(1914), Wyoming (1916), and Louisiana and Pennsylvania (1918) have definitely loosened constitutional restrictions with respect to road construction, and this has meant at the same time a lessening of limitations with respect to debt-contracting power. Ohio (1912), Texas (1917), and Massachusetts and South Dakota (1918) have expressly authorized state activities with respect to conservation. Water power and forestry activities have also been authorized by constitutional amendments in Wisconsin (1910), New York (1913, 1918), and Minnesota (1914).

With respect to hail insurance the states of North Dakota and South Dakota expressly authorized state activities in 1918, although a similar proposal was rejected in Minnesota in 1908 and 1910. Farm loans were authorized by constitutional amendments in Oregon and South Dakota in 1916. South Dakota in 1918 authorized state activities with respect to elevators and the manufacture of cement. North Dakota in 1912 and 1914 authorized state activities with respect to the operation of elevators, South Dakota in 1916 and 1918 with respect to the mining and distribution of coal, and the same state in 1918 with respect to the development of electric power. A South Dakota amendment of 1918 expressly authorizes the state to engage in internal improvements, or to give or loan its credit in aid of such improvements. In North Dakota, by an amendment of 1918 "the state, any county or city, may make internal improvements and may engage in any industry, enterprise or business," other than the sale of liquor.

In 1917 a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts authorizes the state and its municipalities to maintain and distribute during public exigency, emergency or distress, a sufficient supply of food and other common necessaries of life, and to provide shelter. This amendment was rendered necessary by opinions of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts opposed to the exercise of such powers. In 1918 a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts authorized the use of the power of eminent domain for the purpose of taking natural resources, including water and mineral rights, for purposes of conservation.

The courts. With respect to the organizations of courts, perhaps the most important single development has been that toward the increasing of membership in the highest state court or the creation of intermediate appellate courts. The American judicial system has been so organized as to bring a heavy pressure upon appellate courts, and less attention on the whole has been paid to the trial courts than to the appellate courts. Such a situation is undesirable, but so long. as a large proportion of cases are to be taken to appellate courts, some provision must be made for the determination of such cases.

Kansas (1900), Florida, (1902), West Virginia (1902), Wisconsin (1903), Colorado (1904), Nebraska (1908, 1912), North Dakota (1908), South Carolina (1910), and Mississippi (1914) have all provided for increasing the number of members of their highest state courts; and Florida, Colorado and Mississippi provided in addition for the separation of the highest state court into divisions.

California (1904, 1918), Georgia (1906, 1916) and Ohio (1912) have provided for intermediate courts of appeal.

With respect to the judges themselves there have been a few constitutional provisions as to appointment, tenure and retirement. Louisiana in 1904 made the judges of the supreme court elective rather than appointive, and the same step was taken by Mississippi with respect to judicial offices in 1910 and 1914. In 1905 Ohio provided for the lengthening of terms of judges and South Carolina in 1910 extended the term of justices of the supreme court from eight to ten years. On the other hand, Mississippi in 1914 reduced the term of supreme court judges from nine to eight years. From the standpoint of retirement of judges, perhaps the most important constitutional developments are those in Lousiana in 1910, by which judges of the supreme court who have served for fifteen years and reached the age of 75, may retire on full pay. A further amendment in 1918 permits the retirement of judges of lower courts at the age of 75, provided they have served a period of 25 years.

With respect to the removal of judges, a Massachusetts constitutional amendment of 1918 provides that the governor "with the consent of the council may after due notice and hearing" retire judges because of advanced age or mental or physical disability. The Massachusetts amendment further provides that such retirement shall be subject to any provisions made by law as to pensions or allowances payable to such officers upon their voluntary retirement. The Massachusetts provision with respect to the removal of judges should of course be read with the power of the governor to appoint judges and with the provisions of the Massachusetts constitution for judicial tenure during good behavior.

