affairs in order to stir your mind to indignant protest, but only to ask whether there be a remedy within your reach. In my judgment the remedy is at hand, and you can apply it successfully whenever your sense of truth and righteousness, and your appreciation of good government may lead you to strong effort in that direction.

As the judicial office is not political, and has been carried into politics by spoilsmen against the will and protest of all good people, let it be divorced from politics by providing that party nominations shall not be made of any candidate for such office. Nominations can be made by petition signed by such number of voters as may be thought necessary or desirable, but without regard to the party affiliation of the voters or the candidate. The time for electing judges should be considerably removed from the date of political elections in order that there may be no temptation to parties or partisans to interfere with the choice of the voters. With a separate election day and no party nominations, it is believed that the people would make wise choice of the ablest and purest among the candidates, and there would be a well founded hope for the success of the competent lawyer who under the present system is excluded from the list. Nomination by petition has been much considered of late in several States. It has been adopted in some parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio with respect to local and municipal offices with results in some measure, but not entirely satisfactory. A bill for making all nominations to office in this manner was considered by the Wisconsin Assembly last winter, and after a fierce debate, was narrowly defeated. On the other hand, it is said that after some experience of the practice in one county of the State of Minnesota, a law was passed by the last Assembly extending the practice to the entire State.

From such information as I have been able to obtain concerning the several acts mentioned, I believe that they are intended to wrest the power of making nominations from the leaders of parties, and commit it to the hands of the voters of each party; a sort of initiative and referendum on the subject of nominations to office. With that purpose I am not concerned at this time, nor

am I concerned about the use or abuse of nominations by petition under primary election laws. The last named laws are made for governing parties in making nominations, and the right to nominate by petition is given to a defeated minority by way of protest against the conduct of the majority. In this discussion, I would persuade you to ignore all parties and all laws governing them, and get out your candidates for judicial office in some other way, and then vote for them not as members of any political party but as capable men who are fit for the place to which they have been named. Under proper regulations as to the number of signatures, that all signers shall give their place of residence and business, that they shall declare their purpose to vote for the candidate, that no voter shall sign more than one petition and the like, it is believed that the petition will serve to bring before the people the best candidates for judicial office, and that few mistakes will be made in the choice of them.

Another subject of commanding importance came before the Assembly in the form of a request to Congress to call a convention for amending the Constitution of the United States in respect to choosing Senators of the United States by vote of the people. The lower House of Congress has several times proposed an amendment of this kind to be submitted to the States, but Senators have been so well satisfied with the existing method that they could not consent to submit themselves to the suffrages of their fellow citi zens. The election of Senators of the United States in legislative assemblies is a source of increasing mischief in nearly all of the States. The contentions of rival candidates, their use of money in buying votes, their interference in the course of State legislation, continually debauches the public service, and makes of the Senators so chosen the most arrogant political bosses in public life. It is now apparent that the necessary change in the manner of choosing Senators can not be made with the consent of the Senators themselves, and the only course in which relief can be obtained is that adopted by the Legislative Assembly in pursuance to the provision of Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States. Other States to the number of eight or nine have already joined with Colorado in

demanding that the Constitution be amended in this respect, and it is believed that the number so uniting will soon increase sufficiently to effect the desired result.

An act was passed restoring capital punishment in cases of deliberate homicide, with some restrictions which may impair its efficiency. It is said that the Legislative Assembly was led to adopt the law by an atrocious crime committed by a negro shortly before the Legislature convened. The negro was arrested and burned at the stake by a mob by way of punishment for his crime. Whatever influence may have prevailed to induce the Legislature to pass the law, the lesson of the hour is not far to seek for those sentimentalists who believe that painless punishment is adequate for all crimes in the calendar. The right of one who is assailed to resist unto death the attack made on him is never denied. Selfpreservation is a law of nature, and resistance may extend to the death of the assailant. A brute who lies in wait for his victim and kills before resistance can be made, forfeits his own life to the community, which may rightfully take up the cause of him who has fallen in the fray. This is the law of life and death and no sophistry can prevail against it. To imprison a murderer in a penitentiary and keep him in comfort for the vengeance of God in the final judgment, because of reverence for human life, is much the same as to put a lion or tiger in a cage in order to keep the beast from ravaging the country. To kill and slay is often the instinct of man as it is the instinct of beasts, and society is no more bound to furnish a cage in one case than in the other.

