The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-04-17
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
 GROWS RAPIDLY IN FAVOR

~EEEN YEARS ago William Jennings Bryan ko declared in favor of the initiative and referendum. and. those measures for the eAteI- sion of popular government, which in the Unit d had been considered as socialistic and popuIistic. doctrine, began to receive serious attention.
 Some six years later Theodore Roosevelt deeIared for the same doctride As 8 result of this popular agitation, more than third of the States of the Union now have the initiative and referendum as a method of suppl ementing leg lslationz through the legislatures.
 Long before MT. Bryan gave an impetus to &he movement the initiative and refereEdums had been enacted into law in several western. tive power in the people was passed ln 4891 and the Following year South Dakota esfabllshed d lI-1 tt5ative and referendum in both statek and n1ll- nleipal affairs Tn 1900 the voters of Utah adopt- cd d constitutional amendInent for the same ptlrpose. and the people of Oregon af ter cam paignfef ten years, adopted these measures ln lg02 Since then many other States, mostly in Inc West have followed the example le Of the pio- neers The movement in it's inception was e IT. tirelz non parti san.
 The appearance without the substance: Legis- lators have managed to make the powers very dIffieuit to work. Deception of this kind has also been common in ciiy charterss But the referendum in any form, however difficult to work gives the communit [ v ertain adj yantages that it is otherwise without
 An editorial in Pearsonas Magazine for April describes the initiative and referendum laws of Nebraska, Idaho and Utah as fakes, 2 while the laws of South Dakota, Nevada, Mon fslrla Oklahona Maine and Westinghouse said to be sdefec1ive,n and the Ohio law only fair. The writer continues In Missouri the initia= tive and. referendum law IS in process of being crippled by legislative jekers. In Texas an at tempt isXbefiag made to hanstring the law. h Minnesota certain geTtl enen are endeavorine to do likewise. Tn Iowa the same story. In North Dakota the legislature has allowed 8 poor H. & R. anendmen nt to go to the people for adop- fion or rejection:
 Giving the people the power to initiate leg islafipn4 and through the referendum the DOW. to ratify or reject laws is far from being new in principle. Such methods were in vogue il assemblies of the ancient Saxons. The Frencl National Convention in 1793 passed a provision for a method of direct legislation by the people In some cantons of Switzerland 8 legislatv $ stem resembling the referendum has beel practced since the sixteenth century Abou forty years ago the Swiss republic applied tn referendum not only to the enactraents Of tn separate cantons but also to it's federal enact f4efts Under the federal constitution al amendments must be ratified by the electorate and other measures must be submitted to th popular vote if demanded within ninety day alter their publication by 30000 voters, or b the governments of eight cantons.
 The system i1l America has been sdev dope from inc town meetihg, which New Ehglan gaye to the nadonS It merely extends the tow meeting principle to a few important matter & 5 m which the people are much interested Connecticut the principle is favored in the stat platforms of the Republicans the Democrat the Socialists and the Prohibitionsts