JK 
 
 ^448 
 C5 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 $B Stst. bOQ 
 
iA.;) 
 
 ' ? <* y, j{ ' ^ ■ '- ' 
 
 
OOP 
 
The Chicago Debating Teams 
 
 1911-1912 
 
 Georjfe N. Foster 
 
 Arthur E. Mullins 
 
 Edward E. Jennings 
 
 Affirmative Team 
 
 CHICAGO VS. MICHIGAN 
 
 James W. Robinson 
 
 Lewis M . Simes 
 
 Frank D. Jones 
 
 Negative Team 
 
 NORTHWESTERN VS CHICAGO 
 
THE RECALL 
 
 (Excluding Judges) 
 
 A DEBATE 
 
 The Constructive and Rebuttal Speeches of the 
 representatives of 
 
 The University of Chicago 
 
 In the Fourteenth Annual Contests of the Central Debating 
 League against Michigan and Northwestern, 
 
 JANUARY 19. 1912 
 
 QUESTION: 
 
 "Resolved, That the Recall Should be Adopted 
 
 for all Elective State and Municipal 
 
 Officers, Except Judges." 
 
 Published by 
 
 THE DELTA SIGMA RHO 
 
 University of Chicago Clispter 
 
If'*' 
 
 FOREWORD 
 
 The recall at the present moment occupies perhaps a larger share of 
 public attention than any other one question of governmental policy. Al- 
 though an outgrowth of the movement for the initiative and referendum 
 in an effort to place more direct control of government in the hands of 
 the people at large, the recall has separated itself to some degree from its 
 companions, and is being studied on its own merits more than as a part 
 of a larger scheme. This is due partly to new phases brought to light 
 by a proposal to include the judiciary in its scope. When a president of 
 the United States vetoes a bill for statehood because judges are made sub- 
 ject to recall, it is evident that the issue is a large one and must be ana- 
 lyzed with care. 
 
 The recall of judges involves questions apart from the merits of the 
 recall principle. By omitting judges, the question is narrowed to the 
 fundamentals of the recall itself — its theory, tendencies and possibilities. 
 Each Chicago team has considered three phases of it — its eflfect upon the 
 government, the voter, and the official. They have not tried to enumerate 
 every point, but have developed the high lights. 
 
 Chicago lost both the debates on this subject, but ofifers neither ex- 
 cuses nor apologies. Debates are won by tactics and methods of attack 
 and defense rather than by differences in subject matter. The value of 
 these speeches to the reader lies in the soundness of the arguments, not to 
 the fact that these arguments did or did not prevail in the debate itself. 
 
 CHARLES F. McELROY, 
 
 Debating Coach. 
 University of Chicago, Peb. 15,^ 1912. 
 
The Debate 
 
 EDWARD E. JENNINGS, FIRST AFFIRMATIVE. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
 
 I need not tell this audience that there is corruption in our state and 
 municipal governments. There is no disagreement as to the source of 
 this corruption. We have allowed ourselves to be governed by profes- 
 sional politicians who have been the tools of selfish interests. Everyone 
 agrees that there is only one way to end corruption, and that is for the 
 people to take an active part in government, not once in so many years 
 but all the time. 
 
 The recall is one of several measures intended to give the people 
 more direct control of governmental affairs. One of the first was a 
 direct primary by which the people name their own nominees for office 
 instead of voting for nominees named by bosses. This has been fol- 
 lowed in some cases by the short ballot which relieves the burden upon 
 the voters; the initiative, whereby the people can get the laws that they 
 want; the referendum, by which they can kill undesirable laws; and the 
 recall, which gives the people control over officials. We are concerned 
 this evening with the recall only, which can work in harmony with one 
 or all of these measures or independently of them. The recall is a part 
 of the progressive movement that is sweeping the entire country. This 
 measure has the endorsement of such typical statesmen in both parties 
 as Taft, Roosevelt, Wilson and Bryan. Its most conspicuous opponent 
 in this section of the country is Senator Lorimer, ably supported by the 
 gentlemen from Michigan. 
 
 The recall means that the voters who elect an official — whether of 
 state, county, town, or village — ^^have the power to remove that official at 
 a special election if he has violated his trust. Judges are not under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 The usual procedure for recall is as follows: A petition is circu- 
 lated stating the grounds for recall. This petition must be signed by a 
 specified number of voters, say 25 per cent. It then goes into the hands 
 of a clerk, is certified and an election called within about 30 days. The 
 officer then goes before the people for re-election together with other 
 candidates that may be nominated. 
 
 3 
 
 248553 
 
Debate: The Recai^l 
 
 The recall has a brief but intense history. Originating ten years 
 ago as a part of the commission form of city government, it has grown 
 to be an important issue in National politics. At the present time it is 
 in operation in its complete form in the three states of Oregon, Califor- 
 nia and Arizona. Fifteen states provide for its adoption in city charters, 
 and one hundred and fifty cities scattered throughout the United States 
 have adopted it. 
 
 Our argument in support of the recall will be presented in three main 
 divisions. 
 
 First, we shall show that because there is gross misrepresentation by 
 public officers we need some remedy. 
 
 Second, we shall prove that the recall gives the people the power to 
 correct misrepresentation. 
 
 Third, the recall in practice gives better government. 
 
 It is my purpose to show the need for the recall. 
 
 Since as individuals we are unable to carry on the enormous busi 
 ness of our state and municipal governments, it is necessary that we 
 choose agents to perform this work for us. While we are willing to 
 leave the details of government in the hands of our agents we expect 
 them to carry out certain broad principles and to have certain qualifica- 
 tions. We expect our public officers above all things to be honest. 
 There is no more excuse for retaining a dishonest agent in public busi- 
 ness than in private business. We expect these men who conduct our 
 public business to be competent — ^men who know how to perform their 
 job and have the energy to accomplish it. We expect also that our 
 agents will work for our best interests. Why should we not have the 
 same condemnation for a public agent who betrays us as we have for a 
 private agent who sells our business secrets to a rival firm? These are 
 some of the most obvious and fundamental things which we expect of 
 those to whom we delegate the business of carrying on our government. 
 
 Misrepresentation when viewed as a simple business proposition has 
 three important phases. 
 
 First, lack of responsiveness on the part of the voter; second, in- 
 efficiency; and third, corruption. Let us consider first lack of respon- 
 siveness. A few instances will convince you that many officials when 
 they take office conduct it in a manner which is directly opposed to the 
 wish of the people whom they are supposed to serve. They feel sure for 
 their specified term of office and proceed to violate every principle of rep- 
 resentative government. We need not go far from home to get a few 
 examples. The treasurer of Cook County refuses to open his books to 
 the Bureau of Public Efficiency for inspection, on the ground that he is 
 responsible to no one but his bondsmen for the conduct of his office. 
 
DEBATE: Th^ Recall 
 
 Since his bondsmen are the banks in which he has his money deposited he 
 virtually declares that he is responsible to no one for the people's money. 
 Now the treasurer of Cook County may be an honest man, but whether 
 honest or not he certainly does not represent his constituents. Take the 
 case of Peter Bartzen, President of the Cook County Board of Commis- 
 sioners. Ever since his election to that office Peter has pursued a policy 
 of misrepresentation. He seems to be possessed with an insane passion 
 to serve the Bartzen family, instead of the people. He has committed 
 all the crimes against his constituents possible without laying himself 
 liable to prosecution. 
 
 The second aspect of misrepresentation is inefficiency. Many of our 
 governors, mayors and lower officers are perfectly good citizens but are 
 inactive and useless in the business of government. They are often set 
 up by the business interests as figureheads. They are looked upon as 
 "safe men," men who will not do anything one way or another except 
 take then- "ease, honors and orders" and make no trouble for the bosses 
 and the interests. Such men have often made a success and the voter 
 thinks that they will apply the same principles to politics. Too late he 
 wakes up to find the office burdened with deadwood. 
 
 Then there is the corrupt official. Everyone is familiar with the 
 degrading situation that exists in many of our cities where officials have 
 well earned the names of highway robbers, boodlers and grafters. In- 
 stances are constantly being unearthed such as the conviction of twenty 
 of the boodle combine of St. I^ouis ; the corruption of politics in Chicago ; 
 the infamous gas ring in Philadelphia, and boss-ridden Cincinnati. The 
 Merriam Commission of this city found graft connected with every act 
 of city administration which it investigated. The mere mention of 
 such cities as Pittsburg, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago, and Bos- 
 ton, and such states as New Jersey, Delaware, Missouri, Ohio and Illinois, 
 brings before the average citizen's mind a picture of graft, greed and in- 
 efficiency that is appalling. 
 
 When such circumstances arise, what has become of our boasted 
 representative government conducted in the interest of the people? Un- 
 der our present laws the voters are helpless to remedy this criminal and 
 immoral situation. They must meekly submit to having their pockets 
 robbed and their decency outraged because they have no adequate means 
 of self-defense. We believe that the voters should be given an effective 
 instrument to correct this gross misrepresentation, and we shall show 
 that the recall will secure this result. 
 
 We would call your attention, ladies and gentlemen, to the fact that 
 we have a specific remedy for a specific evil. We are not advocating the 
 recall as a cure for all the petty evils of government, but we have local- 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 ized a specific defect at the point in our government where an official is 
 not doing what he was put there to do. It is here that we vvpuld apply 
 our remedy. My colleagues will show that the recall is the proper rem- 
 edy. The situation, therefore, that we must face squarely is simply 
 this: 
 
 The recall has the endorsement of men who believe in progress and 
 not reaction. 
 
 We are face to face with a compelling need for reform. 
 
 First, because of gross misrepresentation due to unresponsiveness, 
 incompetency and corruption of officials. 
 
 Second, because the voters are helpless under our present laws. 
 
 J. W. ROBINSON, FIRST NEGATIVE. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
 
 The gentlemen of Northwestern told you that there were one hun- 
 dred fifty cities throughout the United States that had adopted the recall. 
 We call your attention to the statement of the question, and ask you to 
 notice that it includes all state officials. The recall has only been adopted 
 in three states — Arizona, California, and Oregon — where it has not been 
 a part of a program in connection with the commission form of city gov- 
 ernment. Tonight we are not discussing its merits as a part of this pro- 
 gram, but the question is, shall we adopt the recall for all elective state 
 and municipal officers, independent of any program at the present time, 
 and under our existing conditions? It means that every elective officer, 
 except judges, in every state of the union from the governor to the vil- 
 lage clerk shall be subject to a recall election at any time. In includes 
 state, county, city, and village officials. 
 
