southern colonies the county was organized without the township.
Today the county exists in every state of the Union, including the
New England states. In Louisiana it is called the PARISH.

TYPES OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT

There are two main types of county government. According to one
plan, as in New York, each township elects a representative to a
county BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, which is sometimes quite large.
According to the other plan, as in Pennsylvania, the people of the
county as a whole elect a small BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, the
townships not being represented as such even when they exist. The
board of supervisors or commissioners levies taxes and makes
appropriations for various county purposes, such as constructing
and maintaining roads, bridges, and county buildings, paying the
salaries of county officers, caring for the county poor, and
conducting the county schools. It is sometimes spoken of as the
county legislative body, but it is rather an administrative body,
its lawmaking powers being very slight.

COUNTY OFFICERS

Among the important county officers are the sheriff, who is chief
guardian of the peace in the county, has charge of the jail, is
the chief executive officer of the county court (see p. 439), and
sometimes acts as tax collector; the county prosecutor (also
called the prosecuting attorney, the district attorney, or the
state's attorney), who prosecutes all criminal cases in the county
and represents the public authorities in civil suits; the county
clerk, who keeps the county records; the register of deeds, who
records all transfers of property; the coroner, who investigates
the cause of violent and mysterious deaths; the tax assessor; the
treasurer; the auditor, who examines the accounts of county
officers; the surveyor; the school superintendent; the health
officer. Some times there are others.

LACK OF INTEREST IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Although practically every citizen of the United States is also a
citizen of a county, the people have as a rule shown surprisingly
little interest in county government. As generally found it
affords a striking example of poor service resulting from a lack
of teamwork. County government has the reputation of being one of
the weakest spots in our whole system of government.

WILL COUNTY GOVERNMENT SURVIVE?

We seem to have gotten into the habit of not expecting much
service from the county government. Where the township government
is strong, as in New England, it takes the place of county
government. Where people live in cities, they look to the city
government to serve them rather than to the county government. In
rural districts the people have come more and more to look to the
state and national governments for such service as they expect
government to give. These facts might suggest the question whether
or not we really need county government.

One recent writer says,

There are some parts of the country where I can see that the
county will pass out of existence entirely in a very short time,
unless it does adjust itself to the new conditions. [Footnote:
H.S. Gilbertson, in the University of North Carolina RECORD, No.
159, October, 1918, p. 37.]

The same writer says,

Unless the county does measure up in this way, the powers of
government and the services which it renders will have to drift
away from local control and be placed in the hands of some
government more fit and which will probably be further away from
home.

EFFECTS OF THE LONG BALLOT

Students of county government attribute many of its defects to the
"long ballot." In one county in North Carolina, at a recent
election, there were twenty-five different candidates for county
offices on each of three party tickets, making seventy-five
candidates among whom each voter had to choose. Township and state
officers were also elected at the same election, bringing the
number of persons to be voted for up to about fifty out of 150
candidates. It is apparent that the average voter would have
difficulty in voting intelligently.

GOVERNMENT WITHOUT A HEAD

The long ballot has other results than the mere difficulty of
intelligent voting. One of these is a GOVERNMENT WITHOUT A HEAD.
While the board of supervisors or commissioners is nominally at
the head of the county government, it has to work through the
various administrative officers. These are also elected by the
people, and may be of the opposite political party. At all events,
they are independent of the board, not responsible to it, and may
or may not work in harmony with it. A former member of a county
board in North Carolina says,

Most persons are under the impression that the board of
commissioners, with its chairman, is at the head of the county
government. ... The board does have authority to say how about 19
cents of the entire tax levy may be spent, but its authority over
the balance of the levy, over any county official, such as the
sheriff, clerk of the court, coroner, constable, county judge, or
recorder, is nil. The chairman of the board does have the honor ...
of smiling and trying to look pleasant when complaints are
made about bad roads, excessive tax assessments, or the
delinquency of some county subordinate, over whom neither he nor
the board has any control.[Footnote: M. S. Willard, North Carolina
Club Year Book, 1918, p. 87.]

THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE "BOSS"

Another result of the long ballot is the opportunity it gives the
political "boss" to control the selection of officers. It is not
uncommon to hear rural citizens ask such questions as, "What's the
use of farmers taking off time for politics when the whole thing
is run by political bosses anyway?"[Footnote: Graham Taylor, in
Rural Manhood, October, 1914, p. 328.] "In such counties office-
seeking has become not the means to the end of performing service,
but exists for the immediate reward, and whatever service is
rendered to the people is incidental to that other object.
"[Footnote: H. S. Gilbertson, Forms of County Government, in the
University of North Carolina Record, No. 159, October, 1918, p.
37.]

BAD BUSINESS METHODS

Along with these defects, and largely because of them, bad
business methods have characterized county government, resulting
in poor service and wastefulness of the people's money. A faulty
system of keeping accounts is as unbusinesslike and disastrous in
public business as in private business.

OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

When I was first connected with the government of my own county, I
became very much interested to know whether we were doing better
or worse in the management of our road finances; in the cost of
maintaining our county prisoners; in the maintenance of our county
home and numerous other county institutions, than were other
counties. I was anxious to find out what was being done in other
counties in the way of appropriations for hospitals and I selected
twelve or fifteen counties and wrote letters to the county
officials asking for information. In answer to probably two of my
letters I received intelligent and satisfactory replies. Probably
half a dozen more gave me some figures which were of very little
use for purposes of comparison, and to my other letters I received
no replies, although the first request was followed up by a second
and a third letter. I then began an effort to secure copies of the
newspapers in which had been printed the financial statements of
the counties. I succeeded in securing probably ten statements and,
after a fruitless attempt to coordinate these statements so that I
might secure information which would enable me to know whether we
were doing better or worse than our neighbors, I became hopelessly
lost in a jungle of statistics and reluctantly gave it up as
useless, and turned my attention to doing what I could to place
our own county affairs in such condition that they could be
understood by those of our taxpayers who might be inquisitive
enough to want to know how the money was handled which they paid
for taxes. [Footnote: M. S. Willard, County Finances in North
Carolina, in the University of North Carolina RECORD, No. 159,
October, 1918, p. 80.]

THE FEE SYSTEM

The practice of compensating county officers from FEES received
for special services and of allowing them to retain the interest
on public money is one illustration of extravagant business
methods.

For many of the services performed by county officers fees are
charged, on the principle that the person served should pay for
the service. It did not occur to the people to inquire how much
their officers were getting in this way. In one county, in which
there was a large city, investigation showed that the sheriff had
a net income from fees and commissions of $15,000, the county
treasurer $23,000, and the county auditor over $50,000.

From the point of view of economy and efficiency it is better to
pay all officers an adequate salary and to require that all fees,
commissions, and interest on public money be returned to the
county treasury. It keeps the tax rate down and makes possible an
increase of service.

The county office fees and commissions in North Carolina amount to
something like one and a quarter million dollars a year, if they
are collected according to law. The total is large enough to pay
all salaries in at least 58 counties of the state, and leave large
balances to apply to schools, roads, jail expenses, interest, and
sinking funds. These large surpluses are being wasted in most of
the salary counties. [Footnote: E.C. Branson, The Fee System in
North Carolina, in the University of North Carolina Record, No.
159, October, 1918, p. 69.]

Such faulty business methods are gradually being corrected by the
introduction of the short ballot, as in California and elsewhere,
by businesslike methods of keeping accounts, by the appointment of
county and state auditors, and by giving full publicity to reports
of county business.

THE FAULT WITH THE CITIZEN

"But after all," says the county official quoted above, "a great
part of the shortcomings of county officials and a great deal of
the looseness which prevails in the management of county affairs
can be charged to the citizen people themselves." Another student
of the situation says,

Among the country people themselves there is no demand for better
local government or almost none; they are satisfied or content
themselves with grumbling about taxes and in fierce partisan
politics. ... The country people of America lack an adequate sense
of civic and social responsibility, and the deficiency is rising
into critical, national importance. [Footnote 2: E.C. Branson,
Report of subcommittee on local government, National Country Life
Conference, Baltimore Proceedings, 1919, pp. 68, 69.]

Another says,

The first thing to be reformed in county government is not the
officers down at the courthouse, but our own attitude toward the
county, and particularly toward public office. For, after all,
public officers in this country are just what the people make them ...
[Footnote 3: H.S. Gilbertson, Forms of County Government, in
the University of North Carolina Record, No. 159, October, 1918,
p. 38.]

There are those who advocate breaking up the county into smaller
units for purposes of local self-government, as in New England.
Thomas Jefferson, living in Virginia where the county was the sole
unit of local government, was a great admirer of the New England
town meeting, and said that "public education and the subdivision
of the counties into wards," or townships, were the "two hooks"
upon which republican government must hang. On the other hand, we
have observed an opposite tendency to concentrate the
administration of schools, roads, health, and other matters, in
the county government (see pp. 294,325). The fact is that both the
organization for centralized, county-wide government, and that for
the government of local communities within the county, have their
uses. Neither can do its best work without the other. The problem
is to deter mine what the business of each should be and to
establish a proper balance between them. One thing is sure,
namely, that the government of the county cannot be effective
unless the people of the various communities within the county are
organized to cooperate both for their local interests and for the
interests of the county as a whole. This may be provided for in
part through township governments, where they exist, and in part
through such unofficial organization as that described for the New
England town (p. 402), or as that furnished by the farm bureau
with its local community committees (p. 30).

One of the most progressive states in the matter of county
government is North Carolina. One of the chief instruments by
which this progress has been made is the NORTH CAROLINA CLUB,
organized by the University of North Carolina for the study and
promotion of the interests of the state. The North Carolina Club
has affiliated with it COUNTY CLUBS, each of which studies its own
county and promotes its interests. In North Carolina they are
working in both directions suggested above: in the direction of an
effective central county government, and in the direction of
organization of all local communities for the study of needs and
for teamwork in providing for them. See references.

THE COUNTY AS A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE

Another important factor in county government is the control
exercised over it by the state. The county is not only a local
self-governing unit, but it is also a division of the state for
the administration of state laws. Its powers of self-government
are given to it by the state, and along with these powers it has
imposed upon it certain duties for the state. First of all, the
county is a STATE JUDICIAL DISTRICT. The most important building
at the county seat is the courthouse. The COUNTY COURT is one of
the state courts described in the next chapter. The county judge
is sometimes chosen by the people of the county, but he is really
a state officer. In New England the county is almost solely a
judicial district, and in all states its judicial purposes are of
supreme importance.

But more than this, the county schools are a part of the state
school system and must be administered in accordance with state
laws, though by county and township officers. County officers must
enforce the health laws of the state. County authorities not only
levy and collect county taxes, but also collect state taxes from
residents of the county.

THE NECESSITY FOR STATE CONTROL

Here again we have an illustration of the necessity for a careful
balance between matters properly subject to local self-government
and those properly subject to state control. Counties have
suffered both from too much state control in some respects, and
from too little in others.

The whole state is injured ... if one township lets its
citizenship deteriorate through ignorance or drunkenness, and so
the state has a right to say that at least six months school term
must be given in every township and that no whiskey-selling shall
be permitted. Or if one township is infested with cattle ticks,
other townships are injured, and so the state may set a minimum
standard here ...

It often happens that the citizens of one county pay more than
their share of the state taxes because it has better methods of
assessing and collecting taxes and of keeping accounts than other
counties in the state. One of the greatest needs of counties, and
one least provided for, is uniformity among the counties of a
state in methods of keeping accounts (see example on page 410).
Some states have established state systems of auditing county
finances.

