bade the sale of blank cartridges or toy pistols in which they might be used. California and Oregon each made it a misdemeanor to transport dynamite or other explosives on a passenger train between points within the state. Washington made it unlawful for one who is not and has not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States to carry or possess a firearm without license. Michigan declared it illegal to carry concealed weapons in counties of more than 150,000 population, while Montana passed a similar law with respect to carrying concealed weapons in towns or cities. New York passed a drastic law prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weapons in New York City. Kansas passed a law regulating the use of artesian wells and making it a misdemeanor to waste the water of such wells. Michigan passed a law declaring a closed season for beaver, Vermont did the same for beaver and otter. Oklahoma and Virginia forbade the sale of adulterated or misbranded stock-food. Kansas and Oklahoma made it a misdemeanor to move domestic animals in violation of a quarantine regulation. Texas forbade the importation of sheep affected with scab. Corrupt Practices.-Utah declared it unlawful to pay money or promise office or employment in order to secure votes or political support or aid. Washington made it a gross misdemeanor to vote twice at an election and a felony to vote when knowingly unqualified. Kansas forbade the purchase of newspaper support and the printing of political advertising in a newspaper unless plainly marked "advertising" and signed by some responsible person. Indiana and Ohio passed corruptpractice acts defining and punishing corrupt practices in election. Texas made the act of an officer who makes a false return in an election upon a constitutional amendment a felony. (See VIII, Popular Government and Current Politics.) have been declared unconstitutional; one because it was held to violate the state constitution; the other because found by the court to be in violation of the constitution of the United States. One was an act passed by the legislature of the state of Washington, obviously for the purpose of minimizing the evil incident to the defense of insanity in criminal cases. The statute declared that inability by reason of insanity, idiocy, or imbecility to understand the nature or wrong of an act committed should be no defense to a charge of crime based upon such act. Also, upon the trial no evidence of insanity, idiocy, or imbecility might be given, but if upon conviction the presiding judge should be satisfied the defendant was insane when the act was committed or at the time of the trial he might send the convict to an insane asylum until cured. The statute was held unconstitutional by a majority of the Supreme Court of the state. Not all of the judges forming the majority agreed that it was the intent of the statute to abolish the defense of insanity, part basing their opinions on the ground that no adequate trial on the issue presented by such defense was given by the statute. Part of the court held that the statute attempted to abolish the defense of insanity, and a majority agreed that if it did it would be unconstitutional on that ground. The specific provisions of the constitution relied upon to sustain this view were the provisions providing for due process of law and the preservation of trial by jury. These provisions are found in nearly, if not quite all, of the constitutions in the country. Hence if the view of the Washington court is correct, our constitutions do not permit of convicting an insane man of crime. Contracts of Service.-The other unconstitutional statute was a statute of the state of Alabama, which, as amended, provided in effect, that one, who with intent to defraud entered into a written contract of service and thereby secured from his employer The Defense of Insanity.-Within money or goods, and afterwards with the past year two penal statutes, the same intent, and without just both of marked significance, passed cause, and without refunding the by the legislatures of different states money or paying for the property, refused to perform the service, should | quisition of money or property, it be punished by a fine equal to twice may be very difficult, if not imposthe damage suffered by the injured sible, for one who has secured money party. It was moreover provided that or property by virtue of a contract the refusal to perform the service which he has broken to prove that without refunding the money or pay- his intention was not fraudulent. In ing for the property should be prima fact, it would be so difficult in the facie evidence of such fraudulent in-ordinary case that the court held tent. Besides this statute, a rule of that the statute, in effect, made the evidence enforced by the Alabama mere breach of the contract a crime. courts prevents the accused under As to the second question: the Thirsuch a statute from testifying on teenth Amendment prohibits involunthe trial, "as to his uncommunicated tary servitude and provides that motives, purpose, or intention." One Congress may enforce this prohibiBailey was convicted under the stat-tion by appropriate legislation. Unute, fined $30, and in default of pay- der this provision Congress has ment sentenced to prison. The Su- passed a statute prohibiting peonage. preme Court of Alabama sustained This statute has been held to be conthe conviction and a writ of error stitutional. Under it peonage has was taken to the United States Su- been defined as a condition of compreme Court. Though the evidence pulsory service based upon indebtedshowed that Bailey was a negro there ness, it being immaterial that the was no evidence before the court to service was originally undertaken show that that fact had any bearing voluntarily. Does a statute making on the case. Hence, the question of it a crime to break a contract of serracial discrimination did not arise, vice compel service? The court said the court saying that the statute that if the statute had directed the might be viewed "in the same man- state constabulary to assist the emner as if it had been enacted in New ployer in compelling his servants to York or in Idaho." This left two remain in his service it would in its questions to be considered (1) does effect be compelling service; and that the statute in connection with the it was none the less compelling serrule of evidence described make a vice because it authorized imprisonbreach of a contract of personal ser- ment at hard labor in a state penivice a crime; (2) if so, is it in vio- tentiary instead. Hence the Supreme lation of the constitution and stat- Court declared that the state could utes of the United States? It may not punish, by imprisonment, a man be seen that, while the statute pur- merely because he has broken his ports to punish the fraudulent ac- contract to work for another. VIII. POPULAR GOVERNMENT AND CURRENT POLITICS ARTHUR N. HOLCOMBE PROGRESS OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT The progress of popular govern- and older direct-primary laws in ment during the year 1911 may be several other states were improved summarized as follows. In the field and extended. The system of direct of federal politics, the reform of pro- nomination of candidates for all cedure in the House of Representa- elective state offices now exists in tives has been completed by the two-thirds of the states, and has transfer from the speaker to the been established for the nomination caucus of the majority party of the of locally elected state officers in right to select the committee on several others. The presidentialrules and to hold it to a continuous preference primary, first introduced responsibility for the exercise of its in Oregon in 1910, has been estabgreat powers. Congress failed to lished in four other states, with submit a constitutional amendment more doubtless to be added before for the direct election of United the holding of the national convenStates senators, but the "Oregon tions in June, 1912. Campaign pub plan" was adopted in seven states, licity and limitation of political exmaking the total number of Oregon- penditures legislation has been enplan states now ten. The initiative acted by the United States, and by and referendum were adopted in two ten of the states. More than threestates, making the total number of fourths of the states now have such direct-legislation states now 12, and measures upon their statute books. provision for the submission of di- Woman suffrage has been adopted in rect-legislation constitutional amend- one state, making the total number ments to the people in 1912 was of woman-suffrage states now six, made in seven other states. The re- and the legislatures of four other call upon the Oregon plan was adopt- states have provided for the subed in one state, and was adopted in mission of woman-suffrage amendone other state with the exclusion ments to the people in 1912. These of procedure for the recall of judges. various phases of the progress of Recall constitutional amendments popular government are discussed in upon the Oregon plan will be sub- detail in the following pages. The mitted in 1912 to the people of one most important contribution to the state, and, excluding the recall of literature of popular government and the judiciary, in three other states. current politics during the year is The mandatory state-wide direct pri- | Richard S. Childs' Short Ballot Prinmary was established in four states, ciples. REFORM OF THE RULES OF CONGRESS Election of Standing Committees. on popular government in the -The removal of the speaker from AMERICAN YEAR BOOK for 1910 (pp. the committee on rules and the re- 138-140). The notable event of the organization of the latter upon a past year in the development of the basis of more effective party respon- rules of procedure in Congress was sibility were described in the article the vesting of the power of electing all standing committees in the House, tion of the Republican caucus, by the itself. Previously, all committees Republican floor leader. The memhad been appointed by the speaker, bers of the committees of Congress, but the election of the reorganized as thus nominated by the Democratic committee on rules in March, 1910, caucus and designated by the Repubby the House foreshadowed the elec- lican floor leader, were promptly tion of all standing committees in a elected by the House of Representasimilar manner, when the next new tives itself. House should meet. The sixty-sec- Power of the Party Caucus.-The ond Congress met in extra session on rules of the sixty-second Congress April 4, 1911, and the new rules re- consummate a profound change in ported from the Democratic com- the organization and activity of parmittee on rules contained the ex- ties in Congress. Party leadership pected amendment. Indeed, the is taken from the speaker and dividDemocratic members of the sixty-ed between the chairmen of the comsecond Congress had already met in mittees on rules and on ways and caucus in the preceding January, se- means. Both of these gentlemen lected the Democratic members of are held continuously responsible to the new committee on ways and the party caucus. The caucus of the means, and committed to the latter majority party thus becomes the the task of nominating the Demo- real source of all legislation on the cratic members of the committee on issues of the day. More than ever rules and of all other standing com- before, the responsibility for the fulmittees. The official slate, thus au- fillment of party pledges, so far as thorized, was duly prepared and, lies within the power of the House upon submission to the Democratic of Representatives, is now lodged caucus at its next meeting in April, where those who hold the power can confirmed. The minority (Repub- be held to effective accountability. lican) members of the standing com- The congressional caucus is now the mittees were designated on resolu-main-spring of party action. DIRECT ELECTION OF UNITED STATES SENATORS The Borah Resolution.-The popu- holding senatorial elections. The lar demand for the direct election of purpose of these constitutional proUnited States senators was frus-visions was to ensure to the federal trated by the artifices of the sena- government the power to control the tors themselves. A joint resolution to provide for the submission of an appropriate constitutional amendment to the states was twice passed by the House, and twice amended by the Senate in such a way as to prevent its adoption by the necessary two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. The original Borah resolution provided for the election of senators by the people of the states, and further provided that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators should be as prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. Under the constitution in its present form, the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senator are prescribed by the states, but Congress may alter such make reg sto election of its own officers. The single limitation to this power of federal control originated in the obvious propriety of protecting the state legislatures in their liberty to meet wheresoever they might choose within the limit of their several states. The Borah joint resolution to provide for the election of United States senators by the people would have had the effect, if adopted and ratified, of depriving the federal government of all power to regulate such elections, notwithstanding that the federal government possesses full power to regulate congressional elections. Professedly in order to retain for the federal government the same control over the election of senators as it has always exercised over the election of congressmen, the therland amendment was intro form by a two-thirds vote June 12, and the resulting disagreement between the two houses prevented the submission to the states of any provision for the popular election of United States senators. duced. This amendment simply pro- | altered by the adoption of the Suthposed to omit that part of the Borah erland amendment in the Senate. It joint resolution transferring to the passed the latter body in its amended states the full power to regulate the times and manner of electing senators. Effect of Sutherland Amendment. -The constitutional effect of this omission would have been to leave the question of the control of the elections of senators in statu quo, The Oregon Plan.-The failure of but the political effect was to alien- Congress to act upon the popular deate all those Southern senators who mand for the submission of a constiwere ready to support the Borah tutional amendment to provide for joint resolution. The Southern the direct election of senators was states already possess what is sub-not allowed by the states to prevent stantially the popular election of altogether the adoption of more disenators through the instrumentality rect methods for the election of senaof the direct primary as operated by tors. During the course of the year, the Democratic party. It is a mode at least 15 legislatures memorialized of popular election which was de- Congress on behalf of direct elecvised for the purpose of eliminating tions, and seven states, California, the negro vote, and which may be Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, New described more accurately as election Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin, adopted by Democrats only. The Southern the Oregon plan of pledging candisenators were unwilling to sanction dates for the legislature without reany change in the constitution, even gard to party affiliation, to vote for one so generally approved by them the people's choice for United States as the direct election of senators by senators, as indicated at the general the people, that threatened to in- election. In one other state, Iowa, crease the likelihood of federal in- the Oregon plan was adopted by the terference in the conduct of elections legislature, but vetoed by the goverin the South, or to endanger white nor. In another, South Dakota, the supremacy in politics. The Southern plan was rejected by the legislature, senators feared the renewal of at- but submitted to the people by initempts on the part of the federal gov-tiative petition to be voted on at the ernment to solve the problem of ne- general election in 1912. Altogether, gro suffrage, and were resolved to there are now ten states in which reserve that problem, so far as might the people actually have the power be, for the South alone. Popular to elect their United States senators election of senators under unlimited without anything more than a perstate control, they were anxious to functory intervention on the part of secure, but popular election under the legislature. (See Popular Govunlimited federal control they de-ernment and Current Politics, AMERclined to accept. Northern senators ICAN YEAR BOOK, 1910, p. 140.) The who supported the Sutherland popular demand for the wider adopamendment were aware of this atti- tion of the Oregon system of selecttude on the part of the South. Some ing United States senators was emof them, doubtless, welcomed it as a phasized by the deadlocks over the convenient means of evading a direct election of a senator in the two contest on the sole issue of popular Western states, still without the election. At all events, the Suther-state-wide direct primary, in which land amendment was adopted Feb. new senators were to be elected by 24, by a majority of 50 to 37. The the legislatures in 1911, Colorado and amended joint resolution then failed Montana. The wearisome exhibition to pass by the necessary two-thirds, in these states of the inefficiency of Feb. 28, by a vote of 54 to 33. The the method of electing senators by Borah joint resolution was again in- uninstructed legislatures furnished troduced into the special session of pointed illustrations for the arguthe sixty-second Congress. It passed ments in favor of some system of the House April 13, but was again popular senatorial elections. |