 The gentleman pointed out that there is misrepresentation in our 
 government, and that impeachment in many instances has been slow in 
 its operation and will not correct the evil. We are not here to discuss 
 the question of impeachment. The affirmative has offered for considera- 
 ton, a specific remedy for what they clairn is a defect in our government, 
 and the burden is on them to show, not only that the defect exists, but 
 also that their particular remedy will cure this defect. The fact that 
 the operations of impeachment have been slow in a few instances does 
 not show that we should adopt the recall. 
 
 It is true that there is some corruption in our government, but the 
 encouraging thing is that we have constantly progressed. Mr. Bryce, in 
 his edition of the American Commonwealth for 1910 says: "No one 
 who has studied the municipal governments of the United States doubts 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 that they have progressed from decade to decade and that these govern- 
 ments are in a better condition now than they have ever been." 
 
 The question for consideration is, Will the recall stimulate this 
 growth or will it retard it ? 
 
 We believe the recall will retard the development of our government : 
 
 1. Because it is contrary to the true theory of representative gov- 
 ernment under which we have made such marked advancement. 
 
 2. Because it will produce instability in government. 
 
 3. Because instability will have a harmful effect on business con- 
 ditions. 
 
 In a representative government the people must act through the offi- 
 cial. ^ The recall specifically applies to the official, and diminishes his 
 power because it gives the people the right to take any official out of 
 office at any time for any act. Thus the officer is forced to get the pulse 
 of the people, to diagnose their case and then give them, not what they 
 need, but what they want. , If what they want is diametrically opposed 
 to what the officer knows is essential to the best interests of the govern- 
 ment, he is in a predicament where he must either carry out policies that 
 he knows are wrong, or be disgraced by a recall election. Such a policy 
 presupposes that the officer knows less than the average voter ; that he is 
 simply their mouth-piece, a mere figure-head, an automaton, and that the 
 average voters are prepared at any time to pass on the officer's acts, or 
 to pass on any one act isolated from all others. It is not a question of 
 right or wrong, legality or illegality, competency or incompetency, but is 
 simply a question as to whether or not it suits the populace at that particu- 
 lar time. 
 
 This is contrary to our theory of government because our officers are 
 not mere mouth-pieces, mere figureheads ; they are men elected because 
 of special fitness, because they are prepared to do that particular work, and 
 they are given the power to use their discretion, their judgment. A 
 glance at the complexity of government will show how essential it is that 
 the officer be given such discretion. The voter elects a large number of 
 state, county, and city officials with very dissimilar duties, each voter 
 having from ten to almost one hundred officials to pass upon. Surely we 
 couldn't expect the voter to familiarize himself with the duties of each 
 official. No voter makes a technical study of the railroad, financial and 
 corporation problems, dozens of other intricate questions with which the 
 legislator must deal, and also a technical study of the other officials* du- 
 ties. Even to acquire a general knowledge would take most of the 
 voter's time. Therefore, in order to conduct the affairs of a representa- 
 tive government we must elect officers with special fitness and then give 
 
Dbbat«: Thb RBCAtL 
 
 them power to think and to act for us in a host of things concerning 
 which we have but the faintest knowledge. 
 V Second : ' The recall will produce instability in government. Our 
 
 policy has always been to give the official a fixed term to carry out his 
 work, and there is a growing tendency in favor of lengthening the term 
 of office, and thereby lengthening th^ time between elections. Chicago has 
 its second mayor serving a four year term and New York has recently 
 changed the term of its officials from two to four years. The tendency 
 to lengthen the term of office is general throughout the whole country. 
 
 The recall will produce instability in government because instead of 
 a fixed tenure there will be an uncertain tenure. Instead of regular elec- 
 tions only, we shall have also a multitude of special elections with the 
 emphasis on the special elections. People will come to think that it 
 won't make any difference whether they get good men in at the general 
 elections or not. They will say, "We will give him a trial and if he 
 doesn't suit we can change him.*^' 
 
 Fixed tenure rests upon the idea that the official needs time to study 
 the duties of his office, to formulate policies, and to test them in the light 
 of their operation. Uncertain tenure means that the official dare not 
 undertake policies that may be unpopular at first or that require time to 
 work out ; but that he must always keep vividly before him the popular 
 feeling and the fact that he will be removed if he runs counter to it. 
 
 The previous speaker told you that an official could be recalled but 
 once in six months, but he didn't tell you that we have from ten to one 
 hundred officials in each place that would be subject to a special election, 
 and that the people could recall state, county, and city officials. Thus it 
 is possible, not only to have a recall election every few months, but if the 
 people get the election craze they could have an election in most places 
 every day. 
 
 But we are told that the recall is a weapon that will be used only on 
 rare occasions, that it will be used judiciously ; but these statements were 
 made concerning the Initiative and Referendum, when these measures 
 were adopted in Oregon. The first two years they were used judiciously, 
 for the people voted on but two measures; but at the next election the 
 people voted on eight measures and at the next election they voted on nine- 
 teen measures, and at the last election the people voted on thirty-two 
 measures. The recall is newer in Oregon than the Initiative and Refer- 
 endum. During the first four years of its existence it was used but once, 
 but in 191 1 it was used at least five times and was attempted to be used a 
 great many more times. 
 
 If the recall is adopted we have every assurance that it will be used 
 often, and used indiscriminately because it is possible to have a special 
 
DEBATE: The Recall 
 
 election whenever twenty-five per cent of the voters are dissatisfied with 
 the acts of their officials. Thus instead of elections occurring at fixed 
 times they will occur not even according to the whim of the majority, but 
 according to the whim of twenty-five per cent of the voters. Thus the 
 disgruntled politician, or the defeated political boss has it within his 
 power to call an election whenever he wants one, because he always has at 
 least twenty-five per cent of the electorate on his side. 
 
 Already in Tacoma they have had four recall elections in two months, 
 and just recently the women attempted to recall Mayor Billing in Seattle 
 because he had a jailor who was very efficient but whose ideas ran coun- 
 ter to what the ladies demanded of a jailor. 
 
 In a city or state where the people are almost evenly divided on some 
 vital issue, for example, the liquor question, instead of one election de 
 ciding the issue it may take dozens, becaus.e the defeated party has al- 
 ways an excuse ; therefore another election will be held as soon as pos- 
 sible. Thus the government will be kept in a state of eruption. The 
 political pot will be kept boiling. 
 
 Third: This instability in government will have a decided and 
 harmful effect on business. We all know th^iat our presidential year is 
 our worst year from a business view-point. For months before and 
 after election business is in an unsettled condition. It is at a standstill 
 waiting to see what the election will bring forth. One of the vital things 
 for the growth of business is that there be definite decisions, something 
 that the business man can depend upon. When he invests capital under 
 certain conditions he wants to know that those conditions will be perma- 
 nent for at least a fixed period. Think of the condition of the capitalist 
 and also the laborer where an election is possible every few days or every 
 few months. The chaos into which business is thrown by a special elec- 
 tion was well recognized by the business men in Wichita last August 
 when Mayor Graham was recalled. The Wichita Beacon of August 
 24th contained statements of all the leading business men of that city and 
 they were unanimous in one thing, and that was this : that no matter how 
 the election terminated it would hurt Wichita. The effect that instabil- 
 ity has on business is also illustrated in Los Angeles. That city voted 
 bonds for city improvements, and for months they made vain efforts to 
 dispose of these bonds. The Oregonian of last November, in an article 
 on this subject explained that the reason given for Los Angeles' failure 
 to dispose of its bonds, according to many financiers, was the fact that 
 the government of the city was in such an unsettled political condition. 
 
 Only recently the business men of Seattle have held mass meetings 
 urging and pleading with the people to drop the petition recalling the 
 
 9 
 
v/ 
 
 Debate: The Recall 
 
 mayor. Their argument to the people was that another special election 
 would seriously injure business. 
 
 If the recall will produce such results in our city government how 
 much greater will its effect be on our state government as advocated by 
 the affirmative, because the states deal with all the greater economic 
 and political problems. 
 
 Honorable Judges, I have shown (1) that the recall is wrong in 
 theory; (2) that it will produce instability in government; (3) that this 
 instability will have a harmful effect on business conditions. 
 
 ARTHUR E. MULLINS, SECOND AFFIRMATIVE. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
 
 The gentlemen of the negative admit that there is corruption in our 
 state and city governments. They admit that we have misrepresentation, 
 but they argue that the recall will not correct this misrepresentation for 
 certain reasons. Those reasons thus far seem to be briefly these: That 
 the recall will be used too frequently, and hence will make for instability ; 
 and that it is a fallacy of government which was recognized by the fathers 
 when they omitted the recall provisions of the Confederation from our 
 constitution. 
 
 As to the fear that the recall will be used too frequently — both rea- 
 son and experience prove the contrary. When a man is elected to office, 
 he takes his seat with a majority vote, and it will take a clear case of 
 corruption, incompetence, or unresponsiveness to cause__a^ majority to 
 overrule their own former judgment and remove ihe man they elected. 
 Experience proves this. The recall has been used less than twenty-five 
 times altogether since its adoption ten years ago. As for instability, tlie 
 Pacific coast states, the so-called "hot bed" of the recall, show an increase 
 in clearing-house receipts, against decreases in the middle west and in 
 the east. 
 
 Our fathers used the lights before them to work out their own des- 
 tinies. With the light we have before us we should try earnestly to work 
 out our own. What has the fate of the ancient republics, of Greece and 
 Rome to do with the recall? The recall does not mean a surrender of 
 representative government. But it means that the officer must really 
 represent the people. He must re-present the broad policies for which 
 they stand. Granted that the recall is an additional instrument to our 
 present machinery of government: Our fathers departed from precedent 
 or else we should be doing homage with the Durbars of India to King 
 George the Fifth. The Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Inde- 
 
 10 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 pendence were departures from precedent. Those breaches of precedent 
 gave us democratic government. To make democracy real we may need 
 new instruments. Although the recall has been in operation for ten years 
 and is now used in some form in twenty states, many may call it new. 
 But if it is new, and we need it, we should adopt the device. 
 
 My colleague has cited examples of shameful corruption in our 
 states and cities, and he has shown you that the people are helpless to 
 correct this misrepresentation. He indicated three types of officials who 
 misrepresent : First, the corrupt ; second, the incompetent ; and third, 
 the unresponsive. If there is some instrument which will help us to 
 get rid of these, then certainly we should adopt it. Now let us see what 
 effect the recall will have upon these officials. We shall see that the 
 recall will not only remove such types, but it will stimulate in all officials 
 a keener sense of duty to the people. 
 
