upon the same subject is unnecessarily cumbersome and tends to becloud the issue. While ample opportunity seems to be given for incorporating amendments in the substitute for the initiative bill, difficulty may well be expected from such a course. The initiated bill comes apparently with the endorsement of the people. "They have spoken" and "their will should be law." There is the further difficulty attendant upon conducting a protracted campaign. From the time the campaign for signers is begun until the final vote upon the measure is taken, over two years elapse and the question must be of great popular interest to maintain a prominent place before the people for so long a time. The method outlined in the second Swiss plan promises little as a prototype for an American initiative. It becomes little more than a public opinion law similar to those in use in Illinois and Texas resting for their effectiveness upon the good will of the legislature.

Such objections as have been raised are not, however, vital to the principle of the initiative. Scarcely would it compliment our statesmanship that the direct legislation movement has already covered nearly half our country, were there not basic principles at its heart. It is not, as has been charged, a movement for the overthrow of representative government. It is not a substitute for legislative action, but a means of controlling governmental agencies and making them serve their proper function. It must, therefore, be so constructed as to form with the legislature a channel for the enactment of law which will guarantee to the fullest extent personal liberty and equality of opportunity and at the same time be so in accord with our organic law and institutions that the law need be neither supplemented by the rulings of the administration nor reconstructed by the judiciary.

To the plans of the initiative outlined above, there is another method which has been adopted by the Wisconsin legislature and has been urged in Ohio and Massachusetts. This plan establishes the initiative as an adjunct of the legislature. Just as under the referendum, any law passed by the legislature may be brought before the people upon petition, so under this initia

tive method, any measure which has been introduced in the legislature and failed of passage may be enacted by a vote of the people. Instead of circulating petitions to secure the consideration of measures, it is necessary but to find a representative who will introduce a bill in the legislature. This bill will be referred to an appropriate committee and opportunity will be given its friends and enemies to argue its merits and defects. It will be subject to amendment as any other measure and to debate and criticism in accordance with legislative rules. Should it be passed in a form satisfactory to those interested, no further action is necessary, but in the event of its defeat or its amendment in such a way as to deprive it of its usefulness, a petition of electors will place the measure, with any amendments desired by the petitioners, before the people. In this way the legislature acts as a co-laborer rather than as a competitor of the people. The legislature becomes a committee of the people serving for them the purpose of the committees of the legislature and as obedient to their commands. As a legislative committee reports to the senate or assembly, leaving those bodies free to follow or repudiate their recommendations, so the legislature acts for the people, testing the merits of proposals, weighing arguments and finally expressing judgment. What measures seem to have merit will be made law but may be rejected by the people through the referendum; those failing of passage remain subject to initiative petition and subsequent ratification by the people. In this form the initiative and referendum become means of expressing a lack of confidence. When the legislature stands ready to do the will of the people, recourse to direct legislation is unnecessary; should they fail, however, to embody in the form of law, principles demanded by the people, here is an institution through which the people themselves may perform that service.

But while this form of direct legislation escapes many dangers to which other methods are exposed, the mistake should not be made of relying upon it to convey and preserve efficient or even democratic government. Its merit lies in a recognition of the fact that, except in our smallest political divisions, law

making by the people must remain as an extraordinary channel for statutory enactment, usable when the regular course for some reason becomes obstructed, and in its capacity to adopt for its use valuable institutions which have developed around our form of representative government. Direct legislation in any form is but a tool of government and will produce desirable laws only in case it is properly used. In Oregon, a wellorganized and patriotic body of citizens have been able to apply it for the enactment of progressive and constructive law and so long as its use remains in such control the initiative and referendum may be effective weapons of good government. But political history is replete with examples of institutions, democratic in their origin, which with the decline of popular interest become ready tools in the hands of the avaricious. The effective initiative must be one where the people are given an opportunity of putting in the form of law principles well understood and desired, but which furnishes little room for the politician and boss whose control of elective machinery is strong enough to secure the stamp of popular approval upon plans designed to further personal rather than public interests. It is for this reason the Wisconsin plan stands as a substantial contribution in the development of our political institutions. Based as it is upon a careful study of the actual workings of the agencies of our government, a recognition of the growing complexity of statute law and the need for careful and intelligent legislation, it promises to place in the hands of the people, acting as lawmakers, a "tool of democracy" not to guarantee good government, but to allow them to secure and maintain it for themselves.

NOTES ON CURRENT LEGISLATION

EDITED BY HORACE E. FLACK

Cold Storage. The last legislature of New Jersey enacted a law, approved by the governor in April, to take effect immediately, which makes it unlawful for cold storage warehouse owners or operators, or those engaged in the business of refrigerating to receive or place in cold storage warehouses any article of food or package containing food, unless such article or package is marked with the exact date of receipt for storage. Nor shall food which has been kept in cold storage without the state of New Jersey be received unless it is marked with the date of first receipt. The law further provides that no article shall be taken from cold storage unless it bears the date of receipt.

It is declared unlawful for any article to be kept in cold storage longer than ten calendar months without the consent of the state board of health or its properly authorized agent, except on condition that report is made of the fact to the board of health, on blanks provided by that body, and that the food so stored shall not be delivered to any person without a certificate from the board authorizing such delivery. Power is given to the board to extend, at discretion, the time for which any food may be stored.

It is made the duty of the board of health to inspect and supervise all places used for cold storage or refrigerating purposes; and the members of the board, or their duly authorized representative, must be given free access at any time to such warehouses or places for refrigeration, in order that they may satisfy themselves that they are kept in a sanitary and clean condition.

Every person or corporation engaged in the cold storage or refrigerating business is required to make to the state board of health a quarterly report stating in itemized particulars, the quantity of every article of food in the warehouse owned or operated by such person or corporation.

The transfer of food from one warehouse to another for the purpose of evading the provision of this law is prohibited, as is also the return to cold storage of any food which has been once withdrawn and placed on sale.

Any food left in cold storage longer than the specified ten months may be offered for sale by the person in charge of the warehouse, twenty days' notice having been given the owner of the food. This sale shall take place within thirty days after the expiration of the prescribed period of storage, and the proceeds of the sale shall be paid to the owner, after the cost of storage and other charges have been deducted therefrom. If such food has been condemned by the state board of health, it shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the board.

The penalty for violation of any part of this law is a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for the first offense, but a second offense shall be counted as a misdemeanor.

LORIAN P. JEFFERSON.

Commission Government, Progress of, in California. Under the home rule provisions of the constitution of California (article 11, section 8), permitting cities of more than 3,500 inhabitants to frame their own charters (subject to the approval of the legislature), eight cities have adopted a commission form of government. The list, compiled by the Short Ballot Organization, and brought down to June 23, 1911, include Berkeley (40,000), Modesto (4,000), Monterey, San Diego (39,000), San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz (11,000), Vallejo, and Oakland (150,000).

In order to permit cities of 3,500 and less inhabitants to adopt the commission form if they desire, the last legislature passed an act (Chapter 418, Laws of 1911) granting such authority.

The law provides that the boards of trustees of cities of the fifth class (of from 3,000 to 10,000 inhabitants) and of the sixth class (of not exceeding 3,000), may at any time submit to the voters of their cities at any municipal or special election, the question of the division of the administration of the municipality into five departments, providing for the assignment of their several members as heads of such departments, and defining the duties, powers and responsibilities of each commissioner.

The law further provides that, subject to the provisions of the act, the board by a majority vote may appoint its several members as the respective commissioners of the departments; and may by like vote from time to time change such appointment. In case the ordinance requires commissioners to devote a specified number of hours each business day to the performance of their official duties, salaries may