may be submitted at the same election. This law is a step toward the advisory initiative, but it does not go quite so far, as the voter merely expresses an opinion instead of being able to instruct his representatives by direct ballot. The public opinion system has been used in Illinois on a number of State questions, but as the candidates for the legislature were not pledged to obey the wishes of their constituents, these expressions of public opinion have not been very effective in securing the legislation desired. A vigorous campaign for the advisory initiative and the advisory referendum was conducted in a number of States during the past legislative year. The question excited special interest in Massachusetts where a pledged majority of the legislature for the advisory initiative, broke their pledges by refusing to pass the proposed bill. Other States had similar experiences with representatives pledged to vote for the advisory system of direct legislation, although the plan continues to receive the approval of public men of all parties. In his last message to the Minnesota legislature, Governor Johnson called attention to the merits of this system and declared himself to be "firmly of the opinion that such legislation is desirable." The Texas system (Laws 1905, c. 11, sec. 140) provides for the advisory initiative within the parties at primary elections. The law applies "whenever delegates are to be selected by any political party to any State or county convention, or candidates are instructed for, or nominated." Under this law, 10 per cent of the voters in any political party may propose policies and candidates and secure a direct party vote thereon. Petitions are to be filed with the chairman of the county or the precinct executive committee at least five days before the tickets are to be printed, and the chairman may require a sworn statement that the names of the applicants are genuine. The number of signatures necessary for a petition is to be determined by the votes cast for the party nominee for governor at the preceding election. It is made the duty of the chairman to submit any proposition for which a petition is filed, and the delegates selected at that time are to be considered instructed for whichever proposition a majority of the votes are cast. Provision is also made that all additional expenses of printing any proposition on the official primary ballot is to be paid for by the parties requesting the same. Advocates of direct legislation have recently been carrying on a campaign for the advisory initiative and advisory referendum for national affairs. One hundred and ten members of the present house of representatives are pledged to vote for the establishment of the advisory referendum for acts of congress or bills passed by either house, and for the establishment of the advisory initiative for the following topics: civil service; immigration; interstate commerce, including parcels post; trial by jury or any modification of the law of injunction; the eight hour day in government contract work; the initiative and referendum; the election of United States senators by the people; and proportional representation. THE RECALL The recall is another political institution developed in Switzerland, which is being established in this country in an increasing number of municipalities. At the present time it is in existence in a large number of cities in California and in Washington. It is also to be found in certain cities in Idaho, Iowa, Michigan and Texas. The validity of the recall has been sustained in a number of court decisions. Recently the California State appellate court of the second district held that 7 Among the California cities which have secured the recall as a charter right are: Los Angles (Cal. Laws 1903, c. 6); San Diego (Cal. Laws 1905, c. 11); San Bernardino (Cal. Laws 1905, c. 15); Pasadena (Cal. Laws 1905, c. 20); Fresno (Cal. Laws 1905, c. 23); Santa Monica (Cal. Laws 1907, c. 6); Alameda (Cal. Laws 1907, c. 7); Long Beach (Cal. Laws 1907, c. 15); Riverside (Cal. Laws 1907, c. 25). In Washington, Seattle secured the recall in 1906, and in 1907 the Spokane city council adopted an ordinance for the recall to be submitted to the people as a proposed amendment to the charter. Under c. 241, Laws 1907, provision is made for the recall in all cities of the second class. This includes cities having a population between 1500 and 10,000. For Idaho, see Lewiston charter (Laws 1907, p. 349). Des Moines adopted the recall under the Iowa Law (1907, c. 48) providing for the commission system of government. In April, 1906, Grand Rapids, Mich., adopted the recall under the provisions of her new charter (Mich. Laws 1905, no. 593), establishing the initiative and referendum for charter amendments. 