 Taking up the effect of the recall upon the' corrupt public servant : 
 At present, because the party lines are closely drawn and the party nomi- 
 nees are controlled by that notorious preventive of good government, the 
 political machine, men with corrupt motives are constantly elected to 
 office. Without the recall such officers recognize no fealty except to 
 the machine. Why should they? They recognize no check except a 
 check with the signature of a mercenary corporation. 
 
 A typical case is that of A. C. Harper, of Los Angeles. By the in- 
 fluence of California's historic vampire, the Southern Pacific Railway, 
 and of the boss. Harper was elected mayor of Los Angeles in 1910. By 
 official protection the new mayor gave free rein to vice and crime. His 
 political pilots were the railway counsel and the ring politicians. Hap- 
 pily, before Harper could wreck the city a petition was started for his 
 recall. The mayor was called upon to justify his conduct before the peo- 
 ple. He was not brazen enough to make the attempt, but withdrew 
 from the race, thereby acknowledging his guilt. 
 
 Another betrayal of trust by a public servant was that of Hiram 
 Gill, of Seattle, Washington. Gill was elected mayor of Seattle in 1910. 
 No pirate on the Spanish main ever preyed upon his victims with as little 
 compunction as did Gill and his police chief Wappenstein in blackmail- 
 ing the gambling and resort keepers of Seattle. 
 
 The people soon realized thatiheir city was becoming a haven for 
 criminals and prostitutes. A respite came when Gill took a joy-cruise 
 on an influential brewer's boat. Mr. Wardall, the acting mayor, removed 
 Chief Wappenstein and attempted to segregate the vice district. On. 
 Gill's return, he checked the reform, reappointed Wappenstein, and re- 
 stored disorder. Thoroughly aroused, the people used the recall against 
 
 11 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 Gill, resulting in his removal, and the dismissal of his henchman Wap- 
 penstein — who has since been convicted in a court of law. 
 
 So much for the corrupt officer. Now as to the incompetent officer. 
 Junction City, Oregon, had a mayor in 1909 who was grossly inefficient. 
 The voters believed that the officer who did nothing — who was a dead- 
 weight in office — was nearly as bad as the one who did wrong. So they 
 recalled their dummy. Mayor Fawcett of Tacoma was recalled for the 
 same reason. Mayor Fawcett, by lack of executive ability and general 
 inefficiency kept Tacoma in a turmoil. Mr. Fawcett was not elected 
 simply to refrain from grafting, to be negatively harmless. He was 
 elected to administer, to execute, to be positively helpful to the people of 
 Tacoma. He failed to make good. The people were not content to 
 remain quiescent for four years while an incompetent retarded progress. 
 Hence Fawcett was removed. 
 
 But we have a third type of misrepresentation — that due to lack of 
 responsiveness. Besides Treasurer O'Connell of Cook County, who re- 
 fuses to show the Bureau of Public Efficiency how he is using the tax- 
 payers' money entrusted to him, we have an example in Denver of the 
 most flagrant disregard for the will of the voters and for the law. Last 
 month the machine council violated the state law and the city charter 
 when they ignored a petition signed by twenty thousand voters asking for 
 a special election on the question of commission government and the 
 recall. Two days later Mayor Speer, who had no such autocratic power, 
 ordered a gang of thugs to throw Assessor Arnold bodily out of office. 
 Arnold was an elective official, but he incurred the wrath of Emperor 
 Speer when he refused to add three mills to the tax warrants as Speer 
 had ordered to be fixed on overburdened taxpayers. Between twenty- 
 five and thirty thousand voters met in the open and cold, because they 
 were refused their own auditorium, and in their utter helplessness, adopt- 
 ed resolutions of solemn protest against the acts of the mayor and his 
 machine council. Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Denver need the 
 recall. 
 
 We have seen with regard to the effect of the recall upon the offi- 
 cial that it will remove three types of misrepresentative officers: First, 
 the corrupt; second, the incompetent; third, the unresponsive. 
 
 Besides doing this the recall will stimulate officers generally to have 
 a keener sense of responsibility to the people. It is obvious that when 
 a man succeeds a recalled official he will avoid the errors into which his 
 predecessor fell. As for officials generally, , Brand Whitlock, mayor of 
 Toledo, tells of a Toledo alderman who illustrates the point. This man 
 began his duties determined to live up to his platform of service to the 
 voters. He had a wife who was obsessed to do society, and his deter- 
 
 12 
 
Debate;: The Recall 
 
 mination grew less as his debts grew larger. At the psychological mo- 
 ment he was offered a bribe for his vote in a paving contract. He wa- 
 vered, but if he had had the sense of constant responsibility to the peo- 
 ple which goes with the recall — this moral crutch, if you please, — he 
 would not have fallen. As it was, he accepted the bribe and became a 
 puppet of the interests. He had lost his sense of duty to the people. 
 
 In conclusion, I have shown you that the recall will enable all states 
 and cities to correct misrepresentation by giving the people a corrective 
 instrument which may be used when it should be used — and that is, when 
 needed. I have shown you that the recall will remove officials who fail 
 to represent, citing the cases of Harper in Los Angeles, Gill in Seattle, 
 Fawcett in Tacoma, Speer in Denver, and others; and that it will give 
 officials generally a keener sense of responsibility to the people. 
 
 LEWIS M. SIMES, SECOND NEGATIVE. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen — / 
 
 The gentlemen of the affirmative are telling us that the recall will 
 do this good thing, that good thing or the other ^ood thing. But they 
 cannot prove the affirmative of this question unless they show that the 
 recall is without dangerous tendencies. They say the recall will take a 
 bad man out of office but they give us no assurance it will not also take 
 out a good man. And moreover, until they can show that the recall does 
 not make government and business unstable as my colleague has shown 
 it does, they cannot claim the question. The gentleman who just pre- 
 ceded me says if the women's vote recalled Mayor Gill in Seattle, good 
 for the women. I agree with him, but that does not disprove the fact 
 that in Seattle the only thing that made the recall work was a change of 
 electorate, and the trouble with the whole recall propaganda is that you 
 have the same electorate at a recall election as at a regular election. 
 
 Judged from the standpoint of the voter, I wish to show how the 
 recall will affect the efficiency of elections. 
 
 Let us suppose for a moment, if it will be any satisfaction to the 
 gentlemen of the affirmative, that by one fell stroke the political boss has 
 been slain, and that in his place we have the honest composite citizen, 
 always interested in government. This is a Utopian condition, but wc 
 insist that even in that situation the recall would show tendencies that 
 are fundamentally wrong. It will tend to give us a result based upon 
 passion rather than judgment. 
 
 Everyone agrees to the truism that this government is and should 
 be a government by the people. But too often we arc led into the eri- 
 
 n 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 dent fallacy that it should be a government by the unrestrained action 
 of the temporary majority of the people. Indeed, that is exactly the 
 fallacy upon which our opponents have just been arguing. Everyone 
 knows that there are times of great crisis in every city, state and nation 
 where there is a sudden impulse of the majority not founded upon sound 
 reason. And yet, but give the people time, and their later judgment 
 upon the question will be right. We will admit that this principle is true 
 with reference to a person. ' A state or community is but an aggregation 
 of persons, and the same principle applies to it. To restrain this tem- 
 porary impulse the people have placed checks upon themselves, in the 
 form of written constitutions, the veto power of presidents and govern- 
 ors, the legislatures of two houses instead of one. And not the least 
 among these restrictions is that which fixes a regular time for selecting 
 officers. This tends to prevent a hasty action because the people can 
 look forward with certainty to the time of election and can have time to 
 form a careful judgment. But the recall destroys all this, and forces 
 the voter to act before he has had time to know and to weigh carefully. 
 It records the voter's impulse instead of his sober judgment. In other 
 words, it gives us government by impulse. You may say that there is a 
 similar defect in the regular election because a wave of popular impulse 
 might take place at election time. Such an evil occurs but rarely, for 
 the wave impulse and the election do not often concur. But with the re- 
 call the election takes place every time there is a popular impulse. 
 
 History is full of waves of popular passion that were wrong. On 
 May 27, 1844, the first telegraph message was sent over the first tele- 
 graph line in America. And when the words "What hath God wrought" 
 were flashed over the wires between Baltimore and Washington, the 
 world soon recognized the power of the telegraph in modern civiliza- 
 tion. And yet when the bill was introduced into Congress appropriating 
 $30,000 for the construction of the telegraph line the first popular im- 
 pulse was one of ridicule and distrust. For nearly two years the bill 
 hung fire, and there is no doubt that if a recall had been possible on Con- 
 gressmen the bill would not have been passed at that time. Months 
 afterwards Congressman Wallace, a former governor, a man of great 
 ability, was defeated for re-election solely on his vote for the telegraph. 
 How many more good men would have been recalled if an election could 
 have taken place when the bill was first before Congress! 
 
 Judged by the calm view of later years, no one will say that Andrew 
 Johnson should have been removed from office on the impeachment 
 charges brought against him. Yet there is no doubt that if temporary 
 popular impulse could have acted through the recall of senators, he would 
 have been dragged from the presidential chair. 
 
 14 
 
1 Debate: The Recall 
 
 This tendency to popular impulse is no idle dream. It is a universal ^ 
 characteristic of the race. And the question is: do we want it to be crys- 
 talized by the recall into the result of elections; or do we not rather need 
 the sound careful judgment of our voters? 
 
 But I have assumed that we would have ideal conditions. Taking 
 conditions as they are, will not the recall be but a new avenue of power 
 to the political boss? A great statesman has truly said that to give the 
 people a power they cannot exercise is to take it from them. My col- 
 league has shown you how the recall burdens the voter. Though he is 
 given the power to exercise a continuous censorship over every act, of 
 the officer, yet in the very nature of the case, no citizen who is sufficiently 
 industrious to have some business of his own to attend to will have time 
 for that. 
 
 But the power is there, and if the honest citizen has not time to use^ 
 it the political boss will. The first thing the political boss does is to 
 threaten the good official with a recall petition. And right here let me 
 say that the recall petition is one of the weakest spots of the recall prop- 
 aganda. It would be a poor political boss who could not get the names 
 of twenty-five per cent of the voters on a petition if he tried. There are 
 thousands of malcontents in every great city who would sign any sort of 
 a petition that called for a change. And there are thousands of other 
 people who would sign a petition as the easiest method of getting rid of 
 the importunate petitioner who comes to their door. So easy is it to get 
 signers to official petitions that there is a firm in Oregon which carries 
 on a lucrative business securing names for such documents at the paltry 
 sum of one and one-half cents per name. 
 