"HOME RULE" FOR COUNTIES

On the other hand, state governments often interfere in matters
that might better be left to local determination. Usually all the
counties of a state have exactly the same form of government, with
exactly the same officers who exercise exactly the same duties.
Yet some counties within a state are almost wholly rural, some are
almost wholly urban, others are mixed in character. A form of
government adapted to one may not be suited to another. So there
has arisen a demand for a larger degree of "home rule" in
counties. In Illinois, counties have had the right to determine
for themselves whether the township should or should not be given
prominence in local government, and whether the "supervisor" or
the "commissioner" plan of government should be used. California
now has a law which provides that counties may apply for
"charters" in the same way that cities do in all states. The
"charter," like a constitution, determines the form and powers of
the government, and is framed by the people of the county
themselves, though it must then have the approval of the state
legislature.

THE GROWTH OF URBAN COMMUNITIES

We have noted how the growth of cities with their elaborate
organization for service tends to divert attention from the less
conspicuous county government. While probably half the counties of
the United States contain no city, or "town," or village of 2500
people, there is in almost every township at least one compact
settlement that has grown up around the trading center. Sometimes
there are several of them in a township and many in a county. In
such compact communities cooperation becomes necessary to provide
for needs that are not felt in more rural districts, such as paved
streets, sewers, public water supply, fire and police protection,
and so on. A separate government becomes necessary. The people of
such communities may appeal to the authorities of township,
county, or state, for incorporation as a village, borough, town,
or city. "Village" and "borough" are simply two names used in
different localities for the same thing. The difference between
them and an incorporated town or city is principally one of size
and corresponding complexity of organization.

GOVERNMENT OF VILLAGES AND INCORPORATED TOWNS

The chief governing body of a village, or borough, or incorporated
town, is a small council, or board, elected by the people. It has
legislative powers in a small way, enacting ORDINANCES for the
regulation of local officers and in the public interest.

In Michigan ... they may prescribe the terms and conditions for
licensing taverns, peddlers, and public vehicles. They have
control of streets, bridges and public grounds; and have authority
to construct bridges and pavements, and to regulate the use and
prevent the obstruction of the highways. They may establish and
maintain sewers and drains. They may construct and control public
wharves, and regulate and license ferries. They may establish and
regulate markets. They may provide a police force and a fire
department. They may construct or purchase and operate water works
and lighting plants. They may own cemeteries, public pounds,
public buildings and parks.[Footnote: John A. Fairlie, Local
Government in Counties, Towns, and Villages, pp. 207, 208.]

The council also has limited power to levy taxes and to borrow
money for public purposes.

There is a chief executive officer, sometimes called MAYOR,
sometimes president, or by other names. Subordinate to him are
various other officers, such as the police marshal, the street
commissioner, fire marshal, tax assessor, treasurer, clerk, and so
on. In larger villages boards of health and other boards and
commissions exist to administer various forms of public service.
The village may also have its minor court presided over by a
justice of the peace.

CITY GOVERNMENT

When villages or towns reach a certain population usually fixed by
state law, they may be incorporated as cities. The change that
takes place is simply one of elaborating the governing machinery
and giving to it larger powers to correspond with the larger needs
of city life. The complex problems of city government we shall not
attempt to study in this book.

CHANGES IN URBAN GOVERNMENT FOR BETTER SERVICE AND BETTER CONTROL

Great improvement in the government of towns and cities has been
made in recent years. The latest plan of government to be adopted,
and it has spread to a considerable number of towns and cities in
the United States, is the CITY MANAGER, or TOWN MANAGER, form of
government. By this plan the voters elect a small council, or
board of directors, who in turn appoint a MANAGER who serves as a
superintendent over the affairs of the city or town. He is a
trained specialist, often an engineer, and cities and towns
sometimes search the country over for the best man available for
the place. The manager appoints the heads of the various
departments of government, such as health, police, public works,
etc., and is responsible to the council for their work. It is the
application to town government of methods long used by successful
business corporations.

Investigate and report upon:

How the county in Louisiana came to be called a "parish."

Organization and powers of your county board.

A list of your county officers and their duties.

The sentiment in your county with regard to the efficiency of your
county government. Is the sentiment justified?

Recognized defects in your county government.

The long (or short) ballot in your county.

Extent to which the people of your county study the reports of
your county government (consult at home and with older friends).

What do you find of interest in your county reports?

Are reports of your county published in the newspapers? Do you
understand them? Ask your father to explain them to you.

Extent to which your county board exercises control over other
county officers.

Extent to which the farmers of your county interest themselves in
politics.

Whether or not the experience of the officer quoted on page 410
could be duplicated in your state.

The fee system in your county.

How and why public officers "are just what the people make them."

The meaning of Jefferson's remark that "public education and the
subdivision of counties into wards are the two hooks upon which
republican government must hang".

The feasibility of a "county club" in your county similar to those
in North Carolina.

The balance between county government and township government in
your county.

State control of your county government--too much, or too little?
Explain.

Difference between a charter and a constitution.

Number of incorporated towns and cities in your county.

Cooperation (or friction) between urban and rural districts in
your county.

Organization of village, borough, or town government in your
county.

Difference between the "town" as referred to in the last part of
this chapter and the "town" as described in the first part.

Services in incorporated towns and villages in your county that
are not performed by the county or township governments for rural
residents.

How a village or town is incorporated in your state.

Town manager form of government in your state. Its advantages.

READINGS

State Constitution.

County Government and County Affairs in North Carolina, North
Carolina Club Year Book 1917-1918 (The University of North
Carolina Record, Extension Series No 30, Chapel Hill, N.C. ).

County Government, ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, Vol XLVII, May, 1913. (36th and Woodland Ave,
Philadelphia.)

Publications of the New York Short Ballot Association, 381 Fourth
Ave, New York City.

Fairlie, J.A., Local Government in Counties, Towns, and Villages
(The Century Co.).

Mobilizing the Rural Community, by E.L. Morgan, Extension Bulletin
No. 23, Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst, Mass.

In LESSONS IN COMMUNITY AND NATIONAL LIFE:

Series B: Lesson 19, The commission form of government and the
city manager.

Hart, A.B., Actual Government, Part IV, Local government in
action.

Reed, T.H., Form and Functions of American Government, Part iv,
Local government.

CHAPTER XXVI

OUR STATE GOVERNMENTS

SOURCE OF GOVERNING POWER

When the thirteen original states were colonies, they derived
their governing powers from CHARTERS granted to them by the king,
as cities and some counties are granted charters by the state.
When they won their independence the people of each state
substituted a CONSTITUTION for the charter; the difference between
a charter and a constitution being that the former is given TO the
people by some higher authority, while the latter is adopted BY
the people themselves. All of our states alike, whether created
before or after the Union was formed, are self-governing under
constitutions of their own making.

Counties and towns, cities and villages, have no powers of self-
government except those granted to them BY THE STATE. The national
government, also, may exercise only such powers as are given to it
by the people VOTING AS STATES. Each state, on the other hand, is
self-governing in its own right, and may exercise through its
government any power whatever, excepting only those which it
voluntarily surrendered upon entering the Union. (See pp. 94, 449;
also Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 10 and Art. IV.)

THE STATE CONSTITUTION

The state constitution is the supreme law of the state and is
supposed to represent the direct voice of the people. Since the
Union was formed, state constitutions have been framed by
conventions of delegates elected especially for the purpose, and
in most cases have been submitted to the people for their
ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by such
conventions or by the state legislatures, but they must also be
ratified by the people. Some of the states have completely revised
their constitutions several times, and amendments have been very
numerous.

CAUSE OF LENGTH OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS

State constitutions are long documents, containing a great deal of
detail regarding the organization and powers of government. In
this respect they differ from the national Constitution, which is
brief and speaks in broad, general terms. Recent constitutions are
longer than earlier ones, partly because there is a greater
variety of problems to be dealt with, but also because of a
growing tendency to limit the powers of legislatures and
administrative officers.

A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT

After a DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, which all state constitutions
contain, the constitution is concerned chiefly with the
organization, powers and duties of the government. Each state may
organize its government as it sees fit, provided only that it is
"republican" in form as required by the federal Constitution (Art.
IV, sec. 4). This means that it must be a form of representative
self-government.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

While the state governments differ from one another in matters of
detail, the general plan is the same in all. Each consists of
three branches: the legislative branch for lawmaking; the
executive branch for law enforcement and administration; and the
judicial branch for the interpretation of the laws and for the
administration of justice in accordance with the law. These three
branches are organized on the principle of a SEPARATION OF POWERS,
to prevent encroachment by one upon the powers of the others, and
to make each a check upon the powers of the others.

In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department
shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either
of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and
judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never
exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them;
to the end it may be a government of laws, and not of men.
[Footnote: Constitution of Massachusetts, Part I, Art. XXX.]

Investigate and report on:

The meaning of "a government of laws, and not of men."

The entrance of your state into the Union.

The history of your present state constitution.

The powers surrendered by your state when it entered the Union.

Compare the length of your state constitution with that of the
federal Constitution.

The principal parts of which your constitution is composed.

Number of amendments to your state constitution. When the latest
amendments were adopted and why.

The declaration of rights in your state constitution.

Checks exercised by the legislature upon the executive and
judicial branches; by the executive upon the legislative and
judicial branches; by the judicial upon the legislative and
executive branches.

THE GOVERNOR

The chief executive officer of the state is the governor, who is
elected by the people for a term which varies, in the different
states, from one to four years. It is his duty to see that the
laws of the state are faithfully executed. The constitution makes
him the commander-in-chief of the state militia, which he may call
upon to enforce the laws or to quell disorders. It also gives him
the power to pardon persons convicted of crime, in the exercise of
which power he is sometimes assisted by a special board of pardons
and sometimes by the legislature; but the consideration of the
pleas of such persons and their friends for pardon often consumes
much of his time.

THE GOVERNOR'S VARIED DUTIES

A great deal of the governor's time is also taken up with duties
devolving upon him as the official representative of the state on
ceremonial occasions, as in the laying of corner-stones of public
buildings, attending state fairs, and making speeches at public
meetings of all kinds. By virtue of his office he is also a member
of many boards and commissions whose meetings he must attend.

THE GOVERNOR'S PART IN LAWMAKING

The governor also has some part in lawmaking. In all states except
North Carolina he has the power to VETO bills passed by the
legislature. This check upon the legislature is not absolute, for
the legislature may overcome the governor's veto by again passing
the bill, usually by a two-thirds vote. The governor may also
influence legislation by means of his messages to the legislature
in which he recommends measures which he believes should be
enacted into law. In case of opposition by the legislature, the
governor often carries his proposals directly to the people, who
quickly make known whether or not they support him. The governor
may call special sessions of the legislature to consider measures
of especial importance.

GROWING INFLUENCE OF THE GOVERNOR

The governor is a more influential officer today than he was in
the early part of our history. In colonial times he was the direct
representative of the king, or of the colonial proprietor, and the
people sought in every way to limit his powers. After the colonies
became states this habitual fear of the governor continued, and he
was placed under the control of the legislature. As time went on,
however, the legislature fell under the suspicion of the people,
while the governor was more and more looked to as their leader.
Thus, for example, the veto power was given to him, increasing his
influence while it curbed that of the legislature.

WEAKNESS OF THE STATE EXECUTIVE

But the power and influence of the governor are by no means as
great in relation to state government as are the powers of the
President in relation to the national government. In fact, the
executive branch of our state governments has been notoriously
weak, and its weakness is of the same kind as that noted in county
government: the lack of an effective, responsible head.

COMPARISON OF STATE WITH NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

In our national government the executive power is concentrated in
the hands of one man. State constitutions seem to confer the same
powers upon the governor. The constitution of Indiana says, "The
executive powers of the State shall be vested in a Governor"; and
that of Pennsylvania says, "The supreme executive power shall be
vested in the Governor." But the Pennsylvania constitution also
says, "The executive department shall consist of a Governor,
Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Attorney
General, Auditor General, State Treasurer, Secretary of Internal
Affairs and a Superintendent of Public Instruction" (Art. IV, Sec.
I). Four of these officers besides the governor are elected by the
people.

