cases involving rights protected by both state and Federal constitutions and threatened with impairment by legislation of the state. In 1913 the legislature of Minnesota provided for the submission to the people in 1914 of a constitutional amendment forbid 'ding the judicial veto of legislation in that state by less than five out of seven judges of the state Supreme Court. The theory of these measures seems to be that there is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of acts of a legislature representing the sovereign people, which ought not to be overthrown by a bare majority of a court, representing a merely coordinate branch of government, whose functions are not primarily legislative. a history of the movement for direct legislation in the United States, an analysis of all existing constitutional provisions for the initiative and referendum, and a table of popular votes upon all measures submitted to the people. The Initiative and Referendum, published by the National Economic League, Boston, contains an excellent statement of the arguments for and against direct legislation by the people. Reference should be had also to A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government (Longmans); F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy (Longmans); D. F. Wilcox, Government by All the People (Macmillan); F. N. Judson, The Judiciary and the People (Yale University Press); and Elihu Root, Experiments in Government and the Essentials of the Constitution (Princeton University Bibliography of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall.-Equity (Philadelphia) for January, 1913, contains Press). THE SHORT BALLOT The short ballot, so-called (A. Y. B., 1910, p. 156; 1911, p. 187; 1912, p. 67), made more progress in 1913, so far at least as it relates to the state governments, than ever before. The progress of the short ballot in municipal elections is reviewed elsewhere (see VII, Municipal Government). In Iowa the legislature provided that the names of candidates for the positions of Supreme Court clerk and reporter should no longer appear on the ballot, but that the judges of the Supreme Court should fill those positions by appointments for terms of four years. In Ohio the clerk of the Supreme Court was also made appointive by the judges of the court, and the state Food and Dairy Commissioner was made appointive by the Governor. The Ohio legislature also submitted a constitutional amendment to the people, empowering the Governor to appoint the AttorneyGeneral, the Secretary of State, state Auditor, and state Treasurer, all of whom are now elected by the people of the state at large. The same measure further provides that county officers need not necessarily be elected, as heretofore, but that the legislature shall have power to deal with the organization of counties as it shall see fit. This is the most important step in the direction of a short ballot that has been taken in any state since the foundation of the short ballot movement four years ago. Another significant development of the year in connection with the progress of the short ballot is its constant appearance in plans for the radical reorganization of state governments, a topic of everwidening interest (see Reorganization of State Government, infra). Equity for January, 1913, contains a clear and concise description of the meaning of the short ballot idea and the progress of the movement to date. See also the Short Ballot Bulletin, published by the National Short Ballot Organization, New York. THE REORGANIZATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT Alternative Plans for Reform.The year 1913 witnessed the rapid growth of a popular feeling that the time has come for a reëxamination of the forms of state government and a reconsideration of the principles upon which the existing state governments have been constructed. This feeling springs from three separate and distinct sources. First, there are those who are inspired largely by the rapid and that the body so elected be in conspread of the commission form of gov- tinuous session, the commissioners deernment for cities (see VII, Munici- voting all their time to the service of pal Government, infra). The advo- the state. This proposal further procates of the establishment of the com- vides that the commission shall exermission form of government in the cise all powers of legislation and adstates argue that it has proved a ministration, including that of apgreat success in cities and that pointing to and removing from office, therefore it should prove a correspond- thus completely abandoning the tra ing success in the states. The second ditional American doctrine of the source of inspiration for those who division of powers. The advocates of would reform the governments of the the commission plan for states, like states is found in the example of Ore- the radical reformers generally, let it gon, the state which led the way in be distinctly understood that they be1902 in the adoption of the direct con- lieve the initiative, referendum, and stitutional initiative, and which fol- recall (including the recall of aplowed up its original lead by working pointive as well as elective officers) out the first thoroughgoing plans for to be absolutely essential parts of any the radical reconstruction of the whole successful system of popular governframe of state government. The point ment (see Equity, July, 1913, pp. of departure for this group of reform- 155-61). The movement to extend the ers lies in the plans for the reorgan- commission plan to states made its ization of the government of Oregon first official appearance in Kansas, submitted to the voters in 1910 and where Governor Hodge sent a special 1912 by the so-called People's Power message to the legislature of 1913, League (4. Y. B.. 1910, pp. 153-5; urging the adoption of the commis1912, pp. 67-70). Third, there are the sion plan in that state. Governor conservative reformers, who distrust | Hodge did not go so far as to propose the radical commission form and Ore- a complete amalgamation of the leggon plans, but who recognize the need islative and