 Once having the power to bring the recall, the boss can bring it at a 
 time when it is not looked for. i And to whose advantage is it to work "^ 
 m the dark, to spring the unexpected, to bring an unlooked-for election ; 
 in other words, who uses gum-shoe politics? Is it the political boss or 
 the trusted statesman ? ; To whose advantage is it that there are factions 
 always ready to oppose any administration, however good? To whose 
 advantage is it that a good administration does not have the time or the 
 money to maintain sufficient political organization to defend itself at any 
 moment? And there is but one answer: the political boss. And lastly, 
 to whose advantage will the recall be? It will be to the advantage of the 
 political boss. The people cannot always be watching. But the boss 
 who makes his living by watching politics, will finally wear out the people 
 by election after election or will take them by surprise and will in the 
 long run win. 
 
 Last September Mayor J. H. Graham, of Wichita, a man who had 
 already served the people for one term, a man who had been known all 
 
 15 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 over Southern Kansas for his work in law enforcement, was recalled by 
 a political boss. He was defeated before he had held office six months * 
 t^ one VV. W. Minick, a notorious friend of blind tigers, a man who , 
 years before had been defeated for mayor on a strictly wet ticket, and 
 who in the regular election last April did not even dare to be a candidate. 
 He waited until the people were tired of politics, and the friends of law 
 enforcement were practically unorganized. And then he betrayed the 
 people and disgraced an honest officer by means of the recall. That the 
 people were tired out and were taken unawares is shown by the vote at 
 the recall election which was but eighty per cent of that cast at the regu- 
 lar election. The inevitable tendencies of the recall were here revealed. 
 And it was but a proof of the proposition that wherever the political 
 boss can continue to bring elections, he will hold out longer than the 
 citizen and the advantage will eventually be in his favor. 
 
 The affirmative cannot claim that because the recall has worked in 
 a few cases it is therefore fundamentally right. They must show that 
 k will not possess these dangerous tendencies. Yet as I have shown, 
 first, it will tend to give us government by impulse instead of judgment ; 
 and second, it will open a new avenue of power for the political boss; 
 and for these reasons we insist that the recall should not be adopted. 
 
 GEORGE N. FOSTER, THIRD AFFIRMATIVE. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
 
 The negative read from the last issue of the Chicago Record-Herald 
 that four city officials were removed today by the Civil Service Commis- 
 sioa of Chicago. They forgot to tell you that these were appointive 
 officers placed there by the Commission, while the Commission has no 
 coi^trol over elective officials. This shows that as to elective officials the 
 people should have a power of removal. 
 
 They tell us that under the recall the officials will become mere pup- 
 •pets and figure-heads — in other words, that the recall will take all discre- 
 ^i from them. Their theory is that we must either give officials abso- 
 lute power to do just as they please or take all their discretion away. We 
 don't have to do either. There are a thousand and one things an official 
 can do as he pleases under the recall and the people do not object, but 
 there are a few fundamental things the people require, and they are hon- 
 esty, competency and a performance of the general policies for which he 
 was elected. 'Hierefore, the theory that an officer must either be abso- 
 lute master over the people or else have no discretion whatever cannot 
 stanf. 
 
 .*/ 
 
 16 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 My colleague has shown that in our present municipal and state gov- 
 ernments we have misrepresentation and that the people are helpless 
 to remedy this until the expiration of a term of office. My second col- 
 league has shown that the recall gives the people power to remove an 
 official who violates his trust to the people and put in his place a better 
 man; and that it will stimulate a keener sense of duty on the part of 
 officials generally. 
 
 But the recall will go further than the official. It will have a good 
 effect upon the people: (1) It will sustain the interest of the voters; 
 (2) the people will bring out good men; (3) the people will hold the 
 officials to their duty; (4) and the recall will educate the voters. 
 
 It will sustain the interest of the voters because the voters will have 
 direct responsibilities throughout the year. Opportunity means interest. 
 At the general elections voters are interested because given an opportu- 
 nity. But now, when a man does his best at the general election he 
 cannot help government directly for at least one year, perhaps two or 
 four years. With the recall he will be able to feel his responsibility 
 throughout the year. He will not be merely a citizen on election day, 
 but a citizen with direct responsibility all the time. Therefore, the recall 
 will sustain the interest of the voters. 
 
 It will cause the people to bring out good men at recall elections. 
 Under the recall bad motives for entering politics will be removed. They 
 will be removed because they cannot be expres.sed or carried out in 
 administration. Now, pre-election promises may be one thing and ad- 
 ministration another, but under the recall there must be a substantial 
 performance of those promises or the officer is liable to be recalled. 
 
 Beyond bad motives being eliminated, there will be a stimulus for 
 good men to be brought out. The people will induce a good man to 
 come out in sharp contrast to their mistake. The people will show their 
 colors, and a stimulus stronger than at any general election will cause 
 the people to meet the specific need with a good man. 
 
 For example: A. C. Harper, mayor of Los Angeles, was opposed 
 by the Municipal League of that city, which public spirited organization 
 conducted the campaign and election that got rid of him. From its 
 membership the people brought forth a leader, George Alexander, who 
 fearlessly attacked the administration. 
 
 Mayor Harper was known to be corrupt before the recall was 
 l)rought, but when about to mismanage the Orange River Power Project 
 involving the expenditure of thirty millions of the people's money the 
 storm broke and he was recalled. Harper sneaked out of the city eleven 
 days before the election, afraid to meet his accusers face to face at the 
 l>allot box. George Alexander, the successor, served the people well — 
 
 17 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 was renominated and re-elected, and saved the people's money from graft 
 and corruption. Here is a concrete instance where the people brought 
 out a good man at a recall election. 
 
 Another instance is that of Mayor Fawcett, of Tacoma, who was re- . 
 called last spring on a clear charge of non-enforcement of the law. A - 
 Public Welfare League was formed to rid the city of vice and corruption, 
 and from the membership of this league the people got their desired 
 leader — Mr. Seymour, a prominent man, a graduate of Williams College, 
 and a man standing above reproach for clean politics. Mayor Seymour - 
 has served a satisfactory term and upon being urged has consented to run 
 for a second term. Here we have another concrete instance where the 
 people at a recall election brought out a good man. 
 
 The people will do more than bring out good men; they will hold 
 officials to their duty. This potential power will make the actual opera- 
 tion of the recall seldom necessary. 
 
 If officers are honest and competent there is no need for removal, 
 but bad officials will get into politics ; even the gentlemen from Michigan 
 will admit this. I believe that they will also admit that very often this 
 official cannot be discovered until seated. These two propositions granted, 
 it follows inevitably that any system of representative government whicli 
 does not provide an effective system of removal is lacking and opens the 
 door for misrepresentation by bad officials. 
 
 Shall we allow the officer to' feel that he is a czar in his sphere or 
 shall we make him feel his duty to the people? 
 
 Shall we allow an officer to go on one, two, three, and even four years 
 more powerful than his master, diverting public funds, wasting the peo- 
 ple's money, and aiding the special interests in more strategic "grips" and 
 "holds" upon government from which it may not recover for a decade or 
 a generation? 
 
 This need of responsiveness is not theory. The people have held ' 
 officials to their duty, of which we have many examples. The most 
 notable is given of the Los Angeles Council. The Municipal League 
 Proceedings for 1909 tells us that the city council of Los Angeles was 
 about to let a street railway franchise worth at least one million dollars 
 to the city, without a penny's compensation to the city. A recall was 
 agitated, for the people soon discovered the scheme and the council found • 
 that they could not do such flagrant wrong and keep their seats because 
 of the recall. Here is a concrete instance where the people held the • 
 officials to their duty through the potential power of the recall and saved 
 the people of Los Angeles one million dollars. 
 
 Therefore, the recall causes the people to hold officials to their duty^ 
 
 18 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 Lastly, the recall educates the voters. It educates them to better dis- •> 
 criminate between policies, measures and men. 
 
 The best instance of the ability of the voters to discriminate is that ' 
 of Tacoma in 1911 when four of the commissioners were up for recall. 
 
 Commissioner Roys of Public Safety was recalled by more than a 
 three thousand majority on a charge of inefficiency and non-enforcement 
 of the law. Commissioner Lawson, of Light and Water, was recalled ' 
 on a clear charge of graft. , 
 
 At the same election, however, to show how the people discriminate, 
 Commissioner Freeland, of Finance, was retained by a two thousand 
 majority and Commissioner Wood, of Public Works, by a six thousand 
 majority. 
 
 How do you account for the fact that Roys was recalled by a three ' 
 thousand majority and Wood retained by a six thousand majority if you 
 deny that the people discriminate at recall elections? 
 
 We beheve this instance shows that the people are not carried away 
 by passion and prejudice, but that they are sober and deliberate at recall 
 elections and these special issues thus handled educate the voters to dis- 
 criminate between measures, politics and men. 
 
 We do not claim for the recall a complete remedy for all our ills ; we 
 do not claim that it will revamp human nature — that it is a heaven-born 
 scheme, but we do claim that it gives the voter a chance to remove an 
 official who violates his trust before the expiration of his term; that the 
 people get a better man in his place; that the recall stimulates a keener 
 sense of duty on the part of officials generally, and that the recall has a 
 good eflfect upon the people by sustaining their interest, bringing out good 
 men, holding officials to duty, and educating the people; and these we 
 believe are some of the fundamental needs of self-government. 
 
 FRANK D. JONES, THIRD NEGATIVE. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
 
 It must be evident to everyone at this point that the recall in its 
 operation vitally concerns three factors, — the government, the voter, and 
 the official. The first speaker for Chicago therefore showed that the 
 recall produces instability in government which has a disastrous effect 
 upon business conditions. The second speaker showed it forces the 
 voter to a decision based upon impulse and is rapidly becoming an 
 effective weapon in the hands of the political boss. It will be my pur- 
 pose to point out the undesirability of the recall viewed in its relation to 
 the official by showing, first, that it deters good men from running for 
 
 19 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 office ; second, that it destroys the efficiency of the representative in office, 
 and finally, that it is absolutely unjust to the office-holder. 
 
