Social Civics William Bennett Munro and Charles Eugene Ozanne 1310 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Social Civics
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Social Civics

Author: William Bennett Munro
Charles Eugene Ozanne

Release date: February 10, 2024 [eBook #72924]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: The MacMillan Company, 1922

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72924

Credits: Charlene Taylor, KD Weeks,and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOCIAL CIVICS
***

Transcriber’s Note:
Footnotes have been collected at the end of each chapter,
and are linked for ease of reference.
All illustrations, charts, tables and graphs are accompanied
by a separate explanatory page, either preceding or following.
Neither are included in the pagination. They have been moved
to the nearest logical paragraph break, and demarcated by
horizontal rules, which do not appear in the text. A chart, “The
Commission Plan”, facing p. 195, is missing from the list of
Maps, Charts, and Diagrams.
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected.
Please see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for
details regarding the handling of any textual issues
encountered during its preparation.
Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will
navigate the reader to the corresponding entry in the
corrections table in the note at the end of the text.

SOCIAL CIVICS

Books by William Bennett Munro
The Government of the United States
The Government of American Cities
The Government of European Cities
Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration

JUSTICE

By Edward Simmons
This frontispiece is a reproduction of a famous mural
decoration in the New York Criminal Court House.
The background is the doorway of the criminal court
room. Justice stands before the entrance holding in one hand
the conventional scales as a token of impartiality, and in the
other hand a globe to symbolize the world. Over her left
shoulder is draped the national flag. Condemnation and
Acquittal are typified by the two children, one of whom
holds a sword, the other the dove of peace.
It has been usual to prefigure the Goddess of Justice with
her eyes bandaged, in token of her immunity from outside
influence. Mr. Simmons, however, has here portrayed Justice
with her eyes uncovered, because he believed that “Justice
should have her eyes wide open—particularly in New York
City”.
The artist’s wife and two children were the models for this
painting.

JUSTICE. By Edward Simmons

Copyright by Edward Simmons. From a Copley Print,
copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission.

SOCIAL CIVICS
BY

WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO
PROFESSOR OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

AND

CHARLES EUGENE OZANNE
TEACHER OF CIVICS
IN THE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL, CLEVELAND, OHIO

NEW YORK
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1922
All rights reserved

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Copyright, 1922
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Set up and electrotyped. Published June, 1922

PREFACE

Many excellent textbooks are already available for the teaching of civics.
Why should another be added to the number? Wherein does this book differ
from the rest? What are its outstanding features?
The Plan. This book covers a wider range than most texts. It includes not
only a survey of governmental framework and functions, but many topics
which are ordinarily spoken of as questions in economics, sociology, and
international relations. The propriety of including such topics scarcely
requires a defensive argument nowadays, for the old lines of demarcation in
the social sciences are rapidly breaking down. The problems of our complex
modern civilization pay no heed to technical boundaries. They are the joint
product of political, social, and economic forces. No one can get a grasp of
them if he lets his mind run on a single track. A well-organized course in
civics, or in the problems of democracy, should acquaint the student with
the great institutions, relations, and principles which dominate the life of the
community. To accomplish this end it should carry him as far afield as need
be.
The Method. Nevertheless, the main theme of this book is American
government. No matter what the topic under discussion, the authors have
tried to link it up with the drift and purposes of governmental action and
policy. This intimate and continuous connection between public problems
and public policy is the central concept of the book; it is the thread which
holds the various chapters together. There are many winding roads in the
broad domain of the social sciences, but sooner or later they all lead
through the realm of government.
The authors have not tried to discuss every possible phase of their
subject. Questions of outstanding importance have been given the right of
way; minor matters have been relegated to the footnotes or omitted
altogether. Those who desire enlightenment upon the odds and ends of
government or economics can get it from an encyclopedia. The primary aim
has been to get the facts hitched up to principles, and to set the principles in
their right perspective. For this reason considerable space has been given to

problems which, although international in their scope, are of profound
importance to the people of the United States.
The Arrangement. No two textbook writers seem able to agree as to the
proper order in which material should be arranged. But the sequence of the
chapters is not, after all, a matter of much importance. No one feels under
any obligation to finish the Book of Deuteronomy before beginning to read
the Acts of the Apostles. The teacher who prefers to start with the civic
activities rather than with the organization of government should have no
hesitation in doing so. In this book, at any rate, each of the larger divisions
of the subject is treated independently, and does not depend upon the others.
Some schools devote a half year to civics, and a half year to economics.
Material adapted to such an arrangement can be obtained by a slight
transposition of the chapters.[1]
The Supplementary Material. More than a hundred pages are devoted to
lists of general references, group problems, short studies, questions, and
topics for debate. It is not anticipated, of course, that any teacher can find
time to use them all; but the endeavor has been made to afford ample
variety for selection. Among the general references are included not only a
few of the most authoritative and most recent publications, but also some
elementary books which can ordinarily be found in the smaller school and
public libraries. The group problems are intended to be of special service to
those teachers who use the “project method” of instruction; but in any event
the practice of setting groups of pupils to work upon problems of a
comprehensive character is a good one for every teacher to pursue at times.
Some of these group problems are “projects” in the strict sense of the term;
others are merely research topics of an elementary sort. Some involve field
work; some do not. The questions are not designed to be tests of memory,
but to provide a basis for socialized recitations, to provoke discussion, and
to encourage among the pupils the habit of forming their own opinions. The
numerous and varied topics for debate have been inserted with the idea of
lending encouragement to one of the most effective methods of promoting
interest in public problems.
The Point of View. In dealing with controverted questions, of which there
are a great many in the field of civics, the authors have tried to hold the
scales justly, and to give both sides a fair hearing. It may be that they have
not in all cases succeeded; if so, they can only plead the unconscious
partisanship to which all human flesh is heir. In any event these chapters

have been written with a sincere desire to promote a more intelligent
citizenship, with an abiding faith in the merits of American government,
and with the conviction that the people of the United States will prove
abundantly capable of solving their manifold problems by the traditional
process of reconciling liberty with law.
The Illustrations. Apart from a number of diagrams, the illustrative
material has been drawn from the masterpieces of American mural art. They
symbolize what is best in our civilization; they may serve to give pupils a
passing acquaintance with a few creative works of enduring value; and they
have some artistic merit, which most textbook illustrations have not. For the
selection of these illustrations and for the explanatory legends which
accompany them, I am indebted to my wife.
A Word of Acknowledgment. To Mr. Ozanne this book owes a large part
of whatever value it may possess. He has had a great deal to do with the
arrangement of materials and the methods of presentation. Every page has
had his repeated scrutiny. It is to me a great pleasure to have had, in this
work, the close co-operation of one who possesses not only a mastery of the
subject but a rare proficiency in classroom methods.
WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO.
Harvard University,
February 22, 1922.

CONTENTS

PAGE
Preface v
PART I
THE AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER
I. Human Society 1
II. The People, Races, and Racial Problems of the United 19
States
III. Economic Factors and Organization 37

PART II
THE ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT

THE FOUNDATIONS OF GOVERNMENT
IV. The Nature and Forms of Government 62
V. The Citizen: His Rights and Duties 78
VI. Popular Control of Government 94

THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM
VII. Suffrage and Elections 118
VIII. Party Organization and Practical Politics 145

LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT
IX. Counties and Rural Communities 166

X. City Government 182
XI. Municipal Problems of Today 203
XII. State Government in Outline 226

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
XIII. The National Constitution 246
XIV. Congress at Work 266
XV. The President and his Cabinet 286
XVI. The Courts and the Law 308

PART III
THE CIVIC ACTIVITIES

ECONOMIC
XVII. Natural Resources and Conservation 326
XVIII. The Agricultural Interests 339
XIX. The Encouragement and Regulation of Commerce 356
XX. The Organization and Control of Industry 383
XXI. Labor and Labor Problems 400
XXII. Currency, Banking, and Credit 424
XXIII. Taxation and Public Finance 450
XXIV. Public Utilities and Public Ownership 474

SOCIAL
XXV. Education 492
XXVI. Public Health and Sanitation 514
XXVII. Poor-Relief, Correction, and Other Welfare 540
Problems

INTERNATIONAL
XXVIII. The National Defence 563
XXIX. Foreign Relations 587

XXX. The United States as a World Power 606
XXXI. The United States and the League of Nations 625
XXXII. Political and Social Reconstruction 646

APPENDIX
The Constitution of the United States 665

INDEX

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Justice. By Edward Simmons Frontispiece
PAGE

The Family. By Charles Sprague Pearce Facing 12
The Melting Pot. By Vesper L. George ” 33
Thrift and Prosperity. By Frederick Dielman ” 50
Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. By Edward Simmons ” 78
Government. By Elihu Vedder ” 118
Good Administration. By Elihu Vedder ” 145
Washington at the Constitutional Convention. By Violet ” 255
Oakley
Science Revealing the Treasures of the Earth. By Edwin ” 329
A. Abbey
The Spirit of Vulcan. By Edwin A. Abbey ” 383
The Crowning of Labor. By John W. Alexander ” 400
The Evolution of the Book. By John W. Alexander ” 492
Justice and Mercy. By A. R. Willett ” 554
The Spirit of Light. By Edwin A. Abbey ” 606
The Graduate. By Edwin H. Blashfield ” 646

LIST OF MAPS, CHARTS, AND DIAGRAMS

PAGE

The Center of Population Facing 21
The Growth of American Cities ” 183
The City Manager Plan ” 197
Municipal Administrative Departments ” 205
Traffic Zones ” 210
Simplified State Administration ” 241
Land Regions of the United States ” 340
The Relation of Money and Prices ” 443
The National Debt, 1860-1920 ” 467
The Control of Education ” 500
The Rise of Prices in War Time ” 582

SOCIAL CIVICS

CHAPTER I
HUMAN SOCIETY

The purpose of this chapter is to explain why human beings have come together into a
society, to point out some of the chief influences which affect their action in organized groups,
and to show that government is the greatest of the agencies through which human co-operative
action is maintained today.
Man’s Place on the Earth.—The present The supremacy of
man.
organization of society finds its explanation in the
nature of man. Man is by nature a social being; he possesses intelligence
and the capacity to organize. Among living creatures man is by no means
the first in physical power—he is neither so strong as the lion nor so fleet as
the reindeer. But he dominates the earth because he more than makes up, by
his mental and moral superiority, for whatever may be lacking in physical
prowess. We do not know when mankind first began to assert its mastery
over all other forms of life on the earth, but it was a very long time ago.
Man’s superior intelligence gave him a start, and his capacity for
organization enabled him to clinch the victory. Today he is supreme on
land, at sea, and in the air.
The Principle of Development.—Human society Evolution.
did not come into existence all at once; it has grown to its present form
through the slow process of time. Everywhere we see the principle of
development at work—among individuals and among institutions.
Everything is still in a continual process of change and this has
unquestionably been the case for many thousands of years. Or to put it in
another way, new forms of life and institutions are continually being
evolved from older forms.
To understand this principle of continual change and Darwin and his work.
development it is necessary to know something about the doctrine of
evolution. This doctrine is commonly associated with the name of Charles
Darwin, for although many others had hinted at the idea, he was the first to
set it forth accompanied by scientific evidence.[2] Darwin’s theory has been
much misunderstood; in the illiterate mind it is often summed up by saying
that “Man is descended from the monkey”. But Darwin did not say anything
of the kind, neither did he ever deny the existence of God as the controlling

factor in the life of the universe. Darwin’s theory of evolution asserted that
all forms of life now on earth have sprung from a few simple, primitive
types, and that human life is an evolution from one of these earlier forms.
Human institutions, likewise, did not arise instantaneously but developed
from simple and primitive beginnings into their complex structure of today.
The evidence upon which the doctrine of evolution Soundness of
rests is too extensive and too technical to be even Darwin’s theory.
summarized here but it is regarded as trustworthy by most scientists.[3] For
fifty years it has been studied, discussed, and tested by scholars with the
result that educated men are now disposed to accept the doctrine so far as
its main principles are concerned although they differ about various details.
It is astonishing how little we know, after all, about the beginnings of
things. We do not know when or how life began upon the earth. We do not
know the exact origin of man. But we do know that all forms of life and
institutions have grown; they were not created in the shape we now have
them. All the general laws of life which apply to plants and animals apply
also to man. Alike they are born, they are nourished, they mature, and they
produce descendants like themselves.
The method of evolution, according to Darwin’s The principle of
theory is based upon the principle of natural selection. “natural selection”
and the struggle for
It is a well-known law of nature that “like begets like”, existence.
in other words that offspring resemble the parent-stock
although there may be some individual differences. If it were not so, a
definite species would never be perpetuated. All forms of life, moreover,
reproduce themselves more or less abundantly. It is said that the progeny of
a single starfish exceeds half a million per year. Even the elephants, which
are the slowest breeding of all animals, produce a sufficiently numerous
offspring to over-run the whole of Africa if every young elephant grew to
maturity.
But nowhere does the entire progeny of any organisms, whether plants,
animals, or human beings, survive to full growth. If every acorn became an
oak tree, there would in time be no room for anything else on the surface of
the earth. If every tadpole grew to be a frog, there would be no room for
anything else in the waters of the earth. All life, however, is a struggle for
existence, a relentless competition for air, sunshine, moisture, and soil on
the part of plants, and for food and shelter on the part of animals. The
further down we go in the scale of life the more bitter this struggle for

existence becomes; small animals eat up the plants; large animals feed on
the smaller ones. Higher in the scale, the struggle is not so keen, and among
mankind it is the least strenuous of all.
In this struggle for existence, what plants and animals survive? The
answer is that those which are best fitted to their environment continue to
exist and to reproduce themselves, while those which are more poorly
adapted to their environment fall out of the race and disappear. In other
words natural selection or the survival of the fittest was The survival of the
thought by Darwin to be the principle which determines fittest.
the course of evolution. The unfit perish and the fit survive, everything
depending upon the relative success of the organism in adapting itself to the
conditions under which it is endeavoring to live. The clumsy mastodon
became extinct; his bones are now relics in museums; but the horse, being
fleet of foot, managed to survive. The fit organisms,—plants or animals or
human beings,—have survived and have perpetuated the species. They gave
to their offspring the traits or qualities which enabled themselves to survive.
In that way each generation of organisms became a little better fitted to its
environment than the generation which went before. This is a slow process
for human beings, of course, for it takes twenty years or more to produce a
new generation of men, whereas new generations of birds, reptiles, and
lower animals appear every few months. The principle of natural selection,
moreover, does not fully account for the form which evolution has taken.
Other factors have also been at work, but scientists are not yet agreed as to
their nature or importance.[4]
Now how does the human race figure in all this? Natural selection as
Mankind has also been at all times under the necessity applied
race.
to the human

of adapting itself to its environment, and in the early
stages of human history those who did not successfully adapt themselves
went to an early grave. During century after century natural selection and
the other factors strengthened the race. As the race grew stronger in
intelligence, man undertook to subdue his environment rather than to be
subdued by it, and in considerable measure he succeeded. He discovered the
art of kindling a fire and made this element his servant in conquering the
cold. He domesticated wild animals, made them provide him with milk and
meat, and compelled them to carry his burdens. Step by step he mastered
the natural conditions which surrounded him. This he did by his ability to

work with his fellow-men. Through this power of co-operation he created
group organizations—society, the state, and government.
The struggle for existence among men is not now, Today the strong
therefore, as it was in primitive days, a life-and-death assist the weak.
competition for food and shelter. Individuals have come to recognize each
other’s rights and to seek even their own advantage by co-operation rather
than by strife. The association of individuals in the family and the
community serves to preserve the weak whom a keen struggle for existence
would eliminate. Our whole system of poor-relief, hospitals, and care for
the defective is based upon the idea of giving a fair chance to those who
otherwise would be crowded out of the struggle for existence altogether.
The competition today is not so much between individuals as among
groups, small or large, including competition between whole nations of
men.
The Factors in Social Progress.—Two factors have The relative influence
greatly influenced the course of social evolution or of inheritance and
environment.
social progress. These factors are inheritance and
environment. By inheritance we mean the qualities, physical and mental,
which each generation inherits from the generation preceding. By
environment we mean the general surroundings, physical and social, in
which the people live. Mankind influences these surroundings to a
considerable extent and moulds them to his own needs, but in turn is also
influenced by them. Everything that is characteristic of man is the result of
these two forces, inheritance and environment. In some things the first is
more important, in others the second. For example, under normal conditions
the height of a man or woman is determined almost altogether by
inheritance, for no one by taking thought can add a cubit to his stature.
Intelligence, likewise, is to a large degree an inherited quality. But morals,
manners, education, and personal habits are determined much more largely
by environment than by inheritance.
The respective influences of inheritance and Which is the more
environment cannot, however, be in all cases clearly potent influence?
separated. Both often work to produce the same result, as when a person
who inherits a strong body and a sound mind is fortunate enough to be
placed in an environment where both body and mind are developed by out-
of-door life and a good education. Sometimes they work in opposite
directions, as when a child starts life with a strong physique and good

natural intelligence, but grows up in a crowded tenement amid sordid
conditions which weaken the one and fail to afford scope for the other. We
cannot say, therefore, that one factor is always stronger or weaker than the
other. The social progress of the race is promoted by improving both
influences. Environment especially can be improved by human effort.
Man’s control of his inheritance is not nearly so complete, but everything
that conduces to the betterment of health or education and promotes a
higher morality is a step towards improving its influence.
Physical and Social Inheritance.—The influence of The two forms of
inheritance is exerted from two quarters which may be inheritance.
distinguished by calling them physical and social. By (a) Physical.
the former we mean the influence exerted upon human beings by the bodily
and mental traits which are handed down to them by their own parents. Not
all the characteristics of parents are transmitted to their children but mainly
those which the parents themselves have inherited. Traits or qualities which
have been acquired by the parents during their own lives do not ordinarily
descend to their children.[5] Parents who are born feeble-minded will in all
probability have feeble-minded children; but parents who acquire through
education a high degree of learning and culture cannot transmit any of this
to their children by inheritance. There is no royal road to learning. Some of
us are born with better or worse possibilities than others, but we are all born
illiterate.
The other form of inherited influence is called our (b) Social.
social heritage because it represents the whole accumulation of knowledge,
habits, and expedients which have come down to us by the social process of
teaching and learning. Each generation of mankind is enormously
dependent upon its social inheritance; without it everything that we now
call civilization would collapse in a very short time. Each generation takes
over all the knowledge possessed by the one which went before; each
generation adds something to this stock of knowledge, habits, and
expedients for the benefit of the generation which comes after it. Each
generation, if it is to live happily, must adapt this social inheritance to its
own particular needs.
Physical and Social Environment.—The other great The two kinds of
influence is that of environment. By physical environment:
environment we mean the conditions of nature and society in which man
lives, moves, and has his being. Physical environment includes the

geographic, climatic, and other natural conditions which surround the
people. These conditions have an important influence (a) Physical.
upon the trend of human development and they are not, for the most part,
under man’s control. Man must adapt himself and his ways of life to them.
In cold climates he must wear warm clothing, provide artificial heat in
houses, and consume warmth-giving food. Groups of men must everywhere
mould their occupations to the character of the soil, the natural resources,
and the other conditions of the physical environment in which they live. It
is because of differences in physical environment that the Southern states
developed cotton-culture on a large scale and employed slave labor, while
the Northern states gave their attention to farming and industry with free
labor.
Physical environment, moreover, determines in some measure the
relations of the various races with their neighbors. Men will be influenced
by neighboring groups of men in so far as physical features make
intercourse easy or difficult. A race of men who live on a distant island, or
in any other shut-off region, will not be so easily influenced by neighboring
races as if they dwelt in the midst of a fertile plain. To some extent, as has
been said, man is able to overcome the difficulties which physical
environment sets in the face of progress. If there is inadequate rainfall, he
may devise a system of irrigation and carry on certain forms of agriculture
as successfully as though rainfall were abundant. By means of railroads,
steamships, and electric or radio communication he can be in constant
contact with other men who are separated from him by physical
obstructions. But however much the conditions of nature may be controlled,
they still exert a great influence upon human progress.
The social environment is quite a different thing. By (b) Social.
it we mean the conditions altogether apart from geographic or natural
features, which influence the daily life of mankind. We include within
social environment such things as family life, the schools, the churches, the
organization and methods of industry, the form of government—everything
that society develops in the way of institutions. Many of these, as has been
pointed out, are natural growths, but the mind of man has also had a large
part in shaping their course.
Most of the things we do, whether as a body of How customs and
people or as individuals, are merely the result of custom laws create a social
environment.
or general habit. Why do men have their hair cut short

while women let their hair grow long? Why do people wear black when
they are in mourning? In some countries they wear white. The answer is
merely that every nation, through long-continued habit, develops its own
ways of doing things and keeps on doing things in that way regardless of
any present reason. Orientals, when they eat their meals, squat on the floor;
Europeans and Americans seat themselves at the table. Aryans shake hands
when they meet; the Esquimos hold their hands high above their heads as a
token of greeting. The gentleman of today, when he greets a lady on the
street, raises his hat. This is not a particularly graceful custom, nor is it in
rainy weather an altogether hygienic one; but it has been in vogue among
the people of western Europe for many centuries. It goes back to the days of
chivalry when the armored knight raised his visor to show his countenance
and disclose his identity.
Primitive races are governed largely by customs, and not until a race has
shown itself amenable to the influence of custom is it prepared to be
governed by laws. Laws differ from customs in that they have a definite
sanction, in other words are enforced by some official authority. The
institutions and practices which make up the social environment may be the
outcome of long-standing custom, like the system of trial by jury, for
example; or they may be brought into existence by law, as, for instance, the
admission of women to suffrage or the establishment of national
prohibition. The avowed purpose of all human institutions is to promote the
greatest good of the greatest number, in other words to provide the best
social environment.
Some Important Social Forces.—The basis of custom is habit.
Customs, in other words, are habits which extend to the Two important social
whole community and receive its approval. We do not forces: habit and
imitation.
always realize how great a part habit plays in our daily
lives.[6] Without it the day’s work could not be done. By habit we walk, eat,
dress ourselves, and perform many other common acts. Just think how long
it would take a novice to put the various parts of a watch together; but the
watchmaker, being habituated to the task, can do it in an hour. The
foundation of habit is imitation. One man does a thing successfully; others
follow his lead; a habit develops and a general practice or custom may be
the ultimate outcome. The influence of custom is usually conservative, for
when a custom is once firmly established it does not easily give way. Take
the custom of smoking tobacco, for example. Europeans found it in vogue

among the Indians when they first came to America; they adopted it and
have kept it up for more than four hundred years. Sometimes, however, the
habit or custom is only of short duration, in which case we commonly call it
a fashion. Fashions come and go. A century ago men used snuff and women
powdered their hair; but these things have wholly passed out of fashion
today.
The Course of Social Progress.—Having considered the various social
factors and forces (development, inheritance, environment, custom, and so
on) we are now in a position to ask and to answer the following question: In
accordance with what principle has human society developed?
There was a time when even educated people imagined that such
organizations as the state were planned in advance, that individuals merely
came together in prehistoric days and agreed after calm deliberation to
establish a civil government. That, of course, was an absurd idea. Today we
realize that one step in social organization led gradually to another, that
institutions were not created but evolved, that various social factors and
forces exerted an influence upon their development, and that the strongest
institutions survived while the weaker disappeared.
In the course of human history associations of every Institutions that have
type have come into existence; many still continue to succumbed in the
struggle for existence.
flourish while others merely abode their little hour and
went their way. The organizations which we have today, including the
family, the school, the church, the community, the state, are among those
that have survived. Those that succumbed during the long journey down the
ages would make a formidable list. Who ever hears nowadays of the totem-
kin, the clan, or the gens? Where do we now find tribunes, praetors, augurs,
and triumvirates? Absolute monarchy, as a form of government, once held
sway over most of the world. But democratic government entered into
competition with it, and as there was not room enough for both, one
crowded the other off the stage. The great mediaeval institution of
feudalism dominated the rural life of Europe for more than five hundred
years, but the last relics of feudal tenure have practically all been swept
away. The trade guilds of the olden days, the orders of nobility, the crowns
and coronets, the soothsayers and the alchemists—all of them have
disappeared or are rapidly disappearing. The beaches of history are strewn
with the wrecks of social and political institutions. Some others, like the
hereditary peerages of a few European countries, are barely able to keep

afloat. The institutions which survive and flourish are the ones that have
been found best fitted to survive.
The Fundamental Social Group.—In human Importance of the
society the foundation-group is the family. Human family.
beings are social by nature; the motive which draws people together is so
universal that we call it a natural instinct. Individuals do not live in
isolation. Nobody leads the hermit type of life if he can avoid it. Robinson
Crusoe was not on his little island because he wanted to be there. Even
among the least civilized races of men, among savage tribes, there is a
grouping of men, women, and children on the basis of blood relationship.
The family, as a unit, is older than either the state or the community. It is the
foundation upon which other groups and organizations have been built,
hence it is rightly called the “social microcosm” or basis of society.
The primary function of the family is to keep the The function of the
human race in existence. Its first duty is the rearing of family.
children so that a new generation may take the place of the old. Other duties
that belong to the family may be handed over to the school (the duty of
secular education) or to the church (the duty of religious instruction); but
the primary function of the family, that of perpetuating the race, is one
which cannot be transferred.
The whole stream of human life flows through the family organization.
The same virtues which make for harmony in the household,—obedience,
co-operation, loyalty, and service,—are the ones which mark good
citizenship; therefore the home is the primary school of all the civic virtues.
For this reason the collapse of the home and of home life would be nothing
short of a human catastrophe.

THE FAMILY. By Charles Sprague Pearce
From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced
by permission.

THE FAMILY

By Charles Sprague Pearce
From the mural painting in the entrance pavilion of the
North Hall, Library of Congress.
This is the ancient family. The father has just returned
from hunting. The mother holds up the baby to welcome him
and his little daughter throws her arms about him. On the
benches of stone at either side of the group sit the
grandmother and grandfather, the latter with the air of a
patriarch. By his side lies a scroll. Three generations are
placed together in the idyllic environment of which the poets
have so often written.

Other Social Groups.—Out of the family grew the The clan.
clan, or group of families united by ties of kinships. In early days the clan

was a wandering group, like the gipsy bands of today; but ultimately each
clan settled upon the land and became a community. In these communities
men became trained in manual labor; they developed customs and the
rudiments of a village government.
Then came the next stage—several village communities joined together
for defence against their mutual enemies. A loose confederation at first, this
group of communities in time became a state, usually with a chieftain or a
monarch at its head. In other cases a single village community grew in size
to such an extent that it became a city state, like Athens or Sparta. The most
notable example of this development is afforded by ancient Rome, where a
small community grew into a World Empire. The family, the clan, the
community, the confederation of communities, the state, and, ultimately, the
nation—that is the general course of political evolution, although this line
of development was not in all cases exactly followed.
But the evolution was not confined to political institutions alone. Social
and economic groups and institutions developed also. A variety of needs
called forth one institution after another, the church, the school, the club,
the industrial organization. Each has its own function in organized society.
The Rôle of Government.—The dominating factor Government is the
in the social and economic life of today, however, is the guiding hand.
political community (nation, state, and municipality), acting through the
agency which we call government. Government is the great co-ordinating
factor. Day by day we are looking more and more to government for
leadership, for regulation, and for supervision in all our greater social and
economic activities. In the field of social and economic effort, all roads lead
through government—it is the clearing house of our greater problems.
Whether the problem be one of banking, commerce, poor-relief, labor, or
defence we must reckon with the hand of government as one of the
strongest among constructive and harmonizing factors. Government is the
focal point in all civic relations. It provides a thread which winds its way
along every main line of civic activity. That has been particularly noticeable
in European countries; but it is now true of America as well. The greatest of
our socializing agencies is government.
Individual Liberty and Social Control.—In the America’s emphasis
United States strong emphasis has always been laid on individualism.
upon individual freedom, and rightly so, because the encouragement of
individual initiative is essential to progress in a new country. The

exploitation of vast natural resources required that men should be given
encouragement to pioneer, and should not be held down by too much
governmental interference. “That government is best which interferes the
least” was the common notion. Stress was laid upon the prosperity of the
individual rather than upon the welfare of the whole people. This doctrine
of extreme individualism undoubtedly served a useful purpose in the days
when the country’s biggest problem was to increase production and gain for
itself a place among the strong nations of the world.
To a considerable extent this emphasis upon The influence of the
individualism was due to the influence of the frontier. frontier.
From the first settlement of the country down to about 1880 the American
people were engaged in the task of marching steadily westward, conquering
the wilderness as they went. This mastering of a great domain demanded
qualities of enterprise, initiative, and individual courage. It developed men’s
confidence in their own power and made them reliant upon their own
efforts. In old countries the natural tendency is for the individual to look to
the public authorities for leadership, guidance, and supervision; on the great
American frontier the pioneers had to hew their own way. They preceded
the state and the community. This emphasis upon individual initiative
remained as the frontier rolled west and profoundly affected the whole
social temper of the country.
In time a reaction came. Social control developed. The nature and scope
The more thickly populated a country becomes, the of social control.
more complicated do the relations of individuals grow, and the greater is the
need for general restraint. Social control, however, is not merely negative in
its purpose. Its object is not simply to restrain individuals in their freedom
of action but to encourage them in the thing which the general welfare
demands. The government is the chief agency through which social control
is exercised, but it is by no means the only one. Religious, fraternal,
professional, and benevolent organizations do a good deal in the same
general direction. Their function is to promote collective interests as
distinguished from the interests of individuals; they protect the collective
interests against the avarice or selfishness of individuals. The government
exercises social control by means of laws and administrative orders; other
organizations exercise it by their own rules or by customs which the
members obey.

