"'^SinortLunn 
 26 MAY 1914 
 
 HISTORY AND MEANING 
 OF THE PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 
 FOR CAMBRIDGE 
 
 October 24, 1911 
 
 BY 
 
 LEWIS JEROME JOHNSON 
 
 [Reprinted from Proceedings of The Cambridge 
 Historical Society, VI] 
 
C'<\c.U 
 
 \°>U 6 
 
 w 
 
 iWlVHHSITY or H.UW 
 20 MAY 1514 
 
 HISTORY AND MEANING OF THE PROPOSED NEW 
 CHARTER FOR CAMBRIDGE 
 
 V 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am afraid I may have 
 to offer the history and meaning of the proposed ne»w Cambridge 
 charter in a somewhat intertwined form; there will be some “ his¬ 
 tory ” and I hope some “ meaning.’’ I think possibly, however, 
 they will run along together without confusion. 
 
 The history of the Cambridge charter might include the history 
 of the democratic movement in government which has been going 
 on for centuries. But I am sure that I shall have your approval if 
 I skip these centuries and come down at once to the last decade, and 
 even perhaps to the last two years. In the last ten years most 
 significant progress has been made in devising means for improving 
 American city government. The last decade is, in fact, the most 
 interesting one in our history in this respect. It is gratifying to 
 us who love our old Massachusetts traditions that this decade seems 
 to be making effective the hopes and aspirations which we in Massa¬ 
 chusetts have held for generations. It is gratifying to be able to 
 reflect that our purposes and ideals have been correct all the time 
 and that defective details in the machinery account in the main for 
 not securing the ends desired. From the experience of the last two 
 decades, and of the last decade particularly, we have learned how 
 to correct some of the worst of these mistakes. This seems par¬ 
 ticularly clear to me because it falls within the line of my profession, 
 that of an engineer. Our purpose was fine, but defects in details 
 have become evident. What to do seems clear. 
 
 These four lines from the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of 
 Massachusetts, adopted a century and a third ago, express in a few 
 words, which cannot be bettered to-day, what our purpose was and 
 I believe is still: 
 
54 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct 
 
 “ Art. VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the 
 protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for 
 the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of 
 men.” 
 
 But the private interests of various men have found numerous 
 ways to creep in and gain precedence in government — in cities 
 and States and in the nation. They have intrenched themselves in 
 the institutions set up to keep them in check. What was worked 
 out — the checks and balances, and all the rest — was a system 
 which conceivably might work if economic conditions never put 
 temptations in men’s way and if various other things were so which 
 are not. But, be that as it may, it is a system which has notoriously 
 failed to produce the desired results, particularly in our cities. One 
 of our chief national causes for disappointment has been the gov¬ 
 ernment of our cities, but to-day we think we see pretty good rea¬ 
 sons why that failure has occurred. In my opinion, we started by 
 misunderstanding the nature of the city problem. We have been 
 firm in the faith that our form of city government must be in the 
 main correct because it involves the federal form of checks and 
 balances, the Montesquieu fetich, fascination with which was one 
 of the worst of the fathers’ errors. Open to grave question 
 as this principle is in general, it is particularly unsuited to city 
 organization. For city government is mainly executive, and effi¬ 
 ciency, simplicity, and responsiveness to the public will would 
 seem obviously to be prime requisites. But, unfortunately, as our 
 cities developed, we thoughtlessly applied to them the federal form 
 of government. Results were bad. For decades we contented our¬ 
 selves by scolding our good citizens because they did not make this 
 old arrangement work. We assumed that if anything of so re¬ 
 spectable an origin did not work some person must be to blame. 
 We see, however, that something else must be done. We are coming 
 to see that it is but a waste of time and energy trying to beseech 
 and scold our best citizens into jumping to the task of making the 
 venerable system work. It might work, I admit, if everybody were 
 a sort of Columbus for daring, and a St. Thomas for self-abnega¬ 
 tion. But our citizens are not all of such a type. Meanwhile the 
 same old system has gone right on doing its harm. 
 
 In order to start the American citizen straight on this thing, it 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 55 
 
 required a physical catastrophe of appalling magnitude. When the 
 waters had subsided from a devastated city, the people of Galveston 
 saw that something both intelligent and radical had to be done. 
 The politicians stepped aside at once. They said, “ While ordinary 
 conditions suit our purposes finely, heaven knows there is nothing 
 in this situation for us ; we surrender.” So there was appointed a 
 commission of five men to succeed them, violating tradition after 
 tradition, and discarding particularly those happy havens for inef¬ 
 ficiency and corruption, the double chamber system and divided 
 powers. These results were so good that the neighboring city of 
 Houston said, “ Well, if that thing works so well in the wrecked 
 city of Galveston, why can it not work well in a city that is not yet 
 destroyed ? ” and so they followed suit in Houston, and so it has 
 gone on from those beginnings right through the country. The 
 form of city government which has constantly and persistently been 
 getting American cities into trouble is clearly doomed. We shall 
 doubtless have a wide range of experiments in the search for im¬ 
 provement, but it looks as if it would be pretty hard to get far 
 away from the so-called commission form. 
 