8 Davenport v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 1905, 146 Cal., 508; Good v. Common Council of City of San Diego, 1907, 90, p. 44. (Cal. App.) Also compare Rex v. Richardson, 1758, 1 Burr, 517, in which it was held that "the power to remove a corporate officer from his office for reasonable and just cause is one of the common law incidents of all corporations." the act of the city council in accepting the petition for the recall of a councilman was merely ministerial, and that when a petition bears the proper number of names of electors, as shown by the clerk's certificate, no discretion remains with the council, but it is its duty to call an election." A typical example of the recall for city officials is found in the new law (1907, c. 48) of Iowa, which provides for the adoption of the commission system of government by cities having a population of 25,000 or over. Section 18 provides that the holder of any elective office may be removed at any time by the electors qualified to vote for a successor of the incumbent. The procedure for removal is as follows: A petition signed by electors entitled to vote for a successor to the incumbent sought to be removed, equal in number to at least 25 per cent of the entire vote for all candidates for the office of mayor cast at the last preceding general municipal election, demanding an election of a successor of the person sought to be removed, is to be filed with the city clerk. This petition is to contain a general statement of the grounds for which the removal is sought. The signatures to the petition need not all be appended to one paper, but each signer must add to his signature his place of residence, giving the street and number. One of the signers of each paper is to make oath before an officer competent to administer oaths that the statements therein made are true as he believes, and that each signature to the paper appended is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Within ten days from the date of filing the petition the city clerk is to examine the voter's register to ascertain whether or not the petition is signed by the requisite number of qualified electors. If necessary, the council is to allow him extra help for that purpose; and he is to attach his certificate to the petition, showing the result of his examination. If by the clerk's certificate the petition is shown to be insufficient, it may be amended within ten days from the date of the certificate. Within ten days after such amendment, the clerk is to make like examination of the amended petition, and if his certificate shows the same to be insufficient it is to be returned to the person filing the same; without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new petition to the same effect. • Good v. Common Council of the City of San Diego, 1907, 90, p. 44. If the petition is deemed to be sufficient, the clerk is to submit the same to the council without delay, and if it is found to be sufficient, the council is to order and fix a date for holding the election, not less than thirty days or more than forty days from the date of the clerk's certificate to the council that a sufficient petition is filed. The council is to provide for publication of notice and all arrangements for holding the election, which is to be conducted and returned in all respects as other city elections. The successor of any officer so removed is to hold office during the unexpired term of his predecessor. Any person sought to be removed may be a candidate to succeed himself, and unless he requests otherwise in writing, the clerk is required to place his name on the official ballot without nomination. In any removal election, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes is to be declared elected. Unless the incumbent receives the highest number of votes at the election he is deemed to be removed from the office upon the qualification of his successor. In case the party who receives the highest number of votes fails to qualify, within ten days after receiving notification of election, the office is deemed vacant. The new charter for Lewiston, Idaho (Laws 1907, p. 349) has similar provisions for the recall. In addition it safeguards the city from possible misuse of the law by providing that no petition for removal is to be filed until the person has been in office at least ninety days, and that no person is to be required to stand for reëlection more than once during the term for which he was elected. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF DIRECT LEGISLATION The validity of legislation for the initiative and referendum has been sustained in a number of recent court decisions. The former contention that the use of direct legislation substituted a pure democracy for a republican form of government, no longer receives serious consideration. In a case decided by the supreme court of California in 1906, the court declared1o that the provision of the Federal Constitution (art. 4, sec. 4) declaring that the United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government, is not violated by the initiative 10 In re Pfahler, 1906, 88, p. 270. provision of a city charter" authorizing direct legislation as to strictly local affairs by the citizens, in case the council refuses to enact the same. In an earlier decision12 the supreme court of Oregon similarly held that the initiative and referendum amendment to the Oregon Constitution, did not abolish or destroy the republican form of government, or substitute another in its place. The court declared, "The representative character of the government still remains. The people have simply reserved to themselves a larger share of legislative power." Madison defined a representative government to be "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a given period or during good behaviour."'13 Recent court decisions seem to be returning to this inclusive idea of representative government. On the basis of this broader interpretation, direct legislation may prove to become one method of making representative government more representative. 11 Charter of Los Angeles, Cal. Laws 1903, c. 6. |