There is always a danger, of course, that social The limits of social
control may proceed too far. It is not the object of control.
government and of social organizations to run all men in the same mould,
making them mere automatons without individuality or initiative.
Government should aim to give sufficient scope for every individual to use
his abilities in the best possible way. Control over the acts and discretion of
individuals is justified only where such control promotes, in the long run,
the well-being of the greatest number of individuals. The state is not an end
in itself. Society is not an end in itself. The individual is the end. Society
and the state are merely means to the promotion of the general welfare and
the welfare of the individual. Their activities in the way of exercising social
control should go no further than this.
General References
C. H. Cooley, Social Organization, pp. 3-22;
H. G. Wells, Outline of History, Vol. I, pp. 3-103;
C. A. Ellwood, Sociology and Modern Social Problems, pp. 7-59;
F. S. Chapin, Social Evolution, pp. 3-101;
Vernon Kellogg, Darwinism Today, pp. 10-57; 129-157;
J. A. Thomson, Darwinism and Human Life, pp. 181-237;
D. S. Jordan and V. L. Kellogg, Evolution and Animal Life, pp. 1-56;
T. N. Carver, Sociology and Social Progress, pp. 174-270;
E. A. Ross, Social Control, pp. 1-105.

Group Problems
1. How far should society control the conduct of individuals? Why social control is exercised.
The extent of social control in older countries,—Great Britain, France, and Germany. Its growth in
America. Causes of this growth. The point at which it ceases to be justified. Illustrations. Effects of
too much emphasis on individualism. Effects of too much social restraint. Relation of social control
to socialism. References: E. A. Ross, Social Control, pp. 49-76; H. G. Wells, New Worlds for Old,
pp. 1-55; T. N. Carver, Sociology and Social Progress, pp. 788-808; Ibid, Principles of National
Economy, pp. 740-749.
2. What is progress? References: F. S. Marvin, Progress and History, pp. 8-10; John Dewey
“Progress” in International Journal of Ethics, xxvi, 312-318 (1916); James Bryce, Essays and
Addresses in War Time, pp. 84-102 (War and Progress); George Nasmyth, Social Progress and the
Darwinian Theory.
Short Studies
1. The past in the present. H. R. Burch and S. H. Patterson, American Social Problems, pp. 33-
43.
2. The beginnings of civilization. H. G. Wells, Outline of History, Vol. I, pp. 183-208.
3. Earlier forms of the family. C. A. Ellwood, Sociology and Modern Social Problems, pp. 108-
130.
4. The development of the tribe into the community. J. Q. Dealey, The State and Government,
pp. 24-45.

5. The American family as an economic unit. Mary K. Simkhovitch, The City Worker’s World,
pp. 1-21.
6. The relation of leisure to family life. Florence Kelley, Some Ethical Gains through
Legislation, pp. 105-125.
7. The influence of environment. F. S. Chapin, Social Evolution, pp. 121-170.
8. Habit. William James, Psychology, I, pp. 104-127.
9. The influence of frontier conditions upon the development of American society. F. J.
Turner, The Frontier in American History, pp. 1-38.
10. Individualism. Herbert Spencer, Social Statics, pp. 100-136; C. W. Eliot, The Conflict
between Individualism and Collectivism in a Democracy, pp. 1-42.

Questions
1. How would you define “society”? Is it an organism? What resemblances to an organism does it
bear?
2. Explain the following terms: instinct; impulse; natural selection; social inheritance; social
environment; habit; custom; fashion; mob mind; institution; social control. Give examples of each.
3. How has physical environment affected the ideas of the American people in relation to (a)
national defence; (b) form of government; (c) social control? How has the physical environment of
England affected the ideas of the English people on the same matters?
4. What racial characteristics do you find most strongly marked in the (a) Scotch; (b) Irish; (c)
Scandinavians; (d) Italians; (e) Jews; (f) Japanese?
5. Name any institutions, other than those given in the text, which have served mankind for a time
and been discarded.
6. Can you think of any customs which are universal throughout the world? Any which prevail in
the United States but not elsewhere? Any which prevail in some parts of the United States but not in
others?
7. Do Americans in general pay too much deference to custom? Is there any ground for the
European idea that there is “too much uniformity” in American life?
8. Are crowds likely to be more conservative or more radical than the individuals who compose
them? Give your reasons. What is the difference between a mob, a crowd, a meeting, and a
deliberative assembly?
9. The family, as an organization, differs not only in size but in nature, from all other social
organizations such as the community, the state and the nation. Show how this is.
10. In what ways would society suffer if the family as a social unit were broken down?
11. To what extent has society the right to regulate, as a measure of self-protection, the institution
of marriage?
12. Why have we laid emphasis upon individualism in this country? Explain why this stress is
being steadily diminished.
13. Should social control be exercised over (a) the methods of agriculture; (b) the marketing of
timber; (c) the production and sale of tobacco; (d) the rates charged by electric lighting companies;
(e) the price of bread at retail bakeries; (f) the hours of labor for men; (g) the hours of labor for
women; (h) the kind of pictures shown in theaters; (i) the diet of the people; (j) the hours at which
young people may be on the streets after dark; (k) the religious beliefs of the people? Tell why or why
not in each case. Is a greater degree of social control justified over certain classes of the population
than over others? Is it justified at certain times and not at others?
14. If society exercises too little control over the individual, what evils result? If it exercises too
much control, what are the consequences (a) upon the individual; (b) upon society itself?

Topics for Debate

1. Physical environment has had a more important influence than racial characteristics in
determining the establishment and maintenance of democratic institutions in the United States.
2. Thomas Jefferson was right when he said “That government is best which governs least”.
3. Society is under obligation to ensure every industrious man a decent living.

CHAPTER II
THE PEOPLE, RACES, AND RACIAL PROBLEMS OF
THE UNITED STATES

The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the population of the United States has grown,
how it is distributed, the varied races of which it is composed, and the racial problems which
immigration has created.

We, the People of the United States.—The national How the national
constitution begins with the words: “We, the People of population has grown.
the United States”. But who are the people? No one cares to carry a lot of
figures in his head and most people think that statistics are uninteresting;
but there are some figures which everyone ought to know and, moreover,
there are some statistics which are far from being dry or tedious. The
figures relating to the population of the United States, its growth and
distribution, are interesting because they portray something that the world
has never seen before and probably will never see again,—a country
doubling its population four times in just about a single century. That is
what the United States did in the hundred years from 1790 to 1890. In 1790
the entire population was less than four millions. (There are more people in
the single city of New York today, and almost as many in Chicago.) The
population had doubled in 1813, and had doubled again in 1838, when it
passed sixteen million. In 1864, only twenty-four years later, it had doubled
once more (32,000,000). It passed the sixty-four million mark in 1891, and
in all probability will double for the fifth time about the year 1940. In 1920,
when the last national census was taken the population had passed
105,000,000.
Now if you will take the data at the foot of the page Will this increase
and work the calculation to the year 2000 (allowing for continue? If so, with
what results?
the gradual slackening of the increase) what will the
population of the United States be then?[7] It will be around three hundred
millions, which is more than the white population of the entire world today.
Even so the country would not be nearly so thickly populated as some

European countries now are. Today there are in the United States about
thirty-five persons to the square mile. But there are 700 to the square mile
in England and 658 per square mile in Belgium, which are two of the most
thickly-populated of all countries at the present time.[8] Three hundred
million people in the United States, if the figure should reach that total at
the end of the twentieth century, would be less than one hundred per square
mile. There would still be six acres of ground for every man, woman and
child in the country. Whether there would be a sufficient food supply to
support so large a population is another question and one which is not so
easily answered.

THE CENTER OF POPULATION
The way in which the center of population has been
steadily moving westward is indicated by this map. It will be
noted that in its journey to the west it has held closely to the
39th parallel of latitude. The median point, on the other
hand, has remained practically fixed during the last thirty
years.
The location of the median point is determined as follows:
Take the parallel of latitude which divides the country in
such manner that half the population is north of that parallel
and half is south of it; similarly, take the meridian of
longitude which divides the country in such manner that half
the population is east of it and half is west of it; the
intersection of this parallel and this meridian is called the
median point.

CENTRE OF POPULATION
AT EACH CENSUS: 1790 TO 1920

MEDIAN POINT
1880 TO 1920

☆ CENTER OF POPULATION Δ MEDIAN POINT

How the National Population is Distributed.—The Some areas are more
people of the United States are very unevenly densely populated
than others.
distributed over the face of the country. Great areas,
particularly in the West, have only a few persons to the square mile, while
the crowded sections of the largest cities have many hundreds to the acre.
Even the rural areas of some states are thickly settled while in others the
people are few and far between. Rhode Island is nearly as densely
populated as Belgium, having about 566 people to the square mile while
many states of the Western mountain region have only seven or eight
inhabitants per square mile of territory. The reasons for this uneven

distribution are chiefly geographical. The states which have grown most
rapidly in population are not necessarily the oldest states but the ones which
have the greatest natural advantages in the way of fertile soil, or mineral
resources, or harbors and waterways, or favorable climate. People make
their homes in those regions where they can best make a living.
Favorable climatic conditions exert a strong Climate affects the
influence in attracting population. It is an interesting density of population.
fact, often noted by students of history, that whereas civilization developed
earliest in the tropical and semi-tropical zones it has everywhere made its
greatest advance in the regions of moderate temperatures and rainfall.
Taking the broad strip of country which lies between the thirty-seventh and
the forty-fifth parallels of latitude, it will be found that nearly four-fifths of
the entire population is concentrated within this mid-latitude area of the
United States. And this is the area which, in all probability, will continue to
be the most thickly settled.
The center of population in 1920 was at Whitehall, The center of
Owen County, Indiana, a little town of forty-three population in 1920.
inhabitants which burst into prominence overnight when the census bureau
announced it as the pivot of the nation. By the center of population is meant
the point which the greatest number of people could reach with the least
amount of travel. This point, at each successive census, has been steadily
moving westward following very closely the thirty-ninth parallel of latitude.
In 1790 it was at Baltimore, in 1840 in West Virginia, in 1880 in Ohio, and
since 1890 it has been moving westward across Indiana.[9] The center of
population is a long way from the center of area, the latter being in
Northern Kansas not far from the Nebraska border.
The Drift of Population to the Cities.—The distribution of the people
has also been influenced by the growth of large cities. In 1790 there were
only five communities with populations exceeding 8000, namely New York,
Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, and Charleston. Taken altogether they had
only 130,000 inhabitants, that is to say only one person in every thirty lived
in these towns. But so rapidly did the various towns and cities spring up all
over the country that by the time of the Civil War there were nearly 150
with populations above 8000, and today there are nearly a thousand. Not a
single American city had 70,000 population in 1790; today there are more
than a hundred such cities.

This remarkable drift of population into the towns The chief causes of
and cities, which began early in the nineteenth century city growth.
and has continued ever since, shows no signs of slackening. It is due to
many causes, including the great demand for industrial labor in the cities,
the attractiveness of city life to the young men and women of the country
districts (see p. 351), and the tendency of the immigrants to locate in the
crowded centers. Wherever industry and commerce thrive, there cities will
be built and will grow. Half the population of the United States is now
living in towns and cities of over 2500 population. If the drift to the cities
continues at its present rate of progress, ninety per cent of the people will be
living in the cities and towns by 1980 and only ten per cent in the country
districts. That is already the case in England.[10] One Englishman in every
seven lives in London. That seems to be a very striking fact until we
remember that one American in every ten lives in New York, Chicago, or
Philadelphia. New York City has nearly six millions now; in fifty years, at
its present rate of growth, it will be an urban giant of fifteen millions or
more.
Why do the immigrants go to the cities rather than to Why most immigrants
the country districts? The chief reason is that most go to the cities.
immigrants come to the United States to find work, and work is most easily
found in the large cities. The great majority of immigrants have learned no
trade before they come to America, hence they must seek jobs which
require no great amount of skill or training. Another reason is that the
immigrants want to be near others who speak their own language. In every
large city these foreign colonies or settlements are created—Italian, Polish,
Jewish, and so on. The newcomer naturally prefers to live in one of these
colonies until he learns the English language, but having become
accustomed to the city he rarely leaves it. Among the many millions of
immigrants who have come to America during the past fifty years the great
majority have gone to the cities, particularly to the large cities. New York
City, for example, contains today more than two million people who were
not born in this country. Nevertheless, the cities have not been built up by
the immigrant alone. Large numbers of native Americans have left the rural
districts and have helped to swell the population of the urban centers.
The Ebb and Flow of Immigration.—The United States has been the
melting-pot of the nations. No other country has ever welcomed to its
shores so many millions of people from all parts of the earth. One hundred

years ago there were relatively few foreign-born persons in the country. But
waves of immigration soon began to come and the number of incoming
aliens, which was less than ten thousand in 1790, rose to more than four
hundred thousand in some of the years preceding the Civil War. The
immigrants during this period were for the most part from England, Ireland,
and Germany. During the Civil War the influx subsided, but when the war
was over it quickly began to swell once more and it continued, with various
ups and downs, to the outbreak of the World War in 1914.
In some years, during this period since 1865 the Where the immigrants
number of immigrants has been as low as 200,000; in have come from.
other years it has run above a million. Nearly every European race has been
represented in this influx, although some have come in much larger
numbers than others. Down to about 1880 most of the newcomers were
from Ireland, England, Scotland, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and
the other regions of Northern Europe. But since that date the source of
immigration has been steadily shifting. During the past forty years a much
larger proportion has been coming from Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland,
Greece, and some of the smaller countries.[11] This has brought in many
millions of people who are not of Celtic or Teutonic stock.
Upon the outbreak of the great European conflict in Effects of the war on
1914 the flow of immigration subsided quickly and immigration.
while the war lasted it practically ceased altogether. This was due in part to
the reluctance of European countries to let their people leave, and in part
due to the lack of shipping, since all available vessels were engaged in
carrying troops, munitions, and supplies. Immediately after the close of
hostilities, however, the exodus from Europe recommenced, and in the year
1920 the figures of immigration once more rose into the hundreds of
thousands. In spite of the strict regulations imposed by the United States
government, enormous numbers of people in Poland, Italy, Hungary, and
various other countries began applying for permission to migrate. The
American consular offices in Europe were besieged by long lines of people
waiting all day for passports to the Promised Land. In the face of this
threatened flood Congress felt impelled to place all immigration under strict
limitation, as will be explained a few paragraphs later.
During the hundred years from 1820 to 1920 it is estimated that more
than thirty million immigrants reached the United States, which is the
largest migration in history.[12] It is true that considerable numbers of these

immigrants eventually drifted back to their native lands but the larger
portion of them remained permanently here.
Causes of Immigration.—The causes of The various factors
immigration to this country are manifold. First in which have caused
Europeans to leave
importance among them is the economic attractiveness their own countries.
of the United States. Cheap land, equal opportunities,
the ease with which any industrious man or woman can make a living—
these are the magnets which drew millions of people across the Atlantic
during the nineteenth century. But there were other causes, namely, the
existence in various parts of Europe of conditions which encouraged the
people to emigrate. Religious persecution was one of the first things that
drove men or women to America. It brought the Pilgrims to Massachusetts
in the early days, the Quakers to Pennsylvania, and the English Catholics to
Maryland. Political oppression in the middle years of the nineteenth century
sent several million Germans to the United States, particularly to the
Middle West. Oppression, both religious and political, has been
instrumental in driving the Jews across the seas. Overcrowding in both the
cities and the rural regions of Europe and the consequent inability of the
people to obtain lands of their own, has been responsible for much of the
drift to America. The exhaustion of the soil in Ireland, the crop failures and
consequent famines there, have led to the migrations of the Irish, although
dissatisfaction with political conditions has also been a factor in this case.
To a considerable extent, moreover, immigration has been assisted by those
aliens who were already settled in this country. Immigrants arrived in this
country and by hard work soon became prosperous. Then they sent passage-
money to their friends and relatives until whole groups of families were
enabled to come to America in this way. The steamship companies, too,
have advertised the attractions of America in all parts of Europe; they have
kept agents at work in many countries, and have been an important factor in
promoting immigration.
Nevertheless the underlying causes of immigration The economic factors
are economic. Immigrants come in greater numbers have been the most
important.
when prosperity reigns in America than in periods of
business depression. This indicates that high wages and plenty of
employment are the things which have the greatest influence in bringing
them here. The democratic institutions of America have played their part,
no doubt, and the relative social equality which exists among the people of

the United States has been an attraction to those who are denied such
equality in their own homelands. But the equality of economic opportunity,
the open career, the chance of making a good living and even a fortune—
these, after all, have been and still are the impelling forces.
The Effects of Immigration.—A large immigration How the immigrant
is certain to have far-reaching effects, particularly if the has
life.
affected American

newcomers be of a widely different race. It has
assuredly had far-reaching effects in the United States. Take the importation
of the negroes as the most conspicuous example. The coming of several
hundred thousand persons of African blood, during the years preceding
1808, has resulted in placing a colored population of more than ten millions
in the heart of a white man’s country, with all the social, economic, and
political problems that this situation implies. It influenced the agricultural
system of the Southern states, provided the underlying causes of the Civil
War, and has profoundly affected the politics of the United States down to
the present day. The problem presented by the immigration of the various
European races has been altogether different because these races can be
assimilated whereas the negroes can not. Even so, the European
immigration has presented its own problems and the coming of these many
millions has had profound effects upon every branch of American life.
Social Effects.—The social effects are chiefly in the The making of a
way of introducing natural traits or qualities which composite race.
were not in the American people during the early period. Immigration has
resulted in making a cosmopolitan population which is not uniform in
temperament or tastes, and can be made uniform only by the long-continued
process of assimilation. This lack of uniformity is in some ways an
advantage, not a defect. It may give us, in the long run, a more vigorous
population than could ever be had from the development of a single strain.
Whether the new composite race which ultimately emerges from the
melting-pot will be superior or inferior to the original stock is something
which only the future can tell. One disappointing feature is to be found in
the fact that many of these immigrants are inferior to the average native-
born American in physique, in mentality, and in moral fibre. It is sometimes
asserted that the immigrant population is responsible for more than its due
proportion of crime but no satisfactory evidence has yet been brought
forward to prove this statement. It is a fact, however, that poverty and
illiteracy are more common among the foreign-born than among the native

white population. It is quite likely that the new environment will do much
to remedy this condition and that the second generation, through the work
of the public schools, may measure up to the native-born. These public
schools are the most potent of all forces in the work of Americanization. It
is upon them that we must depend to make the ultimate social effects of
assimilation beneficial to the country.
Economic Effects.—Immigration has had important Immigration in its
economic results. It has kept the labor market well relation to industry
and labor.
supplied and throughout the last three-quarters of a
century has aided the great industrial expansion of the country. American
industry and commerce could not have grown to such proportions without
the man-power which has been obtained in such enormous quantities from
Europe. We have used great numbers of aliens in building the railroads of
the country, in mines and steel mills, in workshops and factories. On the
other hand the flood of immigration has at times proved too strong. It has
on occasions served to produce an over-supply of labor and this, in turn, has
caused wages to fall. Labor leaders claim that the steady stream of
immigrants has prevented the rise in the American workman’s standard of
living which otherwise would have taken place. Organized labor would like
to place a protective duty upon immigrants. If the newcomers could be
scattered evenly over the whole country instead of being concentrated in the
urban areas, this danger of glutting the labor supply would be very small. In
any case, as has already been pointed out, the situation tends to adjust itself,
because immigration always falls off when business depression causes a
slackening in the demand for labor.
Political Effects.—The exact political effects of Ways in which the
immigration are hard to determine. It is to be immigrant has
influenced American
remembered that most of our immigrants have come politics.
from countries where they were given no political
opportunities, or almost none. Prior to their arrival in the United States they
have had no experience with democratic institutions. Yet we have freely
offered them, after five years of residence, the privilege of becoming
citizens and voters. The rest of the world has always looked upon this as a
very dangerous experiment in democratic government; nevertheless its
results have not been at all disastrous. True enough, the newcomers have
often been exploited by unscrupulous politicians and they have sometimes
allowed themselves to be misled into supporting incompetent or corrupt

candidates, especially in the large cities. But the alien immigrant is not
wholly or even chiefly responsible for the bad government that we have had
from time to time in various parts of the country. Some of the worst
political abuses have flourished in states and cities where the proportion of
foreign-born citizens is relatively small. Political reformers rail at the
iniquities of “foreign-born bosses”, but the fact is that most of our notorious
political bosses have been native-born. Notwithstanding the admission of
many million aliens to all the rights of American citizenship it can be fairly
claimed that American government in its various branches, national, state,
and local, is just as honest and efficient as that of any other country.
The Restriction of Immigration.—Until about forty The gradual stiffening
years ago there were practically no restrictions upon the of the regulations.
coming of aliens to the United States, but in 1882 laws were passed by
Congress to exclude paupers, criminals, and the insane. All laborers of the
Mongolian race were also debarred. Three years later, in 1885, it was
provided that no immigrant of any race should be admitted to the United
States if under contract to perform labor in this country. And from this date
to the present the restrictions have gradually been tightened. In 1917
Congress established a literacy test for all immigrants over sixteen years of
age, and in 1921 it made further provision that the number of immigrants
admitted each year from any European country should not exceed three per
cent of the natives of that country already in the United States, as shown by
the census figures of 1910. A tax of eight dollars per person is now imposed
upon every immigrant.
There are some who believe that it would be wise to Should immigration
prohibit immigration altogether, at any rate until be altogether
forbidden?
conditions in both Europe and America become more
settled. They argue that we already have as many aliens as we can
Americanize for some time; that immigration at the present time increases
unemployment, and that the quality of immigrants is now considerably
below what it used to be. On the other hand it is urged that the industrial
growth of the United States requires a larger supply of labor than can be
provided without immigration and that by providing proper facilities for
selection we can make sure of getting only the right type of immigrant.
Our Racial Problems.—We have several serious racial problems in this
country including the problem of the European immigrants in the East
(particularly in the cities), the negroes in the South, and the Japanese on the

Pacific slope. The large percentage of European immigrants in the Eastern
cities has already been mentioned, and the problems which their presence in
these cities creates have been alluded to. The European immigrant can be
assimilated, but the process takes time because a large part of it must be
accomplished through education. If the immigrants could be persuaded to
scatter over the country instead of congregating in the cities with their
fellow-immigrants, the problem of making real Americans out of them in a
short time would be simplified.
The Negroes.—The problem of the negro is older Extent of the negro
and more difficult still. They are of a race so far population.
removed from the white population of the United States that there is no
hope of their ever being assimilated. They were brought here by the tens of
thousands without any adequate appreciation of the problem which their
presence would eventually create, and they form an unmeltable mass in the
melting-pot of American society. At the outbreak of the Civil War the
colored population of the United States, most of whom were then slaves,
numbered less than five millions, or about one-tenth of the total population
of the entire country. Now they number about ten millions. In other words
the negroes have a little more than doubled in sixty years. This is a much
slower rate of natural increase than has been made during the same sixty
years by the white population. A high death rate, especially in the cities, is
mainly responsible for this.
The chief home of the negro is still, as it has been Economic status of
from the beginning, in the South. Nearly nine-tenths of the negro.
the colored population of the United States lives below the Mason and
Dixon line, particularly in the great agricultural plain which stretches from
Virginia southwestward to Texas. In two states, Mississippi and South
Carolina, the blacks outnumber the whites; in three others, Alabama,
Georgia, and Florida, they almost equal them. Most of the Southern negroes
live in the rural districts and are engaged in the cultivation of the soil; those
who have made their way to the Northern states, more than a million in all,
live chiefly in the cities. During the past few years the negroes have been
coming northward in greater numbers.
The problem of the negro has many phases, political, Can the negro
social, and economic. The political problem arises from problem be solved?
the fact that although the negroes are guaranteed by the constitution the
right to vote they are by one means or another debarred from voting in

practically all the Southern states. The economic problems have been due,
in the main, to the lack of educational facilities for the negro, and
particularly to the absence of opportunities for vocational education. This
defect is now being remedied to some extent by the spread of vocational
schools, of which Tuskegee and Hampton Institute are the best-known
examples. The social separation between the white and colored races,
especially in the Southern states, is as absolute as ever it was and there is no
reason to think that this separation will ever be broken down. When two
races in the same community must live their lives entirely apart there is
bound to be some mutual suspicion and distrust. In any case the negro
problem, in its various phases, must be solved by the white population of
the Southern states if it is to be solved at all.
The Japanese on the Pacific Slope.—Some years The “gentlemen’s
ago the influx of Japanese into the states of the Pacific agreement”.
slope gave rise to the fear that the Far West would soon have a great racial
problem on its hands if this immigration were allowed to go on unchecked.
One of these states, California, enacted laws designed to prevent the owning
or leasing of land by Japanese and pressure was brought upon Congress
with a view to having the Japanese shut out of the country altogether. In the
end, through diplomatic negotiations, a “gentlemen’s agreement” was
concluded between the American and Japanese governments by which the
latter promised to grant no more passports enabling its citizens to emigrate
to the United States, except in the case of merchants, students and others
whose residence in this country would be temporary. The Japanese
government has lived up to the letter of this agreement, but this has not
prevented a good many Japanese coming into the United States under one
subterfuge or another. The Western states are determined that their territory
shall remain a “white man’s country”; on the other hand the Japanese
government is not willing to agree by formal treaty to the exclusion of its
own people from any other country. As a great and powerful nation,
civilized and progressive, Japan feels that such a treaty would be a
humiliation. So there the matter rests at present. Japanese are not forbidden
to enter the United States; we are merely depending upon the informal
promise of the Japanese government to keep them from coming here.

THE MELTING POT

By Vesper L. George
From a mural painting in the McClain High School,
Greenfield, Ohio.
From the giant steamship at the left comes a procession
which includes men, women, and children of many races.
Each immigrant, whether Greek or Russian, Jew or Gentile,
brings some gift of art or skill to lay at the feet of America,
his new motherland. The Melting Pot is not a huge cauldron
into which all individuality is to be poured so that it may
become a homogeneous and commonplace mass, but a
crucible in which the gold of character and personality is to
be discovered and refined for the enrichment of all.
To the right are the sons and daughters of these
immigrants. They have become successful in the trades and
professions; they and their children have gained education;
they are contributing their share to the wealth, government,
defence, and prosperity of the nation. The picture embodies
a spirit of true Americanism.

THE MELTING POT. By Vesper L. George

Copyright by Vesper L. George. From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis
& Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission.

On the Pillar to the left the words Equality and Liberty indicate what the immigrants seek in
America. On the Pillar to the right the words Opportunity and Prosperity indicate what they find. On
the pedestal are graven the stirring words which Paul addressed to the men of Athens nearly nineteen
hundred years ago.

Americanization.—Among the European immigrants now in the United
States there are many thousands who cannot speak the English language,
who have never become citizens, know nothing about the way in which
American government is carried on, and have no comprehension of
American political or social ideals. This situation was not fully appreciated
until the outbreak of the World War. During the past few years an earnest
attempt has been made both by the public educational authorities and by
private organizations to Americanize these people by helping them to learn
the language, to obtain a knowledge of American history, to become
naturalized, and to acquire a proper conception of what American
democracy implies. This does not mean, of course, that we desire all people,
of whatever race, to possess the same temperamental traits, or hold the
same opinions, or have the same point of view. Diversity in individual
qualities, physical, mental, and moral, is not undesirable provided the
differences are not so great as to prevent the various elements from
adequately understanding one another. By Americanization we do not mean,
therefore, that every newcomer to this country should submerge his
individuality in the general mass, discard his own inherited traits, and put
on a veneer of Americanism. Rather it implies that those who are the
children of the soil, the native-born, should exemplify the Golden Rule
towards the stranger who comes within our gates and should endeavor to
show him, by actions as well as words, the meaning of good citizenship in a
democracy.
General References
T. N. Carver, Principles of National Economy, pp. 123-140;
J. R. Commons, Races and Immigrants in America, pp. 1-38; 63-106;
J. W. Jenks and W. Jett Lauck, The Immigration Problem, pp. 1-39; 40-66;
Mary Antin, The Promised Land, pp. 180-240;
Edward A. Steiner, On the Trail of the Immigrant, pp. 292-333;
Peter Roberts, The New Immigration, pp. 124-172; 173-199;
E. A. Ross, The Old World in the New, pp. 228-281, and passim;
Booker T. Washington, Up From Slavery, pp. 1-62;
L. H. Gulick, The American-Japanese Problem, pp. 3-27; 118-183.