BEWILDERING COMPLEXITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

In all states the governor "shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed" (Pennsylvania constitution). For the
execution of the laws, however, he is dependent not only upon a
number of principal executive officers such as those named above,
but also upon a large number of less important administrative
officers. Governor Lowden, of Illinois, a few years ago said:

Administrative agencies have been multiplied in bewildering
confusion. They have been created without reference to their
ability economically and effectively to administer the laws.
Separate boards govern the penitentiaries, the reformatories, and
the educational institutions. Several boards and commissions have
charge of matters affecting the agricultural interests.
Administration of laws affecting labor is parceled out among
numerous agencies, including several boards having jurisdiction of
mining problems and several free employment agencies, each
independent of the other. Our finance administration is chaotic,
illogical and confused.

The administration of the health laws is divided between boards
and commissions, with no effective means of coordination. Our
educational agencies are not harmonious. Over one hundred
officers, boards, agencies, commissions, institutions and
departments are charged with the administration of our laws. No
systematic organization exists, and no adequate control can be
exercised ... Under the present system the governor cannot
exercise the supervision and control which the people have a right
to demand. [Footnote: Charles E. Woodward, "The Illinois Civil
Administrative Code," reprinted from Proceedings, Academy of
Political Science, July, 1918.]

GOVERNOR LACKS POWER TO MEET HIS RESPONSIBILITY

This condition of affairs is characteristic of state governments
generally. Some of the numerous officers are appointed by the
governor, but many of them are elected by the people or appointed
by the legislature. Their terms of office do not coincide with
that of the governor, so that he finds in office many persons whom
he did not appoint, and whom he cannot remove. Often they may be
of an opposite political party. Thus the very organization of the
state executive department is such as to make it impossible for
the governor to perform the duty, imposed upon him by the
constitution, of seeing to it that the laws are faithfully
executed. It must be remembered, moreover, that the execution of
the laws is also dependent largely upon a multitude of local
officers over whom the state exercises little control. It is
apparent how imperfect must be the teamwork of the people through
this organization.

UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS AT POPULAR CONTROL

Why have the people put up with this sort of thing? For one thing,
they have not understood where the trouble lies. There is also
seen the influence of the political "boss," who thrives under this
confusion. But among the causes is the desire of the people to
maintain control over government. They have attempted, in their
constitutions, not only to say just what services should be
performed for them, but also to specify just what machinery should
be used for their performance. For every new service, they have
created a new and independent piece of machinery. Then, to make
their control complete, as they thought, they have made most of
their new officers elective. Experience has shown that control of
this kind has been gained only at the sacrifice of efficient
service, through failure to provide trained leadership and
effective organization. Moreover, experience has also shown that
control of this kind is largely a delusion; for the people cannot
keep in touch with their multitude of officers, and in many cases
yield their control, often unknowingly, to the political "boss."

EXPERIMENT NECESSARY TO PROGRESS

In noting these defects, it is not to be concluded that our state
governments have been a failure in all respects. Far from it.
Notable progress has been made toward the ideals toward which we
have been striving. We have tried one experiment after another,
some of which have been highly successful, but others of which
have not met the test of new conditions. It is important, however,
that we should face our failures squarely and profit by them.

REORGANIZATION OF EXECUTIVE

At the present time there is a marked effort to overcome the
defects that we have just noted, and a good deal of progress
toward it has been made in some states. One of the most
progressive states in this particular is Illinois, which has
recently enacted a law for the reorganization of its executive
branch of government.

Under the new "Civil Administrative Code" of Illinois, the
executive branch of government is organized in nine departments:
the departments of finance, of agriculture, of labor, of mines and
minerals, of public works and buildings, of public welfare, of
public health, of trade and commerce, and of registration and
education.

At the head of each department is a director, who is appointed by
the governor, is responsible to him, and whose term of office is
the same as that of the governor.

Each department is organized into various bureaus, or other
subdivisions, with officers in charge who are directly responsible
to the director of the department. Thus, in the department of
agriculture there is an assistant director, a general manager of
the state fair, a superintendent of foods and dairies, a
superintendent of animal industry, a superintendent of plant
industry, a chief veterinarian, a chief game and fish warden, and
a food standard commission of three members.

All subordinate employees in all departments are appointed under a
civil service law which requires competitive examinations.

Associated with most of the departments are "advisory boards"
consisting of citizens who serve without pay. Thus, the department
of agriculture has a board of agricultural advisers composed of
fifteen persons, and a board of state fair advisers of nine
persons, not more than three of whom shall be appointed from any
one county.

The things aimed at in this reorganization are: (I) fixing
responsibility for the entire service-organization in one place--
with the governor; (2) responsible, trained leadership in each
department of service; (3) responsiveness of leadership to the
people's wants, as provided for by the advisory boards; (4) a
system of accounting and records that will make for efficiency and
economy, and that will inform the people as well as the officers
of government.

Investigate and report on:

The name of the governor of your state, his political party, when
elected, for how long a term.

Advantages and disadvantages of a long term for the governor.

The constitutional powers of the governor of your state.

The influence of the governor of your state with the people.

The principal executive and administrative officers of your state.
Those that are elective and those that are appointive.

A complete list of the administrative bureaus, boards,
commissions, and other state agencies, with their duties.

The application of Governor Lowden's statement regarding Illinois
to your state.

Any proposed reorganization of the executive branch of your state
government.

THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The legislative branch of government consists, in all states, of a
legislature ("general assembly," "legislative assembly," or
"general court") composed of two "houses" or "chambers," the house
of representatives and the senate. The senate is the "upper
house," and is usually from one-third to one-half the size of the
"lower house"; in Massachusetts only one-sixth the size.

THE TWO HOUSES

A bill to become a law must pass both houses separately, each
house acting as a check upon the other, thus securing greater
deliberation in lawmaking. The senate is supposed to be, and
usually is, a more conservative, or cautious, body than the house
of representatives, partly because of its smaller size which makes
possible a more careful consideration of business. Its members are
elected from larger districts, thus increasing the opportunity to
select able men. A higher age qualification is required for
membership in the senate than in the house of representatives; and
only a part of the senate is elected at each election, so that it
is a continuing body, always containing members of experience,
while the lower house may be almost entirely changed at each
election.

DEFECTS IN DISTRIBUTION OF REPRESENTATION

It is a theory of our representative government that
representation should be proportional to population. To secure
this result, each state is divided into election districts
presumably of as nearly equal population as possible, the
senatorial districts being the larger. In practice, however, these
districts do not always have representation proportional to their
population. The county is often the unit of representation, or in
New England the town, and these districts vary greatly in
population. An attempt is made to equalize the difference by
providing that no district shall have less than one
representative, and often that none shall have more than a certain
number. Inequalities nevertheless exist. In Connecticut, thirty-
four of the most populous towns and cities have sixty-eight
members in the lower house, whereas if the distribution were made
on the basis of population they would be entitled to 186 members.
Again, four of the smallest Connecticut towns, with a total
population of 1567, have five members; four of the most populous
cities, containing 309,982 inhabitants, have only eight members,
whereas on the basis of population they would be entitled to
eighty-seven. [Footnote: C.A., Beard, America Government and
Politics, p. 521.]

Partisan influences often enter into the districting of states for
representation, the party in power trying to fix boundaries so as
to ensure keeping their majority in the legislature.

Investigate and report on the following:

Number of members in the lower and upper houses of your
legislature.

Qualifications for membership and term of office in each house.

Names of your own representative and senator.

Secure a map showing legislative districts of your state. Locate
your own.

Whether representation in your legislature is proportional to
population.

The "gerrymander": what is it, and has it been used in your state?

The legislature controls our lives at almost every turn.

It has control over the whole domain of civil law; [Footnote 2:
See below, p. 437.] that is, it lays down the rules governing
contracts, real and personal property, inheritance, corporations,
mortgages, marriage and divorce, and other civil matters. It
defines crime; that is, it prescribes those actions of the citizen
which are to be punished by fine or imprisonment or death. It
touches the property of the citizen not only by regulating its
use, but also by imposing upon it a burden of taxation. Finally,
it has control over the vast domain known as the police power,
under which it makes regulations concerning public health, morals,
and welfare, devises rules for the conduct of business and
professions, and in other ways restrains the liberty of the
citizen to do as he pleases. [Footnote 3: C.A. Beard, America
Government and Politics,, p. 516.]

ATTITUDE OF THE PEOPLE TOWARD THEIR LEGISLATURES

In view of this importance, it would seem that the people would
have the keenest interest in their state legislatures and the
greatest respect for them. This has not always been the case. As
one writer says, "it has become almost fashionable" to speak
slightingly of legislatures and their members, and to talk of them
as if they were wholly corrupt and dishonorable. If the very best
men the community affords are not always chosen for the difficult
and responsible work of lawmaking, the people have no one to blame
but themselves. Moreover, the members of our legislatures average
up very much like their neighbors, and most of them are sincerely
desirous of serving their state and do so to the fullest extent
possible under the conditions that exist.

It is indeed time that a different attitude should be assumed
toward these bodies. ... Acquaintance with actual legislatures
will immediately reveal the fact that they are fairly
representative of the American people, and that there is in them,
a great deal of honest effort to grapple with the difficult
problems of legislation. ... Before all, there ought to be a
sustained effort to support the men who are with honest purpose
struggling for equitable and effective legislation. ...[Footnote:
Paul S. Reinsch, American Legislatures and Legislative Methods, p.
126.]

 DIFFICULTIES OF WISE LEGISLATION

Most of the unwise and harmful legislation has been due, not to
wrong intentions on the part of legislators, but to the difficulty
encountered by a body of men of average intelligence and of little
experience in dealing with public questions, in getting
information necessary to enable them to decide wisely with respect
to the multitude of complicated problems that come before them
during the brief session of the legislature.

In the lower house of one typical legislature only 19 out of the
252 members had ever been members of a legislature before, 123
were farmers, 6 lawyers, 10 physicians, 48 merchants and
manufacturers, 3 bankers, 5 preachers, 6 insurance men, 2 hotel
proprietors, 3 liverymen, 14 laborers or artisans, 6 "apparently
with no occupation except that of general politician and office-
seeker."

Of the thirty members of the senate of the same legislature, 9
were farmers, 4 lawyers, 4 physicians, and 13 merchants. Seven of
these had completed their education in "academies," while 13 had
never got beyond the public schools.

These men had to decide, in the course of a few weeks, upon an
astonishing variety of problems, some of them of the greatest
complexity, and all of them affecting the lives of the citizens of
the state in a multitude of ways. It is not surprising that
serious mistakes are sometimes made. [Footnote: C. A. Beard,
American Government and Politics, p. 525 (from S. P. Orth, "Our
State Legislatures," Atlantic Monthly, vol. xciv, pp. 728 ff.)]

The mere writing of a bill in language that will convey the exact
meaning intended, and that will not involve undesirable and
unexpected results, is a difficult matter that requires the skill
of men trained for it.

LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAUS

In a number of states an attempt has been made to meet these
natural difficulties by the establishment of legislative reference
libraries, or bureaus, in charge of highly trained students who
collect all available information relating to every possible
subject of legislation, keep records of legislation in other
states, and place the material in convenient form at the disposal
of the legislators. Sometimes they provide expert service in the
writing of bills in the proper form. It is said that such
legislative reference bureaus have already greatly improved the
quality of legislation in some of the states.

It would be impossible for a legislature, acting as a body, to
give consideration to more than a small fraction of the bills that
come before it.

It is said that it is not unusual for more than 2500 bills to be
introduced at a single session. Legislatures are in session from
40 to 90 days. If the session were 60 days, and the working day 10
hours, there would be but 15 minutes for each of 2500 bills. This
time would be divided between the two houses. Besides, a great
deal of business must be transacted other than the consideration
and passage of bills.

THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM OF LEGISLATION

To make possible the handling of all this work, each house is
organized in standing committees. As bills are introduced, they
are referred to their appropriate committees, in which most of the
work of lawmaking is done. Most of the bills so referred are never
reported back to the legislature at all, and those that are
reported are in most cases acted upon by the legislature in
accordance with the committees' reports, with little general
discussion. The procedure followed in referring bills to
committees and in considering them when they are reported back is
determined by a complexity of rules that are confusing to the
outsider and that cannot be explained in detail here. But their
declared purpose is to save time and to enable the legislative
business to move smoothly. The small committees can work to better
advantage than the large body of men in either chamber. The work
is divided up so that the few members of each committee can
concentrate their attention upon a few subjects and gain
experience in handling special kinds of problems.

INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT

On the other hand, it is to this organization that we owe some of
the bad lawmaking for which our legislatures are blamed. It tends
to remove legislation from the control of the people, and results
in what is often called "invisible government," government that is
carried on out of sight of the people. It opens a door to partisan
influences and to control by political "bosses" and self-seeking
"interests." In the lower house the committees are appointed by
the speaker, who is the presiding officer, and who is always
chosen by the members of the majority party in the house from
their own number. The senate committees are sometimes appointed by
the presiding officer of the senate, who is often the lieutenant-
governor, and sometimes elected by the senate itself. But the
chairmen and the majority of the members of all committees in both
houses belong to the majority party, which is thus enabled to
control legislation for partisan ends if it so desires, and it
often does so.

EVILS OF THE SYSTEM

Bills may be "killed" in committee, or reported unfavorably, or so
amended as to change their meaning entirely, merely at the will of
the party leaders, or of "bosses" and interests outside of the
legislature. A large part of the work of the committees is carried
on in secret. Although "hearings" may be held at which citizens
may present arguments for and against proposed measures, these may
be mere matters of form. Influential interests may maintain a
lobby at the legislature, which means that they are represented
there by agents who seek to influence the members of the
legislature, and especially of the committees, sometimes by
corrupt methods. The lobby often works by secret methods, whereas
the "hearings" are public.

The party leaders in control, of whom the most important are the
speaker of the house, the rules committee, the chairmen of
committees, and the "floor manager," by dictating the procedure to
be followed, may at times make it practically impossible for a
member of the minority party, or one who has incurred the
displeasure of the leaders, to gain a hearing. The following
description gives an idea of what may happen: [Footnote: From a
pamphlet issued by the Illinois Legislative Voters' League in
1903, and quoted by C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics,
pp 539, 540.]

Consider the petty annoyances to which a decent member outside the
"organization" may be subjected, and the methods by which
legitimate legislation, backed by him, may be blocked. The bill
goes to an unfriendly committee. The chairman refuses to call the
committee together, or when forced to call it, a quorum does not
attend. ... Action may be postponed on various pretexts, or the
bill may be referred to a sub-committee. The committee may kill
the bill by laying it on the table. On the other hand, the
committee may decide that the bill be reported to the house to
pass. Then a common practice is for the chairman to pocket the
bill, delaying to report it to the house till too late to pass it.
When finally reported to the house, it goes on the calendar to be
read a first time in its order. Then begins the advancing of bills
by unanimous consent, without waiting to reach them in order. Here
is where the organization has absolute control. Unanimous consent
is subject to the speaker's acuteness of hearing. His hearing is
sharpened or dulled according to the good standing of the objector
or of the member pushing the bill. If one not friendly to the
house "organization" wants to have his bill considered over an
objection, he must move to suspend the rules. The speaker may
refuse to recognize him, or may put his motion and declare it
carried or not carried as suits his and the organization's
desires. So the pet bills are jumped over others ahead of them on
the calendar, while

[Footnote: From a pamphlet issued by the Illinois Legislative
Voters' League in 1903, and quoted by C. A. Beard, American
Government and Politics, pp 539, 540.] the ones not having the
backing of the house "organization" are retired farther and
farther down until their ultimate passage becomes hopeless. If the
bill of the independent member reaches a second reading, it may be
killed by striking out the enacting clause or by tacking on an
obnoxious amendment that makes it repulsive to its former friends. ...
To carry out the will of the organization, the speaker
declares amendments carried or the contrary by a viva voce vote.
Demands for roll-calls are ignored by him in violation of the
members' constitutional rights. ...

EFFORTS TO CURB POWER OF LEGISLATURES

It is such practices as these that have brought state legislatures
into bad repute, and that have resulted in measures to curb their
power. Instead of leaving it entirely to them to make their own
rules of procedure, many of these rules are now prescribed by the
state constitutions. It was in order to restrain the legislatures
that the veto power has been given to the governors of all states
but one, and that sessions of legislatures have been limited to
brief periods of from forty to ninety days, and then only once in
two years. For the same reason state constitutions have taken away
powers that legislatures once commonly abused, as in running the
state deeply into debt, or in legislating in the interest of
particular localities or particular groups; and have provided in
great detail for many things that were formerly left to the
discretion of the legislatures. For the same reason some states
have adopted the initiative and referendum.

Investigate and report on:

Powers possessed by either house of your legislature not possessed
by the other.

Powers denied your legislature by the federal Constitution.

Powers denied your legislature by your state constitution.
Reasons.

Attitude of the people of your community toward your legislature.

Why service in the legislature does not attract more of the most
capable men of the state.

The vocations of the members of your legislature.

Number of bills introduced, and the number passed, at the last
session of your legislature.

The purpose of some of the most important laws enacted by your
legislature at its last session.

Why it is difficult to write a bill correctly.

The legislative reference library, or bureau, of your state (if
any).

The committees in each house of your legislature.

Procedure by which a bill becomes a law in your state.

The speaker of the House of Representatives in your state.

"Invisible government" in your state.

Laws regulating the "lobby" in your state. Frequency and length of
legislative sessions in your state.

INEFFICIENT BUSINESS METHODS OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

Some of the greatest abuses of governing power have been in
connection with the appropriation of money. They have been due not
so much to dishonesty as to bad organization and loose business
methods, both in the executive and legislative branches of
government. When the executive branch consists of a large number
of more or less independent parts, each trying to make the best
showing possible, it is quite to be expected that each will seek
to get from the public treasury all the money possible without
reference to the needs of other parts or to the resources of the
state. When, in addition, there is no central executive authority
with power to hold the heads of the various parts responsible for
their acts, and no uniform or businesslike system of keeping
accounts, either of money expended or of work accomplished, it is
easy to see the opportunity for wastefulness and inefficiency.

WASTEFUL METHODS OF MAKING APPROPRIATIONS

On the other hand, the methods of making appropriations in the
legislature have been equally conducive to wastefulness.
Appropriation bills pass through the same legislative machinery as
all other bills and are subject to the same dangers. Moreover,
they are handled by different committees that act as independently
of one another as do the various executive departments. In
Illinois, for example, until recently "requests for appropriations
were submitted informally by each office, department, or board;
and separate bills were prepared by the several departments and
institutions, and introduced by individual members of the General
Assembly," l[Footnote: John A. Fairlie, Budget Methods in
Illinois, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, November, 1915; quoted by W. F. Willoughby, in The
Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States, p. 45.] then being
referred to different committees according to the subjects to
which they related. At the session of 1913, 94 separate
appropriation acts were passed.

THE BUDGET SYSTEM

A number of the states have sought to remedy this defect in
government by the adoption of a budget system (see Chapter XIII).
Illinois has perhaps made the complete reform in this matter. We
have already seen how that state has reorganized its executive
branch of government, which is the first necessary step. In this
reorganization there was created a finance department, to which
all the administrative departments submit a careful estimate of
the money needed for their various lines of work, together with a
detailed statement of work done and money spent during the two
preceding years. The finance department considers all these
statements and estimates in their relation to one another and to
the financial resources available for the next two years, and
submits to the governor a comprehensive and detailed budget. On
the basis of this, a single appropriation bill is prepared by a
single committee of the legislature. Public hearings are held, the
people are given opportunity to know just what the government has
done and intends to do, and the governor and his finance
department may be held responsible.

No single change would add so largely to both democracy and
efficiency as the introduction of proper budget methods.
[Footnote: Foreword to Public Budgets, Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, November, 1915; quoted by
W. F. Willoughby, The Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States,
p. 2.]

Investigate and report on:

Method of making appropriations in your state.

Movement for a budget system in your state.

Why a budget system tends toward (1) economy, (2) efficiency, (3)
democracy.

THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

Questions are continually arising as to the meaning of laws, or as
to how they apply in particular cases. To answer these questions
the judicial branch of government exists, comprising a system of
courts. The courts are sometimes called upon to decide whether a
law passed by the legislature, or an act of an administrative
officer, is in harmony with the constitution, and if not, to
declare such law or act invalid. The judicial branch of government
is therefore the people's organization to keep the other branches
of government within their constitutional powers.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

In most cases that come before the courts, however, the law is
perfectly clear when once the facts in the case are known. It is
therefore the business of the courts also to ascertain the facts.
There are two classes of cases that come before the courts, civil
cases and criminal cases; and the law that applies to the two
classes is known as civil law and criminal law. A civil case is
one that involves a dispute between individuals, or an injury done
by one individual to another. Such would be a dispute over a
boundary line between the properties of two individuals, or over
the payment of a debt; or a personal injury due to the
carelessness of some one, or an injury to property or to health
through maintaining a nuisance of some kind. In such cases the
court, after ascertaining the facts, merely sees that justice is
done, as by the payment of damages to the injured party by the one
doing the injury. A criminal case is one in which a person is
charged with having violated a law of the community. The injury is
one against the community as a whole, and not merely against an
individual. It is the community that appears in court against the
accused person, and not merely one of his neighbors. In such cases
the court first ascertains the guilt or innocence of the accused
person; and if he is guilty, imposes a PUNISHMENT upon him, such
as a fine, or imprisonment, or even death, according to the nature
of the crime.

The judicial branch of government, then, is that part of the
governmental organization that seeks to adjust, by peaceful and
just means, the inevitable conflicts that arise in community life.

JUSTICES' COURTS

The lowest in the series of state courts are the JUSTICES' COURTS,
of which there is at least one in every township. They are
presided over by justices of the peace. Only cases of small moment
come before justices' courts: civil cases involving very small
amounts, and cases of minor infractions of the law punishable by
small fines or by short terms in jail. Persons accused of more
serious crimes may have a preliminary examination in a justice's
court and, if the evidence warrants it, be committed to jail to
await the action of the grand jury (see below). Most cases in a
justice's court are disposed of by the justice of the peace alone;
but a jury trial may be demanded in all criminal cases, and in
civil suits "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars" (Const., Amendments VI, VII).

COUNTY COURTS

More serious cases, civil or criminal, are tried in the COUNTY, or
DISTRICT, courts before a judge and a JURY. Cases that have been
tried in a justice's court may be APPEALED to the county or
district court, where there is sure to be a jury trial, and where
the judge is more learned in the law than is a justice of the
peace. It is the business of the jury to decide on the facts in
the case on the evidence furnished in the trial, and in civil
cases to award the amount of damages, if any, to be paid; while
the judge sees that the procedure is in accordance with the law,
instructs the jury as to the law in the case, and in criminal
cases fixes the penalty within the limits permitted by the law.

THE COMMUNITY IN COURT

It was stated above that in criminal cases it is the COMMUNITY
that appears against the accused. The community appears in the
person of the district attorney, otherwise called the prosecuting
attorney, state's attorney, or county solicitor. It is the
business of this officer to gather evidence of crimes committed in
the community and, in most cases, to submit it to the GRAND JURY,
which is a body of citizens carefully chosen to consider such
evidence. If the grand jury considers the evidence against the
accused sufficient to warrant bringing him to trial, it brings in
an INDICTMENT against him. The prosecuting attorney then
prosecutes the case for the community against the accused. It is
of course his duty to secure exact justice; sometimes, however, he
seems interested only in securing the CONVICTION of the accused.

