Chapter III: Part 3

Into the “smoker” came a young fellow with whom I opened conversation. It turned out that he had been pretty much all over Europe. He had toured Germany several times. On the Sir Walter Scott principle, I sought knowledge from him, and he told me several interesting things.

One evening he had been at Heidelberg when the soldiers mounted guard. This being a regular function many civilians had assembled to see it.

An officer was putting the men through some of their exercises, when, at the order to “ground arms,” one of the privates let his gun down too slow.

The officer flew into a rage, rushed up to the soldier, slapped his jaws, kicked him repeatedly on the shins, struck him with the flat of his sword, and _spat time and again in the man’s face_!

Of course the officer was cursing the private for every vile thing he could lay his tongue to, all the while.

Said my informant, “He not only spat in the man’s face once, but he did it four or five times.”

* * * * *

I asked, “Was there no murmur of disgust or indignation in the crowd of citizens who were looking on?”

“None whatever,” he said. “The people took the occurrence as a matter of course. It happens so often.”

Then the young man rose up in the smoker, and showed me how the private had stood in his place, rigid, staring straight ahead, not daring to change his position or expression while enduring the kicks and spits of the officer. Not a word of protest or complaint did he venture to utter.

_That’s Militarism, gone crazy._

Not long ago one of our high-priced city preachers declared publicly that we Americans needed an Emperor to head our army.

* * * * *

Do you recall a story which went the rounds of the newspapers a few years ago? In substance it hinted that William Hohenzollern, Emperor of Germany, had compelled one of his young officers to kill himself.

My traveller related to me the particulars as he had learned them in Germany.

The Emperor was holding a banquet, a revel, on board his yacht, the _Hohenzollern_: wine had been drunk freely; loose talk was going on. The Emperor made some insulting reference to the mother of a lieutenant who was seated near him.

Upon the impulse of the moment, the brave boy did a most natural thing—he slapped the brutal defamer of his mother in the mouth.

Consternation paralyzed the Emperor and all his guests.

The lieutenant left the yacht; no one tried to stop him. Going ashore, he made ready to quit the world; and next morning he rode his bicycle deliberately off a precipice and fell headlong to his voluntary death.

And the high-priced, city preacher declared that _we_ needed an Emperor!

* * * * *

Frederick the Great was really a great man.

Riding along the streets of Berlin one day, he saw a crowd looking up at a placard on a wall, Reining his horse, the old King inquired, “What is it?”

He was told that the placard contained a lot of violent abuse of himself.

“Hang it lower, so that the people can read it better,” ordered the King, and he rode on.

The pompous despot who now sits upon the throne of Frederick the Great puts girls and old women, as well as boys and men, in jail if they dare to say, or to write, anything disrespectful of _him_.

* * * * *

Is democracy gaining ground anywhere? Are not those historic allies, the Church and the State, encroaching steadily upon the masses? Are not the High Priest and the War Lord constantly putting a greater distance between themselves and the Common People?

Does not _the individual citizen_ have less power and recognition now than at any other time since the founding of our Government?

* * * * *

Poor General Wheeler! After all his efforts to please Northern sentiment, they would not permit him to be buried with the Confederate flag in his coffin!

* * * * *

_The Nation_ is a mighty good paper, but it ought not to class General N. B. Forrest as “a scout” and “guerrilla.”

General Forrest was named by General Lee, during the last year of the war, as the best soldier that the Civil War had developed.

Forrest was greater than his commanding general at Fort Donelson, at Murfreesborough, and at Chickamauga. He finally swore that he would not obey any more fool orders from blundering superiors, and he struck out for himself. During the short time that he held independent command his achievements, considering his resources, rivalled those of Stonewall Jackson in the Valley Campaign.

* * * * *

Nor should _The Nation_ be too hard upon the West Point officers who followed their native states out of the Union. Justice to those officers requires one to remember that they were taught at West Point that the States had the right to secede from the Union.

If _The Nation_ will consult the text-book from which Generals Lee, Johnston, Beauregard and Wheeler were instructed in Constitutional Law, it will discover that these young officers simply put in practice that which their teachers had taught them to be their right.

The book to which I refer is Rawle’s work upon Constitutional Law.

* * * * *

After General Wheeler had tried so hard to win the heart of the North, _don’t_ you think they might have allowed the Confederate flag to rest upon his folded hands?

_That_ was the flag which he had followed in the storm of actual war. The Cuban business was nothing. It was child’s play, and pitiful child’s play at that. But the Civil War was real, was colossal, rent a continent asunder, and shook the world. It was the Confederate flag which had led Wheeler to his fame. His youth, his first and best, had been given to _that_; of all the banners on earth none could have been dearer, holier to him than _that_.

To look upon it was to bring back the years and the deeds which had brought him glory. It associated itself with the heroes who had listened to his battle-cry, and who had sanctified their sacrifice to duty with their blood. It spoke to him of the hopes and the griefs and the despair of his home, the South; it recalled the enthusiasm and the heartbreak; the splendid devotion of noble women, and the resignation of conquered men.

Surely, surely the Confederate flag must have been the dearest emblem of Duty and Sacrifice to General Joe Wheeler.

_Don’t_ you think that Charity might have softened the heart of the North to the old warrior who was dead, and that they might have let him rest under the “Conquered Banner?”

