Michigan these bodies are to be chosen by county conventions, their size and apportionment being left to party regulation. Intermediate district committees are not provided by the Idaho law. In California they are to consist of members apportioned to political subdivisions and appointed by the district party candidate or candidates for a definite term. Michigan permits district candidates to elect to appoint these bodies, failing which, they are to be constituted of specified county-committee members, or representatives elected by them. The state committee in Idaho is composed of one member from each county chosen by the county committee; in California, of not less than three members from each congressional district, elected by the state convention; in Michigan, of members selected by the state convention, with no provision of law as to number and apportionment. There is little or no provision respecting the authority of these party agencies except in Idaho, where they are vested with unusually broad powers of party government as follows: "A county or state committee shall have the power to make its own rules and regulations, and prepare and announce party principles and platforms, call platform conventions, elect delegates to platform conventions, county, state, or national, provide for the election of such delegates otherwise and may perform the other functions inherent in such organizations by virtue of law or custom not inconsistent with the terms of this law."

Delegate conventions, county and state, form an integral part of the system of party organization and government in California and Michigan, but not in Idaho. The county convention in both states is composed of delegates elected at the primary by the party voters, their number and apportionment being left to the county committee. In California these delegates constitute the county convention during a period of two years. In Michigan, but not in California, the conventions of a party in the different counties must all meet on the same day. The chief purpose of this body, in addition to selecting the county committee, is to elect delegates to the state convention. The state committee in each state determines the size of the state convention and the representation of each county therein, but in Michigan delegates must be apportioned to the various counties according to the party vote cast by each. This body exists in California not only to elect state committeemen and delegates to the national convention, but also "for the purpose of promulgating platforms and transacting such other business of the party as is not inconsistent with the provisions of this act." Aside from selecting the state committee, the

only prescribed function of the state convention in Michigan is that of nominating candidates for the state offices excepted from the operation of the direct primary. The statute contains no reference to platform-making nor the selection of delegates to national conventions, leaving both entirely to party usage.

The Idaho law presumes and authorizes, but does not command, the holding of both state and county platform conventions of party delegates, each on a specified day, the state convention preceding those in the counties. The apportionment, and method of choice, of delegates are left entirely to the state and county committees respectively. The platform any convention announces is to be adopted by majority vote and made public within a set time. If any such platform convention is not called within one week after the primary election, it then becomes the "duty" of the party nominees for state or county offices as the case may be, to meet and "make and announce a platform of party principles."

Of these nine primary laws, that of Maryland, the sole representative of the third group, unites the largest degree of party autonomy in organization and procedure with an unsurpassed degree of party democracy in government. All delegates to state conventions or to those of any political subdivision, and, with the exception of the state committee, all "party executives or managing bodies or executive committees, of any sort whatever" are to be elected directly by the members of the party. Every element of the system of party organization is left to party usage, except for the requirement of a state convention, and a like body in each of the five counties where direct nominations are optional. The procedure of all party governing bodies is practically unregulated, aside from that of state conventions in nominating candidates for state offices. In addition to the function just named, these conventions "shall also have the power to select, in such manner as they may determine, delegates to national conventions and presidential electors and the governing bodies of . . political parties for the State" as a whole. As in Michigan there is no reference to the issuance of any platform of party principles.

In amending their primary laws in 1909, two states made important changes with respect to party organization. Oklahoma completely abolished the uniform system prescribed by her first primary law, leaving each party free to organize as usage and discretion may dictate. Nebraska reëstablished the former caucus and convention system of organization, with not a single party representative chosen by the

party voters at the primary election, and also provided for an innovation; namely, a platform convention held prior to the primary election, and expressly forbidden to take any action regarding candidates for nomination.

The acts of four of these states contain provisions regulating campaign contributions, expenditures, or political advertising in connection with primary elections.13 Colorado prohibits contributions to the expenses of any candidate by any "person, copartnership, organization, or corporation." California, Colorado, and Idaho limit expenditures both as to the amount to be spent and as to the purposes for which they may be used. They also provide for publicity through the filing of sworn itemized statements of all expenditures. In Idaho any expenditure for other than defined "personal expenses" not only renders the person liable to criminal prosecution, but also disqualifies from becoming a candidate for office or from holding office if elected. Michigan does not directly limit expenditures, but does indirectly by advanced regulation of political advertising. The posting of campaign cards or other political advertising matter is prohibited. The size of political cards or other matter for distribution, and also of any published likeness of a candidate for nomination, is strictly limited. Aside from such personal cards, circulars, etc., the avenues of political advertising are restricted to "a daily, weekly, or monthly newspaper which has been regularly and bona fide published and circulated for at least three months ." The size of type to be used is regulated, and the price paid is not to exceed that charged others for nonpolitical advertising. On the other hand, Oklahoma, in 1909, repealed completely the provisions of her law respecting political advertising in newspapers.