Group Problems
1. Should immigration be further restricted? The history of immigration. What the immigrants
have done for the United States. Economic, social, and political disadvantages of immigration. The
present restrictions. Figures showing the probable influx of immigrants under the percentage system
during the next ten years. What further restrictions would improve the quality of immigration? How

might these restrictions be enforced? Could the selection be made at the port of sailing? Conclusions.
References: P. F. Hall, Immigration, pp. 121-138; J. W. Jenks and W. J. Lauck, The Immigration
Problem, pp. 135-197; E. A. Ross, The Old World in the New, pp. 282-304; Peter Roberts, The New
Immigration, pp. 341-359; Debaters’ Handbook Series, Immigration, pp. 69-81; 148-163 (arguments
on both sides); F. J. Warne, The Tide of Immigration, pp. 313-361.
2. The foreign-born population of your own community. Take some such book as F. A.
Bushee’s Ethnic Factors in the Population of Boston, or H. B. Woolston’s Study of the Population
of Manhattanville, or Robert A. Woods’ Americans in Process, and note the plan followed in
studying the characteristics of foreign-born groups. Some excellent suggestions can be had from
Carol Aronovici’s booklet Knowing One’s Own Community. Apply this plan to a survey of your
own town or city. Some data can be had from the national and state census reports in the case of
larger cities; in smaller communities the material must be gathered by field work.
3. An effective program of Americanization. References: F. S. Bogardus, Americanization, pp.
186-225; Peter Roberts, The Problem of Americanization, especially pp. 45-108.

Short Studies
1. The economic effects of immigration. E. A. Ross, The Old World in the New, pp. 195-227.
2. The immigrant in American politics. M. K. Simkhovitch, The City Worker’s World, pp. 181-
209; P. F. Hall, Immigration, pp. 183-198; R. A. Woods, Americans in Process, pp. 147-189.
3. The German immigrant. A. B. Faust, The German Element in the United States, pp. 357-390.
4. The Italian immigrant. R. F. Foerster, The Italian Immigration of Our Times, pp. 374-411.
5. The Slavic immigrant. E. G. Balch, Our Slavic Fellow Citizens, pp. 349-377.
6. Our treatment of the immigrant. Jacob A. Riis, The Making of an American, pp. 58-100; E. A.
Steiner, From Alien to Citizen, pp. 53-71; 122-168.
7. Immigrant life in the large cities. R. A. Woods, The City Wilderness, pp. 33-57; Ibid.,
Americans in Process, pp. 104-146.
8. The economic problems of the negro. Booker T. Washington, The Future of the Negro, pp.
42-66; Carl Kelsey, The Negro Farmer, pp. 22-28, and passim.
9. The problem of the Japanese on the Pacific coast. L. H. Gulick, The American-Japanese
Problem, pp. 3-27; H. A. Millis, The Japanese Problem in the United States, pp. 152-196.
10. As others see us. Hugo Muensterberg, The Americans, pp. 229-254.

Questions
1. What has been the relative rate of increase of population in your own state during the last two
decades? Has the rate been more or less rapid than that of the nation as a whole? To what features is
the difference due? What racial elements are strong in the population of your state and in what
industries are each of these elements chiefly engaged?
2. What have been the impelling causes of immigration from (a) Germany; (b) Ireland; (c) Italy;
(d) Russia?
3. Give four reasons why most immigrants settle in the cities.
4. Explain the principal effects of immigration upon (a) the growth of industry; (b) the scale of
wages; (c) municipal politics; (d) the public school system (including evening schools, etc.).
5. Which races are the most difficult to assimilate and why?
6. Make some definite suggestions as to how the conditions of the negro race can be made more
tolerable in this country.
7. Should Japanese as well as Chinese be excluded by law from immigrating to the United States?
Give your reasons.
8. What mistakes are we most likely to make in our zeal for the Americanization of non-English
speaking immigrants?

Topics for Debate
1. The period of residence required for the naturalization of aliens should be extended to more than
five years.
2. Aliens ought to be debarred from employment on national, state, and municipal work.
3. The national government should take jurisdiction over and prevent all racial discrimination by
the state.

CHAPTER III
ECONOMIC FACTORS AND ORGANIZATION

The purpose of this chapter is to show how wealth is created and how it is distributed among
the people.

The Economic Needs of Man.—The most Primitive needs and
elementary needs of human beings are for food, modern needs.
clothing, and shelter. Until these are satisfied no higher needs can develop.
In the lowest stages of barbarism men are content with the satisfaction of
these elementary needs alone; but as they obtain a greater mastery over
nature and are able to supply these wants more easily, other and higher
wants arise within them. As men and women become more intelligent and
more refined, they grow discontented with the primitive and coarser kinds
of food; they seek more presentable clothing than the skins of wild animals;
they replace their rude huts with substantial houses of wood. Step by step,
as the human race has advanced in civilization, its needs have become more
numerous and more varied. Purely material requirements being satisfied,
other and higher demands arise. The spiritual and social aspirations make
their appearance. As mankind passes each stage in civilization it finds,
through the growing control over nature, that purely material wants can be
satisfied with less and less exertion. Men gain their daily bread today with
infinitely less effort than in primitive times. The chief reason is that they
have learned to act collectively in mastering the forces of nature; in other
words they have achieved a high degree of economic organization.
The Economic Motives.—Self-preservation is the How the economic
first law of nature. The primeval instinct in man is to motives promote
progress.
look out for himself, to protect himself from hunger,
thirst, and hardship. This, for the moment, is more important to him than the
satisfaction of his social and civic needs. Hence the economic motive, the
instinct which prompts him to seek the means of getting a living, is

extremely strong. This instinct the lower animals possess as well, but it does
not carry them beyond the satisfaction of elementary wants. The birds of the
air and the beasts of the fields have never enlarged or raised the scale of
their needs beyond the simple requirements of food, drink, and shelter. No
matter how easily obtainable these become they make no progress to
anything higher. But mankind, endowed with superior mental faculties and
a spiritual nature, does not rest content with the easy earning of a
livelihood. The economic motive prompts men and women to move on, to
achieve wealth, to procure luxuries, and to gain such happiness as the
possession of worldly goods can bring. This economic motive, deeply
implanted in humanity, has been a great incentive to progress in civilization,
—probably the greatest of all incentives.
Let it not be assumed, however, that because the The altruistic motive.
economic motive is strong in man he is an altogether selfish creature. There
is also an altruistic motive which impels him to help his fellow-men, even
at personal sacrifice. Men desire to gain wealth for themselves, but having
gained enough and to spare, they frequently devote much of it to the
assistance of those who have not been so fortunate. The higher our
civilization the more marked does this spirit of altruism or economic
unselfishness become.
The Subject-Matter of Economics.—The study of Economic goods.
economics does not concern itself with all the possible wants and
aspirations of men. It deals only with the production, distribution, and
consumption of those things which satisfy man’s desire for (a) material
objects and (b) personal services. In other words economics is a subject
which concerns itself with the production, distribution, and consumption of
economic goods, a term which includes material possessions known as
wealth and also such personal services as have an economic value. Not all
things of a material sort are economic goods; air and sunlight, for example,
being free to all, require no effort on the part of man to obtain. They are
called free goods. We apply the term economic goods only to such things
and services as satisfy human wants and are not to be had free. Requiring
effort to produce, these economic goods are limited in supply and hence
have a value in exchange for other goods. For this reason they are
commonly spoken of as wealth. Certain personal services, those of the
physician, the lawyer, the foreman, the laborer, also have an economic
value in that they are limited in supply, satisfy material wants, and can be

exchanged for tangible goods. These services form a part of the economic
activities of society, a very important part. So the study of economics
includes these personal services as well.
The Consumption of Wealth.—All economic goods Present and future
are produced for the purpose of being used. This use is economic goods.
what the economist calls consumption. Some economic goods are in
finished form, ready for immediate consumption at any time; others are in
the form of raw materials or half-finished products not yet ready to be used.
Hence we distinguish between present and future economic goods.
Economic organization strives to manage matters so that a sufficient supply
of economic goods will reach their finished form in time to fill the demands
that arise. This demand on the part of the consumers determines the
methods and amount of production. If there is no demand for a particular
kind of economic goods, these goods will not be intentionally produced. On
the other hand a vigorous demand will encourage production and speed up
the process of distribution.
So we get back, in the end, to the proposition with Demand and supply.
which we started, that the purpose of economic activity and organization is
to supply human needs. Where the need is felt, the demand arises. When the
demand arises, the agencies of supply, namely production and distribution,
usually respond. One of the great tasks of economic organization, therefore,
is to estimate the probable demand and so influence production and
distribution that the supply will neither be excessive nor fall short. If there
is an over-supply of any commodity, prices normally will fall. That means
that goods may bring less than it costs to produce and to distribute them.
One reason for the organization of industry on a large scale under great
corporations is that supply can thus be kept closer to demand. At any rate
the consumer, by his greater or smaller demand, virtually determines all
activities of production and distribution. He is the pivot of the whole
economic system.
Whether the demand on the part of the consumer will The factors in
be larger or smaller depends on three factors. The first demand.
is the utility of the goods to him. Economic goods do not have the same
utility to all men at all times. The utility of ice on a warm summer day may
be considerable; in midwinter it is next to nothing. The utility of eye-glasses
to short-sighted men is great; to men of normal sight they have no utility at
all. Economic goods may, therefore have a greater or smaller utility

depending upon the place, the time, and the consumer. Bear in mind,
moreover, that each consumer matches the utility of one commodity with
the utility of other commodities which he finds available, and his demand
follows the direction of the greater utility. A second factor in demand is the
price of the goods. When the price goes up, the demand ordinarily will go
down, because some customers will decide that the utility of their money is
greater than that of the goods at the increased price. Finally, demand
depends in part upon the purchasing power or wealth of the consumers. In
prosperous times, when people have plenty of income, the utility of goods
seems greater than the utility of money; in times of depression and low
incomes the reverse is true. The interaction of these three factors determines
the demand.
Economic Production.—Production is the general What production
term applied to all the processes whereby economic means.
goods are adapted to the satisfaction of human wants. We are often told that
no man can either create or destroy a single atom of matter. Strictly
speaking, therefore, production does not mean the creation of economic
goods but the utilization of materials in such a way that they may satisfy the
consumers’ demands. This utilization may involve changing their form, as
where iron is made into tools or wool into cloth. The miner who takes coal
out of the earth; the farmer who makes two blades of grass grow where one
grew before; the mason who hews the stone for the building; the baker who
makes flour into bread; the manufacturer who takes leather and turns it into
shoes—all are engaged in production. So, also, are such workers as
statesmen, judges, lawyers, physicians, and teachers. They may not directly
produce commodities but their services are essential to the smooth working
of the processes of production. The only workers who do not deserve to be
called productive laborers are thieves, swindlers, counterfeiters, and other
parasites. They often work harder than would suffice to earn them an honest
living; but their labor is not productive. They live on what others produce.
The Factors in Production.—There are five factors Natural resources,
in production; namely, (1) natural resources (including labor, capital,
organization, and
land); (2) labor; (3) capital; (4) organization and government.
management; (5) government. Natural resources,
without the application of labor to them, do not go far in satisfying human
wants. Men cannot live on soil, climate, rainfall, and minerals. Nor can
labor and natural resources, when one is applied to the other, succeed in

producing all the economic goods which people in an advanced stage of
civilization require. Capital is also essential—capital in the form of
machinery, or in the form of money to support labor during the process of
production. These three things, natural resources, labor, and capital must be
brought together, furthermore, and kept working in unison. This is where
organization, the fourth factor in production, comes in. It borrows the
capital, buys the raw materials, sets the labor to work, and markets the
products. Government is not commonly looked upon as a factor in
production, but it ought to be. Without the protection and regulation which
government affords we could not carry on production at high efficiency. It
is government that assures to labor, capital, and organization their rightful
shares in the joint production and thus affords them the incentive to do their
best.
Nature’s Contributions to Production.—Nature Land and its
contributes to the production of economic goods such resources.
things as land, timber, waterways for transportation, minerals, coal and oil,
the motive power of steam,—in a word nature provides all the materials and
the environment of production. Hence it is fundamentally the most
important of all the factors. If one studies the history of those nations which
have become great in various periods in history, it will be found that the
basis of their material greatness was in practically every case the bounty of
nature. Civilization made its first advance in the fertile valleys of the
Euphrates and the Nile. Its progress since the dawn of history has been
conditioned by man’s success in discovering and using natural resources.
Among the contributions of nature to production some, such as land, can
be brought under private ownership. So long as land was plentiful and
population scanty there was no occasion for private property in land. When
Caesar first came into contact with the Teutonic tribes he found that land
was not held in private ownership. Everyone took what he wanted; when
the land seemed to be growing exhausted the whole tribe moved on to some
other region. But as these tribes grew in number and unoccupied land
became less plentiful, common ownership gave way to private ownership.
The Anglo-Saxons had reached this stage before they migrated to England.
Land held in private ownership can be bought, sold, Rent.
and leased. When it is leased, the owner receives for its use a payment
known as rent. Rent may be defined as the return which is obtained by the
owner of any form of natural resource. This includes not only land but

mines, water-powers, trout-streams, and so forth. The return which is
received for the use of unimproved land is usually called ground rent, while
the return which results from improvements such as buildings upon the
land, fences, and drains is called improvement rent. Strictly speaking, this is
not rent, but a return upon invested capital. The amount of ground rent paid
for any piece of land depends upon its relative fertility, if it is to be used for
agriculture, and its location. Location alone determines the ground rent of
land in towns and cities.
Labor as a Factor in Production.—What is labor? What is labor?
Is all muscular and mental exertion entitled to be called labor? Mountain
climbing involves the most severe sort of bodily effort. Tourists do it for
pleasure and guides do it for pay. Is it labor in one case and not in the other?
Some men play chess for recreation; others make a living out of it; in either
case there is strenuous mental exertion involved. So where does labor begin
and end?
No exact answer can be given to that question. One man’s play is another
man’s labor,—gardening, fishing, acting on the stage, for example. But
economists usually define labor as “human exertion or effort directed
toward the creation of economic goods”. This includes mental as well as
physical exertion. All who are engaged in the production of material things
or personal services for the satisfaction of human wants are engaged in
productive labor.
Labor, of course, is of great economic importance. The economic
The natural resources of the American continent were importance of labor.
as great three hundred years ago as they are today; yet they were practically
useless in satisfying human wants because the red man would not and could
not bestow his labor upon them. It remained for the white man to transform
natural resources into economic goods. This he has done not only by the use
of muscular exertion but by the application of intelligence. Labor is never
an end in itself; it is always a means to an end, and this end is the
satisfaction of human demands.
Division of Labor.—In applying their labor to The simple and
natural resources men soon found that the best results complex forms of
division of labor.
could be obtained by apportioning different tasks to
different workers. This is called the division of labor and it has been one of
the great factors in the progress of production. In its simpler form, division
of labor merely meant that each workman confined himself to a simple

occupation and carried through all the processes of production in that
particular trade. The cloth-maker, the shoemaker, the implement-maker
performed all the work of making cloth, shoes, or implements from start to
finish. This simple division of labor was practiced in very early times. But
as the world moved forward a more complex division of labor developed
and this is particularly a feature of modern production. In this development
the individual worker is assigned to make only a part of a commodity. The
making of cloth is no longer a trade, but embodies a series of trades—that
of the wool-carder, the spinner, the weaver, the fuller, the dyer, and the
finisher. In the modern shoe factory one employee cuts the sole, another
trims it, a third turns the heels, a fourth sews the uppers to the sole, and so
on. There are more than twenty distinct operations in the making of a
factory shoe, each requiring special skill on the part of the worker.
In the time of the Roman empire it is said that only thirty-seven different
trades and professions were in existence. Today the number runs into the
thousands. It would be practically impossible to make a list of them all.
This is the age of specialists. Men no longer call themselves shoemakers but
cutters, lasters, welters, sole-makers. Even in the engineering profession we
have electrical engineers, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, locomotive
engineers, stationary engineers, mining engineers, marine engineers, and
chemical engineers.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Division of Labor.—Division of
labor has brought many economic advantages. It enables the worker, by
constant practice at a single operation, to acquire skill and dexterity. It
enables almost every worker to find some task that he is able to do and for
which he has a special liking or aptitude. It stimulates the invention of new
processes and methods by reducing each operation to the simplest possible
form, at which point it can often be taken over by machinery.
But the elaborate division of labor which marks modern industry also has
its defects. It increases the monotony and irksomeness of labor. It prevents
the development of all-round craftsmen, men who can turn their hands to a
variety of things. Hence when a worker in modern industry loses his regular
employment it is difficult for him to change to anything else. Confining
men and women to a single, simple task day after day and year after year
tends to narrow them; it certainly does not conduce to the extension of their
intelligence. No great inspiration comes from his work to the man who
spends his life in making the nineteenth part of a pin.[13] Division of labor

has come to stay, however, and in spite of all these disadvantages the world
is on the whole far better for its coming. It has made the production of
goods so much easier that to give it up now would carry the world back to
primitive conditions and lower the standard of living.
Our aim should be to utilize all its advantages while reducing its evils to
the minimum. This we may hope to do by several methods; for example, by
reducing the daily hours of labor, by promoting vocational education, by the
restriction of child employment, by a better organization of the labor market
(see p. 418), and by providing wholesome recreation for the workers.
Is Labor a Commodity?—Labor, as a factor in Labor is a service.
production, receives its return in the form of wages. A generation ago it was
customary to speak of labor as a commodity and to say that the worker
“sold his labor” for wages. But labor is not a commodity. The seller of
goods parts company with them when he makes a sale; the worker is
inseparable from his work. The man who sells shoes cares not who wears
them; but it makes some difference to the shoe-worker how and where and
for whom he labors. No commodity, moreover, is so perishable as labor.
The labor of one day will not keep for sale the next. Hence sales of labor, if
we call them such, are in the nature of forced sales. In the case of nearly all
commodities, again, the supply can be diminished by stopping production,
thereby preventing a drastic fall in price. But the supply of labor cannot be
so easily cut down. The analogy between labor and commodities is a poor
analogy and it is much better to speak of labor as a personal service.
Workers contract with employers for the giving of this service and should
receive, in return, not only wages but various assurances as to the
conditions under which the service is to be rendered. The Congress of the
United States, in the Clayton Act of 1914, declared that “the labor of a
human being is not a commodity or article of commerce” and that an
organization of workers was not to be regarded, therefore, as a
“combination in restraint of trade.”
Wages.—The wages of labor depend fundamentally The factors which
upon demand and supply. But as the supply of labor is cause wages to rise
and fall.
not susceptible to a quick and unlimited increase or
reduction, wages depend principally upon demand. When there is an
increased demand for economic goods, due to factors which have already
been explained (see p. 40), the quest for labor becomes more keen on the
part of employers; better terms are offered to the worker; in other words

wages go up and the conditions of labor are improved. When the demand
for economic goods diminishes the contrary takes place, but in this case the
decline in the rate of wages does not, as a rule, keep exact pace with the
decrease in demand. Organizations of labor strive to keep wages up and
often succeed, temporarily at least, in doing so. During the years 1918-
1920, when the demand for economic goods expanded greatly, the wages of
labor in the United States went up promptly all along the line. When the
turn in the tide came, about the middle of 1920, wages began to fall slowly
and their descent has been very gradual. Wages, thus, incline to follow the
general course of prices but they show this tendency more clearly when
prices are going up than when they are coming down. This is altogether
natural, for higher wages conduce to a better standard of living, and when
such better standard has been achieved there is objection to any lowering of
it.
This suggests that a distinction ought to be drawn Nominal and real
between nominal and real wages. Wages, of course, are wages.
not an end in themselves; they are merely a means which enables the
worker to satisfy his wants. The real utility of wages depends, therefore,
upon what they will purchase, and this, again, depends upon the general
level of prices. Even if wages, reckoned in dollars, go up fifty per cent, the
worker is no better off if the general level of prices also goes up fifty per
cent. A worker’s nominal wages are what he receives in dollars; his real
wages are reckoned in terms of purchasing-power. The rate of wages should
always be studied, therefore, in connection with prices. An increase or
decrease in nominal wages may mean much or it may mean very little.
There is a limit below which real wages cannot fall. The minimum wage
This is the point at which the worker can manage to level.
maintain himself and his family. Just where this point is, stated in terms of
money, no one can say. It varies in different parts of the country. Before the
World War the statistics showed that half the adult male workers in this
country were earning less than six hundred dollars a year, yet the standard
of living among American workmen was higher than that of the workers in
any other country. Today it is probable that these same workers are earning
more than a thousand dollars. This does not mean, necessarily, that the
standard of living has risen, for the amount of nominal wages needed to
maintain the pre-war standard is greater because of the rise in prices.
How capital arose.

Capital.—Capital is the third factor in production. In primitive industry
the application of labor to natural resources produced direct and almost
immediate results. The savages who gathered nuts and caught fish with their
hands, for example, gained the fruits of their efforts at once. But these direct
methods of satisfying their wants did not carry mankind very far. It soon
became apparent that men could produce economic goods more easily and
more abundantly by indirect methods, that is by the use of tools,
implements, machinery, and other labor-saving devices. These made
possible the utilization of minerals and other natural resources which could
never have been made to serve the wants of man without using the
appliances of indirect production. So, as civilization developed, production
came to be spread over a considerable period of time, until today it often
happens that a whole year intervenes between the first step in production
and the sale of the finished article. Consider the articles of daily use,
clothes, shoes, furniture, books, and realize how vast has been the series of
operations necessary to produce each of them! Many workers have
contributed their share, and each of these has had to receive his wages long
before the goods passed into the hands of the ultimate consumer.
Now the factor which has enabled production to What it includes.
become indirect and long-spread-out is capital. Capital consists of all the
intermediate things which men use in producing economic goods. It
includes buildings, materials, machinery, and the money which pays the
wages of the workers. The use of capital saves labor by enabling a given
amount of it to achieve vastly better results than would be the case if capital
did not exist. Capital is really stored-up labor in the form of economic
goods which have been produced but not consumed. In other words it is the
result of saving. If everything that the world produces were at once
consumed, there would be no capital.
Interest on Capital.—Interest is the return paid to How the rate of
the owner of capital for its part in production. It is his interest is determined.
recompense for saving his economic goods instead of consuming them.
Productive capital is frequently in the form of material things but its value
is reckoned in terms of money and a certain per cent per annum is paid on
this value in the form of interest. Were it not so, there would be no strong
inducement for men to save, and capital would not be forthcoming. The rate
of interest depends, in a general way, upon the interaction of demand and
supply. If the demand for capital exceeds the supply, the rate of interest will

ordinarily go up, and vice-versa. But this does not always take place
because capital is sometimes obtained at a fixed rate for a long period, and
this rate, whatever it is, remains the same for the duration of such period.
Organization and Management as a Factor in Why organization is
Production.—When labor and capital are brought into essential.
play upon natural resources the production of economic goods is the
outcome. But these three factors are in separate hands and have to be
brought into co-operation. Owners of lands, mines, and forests control the
natural resources; another class possesses the capital; a third is in a position
to furnish the labor. Organization brings all three into joint action for the
production of wealth.
This organization may take any one of several forms. The forms of
The simplest form of organization is represented by the organization.
individual employer, the man who borrows capital (or provides it from his
own savings), purchases the raw materials, and hires labor to be applied to
it. He is an organizer of the productive process. This system of single
employers was nearly universal in the earlier stages of industry and trade.
Next comes the partnership. Two or more men assume the task of bringing
natural resources, capital, and labor together. The partners divide the work
and jointly assume all responsibilities of loss. Finally, and most common in
large-scale production nowadays, there is the joint stock company or
business corporation in which many persons participate. Each contributes to
the organization and takes a proportionate share of the risk.[14] The nature
and work of these corporations are explained in a later chapter.

THRIFT AND PROSPERITY. By Frederick Dielman.

Copyright by Frederick Dielman. From a Copley Print, copyright by
Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission.

THRIFT AND PROSPERITY

By Frederick Dielman
From a mosaic picture in the Albany Savings Bank,
Albany, N.Y.
A mosaic is a decoration formed out of small pieces of
natural stone or enamel, of various colors, set in cement.
This decoration measures fourteen feet by seven and one-
half, the figures being somewhat larger than life size.
Under a fruit tree in a landscape suggesting grain fields
and meadows, is a group of figures. The central and
principal figure, the mistress of a household with her distaff
and spindle, typifies industry and good management; behind
her on either side among the hollyhocks are beehives—the
conventional emblems of industry and saving.

In the foreground on the left, a woman with a sheaf of
wheat at her feet and a sickle in her hand turns toward the
keeper of the flocks and herds. At the right, a kneeling
maiden lays a basket of fruit near the sheaf of wheat, while a
stalwart man, adze in hand, bares his arm for work. All these
figures symbolize the different branches of agriculture. The
children and the young animals typify the way in which each
young generation is nourished by the industry and thrift of
its elders.
The whole impression of this picture is one of industry,
prosperity, thrift, and—by reason of these three—happiness.

Profits.—The return received by the organizers and The nature of profits.
managers of productive enterprises is commonly known as profit. The
amount of their profit depends upon the degree of success with which they
can produce goods for less than the selling price. Every employer or
organizer assumes a considerable amount of risk. He obligates himself to
pay definite amounts for the use of capital, materials, and labor no matter
what the value of the finished products. If this value be less than the cost of
production, he loses; if it be more, he gains. Losses, if continued, mean
bankruptcy. Gains are profits and, if continued, make him rich. It will be
seen, therefore, that the employers or organizers of production take more
risk than those who supply the materials, the capital, or the labor. Their
success, in other words their rate of profits, depends in What determines the
general upon the degree of managing and organizing rate of profits.
ability which they display; but it sometimes happens that profits will be
high in all branches of production for a time irrespective of the employer’s
skill. The price of the finished product may rise without an immediate and
proportionate increase in the cost of materials, interest, and wages. This
situation, while it continues, affords an opportunity for abnormal profits or
“profiteering” as it is often called. Abnormal profits may also be due to the
existence of a monopoly in a particular form of production.
Government as a Factor in Production.—It has not The economic
been customary to speak of government as one of the importance of
government.
essential factors in production, but a few moments’
reflection will show that its part in the process of industry and trade is very

important. To begin with, the government determines what forms of
production may be carried on and by what methods. It forbids certain
forms, such as the making of intoxicants, and strictly limits others, such as
the manufacture of narcotics. It gives to some individuals and corporations
the exclusive right to produce certain articles under patents. It determines
the forms of business organizations, the responsibilities of employers, the
rules relating to partnership, and the powers of corporations. It sets a limit
upon the rate of interest by means of usury laws and through its banks may
virtually control the rate (see p. 438). The government, moreover, makes
rules for the conservation of natural resources and to some extent fixes the
relation between the employer and his workers. At times it even fixes
prices. It provides courts and commissions for the settlement of disputes
affecting production. Finally, the whole system of private property rests
upon the support of the government.
What return does the government get for these Taxes as an element
services to production? Offhand, one might say that the in cost.
government receives its return in taxes. In a sense this is true, for taxes, like
interest, wages, and profits, must be paid from the selling price of goods.
Taxes, indeed, must be provided for before profits can be determined. But it
is not usual, nor is it accurate, to speak of taxes as a reward or return for
services which the government renders. Revenue in the form of taxation is
essential in order that a government may function properly, yet there is no
close relation between the rate of taxation and the amount of service given.
This whole question of taxation, in theory and in practice, will be discussed
further on.