_Bart, in Minneapolis Journal_]

_Morris, in Spokane Spokesman-Review_]

_Opper, in N. Y. American_]

_Machine Rule and its Termination_

BY GEORGE H. SHIBLEY

_President of the People’s Sovereignty League and Editor of the Referendum News._

Underneath the existing political and legislative evils in this country there is found a common cause—the rule of the few through machine politics. The powers of sovereignty are exercised by the few. Proof of this is the fact that the evils complained of are banished, or are in process of disappearing, wherever the people have established their sovereignty—have established the right to a direct vote on public questions. This system is the initiative and referendum. It is exercised in combination with representatives, and the system as a whole is termed Guarded Representative Government—the people’s sovereignty is guarded.

This improved system of representative government is an evolutionary product, and being such it will gradually extend throughout the world. A practical question is: How best can its spread be promoted? To arrive at an answer, one must study the methods whereby the improved systems came into being.

We find that the forerunners were third parties and non-partisan organizations. The first declaration by a political party in this country was the Socialist Labor Party in 1889. Next came a declaration by the Knights of Labor in 1891. The same year there appeared “The Referendum in America,” by Ellis Paxton Oberholtzer, Ph.D. The next year J. W. Sullivan published his book, “Direct Legislation.” During the year the National Direct Legislation League was organized. There was also published, during 1892, “Direct Legislation by the People,” by Nathan Cree of Chicago.

On July 4th of the same year, 1892, the newly organized People’s Party commended “to the favorable consideration of the people and the reform press the legislative system known as the initiative and referendum.” And state conventions of the People’s Party and the allied parties also paid considerable attention to the initiative and referendum. During the Autumn the American Federation of Labor gave its emphatic endorsement to the initiative and referendum by commending “to affiliated bodies the careful consideration of this principle and the inauguration of an agitation for its incorporation into the laws of the respective states.”

The same year the National Grange adopted a resolution recommending to the state and subordinate granges the Swiss legislation method known as the referendum and the initiative.

The following year the People’s Party, wherever it was in power, endeavored to submit to the people a constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum, but as a two-thirds vote was required there was a temporary failure.

In 1896 the People’s Party at its national convention came out strongly for the initiative and referendum, as also did the National Party convention, composed of 299 delegates who seceded from the Prohibition convention. The Socialist Labor Party also reaffirmed its people’s sovereignty plank of 1892.

The first legislation in this country for the initiative and referendum was by the People’s Party in Nebraska, 1897. The voters in municipalities were empowered to petition for the adoption of the initiative and referendum system for local affairs, and the system was to be adopted if approved by a majority of those who should vote upon the question. Hon. John W. Yeiser was chiefly instrumental in securing the law, and he endeavored to secure its adoption in Omaha, but without success.

The same year, 1897, the People’s Party representatives in the South Dakota Legislature combined with the Silver Republicans and Democrats to submit a constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum. Most of the Republicans in the Legislature fell in line and voted with the promoters of the reform. At the next election, 1898, the voters adopted the system. Afterward the Republican party, which then had a majority in each house, enacted the statute to put it in operation. Since then two sessions of the Legislature have been held and the effects of the referendum (the people’s veto) have been splendid. The following words are credited to the Republican Governor, Hon. Charles Herried, by a member of the Toronto Parliament:

“Since this referendum law has been a part of our constitution we have had no chartermongers or railway speculators, no wildcat schemes submitted to our Legislature. Formerly our time was occupied by speculative schemes of one kind or another, but since the referendum has been a part of the constitution these people do not press their schemes on the Legislature, and hence there is no necessity for having recourse to the referendum.”

The initiative in South Dakota was crippled by inserting a “joker”! The system provides that five per cent. of the voters may propose bills to the Legislature, “which measures the Legislature shall _enact_ and submit to a vote of the electors of the state.”

The year (1898) that the voters of South Dakota balloted upon the question of adopting the improved system of representative government, the People’s Party, Silver Republicans and Democrats in Utah submitted to the voters of the state the question of adopting a constitutional amendment for the referendum and initiative. At the next election the voters adopted the system; but the Republican party gained control of the Legislature and refused to enact a statute for putting the constitutional amendment into operation. Two years later the same thing occurred.

The same year that the Fusionist Legislature in Utah submitted the amendment a similar thing was done by a Republican legislature in Oregon. A proposal for an amendment in Oregon has to pass two successive legislatures; therefore the question was a live issue in the next campaign—1900. The People’s Party, the Democratic and the Republican state platforms each pledged that, should the party be placed in power in the Legislature, it would permit the voters to ballot upon the question. The Republican party secured a majority in the Legislature and submitted the question. In the next campaign, 1902, the question was again a live issue, for it was to be balloted upon by the voters; and again all the parties declared for the improved system and advised the voters of the state to adopt it, as also did the Granges and Organized Labor, likewise both the United States senators and the Republican governor, and nearly all the prominent men in political life in Oregon, together with most of the newspapers in the state. All advised the adoption of the system, and the vote of the people was 11 to 1 for the system.

Governor Geer’s advice to the voter was: “If the referendum amendment is adopted by the people and made use of after adoption, it will be helpful all around as a restraining influence over careless legislatures. Even if not often brought into requisition, the fact that it is a part of the state Constitution, ready to be used as a check against ill-advised legislation at any time, will justify its adoption. It may not be needed now any more than it was 100 years ago, but there have often been times in the past when even ‘Our Fathers’ could have been wisely checked by this wholesome reservation of the rights of the people.”

