In order to understand the reason for a board of appeals, and something of its functions, it is essential to have a general idea of the system of handling and disposing of the public lands, their resources, and all other matters within the jurisdiction of the department of the interior.

It has been the wise policy of the United States so to dispose of its lands and resources as to encourage the establishment of homes and the extraction and use of minerals, rather than to seek to derive a revenue therefrom. The agricultural lands of the public domain are freely given to citizens who will establish their homes, erect improvements, and cultivate the soil. The taking of the minerals is permitted under what amounts to a gift, conditioned upon certain development work; so with the use of water for irrigation, for power, and for municipal and domestic purposes.

The purpose of the direct primary, in so far as its purpose can be formulated in general terms, was to realize within the party organization, and especially in the process of nomination, accepted principles of democratic control. It is a commonplace, however, that political machinery must in the long run be judged not by its theoretical democracy but by its practical results. In a study of direct nominations, then, it appears most fruitful to examine the system in its operation rather than in its theory, and, whenever possible, to compare its working with that of the system which it supplanted.

Since 1901 the Michigan legislature has passed more than thirty acts, original and amendatory, relating to the nominating machinery. From 1901 to 1905 legislation applied to selected counties, cities, and districts; from 1905 to 1909 it was both local and general but optional with the parties and with the localities; since 1909 it has been general and mandatory. On the whole it has been halting, half-hearted, opportunistic, and unscientific, and is still far from perfection. At the present time all state officials elected in the spring, including judges of the supreme court and regents of the university, all elective state administrative officers except governor and lieutenant-governor, and all township and village officers are still nominated by the old method, a method which is also retained for the selection of delegates to state and national conventions and in a modified form for the drafting of party platforms.

The more intensively one tries to study the interesting phenomena of direct legislation the more humble does he become. To look closely, for example, at the two hundred and ninety-one constitutional and legislative measures which the people of thirty-two States voted upon in 1914 is to be impressed with the number and significance of the things about that remarkable election which one cannot possibly know. How superficial at best must be our insight into that complex of social, political, economic and human forces which lay back of the presentation of those measures and the popular decision upon them. It is in full realization of the peril which lies in the way of sweeping classifications and glib generalizations that the conclusions drawn in the course of this brief discussion of the recent experience with the initiative and referendum petition are offered with considerable hesitancy.

The purpose of salary standardization is briefly:

To furnish a simple and logical classification of all employments, with general descriptions of duties, appropriate titles and rates of compensation, qualifications and conditions governing advancement, for purposes of appropriation, financial and civil service control, information to present and prospective employes and to the public. Salary standardization would be a relatively simple thing if a single government agency, backed by a strong executive, were empowered to develop a new classification and put it into effect.

As Ohio's first experience with the statewide initiative and referendum drew attention of students of direct legislation from all parts of the country and led to carefully worked out legislation for safeguarding petitions, I shall confine my attention in this discussion to the operation of safeguards in that State. The initiative and referendum were established by constitutional amendment in 1912. The amendment provides that only electors of the State are entitled to sign petitions, that each person must sign for himself, and that each part petition must contain an affidavit of the canvasser, stating that each of the signatures on such part was made in the presence of the affiant, that to the best of his knowledge and belief each signature is a genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be, that he believes the persons who have signed it to be electors, and that they signed the petition with knowledge of its contents. The legislature in its first session following the adoption of the amendment passed a law prohibiting the giving or receiving of money for signing petitions, and requiring the circulators of petitions to file with the secretary of state, after election, a detailed statement of receipts and expenditures, with names and addresses of contributors and of persons receiving pay for circulating petitions, with amounts contributed or received by each. Neither the constitution nor the statute established further practical means to facilitate the prevention or detection of fraudulent practices in making or soliciting signatures.

In the ten minutes I have, I want to apply some of the principles of standardization to the inspection service of the city. Now of course in ten minutes I could not even outline the extent and importance of the inspection work of a city the size of Philadelphia. But that it is important and becomes more so with each extension of the city's activity, is too well known to need repetition. In the first place I want to give some of the results of one very significant attempt at the introduction of standards in the inspection service. This was made by the registrar, in the bureau of water in Philadelphia. What he tried to do was to find the best method of procedure and have it followed, and to keep such records that a standard day's work could be determined.

The forty-five inspectors in this division count water fixtures, read meters, and inspect for the waste of water in dwellings. This data is used for the basis of water rent charges. Formerly each inspector was given a certain number of political wards and turned loose to collect his data as he saw fit. He made out his own route. There was no outside supervision, and no one knew for sure how many hours a day a man worked, or indeed whether or not he worked at all.