An amendment was proposed to the Constitution to be known as Article 20, and entitled "City and County of Denver." The city of Denver is in the county of Arapahoe and is subject to the rule of its Charter, and to the authorities of the county also. The object of the amendment is to put one government over the city, instead of the two now existing, and so far the plan seems to be in the interest of economy and the public service. Section 4 of the article, however, seems to declare a measure of autonomy not heretofore conferred on a municipal corporation in this State. This section provides that

"The people of the city and county of Denver are hereby vested with and they shall always have the exclusive power in the making, altering, revising,

or amending their Charter."

A convention of twenty-one freeholders is to be called who shall make the first Charter, and the Charter so made may be afterwards amended by the same authority. The proceeding for making the Charter and amending it is similar to that which prevails in the several States, for making and amending a State Constitution. In a casual reading I did not observe any provision for subordinating the Charter to the Constitution of the State or any other authority. If this amendment shall be adopted, a question will arise whether the city and county of Denver is within or without the State of Colorado or in any manner subject to the control of the State. I do not understand that this Association will undertake to advise voters in respect to a proposed amendment to the Constitution, but I call your attention to the subject as required by the by-laws of the Association.

An amendment proposed to Article 7, Section 1 of the Constitution, prescribes the qualifications of voters and is much to be commended. It limits the suffrage to citizens of the United States of the age of 21 years who have resided in the State twelve months. The anomalous practice of allowing an alien to vote upon declaring his intention to become a citizen is thus to be set aside. The provision for twelve months' residence before the election will tend to discourage the importation of voters from other States.

The Legislative Assembly passed a bill to maintain what is commonly called the valued policy of insurance. The bill declared that the amount of insurance written in the policy should be taken to be the true value of the property insured. After the Legislature adjourned the Governor vetoed the bill, and thus defeated it. A bill of the same character was defeated in the same way two years earlier, and the two cases taken in connection seem to show a remarkable discrepancy between the legislative and magisterial mind on a common-place subject. All insurance policies contain a provision that the company will not, in case of loss,

pay more than the value of the property insured, whatever the amount written in the policy may be. Under cover of this provision an increase in the amount of the policy makes a corresponding increase of premium, with no additional risk to the insurance company. In other words, the insured pays for a risk not taken by the company, ignorantly assuming that in case of loss he will receive the amount written in the policy, when the company has no intention to make such payment. The valued policy requires the company to insure for no more than it intends to pay, which seems to be only an expression of common honesty. In several states laws similar to that twice enacted in Colorado have been put on the statute book in the face of violent denunciation from insurance companies, but without other serious mischief. It is difficult to understand why the opposition of insurance companies to a law of this kind should be more effective in Colorado than elsewhere; but possibly there may be in the gubernatorial mind some root of the popular superstition that insurance people are more numerous than all other classes in the world. If so, the matter ought to be subject to correction from reports of the late national census.

The author of the disgraceful prize fight law passed by the Twelfth Assembly astonished his political friends with a proposal to repeal the same law made in the last House of Representatives. There is some reason to doubt whether this was a case of genuine repentance, but probably the statesman intends that it shall be so regarded among respectable people and by the Reform League of the city of Denver. The bill was not brought to vote in the House, and its author refused to become sponsor in the House for a Senate bill on the same subject which was sent down to the House by the Senate. The Senate bill for repealing the prize fight law perished miserably in the House of its enemies.

The tax on inheritances, long a subject of litigation in eastern States, and finally incorporated in the war revenue act of Congress of 1898, is spreading rapidly over the West. It is found in the new revenue law of this State. Utah has recognized and adopted it, and soon it may become difficult for people of wealth