In Nevada, at the legislative session of 1901, the Fusionist party had a majority in the Legislature and voted to submit to the people the question of adopting the referendum. The next Legislature gave its consent and submitted a constitutional amendment for the initiative. At the following election the voters adopted the referendum, but the Legislature elected was Republican and it refused to consent to the submission of the constitutional amendment for the initiative.

The same year in Illinois, 1901, a Republican Legislature and governor established the advisory initiative in municipalities and in state affairs. Through this system the voters in Chicago have voted three times for municipal ownership of street railways and the instructions are being obeyed.

The Republican senators from Illinois, Cullom and Hopkins, are both on record as favoring the initiative and referendum.

Since 1901 the progress of the initiative and referendum has been through the systematic questioning of candidates by non-partisan organizations. The start in this direction came from the successful experiences of Winnetka, Illinois. These experiences began in 1896 and continued from year to year with unvarying success.

THE WINNETKA SYSTEM

Winnetka is a suburb of Chicago, peopled largely by bright and active business men. Certain would-be monopolists proposed to the village council that it grant them a forty-year franchise for a gas plant. This was opposed by the citizens, for they wanted public ownership of city monopolies. They possessed a publicly-owned waterworks system and aimed to keep themselves from the clutches of private monopoly. Fortunately, at the time the gas franchise was asked for, there was being held each month a public meeting to consider public questions. It was called the “town meeting.” At the next town meeting, after the gas question came up, a resolution was adopted asking the village council to submit the question to the people. A deputation of leading citizens called upon the city council at its next meeting and Mr. Lloyd was accorded the privilege of speaking. After a warm time the council reluctantly agreed to submit the question to the voters and abide by their decision. The polls were opened and the proposed franchise received only 4 votes, with 180 against it.

This settled the gas franchise and it did much more, for at the next caucus for nominating village trustees it was proposed and decided that only those men should be nominated who would stand up before their fellow-voters and promise, if nominated and elected, to submit all important questions to a vote of the people and abide by their decision. This was agreed to by the voters present, and each nominee for village trustee stood before his fellow-citizens and promised.

Thus was the system installed, for there were no competing nominations. The casting of ballots on election day was a mere form.

From that day until the present time the people of Winnetka have been the sovereign power as to ordinances. They are a Self-emancipated People.

Reviewing the foregoing, it is seen that the pledges for installing the referendum system were secured by questioning candidates, while the system itself is through rules of procedure, which may be incorporated in the rules themselves or in an ordinance or statute. The system is the advisory referendum, the candidates being pledged to carry out the people’s advice. This they have done in Winnetka and elsewhere, as we shall show. But the system is intended for use only until the usual form can be installed. In fact, it is through an advisory initiative that a change in the Federal Constitution is to be secured, and in the near future.

Immediately after the election in 1900 the writer, who was a delegate to the People’s Party National Convention of that year, withdrew from the Bureau of Economic Research and began devoting his entire time and energies to spreading the news concerning the Winnetka System, the primary aim being to help establish the people’s sovereignty in national affairs and to do so without waiting to change the written words of the Federal Constitution—a practically unalterable instrument until such time as the advisory initiative is installed. The following July the second social and political conference at Detroit approved the Winnetka System—the advisory initiative and advisory referendum—as also did the National Direct Legislation League.

And Prof. Frank Parsons, president of the National Referendum League, said: “The Winnetka System is clearly great in its possibilities—a bridge ready for immediate use to the promised land.”

Mr. Eltweed Pomeroy, president of the National Direct Legislation League, wrote: “I am also glad that you demonstrate that direct legislation is not only a great scheme which will be of inestimable value in its entirety, but that it is more than that, and can be applied on a small scale here and now, and that almost anyone can exercise influence enough to secure a first step.”

Mr. Louis P. Post, editor of _The Public_, visited Winnetka during August, 1901, and in his paper of September 7 described the system, saying in conclusion:

This Winnetka Plan of securing the advantages of direct
legislation without waiting for party action, has special
merit. It can, for one thing, be easily made the subject of
effective non-partisan organization. For another, if the
organization were to become influential, it would completely
effect its purpose. Meanwhile, here and there locally the
purposes would be effected even though balked and delayed
in the larger government divisions. Moreover, the plan has
been for years in actual and effective operation at Winnetka.
Finally, it contemplates a spontaneous command from the people
as to public servants, not a petition from them as to public
masters.

The Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor, at a meeting in Washington, D. C., September 20, 1901, considered briefly the Winnetka System, and the following is the published report:

It was decided to issue an address to all affiliated
organizations, requesting them to endeavor to secure the
passage of local ordinances and laws for the initiative and
referendum _on measures relating to local interests_, and thus
to secure the beginning of this system of direct legislation,
_with the view of subsequently enlarging the scope of that
method of enacting laws in the interests of the people_.

Thus the new system—the systematic questioning of candidates for the establishment of the people’s sovereignty—began and was endorsed throughout the land. During the four and a half years that have since elapsed the system has made steady and rapid progress.

