the fullest means of expression and the most complete liberty of action in the legislative body. The best means of arriving at an accurate judgment in a law case is to allow each party to set forth its own views in the most extreme and unfair way if it chooses, subject to contradiction and refutation by those who have adverse interests and views. Would this be less true in a legislative tribunal?

There are many plans by which proportional representation may be practically applied, but the Free List System, as it is called, which has been tried and found effective in the cantons of Ticino, Geneva, Neuchatel, Zug and Solothurn in Switzerland, as well as in the city of Berne, seems to me the best, and it has been already tested by satisfactory practical experience. The members of council are voted for at large upon a general ticket. The official Australian ballot may be used. Each party or group of electors must file in the proper office, a given number of days before election, a list of its candidates. This list may contain the names of as many candidates as the city is authorized to elect, or it may contain a less number. Thus in a city electing fifteen councilmen each party may nominate fifteen candidates or any smaller number. It would not often be desirable to nominate the full number, but only a few more than the party could reasonably hope to elect. The rules for nomination by party or petition may remain the same as they are now under the Australian system. The names of the candidates are then printed on the official ballot. If the candidate is named on several ballots he must make his election, or if he fail, it may be made for him by lot.

Each elector has as many votes as there are candidates to be elected—in the above case he has fifteen votes, and he may distribute these votes as he pleases. The different groups or lists will appear in separate columns on the official ballot-headed "Labor Union Party," "Water Works Party," "Democratic Party," or what you will. In addition to voting for the candidates by name, the voter may, if he so desires, fix his stamp at the head of the party column, thereby signifying that he votes for the party. In this event however he is only allowed to vote for the particular candidates who are named in that party ticket, for it would be manifestly unfair to allow a Republican to vote

the Republican ticket and then let him determine by his votes for particular candidates, which of the Democratic candidates should be elected.

Should the voter thus vote for a party or group ticket and not use the entire number of votes to which he is entitled for particular candidates, his unexpressed votes are to be counted for the ticket which he designates by title. If I am a "Labor Union" supporter and fifteen candidates are to be chosen, I stamp the party ticket at the head of the column and I also stamp the names of the particular candidates whom I prefer—three, four, five, as many as I like. Now, I am entitled to fifteen votes and these votes are all to be counted in determining the number of seats to which the "Labor Union" party is entitled, while the votes which are expressly given to particular candidates count in determining which of these candidates shall be entitled to the seats.

If, on the other hand, I do not wish to support a party ticket at all but desire to scatter my fifteen votes among candidates of various parties, I may do so. In that case I must not stamp the head of the column, then I will not vote a party ticket and my votes will count simply for the individuals for whom they are cast. I may vote for the whole fifteen candidates or for any less number. This terminates the duty of the elector. He votes for the fifteen men he wants, or, if he prefers, he votes a party ticket and then selects the men within that party and divides his vote among them as he wishes.

The votes are now counted. Every vote for a party ticket counts as a vote for all the candidates to be elected, say fifteen votes. All other votes where the party ticket is not stamped count for the individuals for whom they are cast (fifteen or less as the case may be). These votes are all added together and the sum total is divided by the number of councilmen to be elected (fifteen). The quotient gives the "quota of representation," that is the number of votes that are entitled to elect one councilman. Each party or group is then entitled to as many representatives as it has quotas. If the sum of these full quotas be less than the number of councilmen to be elected-the parties or groups having the largest remainders are entitled to the remaining seats.

This determines the number of members in the council to which each party or group is entitled. The next thing is to determine which of the particular candidates of each party or group are to have the places. This is a very simple matter. A second count is made of the number of votes given for each individual candidate and those who receive the greatest number of votes are entitled to the seats. If any member of council die or his seat become vacant during his term for any other cause there is no need of a new election, for his place may be filled by the candidate of his own party who stands highest upon the list of those who have not been elected.

This system of voting is practically as simple as the Australian ballot system which it supplements. If any citizen desires to run as an independent candidate, a petition signed by the requisite number of voters constitutes a separate nomination and in that way a separate party or group, and each elector who votes for him by stamping the head of the column has the same voting power as one who divides his vote among fifteen candidates individually. In that case (and in any other case where the elector chooses) his fifteen votes all concentrated on a single man.

This free list system has already been tested by practical experience, has been found satisfactory, and has been extended from one Swiss canton to another.

When I was in Geneva a few years ago I asked what was the general opinion in regard to it. "How can any one object to it" was the answer, "when every one has his fair share of representation ?"

The free list system is an American invention. It was first suggested in 1844 by Thomas Gilpin, of Philadelphia. It has been adopted by a republic whose institutions are much like our own and whose excellent government is in many other respects worthy of imitation. It is fair and just to all. It eliminates the gerrymander. It reduces to a minimum the unrepresented minority. It gives each particular interest and shade of opinion a chance to be represented and heard in an effective and a legitimate way. It gives the voter the fullest liberty of choice, and while it recognizes party lines it enables each voter to vote effectively if he so chooses, quite independently of party, and it is sure in the end to

diminish and probably to eliminate the influence of national or state politics in city government. The councilmen chosen by this system will represent the particular part of public sentiment which chooses them rather than a meaningless artificial geographical area, they will stand for their own particular views of the interests of the whole city and not of a mere ward. They will be selected from the most competent men of the entire city and the choice will not be restricted to ward lines. They will be broader, abler ad better men. The council elected by such a system will be the people of the city themselves in miniature. The representative body will be like the image on the camera-every light, color, shade, form and motion will be reproduced in miniature within the physical space necessary for deliberation and legislative action.

If we have faith in popular institutions, let us not hesitate to trust that kind of representation which will for the first time truly embody them.

IMPROPER INFLUENCE ON LEGISLATION.

157

THE IMPROPER INFLUENCE ON LEGISLATION BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANIES.

JOHN F. BURKE, MILWAUKEE.

Like Hamlet, I must begin with an explanation. At the thirteenth hour, in a moment of weakness, or as it now seems to me, of almost complete mental aberration, I reluctantly consented, not to fill, but to rattle around, so to speak, in the place of the distinguished gentleman to whom this subject had been originally assigned, but who, at the last moment, by force of unforeseen circumstances and for reasons entirely justifiable was prevented from discussing it. It is a matter of regret for he is eminently qualified for its intelligent and comprehensive consideration, by learning, experience and ability. There seemed no one else foolhardy enough to storm the breach; I consented to be the victim, and as the politicians say, sacrifice myself for harmony and the cause.

I was, however, sane enough to base my acceptance upon one condition and when asked to name it, answered that it was contained in the reply of Max O'Rell to the pompous deacon who was about to introduce him to a strange audience in a wild western town: "Mr. O'Rell, when introducing you, what do you wish me to speak about?" said Mr. Deacon. To which the clever Frenchman quickly replied, “About one minute, sir." Now, my friends, I wish you to consider, not so much the wit inherent, as the promise implied in that brief quotation. I hope you enjoy its wit: I will try to fulfill the promise.

The subject assigned to me is a large and important one. It has challenged the consideration of the most profound and patriotic students of our civil polity, institutions and government. Much has been and more might be spoken and written upon it. It is not an isolated question but is closely interwoven with others,