Official proceedings of the annual meeting: 1923

THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM-FLaESHER

5II

traffic and to control the growing narcotic evil, and it was submitted to a vote of the
people as a referendum measure.
In Oregon in that year there was presented to the voters a measure similar to the
California measure outlined above forbidding the medical inspection of school children.
In 1922 campaigns were carried on simultaneously in California, Colorado, and Washington.
California voters were again asked to consider two measures rejected by them in
I920, i.e., the measure creating a special board for licensing chiropractors and the antivivisection bill. There was also proposed a measure creating a special board for licensing osteopaths, that would have permitted certain "drugless " healers to prescribe drugs.
Colorado voters had presented to them an anti-vivisection measure, even stronger
than that before the California. voters.
In Washington the voters were called upon to decide on a school medical inspection
measure. The so-called "anti-vaccination bill," making it unlawful to require medical
inspection of school children, had passed the 192I legislature and had been signed by the
governor. This, like the California poison bill in 1920, was a referendum measure.
The law was made inoperative pending a popular election when the League for the Conservation of Public Health secured the required number of signatures on a referendum
petition.
The greater part of the destructive legislation was defeated by large majorities, and
the total vote cast was larger than that cast on most measures appearing on the ballot.
The poison measure however, on which a positive vote was desired by health workers,
failed to pass in I920. In I922 the chiropractic measure, rejected in I920, together
with the osteopathic measure was enacted into law.
It is particularly unfortunate to have harmful legislation enacted at a popular
election, because a repeal can be secured only at some future popular election.
How was this result secured? How was such a wide general interest in public
health developed in these states in spite of the large area to be covered and the relatively
scattered population?
In California, Colorado, and Washington the campaigns were under the direction
of the state leagues for the conservation of public health. These leagues include in
their membership a large percentage of the medical profession of the state, and ordinarily have a lay secretary. The theory on which they are organized is that legislation
affecting health is essentially a problem of the individual physician, and that if he is
to do effective work the profession must be organized into a body capable of following
and, to a certain extent, of directing legislation.
At the request of these leagues the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company took
an active part in each of these campaigns. In connection with this I had the opportunity of making the observations contained in this paper. The basis of the campaign
in each case was the work of the Public Health League through its own membership;
that is, through the doctors in the respective states. In addition to this there was the
active work of hundreds of Metropolitan agents working directly in the homes of policyholders, informing them about the measures at issue and the real meaning of the legislation proposed. All of the usual methods known to social workers in developing and
guiding public opinion were utilized. There was a great deal of newspaper publicity,
there were a great many addresses, and there was a wide distribution of circulars, running in one California campaign to upward of i,ooo,ooo copies. The support of various