 In the first place, the recall deters good men from running for office. 
 V It does this because the uncertainty of tenure makes the office unattrac- 
 tive. Admittedly one of the greatest evils of our government is that 
 our offices are not attractive enough to invite the services of the highest 
 tyj>e of men. The recall by destroying the certainty of tenure simply 
 aggravates this evil. Would you care to run for office when after you 
 had arranged your business aflFairs and had been elected, twenty-five per 
 cent of the voters might six months later cause your removal and dis- 
 grace, perhaps without cause? The tendency of the recall to drive good 
 men from the field may already be seen in the election of such men as Hi 
 Gill and A. C. Harper, where the recall is in operation. Still more may 
 it be noted in the recall elections of these same two men, where in the 
 face of unspeakable conditions in city government, when you would think 
 many men would offer themselves to help redeem the good name of their 
 city, it was almost impossible to secure candidates because of the fear 
 that the recall would be invoked in turn against them. In Los Angeles,' 
 says the National Municipal League Proceedings of 1909, "A large num-' 
 ber of prominent men were invited to run for office but in every case they 
 politely but firmly refused." Finally an old man named Alexander, . 
 past the allotted age of three score and ten, who had been holding small * 
 political jobs for years, consented to run and was elected. Only three- 
 months ago he was repudiated at the primaries, his only opponent, a . 
 Socialist of petty attainments, receiving a majority of two thousand. 
 Had it not been for the admission of women to suflFrage before the final 
 election, Mr. Lee, Alexander's own campaign manager, the day following 
 the election publicly admitted Alexander would not have been elected. 
 
 In Seattle, the same results occurred. Finally George Dilling con- . 
 sented to run; now, he faces a recall election. "And the astonishing , 
 feature of the situation," says the Ohio Journal of Commerce, "is that 
 the man most likely to be elected in his place is Hiram C. Gill, whom the 
 preceding recall put out of the same office!" Such conditions with their 
 uncertainty and possibilities of disgrace are bound to drive competent 
 men from the political field. 
 V In the second place, the recall destroys the efficiency of the man in 
 
 office. The gentlemen tell you the recall gives us a continuous control 
 over the acts of the official. In so doing they admit it takes away his 
 independence. They want our official to be guided continuously by 
 public opinion, though on any close question of general interest the most 
 expert psychologist cannot determine what popular opinion is without a 
 vote. They want our officers to spend thdr time guessing what we want 
 
DEBATE : The Recall 
 
 rather than in studying the problems of government and deciding after 
 such study what is for our best interest. Such a poHcy apphed to two 
 types of officials in particular would be harmful. 
 
 First, there is the officer concerned with general constructive policies. 
 The governor, the legislator, the mayor are of this type. Efficient gov- 
 ernment demands that they look to the future as well as the present, but 
 what official would care to attempt to carry out constructive program^s 
 with the prospect that some single necessary, but unpopular phase of it, 
 would probably result in his recall? For example, in Huron, S. Dak., in 
 pursuance of a business-like policy, the mayor and commissioners pro- 
 vided for a sinking fund to meet the bonded indebtedness, resulting in a 
 slight increase in taxes. Because of this common-sense action, they had 
 to face the strain and expense of a recall election. Under the recall, it 
 is the official who does nothing, the man who is negatively harmless, who 
 is safe. Where would a large city like Chicago be in a few years under 
 such a policy? Yet the gentlemen of Northwestern would adopt this 
 system not only in Chicago, but in our towns, cities and states generally. 
 
 Again, the recall would have a harmful effect upon the ministerial 
 officer. Of this type are the secretary of state, the state auditor, mem- 
 bers of the board of education, tax assessors and a host of similar offi- 
 cers. Their duties are purely of a technical nature. Politics and effi- 
 ciency in such positions are diametrically opposed. Take for example a 
 tax assessor ; it is the proper performance of his duty that makes him 
 unpopular. Yet, the gentlemen would subject this type of officer to a 
 continuous political control. 
 
 The gentlemen may tell you the voters will not exercise the recall on 
 such Tfiinisterial officers, but the fact remains they already have in the 
 short history of the recall. In Dallas, Texas, two members of the board 
 of education were removed because they would not allow one or two 
 prominent politicians to dictate their appointments on the teaching staff. 
 The recall, by taking away the independence and discretion of these two 
 types of officials, destroys their efficiency. 
 
 Finally, the recall is unjust to the official. 
 
 It is unjust because it places an improper weapon in the hands of his 
 political opponents, because six months after he enters office he faces 
 the probability of being ignominiously recalled when his work is on pre- 
 mature trial and before it can be tested. Thus in Wichita, Kansas, 
 Mayor Graham was elected to office as a dry candidate, but immediately 
 following his election, he had to face a recall election and was removed, 
 the movement being headed by a so-called Law and Order League, later 
 shown to be financed by Kansas City liquor interests. 
 
 The recall is unjust to the official because it disgraces him. Even if 
 
 21 
 
Debate: The Recai^l 
 
 he is not recalled the alleged reasons for his recall are heralded over the 
 country and the truth never overtakes the lie. Then, too, he goes to the 
 election not as our candidates do at the general election, on the basis of 
 past services well performed, but with his motives impugned, his character 
 besmirched, fighting for the office simply to save his honor. 
 
 The recall is unjust because it often takes one act from an official's 
 career and makes that a basis for his recall. For example, the recall has 
 just been invoked against Judge John S. Coke of Oregon, because, the 
 petitioners assert, his instructions in one murder trial were too liberal. 
 If the voters will bring the recall against a judge on such a petty ground, 
 what won't they do when it is applied to the elective officers under discus- 
 sion tonight? I ask the gentlemen, regardless of the outcome of the elec- 
 tion, is it fair to force the strain and expense of a second election upon 
 an official upon such petty grounds ? 
 
 Finally, the recall is unjust to the official because it subjects him to a 
 decision based upon momentary passion. The recall election, unlike our 
 general election, takes place on short notice and at unexpected times. 
 And is there a calm judgment on the merits of the candidates? No, far 
 from that! Often it is not a question of his efficiency or inefficiency but 
 of the popularity of the opposing candidate. Always the result is deter- 
 mined not by the competency of the official but by the feeling, the popular 
 impulse at that particular moment. And upon such a basis depends his 
 vindication or disgrace! 
 
 By placing an improper weapon in the hands of his enemies, by the 
 disgrace attached to its operation, whether successful or not, by its one- 
 sided view of his career, and by the conditions under which the election 
 takes place, the recall is wholly unjust to the official. 
 
 In conclusion, we have pointed out that the recall creates the great- 
 est instability in government, demoralizing economic conditions; that it 
 forces the voter to a decision based upon impulse rather than reason and is 
 rapidly becoming an effective weapon in the hands of the political boss. 
 We have further shown that the recall not only deters good men from 
 running for office, but also destroys the efficiency of the constructive and 
 ministerial officer. Finally, we have shown that it is wholly unjust in its 
 application to the official. We do not believe that any American audience 
 desires the adoption of an agency which has such unlimited possibilities 
 for harm and which is so unfair in its spirit. Upon these grounds, there- 
 fore, we urge that the recall as outlined in the question under discussion 
 is unworthy of our adoption. 
 
 22 
 
The Rebuttal 
 
 Mr. Robinson, First Negative. 
 
 In order to prove that the recall should be adopted the affirmative 
 has shown that there is some misrepresentation in our government. They 
 maintain that the recall will cure the defect, first, because it has a power- 
 ful deterrent effect on the official. However, in the same breath in 
 which they explained how powerful this deterrent effect would be, they 
 told you of the corrupt practices of Councilman Davenport, Mayor Har- 
 per, Hy Gill and Mayor Fawcett. All these men were serving under the 
 recall, and from the affirmative's view-point it certainly didn't have any 
 deterrent effect on them. They might also have told you that the recall 
 didn't have any deterrent effect on the legislators in Oregon, because they 
 have been notoriously corrupt, as is shown by the fact that about sixty 
 measures have been submitted to the people during the past six years. 
 Surely, gentlemen, you don't mean to tell us that the recall has had a 
 deterrent effect in these places where it has been in operation. And you 
 have given us no reason why its operation would be different in the future 
 than in the past. 
 
 The second proposition that the affirmative have attempted to estab- 
 lish is that the recall has been successful in three or four places, therefore, 
 its operation will always prove successful. We submit, that even if the 
 recall has worked with apparent success a few times it is not suffixient 
 proof that it should be adopted, because it has never been used on any 
 state official, and we have shown more times where it has been misused, 
 than the affirmative have claimed for its right use. However, a close 
 examination of the cases on which the affirmative base their contention 
 will show that the recall was not even successful on those occasions. 
 
 First : In the case of Mayor Harper, impeachment proceedings 
 would have reached the same result. Second : Take the case of Council- 
 man Davenport in the same city. We wish to inform the gentlemen that 
 in order to grant that corrupt printing contract, it would have taken at 
 least eighteen other votes besides Davenport's, Now, why in all justice 
 didn't they recall the other eighteen councilmen? Is this an example of 
 the justice and wisdom of the recall ? Is it right to pick one man out of 
 nineteen guilty ones and put the mark of disgrace on him and let all the 
 others go scot free? We wish also to state that the man who succeeded 
 Davenport was fully as corrupt as he, and was threatened with a recall 
 
 23 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 election before he had been in office many months. Therefore, the recall 
 is not a success in Los Angeles. 
 
 In Seattle between the time of the general election and the recall 
 election the women had been given their suffrage, and even the most en- 
 thusiastic promoters of the recall, such as Senator Bourne, admit that it 
 was the women who recalled Hy Gill, and if the women had not been 
 given their suffrage Gill would still have been mayor of Seattle. 
 
 In Tacoma it is impossible to tell just what the issues were. Mr. 
 Gilbertson in Beard's Digest of Short Charters, says that the recall had 
 its inception in the labor question, that Mr. Fawcett refused to hire only 
 union men, and therefore the labor unions started a petition of recall. 
 The Outlook says that his recall was due to petty politics. Congressman 
 Crumpacker, of Indiana, in a speech in Congress maintained that the 
 mayor of Tacoma was recalled because he stopped a prize fight. In the 
 midst of all this confusion it is impossible to tell just what the issues 
 were in Tacoma. 
 
 Honorable Judges, the affirmative has maintained that we should 
 adopt the recall because it has been successful and have cited us these 
 examples to prove its success. We wish to submit to your judgment, do 
 such examples as these prove that we should adopt the recall? What 
 have they to say about the instability resulting from frequent elections at 
 uncertain times? If the recall is so good, why did the people of Wichita 
 and Seattle protest against further use of the recall on the ground that it 
 was hurting business ? 
 
 Mr. Jennings, First Aflfirmative. 
 
 The gentlemen on the negative ask, "What would we do with the 
 recall in Chicago ?" We bite ; what would we do ? We would use it to 
 clean up our city just as some of our more fortunate sister cities in the 
 West are doing. We would jerk Peter Bartzen out of office so quick 
 that he wouldn't know how it happened. We would make the Treasurer 
 of Cook County open his books to the public or we would put a man in 
 his place that would show us what he was doing with the people's money. 
 We would hold a club over our mayor's head so that he would not dare 
 let it be known that on New Year's Eve the city would be wide open until 
 three o'clock in the morning. These are some of the first things that we 
 would do with the recall in Chicago. 
 
