in corporations which were sufficiently well known to be recorded in the directory above referred to.

I submit that the intention of the state in granting corporate charters was that the directors of each corporation should meet frequently, have full knowledge of its affairs, discuss them deliberately, and then exercise the best judgment of the whole body. That this can be and is done to-day is shown in a letter recently written by President Taylor, of the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, from which it appears that its board meets at least once a week, and more frequently when necessary, and that they have not delegated their powers to any committee, but that the board transacts all the business themselves, sitting as a committee of the whole. To which I can add my personal experience in a large National Bank and in a Railroad Company, where the same sound and law-abiding practice is followed except that the bank directors meet twice a week and the railroad board held only eighteen meetings last year.

How, then, is the business of the other companies managed? Their charters provide substantially, and in general, literally, as follows:

"All the powers of the corporation shall be vested in a board of directors (or trustees), and shall be exercised by them and such officers and agents as they may appoint."

It goes without saying that the officers are required to report their acts, and are held to a very strict accountability; so also as to the individual agents. But the practice has arisen and is very generally followed of assuming that the insertion in such charters of the word "agents" has given to the board created thereby the power to delegate to "Executive Committees" of their creation, all the powers which the law has vested in those boards and requires them to exercise, except on the rare occasions when such boards may be in session. To make matters worse, such boards meet at very rare intervals,

Do not understand me as saying that corporate boards lack power to appoint committees or to delegate to them power to act in particular instances, or even on particular classes of subjects, making full reports thereon; but I do say that with charters worded as above, I, for one, fail to see any power in the board to permanently abdicate the whole or any part of the discretionary powers vested by law in them to a committee of their creation.

CONCLUSION.

I have pointed out briefly and I trust, not unkindly, some of the evils which now affect for ill the economy of the household. of the state, and of the corporations. In each, we, who-as breadwinners as taxpayers and as stockholders-provide the wherewithal, suffer because we have set others to rule over us without holding them to that strict accountability for the discharge of their trust, which the common law and common sense alike demand. Indeed, things have come to such a pass that in certain quarters it is now considered indecorous and ill-bred for us, the many, to even discuss, much less to correct, the shortcomings of the elect few. Such was neither the theory nor the practice on which our forefathers ordered the economy of this Republic.

Without going the length of those who, from motives of personal vanity or of personal gain, are so freely preaching and writing vain doctrine, let me ask you who have so long stood for sound doctrine, to join with all our intelligent and conservative fellow countrymen in demanding sound, patient and discriminating Economy.

W

ITHOUT any blowing of trumpets, without any noisy conventions, with scant press-notices, and against the silent but increasing opposition of politicians and corporations, the DirectLegislation movement has made steady progress during 1905.

The organizations through which Direct-Legislation is effectuating itself are true to its democratic, decentralizing spirit. There is no highly centralized organization of its increasing adherents; no organization that one man or a small group of men can dominate; no organization whose dues come from the circumference to support the center; no organization which develops and fosters the partisan spirit, the love of an organization for itself and not for what it can do; no organization building up a hierarchy to grow into a despotism, a danger to free institutions.

In the fall of 1904 the people of Missouri defeated the almost unworkable Direct-Legislation amendment submitted to them by the most corrupt legislature that Missouri has ever known. It was an exceedingly poor form of Direct-Legislation, and it was probably well for the cause that it was defeated.

At the same election the people of Nevada adopted a very good Direct-Legislation amendment, modeled on the one in operation in Oregon. Nevada is the fourth state to embody a Direct-Legislation amendment in its constitution.

The winter of 1905 saw the defeat of the unsatisfactory Initiative constitutional amendment which had passed one Mas*[At the request of Dr. Josiah Strong, Mr. Eltweed Pomeroy prepared a digest of the results of DirectLegislation work in 1905, for the forthcoming number of The Social Progress Handbook for 1906. Through the courtesy of Mr. Pomeroy we are able to give the above facts as prepared for this work. Lack of space compels us to omit some passages that are not directly concerned with the progress of the movement.-Editor of THE ARENA.]

sachusetts legislature. It was said that the entire corporation lobby was arrayed against the second passage of this amendment, poor as it was.

In Maine, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, California, and some other states, amendments were defeated in the legislatures, but with fewer votes against them than ever before.