In New Jersey a proposed judicial re-organization was rejected by popular vote in 1909. To come to lesser matters with respect to judicial organization, it may be repeated that California in 1909 by constitutional amendment made the clerk of the supreme court of that state appoitive rather than elective.

California in 1911 and 1914 adopted constitutional amendments with respect to the setting aside of judgments in criminal cases for immaterial errors. Ohio in 1912 by constitutional amendment expressly authorized legislative action with respect to the subject of expert testimony.

The jury system has been the subject of some constitutional legislation during the period since 1900. Missouri (1900), Oregon (1910), Ohio (1912) and Mississippi (1914), permit verdicts in civil cases by less than a unanimous jury.

With respect to the grand jury also there has been some development, constitutional provisions as to informations and indictments having been adopted in Missouri (1900), Minnesota (1904), Oregon (1908) and Nevada (1912).

With the respect to the exercise of judicial power, the two matters of most importance within recent years have been those with respect to the punishment of contempts and the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional.

Oklahoma in 1907 adopted a constitutional provision regarding trial for contempt of court; but Colorado and Ohio in 1912 rejected proposed constitutional amendments dealing with this subject. Ohio in 1912 and North Dakota in 1918 adopted constitutional amendments prohibiting the declaration of a law unconstitutional if more than one judge of the highest state court dissented. Minnesota in 1914 rejected a similar proposal. Colorado in 1912 adopted the so-called recall of judicial decisions, by which a decision of the court declaring a statute unconstitutional may be overcome by popular vote.

Taxation. Since 1900 there has been a large and increasing number of constitutional amendments on taxation. From 1900 to 1906, 48 proposed amendments were voted on, of which 38 were adopted and 10 failed. From 1907 to 1918, 209 amendments were submitted, of which 104 were adopted and 105 failed.

This movement has been widespread. One or more amendments have been submitted in all but six states (Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey and Indiana). But some states have been much more active than others. Proposed amendments have been most numerous in Louisiana (35), California (30), and Missouri (23); and have also been frequent in Oregon (18), Utah (13), South Carolina (14), Minnesota (11) and Ohio (10). In Missouri and Minnesota most of the amendments proposed have been defeated.

A large number of these proposed amendments have been on matters of minor importance, such as changes in tax rates and methods. of administration, taxes for specific purposes, small changes in exemptions, and (in South Carolina) granting authority for special assessments to particular cities and towns. But important changes in taxation have also been proposed and adopted.

Provisions authorizing the classification of property for purposes of taxation have been submitted in twenty states (in some states on several occasions), and have been adopted in eleven states: Minnesota, Michigan, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona. Louisiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maryland and Oregon.

A number of states have provided for some modifications of the general property tax, by provisions for exemptions or for special taxation of certain classes of property: Mortgages have been exempted in Utah, Louisiana, California and North Carolina; double taxation of mortgages and the property mortgaged has been eliminated in Ohio; and a special tax on intangible property has been established in Maine. State income taxes have been authorized in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio and Massachusetts: special corporation taxes in Ohio, South Dakota and Louisiana; special methods of taxing mines in Virginia, Nevada and Utah; and special taxes on or exemptions of forest lands in Massachusetts and Ohio. Exemptions have been provided for vessels in California, Louisiana and Oregon; for property of educational institutions in California; and for farm products in the hands of the producer in Georgia.

Active efforts have been made to obtain other and more radical changes in taxation. The separation of state and local taxation has been authorized in Oklahoma and more definitely established in California but has failed in other states. The single tax on land values has been proposed in several states (sometimes in connection with provisions authorizing income, excise and inheritance taxes), but thus far has not been adopted in any state. Single tax proposals were rejected in Colorado (1902), Missouri (1912, 1918), Oregon (1912) and California (1916, 1918). A proposed amendment authorizing local option in taxation was adopted in Oregon in 1910, but was repealed two years later. California in 1912 rejected local option in taxation.

