be said OF those who do not
vote is that they are Indifferent oi
ignorant, and therefore ought not Il
be counted either way,
The Recall.
The attacks which were formerl,
made upon the initiative and referen
dunn have been directed more recent
ly against what Is known as the recall
But IL will be found upon examination
that the recall Ia an evolution rathel
than d revolution. rhe right to ter
inmate an Official term before its le
gal expiration has always been recog
nized. The only difference between
the recall as now proposed, and i'm
peachment AS II has been employed
is that in impeachment the trial Il
before hody OF officials while thu
recall places the decision In tn,
hands OF the people, 1t is simply {
question, therefore, whether publ,
servants shall be tryablc only befor,
public servants or by the sovereign
voters, who are the masters. II Il
undeninbly true that the presen
method Of impeachment does no
meet the requirements of today. Ever
the president Of the United States, II
recent speech condemning recall. ad
mitted that the process OF removal b!
impeachment must be improved upon
A distinction should be drawn be
tween the principle involved in tn
recall and the details of the measur,
applying the principle, There Is room
for wide difference OF opinion II
the matter OF detail, and I am not In
clined to be tenacious as 10 any par
ticular detail. provided the principle
In clearly recognized and fully ap
Piled. In acting upon definite propo
sltions the people are less liable /,
be mistaken than In acting upon per
sons. They are also less likely /,
be swayed BY prejudice or stirred b,
emotion. II is not unreasonable
therefore, to require larger Per
| aAatuna ~ tha unta.s 90 vokl.lo,