In December, 1901, President Gompers, of the American Federation of Labor, in his annual message recommended the system, and the convention ordered that it be explained in the _American Federationist_, “in order that Trade Unionists may be able to study it as carefully as it deserves.” Accordingly it was published in an eighty page extra number and 20,000 copies were circulated in addition to the regular mailing list.

Gov. Altgeld wrote concerning this extra number: “It presents the subject of the initiative and referendum and representative government in the most lucid, striking, and comprehensive manner that I have ever seen.” He added: “Through the agency of the labor organizations it ought to get into every neighborhood, and in time it will create a sentiment that will be irresistible.”

Gov. Altgeld’s prediction is correct. The very first year after the issuance of the extra number of the _Federationist_ the Winnetka System was established in Detroit, Mich., Toronto, Canada, and Geneva, Ill.; with the pledging of the Missouri Legislature for the submission of a constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum; also the systematic questioning of candidates by organized labor in several other states, and the questioning of candidates as to the initiative and referendum by the granges in the state of Washington. The net result of questioning candidates was a majority vote for the initiative and referendum in six legislatures; also the pledging of nine of the sixteen congressmen of Missouri for a national system of advisory initiative and advisory referendum, and the pledging of the United States senators elected from Missouri and Illinois. During the course of the campaign the actions of four state conventions of the two great parties were reversed—the Republican state conventions in Missouri, California and Montana; and the Democratic state convention in Montana. The states where the majority vote in the legislature was secured were Missouri, Colorado, California, Montana, North Dakota and Massachusetts. In Illinois there was a two-thirds vote in the House, but the Senate refused to act. This Illinois vote was caused by an instruction from the voters through an advisory referendum taken under the 1901 act of the Legislature. The vote of the people was 5 to 1 for the establishment of the improved system.

Before the meeting of the legislatures, after the autumn elections, the American Federation of Labor at its annual convention established a national system for the questioning of candidates, the interrogatories to apply to such measures as the organization should deem most important.

The next year, 1903, legislatures were elected in but ten states and, as organized labor in these states had not yet been educated to the use of the questioning system, except in Massachusetts, little was accomplished for the initiative and referendum. In Massachusetts the labor people found themselves almost alone in demanding the people’s sovereignty, and during 1903 were quiescent. But in Kentucky Hon. J. A. Parker did valiant work. Through his paper, _The Home Tribune_, he called for workers for the referendum in Kentucky. At a joint state convention of the Allied People’s Party and the United Labor Party, a platform was enunciated in which existing political and legislative evils were outlined; and it was pointed out that the remedy is an improved system of government—the establishment of the people’s sovereignty through the initiative and referendum, to be exercised in combination with representative government. _The proposed change, it was declared, was the open door through which all the desired legislative reforms would come._ It was further declared that candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties should be questioned, and wherever a reliable candidate would pledge in writing for the improved system of government, no opposing candidate of the Allied Party should be nominated, and that every possible effort would be made to help elect the pledged candidate. The result in Mr. Parker’s own words at the close of the campaign was as follows:

In all my work I found but little antagonism. The one obstacle
was the bitter, unreasonable campaign carried on in this state,
in which all principle was lost sight of, and the issue made on
the hanging of Caleb Powers. The election was a riot of fraud
and dishonor, and showed too clearly what little hope there can
be in partisan action. The last election, not only in Kentucky,
but all over the nation _has shown that to gain any substantial
reform we must concentrate all effort on pledging candidates,
AND IF THIS EFFORT IS SUPPORTED BY INTELLIGENT LOCAL EFFORT
WE CAN WIN IN ANY STATE._ An instance of this is found in a
senatorial district in this state, where Dr. J. S. Dossey
had enrolled perhaps 300 volunteers for Majority Rule. The
Republican signed our pledge, and, the Democrat ignoring the
matter until after the time fixed as a limit, I wrote letters
to our workers stating the situation. Within forty-eight hours
came the Democrat’s pledge with a strong letter to support it,
declaring that if elected he would give our bill his hearty
support.

The following year, 1904, the Presidential contest absorbed a large degree of attention, yet the people’s sovereignty cause was triumphant in four states—Montana, Nevada, Texas and Delaware—with considerable progress in many others; and a 33⅓ per cent. increase in pledged congressmen in Missouri, i.e., twelve of the sixteen are pledged to the people’s sovereignty in national affairs through the advisory initiative and advisory referendum, as also are five of the Chicago congressmen, and scattering ones throughout the country. The Pennsylvania granges, which are very strong, established a magazine of their own and questioned candidates for the initiative and referendum and other measures.

The next year, 1905, like 1903, was a year in which few legislatures were elected, yet one state and probably two were rescued from machine rule—Ohio and possibly Massachusetts. In Ohio the required three-fifths of the Legislature are pledged to the submission of a constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum; and in Massachusetts it is hoped that an advisory referendum system will be established. The Ohio campaign is especially noteworthy in that most of the Republican candidates refused to pledge, while the Democratic candidates pledged universally, the initiative and referendum being part of the state platform. Election day was a surprise to every one, for many of the people’s sovereignty candidates were elected where it was supposed they were hopelessly beaten. The Democratic gain in the Senate was 47.5 per cent.—an unprecedented landslide. The change was not caused by the Anti-Saloon League’s work, for the Republican candidates were pledged to its cause. The change was due to the independent voters, who had been apprised of the attitude of candidates through the publication of the answers to the initiative and referendum question. Early in October the State Federation of Labor at its annual convention instructed that all candidates for the Legislature should be questioned as to the initiative and referendum, and the replies published. The Woman’s Suffrage Association also questioned candidates as to the initiative and referendum. Referendum Leagues were active, and years ago the Union Reform Party had specialized on the initiative and referendum, thereby instructing the voters—a lesson which they evidently did not forget.

