PROTECTION OF PAUL DICK, A SWISS CITIZEN, BY UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE IN EGYPT. No. 327.] Mr. Hay to Mr. Pioda. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor, with reference to similar previous correspondence, to inclose for your information copy of a dispatch from the agent and consul-general of the United States at Cairo, and copy of an instruction in reply, relative to the protection requested by Paul Dick, a citizen of Switzerland, living in Cairo. Accept, etc., JOHN HAY. No. 222.] [Inclosure 1.] Mr. Long to the Department of State. AGENCY AND Consulate-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Paul Dick, a Swiss citizen residing in this city, in a communication addressed to this agency and consulate-general, has requested to be placed under the protection of the United States representative here, and I have to request the Department for instructions in the premises. I am, etc., JOHN G. LONG, Agent and Consul-General. [Inclosure 2.] Mr. Peirce to Mr. Long. No. 122.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: In reply to your No. 222, of April 4, in which you state that Mr. Paul Dick, a Swiss citizen residing in Cairo, has requested to be placed under the protection of the representative of the United States at Cairo, I have to say that you are authorized to use your good offices in behalf of Mr. Dick, in the absence of a diplomatic or consular representative of Switzerland and with the consent of the Egyptian Government. You will inform Mr. Dick of the limited nature of the protection, and that you are under no circumstances permitted to intervene officially in his behalf with the Egyptian authorities. I am, etc, HERBERT H. D. PEIRCE, PROTECTION OF ROBERT BECK, A SWISS CITIZEN, BY UNITED STATES OFFICIALS IN COLOMBIA. @ Memorandum. SWISS LEGATION, Washington, May 29, 1902. Mr. Robert Beck, a native of Switzerland, is established since 1892 as a representative of English and German exporting firms at Bogotá, a See also, under Colombia, page 289, Colombia, and has, by registration, placed himself under the protection of the United States representative in that country. In consequence of the depreciation of the paper money, he was forced to invest a large amount of it in coffee. For the purpose of shipping it, he bought a large number of mules. These mules are now being taken away from him illegally by agents of the Government; they neither pay any consideration nor give any receipt for them. The finest specimens of them remain in the hands of the Colombian officers, who sell them for good prices. Mr. Robert Beck has done all he could in order to obtain justice. Everything is useless. He has lost so far over 100 animals, and even some of the coffee (about $800 worth) has been destroyed by the revolutionary forces. He has addressed himself to the United States representative, Mr. Hart, but without avail. He therefore requests the Swiss legation in the United States to take the proper steps at the State Department in Washington to have these illegal proceedings stopped and force the wrongdoers to pay him a due compensation for his severe loss. Memorandum. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, The Department of State received on the 29th ultimo the memorandum of the Swiss legation in regard to the case of Mr. Robert Beck, a Swiss citizen, who complains that he has lost 100 mules, which have been seized by the Colombian authorities during the existing hostilities in the Republic of Colombia; that he has also had some coffee (worth about $800) seized by revolutionary forces, and that he has addressed himself to the minister of the United States at Bogota without obtaining redress. He The Department has communicated the memorandum to Mr. Hart, the United States minister, who is on leave in this country. reports that he gave Mr. Beck all the assistance, in the way of good offices (by making all proper representations to the Government of Colombia), that he could possibly have given to any American citizen, and that he has been unable to secure the payment of his claim for the same reasons that have made it impossible to secure the payment of claims of United States citizens whose animals have been expropriated as were Mr. Beck's mules. The Department refers the Swiss legation to Mr. Bayard's note of July 1, 1887, to that legation, pointing out that this Government can only use good offices in behalf of subjects or citizens of other countries who have been placed under the protection of United States diplomatic or consular officers. a See Foreign Relations, 1887, p. 1076. PROTECTION OF CUBAN INTERESTS BY UNITED STATES CONSULAR OFFICIALS. Mr. Hardy to Mr. Hay. [Telegram.-Paraphrase.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Berne, May 28, 1902. (Mr. Hardy reports that the Swiss Government has granted permission for United States consular officers within its jurisdiction to exercise good offices in behalf of Cuban interests, and that notification of this permission has been transmitted to consuls.) Mr. Hardy to Mr. Hay. No. 60.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, Berne, May 28, 1902. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram" of May 24, and to confirm mine of this date. This telegram has been sent and consuls notified, on the assurance of the President of the Confederation that Switzerland would willingly consent to the above request of the President of Cuba, and that formal notice to that effect would be at once sent to the legation. The formal communication from the foreign office has since been received, and a copy thereof, together with translation, is herewith inclosed. I have, etc., [Inclosure.-Translation.] Mr. Zemp to Mr. Hardy. ARTHUR S. HARDY. FEDERAL POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, Berne, May 28, 1902. MR. MINISTER: In confirmation of our oral communications, we have the honor to inform you that the federal council has no objection to consuls of the United States of America in Switzerland being charged also to represent, each within the limits of his district, the interests of Cuba and of the citizens of that island, until the young Republic shall have appointed Cuban consuls. Please accept, etc., ZEMP. REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE. Mr. Hay to Mr. Hardy. No. 32.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I inclose copy of a letter from Senator Wetmore requesting a full history of the initiative and referendum in Switzerland. I should be pleased to have you give this request immediate attention, so that the information desired may reach the Department not later than July 15 next. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. a Printed, page 6. [Inclosure.] Mr. Wetmore to Mr. Hay. UNITED STATES SENATE, MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Will you be kind enough to secure for me, through the United States minister to Switzerland, the following information concerning the initiative and referendum in Switzerland, which I have been asked by a friend to obtain. He says: We should like to know in regard to its inception, the method of operation, the progress made, and the satisfaction given. It will be of interest to know the number of propositions submitted since its adoption and the subject or text of such propositions, the number of names placed on petitions therefor, the number of votes cast in favor or against, and a comparison between the votes given on submission with the number of names on the petition for such submission, and in general a full history of the initiative and referendum in Switzerland.” It is very much desired that this information should be in hand by the 20th of July next. Believe me, etc., GEORGE PEABODY WETMORE. No. 62.] Mr. Hardy to Mr. Hay. UNITED STATES LEGATION, Berne, June 10, 1902. SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith the report called for by your No. 32 of May 6 last, in compliance with the request made through the Department of State by Senator George Peabody Wetmore. All the information asked for by Senator Wetmore is, I believe, covered by this report, except the text of the propositions submitted through the referendum and initiative. These are to be had only in the bound volumes of the official record dating from 1874, and can not be procured separately. I have, however, given in most instances a brief statement of the bills in question and the circumstances attending their rejection or adoption. În asking for a "full history of the referendum and initiative in Switzerland" I have not supposed Senator Wetmore intended to go back of the constitution of 1848. The subject is a very large one and its literature very voluminous, even without touching the question of historical origin. Should, however, any further specific information be required, I shall be happy to supply it so far as in my power. As my own views on the practical working and results of the referendum and initiative have not been asked for by the Department, and as I do not know to what use they might be put, I have not added them. I have, etc., ARTHUR S. HARDY. [Inclosure.] Referendum and initiative. DEFINITIONS. Legislative power may be exercised directly by the people or delegated to a few. In the former case government is direct, in the latter, representative. The referendum is a union of both systems, the people delegating its power to representatives, but reserving the right to approve or reject their decisions. The initiative still further curtails delegated power, the people reserving also the right to initiate legislation. By the referendum they pass judgment on laws made by their representatives; by the initiative they propose new laws or alter or abolish those already existing. The referendum is compulsory when all laws must be submitted to the people and optional when only certain laws are submitted or laws whose submission is desired by a certain number of voters. More or less perfect illustrations of direct government are afforded by the town meetings of New England, by the early Swiss Republics of Uri, Appenzell, etc.; by certain old Flemish communes, the Hanseatic cities, and by ancient Gaul, Germany, Rome, and Athens. But even in small communities analysis shows that so-called direct government is never completely realized in practice. The representative principle always appears in some form in the elaboration, execution, interpretation, or revision of laws, the administration of finances or the conclusion of treaties, and the making of war or peace. The principles of the referendum and initiative appear in the earliest forms of representative government in Switzerland as counterpoises to delegated power. For a study of the historical origin of these principles reference may be made to the works of Professor Hilty, of Berne, and to Signorel's Referendum Legislatif, Rousseau, Paris, 1896. Modern legislation on these subjects begins with the constitution of September 12, 1848, which converted a confederation of loosely associated cantons into a federal state. CONSTITUTION OF 1848. Under this constitution the people possessed the right to demand its revision and to accept or reject a new constitution. If either Chamber pronounced for revision, the other dissenting, or if 50,000 legal voters demanded revision, then, in either case, the question whether there should be revision was to be submitted to the people. If a majority of those voting pronounced in the affirmative, the two Chambers were to be convened to proceed to the revision, and the revised constitution was to go into effect when a majority of Swiss citizens voting, and of Cantons, accepted it. On constitutional questions, therefore, the constitution of 1848 embodied both the referendum and the initiative. as 1864. 'Under the second French Empire and during the unification of Germany a sentiment arose in favor of still greater centralization, and revision was discussed as early Partial revision was proposed by the federal council in its message of July 1, 1869, in eight particulars-equality of citizens; the right to vote; liberty of worship; prohibition of lotteries; protection of authors' rights; abolition of certain penalties; uniformity of weights and measures, and the right of a citizen to settle anywhere within Swiss territory. All these were rejected by the people except two-the uniformity of weights and measures being adopted by 159,202 votes to 156,396, and the extension of the right of settlement by 170,032 to 149,401. The agitation for a complete revision, however, went on, centralization, with the referendum as a check, being the objective. The debates in the Chambers, begun in 1871, terminated in 1872, when the national council, by a vote of 78 to 36, and the council of states, by a vote of 23 to 18, declared for revision. In this project the optional referendum was provided for all laws and for resolutions not deemed urgent, and the initiative was accorded to 50,000 citizens or 5 Cantons. In accordance with the provisions of the constitution then in force this revision was submitted to the people on May 12, 1872, and was rejected by 13 out of 32 Cantons, and by 260,859 against 255,606 votes. In the fall of the same year revision was again taken up by the Federal Assembly. In the new project the popular initiative was suppressed and the referendum accorded to 8 (instead of 5) Cantons, and to 30,000 (instead of 50,000) citizens. This measure was adopted January 30, 1874, in the House by 103 to 20, and in the Senate by 25 to 14, and on April 19 was accepted by a popular vote of 340, 199, as against 198,013, and by 14, as against 7 Cantons, and the existing constitution went into force May 29, 1874. CONSTITUTION OF 1874. In the constitution of 1874 the referendum received a wider application than in that of 1848. In the latter only questions of constitutional revision were submitted to the people; in the former federal laws and resolutions of a general nature not deemed urgent, are also submitted to popular suffrage on the demand of 30,000 citizens or 8 Cantons. The provisions of the constitution are as follows: OPTIONAL REFERENDUM. "ART. 89. Federal laws, enactments, and resolutions shall be passed only by the agreement of the two councils. Federal laws shall be submitted for acceptance or |