The people, however, are so constituted that once their suspicions are aroused they are much readier to say no than yes, and the abolition of orders as a medium of labor exchange had to wait until 1912. It is gratifying, however, to be able to say that the people were less and less inclined to demand such orders, and more and more inclined to receive the labor checks. The defeat of the bond and credit laws had the effect of placing the Co-opolitan Association and the co-operative system on an enduring basis. The entire world now realized that it was an assured and successful system and in every state in the Union the tendency was toward the enactment of laws favorable to co-operative action on the part of the laborer. Nearly all the states, seized by the spirit of the hour, began to discuss the propriety of calling a constitutional convention and reforming their systems of state government upon the model of Idaho. The features of our state constitution most favored were its provisions embodying the initiative and referendum and the imperative mandate, which I have already described. CHAPTER XXI. WHY IDAHO HAS A DUAL GOVERNMENT—A GLIMPSE AT THE LAW. The second Governor of Idaho and the second President of the Co-opolitan Association, succeeding Senator Thompson to both positions, was Hon. Henry B. Henderson. The political machinery of the state was in the control of the Association and our policy was to make the executive officers of the Association the executive officers of the state also. Some of those readers who live beyond the boundaries of Idaho into whose hands this history may come do not comprehend why we continued to run two organizations in the name of the people, instead of one. They are, perhaps, at a loss to understand why the Co-opolitan Association did not, when it had acquired nearly all the land in Idaho and embraced nearly all the population of the state, transfer its dominion to the state government and operate its co-operative system as a state institution. The reason is simple enough. The state was necessarily limited in its powers by the Federal constitution. There were several very important functions which were by that instrument denied to state governments, but not to private corporations, and we desired to exercise them. I have already adverted to the fact that the Federal constitution prohibits the state from issuing “bills of credit.” This does not prevent corporations, associations or private persons from doing so. When we dealt with the commercial world “bills of credit” were often necessary. Moreover, our industrial orders might be construed to be bills of credit and this plan of labor exchange was, in reality, one of the most important features of our co-operative system. If the state had inaugurated such a plan the Federal prohibition would have crushed it at once.