building in excess of two per cent of the taxable property within its borders. (The votes by which these measures were approved were 59,452 to 43,447 and 57,258 to 43,858). The other road measures illustrate admirably the strain to which direct legislation is being subjected in Oregon; also, as some will say, the good sense of the voters in defeating measures which are not clearly preferable to rival proposals. Two elaborate measures were introduced by initiative petition: one urged by the Oregon State Grange, to create a state highway department (rejected: 23,872 to 83,846); the other, without any acknowledged sponsor, to create a state road board (rejected: 30,897 to 75,590). Both were long and complicated measures, closely duplicating each other in several sections, and requiring careful discrimination to determine which would give promise of the higher effectiveness. The other three road measures all dealt with a single matter. In 1910 the state constitution was so amended as to allow counties to

issue bonds for building permanent roads. But in a test case the supreme court of the state held that the amendment was not self-executing. To meet this difficulty three measures were submitted to the people, each empowering any county to issue and sell bonds for road construction. The first was urged by the State Grange (rejected: 49,699 to 56,713); the second was without sponsor (rejected: 43,611 to 60,210). The third was supported by an argument purporting to be "submitted by the People of Southern Oregon," and signed by "Wm. M. Colvig, for the People of Southern Oregon"; but his credentials were not spread upon the record. It has been a moot question, what would happen if conflicting measures should chance to be adopted at the same time. This "Southern Oregonian" took no chances on that point. The ballot title of this measure ended with the following novel clause: "and repealing all constitutional amendments and acts in conflict with the proposed amendment, including those submitted to the people at this election." Interesting developments were prevented by the rejection of this proposal, by the heaviest vote cast against any of the three: 38,568 to 63,481.

Three measures were designed to modify the operation of

"people's rule." The first of these, referred to the people by the legislative assembly, proposed to require for the adoption of any constitutional amendment a majority vote of all the electors voting at such election, instead of merely a majority of those voting on the particular amendment. (Rejected: 32,934 to 70,325.) The second, proposed by initiative petition, included this very same requirement-an interesting case of overlapping-but insisted also that a majority of all such electors be required to adopt any initiative measure, while a majority merely of those voting thereon should suffice to reject measures referred to the people. (Rejected, 35,721 to 68,861.) The sponsors for direct legislation assailed both of these measures as devised to abolish the initiative. They pointed out that from 1857 to 1900 Oregon's constitution required that amendments be approved by a majority of all electors voting at the election, and that during those forty-three years not a single amendment secured enough votes for its adoption. They cited nineteen measures, enacted since 1902, which would have been rejected had this proposed restriction been in force. The voters came to the defence of the existing rule by majorities of substantially 35,000.

The third of these measures, urged by the People's Power League, was designed to reorganize the executive and legislative departments of the state government so as to bring them into accord with the spirit of direct legislation. It set forth in detail the operation of the initiative and referendum; and it provided for a legislative assembly consisting of but one chamber, containing sixty elected members, "chosen by such method of proportional representation of all the voters that, as nearly as may be practicable, any one-sixtieth of all the voters of the state voting for one person for representative shall insure his election." The governor and also the leading candidates of the defeated parties were to be ex officio members, each being the proxy in the legislative assembly for the total number of electors who had voted for his party's defeated candidates for representatives in the legislative assembly. Fifteen different classes of subjects were enumerated, upon which the legislative assembly was prohibited from passing special or local laws. In

general, this exceedingly complicated measure was the same as that submitted to the voters in 1910, though some of the absurdities in the earlier draft-notably its method of filling vacancies in the legislature-had been weeded out. The majority of over 40,000 (31,020 to 71,183) against this proposal, as compared with the majority of only 7335 against its more radical prototype in 1910, is another indication that Oregon voters are not to be stampeded into revolutionary change of the structure of their government.

The very first measure on the ballot, and the one which called out the largest vote (118,369), was the equal-suffrage amendment, "extending the right of suffrage to women." This is the fifth time in a dozen years that Oregon voters have passed upon this question. Heretofore the adverse majorities had steadily increased. In 1910 it was defeated by 23,795. But in that year the women won the ballot in Washington and the following year in California. Hemmed in on the west by the Pacific, and on the north, east and south by equalsuffrage states, Oregon yielded; or, as an ungallant observer put it, "in Oregon, mere man, finding himself between the Devil and the deep sea,' preferred not to drown!" The amendment was ratified: 61,265 to 57,104.

Three measures related to the state university. The first of these proposed that a single board of regents be created for the University of Oregon aud for the State Agricultural College, and that the support of the two institutions be derived exclusively from an annual levy of six-tenths of a mill on the dollar on all taxable property within the state. Advocates of this measure urged that concentrated authority and an assured income would create a more harmonious relation between the two institutions and promote higher standards of efficiency. On the other hand, opponents insisted that the tax would prove excessive in comparison both with needs and with ability to pay; that the two institutions ought to be combined at one place, thus avoiding duplication; and that present sources of income were adequate, until the state's educational policy should be settled. (Rejected: 48,701 to 57,279). The other bills were: for an appropriation of $175,000 for a new admin

istration building for the state university, and of something over $153,000, for salaries, improvements on buildings and grounds etc. at the same institutions; and for an appropriation of $175,000 for a library building and museum, also at the state university. Both were heavily defeated: 29,437 to 78,985 and 27,310 to 79,376.

The second place on the ballot was given to a proposal to create the office of lieutenant-governor, and to determine the order of succession in case of the death or disability of the governor. In such an event, the duties of the governorship were vested by the constitution in the secretary of state-an arrangement which tended to disorganize the work of both offices. This measure had been passed by unanimous vote in both houses of the legislative assembly, and was then referred to the people. No argument was presented against it in the campaign book, yet it was defeated (50,562 to 61,644) probably because it would have raised taxes by $200!

By a sweeping majority (64,508 to 48,078), it was decreed that in all cases where labor is employed, directly or through contractors or agents, by the state or by any minor political unit, no person shall be required or permitted to labor more than eight hours in any one day, except in cases of emergency or necessity, and then at double pay. Contractors are to be required to give bond that these rules will be observed, and also, when the contract is for a public building, that no liens or claims shall be filed against it.

By a majority of over 60,000 (82,981 to 21,738) the voters approved an act referred to them by the legislative assembly, making the stockholders in banking corporations liable to "pay for the benefit of depositors an amount equal to the par value of the stock held by any stockholder in addition to having originally paid the par value therefor "-imposing thus upon stockholders of Oregon state banks the same liability as that which rests upon stockholders in national banks. Having thus safeguarded deposits, the voters defeated (48,765 to 57,293) the "Blue Sky Bill," modeled on the existing Kansas law, and intended to protect purchasers of stock and bonds by regulating and supervising the corporations selling corporate stocks and

securities and by requiring a state license prior to any sales or negotiations therefor. Opposition was directed not against the object of this measure, but against its failure to cover false representations in sales of land etc. There was objection also to creating another costly appointive commission, instead of leaving the administration of such a law in the hands of the present elective officers.

Three measures dealt with penology. By a vote of 41,951 to 64,578 the voters refused to abolish capital punishment in Oregon. An act prohibiting the employment of state penitentiary convicts by any private person or corporation, but authorizing the use of their labor on public highways and institutions, was approved (73,800 to 37,492); and, by substantially the same vote, similar regulations were applied to county, city and town convicts (71,367 to 37,731).

At the preceding session of the legislative assembly an act had been passed, "vesting the Railroad Commission with power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate every public-service corporation and utility in the State of Oregon, as to the adequacy of the service rendered and facilities provided, the fairness of rates, tolls and charges to be collected from the public therefor" etc. A referendum petition forced the submission of this measure to the voters' verdict. Its opponents charged that it was not a copy but a parody of the Wisconsin law, since the omission of certain provisions of that law perpetuated the franchises of two or three of the greatest of the public-service corporations; and they urged that the cost of supervision ought not to be saddled upon the taxpayer. Yet the voters-as did those of California in 1911-ratified (65,985 to 40,956) this enormous extension of the railroad commission's power.

Under the laws of Oregon, a county may not be created nor its lines changed by an ordinary act of the legislature; the matter must be submitted to the people. At the November election a measure was submitted providing a procedure whereby such changes might be made by vote of the electors in the areas affected; it was rejected: 40,199 to 56,992. One special bill for the creation of a new county was urged in the campaign book by the "Chairman of the Cascade Committee" as a matter