 The gentlemen have advanced some theoretical arguments against the 
 recall, backed up by a few specific instances where they have tried to show 
 that the recall has had harmful effects. We admit that there are academic 
 arguments against the recall. Woodrow Wilson as Professor of Political 
 
 24 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 Science opposed the recall because of these objections, but Governor Wil- 
 son as a practical statesman favors the recall because, as he says, "in 
 spite of all these objections it works." Let us briefly notice the cases 
 where the gentlemen from Michigan say the recall has had a harmful 
 effect. They cite the cases of Councilmen Davenport and Mayor Harper 
 •of Los Angeles. Davenport is a notoriously corrupt man who voted for 
 a paper contract l^c. higher than customary. Mayor Harper was re- 
 moved because he allowed the city to run wide open. In addition to this, 
 the very best evidence of the success of the recall in Los Angeles is the 
 fact that the results of the recall were so satisfactory that the people of 
 the entire state of CaHfornia adopted the recall as a state- wide measure. 
 
 The gentlemen from Michigan next cite the case of Tacoma, where 
 they say the mayor was removed for preventing a prize fight. The 
 Outlook for August, 1911, after a thorough investigation, states that the 
 Mayor of Tacoma was removed because of failure to carry out the city's 
 laws. 
 
 In Seattle they say that the women's vote turned out a corrupt mayor. 
 Detective Burns, who was on the case, states that Seattle was the rotten- 
 est city in the United States before the operation of the recall, while now 
 it is one of the cleanest. Because the women with the aid of the recall 
 can clean up our cities is that anything against the recall ? Remember, it 
 was the women plus the recall, and without the recall the women could 
 have done nothing. They cite the case of Huron, S. D., where they say 
 the mayor was hindered in carrying out his policy. The fact is that the 
 affairs of the city government were being put on an entirely new basis. 
 Some dissatisfied people started the recall. The largest vote in the his- 
 tory of the city turned out and gave the administration a large majority. 
 This was a vote of confidence and the officials went back to carry out 
 their business-like administration absolutely convinced that the people 
 were standing back of them. The only other instance that was cited was 
 that of Wichita. But in this case we find Congressman Murdock, one of 
 the cleanest and best statesmen of the Southwest, through his official 
 paper, the Wichita Bagle, favoring the recall of that mayor. Out of the 
 25 or 30 instances where the recall has been used these are the best 
 examples of the "misuse" of the recall which the gentlmen can cite. 
 
 They tell us that the recall strikes at the very root of our well estab- 
 lished institutions; that it is contrary to the principles of representative, 
 government. Where have we got representative government to destroy ? 
 Is it representative government when officials are picking our pockets or 
 sitting back in their office chairs with their feet cocked up on their tables 
 doing absolutely nothing? If this is the kind of representative govern- 
 ment the gentlemen are talking about, we agree with them that the recall 
 
 25 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 will destroy it. The recall will not destroy true representative govern- 
 ment, but restore it. They accuse us of being unnecessarily alarmed about 
 the situation. They tell us to just be quiet, everything will work out all 
 right. This has been the cry of the reactionary in every age. Isn't it 
 time that some one got a little worked up over the disgraceful situation 
 that exists in our government ? 
 
 Mr. Simes, Second Negative. 
 
 The gentleman who just sat down concluded by asking us to explain 
 what we should do with various classes of misrepresentation. Now we 
 would remind the gentleman that the question for the evening is not: 
 What will we do about misrepresentation, but will the recall solve the 
 problem ? The first speaker of the affirmative argued somewhat like this : 
 Impeachment and criminal proceedings will not solve the problem, there- 
 fore, the recall will solve the problem. It seems to me the gentleman 
 slipped a cog in his logic there. 
 
 Our first opponent began by saying that he refused to argue on any 
 administrative details of the recall, that he will not defend any particular 
 set of details. And yet, he immediately argues that impeachment will 
 not work because of a peculiarity of the law in Nebraska, or in some other 
 particular locality. If you do not argue the thing on administrative de- 
 tails you cannot bring those charges against impeachment. 
 
 The gentleman read at length the charges against Mayor Graham of 
 Wichita. But as a matter of fact, those charges prove nothing. The 
 man who files the charges is not required to vouch for them but merely 
 to say he honestly believes they are true. The gentlemen have argued 
 that Mayor Fawcett of Tacoma should have been removed. We agree 
 that the man put in his place, Mayor Seymour, was a good officer. Yet 
 just last Saturday a recall petition was filed against him charging him with 
 almost every accusation in the catalogue. The gentlemen have referred 
 to Seattle. But the recent recall petition which was filed for the second 
 time against Councilmen Blaine and Wardell was declared by Mayor 
 Dilling to be a positive outrage. 
 
 The gentlemen have named a large number of cities where there was 
 a recall election and good officers were not removed. It seems to me that 
 it is unfair to those officers to make them go to the expense of that cam- 
 paign. Some time ago Ex-Governor Hughes of New York, one of the 
 greatest statesmen of the country, said he could not run for office again 
 because he could not afford it. Under the recall it would take just six 
 
 26 
 
DEBATE: The Recall 
 
 months and two recalls for the boss to put Hughes out of business and 
 break his pocketbook. 
 
 The recall burdens the voter with a power he cannot use intelligently. 
 It puts the political boss into a vantage point from which he can wear out 
 the voter, bully the official, and pocket the proceeds. 
 
 Mr. Mullins, Second Afl&nnative. 
 
 It has been argued that the recall will mean a government by a mi- 
 nority. Why, no minority can unseat an officer. The same forms and 
 policies of ordinary elections control recall elections. It takes a majority 
 of the votes cast to unseat an official. No example can be cited where an 
 officer was recalled by a minority. 
 
 The gentlemen of the negative tell us that the recall costs ; that one 
 recall election cost the voters sixteen thousand dollars. What if it does 
 cost ? We expect to pay for something which means such a saving. As 
 for cost, how much have our corrupt officers cost us in the past? How 
 much have the cities and states of America lost from misappropriation 
 and misuse of funds by officials? We have lost so much that our very 
 political existence is remarkable. It is like a remark which Dr. Samuel 
 Johnson made with regard to the dancing of a dog. He did not remark 
 upon the awkwardness of the dog but marveled rather that the dog could 
 "dance at all." It is only our stupendous wealth which has enabled us to 
 bear up at all. 
 
 The negative fear the "boss" will abuse the recall. Then why does 
 the boss fight the movement so bitterly? Why did the boss contest the 
 validity of the recall through the supreme court of California? Why 
 does Senator Lorimer make stump speeches all over Illinois against the 
 recall ? Why does the boss oppose the calling of a recall election in Den- 
 ver today? The boss can hardly have any more power than he has had 
 in America. The handwriting of the boss has been upon the walls of our 
 political meetings for years. He fights the recall because he knows it 
 is a non-partisan, corrective instrument which will result in his overthrow. 
 
 The negative argue that our courts are sufficient to remove officers. 
 The gentlemen acknowledge corruption and then say that the courts can 
 deal with the situation. The courts have not done this. In but few 
 states are they authorized to remove an officer for anything except dis- 
 honesty. Nowhere has the court been at all active in performing this 
 function. 
 
 We would give to the people who elect a man the power to correct 
 the mistake they may make at election time. The negative say that when 
 
 27 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 we elect a man we should keep him for his term. Our tendency is toward 
 longer terms. Yet if the people err, they shall not be allowed to correct 
 their error. They must keep their selection, however bad, for two or 
 four years, revere him, give him absolute license. We believe that the 
 people should be allowed to correct their own mistakes and to checkmate 
 the boss; and we urge the adoption of the recall which will give the 
 people this power. 
 
 Mr. Jones, Third Negative. 
 
 The first affirmative speaker showed the presence of corrupt officials 
 in our political life and the inadequacy of our present means of removal, 
 which we admit. The second and third speakers maintained the recall 
 would secure the removal of such officials. The gentlemen also spent 
 considerable time in arguing that the recall is not un-American, that it is 
 not undemocratic, and so on. That we gladly admit. We do not care 
 what its nature is ; we would favor its adoption provided it accomplished 
 its purpose and did not introduce dangerous tendencies in our political 
 life. The real issue tonight is : does the recall accomplish what it is de- 
 signed to do? 
 
 The gentlemen state that the purpose of the recall is to remove the 
 corrupt official. To prove it does so they cite but three instances — Seat- 
 tle, Los Angeles, and Tacoma. On the other hand we have shown where 
 it has had exactly the opposite effect in two cases, that of Dallas and 
 Wichita. We have pointed to the instances of Huron, S. Dak. ; Ashland, 
 Oregon; Estacada, Oregon; and other cities where the recall has been 
 invoked without cause against good officials, even though they were re- 
 tained. We have also shown how in Seattle, and Tacoma, within the last 
 week, the recall has been invoked absolutely without cause and purely for 
 political spite, against Councilmen Blaine and Wardall, and Mayor Sey- 
 mour. We submit that this experience shows that the recall, rather than 
 removing the corrupt official, is accomplishing the exact opposite. Yet 
 it is upon this experience the gentlemen urge its adoption for all elective 
 officials in our cities and states generally. 
 
 But not only does the recall wholly fail in its primary purpose ; it 
 introduces dangerous elements into the present situation. My colleague 
 showed how it made government utterly unstable, demoralizing business 
 conditions. To this the gentlemen of Northwestern have not answered 
 one word. We also showed that the recall is becoming a weapon in the 
 hands of the boss. In refutation the gentlemen merely tried to question 
 our instance of Wichita. We further pointed out that the recall has de- 
 terred good men from running for office; that it destroys the efficiency 
 
 28 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 of the constructive and ministerial officer, and that it is absolutely unjust 
 to the official. The gentlemen have not offered one word in reply. We 
 insist that the last speaker for Northwestern answer these objections. If 
 he fails to do so we contend it shows a fatal weakness in his case. We 
 believe these objections to be vital, for if there was ever a time demanding 
 stability of governmental policy, a continuous and sane interest on the 
 part of the voters, the complete elimination of the political boss, and the 
 greatest efficiency and discretion on the part of our representatives, it is 
 now when the problem of the relation of big business to government is 
 being determined. 
 
 We reaHze and regret the existence of misrepresentation, but we offer 
 no substitute because we feel the problem is being solved through the 
 placing of restrictions on the selection of candidates through such meas- 
 ures as the direct primary, the corrupt practices act, publicity of campaign 
 contributions, and the short ballot. These measures go directly to the 
 root of the evil by making it harder for the corrupt man to get into office 
 so he can misrepresent us. And we of the negative are optimistic enough 
 to believe that the problem is thus solving itself without the adoption of a 
 measure, which from whatever standpoint you view it, that of the gov- 
 ernment, the voter, or the official, that of practical operation or the theory 
 of government, shows itself to be ineffective, superficial and dangerous. 
 
