Barnes, H. E., "The Economics of American Penology," in Journal of Political Economy, October, 1921.

Barnes, H. E., "The Evolution of American Penology as Illustrated by the Western Penitentiary of Pennsylvania," in Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine, October, 1921.

Barnes, H. E., "The Place of the Pennsylvania Prison Society in American Prison Reform ", in Prison Journal, 1922.

Barnes, H. E., "The Historical Origins of the Prison System in America," in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, May, 1921.

Barnes, H. E., "Criminal Codes and Penal Institutions of Colonial Pennsylvania," in Friends Historical Bulletin, 1921-22.

Barnes, H. E., "The Progress of Penal Administration since 1825, with special Reference to the State of Pennsylvania," in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1922.

Barrows, S. J., The Reformatory System in the United States.

Beaumont and De Tocqueville, On the Penitentiary System in the United States (1833).

Brockway, Z. R., Fifty Years of Prison Service.

Carpenter, M., Reformatory Prison Discipline as Developed by the Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Crofton.

Folks, H., The Care of Destitute and Neglected Children.

Glueck, B., Studies in Forensic Psychiatry.

Glueck, B., "A Study of 608 Admissions to Sing Sing," in Mental Hygiene, January, 1918.

Glueck, B., "Concerning Prisoners," in Mental Hygiene, April, 1918.

Glueck, B., "Psychiatric Aims in the Field of Criminology," in Mental Hygiene, October, 1918.

Glueck, B., "Recent Progress in Determining the Nature of Crime and the Characteristics of the Criminal," in Proceedings of the National Conference on Social Work, 1917.

Goddard, H. H., The Kallikak Family.

Goddard, H. H., The Criminal Imbecile.

Hall, A. C., Crime and Social Progress.

Healy, W., The Individual Delinquent.

Henderson, C. R. (Ed.), Penal and Reformatory Institutions (Russell Sage

Publications).

Henderson, C. R., Modern Prison Systems.

Hobhouse, L. T., Morals in Evolution, Chap. iii.

Howard, J., The State of Prisons in England and Wales (1777).

Ives, G., A History of Penal Methods.

Klein, P., Prison Methods in New York State.

Leonard, E. M., The Early History of English Poor Relief.

Lewis, B., The Offender.

Lindsley, J. B., Prison Discipline and Penal Legislation.

Mc Kim, C., Heredity and Human Progress.

Marett, R. R., Anthropology, Chap. vii.

Osborne, T. M., Society and Its Prisons.

Parmelee, M., The Principles of Anthropology and Criminology in their Rela

tion to Criminal Procedure.

Parmelee, M., Criminology.

Parsons, P. A., Responsibility for Crime.

Pound, Roscoe, (Ed.), Criminal Justice in an American City (Cleveland Foun

dation Publications).

Pound, Roscoe, "The Future of the Criminal Law," in Columbia Law Review, January, 1921.

Report of the Commission on the Penal Code of Pennsylvania, 1828.

Robinson, L. N., Criminal Statistics in the United States.

Robinson, L. N., The Employment and Compensation of Prisoners in Pennsylvania.

* Robinson, L. N., Penology in the United States.

Snedden, D. S., Administrative and Educational Work of American Juvenile Reform Schools.

Spalding, W. F., (Ed.), Parole and Probation (Proceedings of the Annual Congress of the American Prison Association, 1916).

Stephen, J. F. J., History of the Criminal Law in England.

Tannenbaum, F.., Wall Shadows.

Thayer, J. B., The Development of Trial by Jury.

Tiffany, F., Life of Dorothea L. Dix.

White, W. A., in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. VIII, pp.

499-501; Vol. IX, pp. 596-8.

Wines, E. C., The State of Prisons and Child-Saving Institutions.

Wines and Dwight, Prisons and Reformatories in the United States.

Wines, F. H., Punishment and Reformation (edition of 1919 by W. D. Lane). Whitin, E. S., The Caged Man.

Whitin and Lichtenberger, Prison Labor.

HARRY ELMER BARNES

CLARK UNIVERSITY

*This work by Professor Robinson, which has just appeared, is by far the most useful synthesis of the history of modern penology.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN AMERICAN

IN

CITIES

N 1920 the proportional representation provisions of the Kalamazoo charter were declared void by the Michigan supreme court.' Similar provisions of the charters of Sacramento, California, and of Cleveland, Ohio, are being subjected to judicial review in those states." It is not my intention to discuss in detail the superfinical point of law that is involved in cases of this kind. A word or two is sufficient. The Michigan constitution declares that "in all elections [a qualified voter] shall be an elector and entitled to vote" and that “no city or village shall have the power to abridge the right of elective franchise."3 Put in briefest compass the point scored by the Michigan court was that the Kalamazoo scheme of proportional representation operated to "abridge" this right, because the "right of franchise" means the right to vote for all the officers voted for in, or elected from, the voter's political district, and the only district known to the law is a "geographically defined representative district." The voter could be limited to voting for one candidate where one alderman was elected from each of seven wards. But he could not be limited to having his ballot counted for only one candidate where seven aldermen were elected at large. Such reasoning is so manifestly jejune that one can scarcely avoid the conclusion that the court was in fact largely influenced by something more simple; to wit, by a