 The Galveston charter discarded the old form, root and branch, 
 and put all the powers of the city into the hands of a single board 
 of five responsible persons, elected at large, and thus established 
 concentration of power and responsibility. That was an enormous 
 stride forward. From the point of view of efficiency, it covered 
 the ground. It also attained simplicity. 
 
 Now, the spread of this sort of thing throughout the country was 
 greatly hastened by the work of Des Moines. There they retained 
 the simplicity and efficiency of the Galveston form, but added a 
 new, though, for permanently good results, probably indispensable 
 feature, the power of direct popular control of the commission 
 through the Initiative and Referendum and Recall. This gives 
 what should be an effective means of controlling the city business, 
 however the officers may be elected. In Galveston the way it has 
 worked out, the publicity and conspicuousness attending all that 
 these five men do, has been such as to produce admirable results. 
 In Des Moines they not only have all that, but have secured more ; 
 they have the Initiative, by which the people can pass a measure 
 over the head of the council; the Referendum, by which the people 
 
56 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 can, by popular vote, veto an act of the city council; and the Recall, 
 whereby the people can remove a commissioner from office before 
 the expiration of his term. 
 
 Now, that Des Moines charter was adopted in 1907 and went 
 into effect in 1908. The germination of the seed that was planted 
 in Galveston in 1901 had been comparatively slow; the growth 
 was bound to come, but other cities were getting the news and be¬ 
 ginning to think. The word came to Cambridge and this vicinity 
 largely through President Eliot. He, as some of you will recollect, 
 returning from a trip that he had been making among the Texas 
 cities, told of the marvelous results that had been obtained, prin¬ 
 cipally in Houston. He reported asking one of the commissioners 
 how they could build all those schoolhouses and build all those 
 streets, and all that without a bond issue and with a reduction in 
 the tax rate. The commissioner’s reply, “We are getting a dollar’s 
 worth of government for each dollar’s worth of taxes collected,” 
 arrested attention. This kind of news was being carried elsewhere 
 and was taking effect. The spread of the commission form of gov¬ 
 ernment then began in earnest, and became so rapid, and is now so 
 rapid, that we do not hope to keep the literature for our charter 
 campaign up to date; it is changing so fast that I think our latest 
 literature is already somewhat behind the times. This movement 
 progresses in spite of the combined opposition, generally, of the 
 political machines of both parties and of all the other special inter, 
 ests that profit by a bad city government. There are those in a 
 community who like to have the city administration run with a lit¬ 
 tle favoritism here and there, and sometimes with a great deal of 
 favoritism. They naturally make a point of standing in with the 
 political machines of both parties. 
 
 Fine as the results had already been, and high as was the per¬ 
 fection in form after the Des Moines contribution, it seemed clear 
 that it would do no harm for us in Cambridge to bide our time for 
 a while. Better things still were likely to develop. 
 
 Two years ago, the little city of Grand Junction in Colorado had 
 scarcely been heard of; but, like many another small place, it was 
 destined to have a marked effect on the thought and practice of 
 men. Two years ago, Grand Junction adopted a new charter of 
 the commission sort, including all the good features of the Des 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 57 
 
 Moines plan, but introduced a new system of electing officers — an 
 attractive system of preferential voting. This seemed to certain 
 citizens of Cambridge to be the capsheaf, so to speak, of the devel¬ 
 oping form of city charter. It then looked to them as if energy, 
 experience, and political genius had developed what we might 
 safely assume to be the standard modern form of American city 
 charter. It looked then as if we might assume that the type of 
 construction best adapted for the purpose, so far as our experience 
 would permit it, had been worked out; and the question at once 
 arose, Would it not be a pretty good thing to give the citizens of 
 Cambridge an opportunity to adopt an up-to-date charter of this 
 kind? It was in the fall of 1909 that that form of election was de¬ 
 veloped and tested. The previous lack of so important an improve¬ 
 ment was no doubt the reason why the Cambridge commission charter 
 movement had not developed before. The appearance of preferen¬ 
 tial voting is, at all events, the main cause for this charter’s coming 
 up at this time, and since it is the greatest novelty of the charter, per¬ 
 haps it will be appropriate for me to devote special attention to it. 
 
 There seems to be universal agreement that the proper method 
 of nomination is by non-partisan petition of a moderate number of 
 voters — the number of signatures put as low as possible consistent 
 with decorum. The idea is to give unorganized bodies of voters 
 the least possible difficulty in putting a favorite in nomination. 
 This allows the nominations to be perfectly free and open to any 
 candidate for whom there could be any hope of election. In Los 
 Angeles one hundred signatures secure a nomination; in Spokane, 
 twenty-five ; in Des Moines, twenty-five; in Lynn and Haverhill, 
 twenty-five; in fact, twenty-five is the usual figure. This results 
 at once in the nomination of a large number of candidates; then 
 the dilemma to settle is, which candidates should win? Obviously 
 it would not do to let all of these candidates go on the ballot, and 
 leave it in the usual way for a plurality, which might, after all, be 
 only a small fraction of the voters, to decide the issue. Such a de¬ 
 cision might or might not be acceptable or endurable to the ma¬ 
 jority. When a candidate is elected by a minority, nobody knows 
 whether he is on the whole the preference of the majority or not. 
 Mayor Barry, for example, at the last election had less than half the 
 votes cast for mayor. His vote, though a plurality, was a minority, 
 