executive branches of gov for improving the forms of state government in a single small body to be ernment and believe the only way to defeat radical reform is to furnish an alternative plan, which shall hold forth the promise of better things without threatening the fundamental features of representative government in America. State Government by Commission. -The advocates of the commission plan for the government of the states propose a radical reorganization of state governments along the lines marked out by the movement for city government by commission. In general, however, their inclination is not to follow too blindly in the wake of the commission-governed cities. Thus one proposal is, that a single commission be substituted for the state Governor and legislature; that this commission be a larger body than the typical municipal commission, but much smaller than the present state legislatures; that it be elected by the voters of the state at large, subject to some scheme of proportional representation affording each considerable fraction of the people an opportunity to secure a representative of their own; elected in the state at large. His The Oregon Plan.-The Oregon reformers, whose plan has been outlined at length in previous issues of the YEAR BOOK (1910, pp.153-5; 1912, pp. 67-70), would abolish the Governor's veto power, and substitute the power to fix the maximum of all items in the state budget; they would abolish the direct primary, and substitute systems of preferential voting for the election of the Governor and of proportional representation for the elec tion of other members of the legislature; they would abolish the popular election of all administrative officers, and substitute the appointment of ad ministrative officers by the Governor, | the Law Academy of Philadelphia on subject to recall by the people; they May 27, 1913; the words "Governor" would abolish the political isolation and "legislature" are substituted of the Governor and substitute an ar- where he has used the words "Presirangement by which the Governor and dent" and "Congress": the members of his Cabinet would have seats and a voice in the legisla- Governor should be given the right, by First, as to fiscal legislation: (1) The ture, the whole body being subject to statute, to prepare and introduce into the popular initiative and referen- the legislature a budget setting forth dum: in short, they would establish an estimate of the expenses of the gov ernment for the coming year, as well the parliamentary or Cabinet system as a proposal of the necessary new legof government, subject to the sover- islation, if any, which he suggests as eignty of the people. The Oregon plan (2) His Cabinet officers should be given, proper to raise revenue for the purpose. would vest much greater political au- by joint resolution or statute, the right thority in the hands of the Governor to present and defend on the floor of the than is the case under any existing respective portions of his budget perSenate and House of Representatives the state constitution, and would secure taining to their departments. (3) By the necessary separation between poli- statute or joint resolution, both houses tics proper and administration by enshould be forbidden from adding items to the executive budget as thus pretrusting the actual management of sented, unless with the Governor's constate business to a state business currence. Or, in the alternative, the manager or other administrative offi- Governor should be given the right to veto individual items in the appropricers independent of ordinary political ation bill. Secondly, as to general leginfluences. Thus the executive organ- islation: (1) The Governor should be ization would bear a certain resemgiven the right to introduce bills, and these bills must be given preference blance to that provided under the so- above all other bills, except appropriation called Sumter plan of city government bills, on the calendars of both houses and amendments to them be allowed (A. Y. B., 1912, p. 193), which was only upon the floor of either house. (2) adopted in 1913 in Dayton, Ohio (see The members of the Governor's CabiVII, Municipal Government). Schemes net should be given, by statute or joint modeled more or less after the Oregon and' discuss these and other bills resolution, the right to appear on the plan were discussed in various state of general legislation so far as they legislatures in 1913, the discussion affect their respective departments. going farther perhaps in Colorado than elsewhere, but not leading anywhere to action. (For a further exposition of the Oregon plan, see letter of W. S. U'Ren, Equity, July, 1913, pp. 164-5.) The Conservative Plan.-The conservative reformers, like the radical reformers of both groups, denounce the irresponsibility and inefficiency of modern legislatures and legislative methods. They find the remedy, however, for such legislative evils, not in increasing the duties of the electorate by the introduction of direct legislation and the recall, but in stimulating the initiative and strengthening the responsibility of the executive. proposals which they offer for the relief of these conditions are founded mainly on the proposition that more effective means should be provided for executive leadership and coöperation between executive and legislature. These proposals were formulated as follows by Henry L. Stimson, former Secretary of War, in an address before The This plan of reform resembles the plans of the radical reformers in one important respect. It assumes the adoption of the proposals for reducing the number of elective officers, comprehended in the programme for the short ballot. It differs from the radical plans in another important respect: it requires no constitutional amendments in order to be put into effect. It locates the chief defects of the state governments, not in the constitutional frame of government, but in the system which has come to prevail in practice as a mode of operating the constitutional machinery. It would not alter the structure, but the procedure of the state governments. The conservative proposals