In Delaware the Single-Taxers, finding that they could not attain their chief aim, very sensibly decided to work for DirectLegislation, which would attract more people than the Single-Tax and hence be easier to gain, and also when gained would be the method by which the SingleTax could be brought before the people for their acceptance or rejection. It was found that it would require six years to obtain a Direct-Legislation constitutional amendment; hence it was decided to work for something else. An act was gotten through the legislature and signed by the governor, submitting to the people the question of establishing the advisory Referendum and Initiative in Delaware. This measure will be voted on next November.

The great victory of 1905 for DirectLegislation, however, was in Montana, where, against the silent opposition of the corporations but with the ardent support of the working people, a Direct-Legislation amendment passed both houses of the legislature and will go to a vote of the people next November. This is not as good as some of the other amendments, as it requires a majority of two-fifths of the counties of the state, as well as a twofifths majority in the whole state, to pass a law, but this will usually be accomplished, and when it passes the people, as it almost surely will, Montana will be the fifth state to have embodied Direct-Legislation in its constitution.

The Texas legislature has passed a

in party management. By this law, whenever delegates are elected for any party convention, ten per cent. of the party voters of that district, by filing a petition, can secure a vote on any matter, and if the majority vote for it, the delegate is pledged to that course.

The greatest advance in Direct-Legislation has been in municipal affairs, and in this direction the Direct-Legislation League of California has been most successful. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pasadena and Vallejo have Direct-Legislation embedded in their charters, and within the last two years Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, Eureka and Fresno have been added to that honor list. The Recall has been incorporated in the charters of San Bernardino, San Diego and Pasadena, while Los Angeles had and used it most effectively in the summer of 1905 in recalling a councilman who deliberately misrepresented his constituents. The Recall was attacked in the courts, and was sustained, although later the way in which it was used in one instance was declared improper. There was also a minor unimportant decision against the Referendum in San Diego.

The people of San Francisco defeated a high-license Initiated proposition, but by such an unexpectedly small majority that it will probably soon be submitted again.

At the city election in Portland, Oregon, in June, 1905, seven charter amendments were voted on; five carried and two were lost. For months a telephone company tried to obtain a franchise from the common council of Portland and could not. At last it drew up a very fair franchise, circulated an Initiative petition for it, got it signed by a sufficient number of voters, and the people voted on it and carried it by 13,213 to 560. This shows that when a corporation proposes a fair franchise, the people almost unanimously grant it.

In Oregon a Referendum petition was

lar state expense-bill, and it will be voted on in June, 1906. The Equal Suffrage Association has filed a petition for a constitutional amendment giving woman's suffrage. The People's Power League has filed petitions for four constitutional amendments and an anti-pass law. The first amendment gives the people the Initiative and Referendum on all local, special and municipal laws, and on parts of legislative acts. The second gives cities. and towns exclusive power to make and amend their charters, subject only to the constitution and criminal laws. The third removes restrictions in dealing with the state printing and binding. The fourth allows one legislature to propose constitutional amendments; it has required two in the past. These will all be voted on next June. In addition, many cities and towns have voted on municipalownership of water-works, electric-lighting and power-plants, etc., and municipalownership has usually won.

By the Rush constitutional amendment to the Colorado constitution, Denver was secured a charter which must contain Direct-Legislation, but the drawing of the form was left to a charter convention. The first one framed had very good Direct-Legislation provisions, but it was defeated, or rather counted out, by the corporations, and a second one was drawn with Direct-Legislation provisions that were purposely made almost unusable. The whole charter was adopted.

Probably the best work in popularizing Direct-Legislation has been done in Illinois by the Referendum League of that state. The Public Opinion Law has been used with telling effect, submitting three questions to the people of Chicago in the spring of 1904, and three to the people of the state in the fall of 1904. In that fall Mr. Harrison, the then mayor, taunted the League about another Referendum, and the Hearst papers secured a petition with a large number of signatures, which went to a vote in April, 1905. The de

mands of this petition were worded in the negative and were overwhelmingly voted in the negative, and at the same time Judge Dunne was elected mayor. The dominant question voted on was in regard to the granting of street-railway franchises, and these votings have rapidly educated the people and have exercised so strong an influence that the council has not dared to pass franchises, and it is now probable that no franchise will be granted unless the Referendum clause is attached.

There was no legislative session in Ohio in 1905, but an active Direct-Legislation League was formed and has done much educational work and has pledged the Democratic party and many legislative candidates. It could not secure a pledge from the Republican party, and now it naturally looks to the incoming Democratic legislature to redeem its pledges. The League is active, has influential members, and will secure an enactment of some sort.