58 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 his two opponents having together more votes than he. The same 
 is true of Mayor Fitzgerald of Boston. He had 47,172 votes ; his 
 three opponents together, 48,184. A more striking illustration of 
 the absurdity of the old system occurred in a recent election in 
 Salem, when Mayor Howard was elected by 1800 votes out of a 
 total of 7200. There were five candidates, the vote was close, 
 and 1800 sufficed for a plurality and an election. Nobody knew 
 whether Mayor Howard was the man the citizens of Salem wanted 
 or not. To win by this system one need only to be the favorite of 
 the largest single group or organization. Nothing could be more 
 dangerous. We have hitherto striven against this danger, and by 
 one arbitrary means or another kept the number of nominees low — 
 a practice directly in violation of the cardinal democratic principle 
 of readily secured nominations and a wide choice for the electorate. 
 The excessive number of 5000 signatures required in Boston arose 
 no doubt partly from the fancied necessity of keeping its number 
 of nominees down. Setting the required number of signatures low 
 forced a radical change in practice. The expected, desired, and 
 resulting large number of nominees made it absolutely necessary. 
 
 So what they did in Des Moines was to resort to the system of 
 double elections, long familiar in western Europe, — to have two 
 elections instead of one, — a primary and a final election, each re¬ 
 quiring an election day. At the primary election the names of all 
 the candidates appear on the ballot, arranged alphabetically or by 
 lot, and each voter puts a cross after the name of his first choice for 
 an office. The two highest candidates then appear on the final 
 ballot some days or weeks later, all the rest having been dropped, 
 and the voters are forced to choose between these two. This is 
 the plurality system, thinly disguised, with a great premium on 
 organization and machine work. 
 
 In Grand Junction they said : “What is the use of two elections? 
 Cannot we manage this with one election and do it a great deal 
 more neatly and safely, besides? We will arrange it so that the 
 voter can mark not only his first and second choice for any one 
 office, but as many “ other choices ” as he likes. This will enable the 
 voter to support every one of perhaps a large number of good can¬ 
 didates, as against the machine or undesirable candidates. It 
 will also destroy largely or entirely the great advantage long en- 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 59 
 
 BALLOT ILLUSTRATING PREFERENTIAL VOTING 
 
 As Embodied in the Proposed New Charter for Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS. — To vote for a candidate make a cross (X) in the appropriate 
 space. 
 
 Vote your FIRST choice in the FIRST column. 
 
 Vote your SECOND choice in the SECOND column. 
 
 Vote ONLY ONE FIRST choice and ONLY ONE SECOND choice for any one 
 office. 
 
 Vote in the THIRD column for ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES whom you 
 wish to support 
 
 DO NOT VOTE MORE THAN ONE CHOICE FOR ONE PERSON, as only 
 one choice will count for any candidate. 
 
 If you wrongly mark, tear or deface this ballot, return it and obtain another. 
 
 ONE MAN TO BE ELECTED FOR EACH OFFICE 
 
 Supervisor 
 of Administration 
 (Mayor) 
 
 First 
 
 Choice 
 
 Second 
 
 Choice 
 
 Other 
 
 Choices 
 
 Charles E. Hughes 
 
 
 
 
 Champ Clark 
 
 
 
 
 John A. O’Gorman 
 
 
 
 
 Nelson W. Aldrich 
 
 
 
 
 Richard Croker 
 
 
 
 
 Robert L. Owen 
 
 
 
 
 William H. Taft 
 
 
 
 
 Joseph W. Folk 
 
 
 
 
 Robert M. LaFollette 
 
 
 
 
 Woodrow Wilson 
 
 
 
 
 William J. Bryan 
 
 
 
 
 Chauncey M. Depew 
 
 
 
 
 Theodore Roosevelt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Supervisor of 
 Finance 
 
 
 
 
 Bourke Cockran 
 
 
 
 
 Leslie B. Shaw 
 
 
 
 
 John A. Sullivan 
 
 
 
 
 Nathan Matthews 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Supervisor of 
 Public Works 
 
 First 
 
 Choice 
 
 Second 
 
 Choice 
 
 Other 
 
 Choices 
 
 Guy C. Emerson 
 
 
 
 
 John Mitchell 
 
 
 
 
 Stephen O’Meara 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Supervisor of 
 Health 
 
 
 
 
 H. W. Wiley 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Supervisor of 
 Public Property 
 
 
 
 
 Gifford Pinchot 
 
 
 
 
 Richard A. Ballinger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
60 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 joyed by the machine, and, moreover, eliminate the objection to a 
 large number of candidates.’’ 
 
 The sample ballot (page 59) which has been distributed shows 
 how the ballot would actually look. 
 