This same year the State Federation of Labor increased most materially their activity for the people’s sovereignty. The Pennsylvania Federation of Labor set the pace. At its annual convention it provided not only for the questioning of political candidates, but took steps to provide for a people’s sovereignty committee within each union, and arranged in other ways for an educational and non-partisan campaign for the initiative and referendum. A fraternal delegate was received from the state grange, which also is working for the people’s sovereignty. Later in the year the New Jersey State Federation of Labor adopted the Pennsylvania program, and a few weeks afterward the New York State Federation did likewise. At the annual convention of the American Federation of Labor, representing one-eighth of the people of the United States, the executive council report recited the rapid spread of the people’s sovereignty cause through the questioning of candidates, and said:

The systematic questioning of candidates, to which reference
has been made, is gaining in importance each year. More and
more our state branches, central bodies and local unions are
realizing the system’s usefulness. It enables our people to
prevent the evasion of issues by party machines, and the
self-interests of candidates cause them to answer favorably in
most cases. And the success of organized labor’s political work
without engaging in party politics strengthens the union in the
sentiment of its members and increases their number.

Co-operation is also advanced with other interests, such
as organized farmers. In Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Indian
Territory and Texas the organized farmers, with organized wage
earners, are questioning candidates as to the establishment
of the people’s sovereignty in place of machine rule. This is
accomplished without a formal alliance.

We recommend the general use of the questioning-of-candidates
system.

The state Granges in sixteen commonwealths have declared for the initiative and referendum. These states are: Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Maine.

The Farmers’ Union, a rapidly growing organization (described in WATSON’S MAGAZINE for February) has adopted the initiative for use within the association. The National American Woman’s Suffrage Association declared last year for the initiative and referendum, and this year’s convention has urgently requested action by the state associations. Last year in Ohio the Woman’s Suffrage Association questioned candidates as to the initiative and referendum, and this year it is likely that the suffrage association in every state will apply the system. The Referendum Leagues are also questioning candidates.

All these organizations have learned or are learning that the questioning of candidates immediately terminates the machine’s power to sidetrack the live issues, provided there is an organization to take the case to the voters. One individual in a state can easily co-ordinate the forces for the questioning of candidates, and thereby secure the immediate termination of the machine’s power to evade the live issues. One person in a state has repeatedly secured this result; in fact, every reform within a state is largely due to the engineering tact and skill of some one individual. Today, as never before, it is easy and practically costless to terminate machine rule by establishing the initiative and referendum.

A NEW THIRD PARTY

Heretofore the essential element in questioning candidates as to people’s sovereignty has been a State Referendum League, in order that the business and professional interests shall be represented. But in January a new departure occurred in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Referendum League changed its form of organization to the REFERENDUM PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA. The platform is as follows:

The Referendum Party urges the following legislative action as
the only certain peaceable means of forever eradicating the
gigantic evils that have gradually crept into our system of
government:

1. The calling of a constitutional convention to revise the
state constitution.

2. Granting to the people the right to veto unjust laws or
ordinances by direct vote; this right to be exercised only if a
vote is demanded on any law or ordinance, by petition signed by
two percentum of the voters of the state or locality affected.

3. Granting to the people the right to enact, by direct
majority vote, needed laws which their Legislature fails or
refuses to enact.

This is known as the Referendum System. Wherever it has been
in operation it has effectually stamped out bribery, graft,
bossism and ring rule, and has made “government by the people
and for the people” a practical reality instead of a mere
theory.

The Referendum Party invites the co-operation of all who favor
this action.

The members of the preliminary committee on organization are:

Clarence V. Tiers, Chairman, Pittsburg, Pa.,
Clement V. Horn, Wilkinsburg, Pa.,
H. F. Lea, Bellevue, Pa.,
H. W. Noren, Allegheny, Pa.,
Walter Becker, Allegheny, Pa.,
John C. Innes, Pittsburg, Pa.,
George D. Porter, Philadelphia, Pa.,
John E. Joos, Allegheny, Pa.,
Nathaniel Green, Swissvale, Pa.,
J. Ludwig Koethen, Jr., Pittsburg, Pa.,
Hon. W. F. Hill, (Master State Grange) Chambersburg, Pa.,
James Wm. Newlin, (Member of Constitutional Convention 1873)
Philadelphia, Pa.

Reformers will watch with great interest this new experiment in third party politics. By limiting the demand to a constitutional convention and the initiative and referendum, and proposing to endorse such of the reliable candidates as pledge for the people’s sovereignty, the program is largely that of a Referendum League, plus the possibility of making an independent nomination. But a league can circulate nomination papers; in fact, every league impliedly stands ready to do so, if necessary. One thing is clear; that the _Pennsylvania situation was such that the change to a Referendum Party put life and vigor into the referendum movement_. Not only were hundreds of enthusiastic offers of support sent in, it is said, and from every quarter of the state, but leaders in the minority party and in the Lincoln party were brought to a point where they found it desirable to take immediate notice of the organization.