LEON E. AYLSWORTH.

Tax Legislation. Many important changes in constitutional provisions and in the statutes relating to taxation and assessment, have been made during the past twelve months. These changes are in some cases the direct result of the annual conferences held since

"In Maryland this ground had already been covered in her corrupt practices act of 1908.

This summary of tax legislation during the last twelve months is adapted from an address on this subject at the Fifth Annual Conference of the National Tax Association, Richmond, Va., September 5-8, 1911, by A. C. Pleydell, secretary of the Association, New York City.

1907 by the International (now National) Tax Association, and, in general, carry out policies that have been recommended by these conferences in formal resolutions and advocated in the addresses and discussions.

The leading tax provision of the new Arizona constitution follows the resolution of the first conference in 1907, inasmuch as it imposes no restraint upon the classification of property. The California constitutional amendment taxes public service corporation property as a whole, conforming to the resolution of the second conference favoring assessment of such corporations by the smallest possible number of assessing boards; and also provides a plan of separation of state and local revenue. The New York inheritance tax amendments follow the provisions of the model inheritance tax law endorsed at the fourth conference last year, and conform to the resolutions adopted at the first conference in regard to interstate comity and the avoidance of double taxation. The taxation of moneys and credits in Iowa and Minnesota has been changed and a low, fixed annual rate adopted, thus following the various recommendations and reports at the different conferences regarding the failure of the general property tax system, and the desirability of classifying property. The New York secured debt law goes a step further and substitutes a specific tax upon bonds and securities in place of the general property assessment.

Constitutional Provisions. Constitutional conventions were held last year in Arizona and New Mexico for the purpose of framing constitutions to govern these states when admitted. A memorial on the subject of constitutional restraints on the taxing power, was prepared, on behalf of the International Tax Association, and submitted to the officers and delegates of the conventions. This memorial recited the resolution adopted at the conference of 1907 to the effect that state constitutions should not contain restraints upon the reasonable classification of property, and submitted the following text as the sole provision necessary to be embodied in a constitution, on the matter of taxation.

"The power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only."

That provision was adopted, without change, as section 1 of article 9 of the Arizona constitution. While that article contains other

provisions relative to taxation, we do not believe that any of these conflict with the purpose of the provision above recited.

California made a radical fiscal change by adopting a constitutional amendment that changes entirely the taxation of public service corporations and also practically establishes a separation of state and local revenue. This is the result of an investigation begun in 1906 by a special tax commission of which Prof. Carl C. Plehn is secretary, and the amendment carries out their recommendations. It provides for state taxation of public service corporations and the exemption of their operating property and franchises from local assessment and taxation. The state tax is based upon gross earnings and the rates are fixed in the amendment but may be changed by a two-thirds vote of the legislature.

The rates vary on different classes of corporations, from two per cent to four per cent. They were determined by taking each class of corporations, as, for example, street railways or electric light companies, and ascertaining the total burden of state and local taxation upon all companies in that class under the general property tax. The total gross earnings of all companies in a class were then ascertained, and a gross earnings tax rate fixed which would produce the same total revenue from the same class of companies as the general property tax. Insurance companies are taxed 1 1-2 per cent on gross premiums, and banks one per cent on capital, surplus, and undivided profits. There is also a state tax of one per cent on the "franchises" (to do business) of other corporations. The act of April 1, 1911, carries out the details of the amendment.

California has had heretofore a comparatively heavy "direct state tax," and the state revenue from the gross earnings tax is expected to reduce the state direct tax sufficiently to offset the loss of such corporation property from the local tax rolls.

Oregon, also, voted upon constitutional amendments in November, 1910, and the situation there is a curious one.

Two amendments were submitted by the legislature, designed to repeal the requirement of uniform taxation of all property and to permit the legislature to classify property for taxation at different rates or to exempt as it saw fit. A third amendment was submitted by initiative petition. This amendment provided, first, that no poll tax should be imposed; second, that no law enacted by the legislature in regard to taxation should become effective until ratified by the people at the next general election; third, that no restriction of the