have not yet been made a political issue in any state. In Massachusetts, however, the programme of the Progressive party for the reform of the state government consists substantially of a combination of the conservative programme for the reform of procedure with the radical proposals for the re form of the structure of state govern- | the failure of the people to become in ment to the extent of the adoption of the initiative, referendum, recall, and short ballot. terested in the regulation of the terms At Calls for State Constitutional Conventions. In some states the reformers prefer to introduce their proposals by the use of the constitutional initiative, or, where the constitutional initiative does not exist, to work for the introduction of that reform first. In others the demands for constitutional reform have crystallized in the shape of a demand for a constitutional convention. In 1913 the legislatures of three states made provision for taking a popular vote in 1914 upon the question of calling conventions to reform the constitution, namely, Indiana, New York, and South Dakota. In these states the conventions, if ordered by the people, will be held in 1915. The reason for calling a constitutional convention in Indiana is peculiar. The existing constitution of that state makes no provision for calling a convention, and the provision made for amend ment is so cumbersome as to be practically unworkable. The provision is that a proposed constitutional amendment must be adopted by two successive legislatures and then by the people by a clear majority of all votes cast at the election at which the meas-programme of legislation passed in ure is submitted to them. Only one measure may be proposed and adopted | at a time, and the courts have decided that a measure, once proposed for submission to the people, remains pending until approved or rejected by a clear majority of all votes cast at an election. Now a comparatively unimportant amendment, authorizing the legislature to prescribe the qualifications for admission to the bar, was proposed for the first time by the legislature in 1897 and submitted to the people in 1900, 1906 and 1910, but each time there was no majority of votes either for or against it. The result of December (see I, American History). Besides the three states which provided for the submission to the people of the question of calling a constitutional convention, there are several others in which there is an insistent demand for such a convention. In both Massachusetts and New Jersey, the two states in which important campaigns took place in 1913, at least one of the chief parties included a demand for a convention in the state platform, and in several other states, notably Illinois and Pennsylvania, the issue is being brought to the front. III. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS CHARLES EDWARD ASNIS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES GREAT BRITAIN The Panama Canal Tolls Controversy. While the Panama Canal Act of Aug. 24, 1912, was pending in Congress, Great Britain, in July, made an informal protest against the clause exempting American coastwise shipping from payment of tolls (A. Y. B., 1912, p. 83). The position of Great Britain was set forth at length in a formal statement by Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, dated Nov. 14, but not presented to the Department of State until Dec. 9, 1912. The United States had already committed itself in its interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty by the Panama Canal Act itself, by the memorandum of President Taft accompanying the Act at the time of its signature, and by President Taft's proclamation fixing the tolls on vessels navigating the Canal. At the time of Sir Edward Grey's note, the controversy was in its early stages and hinged on the interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. Article III of the treaty was interpreted by President Taft as stipulating no discrimination against foreign vessels only, and as leaving it open to the United States to grant any privilege she likes to her own vessels, the phrase "all nations" being interpreted to mean "all other nations" or "all foreign nations." (A. Y. B., 1912, p. 83.) Sir Edward Grey's Note.-The British Foreign Secretary, in his note, continued the controversy along the lines laid down by President Taft, and set forth in full the British interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. He emphasized the doctrine of equality and his argument revolved around two main points: first, the intention of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty in the light of the ClaytonBulwer Treaty; and second, the discrimination against British shipping in allowing American coasting vessels to pass free through the Canal, the effect of which would be to shift the burden of the upkeep of the Canal to British and foreign shipping. The methods of interpretation were different. Sir Edward Grey used the historical method, referring to instruments and events preceding the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty to show the intention thereof; whereas President Taft confined himself to the actual wording of the treaty, and, in interpreting phrases did not appear to go beyond the four corners of the treaty; or, in going beyond the treaty referred to subsequent events, such as American ownership of the Canal. "The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty does not stand alone," said Sir Edward Grey; "it was the corollary of the ClaytonBulwer Treaty of 1850." The two methods of interpretation brought in sharp contrast in construing the important provision that "the Canal shall be free and open to vessels of commerce and of war of all nations." Sir Edward Grey construed it in the terms of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, particularly Article 8, which provided for equal treatment for both American and British ships, and he submitted that the principle of equality of treatment was guaranteed by the United States in consideration of the right to construct the canal independently and under its own auspices. were |