One reason for this is that the granges in the state, large in number and strong in membership, and organized labor, have not only declared for the initiative and referendum, but are systematically questioning candidates and publishing their replies. All that is needed to give great political power to these voters is an organization that stands ready to nominate referendum candidates. The mere existence of such an organization will accomplish most of its purposes. In this connection the experience of Jo A. Parker, in Kentucky, described above, should be borne in mind; also the fact that the People’s Party Conference of 1902 at Louisville almost adopted the program which Mr. Parker applied in Kentucky the following year. But in states where the minority party is under progressive leadership it is probable that a State Referendum League is the best possible instrument.

Isn’t it clear that the thing for the People’s Party to do is to complete at once the establishment of the initiative and referendum in America by going at it through the Kentucky or Pennsylvania program? Or that the workers in a state should organize an Initiative and Referendum League?

If we review the foregoing pages several things become clear:

1. That machine rule can be terminated and the people’s sovereignty re-established without waiting to change the written constitution. All that is required is a majority vote in the city council, legislature or congress. By this means an advisory-vote system can be established and then the candidates for public office can be pledged to obey the will of their constituents when expressed by referendum vote. This is merely the re-establishment of a direct vote system for instructing representatives—a system as old as representative government itself. The President of the United States is selected through an advisory vote by the people and public questions are also being determined by advisory vote; for example, municipal ownership of street railways in Chicago.

2. The basis of machine rule is an evasion of vital issues by both the leading parties. This power can be terminated at once by the systematic questioning of candidates as to vital issues, provided an organization or candidate stands ready to take the case to the people. Another way of stating the reason for questioning candidates is that the people are entitled to know how the candidates will vote if elected.

3. A third party organization can question candidates and declare that unless there is within each district a clear-cut written pledge by a reputable candidate, it will place one in nomination.

Or the program can be to place on the third-party ticket some of the old line party candidates, except in those states where fusion is prohibited by law.

4. The People’s Party during its palmy days was a leading factor in popularizing the initiative and referendum, and in securing its adoption, and today, by centering its effort on the termination of machine rule through the establishment of the initiative and referendum, it can at once complete the rehabilitation of the American system of government. Not only can the remaining states be redeemed within the next two years, but it is thoroughly practicable to exert in national affairs this year an influence that shall result in a pledged majority in the national House and Senate—the pledges to be for the advisory initiative and advisory referendum. The entire body of organized labor is centering its efforts in this direction, the referendum leagues are demanding it, and all that is needed to secure immediate victory is a political party that stands ready to put up candidates. The mere existence of such a party will win the day. How best can the desired end be attained?

By Louise Forsslund]

AUTHOR OF “THE STORY OF SARAH”, ETC.

The Old Men’s Home, Indian Village, Long Island.
June 10, 19—

To the Matron of the Old Ladies’ Home, Shoreville, Long Island.

Dear Miss: The writer of this letter has had a windfall and
he wants one of your woman-folks to have a share in it. He
has lived in an old folks’ home himself for ten years, hand
running, and he has a feeling for them others. My cousin
Obadiah Hawkins died up to Lakeland last week. He never would
so much as lend me a penny whilst he was living, but now he’s
dead, he’s left me ten thousand dollars in ready money and a
house and a home. There’s a pump in the kitchen. He never was
no hand for investments and the money was all in an old silver
water pitcher. It’s all good and the matron here has counted
it over. I always wanted a home of my own and never was able
to afford one. I always wanted a wife of my own and never
could get up gumption enough to ask any woman to share my bad
luck. Now the luck has turned. I got the home. All I need is
the wife. I be going to drive over this afternoon and see if
you got anybody that’s willing. I put it that way ’cause I
ain’t much account if I have come into a tidy little fortune.
I wear a wig and have spells of lumbago. It’s the lumbago what
brought me here. There ain’t a lazy bone in my body. As for the
requirements of the lady. She must be under seventy years old;
she mustn’t wear a wig or dye her hair. I want one respectable
suit of hair between us. She mustn’t squint or take snuff,
and if she is sot on keeping chickens—some women be—she must
keep them in the coop. I’ll build the coop. And she must love
flowers and garden sass.

Expecting them to be on deck this afternoon at three o’clock, I
am,

Yours most respectfully,

Samuel Jessup.

A moment’s intense silence followed the matron’s public reading of this letter in the large hall which served as the community room of the Old Ladies’ Home. The matron, her young gray eyes twinkling and shining, looked from one old face to the other. Some were broadly grinning under their crowns of gray hair, some were hurt and scornful, some were only puzzled and amazed—these belonging to the old ladies who had held their shriveled, shaking hands as trumpets before their ears during the reading of the letter. And some faces were marred by a shrewd, keen, calculating look as if to exclaim: “I wonder if—!” The matron looked at them all, her smile slowly growing broader, then quickly she looked down at her desk and said with business-like briskness:

“That is a very honest letter. I wish you could all give it your serious attention. There is no fraud in it, for I have telephoned to the Old Men’s Home, and Mr. Jessup is a noble, straightforward character. Now, are any of you willing to see him this afternoon? I suggest that all those who can not or who will not give Mr. Jessup a chance for their hands this afternoon, leave the hall.”