Some Essential Economic Activities

Exchange.—It has been shown that several factors in The way in which
production are each entitled to their share. This share is each factor in
production obtains its
reckoned in terms of money because every producer share.
gets his own return in terms of money. In other words
goods are exchanged for money, and money in turn is exchanged for other
goods or service. This mechanism of exchange engages the energy of a
great many individuals and institutions, such as wholesalers, retailers,
brokers, and banks. Economic goods would have relatively little value if
they could not be translated into money and thus distributed from hand to
hand. No one, as a rule, can live and flourish by consuming exactly what he
produces and nothing else. He must use his share in what he produces as
purchasing-power to secure whatever best satisfies his own wants. Money is
the lubricant which facilitates this; in a word, it is the medium of exchange.
Value and Price.—Exchange takes place on a basis Definition of value.
of relative values. He who sells goods or services receives something of
assumed equal value in return. But what is value? The term value is
employed in two different senses, value in use and value in exchange. By
the former we mean the intrinsic utility of a thing. Air and sunlight, for
example, have a high value in use; they are indispensable to life in fact; but
they have no value in exchange. When the economist speaks of value he
means value in exchange or market value, that is to say the ratio in which
one commodity or service will exchange for other commodities. If a ton of
coal can be exchanged for a large quantity of cloth, or food, or labor, its
value is high; if it can be exchanged for only small amounts of these other
commodities, its value is said to be low.
But price is quite another thing. The price of a Definition of price.
commodity is the ratio at which it will exchange, not for all other goods and
services but for one specific thing, namely, money. Price is value expressed
in terms of the medium of exchange. We habitually translate our economic
goods into terms of money before we buy or sell them. A general rise or fall
in prices is quite possible, for this is merely another way of saying that
money will buy less or more of all other things. It is immaterial whether we

say that prices have gone up or that money has gone down; we mean
exactly the same thing.
Competition and Monopoly.—Exchange is What determines the
conducted, for the most part, under free competition. level of prices?
Buyers give as little as they can in money for goods; sellers get as much as
they can. When goods bring higher prices, more will be produced until
prices are forced down again; if prices fall, production will decline until the
reduction in supply serves to bring them up again. This is the theory of free
competition. In practice, however, it does not always work so automatically.
Some things, such as diamonds and platinum, cannot be produced in
unlimited quantities no matter how much labor, capital, and organization we
may apply. Other things are legal monopolies, or patented articles, which
can be produced by only one concern and are not subject to the direct
influence of competition. Still others are natural monopolies due to the fact
that from the nature of things only one concern can produce the goods or
render the service. A telephone company, for example, has a natural
monopoly. Competition involves a complete duplication of the service. It
means that many subscribers have to put two telephones in their stores or
homes in order to get into full touch with other users of telephones. The net
cost of telephone service to customers cannot be reduced in this way.
Finally, some things are the subject of artificial monopoly, that is to say,
they are produced or distributed under arrangements which restrict or
eliminate competition (see pp. 386-388).
All these forms of monopoly interfere with free The effects of
competition and they cover a great many of the things monopoly.
which are in common use by the people.[15] Recent investigations have
shown that the number of commodities which are either wholly or in large
part controlled by monopolistic combines is larger than people commonly
realize. A certain amount of legal monopoly is essential in order to
encourage research and invention.[16] Men will not strive to invent new
machines and appliances if the invention at once becomes common
property. Natural monopolies arise from the essential nature of things and it
is difficult to see how most of them can ever be avoided. We cannot very
well have two competing street railways on the same street, for example.
There would then be little room in the street for anything else. Artificial
monopolies are often objectionable because they enable a few persons or
corporations to obtain excessive prices from the public; but even an

artificial monopoly can in some cases be advantageous. Occasionally some
corporation, by producing things on a very large scale, is able to do it so
cheaply that small producers are driven out of business. The large concern
then finds that it has become a monopoly, but so long as it does not
arbitrarily raise prices the public is not injured by the mere fact that a
monopoly exists.
Freedom of Contract.—An outstanding The principle of
characteristic of modern economic organization is the freedom
relations
in economic

encouragement of private enterprise through freedom of
contract. By the laws of the land the worker is not forced to take
employment from anybody; he may contract with whomsoever he pleases.
He may even join with other workers in a union and make a collective
bargain, that is, a group of workers, large or small, may contract with one or
more employees or with a group of employers. The employer, on his side, is
not forced to hire anybody; he also has freedom of contract. It is true, of
course, that this legal theory of individual freedom does not find complete
exemplification in actual practice. The right of the wage-earner to bargain
collectively is not everywhere conceded by employers; the right of the
employer to hire non-union men is not everywhere conceded by the unions
(see p. 406). The landlord is not obliged to rent his house, nor the tenant to
stay against his will. Both are bound by the terms of their contract and no
more. Buying and selling are conducted with similar freedom. All this
affords a great spur to private initiative. Everyone depends for his own
prosperity and advancement upon the skill with which he can use his
freedom. A well-known English writer, Sir Henry Maine, once declared that
the progress of civilization has been a movement from status to contract.
He meant that in primitive times all men had their careers virtually
determined for them by the station in which they were born. The child of a
noble became a nobleman; the child of a peasant remained a peasant
through life. In modern economic society the individual’s own efforts,
exerted through his freedom to contract with others for his own advantage,
count far more heavily in determining his ultimate station in life.
Private Property.—Freedom of contract would Why the institution of
prove a poor incentive to progress were it not private property is
maintained.
accompanied by a provision whereby industrious men
can enjoy the fruits of their labor and thrift. Hence we guarantee to every
man not only the right to earn but the right to save, for future enjoyment, a

portion of his earnings. These savings become his property and within
certain limits he may use them as he pleases. He may utilize his savings
during his own lifetime or leave them to his children when he dies. Savings
may take the form of private property in land and buildings, or movable
goods, or such investments as bonds, stocks, mortgages, and bank deposits.
Property in land and buildings is commonly known as real property or real
estate. All other forms of property are called personal property. Sometimes
we distinguish between two kinds of personal property, tangible, which
includes all goods and chattels, and intangible, which comprises stocks,
bonds, mortgages, notes, deposits, and other obligations.
The institution of private property is the basis of our whole economic
system. No nation has ever enjoyed industrial prosperity for any length of
time without recognizing the right of private property. Destroy this right
and you take away what now constitutes the chief incentive to labor, saving,
and industrial efficiency. Under a socialistic system, which would either
abolish or largely curtail this right of private property, it is argued that other
incentives would take the place of the motive now furnished by private
property and that men would keep on working and organizing even if
private property were entirely abolished; but this is a large question and its
discussion must be relegated to a later chapter.
In any case most men are now agreed that the right of The right of private
private property cannot be left unfettered; it must be property is subject to
restrictions.
guarded against abuse. Society cannot wisely permit it
to stand as an obstacle to the general interest. Even the right of private
property, therefore, must bend to the good of the community. Men are
allowed to own property because their doing so promotes the well-being of
the whole people; the right should not go further than that. It is for this
reason that we place various restrictions upon the right of private property,
restrictions in the interest of the public health, or for protection against fire,
or for the preservation of public morals. No one has the right to own and
maintain property that constitutes a public nuisance, such as an unsanitary
tenement house, for example, or a building that forms a fire trap. The right
of private property is entitled to respect only in so far as it is exercised in
keeping with its prime purpose, which is to advance the interests of the
whole people by giving each individual a sufficient incentive to work and to
save.
General References

H. C. Adams, Description of Industry, pp. 3-117; F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I,
pp. 1-110; H. R. Seager, Introduction to Economics, 4th ed., pp. 1-121; R. T. Ely, Outlines of
Economics, 3rd ed., pp. 1-98; C. J. Bullock, Introduction to the Study of Economics, pp. 115-179;
375-431; H. R. Burch, American Economic Life, pp. 1-37; 71-80; 315-335; T. N. Carver, Principles
of National Economy, pp. 3-46.

Group Problems
1. The effects of division of labor and the ways in which we may retain its advantages while
reducing its detrimental effects. How division of labor arose. The extent to which it is now carried
in industry. Its physical effects. Social, political, and economic effects. Its value. How its defects can
be overcome. The reduction of hours in certain industries. Vocational education for the worker. The
restriction of child labor. The better organization of the labor market. Recreation for the workers after
work-hours. The merits and practical difficulties of each plan. References: F. W. Taussig, Principles
of Economics, Vol. I, pp. 30-48; Thirteenth annual report of the United States Commissioner of
Labor on Hand and Machine Labor (for illustrative material); H. R. Seager, Introduction to
Economics, pp. 153-158; R. T. Ely, The Evolution of Industrial Society, pp. 398-424. See also the
references given at end of chapters XX-XXI in this book.
2. The justification of private property. References: L. C. Marshall, Readings in Industrial
Society, pp. 144-223; 947-988; John M. Mecklin, Introduction to Social Ethics, pp. 302-322; F. A.
Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 69-95; Herbert Spencer, Social
Statics, pp. 62-65.

Short Studies
1. Our chief economic wants. L. C. Marshall, Readings in Industrial Society, pp. 9-15; 270-277;
828-833; C. J. Bullock, Introduction to the Study of Economics, pp. 79-87.
2. Economic ideals. H. R. Burch, American Economic Life, pp. 17-27.
3. Is labor a commodity? C. J. Bullock, Introduction to the Study of Economics, pp. 432-436.
4. The relation of wages to the standard of living. H. R. Burch, American Economic Life, pp.
47-56; J. H. Hammond and J. W. Jenks, Great American Issues, pp. 83-96.
5. How capital is accumulated. R. T. Ely, Outlines of Economics, pp. 116-130.
6. The place of capital in modern agriculture, industry, and commerce. L. C. Marshall,
Readings in Industrial Society, pp. 154-212.
7. Natural monopolies. C. J. Bullock, Introduction to the Study of Economics, pp. 309-324.
8. Freedom of contract. L. C. Marshall, Readings in Industrial Society, pp. 570-574.
9. Thrift as a national asset. F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in
Reconstruction, pp. 244-262.
10. The place of luxury in economic life. T. N. Carver, Principles of National Economy, pp.
584-597.

Questions
1. Make a list of the chief human wants that existed a thousand years ago. Also a list of the
principal human wants of the United States today. Name the ones that are freely satisfied by nature.
2. What is meant by “economic goods”? Which of the following things are economic goods, and
which are not: a phonograph record; opium; the sunken Lusitania; a silver dollar; a Liberty bond;
electricity; Mr. Bryan’s skill as an orator; desert land in the middle of Africa; weeds in a wheat field;
a wide acquaintance among business men; a ten dollar bill; a public park; a band concert; keen
eyesight; a cask of rum? Give your reasons in each case.
3. Give some examples of the production of economic goods (a) without the use of labor or
capital; (b) with labor but without capital; (c) with capital but without labor.

4. Explain what one would mean by speaking of the “productive consumption of wealth”. Give
some examples.
5. Is division of labor carried as far in agriculture as in industry? Are the evils of division of labor
as great in country districts as in towns and cities? What remedies would you suggest to
counterbalance the monotony of industrial labor?
6. Which of the various productive factors are most important in (a) sheep raising; (b) banking; (c)
the coining of money; (d) training a brass band; (e) selling newspapers on the street?
7. How would you estimate the ground rent of a piece of land, situated on the main business street
of a large city, with a store built upon it?
8. Would an increase in the price of wheat lead to a rise in the general rate of rental paid for farm
land or would a rise in the general rate of rental cause the price of wheat to go up?
9. Why is there more capital in the United States than in China although the population of China is
three times as large?
10. If all payment of interest were forbidden by law, would people continue to save? If not, why
does saving sometimes increase when the rate of interest goes down?
11. Why are each of the following paid a high or a low rate of remuneration as the case may be: (a)
a locomotive engineer; (b) a hod carrier; (c) a movie actor; (d) a member of the state legislature; (e) a
steeple jack; (f) a corporation lawyer?
12. To what different things may a fall in wages be due? A fall in profits? If all large production
could be eliminated, would we be worse or better off?
13. If all men were of equal business ability and had the same opportunities, would there be any
business profits?
14. What are the advantages of a corporation as compared with a partnership?
15. In what ways is democracy likely to enhance production to a greater degree than despotism?
16. Can you think of something possessing value but not utility? Utility but not value? Both value
and utility but having no price?
17. What is meant by the saying that “competition is the life of trade”?
18. Make a list of all the natural monopolies that you can remember. How may the evils of legal
and artificial monopolies be lessened?
19. How is freedom of contract related to the institution of private property? Do you think you
would look forward to greater or less happiness in life if all private property were now to be
abolished?
20. Which of the following are proper limitations on the freedom of contract or the right of private
property: (a) a rule that billboards must not be built of wood; (b) a provision that no one shall buy or
sell explosives without a license; (c) a regulation that no owner of a city lot shall build on it any
building costing less than ten thousand dollars; (d) a requirement that no one sell cigarettes to persons
under sixteen years of age?

Topics for Debate
1. Labor contributes more than management to national prosperity.
2. High prices are an advantage (or a disadvantage) to the workers of the United States.
3. Every earner of income should be required to save a certain portion of his earnings each year,
thus making all men capitalists as well as workers.

CHAPTER IV
THE NATURE AND FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to explain what government is, how it originated, why people
obey it, and what its functions are.

What is the State?—The word “state” is so short Various uses of the
and simple that everybody is assumed to know just word “state”.
what it means. And in a general way everyone does know what it means.
But it is used in more than one sense and with a good deal of latitude. When
we speak, for example, of the “newly-created states of Europe” we mean
Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Jugo-Slavia. The term “state”, so used,
designates a country with an independent political existence. But we also
speak of “the states of the Union”, by which we mean merely the political
divisions of a single country. Then, again, one frequently encounters such
expressions as “a statesman who served the state” or “state control of
railroads”, or “the relations between Church and State”. To what does the
term in such cases refer? Here the expression is used in a generic sense to
include politically organized society, and those who so use it are thinking
more particularly of the political agencies through which organized society
acts.
A simple definition will cover all these uses of the A general definition.
term. A state is a body of people, possessing a definite territory, and
politically organized. Territory is essential. The Jews for many centuries did
not constitute a state because they had no territory of their own. Now they
are once more in the way of obtaining a national homeland. Population is
also essential. The territory around the South Pole does not form a state
because it is uninhabited. And a political organization, a government, is the
third essential. The territory which is now the United States did not form a
state before the first European settlers reached it, for, although it was
inhabited, the savages who roamed over its vast expanses were not

politically organized. They had, for the most part, neither government nor
laws. Persons, territory, and organization—these are the essential attributes
of a state.
The Government and why we obey it.—By the government we mean
the various officials and bodies by whom the people are ruled. By the
government the will of the state is carried out. But why should people obey
a government? We obey the rules of voluntary organizations because we are
free to join them or not; but no individual is free to disobey the laws or to
remain aloof from the control of his government. By what right does the
government take money from us in taxes, call upon us for service in war,
compel us to adjust all our controversies in its courts, and insist that we
obey its laws?
Two theories have been offered to justify the The divine right
government’s right to the obedience of the people. The doctrine.
first is known as the theory of divine right. According to this idea all
governmental authority was originally bestowed upon the rulers by the
Creator. And having received their authority from God, the rulers were not
responsible to the people. This theory of governmental authority is very old,
as old as the Ten Commandments and probably older. It was argued that
kings ruled and princes governed by divine right because “the powers that
be are ordained of God”. This doctrine of the divine right of rulers was
maintained throughout the mediaeval period and was put forth by the Stuart
kings of England as a justification of their despotic rule.[17]
The other theory, which is that government has its The “consent of the
foundation in the “consent of the governed”, appeared governed”.
in the writings of the English philosopher, John Locke, during the
seventeenth century and was incorporated into the Declaration of
Independence about one hundred years later. When the Stuart dynasty was
finally expelled from the throne of England, the new sovereigns were
declared to be rulers “according to the desire and resolution of parliament”,
in other words by the consent of the English people through their
representatives. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century the theory
that government rests on the consent of the governed has been accepted in
all democratic countries.
Now if we hold this doctrine to be sound, as most What the consent of
men do today, it follows that when people establish a the governed implies.
government by their own consent, they are under obligation to submit to its

authority. Every right imposes a duty. The right to frame a constitution and
to adopt it as the basis of a new government carries the duty of supporting
the constitution and upholding the hands of those who exercise authority
under it. The people who claim the right to make the laws must be ready to
obey these laws when they are made. When men and women by their own
consent establish a government they do this because they expect to obtain
some advantages such as security, peace, and order. In return for these
advantages they must expect to yield obedience, pay taxes, adjust their
differences in the courts, and do whatever else a government reasonably
requires.
How Government Began.—But admitting that The social contract
government rests on the consent of the governed, how theory.
was this consent obtained, and how did the first government come into
existence? Here, again, there are two theories as to what happened. The first
is that the state and government originated in a “social contract”. Primitive
men, living in a condition of political chaos, made a general covenant, by
which they created a sovereign power to rule them. This idea is as old as the
days of Plato, but it did not take strong hold on the minds of men until a
few centuries ago. It was put forward by Thomas Hobbes in England to
defend absolutism, his argument being that to dethrone a king was to break
the contract upon which the state had been founded. On the other hand it
was used by John Locke to prove that the people of England had a right to
dethrone a monarch if the monarch failed to abide by the terms of the social
contract, and those who compare certain passages in Locke’s book with the
Declaration of Independence will see that the framers of that daring
document were much influenced by his assertions. Even in America the
contract theory took a strong hold. The Mayflower pilgrims, lying off the
rock-bound shores of New England, drew up and signed a formal document
wherein they solemnly covenanted and combined themselves into a “civil
body politic”. The doctrine found frequent expression in the writings of
Jefferson and Madison; but while it afforded an excellent basis for
arguments in defence of revolutions against despotism the theory that the
state had its origin in a social contract has long since been abandoned as
unhistorical. It assumes that primitive men were free and equal individuals
subject to no paternal authority, whereas, as a matter of history, freedom
and equality among men arose only after states had been formed.

The true explanation of how government began is to The theory of political
be found by applying to the study of political science evolution.
the methods of biology. We do not know exactly where or when the first
government came into existence, but we do know that all political
institutions are the result of a gradual evolution or development.
We have already seen that the earliest social unit is the family—a small
group of individuals bound together by intimate ties. But the family was but
one unit in a larger group, the clan, made up of families assumed to be
descended from a common ancestor. The various clans united to form the
tribe which, as an organization, rested upon a common race, language, and
religion. These tribes, although at first roving bodies, wandering from place
to place, at length acquired some definite territory and settled permanently
there. The beginnings of a state were then at hand and with the state, or
even before it, came government. In all probability that is the process
through which the earliest governments came into being,—a process
extending through many generations. The tribal chiefs became kings and
passed on the kingship to their sons. As time went on the kings gathered
greater power until despotism became the customary form of government in
most countries of the world. It was not until near the end of the eighteenth
century that the world began to shake off the despotic authority of kings and
to establish governments based upon the consent of the people.
The Classification of Governments.—During this Aristotle’s
long evolution from the early tribal organizations down classification.
to the complex governments of the present day many forms of rule have
been tried in various countries. Even in ancient Greece the philosopher
Aristotle was able to divide states into six classes, three of which he called
normal types and three perverted. Where political power was lodged in the
hands of a single individual, he called the state a monarchy; where it was
lodged with a few men he called it an aristocracy; and where it was vested
in many hands he called it a democracy. Each of these normal types had its
corresponding perversion or travesty. A perverted monarchy he termed
despotism; a perverted aristocracy he termed oligarchy; and a perverted
democracy he called a demagogism or state ruled by mob methods. This
method of classifying states is of little value today and would be in many
ways misleading.
Modern states are more commonly classed as Monarchies and
monarchies and republics. The former includes those in republics.

which the chief executive officer of the state—be he king, emperor, or other
potentate—holds his position by hereditary right; the latter includes those in
which he is selected in some other way. But even this classification is not
very enlightening. It does not tell us anything definite about the degree of
actual control which the people of a state exercise over their government. In
some monarchies like Great Britain the power of the people, exercised
through their representatives, is very great; in some republics, in China for
example, this power is very slight. The term republic is nowadays far from
being synonymous with democracy; nor is the term monarchy incompatible
with it. Various so-termed republics of Central and South America have
been in fact little more than military despotisms.
Another classification, much more useful, is that National and federal
which separates national from federal states. By the states.
former term we mean a unified state with a single government which
reaches down directly to the citizen. Great Britain is a national state with a
monarchical form of government; France is also a national state with a
republican form of government. A federal state, on the other hand, is an
agglomeration of smaller states, each of which retains its own government
but with a central government possessing certain powers over them all. The
German empire, a few years ago, was an example of a federal state under a
monarchical form of government, while the United States affords an
illustration of federalism with republican institutions. This classification is
worth while, for it tells us something tangible about the states so classified.
When we say that a state is of the federal type we imply that it has two
spheres of government within it; that is has a written constitution defining
these spheres; that the upper house of its parliament or legislature in some
way represents the component units of the federation and that it has, in all
probability, some powerful arbiter such as a supreme court to decide
conflicts of authority between the nation and its component parts.
Practically all federal states, at any rate, have these political characteristics.
One cannot imagine a successful federal state without a written constitution,
without division of political powers, without some existing authority to
decide between the respective claims of the whole and its parts.
But the most important thing that a student of True and false
government ought to know about any state is whether it democracies.
merely possesses the forms of democracy or whether the people in fact
control the government. Nearly all present-day states have the external

forms of democracy, that is to say, they have representative legislatures or
parliaments which bulk large in the general scheme of government. But as
to the actualities of democracy, the extent to which these representative
bodies really direct and control the affairs of state, there is a considerable
difference among the nations. A classification of states from this point of
view can be made only after a careful study of their actual governments. It
is not the form of government which makes a democracy, but the way in
which popular control of public affairs is actually secured and sustained.
Is Democracy the Best Form of Government?— The spread of
During the past few years democracy has been rapidly democracy.
gaining ground. The governments of Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland,
and other countries have been reconstructed in such way as to give them,
outwardly at any rate, the rank of democratic states. But in spite of this
phenomenal progress, which came on the heels of the World War, it remains
a fact that more than half the population of the world is still living under
systems of government which the people do not control. The world has not
yet been made safe for democracy, nor half of it.
This suggests the question whether democracy is the best form of
government for all races and under all circumstances. Is it best for
backward races, for races only partly civilized? Is it the best system for
people who have had very little political experience, such as the Egyptians,
the Chinese, and the Filipinos? Are we quite certain, in fact, that it is the
best form of government for fully civilized mankind? Most people have
always felt sure that democracy is the nearest approach to an ideal form of
government, but if you ask their reasons for this belief, you will frequently
find that they have never thought of any reasons. Democracy has been and
is being severely criticized by various writers who declare that it merely
places political power in the hands of the ignorant and unthinking masses,
that it leads to wastefulness, extravagance, and corruption, that it fosters
incompetence in public office, and that it results in woeful misgovernment.
[18]

Now it is quite true that democracy does all this in some cases, but
however grave the indictment may be, the friends of democracy can always
answer: “What better alternative do you offer?” The great Italian statesman,
Cavour, once remarked that, whatever faults it might have, a legislative
chamber was better than a king’s antechamber. The justification of
democracy is that it ensures, not necessarily the best government, or even

good government; but the sort of government the people earn for
themselves. A stream does not rise higher than its source. Nor can a
representative government reach any higher level than that on which the
people maintain it. It will reflect the intelligence, honesty, and patriotism of
the governed. That is one reason why we should not apply to backward
races the same principles of government which we apply to more civilized
people. Democracy is the best form of government for those who are able to
govern themselves, but this does not include all the people of the earth by
any means.
The Purpose of Government.—Having seen how How a government
governments originated, what forms they have fulfils its purpose.
assumed, and why they ought to be obeyed, it may be well to ask ourselves:
What is the purpose of government? What ends does it serve?
The purpose of government is to promote the interests of each by
promoting the interests of all. This end it seeks to attain in various ways. It
protects the whole body of its people against external aggression, against
foreign invasion. It also in this connection maintains the rights and liberties
of its citizens against wrongful interference on the part of foreign states or
citizens. It is for this purpose that armies and navies are maintained. The
government safeguards its own citizens from injustice at the hands of one
another. This it does by laws which define the relations of individuals to one
another, and of one group of individuals to other groups. These laws
prescribe the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of landlord
and tenant, of employer and employee, of office-holder and citizen—they
define and regulate every person’s rights and duties towards others. In order
that we may exercise our rights and perform our duties we must first know
what they are. The state, through its laws, tells us. Through its courts,
moreover, it applies such pressure upon reluctant individuals as may be
necessary to make these rights and duties real. In a word, government exists
to enforce rights and to secure liberty.
Were every individual immune from the jurisdiction Relation of
of any superior authority, and free to do as he pleased, government to
individual rights.
he would have to accord every other individual the
same immunity and the same freedom. He would then have no rights that
anyone else would be bound to respect. He would have no liberty that
others could not, by force, take away from him. He would have no security
against violence to his person or property. The strength of his own strong

arm would be his only protection. What a condition of chaos, injustice,
bloodshed, and anarchy that would be!
Not all the government’s work, however, takes the The constructive work
form of protection and regulation. Its functions are of government.
constructive as well. Through its various departments it actively promotes
the general interest and thereby the interests of each citizen. It not only
protects the public health by regulations and restrictions; it fosters and
promotes things that help to raise the general standards of health among the
people. It does not merely make rules to prevent ships from colliding with
one another; it sets out buoys and beacons, builds lighthouses, and
maintains life-saving stations. It does not merely protect agriculture by
regulations to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and pests; it actively
assists the improvement of agriculture by means of experiment stations and
the distribution of educational literature. The government, indeed, is the
greatest of all the agencies through which society undertakes its tasks of
using the resources of nature to the best advantage, eliminating friction and
waste, adjusting the conflicting claims of individuals, and giving to each
and all an equal opportunity.
From all this it ought to be apparent that the state and The citizen’s
its government are the agencies through which the obligationsgovernment.
to his

individual obtains rights, protection, assistance, and
liberty. But neither rights nor liberty can be achieved without incurring an
obligation in return. To the state, which secures us rights and liberties, we
owe the duty of patriotism. Patriotism is not a mere sentiment. It is a
concrete expression, by thought, word, and act, of the citizen’s respect for
the state to which he belongs. It should be based upon recognition of the
fact that without the security, the justice, and the freedom which the state
provides, life would not be worth living. Patriotism is a mixture of pride,
gratitude, and faith,—pride in the great community to which a man belongs,
gratitude for what it is doing, and faith in what it may do for posterity.
How Far should Governments Go?—One of the The limits of
live questions of the present day concerns the extent to governmental action.
which the government ought to go in trying to fulfil these various purposes.
Should it merely make laws, coin money, establish post offices, maintain an
army, or should it actively engage in such activities as operating the
railroads, the coal mines, and even the factories of the country? On the one
hand there are those who take an individualistic or laissez-faire attitude

towards governmental policy and maintain that the government should
interfere as little as possible with the daily life of the people. It should
confine itself, the individualist claims, to political matters purely, leaving
economic affairs entirely alone. At the other extreme are the socialists, who
believe that the government ought to step in and directly control all
important agencies of production. It should own all the land, the public
utilities such as railroads and telegraph lines, the mines, and all the agencies
of production (pp. 481-488).
Both individualism and socialism represent extremes; most men take a
midway stand as regards the proper functions of government. The greatest
good of the greatest number among the people cannot be secured unless the
government interferes to some extent with the free play of economic forces.
It must prevent gross injustice wherever gross injustice appears. No
government fulfils its highest aim unless it becomes an ever-active force in
making our common life more human and more fruitful in the good will of
class toward class and of man toward man. On the other hand it must take
care not to invade the field of private enterprise so far as to take upon itself
greater burdens than can be properly carried.
Too much government is as bad as too little. In a democracy, where
public officials are chosen by popular vote, often with little reference to
their personal ability, there are obvious limits to what a government can do
and do well. The individualist starts with the assumption that governments
are always inefficient when they meddle in affairs of everyday life. The
socialist, on the other hand, assumes that governments can always secure
better results than private enterprise in any field of economic activity. The
truth, as usual, lies between the extremes. To fix a rigid line between the
two sets of functions, as one would draw the boundary of two countries on a
map, is impossible. To attempt this would be to forget that civilization is
ever moving on, bringing new social needs in its train. Every proposal to
extend the functions of government must be determined on its own merits
and not upon the basis of its conformance to any rule.
The World a Great Laboratory for Experiments Government as a
in Government.—Everywhere throughout the world science.
the process of experiment in forms of government is going on, twenty-four
hours a day, in ceaseless round. And it has been going on for more than two
thousand years. Every experiment in political organization that the human
mind can suggest has had, or is having, its trial somewhere. During the past

few years we have seen earth’s proud empires pass away and new republics
rise in their stead, just as two thousand years ago the great Roman republic
collapsed and an empire took its place. The astronomer who scans the
heavens with his telescope commands no such laboratory of endless
experiment and sees no such continuous panorama of change as the student
who watches with naked eye the political activities of his fellow-men. That
is what makes the study of government, when carefully pursued, the most
interesting and most instructive of all studies. “On earth”, as the poet Pope
has said, “there is nothing great but man”. And it is in his organized
activities that man shows himself at his best.
General References
James Bryce, Modern Democracies, especially Vol. I, pp. 24-50; II, pp. 335-610;
Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 1-68;
J. Q. Dealy, The State and Government, pp. 119-181;
J. W. Garner, Introduction to Political Science, pp. 86-204;
Stephen Leacock, Elements of Political Science, pp. 3-51; 141-153;
Cyclopedia of American Government. (See under State Government, Social Compact Theory,
Separation of Powers, etc.).

Group Problems
1. To what extent should the government engage in business? The original functions of
government. Growth of governmental activities. Extent of governmental enterprises in European
countries. Government enterprises in America. Effects of government enterprises on private
initiative. Effects on the government itself. Relation of government activities to the maintenance of
democracy. Conclusions. References: J. W. Garner, Introduction to Political Science, pp. 273-310;
Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 41-57; Stephen Leacock, Elements of Political Science, pp. 386-
409; J. G. Brooks, The Social Unrest, pp. 46-67.
2. The faults of democratic government. References E. L. Godkin, The Unforeseen Tendencies
of Democracy, pp. 96-144; Emile Faguet, The Cult of Incompetence, pp. 12-36; A. M. Kales,
Unpopular Government in the United States, pp. 21-90; Alleyne Ireland, Democracy and the
Human Equation, pp. 80-118; A. B. Cruikshank, Popular Misgovernment in the United States, pp.
1-27.
3. The merits of democratic government. References: C. W. Eliot, American Contributions to
Civilization, pp. 1-102; James Bryce, Modern Democracies, especially, Vol. II, pp. 527-610; J. Q.
Dealey, The State and Government, pp. 338-353.

Short Studies
1. What end does the state serve? Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 58-68.
2. The stages in the development of government. J. Q. Dealey, The State and Government, pp.
24-45.
3. The divine right of kings. R. G. Gettell, Readings in Political Science, pp. 118-120;
Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. I, p. 605.
4. The Mayflower compact. William MacDonald, Documentary Source Book of American
History, p. 19; Edward Channing, History of the United States, Vol. I, pp. 308-310.

5. Does federalism mean weak government? A. V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, pp. 162-
172; James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 334-341.
6. The system of checks and balances. W. B. Munro, The Government of the United States, pp.
47-52; The Federalist, No. 47.
7. The meaning of self-government. P. L. Kaye, Readings in Civil Government, pp. 15-21.
8. The relation of government to economic life. S. P. Orth, Readings in the Relation of
Government to Property and Industry, pp. 25-38.
9. The first principles of democracy. F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in
Reconstruction, pp. 48-66.
10. Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. A. C. McLaughlin, Steps in the Development of
American Democracy, pp. 78-116.
11. The outlook for democracy in America. F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy, pp. 438-
448.
12. The economic functions of government. C. J. Bullock, Introduction to the Study of
Economics, pp. 478-492.

