Government League, the latter being one of the organizations interested in securing the submission to the states of the so-called "gateway" amendment to the article providing for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States (A. Y. B., 1912, p. 46). The National Association for Constitutional Government, organized in 1915 under the leadership of Dr. David Jayne Hill, has for its purpose the preservation of the institutions of the United States, primarily "by explaining their meaning," and secondarily "by demanding sufficiently deliberate consideration of proposals of change in the national Constitution to warrant a reasoned acceptance of them before their adoption"; it will presumably oppose the efforts of such organizations as the National Popular Government League to hasten the amendment of the Federal Constitution. WOMAN SUFFRAGE women preferred to ask for such limited extension of the franchise as might be within the power of the legislature to grant without a constitutional amendment. Illinois, where the legislature of 1913 authorized women to vote for presidential electors and certain municipal and other local officers, is an example of such a state. Following the precedent there established, the demand for presidential suffrage, so-called, was made in 1915 in several states, but without success. The net result of the legislative activity of 1915 was to provide definitely for the submission of the question of votes for women to the voters of four states in 1915 and to the voters of three states in 1916, and to make contingent provision for the submission of the question at some future time to the voters of two other states. Legislative Action.-The question | question in 1916, since provision had of votes for women was the most already been made for the submission widely discussed question of the year of three measures. In a dozen or in the field of popular government. more state legislatures woman-sufThe legislatures of half the states frage measures met defeat. In some considered proposals to extend the of these states the mode of amending franchise to women, either on the the constitution is so difficult that same terms as men by constitutional the advocates of equal suffrage for amendment or on such terms as might be feasible without constitutional amendment. In Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the submission of constitutional amendments establishing equal suffrage for men and women had already been approved by preceding legislatures, and the endorsement of submission by the legislatures of 1915 was all that was necessary in order to bring the question before the voters. In the last four states, the question was voted on at the fall elections in 1915; in Iowa, it will be voted on at the general election of 1916. In two other states, where endorsement of submission by one legislature is sufficient to bring the question before the voters, the necessary action was taken by the legislatures of 1915 and the question will be voted on in 1916, namely in South Dakota and West Virginia. In Tennessee the legislature of 1915 approved the submission of the question to the voters, but there must be an endorsement of this action by another legislature before the question can be submitted. In Arkansas, where the legislature of 1915 also approved the submission of the question to the voters, a requirement in the state constitution that no more than three measures may be submitted to the people at any one election will prevent the submission of the suffrage The Suffrage Campaign.-The campaign for the adoption of the equalsuffrage amendments submitted to the voters in the four great eastern states, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, was the most active and the most hotly contested of all the campaigns yet held for the extension of the franchise to women. The leading civic and industrial organizations having a right to voice the opinions of women either had already endorsed woman suffrage or were placed on record in and declined to state how he would have voted had he been able to do so. At the same time the President was careful to state that he considered the question a non-partisan one, which should be settled by each state for itself and should not be introduced into national politics. The New York Constitutional Convention avoided the question, and the major political organizations in general assumed a noncommittal attitude, at least in public. The leading men in all parties in all the campaign states declared themselves for or against the suffrage for women, but the actual campaigning was done in the main by the women themselves. The antisuffragists were equally active, and the question of woman suffrage was more thoroughly discussed both in the press and on the stump than any other question submitted to the voters of the eastern states in modern times. favor of political equality between men and women; these included, notably, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, representing the organized club-women of the country, the National Grange, representing the women living on the farms, the American Federation of Labor and the National Women's Trade Union League, representing the working women in the cities and industrial districts, the National Educational Association, representing the school teachers of the country, the National Association of Collegiate Alumnae, representing the college graduates, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and many other organizations of a similar character. Some organizations, such as the Daughters of the American Revolution, have declined to express any opinion on political questions such as that of votes for women, but no important organization representing the opinions of women went on record as opposed to the extension of the franchise. In Massachusetts, where an election for governor was also held, vote on the question. At a special every candidate for governor an- election on Oct. 19th, woman suffrage nounced himself in favor of woman was defeated by 133,282 to 184,390. suffrage, but neither the Republican Two weeks later, on Nov. 2, it was nor the Democratic party endorsed it defeated in Massachusetts, New York, in its platform. President Wilson and Pennsylvania by large majoriand five members of his Cabinet were ties (see VI, Amendments to State voters in states where the issue was Constitutions). The advocates of to be settled at the polls. The President and four of the Cabinet-members, Secretaries Redfield, McAdoo, Garrison and Wilson, announced their intention to vote in favor of woman suffrage; the fifth failed to register pp. 59-61). Results of Elections.-New Jersey was the first of the eastern states to equal suffrage immediately inaugurated a new campaign for the extension of the ballot to women by means of an amendment to the Federal Constitution (A. Y. B., 1914, INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL Direct Legislation.