There was a curious reluctance on the part of the old ladies to move. There was much wagging of heads, much nudging of elbows, whispers and winks and murmurs from every quarter, but no one stirred. Those who really had no personal interest or legitimate right to an interest in Mr. Jessup’s quest for a wife stayed to see what the others might do. The matron repeated her request. Then old Mrs. Smith, bent and humpbacked, took up her cane and hobbled slowly toward the stairway.

“Ef he wanted me,” she declared with mock asperity, “he should oughter come twenty year ago. Ye notice,” she added, looking over her shoulder with her sharp, shrewd peaked face, “he didn’t tell how old _he_ was.”

“He’s sixty-nine,” laughed the matron. “Most men of his age would have insisted on a wife of eighteen.”

There was a scurrying sound among the group of old ladies and suddenly there darted across the hall a younger, slimmer, straighter figure than Mrs. Smith’s.

“Miss Ellie!” protestingly called the matron, “where are you going?”

Miss Ellie paused, her face flushed with shame to think she had not fled from the hall before. She paused and looked at the matron. However old she was, Miss Ellie did not look more than fifty years. Her hair was luxuriant, half silver, half gold, faded, yet giving a curious effect of a halo of moonlight. The flush mounted higher up the spinster’s cheeks until it crept over her forehead to the edge of her hair. For a moment she stood thus, looking at the youthful matron. Then, with a world of reproach in her tones, she said simply: “Miss Jessica!” Then she went up the stairs with quick and trembling limbs, but with an air of dignity that acted as a rebuke upon those lingering the hall.

“Proud Miss Ellie!” murmured Jessica, herself feeling ashamed.

“I do think,” began Mrs. Honan in a loud, strident key, “I do think myself that the man didn’t show very fine feeling. The idea of him a-spectin’ a woman ter jump at his head. Ef he wanted a wife, why didn’t he come a-lookin’ around modest an’ quiet-like in the good, old fashioned way?”

With that she swept out of the hall. She was down on the register as having passed her seventy-third birthday, and anyway, she mused, she had always preferred a yard full of chickens to a yard full of flowers, because chickens are more lively. They keep you better company, she said. Then, with or without verbal excuse, one woman after another left the hall. There were two with the deplorable squint, several far on the shaded side of seventy, some who wore honest wigs, and some too honest to proclaim either that they did not dye their hair or that they had never sniffed at the contents of a snuffbox. Then there were the dear old ladies loyal to their dead husbands, the old ladies who did not care to give up the serene, uneventful security of the Old Ladies’ Home for a house shared only with a man afflicted with lumbago and very decided notions. However, ten remained, openly ashamed, yet not sufficiently ashamed to reject Samuel Jessup’s hand before they had seen him.

“It don’t mean that none of us promise to take him, oh no!” said Mrs. Young, a woman living in the memories of her long reign as a belle. “It only means that we’d like to get a good look at him. We’ve had plenty of chances all our lives. We ain’t none of us here because no man wanted us—neither us widders nor us maidens. We’re here from ch’ice, Miss Jessica, from _ch’ice_! But still if there’s another ch’ice open to us with a real, kind honest man—his letter shows he’s that, bless his heart!—we’d each of us ten like to have one tenth of a show at him.”

Then, greatly flustered at having spoken with such unmaidenly freedom on such a subject, Mrs. Young moved away from the desk across the hall and out of doors, where she could take a good long breath. After she had gone, one of the nine remaining candidates wondered aloud how Mrs. Young would look without her false front, for of course no one would deceive Samuel Jessup as to her quantity of hair.

“But the rest of it?” whispered another. “You can’t wash all that dye off in one day, can you?”

“Waal!” retorted a third, coming hotly to Mrs. Young’s rescue, “a man who wears a wig hasn’t no right ter be so particular.”

Said the first one firmly: “She shouldn’t deceive him.”

Answered a third: “Deceive him all she wants ter as long as it’s in somethin’ no man would have wit enough ter find out.”

At three o’clock to the minute, Samuel Jessup appeared, emerging from a closed coach together with a plump middle-aged woman who carried with extraordinary care a large market basket covered with a red tablecloth.

“Good gracious!” exclaimed Mrs. Young, peeking with half the household from the upper hall windows. “He’s been an’ picked up a wife on the road an’ come to offer his apologies.”

She laughed merrily at the possible joke against them all. And yet what a pity that would be, too, for Samuel was a pleasant, self-reliant looking little man with his head hanging sideways as if he had never lifted it from a one-sided attack of the mumps. Somehow this attitude made him appear younger. But the wig! That was too much in evidence and they all decided that it must be clipped at once. Samuel did not scan the house with lover-like eagerness as he came up the steps. Instead, he watched the basket with intense interest—so intense that he stumbled on the way.

“I bet he’s got a dog in it!” cried one of the candidates. “I will not stand no leetle measly pet dog around the house, a-sheddin’ hair all over the parlor sofy. I ain’t agoin’ downstairs!”