Questions
1. What is the difference between a state and society? Is India a state? Are the Esquimos a state?
Are pirates citizens or subjects of a state? Did the Mayflower Pilgrims constitute a state before they
touched land?
2. Has the doctrine of evolution affected our ideas concerning the origin of government? Are there
any primitive types of government in the world today?
3. Give some examples of the “constructive work of government” besides those mentioned in the
text.
4. Why are ancient classifications of government practically useless today? When you say that the
United States is a federal democratic republic what ideas do you intend to convey in each of the three
italicized words?
5. Do you believe that the plan of government now existing in the United States would be suitable
for (a) the British Empire; (b) China; (c) Switzerland; (d) Canada? Tell why or why not in each case.
6. Make up lists of the functions which properly belong to national, state, and local governments
respectively. Give your reasons for placing such things as “education”, “fire-protection”, “public
health”, “criminal law”, “conservation of natural resources”, and “regulation of commerce” in one or
the other list.
7. James Madison once said that the concentration of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in
the same hands would be “the very definition of tyranny”. What did he mean? Was he right? Does the
same danger exist today?
8. Arrange the mandatory functions of government in what you believe to be their order of
importance and give reasons for your arrangement.
9. Can you name any characteristics of American government other than those given in the text?
Do the following things distinguish American government from other governments: woman suffrage,
an elective president, the absence of an hereditary nobility, two-chambered legislatures, a supreme
court?
10. In what ways may direct government be better than representative government and in what
respects not so good? (Consider such general problems as ensuring responsiveness to the will of the
people, deliberation, the absence of corruption, educational value, and expense.)
11. What did President Wilson mean when he said that the world must be made “safe for
democracy”? Can the world be safe for democracy while great and powerful monarchies remain?
What changes in addition to the dethronement of the Kaiser did Americans consider essential in order
to make Germany a democracy?
12. Argue against the proposition that the study of government is the study of a science.

Topics for Debate
1. Written constitutions have been a hindrance rather than a help to the development of American
democracy.
2. Andrew Jackson was more of a democrat than Thomas Jefferson.
3. It is not right under any circumstances to subject a people to government without their own
consent. #/

CHAPTER V
THE CITIZEN, HIS RIGHTS AND DUTIES

The purpose of this chapter is to explain who are citizens, what their rights and duties are,
and how training for citizenship is obtained.

What Civil Liberty Means.—One of the best ways The old systems of
to get an appreciation or what civil liberty means is to oppression.
read any book which describes the life of the French people before the
Revolution. In those days men could be arrested without any reason, thrown
into jail for months or years without trial, and their property confiscated. No
one could travel from one part of the country to another without permission.
There was no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of the
press. Nothing could be printed without a license from the authorities. The
farmer who brought his produce into town had to pay a toll on it. The
workman, in order to follow his trade, was required to join a guild and pay a
fee. The amount of taxes which every farmer or workman had to pay
depended upon the will of the tax-collectors, who made a profit out of the
taxes. Soldiers were billeted or boarded in the homes of the people and the
king paid nothing for it. The masses of the people toiled hard in order that
princes and noblemen might live in luxury. That was the Bourbon
despotism of old France.
Things are very different in France today under a republican form of
government; they are different everywhere throughout Europe and America.
Despotic rule has given way to government by the people, and government
by the people has brought civil liberty.

LIBERTY, FRATERNITY, EQUALITY. By Edward Simmons

Copyright by Edward Simmons. From a Copley Print, copyright by
Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission.

LIBERTY, FRATERNITY, EQUALITY

By Edward Simmons
In the New York Criminal Court House.
This mural decoration is placed above the pen in which
the prisoners are kept. Equality, holding a globe and
compasses, displays a sternness and rigor which Fraternity,
with a kindly grip of the arm, is seeking to soften. Liberty, to
the right, has broken the chain which held him down, in
spirit as well as in body. These three words, Liberté, Egalité,
Fraternité, formed the motto of the French Revolution, and
they have been the slogan of militant democracy ever since.

This civil liberty, as it exists in the United States, includes the following
rights:
1. To travel freely from place to place on any lawful The general rights of
errand, and everywhere to be accorded the equal citizens.
protection of the laws. The citizen of New York who goes to California is
not an alien there. He is entitled to all the privileges which belong to an
American citizen.
2. To own property, make contracts, and engage in any lawful trade or
labor.
3. To enjoy freedom of worship, freedom of speech, and freedom from
arbitrary arrest.
4. To have a fair trial when accused of any crime; to be protected in the
enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and not to be deprived of them
without due process of law.
Civil Rights were Won by Hard Struggles.—Now these rights did not
descend upon mankind like manna from the skies. They were gained for the
people by prolonged struggles extending over many centuries. Thousands of
men, at various times in history, gave their lives in order that these rights
might be established. If you were writing a history of civil liberty among
English-speaking people, you would have to go back at least seven hundred
years to the days of Magna Carta, when King John of England was forced
to surrender in that famous document many of the arbitrary powers which
he had claimed the right to exercise. There, on the historic field of
Runnymede, the sullen king promised among other things that no free man
should be imprisoned or fined or outlawed or otherwise penalized “save by
the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”. The winning of
the Great Charter was merely the first encounter in a long series of conflicts
between the kings and the people of England. Step by step the people
wrested from the Crown the right to control taxation, to punish royal
officials for wrong-doing, to be supreme in the making of laws, and even to
change their entire form of government should they so desire. It was a long
and grim struggle, hard-fought all the way.

“Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing
Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King”.

The beginnings of
civil liberty in

The men who founded the American colonies America.
brought these rights across the Atlantic with them. In the new soil civic
liberty grew and nourished even better than in the old, so much so that
Englishmen at home soon became concerned over the strong emphasis
which the colonies were placing upon the civil rights of the individual. The
gap between the colonies and Great Britain steadily widened in this respect,
—leading in the end to the Declaration of Independence, which asserted the
civil rights of men to be natural and inalienable. When independence had
been established, after a long and difficult struggle, it is not surprising that
the people of the thirteen states should decide to write the principles of civil
liberty into their new state constitutions. They took this means of
demonstrating their conviction that the fundamental rights of the citizen
ought to be inscribed in a solemn document beyond the power of
legislatures to change. It would be absurd to think, however, that civil
liberty exists in the United States merely because a list of civil rights is
written into the constitutions of the states and the nation. In the last analysis
civil rights depend for their maintenance and enforcement upon a
realization of their value by the whole people and the willingness of every
citizen to grant to others the rights which he claims for himself.
Who are Citizens?—The proudest boast of the Citizenship and
Roman, in the days when Rome dominated the world allegiance.
was Civis Romanus sum: “I am a Roman citizen”. By this saying he meant
that he was entitled to the protection of the most powerful country on earth.
Cicero, in one of his orations, declared that these three words would protect
any Roman citizen no matter where he went, even among savage tribes. A
Roman citizen was one who owed allegiance to Rome. An American citizen
is one who owes allegiance to the United States.[19] Every man, woman, and
child in every part of the world bears a relation to some government, and
this relation we call allegiance. There is no such thing, in the eyes of the
law, as “a man without a country”. This allegiance, or Citizenship by birth.
citizenship, is acquired in the great majority of cases by birth. The
constitution of the United States declares that “all persons born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”. This
means that every child born in this country and subject to its jurisdiction is
a citizen, no matter who his parents happen to be.[20]

The other method of acquiring citizenship is by Citizenship by
naturalization. Naturalization is the process by which naturalization.
an alien renounces his original allegiance and swears allegiance to another
country. All white aliens, and those of African blood, are entitled to become
citizens of the United States by naturalization if they fulfil the legal
requirements. The chief requirement is that the alien who seeks to be
naturalized must have been continuously a resident of the United States for
at least five years. He must also be able to read and write, must have some
knowledge of American institutions, must be of good character, and must
not be a disbeliever in organized government. The The process in
process of individual naturalization involves two steps, naturalization.
first a formal declaration of intent to become a citizen, and, second, the
taking of final letters of citizenship. At least two years, and not more than
seven years, must elapse between these two steps. The work of granting
citizenship by naturalization is in the hands of such regular courts as are
designated by law for this purpose. Applications must be on prescribed
forms; evidence as to residence has to be presented; and the oath of
allegiance to the United States must be taken. Many thousands of aliens are
admitted to citizenship in this way every year.[21] The naturalization of a
husband also naturalizes his wife without any action on her part. The
naturalization of a father makes all his minor children citizens.
Can a Man have Double Citizenship?—Is it possible for anyone to be a
citizen of two countries at once? Until recent years it was the practice of
some European countries to claim that when their citizens emigrated and
became naturalized elsewhere they still retained their original allegiance.
Germany, for example, maintained that German emigrants to the United
States did not lose their German citizenship by becoming naturalized here.
If they subsequently returned to Germany, even for a short time, they were
treated as German citizens, required to serve in the army and to perform the
other obligations of German citizenship. This situation created a great deal
of friction because the naturalized citizens were in the habit of calling upon
the United States to protect them against their own original governments.
All this has now been straightened out by treaties between the United States
and foreign governments in which the latter have conceded the right of
emigrants to become naturalized in the United States and by so doing to
renounce their original citizenship. The United States, for its part, also
concedes the right of any American citizen to become naturalized in a

foreign country, thereby renouncing his allegiance as an American citizen.
These treaties sometimes provide, however, that if an individual who has
been naturalized in the United States goes back to his native country and
remains there a certain length of time, he shall be deemed to have given up
his American citizenship.
The Obligations of Citizenship.—Many people The specific duties of
seem to think that citizenship involves only rights. They citizens.
rarely place much emphasis upon the duties which citizenship involves. A
government protects its citizens both at home and abroad; it secures them
all the benefits of civil liberty. In return it lays on them the duty of
obedience and the obligation of service. It is the duty of every good citizen
to know his country’s history, to honor its flag, and to be true to its ideals.
This does not mean that he should despise or dislike people who are not of
his own race or allegiance. All men are brothers. Above all nations is
humanity. Yet no one can be a friend of mankind unless he is, first of all, a
friend of his own land.
It is also the duty of the citizen to know his country’s laws and to obey
them. No one knows all the laws, or needs to know them all, for very few of
them touch the daily life of any one individual. He should know the laws in
so far as he comes into contact with them. The merchant must know the
laws relating to business; there is no need for him to learn the legal rules
relating to the practice of medicine, for example. The physician, on his part,
must know the law in so far as it relates to his own profession, but does not
need to inform himself concerning the laws which relate to the buying and
selling of goods. Laws are made in the common interest and if ignorance of
the law were permitted to be an excuse for disobedience, the whole system
of government would soon break down.
Finally, it is the duty of the citizen to serve his government when called
upon. This may take the form of military service in time of war, or service
in public office, or service on a jury. All these various forms of service may
involve great personal sacrifice; but a country worth having is a country
worth serving, and it is only through service on the part of its citizens that a
free government can be maintained.
Training for Citizenship in the Schools.—Training for citizenship
begins in the home and in the schools. The purpose of the school is not
merely to impart information. That is a small part of its work. Its main
function is to afford the sort of mental and moral training that will enable

every pupil to achieve the durable satisfactions of life,—to make a good
living, to be of high service to others, and to leave the world a little better
by reason of his having lived in it. Many of the best fruits of education are
not found listed on the school program. Orderliness is one of them. Industry
is another. Responsibility for doing daily tasks well is a third. There are no
special courses in these things. They are part and parcel of the whole
process of education. No one should make the mistake of supposing that the
schools train for citizenship through instruction in American history, civics,
and economics alone. The whole organization of the school, its entire
program of studies, its assemblies, its discipline, its insistence on
punctuality, its organized athletics and other activities,—all these things
afford lessons in co-operation, responsibility, service, and government.
The public school is a miniature democracy. It is free How the public
and open to all. Its pupils have equal privileges and schools teach
democracy.
equal responsibilities. It makes no distinction of race,
creed, or wealth. The children of rich and poor parents sit side by side and
are given the same opportunities. Every pupil who enrolls in a public school
gets the same start and his advancement depends upon his own efforts. In
the course of time some will lead and others fall behind, just as men and
women do in the outside world. Wherever individuals, young or old, are
gathered together, some will forge ahead of the rest by virtue of their
natural ability, their superior industry, or their qualities of leadership.
School experience should impress this great fact of democratic life upon
every pupil’s mind. The pupil who imagines that he can be regularly behind
in his studies, neglectful of his opportunities, unable to command the
respect of his teachers or his fellows in the school, and yet hope to become
a leader in the outside world is making a grave mistake. It is not thus that
the leaders of men are trained. The useful citizen does not become so in a
day or a year. He begins to develop his qualities while he is young.[22]
Training for Citizenship on the Playground.—Recreation and play,
when properly carried on, afford not only exercise and amusement, but
education as well. Some useful lessons which cannot well be taught in the
class-room are learned by participation in organized athletics. Everyone
realizes, for example, that play in which there is no leadership, no
observance of rules, and no system, is a very poor sort of play. It may give
physical exercise in plenty, yet it satisfies nobody. Anarchy on the
playground is no more satisfying than anarchy in any other branch of

human activity. Hence, whenever a group of young men or young women
go to the athletic field, their first step is to organize into teams or sides.
Each team has its captain whose directions are to be obeyed, not because he
is an autocrat, but because the team cannot hope to win unless it is provided
with leadership. When play begins it is conducted according to rules which
everyone is supposed to know and observe. If the contest is important, an
umpire is selected to act as arbitrator on questions involving an infraction of
the rules. Now all this is merely government on a small scale. The element
of leadership, the team-play, the rules, the practice of obeying the umpire—
these things should suggest to us that officials, laws, government, and
courts also make for the best interests of the individual in the great interplay
of life.
What is it that secures co-operation, obedience, and The spirit that rules
good temper on the playground? Is it the fear of the playground.
punishment? No, it is the same force which in organized society secures
obedience to law and respect for the rights of others, namely, the influence
of public opinion. Public opinion, in other words an inherent sense of fair
play among the players, is what really rules the playground. Bullying or
meanness in any form results in unpopularity. The player who sulks, who
shirks his part in the game, or who selfishly seeks his own way at all times
is not preparing himself rightly to win the confidence and respect of his
fellow-citizens in later life. On the other hand the boy or girl who gains on
the playground a reputation for fairness, good temper, and a readiness to act
in harmony with others is developing those qualities of character which
enable men and women to achieve success in any field of adult activity. The
Duke of Wellington once declared that the battle of Waterloo was won on
the playing fields of Eton,—a famous boys’ school in England. What he
meant was that this victory was won not by military skill alone, but by those
qualities of discipline and bull-dog tenacity which the officers of his army
had developed on the school athletic fields in their boyhood days. Peace
hath her victories not less renowned than war. Good citizens as well as good
soldiers can be trained on the playgrounds of every community.[23]
Training for Citizenship in Later Life.—Civic College education and
education is not completed when one graduates from citizenship.
school. A man’s whole life is a process of education, a process that is never
finished until he dies. So the work of self-improvement should not be
interrupted at any stage. If the pupil goes to college, it will be found that

there the same qualities of obedience, industry, and respect for the rights of
others will determine whether he stands high or low in the estimation of his
equals. In the college as in the school, everyone starts upon the same plane
with equal opportunities. The college also is an organization with officials
in authority, with rules, and with a vigilant public opinion among its
students. Compared with the school it rises a step nearer to the ways of the
world, giving its students greater latitude but also placing more
responsibility upon them. Its organized athletics develop the same qualities
as are encouraged upon the school playground; its various other student
activities help to make young men and women more versatile and broader
in their interests. Colleges try to make scholars; they also endeavor to
develop habits of industry in their students and to impress upon them the
duty of service to their fellow-men. On the whole the colleges have
succeeded in these things. It is significant that the great majority of the
nation’s leaders, in every branch of life, are men and women who have had
a college education.
Not all high school graduates, however, go to college. The majority go
directly out into the world as wage earners or home makers. They enter the
ranks of our great economic society and seek to move onward to the top.
For the most part all must begin at the bottom, or very near it. A high school
or college education does not relieve anyone from the necessity of starting
on a low rung of the ladder in his chosen trade or profession. Neither the
school nor the college can teach the actual process of earning a living. This
must be learned by direct contact with the affairs of the world. But the
school and the college can so prepare young citizens that they will climb
faster by virtue of the mental training they have obtained and the habits of
industry they have acquired.
Citizenship and Service.—To make one’s own way Public service is a
successfully in the world is a laudable ambition, but no duty of the citizen.
one can be and remain a good citizen if he devotes his entire time and
thought to his own self-advancement. It is well to be diligent in business
and faithful to the immediate duty in hand, but no inspiring career has ever
been built upon foundations of selfishness. If everyone is engrossed in his
own affairs, there will be none to serve and aid the state. On the other hand
a very small amount of public service freely and cheerfully given by every
citizen, results in great benefits to the community which receives this

service, and to the individuals who give it as well. In this sense, as in all
others, it is more blessed to give than to receive.
The ways of service are manifold. Every community How this service may
has its civic and welfare organizations whose aim is the be rendered.
general good. They draw their members and their active workers from
among those citizens who are public spirited. Boards of trade and chambers
of commerce devote themselves to advancing the economic interests of the
community. Municipal improvement leagues, citizens’ associations, men’s
clubs, and women’s societies are to be found in every large town or city;
they have various aims but all are guided by the same general aspiration,
which is to better the environment in which the people live. The
opportunities for women have been greatly increased by giving them the
same responsibilities as men in all public activities. There are organizations
for the care of the poor, for visiting the sick, and for the prevention of
cruelty in all its forms. All depend for the effectiveness of their work, and
even for their very existence, upon the degree of interest given to them by
public-spirited citizens. There is no one so poor or so busy that he can give
no money, no time, and no sympathy to any public cause. The citizen who
centers all his interest upon his own personal affairs is not only missing one
of the durable satisfactions of life but is giving himself a schooling in
selfishness. He is not a good citizen in the proper sense of the term.
Service in public office is the best training for good The value of
citizenship, although not all men and women can have experience
office.
in public

this form of civic education. Yet everyone has a right to
aspire to it, and ought to welcome the opportunity of such service if it
comes. It does not usually come unearned. Like most other opportunities,
this one knocks at the doors of those who have earned their right to it. Men
and women who have displayed no evidence of public spirit are rarely
called upon to let their names go on the ballot. The first step to honorable
public office is taken when one joins a civic or welfare organization and
shows ability to work with and for others. Thus a man’s acquaintance, or a
woman’s acquaintance, gradually broadens; the confidence of others is
gained; and in time the hand of the public beckons to those who have
demonstrated their spirit of service.
Public office is a public trust. The proffer of its opportunities to any man
or woman is a high compliment. Election to public office is the highest
honor a democratic community can bestow. As a means of becoming well

versed in public affairs and in the practical problems of government there is
no training which surpasses it.
General References
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 73-80;
W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 71-87;
J. A. Woodburn and T. F. Moran, The Citizen and the Republic, pp. 1-31;
S. W. McCall, The Liberty of Citizenship, pp. 1-31;
James Bryce, The Hindrances to Good Citizenship, especially pp. 43-74;
F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy, pp. 80-129;
S. E. Baldwin, The Relations of Education to Citizenship, pp. 27-54;
W. H. Taft, Four Aspects of Civic Duty, pp. 3-34.

Group Problems
1. How aliens are naturalized. The requirements. Who are excluded? Steps in naturalization
procedure, the papers, witnesses, oaths, fees, etc., required. The tests which applicants must take.
How aliens can best be encouraged to become naturalized. What is being done to secure the
naturalization of aliens in your own community? References: Cyclopedia of American Government,
Vol. II, pp. 497-498; W. B. Munro, Government of American Cities, pp. 107-111; H. M. Beck,
Aliens’ Text Book on Citizenship, especially pp. 9-26; Peter Roberts, The Problem of
Americanization, pp. 109-129; U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Naturalization, Syllabus of
the Naturalization Law (pamphlet).
2. Education in its relations to good citizenship. References: Irving King, Education for Social
Efficiency, pp. 90-176; James Bryce, The Hindrances to Good Citizenship, pp. 33-42; S. E. Baldwin,
The Relations of Education to Citizenship, pp. 1-26.
3. The civic organizations of your community. One or more organizations, such as Chambers of
Commerce, Boards of Trade, Citizens’ Associations, Men’s Clubs, Women’s Clubs, Civic Leagues,
Local Improvement Associations, City Clubs, Reform Associations, Family Welfare Societies, etc.,
etc., may be found in every large community. Their aims and activities may be studied in their annual
reports and by personal interviews with their officers.

Short Studies
1. First steps in civil liberty. James H. Tufts, Our Democracy, pp. 101-116.
2. What are the “privileges and immunities” of citizens? Arnold J. Lien, Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens of the United States, especially pp. 31-68.
3. Expatriation. G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 143-151; W. E. Hale,
International Law (4th ed.), pp. 239-255.
4. Freedom of speech and of the press. Cyclopedia of American Government, pp. 57-58; T. M.
Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, pp. 596-638.
5. Freedom of worship. James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. II, pp. 763-771; C. W.
Eliot, American Contributions to Civilization, pp. 18-21.
6. The rights of the citizen against the government. F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy,
pp. 80-96.
7. The right to fair judicial process. Emlin McClain, Constitutional Law of the United States,
pp. 315-332.
8. How the hindrances to good citizenship may be removed. S. E. Baldwin, The Relation of
Education to Citizenship, pp. 27-54.

9. The playground as a place of education for citizenship. Joseph Lee, Play in Education, pp.
360-391.
10. How the business man can help his community. Henry Bruère, The New City Government,
pp. 384-400.
11. How women can serve their community. Mary R. Beard, Woman’s Work in Municipalities,
especially pp. 319-337.
12. May the obstacles to good citizenship be overcome? James Bryce, The Hindrances to Good
Citizenship, pp. 105-134.
13. School government as a training for citizenship. U. S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 8
(1915), pp. 7-31; Irving King, Education for Social Efficiency, pp. 158-176.

Questions
1. What is the difference between the following: citizens, subjects, nationals, residents, denizens,
aliens?
2. What is meant by the expression to “swear allegiance”? To “forswear allegiance”? Repeat the
oath of allegiance. When is the oath taken (a) by aliens; (b) by citizens?
3. Are the following American citizens by birth: (a) a boy born abroad, of alien parentage, whose
parents came to the United States and were naturalized after he was over twenty-one years of age; (b)
children of Chinese parents, born in the United States; (c) children of American parents, born in the
Philippines; (d) children of Porto Rican parents, born in Europe since 1917?
4. Name four important civic rights. Arrange in each case a set of facts which would constitute a
violation of a civic right.
5. The constitution provides that the people shall have the right to assemble peaceably. Would it be
a violation of this right to require that a permit from the police must be had in order to hold any
meeting in the streets or in the public parks?
6. Discuss the extent to which the public school is a “miniature democracy”. Is it organized like a
democratic government? To what extent and under what circumstances can school pupils be entrusted
with self-government or given a share in the maintenance of discipline?
7. To what extent can public opinion be relied upon to enforce the rules (a) in athletics; (b) in the
class-rooms; (c) in business; (d) in government? Would laws be effective if there were no penalties
but the censure of public opinion to enforce them? If not, why not?
8. What is the value of a high school or college education in training young men and women (a) to
make a living; (b) to become leaders; (c) to help their fellow-citizens; (d) to hold public office?
Towards which of these things does education contribute the most?
9. Can any one be a good citizen without knowing how government is carried on? Without
knowing American history? Without belonging to any social or civic organization? Without voting at
elections? Without being at all interested in social or political questions?

Topics for Debate
1. No one who is not a citizen should be permitted to become a voter.
2. The obligation of military service ought to be imposed upon aliens as well as upon citizens.
3. The teaching of civics should be made compulsory in all grammar and high schools.

CHAPTER VI
POPULAR CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the people, both directly and indirectly, control
all branches of government in the United States.

Public Opinion and Representative Government

How the People Rule.—In free governments the The ultimate
will of the people prevails in the decision of all sovereignty
people.
of the

important matters. This does not mean, of course, that
the people decide every question directly, but merely that when a
substantial majority of them have reached a decision upon any point their
will prevails through one channel or another. The wishes of the American
people have at times been thwarted by their government; but in the long
run, when the people have made up their minds, their will has brushed aside
every obstacle and has become the supreme law of the land. This popular
control of American government is exerted in four ways, namely, by the
pressure of public opinion upon all officials, by the periodic election of
representatives, by direct law-making through the initiative and referendum,
and by the action of the people in amending their state constitutions.
The pressure of public opinion is continuous, and it is exerted in various
ways. The government cannot proceed very far in defiance of it. The
election of representatives, on the other hand, takes place at stated intervals,
and in the period between elections the people do not have direct control
over those whom they elect. But where provision for the initiative and
referendum exists, the people may frame and enact laws without the
intervention of their representatives and thus may exercise direct control.
Finally, the ultimate agency of popular sovereignty is the power of the
people to amend their constitutions. So far as the state constitutions are
concerned they accept or reject proposed changes by their own votes; in the
case of the national constitution they act through their representatives in
Congress and in the state legislatures. By these four methods of control we
maintain what is known as the sovereignty of the people.
Popular Rule through Public Opinion.—We hear a What is public
good deal nowadays about public opinion. What is it? opinion?
How is it ascertained? How does it make itself felt? In general, public
opinion is the term which we apply to the predominating sentiment among
the people. Public opinion is the sum-total of opinions held by individuals.
It is not merely the snap-judgment of the majority, however, because
intensity of belief is a factor which counts in determining it. Public opinion

is a composite of numbers and intensity. A majority of the people may hold
a certain belief upon any public question; but if they hold it lightly, without
attaching much importance to it, we do not speak of their sentiment as
public opinion. It is only when sentiment attains the earnestness of
conviction that the term public opinion can be properly applied to it.
Public opinion, in this sense, is continually exerting The channels through
pressure upon all branches of government in the United which felt.
it makes itself

States. It finds expression through the editorial columns
of newspapers, through resolutions adopted by societies and organizations,
through letters from voters to their representatives in Congress and in the
legislatures, and through the conversation of people wherever they are
gathered together. The representatives of the people are ever on the alert to
discern the drift of public opinion.[24] They desire to keep in touch with it. A
capable representative always keeps his hand upon the public pulse. When
public opinion undergoes a change, the attitude of the government swings
with it, slowly perhaps, but inevitably. Public opinion is not easy to
ascertain exactly, for it cannot be measured by any process of arithmetic.
Some men are better at gauging it than others. One of the attributes of a
successful politician is his ability to estimate public opinion accurately.
When we say, therefore, that we have “government by public opinion”, we
mean that those who are in authority are influenced and guided by it.
Popular Rule through Representatives.—Although Government by
public opinion exerts a guiding influence upon the representatives.
course of government, the actual work of making the laws and putting them
into operation must be performed, for the most part, by individuals selected
for this purpose, that is by elective or appointive officers. We say “elective
or appointive” because these are the two ways in which officers of
government may be chosen; they may be elected by popular vote, or they
may be appointed by some authority which, in turn, has been elected by the
people. The members of all legislative bodies in the United States
(Congress, the state legislatures, city and town councils) are directly elected
by the people. The chief executive officers in the nation, state, and city
(President, governors, and mayors) are chosen in the same way.[25] In many
states it is also the custom to choose some other executive officers, such as
the attorney-general, state auditors, superintendent of education, as well as
the judges and prosecuting attorneys by direct popular election. Subordinate
officers of administration, on the other hand, are for the most part

appointed. In the national government all officials of administration
subordinate to the President are appointed by him, likewise all judges and
court officers. In the state and local governments, some subordinate officers
are elected but most of them are appointed by the governor, the county
commissioners, or the mayor, as the case may be.
Election or Appointment, Which is Better?—We When we should elect
often encounter the question: Which is the better plan and when appoint.
of securing good men in public office—to elect them or to have them
appointed? The answer to this question depends upon what we expect the
officials to do. If the function of the official is to represent the people in
deciding questions of general policy as in the case of a congressman, a state
legislator, or a municipal councilman, the people ought to choose him. It is
the right and the duty of the people to choose their own representatives. If
they did not do so, we should not have “representative” government. But if
the function of the official is not to decide questions of general policy but to
do work which requires skill and experience, it is better to make the office
appointive. The rule, in brief, may be stated as follows: When you want
representation, elect; when you want skill or experience, appoint. Some
difficulty arises, however, in the case of officials who are expected both to
represent the people and to perform functions which require expertness.
Take, for example, the state treasurer or the state auditor. These officials
represent the financial interests of the people; they are also called upon to
perform functions which require skill and experience. Officials in this dual
class are in some states elected; in others they are appointed by the
governor. Whether we ought to use one method or the other depends upon
where we place the emphasis—upon representation or upon administrative
efficiency. Account should also be taken of the fact that if too many
officials are elected the ballot will be long and complicated. In that case
some poorly-qualified candidates are likely to be chosen because voters will
not go through a long list carefully (see p. 132).
The Function of a Representative.—The function Should a
of a representative, as the term implies, is to represent. representative obey
his own conscience or
But how is he to be guided in the performance of this the will of the voters?
function? Is it the duty of a representative in Congress
or in a state legislature to reflect the public opinion of his district whether
he personally agrees with it or not? Should he obey the dictates of his own
conscience and follow his own view of what the public welfare demands, or

should he disregard these things and consider only the opinions of those
voters who elected him? Let us suppose, for example, that a congressman
personally believes in free trade. He is absolutely convinced, let us assume,
that this is the only right policy. But he also knows, let us say, that the
voters of his district are overwhelmingly in favor of high protective duties
because they believe that wages will be higher if foreign goods are shut out.
What is the duty of this congressman when called upon to vote for or
against a protective tariff? Which should control—his own conviction or the
opinions of those who elected him as their representative?
Many years ago the eminent Irish orator and Edmund Burke’s
statesman, Edmund Burke, gave his opinion on this views.
matter in a speech to the voters of Bristol, whom he represented in the
British House of Commons. A representative, according to Burke, ought to
give due weight to the opinions of those who elected him, but he ought not
to sacrifice his own best judgment to any man or to any group of men. It is
the function of a representative to master all the details of public problems,
which the people of his district cannot be expected to do, and to make his
decision accordingly. “I maintained your interests against your opinions,”
he said to the voters of Bristol in defending his actions. “A representative
worthy of you ought to be a person of stability. I am to look, indeed, to your
opinions, but to such opinions as you and I must have five years hence. I am
not to look to the flash of the day.”
Public officials in the United States do not usually talk that way. They
dilate upon the wisdom of the people, and profess their own readiness to
conform to whatever the people demand. They are prone to forget that a
representative in Congress or in a state legislature does not represent his
own district alone. He is in effect a representative of the whole people in
nation or state. It is poor patriotism to sacrifice the best interests of the
whole to the desires of any single community. At the same time when
public opinion is strong and clear, we expect the representatives of the
people to hearken to it. When it is vague or in doubt, the representative
must depend upon his own judgment. If a representative cannot, because of
his own conscientious belief, do what the people expect him to do, his duty
is to resign. Representatives, however, do not often resign for this or any
other reason.
The Appointment of Public Officials.