-The only state times as many affirmative votes as to vote in 1915 on any constitutional were cast in the negative, but failed amendment relating to direct legisla- of adoption because of the provision tion by the electorate was Maryland, in the constitution of that state that where an amendment to provide for amendments to be adopted must rethe referendum alone was submitted. ceive an affirmative majority of all the This amendment was endorsed by both votes cast in the election. The amend the major parties and was adopted at ment to be submitted in Iowa is the the polls by a vote of 33,150 to 10,022. same as that approved for the first In two states, Iowa and Minnesota, time, as required by the constitution the legislatures approved amendments of that state, by the legislature of for submission to the voters in 1916. 1913 (4. Y. B., 1913, p. 76). In four The Minnesota amendment is sub-states, Arizona, California, Ohio and stantially like that submitted to the voters in 1914 (A. Y. B., 1911, p. 183; 1913, p. 76), which received four Washington, the legislatures of 1915 proposed amendments to the existing provisions of their respective consti tutions and laws relating to the in- preme courts holding state statutes itiative and referendum, to the end unconstitutional because of conflict that the process of direct legislation with the Constitution, treaties, or might be more adequately safeguard- laws of the United States. Heretoed against various alleged abuses. In fore, as is pointed out in the Report Arizona it was proposed that no of the Committee on Noteworthy measure may be adopted under the Changes in Statute Law to the Amerdirect popular initiative unless it re- ican Bar Association, ceives a majority of all the votes there has been no review of such decicast in the election; in California, sions because, the statute having been that no proposal to contract debt may declared unconstitutional, and hence unbe approved by less than a two-thirds enforceable in the state courts, no one majority of those voting thereon (de- might ask the United States courts to was deprived of any rights which he feated); in Ohio, that no measure vindicate. One supreme court might twice defeated at the polls may be hold a workmen's-compensation law consubmitted oftener than once in six teenth Amendment and therefore uncontrary to due process under the Fouryears (defeated); and in Washing- stitutional, while another state court ton, that initiative-petitions must be might hold similar legislation consistent signed in the presence of an officer with the due-process requirement and authorized to administer oaths, and that no one but owners of property may vote on proposals to contract debt. In Arkansas, on the other hand, an amendment was initiated under the provisions of the existing law to diminish the present restrictions upon the power of direct legislation. The Recall. There was no noteworthy action in the states during 1915 with respect to the direct popular recall of officers. An act of Congress (Acts of the 63d Cong., 3d sess., chap. 2), however, had an important bearing on a proposal much discussed during the presidential campaign of 1912, the recall of judicial decisions (A. Y. B., 1912, p. 67). This act provides that the Supreme Court of the United States may review on writ of certiorari the decisions of state su hence constitutional. Such inconsistent decisions have occasionally occurred, especially in connection with so-called social-welfare legislation, and the change, by enabling the Supreme Court of the United States to give a uniform interpretation to the Federal Constitution in all cases arising thereunder, undoubtedly diminishes one of the causes of criticism of the exercise of the judicial power to declare statutes unconstitutional. It does not entirely remove the causes of such criticism, however, since it is still possible for the supreme courts of states, where the due-process clause exists in the state constitution, to differ as much as heretofore in their interpretation of the meaning of the clause as it appears in the constitutions. ELECTORAL REFORM Absent Voting.-Four states legis- | legislature. In New York the Conlated in 1915 with respect to the sub- stitutional Convention approved a ject of absent voting (A. Y. B., 1914, proposal to facilitate registration by pp. 67-68). The total number of voters unable to be at home during states which make some provision any of the days of registration. There for participation in elections on the are unmistakable signs in many states part of voters unable to be at home of a disposition to modernize an elecon election day is now nine, the new toral system which in some respects states added to the list in 1915 being is ill adapted to the conditions of Colorado, Michigan, Montana and modern industrial life, but much reWashington. In addition, a consti- mains to be done. New corrupt-practutional amendment authorizing the tices acts were adopted in Kansas, legislature to deal with the subject Louisiana and Nevada, but in general was proposed in Texas, and in Massa- there was no important legislation in chusetts the legislature directed that this connection. Preferential voting a special report on the subject be at primary elections was adopted in prepared and laid before the next one state, Indiana (see infra), but was abandoned in two states, Wis-proval of the voters, provided that the consin and Minnesota (A. Y. B., 1914, direct-primary law should take effect p. 66). Direct Nominations.-There was less legislation than in former years with respect to the conduct of primary elections and the nomination of candidates. Two states, Wyoming and Illinois, adopted the principle of non-partisanship in the nomination and election of judicial officers. In the former state the law has a general application; in the latter it is restricted to Cook County. in California an act extended the principle of non-partisanship, already established for judicial and local officers, to all officers chosen in the state with the exception of presidential electors, United States Senators, and Representatives in Congress. The purpose of the change from partisanship to non-partisanship in the selection of state officers was to separate so far as possible national and state issues, not to abolish parties in the government of the state. The Progressive leaders, who were responsible for the legislation, hoped it would stimulate the organization of state parties to represent differences of opinion among the voters in state affairs. The opponents of the law invoked the referendum against it, and it was submitted to the voters on Oct. 26, and rejected by them. A piece of reactionary legislation, intended to pave the way for a return to the system of nominating partisan candidates for state office in delegate conventions