Local government and municipal home rule. The most important development in this field has been with respect to municipal home rule. The greater part of the development toward giving cities power to frame and revise their own charters has taken place since 1900, although constitutional provisions as to this subject existed in Missouri, Washington, California and Minnesota before 1900. To the states just mentioned have been added Colorado (1902, 1912), Oregon (1906, 1910), Oklahoma (1907), Michigan (1908, 1912), Arizona (1911), Nebraska, Ohio, Texas (1912) and Maryland (1915). During the period under review the California home rule provisions have been amended five times and have become so complex and so detailed that frequent additional amendments in the future will be necessary.

Other tendencies in the direction of home rule may be noted. Home rule in the framing of county government was provided for in California in 1911 and in Maryland in 1915. Colorado by constitutional amendment in 1902 not only provides for city home rule but also for county home rule for the city and county of Denver. Oregon in 1910 provided for home rule in matters of taxation but this power was withdrawn in 1912. In California proposed amendments for home rule in taxation and with respect to city-county consolidation were rejected in 1912. Oregon in 1908 rejected a proposal for municipal home rule with respect to police legislation. Another constitutional matter having a close bearing upon local home rule is the Illinois constitutional amendment of 1904 permitting special legislation for Chicago subject to a local referendum.

With reference to the granting of franchises several new constitutions during this period confer additional power upon municipal corporations, but also impose wise restrictions upon the use of such power. Alabama gives its cities absolute control over the use of their streets for public utilities or private enterprises, but forbids any town or city having more than six thousand inhabitants to grant a franchise for a longer term than thirty years. The Virginia constitution contains similar provisions, but requires in addition that municipal franchises be sold only after proper public advertisement, and that an ordinance for such a purpose be passed by an affirmative vote

of three-fourths of all members elected to the city council. Oklahoma and Arizona permit their cities to engage in the business of supplying public utilities, limit franchises to a term of twenty-five years, and provide that they shall not be granted, extended, or renewed without the approval of the qualified electors. Michigan permits its cities and villages to acquire, own, and operate their public utilities, but cities and villages are forbidden to grant any franchise not revocable at will or to acquire any public utility unless such action is first approved by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the electors of such city or village; franchises may not be granted for a longer term than twenty years. Ohio (1912) confers similar powers upon cities. Colorado by an amendment of 1902 forbids a city to grant franchises except by a vote of its taxpaying electors.

Michigan in 1908 adopted a provision that: "When a city or village is authorized to acquire or operate any public utility, it may issue mortgage bonds therefor beyond the general limit of bonded indebtedness prescribed by law: Provided, that such mortgage bonds issued beyond the general limit of bonded indebtedness prescribed by law shall not impose any liability upon such city or village, but shall be secured only upon the property and revenues of such public utility, including a franchise stating the terms upon which, in case of foreclosure, the purchaser may operate the same, which franchise shall in no case extend for a longer period than twenty years from the date of the sale of such utility and franchise on foreclosure." The same plan has been adopted in Ohio (1912), and New York constitutional amendments accomplish much the same purpose.

A number of other states authorize loans, beyond the ordinary debt limit for public improvements and for waterworks and other utilities. Among these may be mentioned Virginia (1902), South Dakota (1902) and Texas (1904).

With respect to county government, little has yet been accomplished, aside from the county home rule provisions referred to above. A proposed constitutional amendment to be submitted in New York. in 1919 seeks to give to the legislature a wider power with respect to the organization of both city and county government. Ohio in 1913 rejected a proposed constitutional amendment reducing the number of elective county offices.

To some extent there has been a slight reduction in the number of county and local officers by legislation or otherwise. The legislation. in Illinois abolishing the office of township collector and providing for but one road officer in each township or district indicates a tendency in this direction within this state, but as yet substantially little has been accomplished throughout the country toward the simplification of the very complex organization of local government or toward the reduction of numerous overlapping and conflicting local areas.

During the period under review there has been a rather distinct tendency toward the relaxing of debt limits for cities and counties. and this tendency has been particularly apparent with respect to undertakings of a revenue producing character.