 Mr. Foster, Third AflSrmative. 
 
 The gentlemen from Michigan tell us that the criminal courts are 
 adequate to remove bad officials. They admit there is corruption and the 
 criminal courts are now open anxious to prosecute if evidence is furnished, 
 but still the corruption continues. It does not take a very smart official 
 to keep out of the courts, and as to incompetency and unresponsiveness, 
 the courts are absolutely helpless. So much for the criminal courts. 
 
 We asked them early in this debate to point out the distinction be- 
 tween general and special elections. If they deny that the people can 
 express themselves at general elections they deny representative govern- 
 ment, and yet what have they answered as to the distinction between 
 general and special elections? To this, one speaker said the difference 
 was in the petition, and the other, that the special election was quasi- 
 judicial. 
 
 As to the petition, we all know that that has nothing to do with the 
 intelligent expression at the election; and as to the quasi- judicial, my 
 colleague has clearly pointed out that that is mere idle talk. Therefore 
 they have shown no difference. If there is a distinction it is in favor of 
 
 29 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 the special election where the issue is clear cut and usually single ; at gen- 
 eral elections there are many issues and they are often clouded, but with 
 clear-cut issues the people can better express their will at a special election 
 than at a general. Therefore, the people are better able to use the recall 
 when necessary than to vote at general elections. 
 
 The burden of their argument seems to be : Can we trust the people? 
 Do the people know what they want? Let us remember that the people 
 put all the limitations they have upon themselves. Every constitutional 
 safeguard, every statutory limitation is placed on the people by themselves. 
 Cannot these same people work out the details of the recall so that there 
 shall be no abuse on the one hand and no danger of its becoming a dead- 
 letter on the other? If there is a tendency to use it too much, the percent- 
 age required on the petition can be increased ; if ineffective, it can be de- 
 creased. These are administrative details that can be applied to the 
 different localities. Therefore, arguing upon these details as to its abuse is 
 a fallacy and not debating the merits of the question. 
 
 Lastly, let us conclude that there is misrepresentation ; that the peo- 
 ple are helpless to remove bad officials without the recall ; that the recall 
 removes the official who violates his trust and gets a better man in his 
 place ; that the recall stimulates officials generally to a keener sense of their 
 duty ; and the recall sustains the interest of voters and educates them to 
 better carry out the principles of representative government. Therefore, 
 the recall is desirable. 
 
 30 
 
The Briefs 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE. 
 
 Introduction — 
 Origin. 
 Definition. 
 History. 
 
 A. WE NEED A POWER OF REMOVAL FOR OFFICIALS WHO 
 MISREPRESENT. 
 
 I. Prevalence of misrepresentation. 
 
 1. Lack of responsiveness. 
 
 a. Treasurer of Cook County. 
 
 b. President Cook County Board of Commissioners. 
 
 2. Incompetence. 
 
 a. Official lacks qualifications for office to which elected. 
 
 b. Official only a figurehead for interests. 
 
 3. Corruption. 
 
 a. Exposures in cities. 
 
 b. Exposures in states. 
 
 II. People helpless to remedy. 
 
 1. Impeachment rarely used because cumbersome. 
 
 2. Criminal courts powerless for lack of evidence. 
 
 B. THE RECALL GIVES DIRECT CONTROL OVER THE OFFICIAL. 
 
 I. Removes the official who misrepresents. 
 
 1. Corrupt. 
 
 a. Mayor Harper of Los Angeles, Cal. 
 
 b. Mayor Gill of Seattle, Wash. 
 
 2. Incompetent. 
 
 a. Mayor of Junction City, Oregon. 
 
 b. Mayor Fawcett of Tacoma, Wash. 
 
 S. Unresponsive. 
 
 a. Treasurer of Cook County. 
 
 b. Mayor Speer of Denver. 
 
 II. Stimulates all officers to keener sense of duty. 
 
 1. Spurs new official to show himself worthy. 
 
 2, Deters official from violating trust. 
 
 C. THE RECALL EXERTS A GOOD INFLUENCE ON THE VOTERS. 
 
 I. Sustains interest of voters. 
 
 1. Gives direct responsibilities. 
 
 2. Furnishes opportunities to help matters. 
 
 31 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 II. People bring out good men for office. 
 
 1. Bad motives for entering politics eliminated. 
 
 2. Stimulus to profit from previous mistake. 
 
 3. Examples. 
 
 a. Mayor of Los Angeles, Cal. 
 
 b. Mayor of Tacoma, Wash. 
 
 III. People will hold officials to duty. 
 
 1. Bad officials will creep in; but 
 
 2. Potential power of recall has deterrent effect. 
 IV. Recall educates voters to discriminate. 
 
 1. Issue single and clear-cut. 
 
 2. Example of Tacoma, Wash. 
 
 NEGATIVE. 
 
 THE RECALL WILL HAVE A HARMFUL EFFECT ON GOVERN- 
 MENT. 
 
 I. Opposed to correct theory of representative government. 
 
 1. Assumes that officer is only figurehead for voters; whereas 
 
 2. Official elected by reason of fitness, and must use discretion. 
 
 3. Voters not qualified to judge of every isolated act. 
 II. Will produce instability in government. 
 
 1. Makes tenure uncertain. 
 
 a. Present tendency is to lengthen terms. 
 
 b. Official needs time to formulate and test policies. 
 
 2. Will cause frequent elections. 
 
 a. Twenty-ifive per cent of voters can call election. 
 
 b. They will do so when dissatisfied, especially where re- 
 
 sult is close. 
 
 c. Examples of Tacoma and Oregon. 
 
 III. Instability will injure business. 
 
 1. Business demands fixed conditions. 
 
 2. Bad effect of presidential elections. 
 
 3. Examples of Wichita, Los Angeles and Seattle. 
 
 THE RECALL WILL HAVE A HARMFUL EFFECT ON THE 
 VOTERS. 
 
 I. Carries into effect popular impulse and prejudice. 
 
 1. Hasty action often wrong. 
 
 a. Congressman Wallace of Indiana. 
 
 b. Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. 
 
 2. Sober second thought should govern in elections. 
 
 32 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 II. Opens up new power for political boss. 
 
 1. Frequent special elections overburden the voter. 
 
 2. Political boss can wear out the voters by frequent and un- 
 
 expected elections. 
 
 3. Boss can bully official by threat to recall. 
 
 a. Ease of securing petition. 
 
 b. Expense to official of recall election. 
 
 c. Mayor Graham of Wichita, Kans. 
 
 THE RECALL WILL HAVE A HARMFUL EFFECT ON THE OF- 
 FICIAL. 
 
 I. Deters good men from running for office. 
 
 1. Example of Los Angeles. 
 
 2. Example of Seattle. 
 
 II. Destroys efficiency of man in office, by taking away his independ- 
 ence. 
 
 1. Administrative official. 
 
 a. Cannot carry out constructive program. 
 
 b. Example of Huron, S. D. 
 
 2. Ministerial official. 
 
 b. Duties are technical, not political. 
 
 c. Example of Dallas, Texas. 
 
 III. Unjust to official. 
 
 1. Improper weapon in hands of opponents. vWichita, Kans.) 
 
 2. Disgraces him, even if innocent. 
 
 3. May be based on isolated act. (Judge Coke.) 
 
 4. Decision rests on momentary passion. 
 
 33 
 
The Bibliography 
 
 GENERAL REFERENCES. 
 Charter of the City of Dallas, 1907. Dallas: Citizens' Association, 1907. 92pp. 
 Davis, T. A.: The Recall as a measure of control by the people. (In National 
 
 Municipal League. Proceedings, 1906, pp. 382-387.) 
 Detning, H. E.: The government of American cities; pp. 105-108. 
 The Des Moines plan of city government. Des Moines: Commercial club, 
 
 1908. 31 pp. 
 Charter of the city of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. Fort Worth: 
 
 Texas Printing Co., 1909. 116 pp. 
 Hamilton, J. J.: The dethronement of the city boss. Recall, pp. 38, 209-212, 
 
 218-219. 
 Charter of the city of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Press of Parker & Stone 
 
 Co., law printers (1909), 123 pp. 
 Mechem, F. R.: A treatise on the law of public offices and officers; pp. 445-467. 
 Governor Folk's message to the Missouri Legislature, 44th General Assem- 
 bly (extra session), 1907; pp. 9-10. 
 New York State Library. Bulletin. Legislation. Vol. 1 — date. Albany, 1891- 
 
 date. See index under Recall. 
 Paine, R. T., Jr.: The initiative, the referendum and the recall in American 
 
 cities. (In National Municipal League. Proceedings, Nov. 16-19, 1906; 
 
 pp. 223-246, Pittsburg, 1908.) 
 Pomeroy, E.: The Recall. (In Bliss, W. D. P., ed. New encyclopedia of 
 
 social reform, p. 1050.) 
 Charter of the city and county of San Francisco. San Francisco: Carlisle & 
 
 CJo., printers, 1908. 206 pp. 
 Schaffner, M. A.: The recall. 
 
 Madison, Wis.: Wisconsin free library commission, 1907, 21 pp. (Com- 
 parative legislation bulletin, no. 12.) 
 Stilson, F. J.: The recall in Los Angeles. (In National Municipal League. 
 
 Proceedings, 1909, pp. 326-333. n. p., 1909.) 
 Willard, C. D.: 
 
 Municipal progress in Los Angeles. (In National Municipal League. Pro- 
 ceedings, 1905. (n. p., 1905.) 
 Governor La Follette's message to the Wisconsin legislature, 47th regular 
 
 session, 1905. Madison, Wis., 1905. — Municipal government, pp. 79-81. 
 
 34 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 Wisconsin University: University extension division. Dept, of debating and 
 public discussion. The recall. Madison, Pub. by University, 1908. 7 
 pp. Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, serial no. 262; General series, 
 no. 144. 
 
 Lobingier, Chas. S.: People's Law. MacMillan, 1910. Pol, Econ. Lib. 
 
 Illinois Staite Bar Assn. Proc, 1911. Address by Clarence T. Wilson: Ore- 
 gon's experiments in self-government. 
 
 See Chapter 18 of Oberholtzer — Initiative, referendum and recall in America. 
 
 Welliver: Initiative, referendum and recall. Munsey's Magazine. Dec, 1911, 
 p. 329. 
 
 Bradford, Ernest S.: Commission Government in American Cities, Chap. 20 — 
 Recall. Hist. Lib. 
 