 Now, this method of election not only does away with primaries, 
 but it does a number of things besides. It means that a man may 
 accept nomination for office without there being incumbent upon 
 him the necessity for spending money, without even making a 
 speech if he does not want to. Now we well know that some 
 of the most desirable candidates, particularly for city office, are not 
 speech-makers and cannot or do not wish to spend money, and 
 above all things do not wish to put themselves in the position of 
 having their motives misunderstood or misrepresented, or go 
 out asking for votes. Under this ballot a large number of nomi¬ 
 nees appear, and it is of no consequence, presumably, that any par¬ 
 ticular one should win. It is important only that some one of the 
 right type should win. Under the old system the candidate’s fail¬ 
 ure is his party’s failure, something supposed by his supporters to 
 bring great disappointment and harm. The new system eliminates 
 that excess of strain and responsibility upon the candidate. No 
 one man is singled out as a target for abuse or mud-slinging, unless, 
 at least, the case against him is pretty strong. In fact, the incen¬ 
 tive is the other way. Unnecessary offense to voters whose second 
 or other choice votes, if not first, are being angled for, is obviously 
 to be avoided. In short, it goes a long way toward solving the 
 problem of making standing for office attractive to the right kind 
 of citizens, whom we have found it hitherto hard to attract. 
 
 Another thing that this ballot does will be a relief to the much 
 berated element which has ideals, conscientious scruples, and dif¬ 
 ferences of opinion which lead to splits and which handicap them so 
 severely in any effort against unscrupulous solidarity. It enables 
 any body of voters automatically, quietly, and painlessly to get to¬ 
 gether behind some candidate more or less perfectly representing 
 the general views of that group. It practically eliminates the 
 danger, usually fatal, of a split ticket, avoided readily enough by 
 steam-roller methods of a machine, but not so easily avoided by 
 people with scruples, self-respect, and pride. 
 
 Now those who feel hopeful of getting decent city government in 
 this country base their hope on the faith that those who want the city 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 61 
 
 run right are in the majority, divided usually, however, into hostile 
 camps by party lines based on nothing more important than which 
 of two factions shall hold the city jobs and hand out the city favors. 
 Now, if we can eliminate the false party issue and get the majority 
 of the city together, as has been found possible in other cities, we 
 shall have accomplished a great thing. With this ballot the num¬ 
 ber of candidates may be large and include plenty of the best of all 
 parties or no party, and in this way somebody satisfactory to the 
 majority is sure to win if there is anybody in the list who is suf¬ 
 ficiently well and favorably known to secure the support of the 
 majority; and if there is not, we get the next best thing, and the 
 best possible with that list of nominees ; that is, the candidate who 
 among all the others commands the largest following after a free 
 and full expression of choice by the voters. The voter, no longer 
 limited to one choice, no longer has to treat all other acceptable 
 candidates just as he does the most objectionable men in the list. 
 Thus, numerous candidates will no longer split up the votes of a 
 majority and contribute to the election of a plurality man who is 
 earnestly opposed by the majority. With the proposed ballot each 
 voter may vote for as many of the nominees as he likes and a 
 plurality election cannot be obtained in defiance of the wishes of 
 the majority, unless all the candidates are objectionable. 
 
 The ballot that has been handed around has on it the names of 
 thirteen candidates for mayor. I will improvise a ballot here to 
 show how the marking is done. 
 
 For Mayor 
 
 First 
 
 Choice 
 
 Second 
 
 Choice 
 
 Other 
 
 Choices 
 
 Smith 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 Doe 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 Mason 
 
 
 
 
 Sikes 
 
 
 
 
 Roe 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 Asquith 
 
 
 
 
 Jones 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 Robinson 
 
 
 
 X 
 
62 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 I suppose there is a list of eight candidates as shown. The ar¬ 
 rangement of names is, as prescribed by the proposed charter, by 
 lot, and not alphabetically. 
 
 The voter’s task is this: He notes the name of candidate Doe, 
 whom he prefers on the whole to any cf the others. So he votes 
 a first choice for him by putting a cross in the first column after 
 his name. Then, being one of the right kind of citizen, consci¬ 
 entious and devoted to the good of the city, he looks further and 
 notes that there are other good men nominated: that if Doe should 
 not win there would be no calamity. Jones is a good, satisfactory 
 sort of man. He would put him next. So he votes a second 
 choice for Jones by putting a cross in the second column after 
 his name. Then there are Robinson, Smith, and Roe. They are 
 also competent and acceptable men. He does not want to vote 
 against them, and so he votes an “ other choice ” for each of them 
 by marking for them in the third column. Note that he is not 
 facing the usually impossible task of grading them in the order 
 of his preference. This ballot makes it as easy as possible to vote 
 for all his kind of candidates. There may be only one, or two 
 thoroughly objectionable candidates, and they should be thoroughly 
 voted against by all the majority voters supporting all the major¬ 
 ity type of candidate. The way it is likely to be is this: The 
 boss knows very well that strength in the campaign does not lie 
 in a multiplicity of nominees for the same office, and he there¬ 
 fore will very likely be successful in keeping candidates among 
 his faithful down to one or two. A rival boss or two may put in 
 candidates. The clientele of such candidates are likely to bullet — 
 to vote for their own men and no others — and split the selfish 
 vote. The grafter is likely to want one candidate and no other, 
 for personal reasons, and so will vote no second or other choices 
 for fear of beating his first choice. The other element are met 
 by no such dilemma. They should mark freely for all good candi¬ 
 dates, and their victory is doubly assured — by being probably in 
 a majority anyway, and by facing a factionally and selfishly divided 
 enemy. Here is the opportunity for self-respecting, conscientious 
 persons to get together in such a way as to save the votes of each 
 and every one of them. When the votes are counted, they may 
 find to their surprise, as in Grand Junction, that for the first time 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 63 
 
 in the memory of men they have won, and deservedly. If you 
 will look at the little slip which has been passed around, you 
 will see how it worked out. The slip runs as follows: 
 