Methods of Appointment.—There are three ways of making
appointments. First, appointments may be made by some high executive
officer, such as the President or the governor of a state, subject to the
confirmation of a legislative body. Second, they may be made by the
executive without the advice and consent of anyone else. Third, they may
be made under civil service rules by a competitive examination.[26]
Appointments with Confirmation.—In the national The merits and
government practically all appointments of high defects of
confirmation.
importance, including heads of departments,
ambassadors, judges, and so on, are made by the President subject to the
consent of the Senate. The President nominates, but the final appointment
depends upon confirmation by a majority of the senators (see p. 270). So in
state government the appointment of higher administrative officials is
usually shared by the governor and the upper chamber of the state
legislature. In the larger cities it has been the custom to require
confirmation of the mayor’s appointments by the city council or the upper
branch of it; but this requirement is now being generally abandoned. The
purpose of requiring confirmation is to prevent too great a growth in power
on the part of the chief executive; its effect has been to divide responsibility
and it has resulted, very often, in poor appointments. It is good policy, in
local and state government at least, to insist that the responsibility for
appointments shall be centralized and not divided. In the national
government, where the appointing power is of such enormous importance,
and might, if unchecked, be so easily used to perpetuate a President in
office, the safeguard of confirmation is more easily justified.
Appointments without Confirmation.—The practice of permitting a
chief executive to make appointments without confirmation began in the
large cities. New York made the start, many years ago, by allowing the
mayor to appoint the heads of the city departments on his own
responsibility. Since then the plan has spread widely and in some cases the
states have given the governor a similar power. In other cases the
confirmation has become, for the most part, a matter of routine, the
understanding being that the governor has the real responsibility and hence
should be left free to make his own selections.

The Civil Service System.

Patronage and Partisanship.—When appointments Giving the offices to
are made by an executive officer, with or without politicians.
confirmation, or by a legislative body, there is always a danger that partisan
motives will influence the selection. Nearly all executive and legislative
officers are themselves partisan. They are themselves nominated, in most
cases, by party conventions or primaries; they are elected with the aid of
party workers; and they are therefore under obligation to help the party
interest in any reasonable way. Now it has been commonly believed that
one effective way of helping a party organization is to appoint prominent
and active members of the party to public office, thus giving a reward for
their work in the party’s behalf. Men who have helped a President or a
governor to gain the party nomination and get elected do not usually allow
these officials to forget their obligations when appointments are to be made.
The appointing power, in other words, may be used as a means of
bestowing “patronage”, or rewards for party service and it has been so used
in all branches of American government.
Rise of the Spoils System.—In the earlier days of the Republic it was
the custom to make appointments with little or no reference to party
politics.[27] But with the election of Andrew Jackson officials were removed
in large numbers to provide patronage for the leaders of the victorious
political party. Jackson’s supporters frankly enunciated the doctrine that “to
the victors belong the spoils”, hence the practice of displacing one set of
officials and filling the vacant posts with another set became known as the
“spoils system”. From this time to 1883, a full half-century, it was
customary to remove large numbers of administrative officials whenever a
new President came in. The notion spread that offices ought to be passed
around; that four years was long enough for anyone to be on the public
payroll, and that in a democracy everyone ought to have his share of the
patronage.
The Iniquities of the Spoils System.—This doctrine, although it was for
more than fifty years accepted by public opinion in the United States, rested
upon a false conception of democratic government. It assumed the interests
of the political party to be more important than efficiency in the government

service. It assumed that administrative work could be well-enough
performed by men who had no qualifications in the way of education or
experience—nothing but a record of party service. The spoils system
regarded public office in nation, state, and city as mere booty for the
victorious hordes after an election, whereas public office is “a public trust”,
as Grover Cleveland once quite rightly said. It is a privilege and a
responsibility; not a right or a reward. No man has a right to hold public
office merely because he belongs to the winning party. He has a right only
when he is qualified to perform the functions which the tenure of public
office involves.
Being based upon a false doctrine the spoils system Results of the spoils
was pernicious in its results. It filled the administrative system.
offices of the land with party henchmen who were incompetent to perform
the difficult work of administration; it resulted in such frequent changes of
officials that a man no sooner learned the duties of his position than he was
removed to make room for someone else; it debased the whole tone of the
public service. It spread from the national government to the states and
from the states to the cities, making the government service everywhere less
efficient than private enterprise. Presidents, senators, and representatives
were forced to spend a large portion of their time in listening to the pleas of
office-seekers. Even Lincoln, in the dark days of the Civil War, could not
escape the deluge of applicants for appointments.[28] Not everyone who
sought office could be appointed, of course, and where refusals were made
they often caused much bitterness. The seriousness of the whole situation
was strongly impressed upon the public mind in 1881, when President
Garfield was shot by a man whose request for an appointment had been
refused.
The Rise of the Civil Service System.—Popular aversion to the spoils
system ultimately moved Congress to pass the Civil Service Act of 1883.
Although this statute has been several times amended and its provisions
broadened, it still remains the basis of the merit system as applied to federal
appointments. Briefly, it provides for a Civil Service Commission of three
persons appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Senate. It
gives the President power to classify the various subordinate offices, with
the provision that all offices so classified must thereafter be filled by
competitive examinations. When the law went into force only about
fourteen thousand positions were placed in the classified service but the list

has been steadily widened until today more than three hundred thousand
positions in the employ of the national government are filled by
examination. These examinations are conducted by the Civil Service
Commission.
From the national government the civil service The spread of civil
system spread to many of the states and cities where it service.
has steadily made progress although it is yet far from being universally
established. More than half the states are even yet without civil service
laws. In the larger cities the adoption of the merit system had been more
general; nearly all of them have now established it in one form or other. The
system of patronage is everywhere losing its hold although the politicians
often fight hard to retain it. From the present outlook it is only a question of
time until all administrative offices except the very highest will be filled
under civil service rules.
How the Merit System Works.—The actual The nature of civil
operation of the civil service or merit system is as service tests.
follows: Whenever a classified position is to be filled, the appointing officer
calls upon the Civil Service Commission to send him the names of suitable
persons. If the commission has recently held competitions for a similar
position, it may have names on hand. For example, if the appointment is to
the position of mail-clerk, stenographer, postman, or policeman, there is no
delay in sending in the names because examinations for these posts, owing
to the steady demand, are held frequently. But if some unusual position is to
be filled, such as that of chemist in the city’s water department, it is usually
necessary to hold a special competition. Public announcement is made;
applications are received; examination papers are made out; the tests are
taken by the various applicants, and the results are figured out. Then the
Civil Service Commission certifies to the appointing officer the names
which are highest on the list, usually the three highest, and the appointment
is made from among these names.
Do not imagine, however, that a civil service They are practical in
competition takes the form of examinations like those their nature.
given in school or college. The questions relate to the work which the
applicant will have to do. Candidates for appointment as stenographers are
given a practical test to determine whether they can take dictation rapidly,
read it accurately, and write it out neatly with a typewriter. Civil service
tests for policemen take the form of a physical examination, questions on

elementary law, and on the duties of a policeman. There are different
examinations for each kind of position. The examiners study what
qualifications a position demands and then devise a set of examinations
which will test these qualifications. The Civil Service Commission does not
make the appointments; it merely certifies the names of those who stand
highest. From these names the appointing officer usually selects the first on
the list, but in some cases he is permitted to choose any one of the first three
names.
Value of the Merit System.—The merit system does not always succeed
in picking out the best among those who apply for a vacant position. No
system of competitive tests is infallible. Even school examinations do not
always prove who is the best scholar. But they come nearer doing so than
any other method. Civil service tests do succeed in weeding out the unfit.
They protect the public service against the appointment of officials who are
clearly incompetent and have no qualifications except political influence. If
the civil service system does not always select the best it certainly enables
us to avoid the worst, which is something that the spoils system never did.
The civil service system is democratic. It gives The democratic
everyone an equal chance. It matters not who the character of the civil
service system.
candidates are, whether rich or poor, Republicans or
Democrats, with friends or without friends—all have an equal opportunity.
Merit is the only thing that counts. And it is the only thing that ought to
count in filling public positions. It is true that the candidate with an
education usually has an advantage in answering civil service questions; but
does not education help a man or woman in every branch of life? In a
country where education is free can we call a system of appointment
“undemocratic” because it gives the educated candidate an advantage?
Under the merit system men and women win appointments; they do not
receive appointments by favor. They hold their posts during good behavior
and are protected against dismissal without cause. The cause must be
specific and stated in writing. This being done, the appointing officer
usually has the right to dismiss a subordinate and this right is necessary to
the maintenance of proper discipline. Under the civil service system,
however, dismissals are not frequent.[29]

Direct Legislation by the People
The Initiative and Referendum: What they are.— Some definitions.
The machinery of direct legislation consists of two political devices which
usually go together and are known as the initiative and referendum. By the
initiative is meant the right of a stated percentage of voters in any state or
other political division to propose a law and to require that if this proposal
is not forthwith adopted by the regular law-making authorities it shall be
submitted to the people for their decision at the polls. The initiative usually
covers constitutional amendments as well as laws. To put it in less technical
language, if anyone believes that a new law or ordinance should be passed,
he draws up the law or ordinance in such form as he desires; then he gets a
certain number of voters to sign a petition asking for its passage. If the
legislature enacts it, well and good; if it does not enact it the question
whether the law will be adopted goes on the ballot for the voters to decide.
The referendum, on the other hand, is an arrangement whereby a measure
already passed by the legislature or city council may, under certain
conditions, be withheld from going into effect until the people have had an
opportunity to accept or reject it at the polls. The conditions usually are that
a certain number of voters shall present a petition asking that the measure
be withheld from going into force. The referendum, as a rule, cannot be
invoked in the case of emergency measures.
Their Progress in America.—It is only about a quarter of a century
since the initiative and referendum, in this form, made their appearance in
America, the first state to establish them being South Dakota in 1898.[30]
Other states soon took up the idea and today nearly half the entire number
of states have made provision for direct legislation in one form or another.
[31]
From the states the movement spread to the cities, a Spread of direct
large number of which now have provisions for the legislation.
initiative and referendum inserted in their charters. The extension of the
system to the national government, by means of an amendment to the
constitution, is now being urged by some organizations, including the
American Federation of Labor.
How is the rapid spread of this movement for direct Reasons for this rapid
legislation in the United States to be accounted for? extension.

Two reasons for it, at least, may be given. One is the decline of popular
confidence in lawmaking by legislators. The work of the legislatures in
many of the states, and of the city councils in most of the cities, has been
unsatisfactory to the people on a good many occasions. It has given vogue
to the idea that the people themselves could not do much worse and might
do a great deal better. The second reason may be found in the habit of
waiving responsibility which many legislatures and city councils have
acquired in recent years. When difficult questions come before legislatures,
the legislators frequently find an easy solution, so far as they themselves are
concerned, by “putting the matter directly up to the people”. In other words
they agree to place the questions on the ballot at the next election. In many
states this practice of passing measures with a “referendum clause” has
become very common. It has paved the way for direct legislation on a wider
scale.
The Initiative and Referendum in Practice.—In actual practice the
initiative and referendum do not provide a simple and easy means of
making laws. Their use is hedged about by all sorts of formalities and
conditions. In no two states are these conditions exactly alike, but in a
general way the practical workings of direct legislation are somewhat as
follows:
As the first step, those who desire a new law make a The petition.
draft of it in writing. Then they write out a brief petition to accompany it
and obtain as many signatures as they can. The usual requirement is that a
certain percentage of the qualified voters must sign the petition before it
will be accepted by the authorities. These signatures are secured by holding
meetings, or by a house-to-house canvass, or by placing copies of the
petition in banks, stores, and other public places where voters can sign
them. When enough signatures have been obtained, the petition,
accompanied by the draft of the proposed law, is presented to the proper
official at the state Capitol or city hall and this official checks the names
with a copy of the voters’ list. If he finds that all the The scrutiny.
requirements have been fulfilled, he endorses on the petition a statement to
this effect and makes provision for placing the question on the ballot at the
next election or, in some cases, at a special election held for the purpose.
Meanwhile, the legislature or city council may enact the measure, in which
case the question need not be placed on the ballot. To The voting.
inform the voters concerning the various initiative measures which are to be

voted on, some states have provided that a pamphlet shall be prepared and
mailed to every voter previous to the election. These pamphlets contain the
texts of the proposed laws and also, in some cases, a summary of the
arguments for and against each proposal. At the election the voters mark
their ballots with a cross opposite the words Yes or No and the proposed
law is adopted or rejected in accordance with the will of the majority.
In the case of the referendum a petition is also drawn up and a designated
number of signatures obtained. When enough signatures have been secured,
usually the same number as is required for the initiative, the petition is
presented, checked up, and certified in the same way. The law in question,
although duly enacted by the legislature, is then withheld from going into
effect until the voters ratify it at an election.
In some states the initiative and referendum have been used quite freely;
in others hardly at all. In Oregon, during the decade 1906-1916, no fewer
than ninety-one measures were submitted to the voters at five elections; in
Massachusetts only four measures have been initiated by petition in five
years. Much greater use has been made of direct legislation in the Far West
than in the East.
Merits of Direct Legislation.—The reputed merits The arguments in
of the initiative and referendum may be summed up favor.
under four heads. 1. It makes government more democratic. In legislatures
the influence of some class, section, or partisan element among the people
has often determined the nature of the laws. By the use of direct legislation
the whole people can make their will effective. 2. It has an educative value.
People who are called upon to vote upon measures will learn something
about them before going to the polls. When the legislators alone make the
laws, the individual voter takes no interest in the lawmaking. But when the
questions go on the ballot there is a general public discussion of the
arguments for and against. In this way the whole body of the voters
becomes informed on public problems. 3. It gives the ordinary citizen a
chance to make his influence felt. The legislature, in doing its work, does
not hear much from the plain man who attends to his own business. It hears
chiefly from the “vested interests”, the corporations, and capitalists on the
one hand, or from labor organizations or the farmers on the other. It is also
subjected to pressure by politicians and party leaders. But a considerable
part of the population is made up of men and women who are neither
capitalists, union workers, nor politicians. Direct legislation gives this silent

section of the electorate a chance. 4. It keeps legislative bodies on their
good behavior. The initiative and referendum are not intended to supplant
lawmaking by legislatures. Most of the laws will continue to be made by
the old process. Direct legislation is merely a remedy in the hands of the
people for use when the regular lawmaking bodies fail to carry out the
popular will. Knowing that the voters have this weapon ready for use, the
legislators are more careful about what they do. They know that an appeal
may be taken to the voters and their own decisions overturned. This is an
incentive to better work on their part. Hence the initiative and referendum
will really strengthen rather than destroy our system of representative
government.
Defects of Direct Legislation.—But there are The arguments
arguments on the other side as well; and these also can against.
be arranged under four headings. 1. Direct legislation weakens the civil
rights of the individual. These rights are embodied in the state constitutions
for the purpose of preserving them. But if a majority of the voters can
change these constitutions at any time, there is no longer any distinction
between constitutions and laws. This means that there is no special
protection for the rights of property, for free speech, or for freedom of
worship. A majority can ride rough-shod over a minority at any time. 2.
Direct legislation is usually the work of a majority in name only. Not more
than eighty per cent of the people regularly cast their ballots on election
day; the proportion is often much smaller. Of those who go to the polls
many do not vote on all the questions. The result is that measures are
frequently ratified by the votes of only thirty or forty per cent of the whole
electorate, in other words by a distinct minority. The alleged “rule of the
majority” thus becomes a fiction, not a fact. 3. Direct legislation results in
appeals to public prejudice and leads to demagogism. When measures are
submitted to the people the discussion is not confined to the merits of the
proposed laws. The supporters and opponents alike appeal to the prejudice
and the self-interest of the voters. The demagogue uses his opportunity to
the fullest extent, thus inflaming bitterness between different classes among
the people. There is no opportunity for calm deliberation or compromise as
in the legislative halls. The voters can only say Yes or No. They must take
the measure as it stands or reject it entirely. As a rule, moreover, the man
who is ready to say Yes or No to any public question can be set down as one
who has given very little thought to the subject. 4. Direct legislation tends

to break down the whole system of representative government. It divides the
responsibility for lawmaking, encourages the election of less efficient
representatives, and places upon the people a task which they cannot
intelligently perform. The voters will not, and cannot, fully inform
themselves about the merits and defects of ten, twenty, or thirty different
questions on the ballot. It is absurd, the opponents of direct legislation
declare, to submit a long list of questions to the voters when thousands of
these voters are not even able to read or write.[32]
The Relative Weight of these Arguments.—The Which are the
fore-going paragraphs give the arguments, both for and stronger?
against direct legislation, as they are commonly put forth by the two sides.
The supporters of direct legislation are inclined to magnify its merits; the
opponents are equally prone to overstate its defects. Due allowance should
be made for this in weighing their respective arguments. Direct legislation
has not put an end to the power of political bosses or destroyed the party
system or made all the laws righteous. On the other hand it has not led to
lawmaking by demagogues or impaired the fundamental rights of the
citizen. Laws passed by means of the initiative and referendum have been,
on the whole, no better and no worse than laws passed by legislatures. The
strong probability is, if one may venture a prediction, that less use of direct
legislation will be made as time goes on. This does not mean, however, that
the system will be valueless. It still remains a highly important weapon of
last resort which the people can use if they need it. At any rate no one need
hesitate to make up his own mind as to the relative merits and defects of the
initiative and referendum, for he will find himself in pretty good company
whichever side he takes.
The Recall.—The recall is the right of a designated number of voters to
demand the immediate removal of any elective officeholder and to have
their demand submitted to the voters for decision. A petition for removal is
drawn up and circulated for signatures; when enough signatures have been
obtained it is presented to the proper authorities who thereupon hold an
election to decide the matter. The petition usually states the reasons for
demanding the officeholder’s removal before the expiration of his term. If a
majority of those who vote on the question are in favor of the removal, the
officeholder vacates his post at once; if they reject the demand for a recall,
he continues in office. Provision for the recall was first established in Los
Angeles (1903), and during the past twenty years it has been adopted in

many cities in different parts of the country. Ten states have also provided
for the recall of elective state officers. Several city officials have been
removed at recall elections, but only one state officer has yet been ousted
from office by this procedure.[33]
The purpose of the recall is to ensure the complete and continual
responsibility of public officials to the people who have elected them. It
enables the establishment of longer terms of office without incurring the
danger of autocracy on the part of officeholders. On the other hand, the
recall is a weapon which may easily be perverted to wrongful use. If
attempts were made to oust an officeholder whenever his work gives
offence to any influential element among the voters, the recall procedure
would soon become an intolerable nuisance in that it would be continually
bringing the people to the polls. It would likewise deter independent and
capable men from accepting office at all. But as a matter of fact the recall
has not been widely used. For the most part the people have held it in
reserve for emergencies. It is like a fire-escape on the outside of a building,
not to be used at all under ordinary circumstances, but exceedingly valuable
when an emergency comes.
General References
James Bryce, Modern Democracies, Vol. I, pp. 151-164 (Public Opinion); Vol. II, pp. 417-434
(Direct Legislation by the People);
A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, pp. 113-232 (Methods of Expressing
Public Opinion);
A. B. Hart, Actual Government, pp. 270-273 (Appointing Power); 276-294 (Civil Service);
W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 501-521 (Direct Legislation and the Recall);
E. M. Phelps (editor), Initiative and Referendum (Debaters’ Handbook Series);
Delos F. Wilcox, Government by All the People (The Arguments in Favor), pp. 104-128; 149-163;
Arnold B. Hall, Popular Government (The Arguments Against), pp. 120-143.

Group Problems
1. What is public opinion? How is it formed? Influence of the press. News columns and
editorials. The press and propaganda. Influence of advertisers. The large measure of independence in
the press. Resolutions of organizations. Communications to legislators. Relative importance of the
various channels of public opinion. References: A. V. Dicey, The Relations between Law and Public
Opinion in England, pp. 17-47; James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. II, pp. 251-266; Ibid.,
Modern Democracies, Vol. I, pp. 92-110; 151-164; A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular
Government, pp. 4-56; G. H. Payne, History of Journalism in the United States, pp. 347-359 and
passim; Arnold B. Hall, Popular Government, pp. 25-44; Walter Lippman, Liberty and the News,
passim.
2. The initiative and referendum in their practical workings. References: J. D. Barnett, The
Operation of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Oregon, pp. 101-125; Illinois Constitutional
Convention (1920), Bulletins, No. 2; Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (1917-1918),

Bulletins, No. 6; A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, pp. 169-239; D. F.
Wilcox, Government by All the People, pp. 229-320; Arnold B. Hall, Popular Government, pp.
120-143.
3. The civil service system: its progress, aims, and methods. References: A. B. Hart, Actual
Government, pp. 276-294; C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 222-230; P. S.
Reinsch, Readings in American Federal Government, pp. 683-702; W. B. Munro, Government of
American Cities, pp. 271-290; C. R. Fish, The Civil Service and the Patronage, passim; J. T. Young,
The New American Government and its Work, pp. 592-608.

Short Studies
1. The responsibility of public officials. F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy, pp. 394-409.
2. The function of a representative. J. W. Jenks, Principles of Politics, pp. 77-84; J. S. Mill, On
Representative Government (Everyman’s Library), pp. 202-218; 228-241.
3. The election vs. the appointment of public officials. John M. Mathews, Principles of
American State Administration, pp. 173-190.
4. The spoils system. James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. II, pp. 136-145; James A.
Woodburn, Political Parties and Party Problems, pp. 254-265. See also W. D. Foulke, Fighting the
Spoilsmen, passim.
5. Training for public service. W. H. Allen, Training for the Public Service, pp. 164-200.
6. How civil service tests are given. L. F. Fuld, Police Administration, pp. 75-97.
7. The public service as a profession. A. L. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government,
pp. 264-305; W. H. Allen, Training for the Public Service, pp. 164-181; E. A. Fitzpatrick, Experts
in City Government, pp. 71-104.
8. The recall of public officers. Arnold B. Hall, Popular Government, pp. 203-241.

Questions
1. How many “organs” of public opinion can you name? How does each exert an influence? Which
one do you consider the most influential?
2. Is public opinion always the sentiment of the majority? If it is not, explain why. Give a concrete
illustration.
3. Do you agree with Edmund Burke’s ideas as to the proper function of a representative?
4. When the question of woman suffrage was before the United States Senate, and only one
additional vote was needed to pass it, a certain senator declared that while he was personally in favor
of granting the suffrage to women the people of his own state had just voted against the proposal and
he therefore felt bound to follow their judgment. Was he right or wrong in taking that attitude?
5. Make a list of the administrative officers of your state and community, indicating which ones
should be elected and which appointed. Can you think of any proper exceptions to the rule that all
administrative offices requiring skill or experience should be filled by appointment?
6. What arguments were put forward in behalf of the spoils system?
7. What sort of civil service tests ought to be applied in selecting persons for the following
positions: truck-and-ladder driver in the fire department; gardener in the public park service;
bookkeeper in the office of the state treasurer; member of the United States life-saving service;
railway-mail clerk; analyst of food and drugs; inspector of wires and lamps; woman police officer;
probation officer; draftsman in the state highway department.
8. In a city of 100,000 population what positions would you exempt from civil service rules?
9. Is good government more important than popular government? Can a government be both
democratic and efficient? Do you regard appointments by competition as undemocratic? Why or why
not?

10. Work out a plan by which promotions in the police department could be made under the merit
system (consider the possibility of giving credits for punctuality, acts of courage, number of arrests,
etc., and of making deductions for neglect of duty, etc.).
11. What is the strongest argument for direct legislation and what is the weakest? Which argument
on the other side impresses you the most and which the least?
12. Is it more dangerous to subject judges to the possibility of recall than other officials?

Topics for Debate
1. A congressman should obey his conscience rather than his constituents when he cannot obey
both.
2. Heads of state and city administrative departments should be chosen under civil service rules.
3. The initiative and referendum should be extended to national lawmaking.

CHAPTER VII
SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to explain who have the right to vote, how the voters nominate
public officials, and how elections are held.

Suffrage

How the Voters Control the Government.—A Direct and indirect
democratic government is one in which the people, popular control.
acting directly or through their representatives, control the course of public
affairs. This control may be exercised, as has been pointed out, in either one
of two ways. It may be exercised directly, that is, by the use of the initiative
and referendum. The proposal for a law comes from a designated number of
voters, and the adoption or rejection of the proposal is decided by a
majority of the voters at the polls.
It is easy to see, however, that the people cannot perform the entire work
of government in this direct way. There are too many laws to be made, too
many details of administration to be handled, and too many disputes to be
adjusted. So most of the work of government is carried on by persons who
are chosen by the voters for this purpose or who are appointed to office by
the representatives of the people. Elective officials, as a rule, have authority
to determine matters of general policy in nation, state, or municipality,
while appointive officials, for the most part, carry out the policy thus
determined upon.

GOVERNMENT. By Elihu Vedder

From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston.
Reproduced by permission.

GOVERNMENT

By Elihu Vedder
From a mural decoration in the Library of Congress.
Mr. Vedder portrays Government as a mature woman in
the fullness of her strength. She is seated upon a bench of
hewn marble, which is supported by the figures of two lions
—all emblematic of strength and power. Behind is an oak
tree, which typifies slow, deep-rooted growth. In symbolic
pictures the ballot box is usually represented as an urn. Here
the marble bench rests upon urn-shaped vases. In the lions’
mouths are mooring-rings to remind us that the ship of state
must not drift aimlessly but should be moored to strength.
In her left hand Government grasps a golden sceptre (the
Golden Rule) to signify that all her actions are based upon
respect for the rights of others; her right hand holds a tablet
upon which is graven a notable epigram from Lincoln’s
Gettysburg Address. On either side of Government are two
genii or mythical figures. One holds a bridle which typifies
restraint, discipline, and order—the bulwark of effective
government. The other supports an unsheathed sword,
emblematic of defence and justice.
In this picture, therefore, the author prefigures the
outstanding marks of a successful free government—
strength; fairness, democracy, restraint, security, and justice.