The Buffalo, New York, League has been very active. Its bills were defeated in the legislature of 1905, but it secured the passage of an advisory Referendum and Initiative ordinance in the common council, and after a hot legal fight it got one question onto the ballot last fall. This was the question of the municipalownership and operation of an electriclighting plant, and it was carried by a large majority.

Toronto has had a hot fight. The Federation for Majority-Rule pledged the mayor and most of the council, before their election, to submit matters petitioned

for. This they reluctantly did on the question of exempting seven hundred dolllars of house-value from taxation; but when it carried both the mayor and the council said they would not even attempt to carry it into effect.

Among other cities that have secured Direct-Legislation by charter amendment are such widely separated ones as Fort Worth (Texas), Memphis (Tennessee), and Grand Rapids (Michigan). The latter city has a peculiarly strong and good form. Norfolk (Virginia), Lancaster (Pennsylvania) and other places have endeavored to secure Direct-Legislation, but the result is uncertain as yet.

Outside of the United States and Canada, Direct-Legislation is making slow but steady progress. Switzerland is continually extending, enlarging and strengthening its use and scope. Australia and New Zealand are doing a little more with it. France is extending its municipal use. But its most spectacular use was in Norway, when the people by a Referendum vote almost unanimously decided to separate from Sweden, and later chose a king by the divine right of a popular vote. England uses it occasionally, and in the remodeling of Russia, now so turbulent, it looks as if the local Referendum of the Russian mir might be the only substantial foundation on which the new scheme of government might be laid.

No one can be conversant with the facts of the Direct-Legislation movement without becoming very optimistic as to the future of this great democratic growth.

ELTWEED POMEROY.

East Orange, N. J.

Part II.

'N MONOGAMOUS countries where two races live side by side, one domizant, the other subject, the single legal standard, the single moral standard, yields in practice if not in theory to double standaris in law and morals in respect to the sexual question. In the ensuing confusion of moral ideas, of moral obligations, the male instinct gains in freedom from restraints of law, of social conventies, and reverts in consequence and to that extent to a state of nature, of natural marriage. The legal and moral codes which regulate the relations of the males of one race with the females of the same race are not applicable in regulating the relations of those self-same males with the females of the other race. Marriage in such a country has regard to the males and females of the same race, not to those of different races. The crime of adultery or of fornication undergoes the same gross modification. For in such a land the one-wife idea, the one-wife institution, has reference to individuals of the same race only, not to individuals of opposite races. The "Thou shalt not" of the law, public opinion interprets to refer to the sexual conduct of the males and females of the same race in respect to one another, i. e., a male member of the dominant race must limit his roving propensities wherever the females of his own race are concerned. 'He need not under this same law, interpreted by this same public opinion, curb to the same extent those roving propensities where the females of the other race are concerned He may live in licit intercourse with a woman of his own race, and at the same time in illicit intercourse with a woman of the other race, i. e., without incurring the pains and penalties made by the state, by society, against such an offence, in

case the second woman be of his own race. Neither the law nor public opinion puts an equal value on the chastity of the women of the two races. Female chastity in the superior race is rated above that in the inferior race. Hence the greater protection accorded to the woman of the first class over that accorded to the women of the second class. The first class has well-defined legal and moral rights which the men of that class are bound to respect, rights which may not be violated with impunity. Here we encounter one of the greatest dangers attendant upon race segregation, where the two races are not equal before the law, where public opinion makes and enforces one law for the upper race, and practically another law for the under race.

Under these circumstances a male member of the dominant race may seduce the wife of a member of the subject race, or a daughter, without incurring any punishment except at the hands of the man wronged by him. Such a wrongdoer would not be indicted or tried for adultery or seduction, nor could the wronged husband or father recover from him damages in a suit at law, nor yet could a bastardy suit be brought by the girl against him with any show of success for the support of his child, were issue to be born to her from such illicit union.) The men of the dominant race find themselves thus in a situation where the law, public opinion, provides for their exclusive possession the women of their own race, and permits them at the same time to share with the men of the subject race possession of the women of that race. The sexual instinct of the men of the first class approaches in these conditions to a state of nature in respect to the women of the second class. They are enabled, therefore, to select wives from the superior race, and mistresses from the inferior one. The natu