 Practical Working of Preferential Voting 
 
 Grand Junction, Colorado, November 2, 1909 
 
 Total number of ballots cast.1,847 
 
 Necessary for a majority . . 924 
 
 RESULT OF THE VOTES FOR MAYOR 
 
 
 
 1st 
 
 Choice 
 
 2d 
 
 Choice 
 
 Other 
 
 Choices 
 
 Combined 
 lst’s and 
 2d’s 
 
 Combined 
 lst’s, 2d’s, 
 Others 
 
 D. W. Aupperle 
 
 . 
 
 465 
 
 143 
 
 145 
 
 608 
 
 753 
 
 * W. H. Bannister 
 
 . . 
 
 603 
 
 93 
 
 43 
 
 696 
 
 739 
 
 N. A. Lough 
 
 . . 
 
 99 
 
 231 
 
 328 
 
 330 
 
 658 
 
 * E. B. Lutes 
 
 . . 
 
 41 
 
 114 
 
 88 
 
 155 
 
 243 
 
 E. M. Slocomb 
 
 . 
 
 229 
 
 357 
 
 326 
 
 586 
 
 912 
 
 Thomas M. Todd (Elected) 
 
 362 
 
 1,799 
 
 293 
 
 1,231 
 
 396 
 
 1,326 
 
 655 
 
 1,051 
 
 The two starred candidates for mayor, Bannister and Lutes, rep¬ 
 resented factions of the reactionary interests against whom the 
 new charter was aimed, the former being the strong candidate of 
 that sort. The progressive opposition was divided and put up 
 four candidates for the place. The situation was much the same 
 as in the first election under the new Boston charter — with the 
 striking difference that out there, Bannister, the Fitzgerald of that 
 situation, did not get elected, as the result of the divided opposi¬ 
 tion, or otherwise. There were 1847 votes cast, and in order to 
 win this election a person must have a majority (924) in first 
 choices; or, failing that, must have the highest number of firsts 
 and seconds combined, provided it is a majority; and failing that, 
 the one getting the highest total of all choices would win. The 
 thoroughly objectionable candidate led in first choices, as was to 
 be expected under the circumstances, and under our Massachusetts 
 way of doing things, he would have been regarded the winner. 
 But, as the figures show, he had only a few over a third of the 
 voters behind him. The vote was nearly two to one against him. 
 
64 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 Still I find it very difficult to make Cambridge politicians see 
 why Bannister should not win. They not unnaturally profess to 
 feel outraged that so strong a candidate was not seated. You will 
 see that his opposition of about 1150 voters were simply divided 
 into three or four camps, but, thanks to the form of election, they 
 suffered no penalty and secured a mayor acceptable to them, with, 
 two other candidates leading their arch enemy Bannister. 
 
 To be more precise at this important point, and at the risk of re¬ 
 peating to a slight extent for the sake of perfect clearness, I wish 
 to add the following few comments on that election. 
 
 The starred men were the anti-charter and minority candidates ; 
 the others the pro-charter and majority candidates. 
 
 Omitting reference to the Grand Junction practice of “ dropping 
 the low man,” — an unessential complication, not likely to be 
 widely adopted, and without influence on this result, — the deci¬ 
 sion was drawn from the foregoing figures as follows: 
 
 There being no majority in First Choices, the Firsts and Sec¬ 
 onds were added together. Then the leading candidate, Bannister, 
 provided he had had a majority, would have won. 
 
 There being no majority by combined Firsts and Seconds, the 
 First, Second and Other Choices were added together, and Todd, 
 the candidate then leading, won. 
 
 Under the usual system the minority would have beaten the ma¬ 
 jority and elected Bannister. 
 
 Under the Berkeley, Des Moines, Haverhill, or Lynn plan, that 
 of second elections, there would have resulted a bitter contest be¬ 
 tween Aupperle and Bannister, and a forced choice between two 
 candidates, neither of whom had a majority of the people behind 
 him. Moreover the practical certainty of having to go through 
 such a campaign in order to be elected may well deter most men of 
 the desirable sort from accepting a nomination. Such an ordeal is 
 no legitimate test of fitness for office. It has few terrors for the 
 cheap self-seeker, but does deter the candidates we need. It is one 
 of the great evils of our old style politics from which the system of 
 second elections does not free us, but which the preferential system 
 in great measure, at least, destroys. 
 
