748 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
impulse, is in reality to undermine the constitution. Monarchy is primeval, but unbridled democracy is not young in experiment, and has never worked even temporary salvation.
Mr. Oberholtzer, a competent writer on the referendum and initiative, and quoted approvingly by the Referendum League, says:
If a constitution is to enter into the details of government and trespass on those fields of action before reserved to the legislature, it cannot have the power of permanence which it had when it was only an outline to direct legislation. It must change as laws, and laws change as needs of people change.
He might as well have said that with the power of the initiative they would change as the whims or passions of the people change, and that the constitution would become a mass of doubtful legis- lation. Mr. James Bryce dwells upon the fact that a rigid consti- tution prevents rash and hasty changes by legislation: "Every citizen is a part of the nation, and bound by duty to give time and thoughts to it." But this would become very inconvenient and burdensome if elections were multiplied, as they would be under a scheme of law-making by circulating petitions.
And another word must be said as to the status which the legislature would have under an operative initiative law. It would in fact be a body without dignity, lacking power and authority. It is useless for the initiative advocates to pretend that they have any other object than to supersede the legislature. Professor Parsons benignly says that with the initiative "the legislature will be the most important advisory body in the com- monwealth," but he fails to point out in what way.
Finally, the whole question is one of returning, to a system of primitive democracy which answered such excellent purpose for a wandering tribe or a small village or district. The historian Freeman, dealing with the fact, and contemplating the growth and expansion of such tribe, declares that "unless the device of representation was hit upon, it must shrink into a despotism or an oligarchy." Cree, another historical writer, says :
History does show that it took that direction and that such consequences resulted. Democracy must recognize some principle of restraint upon its own passions, and some guards against its own deficiencies.
