history. It abounds, however, in facts as to Switzerland which up to the time of its publication were quite inaccessible to American readers.

"State and Federal Government of Switzerland." By John Martin Vincent, Ph.D., librarian and instructor in the department of history and politics, Johns Hopkins University. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press; 1891; 247 pages; $1.50.) Professor Vincent had access, at the university, to the considerable collection of books and papers relating to Switzerland made by Professor J.C. Bluntschli, an eminent Swiss historian who died in 1881, and also to a large number of government publications presented by the Swiss Federal Council to the university library.

"The Swiss Republic." By Boyd Winchester, late United States Minister at Berne. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.; 1891; 487 pages; $1.50.) Mr. Winchester was stationed four years at Berne, and hence had better opportunity than Professor Vincent or Professor Moses for obtaining a thorough acquaintance with Switzerland. Much of his book is taken up with descriptive writing, all good.

Were I asked which of these four works affords the fullest information as to new Switzerland and new Swiss political methods, I should be obliged to refer the inquirer to his own needs. Professor Moses's is best for one applying himself to law and constitutional history. Professor Vincent's is richest in systematized details and statistics, especially such as relate to the Referendum and taxation; and in it also is a bibliography of Swiss politics and history. For the general reader, desiring description of the country, stirring democratic sentiment, and an all-round view of the great little republic, Mr. Winchester's is preferable.

In expanding and rearranging my "Times" and "Chautauquan" articles, I have, to some extent, used these books.

Throughout this work, wherever possible, conservatives, rather than myself, have been made to speak; hence quotations are frequent. The first drafts of the chapters on Switzerland have been read by Swiss radicals of different schools, and the final proofsheets have been revised by a Swiss writer of repute living in New York; therefore serious error is hardly probable. The one fault I myself have to find with the work is its baldness of statement, rendered necessary by space limits. I could, perhaps more easily, have prepared four or five hundred pages instead of the one hundred and twenty. I leave it rather to the reader to supply comparison and analysis and the eloquent comment of which, it seems to me, many of the statements of fact are worthy. J.W.S.[** initials right justified in image]

THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IN SWITZERLAND.

Democratic versus Representative Government.

There is a radical difference between a democracy and a representative government. In a democracy, the citizens themselves make the law and superintend its administration; in a representative government, the citizens empower legislators and executive officers to make the law and to carry it out. Under a democracy, sovereignty remains uninterruptedly with the citizens, or rather a changing majority of the citizens; under a representative government, sovereignty is surrendered by the citizens, for stated terms, to officials. In other words, democracy is direct rule by the majority, while representative government is rule by a succession of quasi-oligarchies, indirectly and remotely responsible to the majority.

Observe, now, first, the influences that chiefly contribute to make government in the United States what it is:—

The county, state, and federal governments are not democracies. In form, they are quasi-oligarchies composed of representatives and executives; but in fact they are frequently complete oligarchies, composed in part of unending rings of politicians that directly control the law and the offices, and in part of the permanent plutocracy, who purchase legislation through the politicians.

Observe, next, certain strong influences for the better that obtain in a pure democracy:—

An obvious influence is, in one respect, the same as that which enriches the plutocrat and prompts the politician to reach for power—self-interest. When all the members of any body of men find themselves in equal relation to a profitable end in which they solely are concerned, they will surely be inclined to assert their joint independence of other bodies in that respect, and, further, each member will claim his full share of whatever benefits arise. But, more than that; something like equality of benefits being achieved, perhaps through various agencies of force, a second influence will be brought powerfully to bear on those concerned. It is that of justice. Fair play to all the members will be generally demanded.

In a pure democracy, therefore, intelligently controlled self-interest and a consequent sentiment of justice are the sources in which the highest possible social benefits may be expected to begin.

The reader has now before him the political principle to be here maintained—pure democracy as distinguished from representative government. My argument, then, becomes this: To show that, by means of the one lawmaking method to which pure democracy is restricted,—that of direct legislation by the citizenship,—the political "ring," "boss," and "heeler" may be abolished, the American plutocracy destroyed, and government simplified and reduced to the limits set by the conscience of the majority as affected by social necessities. My task involves proof that direct legislation is possible with large communities.

Direct Legislation in Switzerland.

Evidence as to the practicability and the effects of direct legislation is afforded by Switzerland, especially in its history during the past twenty-five years. To this evidence I turn at once.

There are in Switzerland twenty-two cantons (states), which are subdivided into 2,706 communes (townships). The commune is the political as well as territorial unit. Commonly, as nearly as consistent with cantonal and federal rights, in local affairs the commune governs itself. Its citizens regard it as their smaller state. It is jealous of interference by the greater state. It has its own property to look after. Until the interests of the canton or the Confederation manifestly replace those of the immediate locality, the commune declines to part with the administration of its lands, forests, police, roads, schools, churches, or taxes.

In German Switzerland the adult male inhabitants of the commune meet at least once annually, usually in the town market place or on a mountain plain, and carry out their functions as citizens. There they debate proposed laws, name officers, and discuss affairs of a public nature. On such occasions, every citizen is a legislator, his voice and vote influencing the questions at issue. The right of initiating a measure belongs to each. Decision is ordinarily made by show of hands. In most cantons the youth becomes a voter at twenty, the legal age for acquiring a vote in federal affairs, though the range for cantonal matters is from eighteen to twenty-one.

Similar democratic legislative meetings govern two cantons as cantons and two other cantons divided into demi-cantons. In the demi-canton of Outer Appenzell, 13,500 voters are qualified thus to meet and legislate, and the number actually assembled is sometimes 10,000. But this is the highest extreme for such an assemblage—a Landsgemeinde (a land-community)—the lowest for a canton or a demi-canton comprising about 3,000. One other canton (Schwyz, 50,307 inhabitants) has Landsgemeinde meetings, there being six, with an average of 2,000 voters to each. In communal political assemblages, however, there are usually but a few hundred voters.

The yearly cantonal or demi-cantonal Landsgemeinde takes place on a Sunday in April or