 One of the features of all our charter meetings is to hold a mock 
 election which shows exactly how this new system of election 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 65 
 
 works. When this method of voting was first proposed, we used 
 to hear occasional remarks about its being complicated. At the 
 suggestion of a lady much interested in the charter, it was proposed 
 that we make a practice from the start of giving the voters an 
 opportunity actually to vote such a ballot. This had the expected 
 effect. No talk of the ballot being complicated ever comes from a 
 voter who has had a chance to try it. The only opposition left is 
 that readily ascribable to a firm belief that it would actually work 
 as intended. In other words, the opposition is now confined to 
 the machine politicians, and those in their train. Even they make 
 little effort to make it appear that it is complicated. 
 
 You will now be given an opportunity to hold such a mock 
 election, using the ballots which have been distributed. One 
 vote in the first column for first choice; one vote in the sec¬ 
 ond column for second choice. You are not compelled to vote 
 against your second and other choices, as under the present system. 
 With only one vote you have to treat all but your first choice — 
 good, bad, and indifferent — alike; and under the new system of 
 nominations there may be a dozen in the running for whom you 
 would be prouder to vote than any that come up under the present 
 system. This ballot enables a voter to vote for all candidates of an 
 acceptable type and against all candidates of other types, and thus, 
 with the direct nomination power, for the first time to express him¬ 
 self satisfactorily at the polls. All this ought to help to arouse 
 interest in politics among those who have lost it, or who, for better 
 reason than they were aware of, never could get interested. 
 
 Will you please mark your ballots ? 
 
 If the ballots are ready and if you will be good enough to pass 
 them to the aisles they will be collected and counted. It will not 
 take very long to produce the results. 1 
 
 We observe that the prime reason that the public will has not 
 prevailed in our cities is because selfish interests have succeeded in 
 getting in between the people and their business. Those minor 
 interests generally operate through the political party machine. 
 Now the machine is a necessity under our cumbersome system. 
 
 1 The result of this mock election was soon reached by tellers and announced 
 to the audience. The result was of no permanent value and so is not recorded, 
 but the experiment appeared to give complete satisfaction to the meeting. 
 
66 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 The traditional ramshackle form of government could not be run 
 without it. But its largely irresponsible character, its great power, 
 and its need for money make it a tempting mark and in many cases 
 an easy prey for those who find cash returns in making the city 
 government serve their private ends to the injury of the mass of 
 citizens. 
 
 To correct this kind of evil the system of nomination above de¬ 
 scribed goes a long way. The elimination of the party label helps 
 also. Together they go far to destroy monopoly of nominations. 
 The preferential ballot strikes at the likelihood of electing such 
 candidates as the machines put on the ballot, and brings into the 
 field against them citizens of a type whom it was perfectly unrea¬ 
 sonable to ask to run under the old system. 
 
 To back up all this the short ballot principle is introduced. 
 This greatly aids the voter, and still further works against the ma¬ 
 chine system. The idea on which the short ballot is based is to fill 
 by popular election so few offices and only such important and 
 conspicuous ones as will get and hold the critical interest of the 
 voter. The five supervisors proposed in this charter, in place of the 
 thirty-four now chosen by popular vote to do the same work, fall in 
 with this principle — and this point is much intensified by the fact 
 that they go out of office only one or two per year, leaving only one 
 or two to be elected in any one year, and, including the school com¬ 
 mittee, only three to four city offices to be filled by the voters in 
 any one year. The ballots as passed around, calling for the filling 
 of all five supervisors at one election, would appear only at the first 
 election under the charter. 
 
 Under the proposed charter, five supervisors replace the mayor, 
 board of aldermen, and common council — thirty-four men in all — 
 and have all the executive and legislative powers of the city, save 
 such as are reserved to the school committee and the people them¬ 
 selves, as I will explain later. Any fifty citizens can put on the 
 ballot the name of the candidate acceptable to them, and he accepts 
 the nomination on just as good terms as any body of politicians 
 can confer. There is no party label to float the nominees into 
 power in the face of incompetence, previous obscurity, or bad 
 record. 
 
 All this puts the government right into the hands of the people, 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 67 
 
 with fair hope of success. With men in positions of great pub¬ 
 licity, the opportunity to get credit for good work is a powerful 
 incentive. The spirit of this modern democratic movement is that 
 human nature is pretty sure to be sound, but that it should be 
 given at least half a chance. If we put these carefully selected 
 men in a position of power, where the good they do will be appre¬ 
 ciated and credited to the right ones, we shall get good results. 
 There is an opportunity for good to be done, some of it long 
 neglected, in any city. Cambridge is no exception. 
 
 Then, under the proposed charter, the people themselves are 
 given power, if anything seriously objectionable happens or is 
 threatened, to step in and exert direct control of their business, 
 through the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. These are the best 
 means that have been devised for such emergency work, and they 
 have already done great service in this country and elsewhere. 
 They furnish the means for final and effective control that the 
 public requires for its safety. 
 