1 Wattles ex rel. Johnson v. Upjohn, 211 Mich. 514 (1920). See also on the constitutional questions involved Maynard v. Board of Commissioners, 84 Mich. 228 (1890), where a law providing cumulative voting for election to the state legislature was declared void. Preferential voting, not however involving proportional representation, was declared void in Brown v. Smallwood, 130 Minn. 492 (1915) but was upheld in Orpen v. Watson, 93 Atl. (N. J.) 853 (1915). It was considered also in State v. Portland, 65 Ore. 273 (1913). But the Oregon constitution expressly authorized preferential voting.

2 In California, appeal has been taken to the supreme court from a decision of the superior court sustaining the charter provisions.

* Art. III, sec. 1; Art. VIII, sec. 25.

quite understandable aversion to this particular kind of political novelty. Said the court:

An actuary, mathematically skilled in the application of the doctrines of chances to financial and other affairs, might work with confidence upon the possibilities of this system, but to the non-expert there is force in the dictum of the Maynard case that it appears "too intricate and tedious to be adopted for popular elections by the people". To the average elector the destiny of his vote is a mystery, however easy it may be for him to follow instructions in marking his ballot. In abridging the right of elective franchise as pointed out, we conclude that the election method prescribed in section 183 of the charter is in contravention of the state constitution and invalid.

But proportional representation is ceasing to be a novelty. Adopted in Denmark in 1855, it made some gains among the countries of continental Europe during the latter half of the nineteenth century and in various parts of the British Empire during the earlier years of the twentieth century. Since the world war it has made its most rapid strides both in and out of Europe. With this impetus it is practically certain to make

1 In one form or another it is in use in Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, Italy, Germany, Jugo-Slavia, Czecho-Slovakia, Austria, Greece and Poland. Under the British Representation of the People Act of 1918 it is used in the election of the eleven university members of the Commons. This Act also proposes to apply the scheme to one hundred parliamentary seats; but this provision has not yet been put into effect. According to the Proportional Representation Review, October 1921, Supplement, the Hare system of proportional representation is used for the election of representative bodies in the following places among English-speaking countries: Tasmania (1896-Part of Parliament, 1907-Parliament); So. Africa (1909-Senate and some cities of the Transvaal); Transvaal (1914-City Councils); Ashtabula, Ohio (1915Council); New Zealand (1915 - Legislative Council, optional for Cities); Sydney, Australia (1916-Council); Durban, So. Africa (1916- Council); Calgary, Alberta (1916-Council); Boulder, Colorado (1917- Council); British Columbia (1917-optional for City Councils. Since adopted by Vancouver, Victoria etc.); Great Britain (1918-eleven seats in Commons); Scotland (1918- School Boards); Sligo, Ireland (1918-Council); New South Wales (1918- Legislative Assembly); Ireland (1919-County and Municipal Councils and other Local Boards); Winnipeg (1920-Council); Manitoba (1920-Winnipeg Members of Legislature); Saskatchewan (1920-optional for City Councils). Since adopted by Regina, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, and North Battleford; India (1920- some members of the Legislative Assembly and

headway in the United States, notwithstanding possible retardment by the courts.

As a subject of discussion, polemic and otherwise, proportional representation is already venerable. Reams have been written about it. Innumerable schemes have been proposed for accomplishing its purpose. Indeed little that is really new remains to be said. Nevertheless it is a subject that is not widely comprehended. It is not even easily comprehended. For, simple as many of the schemes are, its principles and purposes are inevitably intricated with its mechanics. It is perhaps worth while, therefore, briefly to review its history in the United States, to explain the principles that underlie the mechanics of the American scheme of the hour (the so-called Hare system or system of the single transferable vote), and if possible tentatively to assess its value as an instrument of our democracy-especially of our municipal democracy. For in the United States proportional representation is making its chief appeal to cities.

Even to the casually wary it is unnecessary to cite numerous illustrations of the results that obtain in our usual nonproportional representation elections. These results are a matter of common knowledge, being in point of fact simply a matter of common fractions. Take, for example, the New York aldermanic election of 1921. There were sixty-five seats to be filled. Approximately six hundred thousand votes were cast for Democratic candidates; and fifty-one seats were filled. Nearly four hundred thousand votes were cast for Republican candidates; and only thirteen seats were secured. The Socialists cast something over one hundred thousand votes and obtained not a single seat. In exact proportion to the votes cast, the Democrats should have had thirty-five seats, the Republicans twenty

other legislative bodies); Ireland (1920-Parliaments of North Ireland and South Ireland according to Act of British Parliament); Sacramento, California (1920-Council); West Hartford, Conn. (1921-Council); Malta (1921House of Assembly and General Members of Senate).

1 For a discussion of some of them see Humphrey, Proportional Representation; Commons, Proportional Representation; Williams, The Reform of Political Representation.