vote for individuals as vote for measures. Furthermore, very strange popular idiosyncrasies are developed at elections on propositions. When several are submitted at the same time all are likely to be defeated, or else all adopted. There seems to be little capacity for discrimination. Again very radical measures and many indeed of dangerous tendencies are not always rejected by the people, or if they are there are not a few cases in which this result seems to have been brought about by accident rather than by serious moral purpose. It is easy to see on a most cursory examination that under such circumstances the people are very far from being an ideal body of law-makers. It is proper to keep the fact in mind, however, that the initiative and the referendum, as we know them, are under check and restraint and we are a long way from government by the masses, even in South Dakota, where the principle has been carried to its greatest length. Whether the referendum is authorized by the convention or the legislature, the measure is framed or proposed by a representative body of limited membership. The people are merely vetoers or ratifiers, and although their rights with respect to constitutional law are very comprehensive in no case are their powers general regarding ordinary statute law. In the worst case, if the submission is not made on express authority of the legislature, there must be presented a petition which contains the signatures of at least five per cent of the qualified voters of the State. To assemble the names of so many citizens, as experience will show, is not so easy a task as it may appear. When we are asked, therefore, to declare ourselves for the representative system or for unbridled popular rule the question, in so far as it has to do with the initiative and the referendum,—at any rate as these institutions have been developed in this country-is beside the mark. The referendum will not supplant the representative system, though it has been and may still be an influence to modify this system in a very material way. Whether we approve of the principle per se or disapprove of it, it is something that has fastened itself securely upon our constitutional practice and it appears to be assured of a much more extended development in the immediate future. One cannot escape the thought, therefore, that there may be compensations in the method, at any rate with regard to local government and that it may at least not be an agency to make our system, already bad, in any essential respect the worse. If this may seem like modest praise it is perhaps the natural conclusion of this volume which is not a Tendenzwerk, but an unvarnished historical account of some important developments in the field of popular government in the United States of America. 7 INDEX ACADEMY OF SCIENCES in Paris, Arkansas, amendment of Consti- 31. ute to John Adams, 12. Alabama, limit of legislative ses- 172. Anderson v. Commonwealth, 331. 100, 102. 415 tution of, 151, 157; division of BACHE, Richard; his opposition Bancroft v. Dumas, 320. Biddle, Owen, a member of the Penna. Convention of 1776, 16. Bills of Rights in America, 2, 5. Boston, representative system in, Bryan, George, one of the fram- Penna., 27. Bryce, James, views of, on Con- Burgess v. Rice, 319, 330. IO. CALIFORNIA, special legislation in, 220, 221; "Home Rule" dicial opinions on lawmaking Canada, liquor legislation in, 402, 403; powers of legislatures of, Canals, public aid to, 243, 244. Capital, state, selection of site for Charters for cities, 222, 223, 224, 234, 235, 335-367. ment, 7, 8, 67, 72, 198. 207. Cities, government of, 219-224, 234-236, 335-367; sites for pub- stitution of, 151, 157; woman |