 Then we provide a reasonably long term for these supervisors, 
 three years, in which a man can learn his business and work out 
 and execute a policy. We propose to pay a salary large enough 
 so that men of the type generally believed to be capable of doing 
 this work could at least live on it. Then, by this system of 
 elections, by which a man can take a nomination with a minimum 
 of risk to peace of mind, pocket, or reputation, we could hope to 
 get the right kind of man into office. We have given them great 
 power to do desirable things, and the least possible power to do un¬ 
 desirable things. We have arranged it so that credit would go to 
 whom credit is due. We have arranged it so that the government 
 and the citizens shall be in the closest possible relations, so that citi¬ 
 zens with right purposes can be of the greatest possible effective¬ 
 ness with the least possible sacrifice. This will train the citizens 
 to increasing efficiency, and make good results permanent, and in 
 large degree self-sustaining. 
 
 In this charter we have brought together all the best features of 
 work of the last decade of American city charter making, carefully 
 adapted to Cambridge and Massachusetts conditions. 
 
 We have in this charter these characteristics which have been 
 productive of nothing but success so far in this country, and it is 
 
68 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 believed that they are sound principles, namely, simplicity, concen¬ 
 tration of authority and responsibility, and responsiveness to the 
 public will. 
 
 At this point it seems appropriate to record the names of the four 
 others included with the speaker in the group of five who took it 
 upon themselves to prepare the original draft of the charter and 
 introduce it into the legislature in the session of 1910. They were 
 Lawrence G. Brooks, Arthur N. Holcombe, John R. Nichols, and 
 Russell A. Wood. F. Lowell Kennedy also gave the work cordial 
 and important encouragement from the start, and appeared as one 
 of the petitioners for the bills in the legislature. Messrs. Hol¬ 
 combe and Nichols, not at that time registered voters in Cam¬ 
 bridge though since having become such, did not appear in the list 
 of these four petitioners. Of course, many others, too numerous to 
 mention here, and generally included in published lists of commit¬ 
 tees of the Charter Association, helped with encouragement and 
 suggestions of the greatest value, but out of this long list no one 
 who knows the high quality and great extent of his unheralded 
 assistance as counselor and executive will grudge a special record 
 here of the name of Reginald Mott Hull. 
 
 Now, as an illustration of how charters of this kind actually 
 operate, the experience in Spokane may interest you. There is a 
 city the size of Cambridge, with five offices to fill, each office with 
 a four-year term, each with a five-thousand-dollar salary, requiring 
 for nomination only twenty-five signatures. The result was ninety- 
 two candidates for five offices, offering an adequate range of choice 
 to the voters. The number of votes cast was 22,058; 7000 women 
 had registered in the few months that had elapsed since their en¬ 
 franchisement by the state. This was their first election of any 
 kind, and the first experience of the men with this kind of ballot. 
 There was no difficulty and no confusion. Of those ninety-two 
 candidates, the five men who won had none of them held an elec¬ 
 tive city office. The politicians were down and out. The citizens 
 for the first time in their history had a chance at something differ¬ 
 ent and seized upon it. The highest man, Robert Fairley, got a 
 majority of first-choice votes. He was the only one who did. 
 Moreover, he had the support in first, second, or other choices of 
 three quarters of the voters in the city. He had become widely 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 69 
 
 and favorably known as an appointive city officer. He had long 
 served as city comptroller. 
 
 The four men next in favor were as follows: 
 
 No. 2 in popular choice, W. J. Hindley, was a leading Congre¬ 
 gational clergyman. He had never been in public life before ex¬ 
 cept as a leader in the single tax movement, and an active, virile 
 defender of civic righteousness generally. A fine orator, and widely 
 respected. 
 
 The next man, C. M. Fassett, was the President of the Spokane 
 Chamber of Commerce, one of the most successful and most re¬ 
 spected business men of the Northwest, like Mr. Hindley, a single¬ 
 taxer. He was elected during his absence from the city, indicat¬ 
 ing a kind of politics we have not yet enjoyed in this part of the 
 country. He took no part in the campaign beyond signing his 
 acceptance of the nomination, and writing two or three letters 
 home which were published in the local papers. 
 
 The next, D. C. Coates, had been a leader in the charter cam¬ 
 paign, formerly Lieutenant-Governor of Colorado, member of a 
 typographical union, a socialist who had won the respect and con¬ 
 fidence of former opponents and of the public generally. 
 
 The fifth, L. A. Hayden, was a prominent lumberman, a very 
 successful man of high ideals. 
 
 None of these four, by the way, was then sufficiently widely 
 known -to secure the votes of a majority, even upon the addition 
 of first, second, and other choices. 
 
 The correspondent who furnished me the foregoing information 
 was careful to point out that they were not only men of responsi¬ 
 bility and standing, but they were men of high civic spirit, inter¬ 
 ested in the public good. Those five men were chosen, and the 
 people were delighted not only with the result, but with the high 
 tone of the campaign. 
 
 You do not strike a politician until you get to No. 13. Not only 
 the first five, but the first twelve names in the list were names of 
 people who had never been in elective office; they were men, suc¬ 
 cessful in business and ordinary vocations, of a type quite different 
 from the ordinary politician. The ex-mayor, the man who was 
 mayor when the charter was adopted, was a man against whom 
 little or nothing could be said, but he was a member of the old 
 
70 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 regime and came in no better than thirteenth. No. 17 was the next 
 of a similar type, and so on down. The fact remains that Spokane 
 has had an entire change in the rules, and they are very pleased 
 with it. 
 
 We may take a little satisfaction here in Cambridge from the 
 fact that they adopted this preferential ballot in Spokane very 
 largely because they knew it had obtained such favor here in Cam¬ 
 bridge ; it is very gratifying to me to feel that we here in Cambridge 
 have helped teach the Pacific Slope progressivism. They simply 
 worked out the charter and voted on it and got it into operation in 
 a total campaign of six months. But there they require no action 
 by the legislature for such a step. They have home rule for cities. 
 
 Here in Cambridge we mean that these five supervisors shall be 
 elected to specific office. Each candidate knows what office he is 
 to fill, and the voter knows to what office he is electing him. This 
 is no attempt to elect experts, but to secure men interested,in their 
 departments, with a taste for their work, and in a position of re¬ 
 sponsibility to the voters for its execution. This is worth a mo¬ 
 ment’s notice, for it is a somewhat new idea, but likely to gain 
 in favor. Grand Junction, Lynn, and Oklahoma City already 
 enjoy this system, and Haverhill’s experience with the more 
 usual system led Lynn to take the step. The usual practice has 
 been to nominate the men and elect five of them merely to the 
 council at random to parcel out the work among themselves as 
 best they may — a practice tending to irresponsibility and ineffi 
 ciency unless exceptional men are put in power. 
 
 Now, having devoted so much time to the history and contents 
 of the proposed new charter for Cambridge, it becomes an easy and 
 short task, in closing, to point out its meaning. 
 
 It opens the'brightest opportunity we have ever had in this city 
 for an actual realization of the principles laid down a century and 
 a third ago in this city, on the soil of this University, by a graduate 
 of this University, John Adams, and ratified by the people of this 
 Commonwealth as the foundation of their organic law, namely: 
 
 “ All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from 
 them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with 
 authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes 
 and agents, and are at all times accountable to them. . . . 
 
1911.] HISTORY, ETC., OF PROPOSED NEW CHARTER 71 
 
 “ In order to prevent those who are vested with authority from be¬ 
 coming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such 
 manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause 
 their public officers to return to private life ; and to fill up vacant places 
 by certain and regular elections and appointments. . . . 
 
 “ Government is instituted for the common good ; for the protection, 
 safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, 
 honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.” 
 
 These are principles as impregnable to-day as when they were 
 written. In fact, I think it may be said that their violation, par¬ 
 ticularly the violation of the last sentence quoted, is the cause in 
 a nutshell of our political and economic troubles. I think we need 
 no new doctrine, only effective ways to get the old doctrine into 
 effect. To get the full result desired we must, in these later days, 
 add two things, — more effective means for the use of the people 
 in asserting their supremacy, and more favorable conditions for the 
 development of the right leadership. The people must have more 
 power to do with, and more knowledge what to do against those 
 who would pervert government to the profit of some one man or 
 set of men. This charter, I consider, includes a‘s complete a list as 
 is to-day practicable of what the people must have to secure the 
 requisite power. The existence of this power, within the reach of 
 all the citizens, will foster and develop the leadership, if anything 
 will, — our great educational system, and the memory and example 
 of the unselfish leaders of the past greatly assisting. 
 
 The nine striking features of the charter which, I believe, will 
 operate so powerfully to bring into effect the purposes of our Mas¬ 
 sachusetts Bill of Rights are : 
 
 1. Direct and Easy Nominations, without regard to ward lines: 
 to check party domination and give voters wide choice. 
 
 2. Short Ballot: to permit easy and intelligent voting. 
 
 3. Preferential Voting: to eliminate primaries, to encourage 
 competent men to stand for office, and to permit a real choice from 
 a large number of candidates, with minimum cost and effort. 
 
 4. Long Term and Adequate Salary: to render public office ac¬ 
 ceptable to competent men. 
 
 5. Small, compact Council with large powers, combining the ex¬ 
 ecutive and legislative functions: to secure efficiency. 
 
72 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY [Oct. 
 
 6. Publicity 
 
 7. The Initiative to permit effective control of city affairs by 
 
 8. The Referendum the voters. 
 
 9. The Recall 
 
 This list, if supplemented by two other items, would include about 
 the whole that has been accomplished since the adoption of the 
 constitution of this Commonwealth in the way of improved gov¬ 
 ernmental machinery and practices, and little in this list dates in 
 this country at least from before the last decade. 
 
 The two items which I have not mentioned and which it is a par¬ 
 ticular pleasure to mention here in this presence — in the presence 
 of your President, Mr. Dana, who has so efficiently led in their 
 adoption — are the merit system and the Australian ballot, and 
 without the latter, at least, this charter could not have come to 
 pass. 
 
 More still must be done to complete this kind of work in State 
 and nation, and various corrupting economic fallacies and abuses 
 must be eliminated from our thought and life before we can secure 
 permanent security and peace, but, whatever form such work may 
 take, I believe it is* bound to be part and parcel with this charter 
 in attempting to establish a government “ for the common good ; 
 for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people ; 
 and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, 
 family, or class of men.”