 Recall in California. S. G. Lowrie (In Am. Pol. Science Review, 5: 248), 
 May, 1911. 
 
 Recall in Texas. (In Outlook 98: 697-8), July 29, 1911. 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE. 
 
 Anderson, Sydney: New Mexico and Arizona. Congressional Record, May 
 
 23, 1911, p. 1481 (current). 
 Bisbee, R. E.: Roger Sherman Hoar on the recall. Arena 41: 494, July, 1909; 
 
 Where the recall is needed. Arena 41: 495, July, 1909. 
 Blight, R. E.: Recall of the mayor of Los Angeles. Independent 66:861, Apr. 
 
 22, 1909. 
 Booker, C. F.: The recall. In his speech on New Mexico and Arizona. Con- 
 gressional Record, May 22, 1911, p. 1435 (current). 
 Bourne, Jonathan, Jr.: Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Atlantic Mo., 
 
 Jan., 1912. 
 Connell, R. C: Admission of Arizona and New Mexico; recall or no recall, 
 
 the judiciary is safe in the care of the American people. Congressional 
 
 Record, May 23, 1911, p. 1471 (current). 
 
 Though opposed to Recall, does not believe that it involves a denial of the 
 intelligence and patriotism of the American people. 
 Davis, T. A.: The recall as a measure of control by the people. National 
 
 conference for good city government. Proceedings, 1906: 382. 
 Experiments in democracy. Outlook 89: 831, Aug. IS, 1908. 
 Ferris, Scott: Recall of public officers. Congressional Record, May 29, 1911 
 
 (current), p. 1612. 
 Hardy, Rufus: Recall. In his speech on the Admission of New Mexico and 
 
 Arizona. Congressional Record, June 1, 1911, p. 1671. 
 House-cleaning in Los Angeles. Outlook 91: 757, Apr. 3, 1909. 
 Lindbergh, C. A.: Recall. Congressional Record, May 23, 1911. p. 1502. 
 Mayor Seymour of Tacoma. Outlook 91: 947, April 29, 1911. 
 
 35 
 
Debate;: The Recall 
 
 Morgan, D. T.: Recall of public officers. Recall of judges. In his speech on 
 the admission of Arizona and New Mexico. Congressional Record, May 
 26, 1911, p. 1565. 
 
 Owen, R. L.: Recall of public officers; the right of recall; the recall no nov- 
 elty. In his speech on New Mexico and Arizona. Congressional Record, 
 Mar. 14, 1911, p. 4624, 4631. 
 
 Parker, A. M.: How Seattle got the recall. Pacific Monthly, 17: 455, April, 
 
 1907. 
 Pomeroy, Eltweed: 
 
 First discharge of a public servant; Los Angeles. Independent 58:69, Jan. 
 12, 1905. 
 
 Needed political reforms. 111. The recall. Arena 28:470, Nov., 1902. 
 
 Really masters (recall of J. P. Davenport, Los Angeles). Arena 33:51, 
 Jan., 1905., 
 
 What is the recall? Arena 36:49, July, 1906. 
 Recall in American politics. 'Chautauquan 41:199, May, 1905. 
 Recall in Seattle. Outlook 97:377, Feb. 25, 1911. 
 
 Recall of the mayor of Los Angeles. Independent 66:432, Feb. 25, 1909. 
 Recall of the Seattle mayor. Survey 25:879, Feb. 25, 1911. 
 Seattle recall. Outlook 97:295, Feb. 11, 1911. 
 
 Stephens, W. D.: Recall. Congressional Record, May 23, 1911, p. 1500. 
 Stilson, F. J.: Recall in Los Angeles. National conference for good city 
 
 government, 352.07-N19, 1909:326. 
 Willard, C. D.: A political experiment. Outlook l^All, October 22, 1904. 
 Municipal progress in Los Angeles, National conference for good city govern- 
 ment, 1905:111. 
 
 The recall: an experiment. The same, p. 384. 
 Oregon's Struggle 'for purity in Politics. Jonathan Bourne. (In Ind. 68; 
 
 1374-8, June 23, 1910.) 
 Popular Government in Oregon. Jonathan Bourne. (In Outlook 96: 321-330, 
 
 Oct. 8, 1910.) 
 Popular Government vs. delegated government. (In Everybody's 23: 719-20.) 
 Needham, Henry B.: Woodrow Wilson's Views. (In Outlook 98: 939-51, 
 
 Aug. 26, 1911.) 
 Outlook 98: 912-4, Aug. 26, 1911. Statehood veto. 
 Watch Commission Government Grow. Wm. Daly, Jr. (In Everybody's 25: 
 
 548-50, Oct., 1911.) 
 Practice of the Recall. H. S. Gilbertson. (In Beard's Loose-leaf digest of 
 
 Short Ballot charters, pp. 21801-21805.) 
 Cry of judicial despotism; recall of judges. Current Literature 51:240-5, Sept., 
 
 1911. 
 
 36 
 
Debate: The Recall 
 
 Delaying Statement and Veto of Judges, Review of Reviews 44: 264-6, Sept., 
 
 1911. 
 People's Rule in Municipal Affairs. Geo. H. Haynes. (In Political Science 
 
 Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 432-442), Sept., 1911. 
 Last Call for Grafters to go. Pearson's, July, 1911. 
 "People's Rule" in Oregon, 1910. Geo. H. Haynes. (In Political Science 
 
 Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 32-62, March, 1911.) 
 Election and the progressive principles. L. Abbott (In Outlook 96: 617-21.) 
 Checks and balances. (In Ind. 70: 1075-6.) May 18, 1911. 
 Mayor Seymour of Tacoma. (In Outlook 97: 947.) April 29, 1911. 
 Recall in Seattle. (In Outlook 97: 375-6.) Feb. 25, 1911. 
 Seattle Recall. (In Outlook 97: 295.) Feb. 11, 1911. 
 Arizona and the recall of the judiciary. Theodore Roosevelt. (In Outlook 
 
 98:378-9.) June 24, 1911. 
 Recall in Seattle. Burton J. Hendrick (In McClure's, Oct., pp. 647-663). 
 Case and Comment (Lawyer's Magazine), November, 1911.. 
 Popular Control under the Recall. H. S. Gilbertson. (Annals of American 
 
 Acad. Pol. and Soc. Science, Nov., 1911, pp. 163-68.) 
 June 24, 1911. 
 
 Speech of Hon. John A. Martin, of Colo., on "The Veto and the Recall." 
 
 NEGATIVE. 
 
 Crumpacker, F. D.: The recall. In his speech on the Admission of Arizona 
 
 and New Mexico to statehood. Congressional Record, Mlay 29, 1911, p. 
 
 1607. 
 Fink, A.: Recall of judges. North American, 193: tl2, May, 1911. 
 Fox, G. L.: The recall. National conference for good city government, 1905: 
 
 31. 
 Hamilton, E. L.: The constitutions of New Mexico and Arizona and the 
 
 recall of judges. Congressional Record, May 22, 1911, p. 1429. 
 Howland, Paul: Recall of judges. Congressional Record, May 18, 1911, p. 
 
 1339. 
 Kahn, Julius: Recall of public officers. In his speech on the admission of 
 
 Arizona and New Mexico. Congressional Record, May 25, 1911, p. 1540. 
 Legare, G. S.: Recall of the judiciary. In his speech on New Mexico and 
 
 Arizona, Congressional Record, May 17, 1911, p. 1284. 
 McCall, S. W.: Recall. In his speech on New Mexico and Arizona. Con- 
 gressional Record, May 23, 1911, p. 1496. 
 Mondell, F. W.: Recall of judges. In his speech on Statehood for Arizona 
 
 and New Mexico. Congressional Record, May 24, 1911, p. 1517. 
 Olmsted, M. E.: Arizona (Recall of judges). Congressional Record, May 
 
 25, 1911, p. 1556. 
 
 37 
 
Dbbatk: The Recall 
 
 Woods, Henry: Recall. America, Vol. 5, pp. 198-9. June 19, 1911. 
 
 Works, J. D. The recall. In his speech on the admission of the territory of 
 Arizona as a state. Congressional Record, April 27, 1911, p. 620. Nega- 
 tive for judges. Affirmative for other officers. 
 
 Possible abuse of the recall. Christian Science M'onitor, May 26, 1911. 
 
 Recall of judges. (In Ind. 70: 1135.) 71: 384-5, June 1: Aug. 17, 1911. 
 
 Recall of judges. A. Fink, (In No. Am., 193: 672-90), May, 1911. 
 
 Recall of the Seattle Mayor. (In Survey, 25: 879.) Feb. 25, 1911. 
 
 Recall of judges, a rash experiment. (In Cent., 82: 624-5.) Aug., 1911. 
 
 Menace of the Recall. (Amer. City 4: 275.) June, 1911. 
 
 Folly of the Recall, Outlook 98: 852-3, Aug. 19, 1911. 
 
 Representative as against Direct Government, Samuel W. McCall — Atlantic, 
 Oct., 1911. pp. 454-466. 
 
 SEE BIBLIOGRAPHIES ON: 
 
 City Government by Commission, by Ford McGregor. (Univ. of Wis. Exten- 
 sion Series, Vol. 1, No. 4.) 
 Commission Plan of Municipal Government, Comp. by E. C. Robbins. 
 
 (Debaters' Handbook Series.) 
 Municipal Home Rule Charters. Wis. Library Commission Legislative Bulle- 
 tin, No. 18. 
 Corrupt Practices in Elections. (U. S. Library of Congress.) 
 Popular Election of Senators. (U. S. Library of Congress.) 
 Proportional Representation. (U. S. Library of Congress.) 
 Initiative and Referendum. (U. S. Library of Congress; also Debaters' Hand- 
 book Series.) 
 Primary Elections. (U. S. Library of Congress.) 
 Publicity of Campaign Expenditures. (U. S. Library of Congress.) 
 Short Ballot. (Special Libraries, Vol. 2, No. 6, June, 19n,) 
 Commission Government. (In Beard's Loose-leaf Digest of Short Ballot 
 Charters, pp. 81001-91401.) 
 
 38 
 
Mcelroy pubuishino co 
 
 CHICAOe, ILL. 
 
TINIVFKSITY C*^ 
 
 ^T^^ ^MI^^^^H 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subjea to immediate recall. 
 
 200ct'591VlJ 
 
 
 RFr^'Pi i'r% 
 
 
 OCT ^0 iQGd 
 
 AUG2 7l9/;5 '; V 
 
 V V 1. C\I 9999 
 
 
 RECTI ffl <;t? 
 
 •i73-4PII«t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21A-50m-4,'59 
 (A1724sl0)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley