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.