was similarly held up in the neighboring state of Washington. In South Dakota the Richards primary law, twice approved by the voters at the polls (A. Y. B., 1912, p. 60; 1913, p. 74), was finally repealed by the legislature itself and a substitute of the usual type enacted. The South Dakota Supreme Court sustained this repeal of a popularly initiated act, but held that the legislature could not prevent a referendum on such appeal by declaring it an emergency. In three states, Indiana, Vermont and West Virginia, comprehensive state-wide primary laws were enacted for the first time, bringing the total number of direct primary states to 42. In Vermont, however, the legislature, distrustful of the ap either in 1916 or in 1927, the voters themselves to choose between the two dates at the spring town-meetings. If the majority of the voters are opposed to the law, they can thus defer its enforcement for a decade, during which period the legislature will presumably repeal it, unless public sentiment should subsequently become more favorable. This curious arrangement is substantially a submission of the measure to a referendum, a procedure which the constitution of the state does not permit except by such process of indirection. Indiana Direct-Primary Law.-The Indiana direct-primary law of 1915 contains a number of novel features worthy of special note. Separate ballots are provided for each party polling ten per cent. of the vote at the last preceding election. Other parties do not come under the law. There is no provision for party enrolment, although a registration law was passed at the same time as the primary law, but a voter, in order to participate in a primary, must declare that he has in the past generally supported the candidates of the party for whose ballot he calls and intends to support its candidates at the ensuing election. The ballot is so arranged as to permit the voter to indicate his first and second choices among the candidates for the most important offices, namely, governor, United States Senator, and President. The preference of the voters is ascertained according to the method first adopted in Wisconsin (A. Y. B., 1912, p. 69), and if any candidate for one of these offices is found to be preferred by a majority of the voters, he shall be declared nominated by the state convention, or, in the case of a candidate for presidential nomination, the state delegation to the national convention shall be instructed for him. If no candidate is preferred by a majority, the nomination may be made by the state convention at its discretion. The state convention is also authorized to make nominations for all the minor places on the state ticket, and candidates for these nominations do not enter the primaries at all. Candidates for nomination to organ of party government than under most direct-primary laws, which is desirable if it is to attract the type of men who will draft suitable platforms and otherwise properly represent the members of the party at large in the general conduct of party affairs. the legislature and local offices are selected directly by the voters in the primaries without the use of preferential voting. Delegates to the national conventions are chosen by the state conventions and must be pledged to support the candidates for the several presidential nominations preferred by the majority of the several Presidential Preference Primary.— parties, respectively, voting in the The adoption of presidential preferprimary, unless no preference is ex- ence primary laws in Indiana and pressed. This law possesses three West Virginia in 1915 brings the todistinct advantages over primary laws tal number of presidential-preference of the ordinary type. First, the ex- primary states to 20 (A. Y. B., 1913, clusion from the primary of candi- pp. 72-74) or, including Vermont, dates for minor places on the state to 21. A majority of the deleticket relieves the voters of the bur- gates to the national conventions of den of making a choice between can- both the major parties in 1916 will didates for offices in which they are be chosen in these states and the opnot ordinarily interested, that is, it eration of the system will be observed introduces the principle of the short with interest. Two important points ballot into primary elections. Second, are not yet clear in connection with the system of preferential voting re- the operation of this system, namely, moves the danger of objectionable how long are delegates from states minority nominations in the prima- which provide for pledging their delries, which is always present when egations to the choice of the voters there are more than two candidates as indicated in the primaries to be for a single nomination and the law bound by their pledges, if their canawards the nomination to the candi- didate fails to receive a nomination date with a plurality. Third, the upon the first ballot, and how far are reservation to the state convention of delegates from states which do not the functions of nominating candi- provide for pledging their delegations dates for minor places on the state to the choice of the voters as indicatticket, of nominating candidates for ed in the primaries bound to observe the major offices when no preference the preference of those whom they is expressed by a majority in the pri- represent. The experience under the mary, and of selecting delegates to ten presidential-preference primary the national convention subject to the laws which were in operation during instructions, if any, expressed by a the primary campaign of 1912 was inmajority in the primary, makes the conclusive on both these points (A. Y. state convention a more influential B., 1912, pp. 61-63). THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Organization and Personnel.-The | vention met regularly from April 26 seventh Constitutional Convention to Sept. 4, when it adjourned until held in the state of New York convened at Albany on April 6, 1915. The Convention consisted of 168 delegates, of whom 15 were elected at large and 153 by senatorial districts, three from each district. The delegates were elected at the regular election in November, 1914 (A. Y. B., 1914, p. 57), 116 being chosen as Republicans and 52 as Democrats. A temporary organization was effected, and the Convention adjourned to April 26, when it reassembled and effected a permanent organization. The Con Sept. 9, in order to give time for the committee on revision and engrossment to prepare the final draft of the constitution with proposed amendments, and adjourned sine die on Sept. 10. During this period 725 proposals to amend the constitution were introduced and 33 were adopted. The final draft of the constitution with the proposed amendments was approved for submission to the people by a vote of 118 to 33, the affirmative being composed of 101 Republicans and 17 Democrats, the negative |