allot in the booth. And every polling-place is an island of
immunity in the sea of political excitement.

While the people were thus assuming control of the ballot, they were
proceeding to gain control of their legislatures. In 1890 Massachusetts
enacted one of the first anti-lobby laws. It has served as a model for
many other States. It provided that the sergeant-at-arms should keep
dockets in which were enrolled the names of all persons employed as
counsel or agents before legislative committees. Each counsel or
agent was further compelled to state the length of his engagement, the
subjects or bills for which he was employed, and the name and address of
his employer.

The first session after the passage of this law, many of the
professional lobbyists refused to enroll, and the most notorious ones
were seen no more in the State House. The regular counsel of railroads,
insurance companies, and other interests signed the proper docket and
appeared for their clients in open committee meetings.

The law made it the duty of the Secretary of the Commonwealth to report
to the law officers of the State, for prosecution, all those who failed
to comply with the act. Sixty-seven such delinquents were reported the
first year. The Grand Jury refused to indict them, but the number of
recalcitrants has gradually diminished.

The experience of Massachusetts is not unique. Other States passed more
or less rigorous anti-lobby laws, and today, in no state Capitol, will
the visitor see the disgusting sights that were usual thirty years
ago--arrogant and coarse professional "agents" mingling on the floor
of the legislature with members, even suggesting procedure to
presiding officers, and not infrequently commandeering a majority. Such
influences, where they persist, have been driven under cover.

With the decline of the professional lobbyist came the rise of the
volunteer lobbyist. Important bills are now considered in formal
committee hearings which are well advertised so that interested parties
may be present. Publicity and information have taken the place of
secrecy in legislative procedure. The gathering of expert testimony by
special legislative commissions of inquiry is now a frequent practice
in respect to subjects of wide social import, such as workmen's
compensation, widows' pensions, and factory conditions.

A number of States have resorted to the initiative and referendum
as applied to ordinary legislation. By means of th