But she went with the others and met Mr. Jessup. The woman with the basket was nowhere in sight, having been relegated to the dining-room. No attempt whatever was made to explain her to the old ladies. Samuel Jessup was immediately enthroned by the matron in her private office; and one by one in alphabetical order of their names, Jessica sent the candidates to him, thinking that this would be more delicate than to have them all face him at once. Delicacy in this affair did not seem so difficult after coming face to face with little Mr. Jessup. Very modestly, and with his head more on one side than ever, he told the matron that she must convey to the ladies his doubts as to any one of them accepting him. He thought it was very kind of them to receive him anyway, and—this with a quick keen look into Jessica’s wise and bonny face—he hoped that they would not laugh at him.

The first five filed out of the room after only a few moments’ conversation, each briefly explaining in her turn why Mr. Jessup “hadn’t took” with her. One did not like the way he held his head. One never could stand that wig. She knew that it got askew every time he took a nap. One thought him too much like her dead husband. One thought him too unlike her departed John to make a happy union possible. One said she never could bear a pump dribbling water in the kitchen; and he was too stubborn and “sot” in his ways to take it out. Then went in the sixth—she who had not rebuked the deceit of Mrs. Young’s dyed hair and she who hated pet dogs. After a longer period, she came out and with customary candor bluntly declared that she would have had Samuel Jessup in a minute, but she saw that she did not take with him.

“The woman that gits him will be lucky,” she declared, “basket and all.” Nothing more would she tell. Then into the private room went the seventh old lady. She immediately demanded of Samuel an explanation of the woman and the basket; whereupon Samuel said that he refused to be questioned by any woman and he knew that they could not get along well together. She came out sniffing contemptuously, and vowed that in her opinion there was something very mysterious about this man. Number Eight went in even more eagerly, on tip-toe. She had read romances all her life. She loved mysteries and she was so sensitive about living in an Old Ladies’ Home partly on charity that she would have married any man that asked her. Almost any man—but not quite. She and Samuel Jessup talked together for a long time.

“I am sure we would git along,” said Samuel at last, his heart stirred to sympathy for one who hated a Home of this sort with the same proud hatred that he had borne. “But,” he went on, “before I let you decide, I be agoin’ to take you into the dining-room and show you the basket. What belongs in the basket belongs with me an’s agoin’ with me. I ain’t much ter git, but come an’ see the basket!”

Her romantic old heart beating high with excitement, Miss Ruby tip-toed ahead of him, across a tiny, dark back hall into the dining-room. On the very threshold she paused, her eyes popping out of her head as she looked within; then she uttered a faint scream and went scuttling into a corner among the shadows of the dim passage.

“Good-bye, Mr. Jessup!” she called tragically. “Good-bye!” and there ended Samuel Jessup’s affair with Miss Ruby.

A humorous light twinkled in the old man’s eye as he went back into Jessica’s office and waited for the ninth candidate. She was a woman famous in the Home for always managing to find some one to wait upon her, and she wanted a house of her own with several servants, an unobtrusive husband, and stained glass windows in the parlor.

“I kinder fancied stained glass winders myself,” said Samuel. “But you can’t be keepin’ a hull passel o’ servants. One servant gal—that’s all I agree to, ma’am.”

She thought that one servant might do if they put out the washing. Samuel looked dubious for a moment, seeing himself a henpecked husband, and then that twinkle came again into his wholesome eye.

“Before we decide, m’am, I want ter show you what I got in that there basket. Me an’ the basket be inseparable.”

She preceded him into the dining-room, her shoulders high and her nose uplifted. She stood for some moments staring at the contents of the basket, the basket’s owner, and the basket’s guardian staring at her. Slowly her face grew rigid. She shook her head once. She strove to speak, swallowed hard and then gasped;

“How dast you presume, Samuel Jessup!”

Samuel winked at the guardian of the basket and chuckled soft and low. But then he realized that he really wanted a wife, a companion in his old age, a mistress for the snug little home, and now there was but one candidate left. To be sure he might find some one outside the Home, but he had wanted in truth to share all that he had—the basket not excepted—with one who had tasted as he had the well buttered bread of charity in an old folks’ home. Soberly he went back to the private room, and Mrs. Young came drifting leisurely in to him. She congratulated herself on being the last. She wanted never to be twitted with having failed to give the others every possible chance, and she knew that had she entered the private room first the result would have been the same. She would be the wife selected by Mr. Jessup if she wanted him. A woman with real charm for old men, a woman who could have graced many a home in her lazy, yet pleasingly frivolous ways, she felt that Samuel could not resist her if she chose to throw her charm around him.

“This is a very ridiculous position,” she began, with a quavering little trill of laughter. “I never went a-seekin’ a man before. They always sought me.”

This was more than Samuel’s natural gallantry could withstand. He took her small lean fingers in his and drew her down beside him on the couch. Her fingers twined around his hand. She wore jewels—relics of bygone splendors—which seemed pitifully out of keeping with her present state. To Samuel they told a long, familiar story, and sent a feeling of pity out from him to her.

“Mis’ Young,” he said gently. “I am jest as much obliged to all of you folks fer seein’ me as I kin be.”

“To us _all_?” she asked and lifted her eyes.

They had been very fine blue eyes once and now they were bright in spite of their puffy lids. And her thin hair, parted simply in the middle, was more becoming than the false front had been. He wondered that she had no gray hairs, but was too straightforward himself to suspect the deception. What a very pretty woman she still was, and, with that not displeasing girlish attempt at flirtation, how exceedingly feminine!