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Our state and national constitutions seek to protect carefully the
rights of a person accused of crime. He is assumed to be innocent
until he has been proved otherwise. He is guaranteed a "speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury." He must be "confronted with
witnesses against him," and have "compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor," and "assistance of counsel for his
defense" (Const., Amendment VI). He cannot be compelled to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without "due process of law" (Amendment V). "Excessive
bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted." (Amendment VIII).

CIRCUIT OR SUPERIOR COURTS

In some states there is another set of courts immediately above
the county courts, known as CIRCUIT, DISTRICT, or SUPERIOR,
courts. The districts in which these courts have jurisdiction
include several counties. The cases courts handled by them are
either cases of appeal from the lower courts, or cases of greater
importance than those over which the lower courts have
jurisdiction.

THE STATE SUPREME COURT

The highest court in the state is the SUPREME COURT, sometimes
called the COURT OF APPEALS, or the COURT OF ERRORS. In the
supreme court several judges sit together, and there is no jury.
The cases that come before it are for the most part cases of
appeal from the lower courts, although there are certain classes
of cases that come before it in the first instance. The supreme
court is the final judge as to whether acts of the legislature are
in conformity with the state constitution.

OTHER COURTS

In addition to the courts named above there are sometimes others
to deal with special classes of cases. In cities there are
MUNICIPAL COURTS and POLICE COURTS, both in the same class with
justices' courts. There are JUVENILE COURTS to deal with juvenile
offenders; PROBATE, or SURROGATE, COURTS to settle the estates of
persons who have died; COURTS OF CLAIMS to settle claims against
the state; and CHANCERY COURTS, or courts of EQUITY, which
administer justice in cases that the ordinary law will not reach.

For example, the LAW will permit a man's property to be taken to
satisfy a mortgage; EQUITY requires that the property be sold and
the surplus over the amount of the mortgage returned to the owner.
The LAW will grant damages for any injury inflicted; EQUITY will,
by an injunction, forbid a repetition of the injury.

SELECTION OF JUDGES

The judges of the state courts were originally appointed by the
governors, or by the legislatures. With the movement toward more
democratic forms of government, the states began to introduce
provisions in their constitutions for the election of judges by
the people, and they are now so chosen in most states, though in a
number they are appointed by the governor, and in a few by the
legislature. It is highly important that judges should be
controlled in their decisions solely by the desire to render
justice, and that they should be removed as far as possible from
partisan influences. Popular election of judges is most prevalent
because it seems to give to the people the most direct control
over their courts. On the other hand, it is opposed by many
because it makes possible the election of incompetent judges, and
because it does not necessarily remove the matter from partisan
influences. In three states (California, Oregon and Arizona) the
judges are subject to recall by the people.

The terms during which judges hold office also vary greatly among
the states. In three states they hold office for life
(Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire). In the other
states their terms vary from two to twenty-one years.

It seems to be the opinion of most students that the state courts
would be improved if their judges were appointed by the chief
executive and should hold office for life, or during good
behavior, as is the case in the federal courts.

Investigate and report on:

Civil law and criminal law.

What makes an act a "crime."

Difference between a "crime" and a "misdemeanor."

Justices' courts in your community.

Procedure in a justice's court.

The organization of your county court.

Who is your county (or district) judge.

Procedure in your county court, and how it differs from that in
the justice's court.

Organization and work of the grand jury.

How a trial jury is selected.

The citizen's duty to serve on the jury.

Rights of an accused person.

Meaning of "bail," "indictment," "due process of law," "counsel
for defense," "subpoena," "true bill."

Circumstances under which an appeal may be made.

The supreme court of your state.

The work of a juvenile court.

READINGS

State Constitution.

Reports of the several departments of the state government.

In LESSONS IN COMMUNITY AND NATIONAL LIFE: Series B: Lesson 18,
How state laws are made and enforced.

The Civil Administrative Code of the State of Illinois, compiled
by Louis L. Emmerson. Secretary of State, Springfield, Ill.

The Illinois Civil Administrative Code, by Charles E. Woodward,
The Academy of Political Science, Columbia University, New York
City.

Beard, Chas. A., AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, Part iii, State
government.

Hart, A. B., ACTUAL GOVERNMENT, Part iii, State governments in
action.

Reed, T. H., FORM AND FUNCTIONS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, Part iii,
State government.

Bryce, James, THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH, vol. i, Part ii, The
State governments.

In Long's AMERICAN PATRIOTIC PROSE: Invisible government (Elihu
Root), pp. 261-264.

In Foerster and Pierson's AMERICAN IDEALS: How to Preserve the
Local Self-Government of the States (Elihu Root), pp. 48-55

CHAPTER XXVII

OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

THE REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT

It was the necessity for team work in carrying on the War for
Independence that led the thirteen American colonies for the first
time to unite under a common government. They had revolted to
escape from an autocratic government, and they sought to avoid
setting up another in its place. Since it had been the king whom
they distrusted most, they endeavored to get along without any
executive head at all. Their new government consisted solely of a
Congress of delegates from the thirteen states.

THE CRITICAL PERIOD

This form of government was continued for several years after the
Revolution under a constitution known as the Articles of
Confederation. It was, however, unsuccessful in securing anything
like real national cooperation. The Congress had no power to levy
and collect taxes, it had little power to make laws, and it was
without means to execute the laws that it did make. The real
governing power during this period was with the several states.
The result was a period of unutterable confusion which has been
called "the critical period of American history." The question at
stake was whether a number of self-governing state communities
with a multitude of apparently conflicting interests could really
become a nation.

THE NEW CONSTITUTION

During the war Benjamin Franklin had said, "We must all hang
together or we shall all hang separately." The states had "hung
together" sufficiently to win the war; but the wise men of the
time now saw the need for a government so organized and with such
powers as to secure effective cooperation among all the states and
all the people at all times for the welfare of the entire Union,
while leaving each state free to manage its own local affairs.
Therefore a convention of delegates from all the states was called
together at Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of
Confederation. The result was our present Constitution under which
our present national government went into effect in 1789.

Investigate and report:

The nature and causes of the confusion during "the critical
period" of American history.

The leading men of the Constitutional Convention.

How the states ratified the Constitution.

Which of the original thirteen states did not ratify the
Constitution until after it had gone into effect.

The number of states required to ratify before the Constitution
went into effect (Constitution, Art. VII).

POPULAR CONTROL THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION

"We, the people of the United States" "ordained and established"
the Constitution (see the Preamble). It was also "ordained" in the
Constitution (Art. V) that it could be amended only by methods
designed to give the people control over the matter--greater
control than they have over ordinary lawmaking. A great many
amendments have been proposed in the course of time, but only
eighteen have so far been adopted,[Footnote: A nineteenth
amendment is at this writing before the states for ratification--
the woman suffrage amendment.] ten of these having been adopted in
the very beginning as a condition on which the states would accept
the Constitution at all. None of these amendments changed the form
of our government except with respect to the methods of electing
the President and United States senators (Amendments XII and
XVII).

Explain the two methods of proposing, and the two methods of
ratifying, amendments (Constitution, Art. VII).

Has there ever been a national constitutional convention called by
the states?

Which of the two methods of ratifying was used in the case of the
last amendment adopted? [Footnote: Ohio by a referendum in 1919
submitted the eighteenth amendment to the people of the state for
their vote, after it had been ratified by the legislature. This
was the first time in our history that an amendment to the
Constitution was submitted to popular vote for ratification.]

Did your state vote to ratify or to reject the last amendment?

If any amendment is now before the states for ratification, watch
the newspapers for the action of the various states.

OUR GOVERNMENT A GROWING THING

The Constitution adopted in 1787 has met the needs of our growing
nation in a most remarkable way. It would be a mistake, however,
to think that it has always met new conditions perfectly, or that
we are governed to-day exactly as was intended by the framers of
the Constitution. Although few amendments have been made,
INTERPRETATIONS have been placed on the Constitution that were
probably unthought of by the framers or by the people who ratified
it; and PRACTICES have grown up in our government that have made
it quite a different government from that which was anticipated.
Our government is a GROWING thing, and one of the chief merits of
our Constitution is the fact that it speaks in such general terms
that it has been possible, under it, to adapt our government to
new and unexpected conditions. In this respect it differs from the
detailed state constitutions.

DEFECTS INEVITABLE

On the other hand, conditions have arisen with the growth of our
nation that our Constitution has not enabled us to meet with the
greatest success, and that we have not yet met by amendment. In
some cases we have tried to get around the difficulties by devices
not provided for in the Constitution, sometimes with unfortunate
results. But a recognition of defects in our government should not
cause us to lose respect for the Constitution. They are due not to
positive blunders on the part of the framers, but to the mere
absence of provision for conditions that did not exist when the
Constitution was framed and that could not be foreseen by the
wisest men of that time. The wise course for all good citizens is
to seek to understand clearly wherein our government fails to meet
our needs, if it does fail, and then to seek to correct the
difficulty, under the existing terms of the Constitution if
possible, or by amendment of the Constitution if that becomes
clearly necessary. Amendment of the Constitution was purposely
made difficult, and this was doubtless wise, for it tends to
prevent changes without full consideration of their needs and
probable effects. Radical changes in our form of government and in
our established laws are always fraught with danger. Because of
the extreme complexity of community life a change effected at one
point to meet a particular evil may have consequences of the most
far-reaching kind and in the most unexpected directions. A change
that corrects one evil may produce conditions resulting in evils
even worse than the first. Changes are necessary at times, but
they should be made only after the most careful consideration by
men of the widest possible experience.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

One thing that stood out clearly after the Revolution was the fear
of a strong national government. Some of the states refused to
ratify the Constitution unless amendments were added at once
guaranteeing the liberties of the people. The first ten
amendments, known as the "bill of rights," were the result. To
make sure that no important rights were left unguarded, the ninth
amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution of
certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."

Read the first ten amendments and discuss the meaning of each.

A GOVERNMENT OF DELEGATED POWERS

It was clearly expected that most of the governing powers to which
the people were subject should be exercised by the states, and not
by the national government. The national government was to
exercise no powers except such as were DELEGATED to it in the
Constitution. These powers are important ones, but few in number,
and are listed in section 8 of Article I. In order to make this
limitation of powers perfectly clear, the tenth amendment declares
that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to
the states respectively or to the people." Certain powers were
also expressly denied to the national government in section 9 of
Article I.

Discuss the meaning of each clause in Article I, section 8.

Discuss the meaning of each clause in Article I, section 9.

THE SCOPE OF NATIONAL POWERS

The powers of the national government relate to interstate and
foreign affairs, or to matters that the several states could not
well regulate without confusion or injustice. For example, it was
chiefly the confusion in matters pertaining to trade in the period
following the Revolution that made the new government necessary.
Therefore power was given to it "to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
So, also, it was given power "to coin money, regulate the value
thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and
measures," for varying systems of coinage and of weights and
measures would be inconvenient. For similar reasons it was
empowered "to establish post-offices and post-roads," "to
establish an uniform rule of naturalization" for immigrants, and
"to promote the progress of science and useful arts" by giving
copyrights and patents to authors and inventors. The states, on
the other hand, were expressly forbidden to exercise any control
over some such matters of national and international concern in
section 10 of Article I.

Read section 10, Art I, and discuss the reasons why the powers
there mentioned should have been denied to the states.

THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES

Not only did the framers of the Constitution carefully limit the
powers that the national government might exercise, but they also
introduced into the organization of the government various devices
to control it and to prevent any of its parts from assuming too
much power. The most important of these is the system of CHECKS
AND BALANCES. In our national government, as in the state
governments, the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are
SEPARATED. In early times in England, the king could make any laws
he wished, he could enforce them as he pleased, and he controlled
the courts of justice. In our government the legislature, composed
of representatives of the people, makes the laws; the executive
branch of government sees to their enforcement; and the courts,
which are responsible neither to the legislature nor to the
executive, interpret the laws and administer justice in accordance
with the laws. This separation of powers is to prevent any one
person or group of persons from exercising too much power, as the
king did, and is a safeguard to the liberty of the people. But the
separation of powers IS NOT COMPLETE. Each branch of government
has A LIMITED CONTROL over the others. This constitutes THE SYSTEM
OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, which still further protects the people's
liberties.

While the President cannot make the laws, he is given a check upon
the lawmaking power of Congress by his veto power. On the other
hand, he cannot, by an excessive use of his veto power, destroy
the lawmaking power of Congress, because Congress may pass laws
over the President's veto by means of a two-thirds vote.

The President cannot make a treaty, nor appoint men to office,
without the consent of the senate; neither can he exercise his
executive powers until Congress votes him the necessary money.

If Congress passes a law that is contrary to the Constitution the
courts may declare the law void, and the executive cannot enforce
it. The courts, on the other hand, are in a measure under the
control of both Congress and the President, for Congress may
create and destroy courts (except those created by the
Constitution), and the President, with the consent of the senate,
appoints the judges.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CHECKS AND BALANCES

The "checks and balances" in the organization of our government
have been very effective in accomplishing the purpose for which
they were intended, namely, to protect the liberties of the people
against despotic government. But they have also, at times, been an
obstacle to team work and to effective service. It sometimes
happens, for example, that the President represents one political
party, while the majority of one or both houses of Congress are of
the opposing party. The two branches of government may then enter
into a struggle on partisan grounds, each trying to defeat the
program of the other. Such a situation was probably unforeseen by
the framers of the Constitution, although it again reminds us of
Washington's warning with regard to the dangers of the party
spirit.

THE IMPLIED POWERS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

With the growth of our nation, the national government has come to
perform a vast amount of service, as we have seen in earlier
chapters, and to regulate the lives of the people in a multitude
of ways little dreamed of by the makers of the Constitution. This
has been possible because of the principle of IMPLIED POWERS in
the Constitution. This means that some of the powers expressly
granted in the Constitution have been broadly interpreted to IMPLY
powers not expressly stated. There are certain clauses in the
Constitution that especially lend themselves to such broad
interpretation. For example, after the enumeration of the powers
which Congress may exercise, in section 8 of Article I, clause 18
of that section gives Congress power "to make all laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers ..." Another clause whose liberal interpretation has been
responsible for much of the service performed by the national
government is that giving it the power to regulate interstate
commerce (Art. I, sec. 8, clause 3).

In the early days of our government the Federalist party, under
the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, proposed the creation of a
NATIONAL BANK. The Republican party under Jefferson opposed this
because the Constitution did not expressly provide for it, and
because it was feared that it would give the national government
too much power. But the "broad constructionists" argued that a
national bank was a "necessary and proper" means to enable the
national government "to borrow money on the credit of the United
States" and to exercise other financial powers expressly granted
in the Constitution. The supreme court of the United States
supported the latter view, and the national bank became a fact.

The building of roads and other internal improvements by the
national government have always been opposed by the "strict
constructionists," except where roads were clearly "post-roads"
(Article 1, section.8, clause 7). But the "broad constructionists"
argued that roads were "necessary and proper" to provide "for the
common defense," and also as a means "to regulate commerce among
the several states."

Most of the work that the national government has done for the
promotion of the public health, such as the passage and
enforcement of the "pure food and drugs act," the inspection of
livestock and of slaughterhouses, and the attempt to regulate
child labor, has been done under the authority of the clause
giving Congress power to regulate interstate commerce.

EXPANSION OF POWERS BY JUDICIAL DECISION

It has been the duty of the Supreme Court of the United States to
decide finally whether much of the new service undertaken by the
national government is in accordance with the Constitution or not,
and this court has been responsible for most of the expansion of
the service rendered, because of its liberal interpretation of the
Constitution.

Why should the power to regulate interstate commerce also give
Congress the power to require the inspection of cattle in your
neighborhood? or to forbid the use of harmful substances in patent
medicines? or to forbid the employment in factories of children?

Find out what you can about the influence of John Marshall, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, in extending the powers of the
national government.

THE EXECUTIVE CENTRALIZED AND CONTROLLED

The Constitution vests the executive power in the President of the
United States (Art. II, sec. I), and he alone is responsible to
the people for the execution of the laws. The people are protected
against abuse of this power in the hands of one man by various
constitutional provisions. The President's term of office is
limited to four years, though he may be reelected. In case of
improper conduct in office, he may be removed by IMPEACHMENT. The
impeachment charges must be brought against him by the House of
Representatives, and the Senate, presided over by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, must act as a court to try the case.
Moreover, even the President must act according to law, and in so
far as his duties are not prescribed by the Constitution they are
prescribed by Congress. Congress must also create the machinery by
which the President executes the laws, and it must appropriate the
necessary money. The Senate exercises a further control over the
President in that it must approve all appointments and all
treaties made by him.

METHOD OF ELECTING THE PRESIDENT

The method of electing the President provided in the Constitution
was intended to insure a wise choice, and also shows a lack of
complete confidence in the people on the part of the framers of
the Constitution. He was to be elected by a body of ELECTORS,
chosen by the several states "in such manner as the legislatures
thereof may direct," the number of electors from each state to
equal the whole number of senators and representatives from that
state (Art. II, sec. 2). These electors were originally chosen by
the legislatures of the states, but are now elected by the people.
When voters "vote for the President" every four years, they in
reality only vote for these electors who, in turn, cast their
votes for the President.

DEPARTURE FROM THE INTENTION OF THE CONSTITUTION

In the method of electing the President we find one of the points
where the intention of the framers of the Constitution has clearly
been thwarted. It was obviously the intention that the electors
chosen by the states should use their own discretion in the choice
of the President. But in practice to-day, the entire body of
electors from each state always represents the victorious
political party, and casts its vote invariably for the
presidential candidate already nominated by the party machinery.
We still elect the electors, and the electors go through the form
of electing the President; but their part in the procedure is now
entirely useless.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT

The Vice-President of the United States is elected at the same
time and by the same method as the President. But he has no
executive duties whatever so long as the President is capable of
performing his duties. In order that he might have something to
do, he was made presiding officer of the Senate, but even there he
has no vote.

Investigate and report:

The qualifications necessary to hold the office of President
(Const., Art. II, sec. I, cl. 5).

How the electors elect the President (Const., Amend. XII).

Who would become President if both the President and the Vice-
President should die.

The salary of the President.

The oath taken by the President on assuming office. The difference
between an oath and an affirmation (Art. II, sec. i, cl. 8).

The powers of the President (Art. II, sec. 2).

A President who was impeached.

Why no President has been elected for a third term.

Advantages and disadvantages of a longer term for the President.

GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION

The President is at the head of a stupendous service organization
which was not ready-made by the Constitution, but which has been
gradually created by acts of Congress under its express and
implied powers. The Constitution did not even create the great
administrative departments through which the President works,
although it implied that such departments should be created: "The
President ... may require the opinion, in writing, of the
principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any
subject relating to the duties of their respective offices" (Art.
II, sec. 2, cl. i). The heads of these departments are appointed
by the President, are responsible to him, and may be removed by
him. Together they constitute the President's CABINET, meeting
with him frequently to discuss the affairs of their departments
and matters of public policy.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS

Five of these administrative departments were created during
Washington's administration. These five have grown to cover a
multitude of activities that were not at first contemplated, and
five other great departments have since been created.

The DEPARTMENT OF STATE maintains relations between the United
States and foreign powers. The Secretary of State, acting for the
President, negotiates treaties with foreign governments, and is in
constant communication with the ambassadors, ministers, consuls,
and other representatives of our government in foreign countries,
and with similar representatives of foreign governments in this
country. This department is the medium of communication between
the President and the governors of the several states. The
Secretary of State has in his keeping the treaties and laws of the
United States, and also the Great Seal of the United States, which
he affixes to proclamations, commissions, and other official
papers. Through him the rights of American citizens in foreign
countries are looked after. He is first in rank among the members
of the cabinet, and by law would succeed to the Presidency in case
of the death or disability of both the President and the Vice-
President.

The DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY has at its head the Secretary of
the Treasury, who is the financial manager of the national
government. He prepares plans for, and superintends the collection
of, the public revenues; determines the manner of keeping the
public accounts; directs the coinage and printing of money. He
also controls the construction and maintenance of public
buildings, and administers the public health service and the life-
saving service.

The DEPARTMENT OF WAR is directed by the Secretary of War, who,
under the President, controls the military establishment and
superintends the national defense. He also administers river and
harbor improvements, the prevention of obstruction to navigation,
and the building of bridges over navigable rivers when authorized
by Congress. He also has direction of the Bureau of Insular
Affairs, which supervises the government of Porto Rico and the
Philippines.

The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE has at its head the Attorney General,
who is the chief law officer of the government, and represents it
in all matters of a legal nature. He is the legal adviser of the
President and of the several executive departments, and supervises
all United States attorneys and marshals in the judicial districts
into which the country is divided.

The POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT is administered by the Postmaster
General.

The DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, under the Secretary of the Navy, has
charge of the "construction, manning, equipment, and employment of
vessels of war."

The DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR was created to relieve the
Department of State of work relating to internal affairs, and now
embraces a wide variety of duties. At its head is the Secretary of
the Interior. Through many bureaus and divisions it administers
the public lands, the national parks, the giving of patents for
inventions, the pensioning of soldiers, Indian affairs, education,
the reclamation service, the geological survey, the improvement of
mining methods for the safety of miners, certain matters
pertaining to the territories of the United States, and certain
institutions in the District of Columbia.

The DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE is directed by the Secretary of
Agriculture. Its work is described in Chapter XII.

The DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, under the Secretary of Commerce,
promotes the commercial interests of the country in many ways. It
includes in its organization the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic
Commerce, the Bureau of Corporations, the Census Bureau, the
Bureau of Lighthouses, the Bureau of Navigation, the Bureau of
Fisheries, and the Bureau of Standards.

The DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, under the Secretary of Labor, has for its
purpose "fostering, promoting, and developing the welfare of the
wage earners of the United States, improving their working
conditions, and advancing their opportunities for profitable
employment." Among its important bureaus are those of Immigration
and of Naturalization, and the Children's Bureau, which
investigates and reports upon "all matters pertaining to the
welfare of children and child life among all classes of our
people."

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

In addition to these great administrative departments with their
numerous bureaus and subdivisions, there are various boards,
commissions and establishments that are independent of the
departments.

Some of the most important of these are the Interstate Commerce
Commission, the Civil Service Commission (see below), the Federal
Reserve Board, the Federal Trade Commission, the United States
Tariff Commission, the Board of Mediation and Conciliation, the
United States Bureau of Efficiency, the Federal Board of
Vocational Education, the Panama Canal.

Of another kind are the Library of Congress which includes the
Copyright Office; the Government Printing Office; the Smithsonian
Institution, including the National Museum and the National
Zoological Park.

There are many others. During the recent war a great variety of
new administrative commissions and boards were created for the
emergency. Most of these have been, or are to be, discontinued,
though some of them may survive. Such were the Council of National
Defense, the Committee on Public Information, the Food
Administration, the Fuel Administration, the United States
Shipping Board, the War Trade Board, the Director General of
Railroads.

THE CIVIL SERVICE

The detailed work of this vast service organization is carried on
by about 400,000 employees (not counting the army and the navy).
These constitute the CIVIL SERVICE. The quality of service depends
largely upon the efficiency of these employees. The task of
filling all these places is a large one. In Andrew Jackson's
administration (1829-1837) the "spoils system" was introduced,
which means that government positions were treated by the
victorious party as "the spoils of victory," to be given to
members of the victorious party as rewards for party service
without much regard to fitness for the work to be done. Whenever
the administration passed from one party to another, the army of
civil service employees was displaced by another of new employees.
Not only did this result in inefficient service, but the time of
the President and the heads of the departments was largely
consumed in considering the claims of those seeking appointment.

Moreover, since appointments could be made only "with the advice
and consent" of the Senate, senators were besieged by applicants
for positions and their friends. The President, overwhelmed by the
multitude of appointments to be made, came to rely almost wholly
upon the advice of the senators, and even of members of the House
of Representatives, for appointments in their states and
districts. Thus, in effect, appointments were made by members of
Congress rather than by the President who was really responsible.
No system could have been devised more wasteful of the time of the
executive and legislative branches of the government, or more
conducive to inefficiency.

REFORM OF THE CIVIL SERVICE

The spoils system became a great offense to the nation, but it was
not until President Garfield was murdered by a disappointed office
seeker that Congress, in 1883, passed a law for the reform of the
civil service. Candidates for many positions in the civil service
were required to pass an examination designed to prove their
fitness for the work to be done, and a CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
was created to administer the law and to conduct the examinations,
which are held at stated intervals in different parts of the
country. Those appointed under this system cannot be removed
except for cause. Even at the present time, however, only about
half of the civil service is subject to this MERIT SYSTEM. From
the above description of the work of the several executive
departments select topics for special investigation and report;
such as:

The work of United States Consuls. Coining money; the United
States Bureau of Engraving.

The life-saving service of the United States.

The United States Army in war and peace.

The United States Army as an organization to save life, especially
in its work of sanitation in territories occupied.

Representatives of the United States Department of Justice in your
community, and examples of their work.

Building a battleship. Training for the navy.

Exploits of the navy in war. The work of the navy in time of
peace.

The work of the patent office; of the bureau of Indian affairs; of
the geological survey; of the bureau of mines.

Taking the United States census.

The work of the bureau of fisheries.

Marvels of the bureau of standards.

The immigration bureau.

Work of the children's bureau.

How an immigrant is naturalized.

The Government Printing Office.

The Congressional Library.

The spoils system in Andrew Jackson's administration.

How would you go about it to take an examination for the civil
service?

Is there any reason why a mail carrier or a clerk in a government
office should be a Republican or a Democrat?

What employees of the United States civil service are there in
your community?

RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP

Efficient government requires strong, clearly recognized
leadership. Democratic government requires that its leadership
shall be responsive to the needs of the people and under their
control. The problem of how to secure strong leadership and
controlled leadership at one and the same time is a difficult one.
So far as the executive branch of government alone is concerned,
the framers of the Constitution secured strength by concentrating
full responsibility in the President. But did they expect him to
be their leader in the government as a whole; that is, in
formulating the policies of government that should serve as the
basis for legislation? We are in the habit of thinking of him as
our national leader, but was he made so in fact?

LEADERSHIP OF THE PRESIDENT

In fact, the framers of the Constitution were apparently more
concerned about maintaining control over the President than about
clearly making him the nation's leader. About the only indication
the Constitution contains that he was to be such a leader is the
statement that he "shall from time to time give to the Congress
information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their
consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and
expedient" (Art. II, sec.3). He does submit recommendations to
Congress at the opening of each of its terms and often at other
times. If the President and the majority in Congress are of the
same political party, Congress is pretty likely to follow the
President's lead; or, if the President has a commanding
personality and is clearly popular with the people, he may force
measures through even an unwilling Congress. But if differences
arise between the President and Congress, especially when one or
both houses of Congress are of the opposite party from the
President, his recommendations may be entirely ignored. By our
system of "checks and balances" the President is "controlled," but
he ceases to be a leader when he does not have the "following" of
Congress, or of the majority of the people.

President Wilson began his second administration with a majority
in both houses of Congress of his political party, and apparently
in popular favor. He was clearly accepted as leader and
practically all of his proposed measures were favorably acted upon
by Congress. In the middle of this administration a congressional
election occurred which resulted in a majority in both houses of
the opposing party. This result might be considered as a popular
vote against the leadership of the President, and his opponents
did consider it so. It cannot be absolutely certain that this was
intended, for the people were not voting directly on this
question. Whether this was true or not, Congress refused to follow
his leadership in many important questions, including the treaty
of peace with Germany.

CONTROL OF LEADERSHIP IN ENGLAND

It will be helpful to compare this situation with the method by
which England has worked out the problem of leadership and control
of leadership.

The real executive head in the English government is the prime
minister. The king appoints the prime minister, but he always
chooses for the position THE RECOGNIZED LEADER OF THE POLITICAL
PARTY THAT IS IN THE MAJORITY in the House of Commons (which
corresponds to our House of Representatives).

The prime minister having been appointed, he then selects the
other members of his cabinet, who are to be the heads of the
executive departments, and WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

The prime minister and the other members of the cabinet have seats
in the House of Commons, contrary to the practice in our country.
THEY ALSO TAKE THE LEAD IN LEGISLATION, for most of the important
bills considered in the House of Commons are planned and
introduced by the cabinet. So the executive and legislative
branches of the English government are not separated as in our
country. The same group of men manage the service organization and
lead in planning the legislation that makes the service possible.

It sometimes happens, however, that the cabinet introduces a
measure which, after discussion, a majority of the House of
Commons rejects. This means that on this question the cabinet no
longer represents the majority in the House. Then one of two
things happens. EITHER THE CABINET RESIGNS in a body to make way
for a new cabinet that does represent the majority; OR THE PRIME
MINISTER ASKS FOR A GENERAL ELECTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS. If at this election a majority is again returned that is
opposed to the cabinet, it means that the cabinet no longer leads
the people, and it resigns. If a majority is returned in support
of the cabinet, it means that the old House was no longer
representative of the people, and the old cabinet retains its
leadership.

This system gives the English people MORE DIRECT CONTROL over
their government than we have in our country; it is very much like
the method of RECALL that is used in some of our states. At the
same time, it assures a real executive leadership WITHIN THE
GOVERNMENT, a leadership that is both responsive and responsible
to the people.

GROWTH OF IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP

Not only does our Constitution fail to provide clearly for
responsible leadership within the government, but our system of
"checks and balances," our party system of government, and the
organization and rules of Congress, all taken together, have
tended to confuse our leadership, and to impose upon us an
irresponsible leadership, OUTSIDE of the government as outlined by
the Constitution. To understand this it will first be necessary to
examine the organization of Congress.

THE CONGRESS

Congress, like the state legislatures, consists of two chambers,
the House of Representatives and the Senate; this being another
instance of "checks and balances."

The creation of two chambers in the Congress made possible a
satisfactory settlement of a dispute in the Constitutional
Convention with regard to the basis of representation. The larger
states wanted representation proportional to their population,
while the smaller states, insisted upon EQUAL representation for
all the states. It was settled that there should be equal
representation in the Senate, and proportional representation in
the House of Representatives. This is one of a series of
compromises that had to be made between the two parties in the
convention. In fact, the Constitution is a series of compromises
from beginning to end. Only thirty-nine of the fifty-five
delegates in the convention signed the Constitution, and it is
probable that no one even of the thirty-nine was wholly pleased
with it.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The number of representatives in the first Congress from each
state was fixed in the Constitution, and provision made for a
census in 1790 and every ten years thereafter, on the basis of
which a reapportionment should be made. At present there are 435
members of the House, one for about every 212,000 of the
population. They are elected by direct vote of the people, one
from each of the CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS into which each state is
divided, and for a term of two years.

THE SENATE

There are two senators from each state. The Constitution provided
that they were to be elected by the state legislatures, another
evidence of distrust of the people. In 1913, the seventeenth
amendment to the Constitution was enacted, providing for the
election of senators by popular vote, showing the growing spirit
of democracy and the distrust of the state legislatures. Senators
are elected for six years, but the term of only one third of them
expires at the same time, so that at least two thirds of the
Senate have always had at least two years' experience. No citizen
may become a senator until he is thirty years of age, while one
may become a member of the lower house at twenty-five.

EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF EACH HOUSE

The House of Representatives has one important power not possessed
by the Senate: it alone can originate bills for raising revenue.
This is because the representatives were supposed to be more
directly representative of the people than the senators. However,
the Senate may amend such bills, and often succeeds in forcing the
House to accept such radical amendments as practically to destroy
the advantage possessed by the latter in its power to originate
the bills.

In addition to its lawmaking powers, the Senate was intended to be
an advisory council to the President. Only with its "advice and
consent" may the President make appointments and treaties.

Investigate and report on the following:

The compromises of the Constitution.

The census of 1920.

The number of congressional districts in your state, and the
number of the one you live in.

The names of your representative and senators.

The qualifications for election to the House of Representatives
and to the Senate (Art. I, secs. 2 and 3). Compare with the
qualifications for election to the two houses of your legislature.

The characteristics of the Senate that make it more conservative
than the House of Representatives. The meaning of "conservatism."

Why the Senate should be more conservative than the House.

The "long" and "short" sessions of Congress.

How vacancies in Congress are filled between elections.

Legislation in which the representative from your district has
been especially interested during the last session of Congress.

In England a member of the House of Commons is not required to be
a resident of the district which he represents. Arguments for and
against this plan.

Debate the question: RESOLVED, that our Constitution should be
amended to provide for a "responsible cabinet government" as in
England.

ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS

The presiding officer of the Senate is the Vice-President of the
United States, while that of the House of Representatives is a
SPEAKER elected by the House. The Vice-President has no vote in
the Senate except in case of a tie, when he may cast the deciding
vote. The Speaker, on the other hand, has all the rights of any
other member and has large powers by virtue of his position. He is
always elected by a strictly party vote, and therefore represents
the majority party in the House.

THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM

As in the state legislatures, and for the same reason, most of the
work of legislation in Congress is done by standing committees, of
which there are about sixty in the House and about seventy-five in
the Senate. As in the state legislatures, these committees are
chosen on party lines, the chairmen and the majority of the
members always being of the majority party. The procedure by which
legislation is carried on in Congress is very much the same as
that in the state legislatures, and has the same advantages and
disadvantages. There is even greater necessity for the committee
organization and for rules because of the vastly greater number of
bills introduced. In a recent Congress more than 33,000 bills were
introduced in the House of Representatives alone. Whereas in the
state legislatures some of the rules of procedure are fixed by the
state constitutions, the rules of Congress are determined entirely
by each house for itself. The committee on rules in each house,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairmen of
the committees in both houses, may run things as they see fit.
That this is done there is plenty of evidence, such as the
following words of a member of Congress:

You send important questions to a committee, you put into the
hands of a few men the power to bring in bills, and then they are
brought in with an ironclad rule, and rammed down the throats of
members; and then those measures are sent out as being the
deliberate judgment of the Congress of the United States when no
deliberate judgment has been expressed by any man.

DIFFUSED LEADERSHIP IN CONGRESS

It is this procedure in Congress that causes leadership to become
diffused, hidden, and often to pass outside of the government
altogether into the hands of "bosses" and special "interests."
There can be no well-conceived PLAN worked out by responsible
leaders and approved by Congress as a whole. There may be "plans,"
worked out by leaders in Congress, but they are likely to be plans
designed to serve party ends rather than to promote a well-
thought-out program of national development. Thousands of bills of
the greatest variety are introduced by individual members and
handled by different committees acting independently of one
another and often at cross purposes.

RELATION BETWEEN EXECUTIVE AND LEGISTLATIVE BRANCHES

The legislative and executive branches of government are each
extremely jealous of any encroachment upon its powers by the
other. It is not always easy to decide just where the dividing
line lies between the powers properly exercised by each. It is
maintained on the one hand that Congress is encroaching on the
rightful domain of the executive; and at least it is true that
while it denies the President responsible leadership in
determining the policies of the government, it has failed to
substitute any other responsible leadership, and has even made
leadership obscure. On the other hand, it is maintained that the
executive encroaches upon the powers of Congress. While this
chapter was being written a member of the House of Representatives
made a speech in which he said:

This bill presents a fine specimen of bureaucratic legislation.
[Footnote: "Bureaucratic legislation" here means lawmaking by
bureaus in the executive branch of the government.] If the
Congress ever intends, as it surely does, to regain the powers
granted it by the fathers, of which it is now temporarily deprived
by bureaucratic encroachment, now is the time to start upon such a
campaign by defeating by a decisive majority the bill now offered
for your consideration ... Every time you weaken Congress by the
establishment of a bureau in which the authority of Congress is
lessened, you lay one more stone in the erection of the temple of
autocracy ... These bureaus are not only legislating by
administrative processes but are usurping the power and
prerogatives of the people's courts ...

THE DUTY OF CONGRESS TO WATCH THE EXECUTIVE

It is the business of the people's representatives in the law-
making branch of government not merely to make laws, but also to
watch and control the executive. The great English philosopher,
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), thus stated the purpose of the
English House of Commons:

To watch and control the government; [Footnote: "Government" here
refers to the executive branch.] to throw the light of publicity
on its acts; to compel a full explanation and justification of all
of them which any one considers questionable; to censure them if
found condemnable; to be at once the nation's committee on
grievances; an arena in which not only the opinion of the nation,
but that of every section of it, and as far as possible, of every
eminent individual that it contains, can produce itself in full
sight and challenge full discussion.

As we have seen, the English House of Commons has a way to control
executive leadership without destroying it. Even if we desired to
do so, we could not adopt the English plan without changing our
Constitution. But there are ways in which the same result could in
a measure be accomplished without such change. One of these is by
a well-organized BUDGET SYSTEM.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPROPRIATIONS

The methods of making appropriations for the purposes of our
national government have been as unbusinesslike as in the states.
Charges of extravagance and inefficiency have been made freely,
the blame being placed sometimes upon Congress and sometimes upon
the executive departments. Both are at fault; and the difficulty
is that it is almost impossible to fix the responsibility
anywhere.

DUPLICATION AND CONFUSION IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Although the national government, unlike the states, has a single-
headed executive, the executive departments are composed of a
multitude of bureaus and other subdivisions that are not well
organized in their relations to one another. There is overlapping,
duplication, and even conflict of work. The director of finance of
the War Department said that in the recent war,

The War Department entered this war without any fixed or carefully
digested and prepared financial system. There were at the
beginning of the war five ... bureaus each independent of the
others, each making its own contracts, doing its own purchasing,
doing its own accounting, with as many different methods as there
were bureaus. As a result they were competing with each other in a
market where the supplies in many cases for which they were
competing were restricted in amount ... There was no central
authority to prune, revise, or compare estimates submitted and to
coordinate expenditures, and that naturally resulted in
overlappings and duplications, and some of them of a large amount.
[Footnote: Testimony before Budget Committee, quoted by Will
Payne, "Your Budget," Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 3, 1920, p. 32.]

The responsibility is partly in the executive department; but it
is also partly in Congress, for it creates bureaus, defines their
duties, appropriates money for them. And in Congress the
responsibility is divided among various committees.

One committee or subcommittee has supervision of building the
barracks at a given army post while another committee or
subcommittee has supervision of building the hospital at the same
post. One committee has jurisdiction of the guns, another
committee has jurisdiction of the emplacement of the guns. All
committees are jealous of their own prerogatives and sometimes
more or less jealous of other committees. [Footnote: Will Payne,
"Your Budget," SATURDAY EVENING POST, Jan. 3, 1920, p. 166.]

APPROPRIATIONS MADE MORE OR LESS BLINDLY

Each year the executive departments submit to the Secretary of the
Treasury an estimate of the amount of money they think they will
need. The Secretary of the Treasury puts these estimates together
without revision and without criticism and submits them to
Congress, together with an estimate of the probable revenues
available. While there is a committee on appropriations in each
house of Congress,

... one class of appropriations after another has been taken away
from this committee and intrusted to other committees until, as a
result, the work of preparing appropriations in the House of
Representatives is broken up so that there are now no less than
fourteen general appropriation bills prepared by seven different
committees ... In the preparation of their bills the committee on
appropriations and the other committees in charge of
appropriations are really compelled to work more or less blindly.
Sometimes they hold extensive hearings endeavoring to get a
complete grasp of the multitudinous detailed expenditures for
which they must provide. But, of course, it is impossible for the
several committees, in the time at their disposal, to give even
minor matters the amount of attention demanded by sound public
economy. [Footnote: C. A. Beard, AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS,
pp. 366, 367.]

THE PRINCIPLES OF A BUDGET SYSTEM

The first principles of a budget, according to students of
government, are that it should be prepared by the executive branch
of the government, which is responsible for spending the money;
that it should be prepared by an agency responsible directly to
the President, and with authority to revise and adjust the
estimates of the several departments in the light of the needs and
resources of the government as a whole; and that it should be
based upon an accounting system that will show clearly how
efficiently each department and minor subdivision is doing its
work. As this chapter is being written, a bill is before Congress
which, if passed, will more or less completely accomplish these
results.

THE NEED FOR CENTRALIZING APPROPRIATIONS

It remains for Congress, however, to make the appropriations
requested in the budget, with such modifications as may be shown
to be wise. It is generally accepted that appropriations cannot be
wisely made under the present system, and that responsibility for
them must be centered in one committee in each house.

This change will necessitate a change in the rules which can only
be made by each house for itself. A resolution has been introduced
in the House of Representatives recommending this change, but it
has not at this writing been acted upon.

In the English House of Commons, when the appropriation bill is
introduced, the House becomes in effect a court before which the
prime minister and his cabinet are placed on trial to defend their
budget. The whole House is in session. The minority party, which
conducts the opposition, employs counsel, and by its searching
inquiries compels the cabinet to explain and defend the budget at
every point. By this procedure the public is informed as to the
work and program of the government, and the executive leaders held
strictly to account.

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITIZEN

A budget system, however good it may be, like all other
governmental machinery is merely an organization for team work,
and will do very little good unless the team work is forthcoming,
not only among the various branches and departments of government,
but also on the part of the citizens.

If there is a real budget it has got to be your budget. It will be
good, bad or indifferent finally just in proportion to your
interest in it and your expression of that interest at the polls
and elsewhere. If there is a good budget system--not on paper, but
in actual practice--you've got to make it. If, when a budget bill
is finally enacted you say, "Well, that job is done," and dismiss
it from your mind there will be no lasting gain ... [Footnote:
Will Payne, "Your Budget," SATURDAY EVENING POST January 3, 1920,
p. 30.]

Effective control over government can be exercised only by PUBLIC
OPINION and PUBLIC INTEREST. We may have any kind of government we
want, if we only want it badly enough, and only when we want it
badly enough. The blame for inefficiency and wastefulness on the
part of government at Washington, or at the state capital, or at
the county seat, rests largely with the people back home, who are
either selfish or blind to the fact that the interests of the
nation are larger than their own or those of their own little
community. The very people who talk most loudly about the
extravagance of government, or about the burden of taxes, are
likely to be the ones who expect most from their congressmen for
purely personal or local advantage. They are likely to judge their
representative's fitness for his position more by his ability to
get funds from the public treasury for local gratification than by
his attitude toward great national questions.

Investigate and report on the following:

The present Speaker of the House of Representatives, and some of
the more important members.

Leaders in the Senate at the present time.

A list of some of the more important committees in each House of
Congress.

The procedure by which a bill becomes a law, from the time when it
is introduced to the time it goes into effect as a law of the
land.

Bills introduced in Congress by the representative from your
district. The purposes of these bills. (Consult at home, at your
public library, at your newspaper office.)

Follow the course of debate on some measure in the House of
Representatives or the Senate in the files of the Congressional
Record (files may be found at your public library, or at the
newspaper offices, if not in your school).

Conflict of opinion regarding the powers of the President and of
the Senate in connection with the discussion of the treaty of
peace with Germany.

"Filibustering" in Congress.

Clause 2 of section 6 of Article I of the Constitution says, "No
person holding any office under the United States shall be a
member of either House during his continuance in office." Why is
this?

The privileges of members of Congress under clause I of section 6
of Article I of the Constitution. Reasons for these privileges.

"Log-rolling" in Congress, what it is and why so called.

The details of the budget system of the national government if one
has been created by the time you study this chapter.

Any change in the rules of Congress relating to appropriations.

The desirability of introducing in our government a plan similar
to that used by the House of Commons.

THE NATIONAL JUDICIARY

The judicial power of the United States government is vested by
the Constitution "in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior
courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
(Art. III, sec. I). The number of judges in the Supreme Court is
determined by Congress, and they are appointed by the President
with the advice and consent of the Senate. At present the Supreme
Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices.
Its sessions are held in the Capitol building at Washington.
Congress has created circuit courts of appeals, of which there are
now nine, each "circuit" including several states; and district
courts, of which there is at least one in every state, and
sometimes several. In addition to these there is a court of
customs appeals and a court of claims, for special classes of
cases. The courts of the District of Columbia are also United
States courts, inasmuch as the District is governed entirely by
the national government. The judges of all United States courts
are appointed by the President and hold office for life.

POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS

The powers of the federal courts are stated in Article III,
section 2, of the Constitution. In general, they have jurisdiction
over cases of a national or interstate character. Most cases that
come in the first instance before the federal courts are tried in
the United States district courts, going to the higher courts only
on appeal; but there are certain classes of cases that go to the
Supreme Court at once (Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2). A case brought to
trial before a state court may be appealed to the Supreme Court of
the United States when the Constitution, the laws, or the treaties
of the United States are involved, and its decision is final. The
Supreme Court may declare a law passed by Congress or an act of
the President null and void if, in its opinion, such law or act is
contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. It has been
questioned whether the framers of the Constitution intended the
Supreme Court to have this power, but it exercises the power on
the ground that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land to
which even Congress and the President are subject, and that it is
the sacred duty of the courts to preserve it from violation. We
have noted the influence exercised by the Supreme Court in
extending the activities of the United States government by its
broad interpretations of the Constitution.

Study the powers of the federal courts in Article III, sections 1
and 2.

What is treason? (Art. III, sec. 3, cl. I.)

What is meant by the second clause in section 3 of Article III?

READINGS

Guerrier, Edith, The Federal Executive Departments, Bulletin,
1919, No. 74, U. S. Bureau of Education. Swanton, W. I., Guide to
United States Government Publications; Bulletin, 1918, No. 2, U.
S. Bureau of Education.

In Lessons in Community and National Life:

Series A: Lesson 12, History of the federal departments.
          Lesson 18, Local and national governments.

Series B: Lesson 13, The Department of the Interior.
          Lesson 14, The United States Public Health Service.
          Lesson 21, National standards and the Bureau of Standards.

In Foerster and Pierson's American Ideals: The nature of the Union
(Daniel Webster), pp. 17-26. The nature of the Union (John C.
Calhoun), pp. 27-44. Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, pp 59-
64. The frame of the national government (Bryce), pp. 285-300.
Criticism of the federal system (Bryce), pp. 301-311. Merits of
the federal system (Bryce), pp. 312-321.

Beard, C. A., American Government and Politics, Part ii,
especially chaps, xi and xiv Hart, A. B., Actual Government, Part
v, The National Government in Action. Bryce, James, The American
Commonwealth, vol. I, Part i. Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional
Government (Houghton Mifflin Co.). Haskin, F. J., The American
Government (Lippincott). Young, The New American Government
(Macmillan).

APPENDIX

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of
America.

ARTICLE I. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT