initiative and recall privilege now granted to certain cities by the last general assembly and recommend that the same privilege extend to the entire state."

In 1910 the Democrats adopted the following plank as a part of their State platform: "We believe in the principle of the Initiative and Referendum and Recall, and we favor legislation putting the same into force." But the Republican State convention of the same year gave no heed to Senator Cummins's statement that "the government is for the people, and not the people for the gov ernment, and there are times when to secure reforms essential to their welfare they should have the right to initiate, approve, or disapprove legislation which touches fundamentally their welfare.”

In 1911 Mr. David E. Kulp (Republican) introduced into the House of Representatives a joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution so as to provide for direct legislation. The committee on constitutional amendments recommended that the resolution pass, but on the floor of the House it was defeated by a vote of 58 to 42.60

Again in 1912 Prohibitionists, Socialists, and Democrats endorsed the principle of the initiative and referendum, the Democrats recognizing in it "the best method by which the question of woman suffrage and other reforms may be submitted to the people." The Progressive Party also asserted its belief in the idea, as did the Republican Party in a State convention held about two weeks before the conventions of both the Progressives and the Democrats. Such, then, was the unanimity of parties in the State that early in 1913 the Thirty-fifth General Assembly by overwhelming votes in both houses adopted Mr. Kulp's resolution.61

The main features of the proposed constitutional amendment may now properly be reviewed. According to its provisions the legislative authority of the State shall be vested in the General Assembly, "the people reserving unto themselves the right and power to propose laws, to enact, approve or reject the same at the polls, and to approve or reject any item, section or part of any act enacted by the general assembly"; but such right shall not extend or apply to an act "relating to the preservation of the public peace, public health or appropriations for the support and maintenance of the department of state and state institutions."'62

The number of persons required to call for the referendum of an act (until fixed by the General Assembly somewhere between ten and twenty percent) shall be fifteen percent of the qualified electors of each of the congressional districts 63 who voted for Secretary of State at the last preceding election. These electors shall file their petition for a referendum with the Secretary of State within ninety days from the final adjournment of the General Assembly which passed the act or part of an act to be referred. Measures shall be referred to the people at regular biennial elections and shall be in full force until rejected by the people.

Subject to the same constitutional limitations as the General Assembly, the people shall be permitted to enact a law proposed by fifteen percent (until fixed by General Assembly somewhere between twelve and twenty-two percent) of the qualified electors of each of the congressional districts. They may also initiate amendments to the Constitution. The full text and title of the proposed bill or amendment shall be filed with the Secretary of State not less than one hundred and fifty days before the

general election, and this officer shall submit the bill to the Supreme Court for its opinion as to constitutionality.

Ninety days before election the Secretary of State shall mail to the county auditors for distribution to each voter a pamphlet containing a full text, with arguments for and against, of all measures to be voted on. A majority of the votes cast on any measure shall be necessary to its adoption or rejection. Within thirty days after the vote has been canvassed the Governor shall declare the results of the election. Where conflicting measures are approved by the people, that receiving the highest vote shall prevail. All measures shall take effect upon the Governor's proclamation, except that two affirmative votes at two successive biennial elections are made necessary to the adoption of a constitutional amendment.64

Such, briefly summarized, is the proposed constitutional amendment providing for the initiative and referendum in Iowa. If it is agreed to by the Thirty-sixth General Assembly and approved and ratified by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon it will become a part of the fundamental law of the State of Iowa.65

III

THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST DIRECT

LEGISLATION

ALL of the standard arguments on the initiative and referendum have undergone so much discussion, both popular and academic, that little more need be done here than summarize them and refer to some of their chief exponents. Two considerable classes of persons may be said to oppose direct legislation: those who "profess belief in government by the people, but have some misgivings about the practical results of applied democracy", and those who believe in "government by gentlemen" 66 Neither class has been idle in sounding the alarm against the spread of the new system.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

Opponents of direct legislation would improve but not change the present machinery of representative government in a belief that what legislators will do for the masses is more to be desired than what the masses themselves demand: they believe that the welfare of the people, like that of children, is best promoted in the long run by persons of maturer and more experienced minds. If legislators show a lack of experience and even misconduct themselves, are not these evils of the plain people's own making? Why not reduce the length of the ballot and enable the voters to know not only the personal character and ability but, more important, the political opinions of

their candidates for the legislature? And why not improve the conditions under which the legislature works? The big fact productive of so many political evils is that from top to bottom our American system has been wanting in civic and official responsibility and lacking in capable leadership."7

In State government, it is asserted, there has existed a woeful absence of political issues: it is time that candidates should seek election to the legislature on a few definite issues. English methods and practices are cited with approval. The people of England, it is said, keep their fingers upon the pulse of Parliament, and candidates for Parliament always come to them with proposed measures and policies. If the leaders of the majority in the House of Commons are prevented by adverse votes from carrying out their pledges to the people, Parliament is dissolved, a new election is held, and the people's mandate is obtained. Such a referendum works where there is an enlightened, alert public opinion and recognized responsible leadership.

Is there any real reason why the same sort of system could not be developed in our American States, unless it be that the voters do not know what they want and have no leaders to tell them? What have national politics to do with State policy? Why should the advocates of national policies be elected to State offices by voters whose national party affiliations happen to be the same? The State's field of action, its policies, problems, and needs are big enough to admit of the existence of well-defined State parties: the absence of a real, constant line of cleavage has been and is due to a dearth of men who are able to crystallize public opinion.

Opponents of the initiative and referendum believe