The Citizen and the Voter.—Government by the people does not, of
course, mean government by all the people. In every Not all citizens are
country there are many persons who are not competent voters.

to exercise a share in the government. Very young persons, for example, do
not have maturity of judgment, which a share in government requires.
Insane persons, prisoners in jails, aliens, and others are also, for obvious
reasons, usually debarred from the privilege of voting. It is not to be
assumed that everyone who is a citizen is also a voter. All persons born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to American jurisdiction are
citizens no matter what their ages or mental capacity may be, but not all are
voters. The voters are those upon whom the privilege of voting has been
conferred by law. In the United States they comprise a large proportion of
the adults but they do not form a majority of the entire population. Out of a
national population of about one hundred and five millions the voters of the
United States number about thirty-five millions. This number is quite large
enough to ensure an adequately representative government.
Development of the Suffrage.—Voting is a The gradual widening
privilege and duty rather than a right. In the earlier of the suffrage
states of American history the privilege of voting was restricted to property-
owners and taxpayers. This condition of affairs, moreover, continued for a
considerable period after the Revolutionary War. One by one, however, the
various states began to abolish their restrictions and by the middle of the
nineteenth century the principle of manhood suffrage had become firmly
established so far as the white population was concerned. The struggle for
the extension of the suffrage to men who did not own property was a
prolonged and bitter contest in which the opponents of manhood suffrage
vainly argued that the extension would put all political leadership into the
hands of noisy agitators and would end in the ruin of orderly government.
But manhood suffrage ultimately triumphed because the country came to
the conclusion that the structure of democratic government could be made
more secure by broadening the base upon which it rests.
Negro Suffrage.—In the Southern states prior to the The rights of the
Civil War colored men were excluded from voting at all negro.
elections. But with the emancipation of the slaves the question of
guaranteeing the suffrage to colored men had to be faced. By the terms of
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the national constitution no
state is permitted to withhold voting rights from any man on account of his
color; if it does so, the constitution provides that such state shall have its
number of representatives in Congress reduced. As a matter of fact,
however, there has always been a very strong sentiment among the white

population of the Southern states in opposition to political equality on the
part of the colored element, and this has prevented the enforcement of the
guarantees contained in the constitution.
By various devices the Southern states have for the How negroes are
most part excluded negroes from suffrage. One of these excluded from voting.
is the requirement that all voters shall be able to read and write. If this
provision were impartially applied to the white and the colored population
alike; if all illiterate persons irrespective of color were excluded, this action
would be entirely justified. But the aim of the South is to eliminate the
negro as a voter whether he is illiterate or not.[34] The attitude of the white
population in the South is not difficult to understand. In the days
immediately following the Civil War the colored men were given the ballot
in all the Southern states, and the results were disastrous. Unfit men were
elected to office, public money was spent wastefully, and government was
badly conducted in all these states under the domination of the colored
voters. As a result the white population took the control once more into its
own hands and has kept it there. But this can scarcely be regarded as a final
solution of the problem. No political problem can be solved in this country
in defiance of the constitution. Many Southerners realize this and are
endeavoring to find some solution which will be for the best interests of the
negro while protecting the white man’s political supremacy. The negro
question is particularly the Southerner’s problem; he knows the colored race
as no Northerner can; and if he cannot settle it justly and wisely, no man
can.
The Nineteenth Amendment.—It is now more than The extension of the
fifty years since women first began to claim, in this suffrage to women.
country, the right to equal political privileges with men. Those who
supported this claim argued that women were quite competent to assume an
active share in government and that in some branches of public
administration (such as the management of schools and the enforcement of
the laws regulating child labor) women have an even greater interest than
men. Women were required to pay taxes and it was urged that on this
account they were entitled to representation. On the other hand the
extension of the suffrage to women was opposed on the ground that it
would tend to weaken the interest of women in the home, thus impairing the
strength of the family as a social unit, and also that women would not use
the ballot wisely. They would be influenced by their sympathies and

emotions rather than by their judgment, it was predicted, and would bring
an element of instability into public policy. Another objection commonly
raised was that with twice as many voters the cost of holding elections
would be doubled. But despite these objections the movement for woman
suffrage made gradual headway in one state after another and finally, in
1920, it was made compulsory upon the entire country by the provisions of
the Nineteenth Amendment.[35]
Present Qualifications for Voting.—Each state Citizenship, age, and
decides who shall not vote. Each state has entire residence.
freedom to do as it thinks best in this matter subject only to the provisions
of the national constitution, which stipulate that the privilege of voting shall
not be denied to any citizen by reason of sex, or because of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude. There is no reason, therefore, why the
qualifications for voting should be the same in all parts of the country, and
as a matter of fact they differ a little from state to state. At present the
restrictions relate mainly to age, citizenship, and residence, but sometimes
also to literacy and taxpaying. In every state the privilege of voting is
restricted to persons who are twenty-one years of age or over. As for the
residence requirement it varies considerably in different states, running
usually from six months to a year. It is imposed in order to make sure that
those who vote in any community shall be somewhat acquainted with its
affairs. In most of the states none but citizens are permitted to vote, but in
two or three states the privilege is extended to those aliens who have
declared their intention of becoming citizens.
Educational Tests for Voters.—Educational qualifications for voting, in
one form or another, exist in nearly one-third of the states.[36] In some the
requirement is that anyone who desires to be enrolled as a voter shall be
able to write his name and also to read aloud any clause taken at random
from the state constitution. Exemptions from this test are always granted to
persons who by mere reason of physical disability are unable to read or
write.
Several of the Southern states have provided additional exemptions
which result in excusing from the test all white persons who are unable to
read and write while strictly applying the requirement to all colored
applicants. Various methods are employed to this end. How educational tests
In one case the provision is that no one may be are applied.
registered as a voter unless he can read any clause in the state constitution

or “give a reasonable interpretation thereof”. The white officials in charge
of the registration then decide, in their own discretion, whether the
interpretation is reasonable or not. In some other states the attempt has been
made by what is commonly known as the “grandfather clause” to excuse
from the literacy test all persons who had the right to vote before 1867, and
all descendants of such persons. As there were no colored voters in any of
the Southern states prior to this date the “grandfather clause” virtually
establishes a racial discrimination which the Supreme Court, a few years
ago, declared to be unconstitutional.
Is an Educational Test Desirable?—In the majority of the states men
and women are permitted to vote even though unable to read or write. The
question is often asked whether this practice is wise. Would it be better to
insist on an elementary educational qualification everywhere, or is it
desirable that in a democracy no distinction be made between those who
can read and those who cannot?
On the one hand it is argued that men and women The arguments for
who have never had the advantages of a grammar and against
educational tests.
school education may nevertheless be good, patriotic
citizens, and indeed may be better informed upon questions of government
and politics than some who have had far greater educational advantages.
People are not required to read and write before they are permitted to own
property or compelled to pay taxes. Men who could neither read nor write
were drafted to serve in the army during the war. If, then, we compel
illiterate persons to perform the duties of citizenship, ought we not to grant
its privileges to them as well? But there is something to be said on the other
side of this question. Bear in mind that we provide free public elementary
education for everyone in the United States. The privilege of learning to
read and write is not the privilege of a single class; it is within the reach of
everyone. We no longer allow aliens to enter the United States unless they
can read and write, nor can any illiterate person become naturalized. Under
these circumstances is it unreasonable to require an elementary educational
test for voting? It may be true that persons who are unable to read are able
to mark a certain type of ballot without spoiling it, but they can hardly hope
to exercise an intelligent choice as among individual candidates on the
ballot; they are unable to use any ballot which does not arrange the names
of candidates in straight party columns and they cannot vote upon
referendum questions except by mere guess-work. If we are regularly going

to submit questions to the voters at the polls for their decision, should not
the voting lists be confined to those who are at least able to read the
questions?
Tax-Paying Qualifications for Voting.—In a few states the male
suffrage is restricted to persons who have been assessed for a poll tax.
Massachusetts has such a provision and enforces it strictly. Some Southern
states also impose this qualification, partly, no doubt, because it is effective
in debarring large numbers of colored men who are remiss in paying their
annual poll taxes. There is a difference, of course, between a taxpaying
qualification and a property qualification. Many people pay taxes, income
and poll taxes, for example, without owning any property. Nowhere in the
United States is the ownership of property a requirement for voting at
national elections.
These, then, are the general and special The requirements
qualifications. It will be observed that since each state vary state.
from state to

prescribes its own requirements, no two of them
establish the same qualifications, or, if they do, it is merely by accident. It is
not strictly true that every adult citizen of the United States has the privilege
of voting; but it is approximately true. Those who are excluded by the
residence, educational, or tax paying qualifications (apart from colored
citizens in the Southern states) form a relatively small fraction of the total
adult citizenship, probably less than ten per cent.[37]
How Voters are Registered.—In order to obtain a The registrars of
ballot on election day it is necessary that one’s name voters.
shall be on the voters’ list. This list is prepared by officials designated for
this purpose in every community or district. These officials are commonly
known as registrars of voters. Whoever desires to be enrolled must appear
before these registrars and usually must make a sworn statement as to age,
citizenship, residence, and other qualifications. If there is an educational
test, it is applied by the registrars. The printed lists of enrolled voters are
then posted for public inspection.[38] In some states a new voters’ list is
compiled every year, and it thus becomes necessary for everyone to register
annually. In others it is the practice to keep a voter’s name on the list so
long as he continues to pay poll taxes.[39] But in any case the only way a
voter can be sure of having his name on the list at every election is to give
this matter his personal attention. In the eyes of the law voting is a

privilege, not a right, and the voter is responsible for seeing that he obtains
his privilege.

Nominations

Why Nominations are Essential.—The choice of The chief purpose of
elective public officials usually involves two steps—the nominations.
nomination and the election. Nominations may be made, and they are
sometimes made, by a caucus or by a convention of delegates. More often,
however, they are made by the voters at a preliminary election or primary.
But the question may fairly be asked: Why have nominations at all? Why
not give the voters blank ballots and let them write in whatever names they
please? Apart from the fact that many voters (in states which impose no
educational test) would not be able to write, there is the objection that so
many different persons would be voted for that no one would have anything
like a majority. In order to ensure that those who are elected will represent
the choice of a substantial body of the voters and if possible an actual
majority, it is desirable that there be some way of eliminating all but the
stronger candidates. That is why we provide for formal nominations.
History of Nominating Methods.—During the past hundred years or
more we have tried a variety of nominating methods. First came the caucus,
sometimes a gathering of legislators and sometimes of voters, brought
together to select a candidate. The caucus gave place, in The convention
time, to the convention, which is a body of delegates method.
chosen by the voters of each locality. To this day the convention remains the
mechanism by which nominations are in some cases made. But the
convention method, for a variety of reasons, did not prove satisfactory and
it has been replaced, throughout the greater portion of the United States, by
the system of nomination at a primary election.
The Primary.—The primary, in our electoral system Different forms of
corresponds to the “qualifying trials” in athletic primary.
contests. Its purpose is to see that the race is confined to the swift. It
eliminates those who have no chance to win. Those who desire to be
candidates for any public office present their names on nomination papers,
each of which must bear the signatures of so many qualified voters—say
twenty-five or fifty. The names of the candidates are placed on a ballot, and
a primary election is held some time before the regular election. But the
details of primary elections differ somewhat from state to state. An open

primary is one at which voters are not restricted to the ballot or column of
their own party, but may exercise entire freedom of choice among all the
names on the primary ballot. In some states there are party primaries or
closed primaries. This means that none may vote at the primary except
those who are members of a political party.[40] Each party may hold its
primary on a different date, in which case it is called a separate primary; or
both parties may hold their primaries together, in which case we call it a
joint primary. At a joint primary there may be a separate ballot for the
voters of each party or there may be a single ballot which contains the
names of different party candidates in parallel columns. In some cities and
towns another form, the non-partisan primary, is provided, in which case
the ballot bears no party designations at all. The procedure at a primary
election is like that of a regular election, with printed ballots, ballot boxes,
and regular officials in charge of the polls.
Merits and Defects of the Primary.—As a method Advantages of the
of making nominations the primary, whether closed, primary.
open, or non-partisan, has both merits and defects. It is better than the
convention in that it places nominations directly in the hands of the voters,
thus making it more difficult for party bosses to dictate who the candidates
shall be. Conventions consisting of a relatively small number of delegates,
many of them officeholders, can be manipulated by wire-pulling politicians.
Nominations made by conventions have frequently been, for that reason,
very unsatisfactory to the rank and file of the voters. The primary gives an
opportunity to the man or woman who is popular with the voters although
not popular with the politicians. It tends to break down some of the worst
abuses of the party system.
On the other hand there are some practical objections Objections to it.
to the primary as a method of making nominations and a vigorous fight is
now being waged to abolish it. A primary means an additional election with
all the attendant campaigning and expense. The total vote cast at a primary
is often small; hence the candidate who gains the nomination may or may
not be the real choice of his party.[41] The primary puts a burden upon those
who seek to gain elective public office, for they must virtually fight and win
two successive battles at the polls. To do this takes so much time that men
and women who have business of their own to attend to are often deterred
from becoming candidates. The field of political activity thus tends to
become monopolized by professional politicians who have nothing else to

do. The primary contests are so bitter at times that they create dissensions in
the party ranks and weaken the party at the ensuing election. The use of the
primary has not enabled us to get rid of political bosses; it has merely made
them work a great deal harder to retain control.
In some states the political parties have adopted the A new development.
practice of holding an “informal” convention some few weeks before the
date of the primary. This convention, which is composed of unofficial
delegates, makes recommendations as to the candidates who ought to be
voted for by members of the party at the primary. Members of the party are
free, of course, to do as they please at the primary, but the recommendations
made by an “informal” convention, in view of the fact that they are largely
the work of acknowledged party leaders, carry a good deal of weight.
One result of the primary system has been, therefore, This means a further
to complicate our electoral machinery. If the practice of complication.
holding informal conventions becomes general, there will be four steps
which a party will have to take in order to put its candidates in office, first
the informal convention, then the primary, then the official convention
which drafts the platform, and finally the election. Surely it should be
possible to elect our public officials under some less complicated
arrangement than this.[42]

Elections

How an Election is Held.—The date on which an The election day.
election is held is fixed by law. National elections always take place on the
Tuesday following the first Monday in November.[43] State elections are
usually, although not always, held on the same date. Local elections take
place on such dates as the state laws or city charters provide. It is usually
thought best that local elections shall not be held on the same day as the
state or national elections because of a desire to keep national and state
politics out of local affairs. When national, state, and local elections are
held on the same day the tendency is for the voters to focus their whole
attention on national and state issues, giving very little attention to the
problems of their own communities. The names of candidates for the local
offices are away down near the bottom of the ballot where they appear
relatively unimportant. Separate elections involve additional expense,
however, and increase the number of times a voter has to come to the polls.
[44]

The voting is done at polling places, one or more of Polling places and
which are located in each precinct. The precinct is a poll officers.
small division of the county, town, or city; as a rule it does not contain more
than four or five hundred voters. The polling place is in charge of officials,
commonly known as poll-wardens or inspectors, who are appointed by the
state or local authorities. They are assisted by clerks. The duty of these
various officials is to open the poll, give ballots to persons who are
registered and to no others, count the votes after the poll is closed, and
report the results to the authorities who are in charge of the elections. They
are responsible for the lawful and honest conduct of the polling. Each party
is also allowed to have one or more “watchers” at the polling place and
these watchers have the right to challenge any person whom they believe to
be an impostor. When anyone is challenged he may take oath that he is
entitled to vote, in which case he will be given a ballot; but such ballots are
counted separately. When a voter receives a ballot, his name is checked off
the voters’ list. Various stalls or booths are provided, into one of which the
voter then goes and marks his ballot privately. Having finished marking it
he folds the ballot and hands it to one of the polling officials who, in the

presence of the voter, deposits it in the ballot box. Polls are kept open
during designated hours, usually from six or seven o’clock in the morning
until five or six o’clock in the afternoon.
The Ballot.—The history of the ballot in the United History of balloting.
States is interesting. Originally all votes were given 1. Oral voting.
orally. The voter came to the polling place, stated his choice aloud and the
poll officials wrote it down. The objection to this plan was that it precluded
secrecy and left the voters open to intimidation. Then paper ballots came
into use, each party providing ballots for its own members. Outside the
polling place, at each election, stood a group of party 2. The party ballot.
workers each armed with a handful of ballots, which were distributed to the
voters as they came. This method also was objectionable. It encouraged the
voting of a “straight party ticket”, in other words it took Objections to the
for granted that everyone wished to vote for the entire party ballot.
slate of party candidates without exception. If the voter desired to do
otherwise, it was necessary for him to scratch out the unacceptable names
and write others in. Most voters would not go to this trouble. This method
of balloting was not secret, because a voter could be watched from the time
he received his ballot outside the polling place until he deposited it in the
box. This was an encouragement to bribery and intimidation. It also
facilitated fraud at elections since there was no limit upon the number of
ballots printed by the parties and it was not difficult for dishonest voters or
corrupt officials to slip extra ballots into the box. This abuse, known as
“stuffing” the ballot box could only be prevented by having all the ballots
officially printed. When a definite number of official ballots is given to each
polling place every ballot must be accounted for.
In nearly all the states, therefore, an official ballot is 3. The Australian
now used. This is commonly known as the Australian ballot.
ballot. Usually the names of all the candidates are printed in parallel
columns, each party having a column of its own, with the name and insignia
of the party at the top. Immediately below the insignia is a circle in which
the voter, by marking a cross, may record his vote for every one of the
candidates in the entire column. The voter who does this is said to vote a
“straight ticket”. But if he desires to vote for some of the candidates in the
column of one party and for some in the column of another party, he leaves
the circle unmarked and places a cross after such individual names as he
may choose. This is called voting a “split ticket”. In some states there are no

party columns; the names of the candidates are printed on the ballot in
alphabetical order, each name followed by a party designation. In a few
large cities, such as Boston and Cleveland, the party designation is omitted.
Here the voter must pick and choose individually. The party-column
arrangement encourages the voting of straight tickets; the alphabetical plan
does not.[45]
The Short Ballot.—Throughout the United States Evils of the long
the number of elective offices steadily increased during ballot.
the nineteenth century. The result was that ballots gradually became longer
until in some cases the voters found themselves confronted with sheets of
paper containing a hundred names or even more. It proved exceedingly
difficult to use proper discrimination among so many names and hence
there arose an agitation for simplifying the ballot by reducing the number of
positions to be filled by election. In a democratic government all officials
who have authority to decide questions of general policy—the President,
senators, representatives, governors, assemblymen, mayors, councilors, and
the like—ought to be chosen by popular vote. But there are many other
officials, such as state auditors, county clerks, and superintendents of
schools, whose duties are chiefly administrative. These officials carry out a
policy which is laid down for them by law, and it is contended that they
should not be elected but appointed. If all such officials were made
appointive, the size of the ballot would be considerably reduced, and the
voters could concentrate their attention upon a smaller number of names.
A ballot is not an effective instrument of popular government unless it is
simple enough for the average voter to use intelligently. When a ballot is so
long, so complicated, and so unwieldy that the voter is tempted by sheer
exhaustion into voting a straight party ticket, then the party leaders, and not
the people, are really choosing the officers of government. The movement
for a “short ballot” aims to make government more truly democratic, not
less so.
The Preferential Ballot.—Another defect of the Defects of the
ordinary ballot is that it allows the voter to indicate ordinary ballot.
only a single choice for each office. If there are five candidates for the
office of mayor, let us say, the voter may mark his ballot for one of them
only. He is not permitted to indicate who would be his second choice, or his
third choice among the five. Whichever candidate gets the largest number
of first choices among the voters is the winner, although he may be the

choice of a small minority. To prevent this likelihood of election by a
minority when there are several candidates in the field for a single office a
system of “preferential voting” is sometimes used.
Where the preferential ballot is in use, as it is in How the preferential
several American cities, the voters are asked to indicate, system works.
in columns provided for this purpose, not only their first but their second
and third choices and even their further choices among the various
candidates. The names of those candidates whom the voter does not want to
support are left unmarked. When preferential ballots are counted, any
candidate who has a clear majority of first choices is declared elected. But
if no candidate obtains a majority of first choices, the second choices are
added to the first choices and if the two totals combined give what would be
a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate who received them is
declared elected. In like manner the third choices are resorted to if
necessary.[46] The candidate elected by the preferential system is practically
always the choice of a majority among the voters, not the first choice of a
majority always, but one whom a majority have indicated their willingness
to support. The chief practical objection to the preferential ballot is that
many voters do not take the trouble to mark their second and third choices.
Proportional Representation.[47]—Preferential The problem of
voting should be distinguished from proportional minority representation.
representation, which is a plan of choosing legislative
bodies in such a way that all considerable groups of voters will be
represented in proportion to their own numbers. Whenever several
representatives are elected on the same ballot it usually happens that one
political party secures them all. So many voters adhere to the “straight
ticket” that the entire party slate wins. The minority party, even though it
may comprise nearly half the voters, in such cases obtains no representation
at all. This, of course, does not give us a true system of representative
government; hence various plans have been put forward for securing to
“each considerable party or group of opinion” a representation
corresponding to its numerical strength among the voters. The best known
among these is the Hare Plan, which has been used in several foreign
countries and, during recent years, in a few American cities.[48]
This system of proportional representation is The Hare plan
somewhat complicated but may be concisely described explained.
as follows: First, the names of all candidates are printed alphabetically on

the ballot and the voter indicates his choices by marking the figure 1 after
the name of his first choice, the figure 2 after the name of his second
choice, and so on. Then, when the polls are closed, the election officers
compute the number of votes needed to elect a candidate and this is called
“the quota”. This they do by dividing into the total number of votes cast the
number of places to be filled, plus one, and then adding one to the quotient.
For example, let us suppose that 10,000 votes have been cast and that there
are seven candidates to be elected. Ten thousand divided by eight (seven
plus one) is 1250 and any candidate who receives 1251 first-choice votes is
declared elected. If such candidate, however, has more votes than enough to
fill his quota, the surplus votes are distributed in accordance with the
indicated second-choices among candidates whose quotas have not been
filled. If enough candidates are not elected by this process, the candidate
with the smallest number of first choices is then dropped and his votes are
distributed in the same way. This process of elimination and distribution
goes on until enough candidates have filled their quotas or until the
successive eliminations have left no more than enough to fill the vacant
positions. This plan is not a model of simplicity, of course, but it is not so
difficult to understand as one might at first glance imagine, nor in its actual
workings does it present any serious complications. What the voter has to
do is simple enough. In so far as there are any difficulties they arise in
connection with counting the ballots, not in marking them. The plan is
workable and the attainment of proportional representation in all our
legislative bodies would be a great gain.
Counting the Votes.—When the polls are closed the Majorities and
ballots are counted by the officials of the polling place pluralities.
in accordance with whatever plan is used. With ordinary ballots the
counting does not take very long; if preferential ballots are used, or if a
system of proportional representation is in vogue, the counting takes a good
deal longer. When a candidate receives more than one-half of all the polled
votes, he is declared to have a majority; when he merely obtains more votes
than the next highest candidate he is said to have a plurality. In the United
States, at nearly all elections, a plurality is sufficient. When the counting is
finished the result is certified to the proper higher officials. A recount can
usually be had at the demand of any candidate, and recounts often take
place when the result is close.
Types of corruption.

Corrupt Practices at Elections.—All elections afford some opportunity
for corrupt practices and various safeguards are provided against their
occurrence. Personation is the offence of voting under a name which is not
your own. Voters who have died since the lists were compiled, or who are
absent, are sometimes impersonated by men who have no right to vote at
all. Vigilance on the part of the election officers helps to prevent
personation although the officials can hardly be expected to know everyone
who comes to the polls. Repeating is the offence of voting twice at the same
election. To do this a voter must first, by fraudulent means, become enrolled
as a voter in two or more precincts or districts. Ballot-box stuffing is the
practice of putting in the box ballots which have no right to be there. With
the Australian ballot the practice is very infrequent. Ballot-switching is the
placing of marks on the ballots, surreptitiously, while the ballots are being
counted. A dishonest official, with a small piece of lead under his fingernail,
has sometimes been able to spoil or to “switch” ballots by marking
additional crosses on them during the process of counting. Intimidation is
the offence of influencing a voter’s action by threats or wrongful pressure.
Bribery, of course, is self-explanatory. All these practices involve moral
turpitude and are forbidden under severe penalties. They have now become
relatively uncommon at American elections.[49]
Absent Voting.—It frequently happens, in the nature of things, that many
voters cannot conveniently be in their home districts on election day.
Soldiers and sailors, commercial travelers, railway conductors, engineers
and trainmen, fishermen, students in universities are obvious examples. It
has been estimated that in Massachusetts the number of voters who are
necessarily absent from their homes on election day averages about thirty
thousand. Many others, in order to cast their ballots, are put to considerable
expense and inconvenience. Now it has seemed desirable, in many of the
states, to make some provision whereby those voters may cast their ballots
without being actually at the polls on election day. The usual arrangement is
that a voter who expects to be absent on election day must apply, some time
before the election date, to a designated official for a ballot. This ballot is
then marked by the voter and sealed in an envelope. The envelope is
attested before a notary public and deposited with an election official who
sees that it is counted when other ballots are counted. In some states the
blank ballot is sent by mail to absent voters who request it, and after being
marked the ballot is returned by mail before the election day. The chief

objection to absent voting is that it gives an opportunity for fraud, but in
practice this has not proved to be a serious objection.
Compulsory Voting.—Compulsory voting does not exist anywhere in
the United States at the present time although it has been frequently
proposed. Voting has been made compulsory, however, with legal penalties
for failure to vote, in several foreign countries, notably in Belgium, in
Spain, and in New Zealand. The usual procedure is to impose a fine upon
every voter who, without good excuse, stays away from the polls on
election day, or, for repeated absences, to strike his name off the voters’ list
altogether.
Compulsory voting rests upon the argument that, in a The arguments for
democracy, the right to vote imposes a duty to vote. The compulsory voting.
citizen must serve on a jury in time of peace and in the army during war
whether he likes these forms of public service or not. Why, then, should he
be allowed to shirk his duty to vote, a duty which must be performed if
democratic government is to survive? If one voter has the right to stay away
from the polls, every other voter has the same right. And if all followed this
policy, we could not maintain a “representative” form of government. But
there is another side to the question. The voter who goes to the polls
because he will be fined if he stays away will not cast his ballot with much
discrimination, intelligence, or patriotism. Would the Are they valid?
votes of such men be worth counting? Would they contribute anything to
the cause of good government? Moreover, it has been demonstrated by
foreign experience that while you can compel a voter to go to the polls and
drop a ballot in the box you cannot compel him to mark his ballot properly,
for he marks it in secret. In one of the Swiss cities some years ago it was
found that the chief result of compulsory voting was to induce many
hundreds of reluctant voters to drop blank ballots in the box. It can well be
argued that voting is a duty, but it is a duty which ought to be performed
from motives of patriotism and not from dread of the penalties. Most
citizens do not require compulsion and it is questionable whether forcing
others to vote would, in the long run, serve any useful purpose.
Voting by Machine.—In some cities of the United The merits and
States the experiment of permitting the voter to record defects of voting
machines.
his choice by means of a voting machine has been tried
with varying degrees of success. A voting machine is constructed upon
much the same principles as a cash register. The keys bear the names of the

various candidates and the voter merely steps behind a curtain where he
presses one key after another just as he would mark crosses on a printed
ballot. The mechanism is so arranged that a voter cannot press two keys
which register for the same office. The voting machine plan has some
distinct advantages in that it does away entirely with the trouble and
expense of printing ballots; it eliminates spoiled ballots, it precludes all
chance of tampering with the votes, and it ensures an accurate count. On the
other hand the machines are expensive both to install and to maintain,
particularly when several machines are needed for each polling place.
Moreover, like all other complicated mechanisms, they get out of order, and
when they do this on election day it makes a bad mess of things. It is
doubtful whether they will ever supplant the printed ballot plan of voting.
Summary.—In order that any systems of popular voting shall be
permanently successful it is necessary that the ballot shall be simple,
intelligible, and secret. It must not be so long as to bewilder the voter of
average intelligence, and it ought to give the voter a reasonable chance to
“split” his ballot without running a serious risk of spoiling it. A short ballot
is a far more effective instrument of democracy than a long ballot. Another
essential is that the polling place shall be adequately safeguarded against
fraudulent practices of any sort and that the counting of votes shall be
conducted with absolute honesty. Any corrupt practice in connection with
elections is a blow at the very heart of democracy. We hear a good deal,
from time to time, about unfairness, fraud, and corruption at elections in the
United States, particularly at elections in the larger cities. While these
things occur now and then they are much less frequent than they used to be.
American elections, taking them as a whole, are conducted with as much
fairness and honesty as the elections which are held in any other country.
Rival parties and candidates try hard to win; they seize every opportunity to
gain political advantages over their opponents, and in so doing often travel
very close to the line which separates right from wrong; but on the whole
they try to keep within the letter of the election laws. Transgressions of the
law may bring some temporary success but in the long run they do not pay,
and the politicians know it.
General References
F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy, pp. 130-191;
P. O. Ray, Political Parties and Practical Politics, pp. 109-164; 298-321;
W. B. Munro, The Government of American Cities, pp. 102-152;

C. L. Jones, Readings on Parties and Elections, pp. 212-250;
A. N. Holcombe, State Government in the United States, pp. 143-164;
K. H. Porter, A History of Suffrage in the United States, pp. 20-46 and passim;
W. W. Willoughby and Lindsay Rogers, Introduction to the Problem of Government, pp. 107-126
(Popular Government).

Group Problems
1. The direct primary: is it a success? Earlier methods of nomination. Evils of the caucus and
convention. Why the direct primary was established. The different types of primary. Effect of the
primary on the party system. Has it curbed the power of the bosses? Cost of the primary system.
Percentage of votes polled at primaries. Has the primary secured better candidates? Can it be
improved? Probable effects of the pre-primary informal convention. If not the primary, what then?
References: C. E. Merriam, Primary Elections, pp. 117-132; 133-176; F. W. Dallinger,
Nominations for Elective Office in the United States, pp. 95-126; R. S. Boots, The Direct Primary in
New Jersey, passim; F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy, pp. 228-242; A. N. Holcombe, State
Government in the United States, pp. 182-204; C. G. Haines and Bertha Haines, Principles and
Problems of Government, pp. 137-150; C. L. Jones, Readings on Parties and Elections, pp. 53-79; P.
O. Ray, Political Parties and Practical Politics, pp. 140-164; A. B. Hall, Popular Government, pp.
45-97.
2. How can the ballot be improved? References: E. C. Evans, History of the Australian Ballot in
the United States, pp. 17-47; R. S. Childs, Short Ballot Principles, passim; F. A. Cleveland,
Organized Democracy, pp. 262-272; C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 474-487;
P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 364-383; C. G. Haines and Bertha
Haines, Principles and Problems of Government, pp. 151-166; A. B. Hall, Popular Government, pp.
242-269; Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. I, pp. 100-104.
3. Proportional representation in theory and in practice. References: J. R. Commons,
Proportional Representation, pp. 99-131; W. W. Willoughby and Lindsay Rogers, Introduction to
the Problem of Government, pp. 263-275 (also Appendix iii); Massachusetts Constitutional
Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, No. 28 (Proportional Representation); American Proportional
Representation League, Pamphlets, especially Nos. 6 and 8. (The headquarters of the League are at
Haverford, Pa., and material relating to proportional representation can be had on application.)

Short Studies
1. The gradual extension of the suffrage in the United States. F. A. Cleveland, Organized
Democracy, pp. 130-150.
2. Who have the right to vote in European countries? F. A. Ogg, The Governments of Europe
(see index).
3. Qualifications for voting in the different states. World Almanac, 1918.
4. How American elections are conducted. A. N. Holcombe, State Government in the United
States, pp. 205-239.
5. How voters are enrolled. F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy, pp. 220-227.
6. The preferential ballot. Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, No.
27 (Preferential Voting). (See also National Municipal Review, Vol. I, pp. 386-400, July, 1912.)
7. The short ballot. R. S. Childs, Short Ballot Principles, especially pp. 21-30; P. S. Reinsch,
Readings on American State Government, pp. 372-383.
8. Compulsory voting. Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, No. 24
(Compulsory Voting).
9. Corrupt practices at elections. C. L. Jones, Readings on Parties and Elections, pp. 202-302.

10. Are elections as fairly conducted in the United States as in other countries? Charles
Seymour and Donald O. Frary, How the World Votes (see index).

Questions
1. Is the right to vote a natural right or merely a privilege conferred by the state?
2. Who have the right to vote at elections in your state? Who are excluded? In order to vote, how
long must one reside in your state? Your county? Your precinct?
3. Who enrolls voters in your community? When and where do they enroll voters? What evidence
must you supply in order to be enrolled?
4. Make a diagram of a polling place showing its interior arrangement, the booths in which voters
mark their ballots, the location of the ballot box, etc.
5. What are the different forms of primary and which form do you think is the best (a) for state
nominations; (b) for local nominations?
6. What effects would the use of the short ballot have upon (a) the efficiency of government; (b)
popular interest at elections; (c) the quality of the officials chosen?
7. Explain the difference between preferential voting, proportional representation, limited voting,
and cumulative voting.
8. Explain the difference between corrupt and illegal practices at elections. Make a list of each.
9. What are some of the reasons why so many voters stay away from the polls on election day? Are
the following excuses valid: “I do not approve of either political party”; “My vote doesn’t count for
anything”; “I am too busy”; “I am not interested in politics”; “It is a rainy day and I might catch
cold”; “I have an engagement to play golf”; “The polling place is too far away”; “I do not think any
of the candidates worth voting for”?
10. What are some of the practical objections to making voting compulsory?

Topics for Debate
1. There should be an educational test for voting.
2. The failure to vote, in the absence of a valid excuse, should be punished by some appropriate
penalty.
3. There should be a limit on the amount of money that may be legally spent by candidates in
election campaigns.

GOOD ADMINISTRATION

By Elihu Vedder
From a mural decoration in the Library of Congress.
Good Administration, with benign countenance, sits upon
her throne, a perfect arch above her head. As the strength of
an arch depends upon all its parts equally, so the
maintenance of a strong and efficient administration depends
upon the co-operation of all elements among the people. In
her right hand Good Administration holds evenly the scales
of justice; her left hand rests upon a quartered shield to

indicate the fair balance of all parties and classes. On her lap
is the book of the law. At her feet, on either side, is an urn.
Into one of these urns a maiden is winnowing wheat drawn
from the waving fields in the background. The people also,
in choosing their public officials, should winnow well. Into
the other urn an eager youth, with books of knowledge under
his left arm, is casting his ballot.
Mr. Vedder has also executed for the Library of Congress
a companion figure portraying Corrupt Administration. She
holds the scales, unevenly balanced, in her left hand. A
seeker of special favors is placing a bag of gold in the
scales; he has seized the book of the law and upset the ballot
urn.

GOOD ADMINISTRATION. By Elihu Vedder

From a Copley Print, copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced
by permission.

CHAPTER VIII
POLITICAL PARTIES AND PRACTICAL POLITICS

The purpose of this chapter is to describe how political parties are organized, what they do,
and how they do it.

Why Political Parties are Formed.—Whenever Parties are natural
people are in control of their government, political groups.
parties are certain to be formed. No popular government has long continued
anywhere in the world without political parties. The reason for this is that
whenever any group of people find that they have the same opinions or the
same interests they desire to act together. If people are interested in music
they organize an orchestra or a choral society and arrange concerts. If men
are interested in trade, they organize themselves into a board of trade to
promote their mutual interests. Workmen associate themselves together in
labor unions; boys who are interested in athletics organize clubs; men who
have been in the military and naval service associate themselves together in
the American Legion, and so it goes. People who have the same opinions,
desires, ideas, and interests tend to group themselves together, which is a
perfectly natural thing for them to do.
Now large numbers of men and women have identical political opinions
(or think they have) and this community of interest draws them together
into groups. Such groups we call political parties. The Republican party is
made up of men and women who believe in certain political principles
which are set forth in the party platform; the Democratic party is made up
of those who hold a different set of opinions. Whenever a large body of
people wish the government to do something which is not already being
done they soon find that the best way to achieve their end is to organize.[50]
The Aims of Political Parties.—Every political Their first aim is to
party has two aims. The first is to get control of the win elections.
government; the second is to carry out its own policy by means of this

control. To do this they must nominate candidates for office, raise funds for
carrying on a campaign, and work to elect their men. It is only by electing
their own candidates for office that they can accomplish the ends for which
they are organized. An army does not exist merely to teach men drill or
discipline. Its chief aim is to win victories. Drill and discipline are merely a
means to this end. So with a political party. Its organization, leaders,
campaign work, and all other activities have one purpose in mind, namely,
to win victories at the polls. Then, when the party has elected its candidates
and obtained control of the government it can carry its program into effect.
Occasionally a party secures its chief aim without gaining control of the
government, as the Prohibition party did in 1920.
Definition of a Political Party.—Having seen why But the aim of a
political parties are formed and what they aim to do we political party is not
altogether selfish.
are now in a position to frame a definition. A political
party is a group of men and women who think alike on public questions and
have joined themselves together in order to gain control of the government
so that they can carry their opinions into practice. The aim of a party is not
always selfish, however, as this definition might imply. Most members of a
political party believe that in endeavoring to get control of the government
they are promoting the public interest. Their aim is to bring into operation
certain policies which they believe will benefit the whole people. The
Democratic party urged a revision of tariff ten years ago because its
members believed that lower duties on imports would help the United
States as a whole and not because the Democrats, as distinct from the
Republicans, would derive the whole advantage. The Republicans, for their
part, have favored high duties on imports because they believe that
American industry ought to be protected against foreign competition. Both
parties seek to promote the general interest, but in different ways.
Party Divisions Tend to Become Permanent.— Habit is an important
Parties are originally formed to promote a particular factor in party
strength.
policy, but when they have gained control of the
government and have put their program into practice they do not go out of
existence. They continue, and people remain members of the party, largely
from force of habit. Each party takes up new ideas, gains some new
members and loses some old ones. The mill keeps on turning although new
forms of grist are brought to be ground and new workmen guide the wheels.
Men and women who reach voting age join one or another of the parties,

sometimes because they are influenced by its principles, more often because
their parents have belonged to that party. Thus it happens that over long
periods of time a party may remain strong among the people in one section
of the country and weak in another. The reason is not that the party’s policy
at the moment happens to be popular in one area and unpopular in the other.
Habit influences people in politics as in everything else. When a man has
voted several times with one political party he is not likely to desert it even
though the party’s program changes. Not only that but his sons and
daughters will probably join the same political party. Pennsylvania has gone
Republican at every national election for more than sixty years although a
wholly new set of voters has grown up; Texas on the other hand has never
failed to support the Democratic ticket for just as long a period. The whole
of the “Solid South”, in fact, goes Democratic with unfailing regularity, and
has done so ever since the Reconstruction. A political party thus retains a
strong hold upon large bodies of voters, old and new, even though it may
change its policies from time to time.
The Functions of Political Parties.—Could we get The active work of
along without parties? Perhaps we could, but American parties.
government would have to be carried on very differently if parties did not
exist. If you watch an election campaign, you will notice that several things
happen in the course of it. First, there is a great deal of public discussion
about candidates. Then, some time before the election, candidates are
nominated. Platforms are drawn up stating the things which each candidate
favors. The candidates, together with other speakers, go out and make
addresses; pamphlets are distributed broadcast giving reasons why people
should vote for one candidate or the other; meetings and rallies are held in
halls and on the street corners; the newspapers print the arguments on the
respective sides; the people are worked up to a white heat of enthusiasm;
and finally, on the day of election, the issue is decided.
Now how would all this be done if there were no political parties?
Candidates cannot be nominated without organized effort; platforms do not
make themselves; the people cannot be stirred to an active interest on one
side or the other except by a vigorous campaign; without parties, indeed, an
election would be a very dull and uninteresting affair.
The conclusion is, therefore, that political parties Parties perform three
have various definite functions to perform, and these important functions:
may be summarized under three heads. First, they nominate candidates and

tell the people about them. This information is given in 1. They nominate
their platforms, of which more will be said a little later. candidates
platforms.
and frame

Second, they rouse public interest They rouse interest
by their rallies, their pamphlets, among the voters.
circulars, articles in newspapers, and posters, as well as by personal
canvassing. This rousing of the voter is very important, because most men
and women are chiefly concerned with their own business and personal
affairs. Even after all these methods of getting them interested have been
used it will be found that two or three voters out of every ten have failed to
go to the polls on election day. What would happen if there were no rallies,
circulars, canvassers, and all the rest? In that case most of the voters would
probably manifest no interest at all, and the election would be decided by a
small portion of the people. Third, the parties provide a 3. They bring the
chain which holds the various officers of the various branches of
government into
government to a joint responsibility. We elect a great harmony.
many public officers to perform different functions.
Members of the legislature are elected to make laws; governors and other
state officers to administer these laws; and judges to help enforce them. To
get the best results all three groups of public officials must work in
harmony. But if each were elected independently and without any reference
to the others, there would be little chance of their working together. When
they do work together it is because they have been elected to carry out a
common policy. This is the chain which holds them together—allegiance to
the same political party. If every public official followed his own ideas, we
should have one set of men making the laws and another set of men
throwing obstacles in the way of their enforcement.[51]
If there were no political parties, something else would have to be
organized to take their place. The things which the party does must be done
somehow. We cannot have democratic government unless candidates are
nominated, platforms framed, public interest aroused, and officials
encouraged to work together in a common cause. Political parties do not
always perform these functions well, but what sort of organization would be
likely to manage them any better?
When and How did Political Parties Begin?—It is The political
difficult to say how or when political parties originated. “factions”
days.
of early

Someone once remarked that even at the time of the
Flood there were two political parties, namely, the Deluvians and the

Antedeluvians. John Adams declared that “parties began with human
nature”. In a sense he was right. Anyone who has read Roman history will
remember the long and bitter struggle between the patricians and the
plebeians. The Guelphs and Ghibellines of the Middle Ages were political
parties although their rivalry often assumed the form of open warfare. The
Cavaliers and Roundheads of Cromwell’s time armed themselves and
fought for the control of the government with muskets and sabres, not with
ballots. They were parties, dynastic parties. But the violent conflict of
parties eventually gave way to orderly contests at the polls, and men found
that they could belong to different political parties without thereby
becoming personal enemies of one another. So Whigs and Tories arose in
England before the American Revolution, and corresponding groups were
to be found in the thirteen American colonies.
But the real history of political parties in the United The first American
States did not begin until after the adoption of the parties.
constitution, when Hamilton and Jefferson became leaders of opposing
elements among the people. Hamilton and his followers, the Federalists,
desired to strengthen the central government; Jefferson and his supporters,
calling themselves Democratic-Republicans, desired to keep the central
government weak and to place the balance of power in the hands of the
states. In the end Jefferson’s party obtained the upper hand, but by having
things too much its own way finally lost its solidarity and split into several
factions. Party politics gave way for a time to personal politics, the voters
ranging themselves behind leaders rather than principles; but presently the
various factions consolidated into two parties known as Whigs and
Democrats. The Whig party eventually went to pieces and in its place arose
the Republican organization which elected Lincoln in 1860. Since that date
the Democrats and Republicans have continued to be the two leading
parties.
What the Leading Political Parties Stand for.— The distinction
The general ideas upon which the members of a between principles,
policies, and issues.
political party agree are incorporated into its platform
and are commonly known as the party’s principles. For example, a party
may pledge itself to the principle of promoting foreign trade, or conserving
the natural resources of the country, or keeping aloof from the affairs of
Europe. The methods by which these principles are to be carried into effect
constitute the party’s policy. The principle of promoting foreign trade, to

take an example, may be carried into effect by lending money or credit to
exporters, as was done after the World War. But the different parties do not
usually agree upon either principles or policy, and this divergence gives rise
to party issues or points of conflict between the parties.
It is not easy to set forth in concise form the principal issues. During the
campaign of 1916 the attitude of the United States towards the great
European conflict was the pivot of attention; in 1920 the question whether
America should or should not enter the League of Nations crowded most of
the other issues into the background. The main planks in party platform
change from one election to another.[52] During the past twenty years the
platforms of both parties have dealt with a wide variety of matters; but the
disagreement between the two parties has not always been clean-cut and in
some cases it has left the voter little to choose between them. On some
matters the two leading platforms are openly opposed; on others they are
very much alike, and on some others, again, they are so ambiguous that it is
difficult to tell just where they differ. As a practical matter it is not always
wise to take an absolutely definite stand in the party platform, for
conditions may change and by so doing place the party in the position of
having pledged something which ought not, in view of the changed
conditions, to be carried out.
The Minor Parties.—Americans, on the whole, have accepted the two-
party system. The great majority of voters are either Republicans or
Democrats. Nevertheless the platforms of these two parties never suit all the
people and the result is that minor parties, or “third” parties as they are
sometimes called, come into existence from time to time. During the past
hundred years a dozen or more of these minor parties have been formed but
with two or three exceptions they have soon melted away.[53] These
exceptions are the Prohibition party, which was organized in 1872 for the
purpose of securing the complete suppression of the liquor traffic in the
United States. The adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment gave this party
the chief thing that it had been contending for, but it has not yet gone out of
existence. The Socialist party is the other example of a “third party” which
has continued to be active for a considerable period.
In the United States minor parties do not usually live Why “third parties”
long. Very few of them survive a dozen years. There are rarely survive.
reasons for this. In the first place the Democrats and Republicans are
constantly adapting their platforms to the needs of the country. When any

movement among the people becomes strong enough, one of the leading
parties takes it up. If large numbers of voters, for example, should desire the
abolition of divorces, one of the political parties would soon put an “anti-
divorce plank” in its platform, and would thereby prevent any new party
from making much headway on that particular issue. In the second place the
American voters, taking them as a whole, have become accustomed to the
two-party system. Very few of them are willing to forsake the old party
organizations without strong reasons for doing so. When they do,
temporarily, as a great many Republicans did in 1912 and a great many
Democrats in 1920, they usually drift back again before very long. A new
party, moreover, is difficult to organize and expensive to maintain. It has no
chance to win the election and most people do not care to belong to an
organization which never wins. So the easiest way to get new things
adopted in public policy is to persuade one of the leading parties to
champion them.
The Socialist Party.—Among the “third parties” The Socialist
which exist at the present day the Socialist party is the platform.
strongest. It has a program widely different from that of either the
Republicans or the Democrats. The Socialist party is organized to promote
the public ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, mines, forests,
factories, and all other such economic instrumentalities. In addition to its
economic program the Socialist party advocates the adoption of various
political changes such as the abolition of the United States Senate, the
election of all judges for short terms, and the abolition of the Supreme
Court’s power to declare laws unconstitutional. In point of strength at the
polls the Socialist party stands far below either of the two leading parties. It
is much weaker in the United States than in the various countries of Europe.
The Voter’s Relation to Parties.—So long as Is “independence” a
political parties are essential in representative virtue?
government, and so long as they perform useful functions, it is the duty of
every citizen to affiliate with some political party if he can honestly do so.
There are times, of course, when the voter of independent views cannot
honestly support any of the existing parties. On this point every voter must
make his or her own individual decision. There is no inherent virtue in
being an “independent”; for if every voter persisted in assuming that
attitude, there would be no political parties at all, and democracy would in
the long run suffer rather than gain as a result. Most voters, as a matter of

fact, belong to one of the leading parties and support the candidates of this
party at every election. They are commonly called the regular members of
the party. But membership in a political party does not mean that one is
under obligation to support that party under all circumstances. It is possible
to belong to a political party and yet retain a reasonable degree of
independence. A political party gains, indeed, by having in its ranks a
sprinkling of men and women who know their own minds on political
questions and will not tamely follow wherever the party chiefs may lead.
Let us remember, however, that a political party, like The need of party
an army, requires discipline and leadership for its leadership discipline.
and

success. If every soldier insisted on following his own
inclinations rather than the advice or orders of his officers, he would never
be on the winning side in any battles. So, if every voter declines to be led
by anyone’s counsel but his own, there will be no unity of party effort and
no real triumph of one set of principles over another. To secure any
substantial improvement in government, large groups of men and women
must pull together. This means that they must have a platform, an
organization, and capable leaders, which is equivalent to saying that they
must act as a political party.
Parties are What the People Make Them.—The The citizen’s duty.
choice of a political party is one of the means by which the citizen in a
democracy exercises his sovereign power. A political party is merely what
its members make it. No chain is stronger than the links which compose it;
and no political party ever represents a higher grade of intelligence or
patriotism than its members provide. If a political party becomes selfish or
corrupt, the remedy lies in the hands of the people. Honest men and women
will then desert that party; it will fail to win elections, and ultimately go to
pieces. On the other hand if a political party is honest in its principles, wise
in its policy, patriotic in its ideals, and progressive in its sympathies, it will
draw recruits from among the thousands of men and women who reach
voting age each year. It will grow in strength. The voter can best display his
zeal as a citizen by joining a party and helping to make it a power for good.
The Need for Party Organization.—Organization Organization helps to
is the watchword of every political party. Without win victories.
organization there is no chance to win elections and put the party’s policies
into operation. Very little is ever achieved in this world without
coöperation. However competent an individual may be, there are limits to

what he can do. It is not the brilliant player that wins the game, but the
well-trained team. Napoleon Bonaparte once said that organization and
discipline counted for seventy-five per cent of victory. These things are
quite as important in politics as in war.
Organization, in party politics, involves three things, leadership,
coöperation, and money. No party is well-organized unless it possesses all
three. For this reason every strong political party uses care in selecting its
leaders, builds up a system of party conventions and party committees, and
raises campaign funds to pay the necessary expenses of its work.
Local Party Organization.—Let us see how this organization is
effected. Beginning at the bottom each party has its local committees. These
committees are generally chosen by the voters of the party at the primary
elections, and they have charge of the party interests in the town or
township, county or district, as the case may be. In the large cities there is a
committee for each ward and a general committee covering the whole city.
These local committees arrange for political meetings in their own
neighborhood and help to bring out the voters on election day. They work in
harmony with the state committee.
State Party Organization.—Next come the state organizations. The
party organization in the states consists of a state central committee and a
state convention. The members of the state committee The state committee.
are sometimes elected by the voters in the various congressional or state
senatorial districts; sometimes they are named by the county conventions,
and occasionally they are chosen by the state convention. The committee’s
functions are to issue the call for conventions (or in some states for
primaries), to raise and spend the campaign funds in state elections, to
arrange the plans for the state campaign, and to supervise so far as
practicable the work of the local committees. The state The state convention.
convention is made up of a large body of delegates who are directly elected
by the party voters or chosen by the district or county conventions. It meets
a short time prior to each state election and one of its chief duties is to
prepare the party’s platform.[54] Each political party holds its own
convention.
National Party Organization.—In the early years of The national
the Republic, candidates for the presidency were convention.
nominated by congressional caucuses, that is, by meetings of the party’s
representatives in Congress. But this method was discarded about 1824 and

in due course national party conventions were called to make these
nominations. At present these national conventions meet every four years,
during the summer preceding the presidential election. Republicans,
Democrats, Prohibitionists, and Socialists all hold their own conventions. In
the case of the two leading parties the conventions are made up of delegates
from every state and territory, these delegates being directly chosen at
primaries or named by the state conventions. The national conventions
choose the candidates for the presidency and the vice presidency. They also
frame the party platforms, this work being done through committees.
The chief permanent organ of each party is a national The national
committee made up of one member from each state, committee.
who is either chosen by the voters at the primary election or selected by the
delegates from the state to the national convention. The national committee
chooses its own chairman, who has general charge of the party’s interests in
the campaign; but in making its choice the national committee usually
defers to the wishes of the party’s presidential candidate.
How the National Party Convention does its Work.—The national
party conventions usually meet in some large city, such as Chicago, St.
Louis, Baltimore, or San Francisco. An enormous The convention hall.
auditorium is needed for the gathering because a national convention
consists of nearly a thousand delegates and an equal number of alternates.
Among bodies which have to do with government the national party
convention is the largest in the world. The delegates are seated by
alphabetical order of the states, Alabama first and Wyoming last, each state
having its delegates grouped together. Large placards or banners show
where each state is placed. The delegates are arranged What a national
in the front part of the hall, the alternates in the rear. convention is like.
Whenever a delegate leaves the auditorium an alternate goes forward to sit
in his place. The galleries are filled with spectators and there is a huge
bustle going on all the time. It is hard for the speakers to make themselves
heard, as only a thunder-voiced orator can make his words rise above the
din which goes on continually. At times, when a popular candidate appears,
there is a general pandemonium. A band starts around the aisles, playing as
it goes. Delegates fall in behind the band, cheering and shouting. For half
an hour, perhaps longer, this racket continues. Then the noise subsides and
the convention gets back to its work—until the next commotion begins.
The balloting.

After various names have been proposed, the convention begins to ballot.
If no candidate receives a sufficient majority, another ballot is taken. In the
Republican convention the successful candidate must get a majority of all
the delegates; in the Democratic convention the requirement is two thirds.
When there are several candidates in the running, many ballotings are
sometimes required. Day after day the voting goes on, if necessary, until
somebody wins.[55] The weaker candidates drop out; the stronger ones keep
gaining, until finally the fight narrows down to two or three and the victor
emerges. Then the tired delegates rush through the remaining business and
start for home.
The Party Machine.—The active workers in these Reasons for the
conventions and committees make up what is called the existence
machines.
of

“machine”. It is called a machine because all its parts
work smoothly together in the effort to obtain the desired result, which is to
win the election. There are party organizations in other countries, but party
“machines” exist only in the United States. Various reasons account for this.
One is the frequency of elections, which creates a class of professional
politicians. There are more elections in the United States than in any other
country. Another reason is the organizing power of the American people,
and the zeal with which they throw themselves into an election campaign.
The practice of giving the appointive offices to leaders of the victorious
party also has something to do with it. Many men give their time and
energy to electioneering because they expect to get favors in return.
The function of the “machine” is to serve the party, and through the party
to serve the people. But the “machine” often goes beyond this purpose. Its
leaders, finding themselves in control of great power, How they lead to
are tempted to use it for their own personal profit and abuses.
advantage. They become arbitrary, dictating what shall go into the party
platform and who shall be nominated. The party leader who does this
becomes a party “boss”, and when groups of bosses control the party they
are commonly known as “rings”.
Rings and Bosses.—The “boss” in politics is just What is a “boss”?
like any other kind of boss. His will is law, so far as all his underlings are
concerned. The difference between a party leader and a party boss is that
the leader is chosen by the free action of the party and exercises his
functions openly, while the boss usurps the control of his party and utilizes
it for his own ends without assuming any open responsibility. The leader

leads and the boss drives. Party leaders are necessary to Why bosses are
good party organization, but the party “boss” is a dangerous.
menace to the best interests of the party and to the cause of honest
government. Great power must sometimes be placed in the hands of one
man; but care should be taken that every man who wields great power in a
democracy is made responsible for the use of this authority. Power, when
checked by responsibility, is not dangerous. A party “boss” is dangerous
because he has the power and abuses it. He controls a great “machine”
without being accountable to anybody even when he directs it against the
public interest. He gives favors to his friends and the public pays the bills.
Rings are groups of bosses and are more dangerous How “rings” are
because they are stronger. Four or five unscrupulous formed.
men working together are stronger than one working alone. So when bosses
unite, they are often able to nominate whomsoever they please and to secure
the election of incompetent or supine men. Rings and bosses operate largely
in city and state government because the opportunity to gain control there is
much greater than in national affairs. The smaller the election district, the
more chance the boss has for making himself the master of it. The people as
a whole cannot spend much time over politics; the boss is always at work,
from one end of the year to the other. He makes friends with everybody
who can help him. He is always ready to do favors. Then, when election
day comes, he expects his friends to stand by him.[56]
How Parties are Financed.—The work which Party revenue.
political parties do, such as holding conventions, framing platforms, and
conducting a campaign requires a great deal of money. Expenses that are
necessary and quite legitimate have to be met. No organization can hold
together on an empty pocketbook. So money has to be obtained, and the
only way of raising it is by voluntary contributions, for the political parties
have no right to tax anyone. Where does the money come from? It comes
largely from members of the party who respond to the call for subscriptions
sent out by their leaders. People who are well-to-do often give considerable
sums although party leaders feel that it is not good policy to accept very
large contributions from any one man because this may give rise to a
suspicion that the subscriber hopes to get some political favor in return. The
party leaders prefer to obtain the essential funds from a great multitude of
small donors who prove their loyalty to the party in this way. A national
campaign costs each of the chief parties a large sum, Party expenditures.

several million dollars nowadays.[57] State and local campaigns cost a great
deal less. The money is spent for the publication and mailing of campaign
literature, for the traveling expenses of speakers, for hire of meeting-places,
and for a great many other things which go to make up an election
campaign.[58] The speakers and the party workers usually give their services
freely, but the party must furnish the money to defray their expenses.
The Reform of Party Organization.—It will be seen, therefore, that
although political parties are necessary and useful organizations in a
democracy, they often develop serious abuses when left free from official
control. For this reason the organization and work of the political parties
should be regulated by provisions of law. Such provisions have already
done much to eliminate boss rule and to improve the party system. Some
people feel that political parties ought to be abolished altogether but that
suggestion is impractical. The abolition of parties would not make
government any more democratic, or more honest, or more efficient. The
work which the parties now perform must be performed by some
organizations of voters, somehow, and if parties were abolished something
similar under a different name would have to be created to do this work.
What we need is not the abolition of parties but the Parties must not be
improvement of party organization and party methods. abolishedimproved.
but

Realizing that parties can be useful we should give
them scope for usefulness but restrict their opportunities for evil. This is
what the laws are now doing. They aim to make party leaders responsible,
to make party nominations fair, and to make party finance honest.
General References
P. Orman Ray, Political Parties and Practical Politics, pp. 3-12;
A. Lawrence Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, pp. 57-85;
James A. Woodburn, Political Parties and Party Problems in the United States, pp. 465-470;
M. Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, pp. 225-281;
W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 312-356;
Moorfield Storey, Problems of Today, pp. 1-53;
W. W. Willoughby and Lindsay Rogers, Introduction to the Problem of Government, pp. 127-
150.

Group Problems
1. The political doctrines of leading American statesmen: Hamilton, John Adams, Jefferson,
Jackson, Calhoun, Clay, and Webster. References: Cyclopedia of American Government, passim; C.
E. Merriam, American Political Theories (see index).
2. Minor political parties—their rise and fall. References: James A. Woodburn, Political
Parties and Party Problems, pp. 133-148; P. Orman Ray, Political Parties and Practical Politics, pp.

40-68; F. E. Haynes, Third Party Movements Since the Civil War, pp. 221-260; E. B. Stanwood,
History of the Presidency, passim.
3. The organization of political parties in a typical state of the Union. Jesse Macy, Party
Organization and Machinery, pp. 96-132; James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. II, pp. 76-
81; W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 483-487.
4. The national party conventions. C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 166-
172; P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 826-845; P. Orman Ray,
Political Parties, pp. 145-167; J. A. Woodburn, Political Parties, pp. 165-214; F. W. Dallinger,
Nominations for Elective Office, pp. 74-92; C. L. Jones, Readings on Parties and Elections, pp. 80-
105; T. H. McKee, National Conventions and Platforms, passim; E. B. Stanwood, History of the
Presidency, passim.
5. The platforms of the various parties in 1920: an analysis and comparison. World Almanac
(1921). Also the Campaign Text Books issued by the party organizations.

Short Studies
1. Campaign methods. P. O. Ray, Political Parties, pp. 255-267.
2. Party loyalty and political independence. J. A. Woodburn, Political Parties, pp. 295-303.
3. The Progressive Party: its history and platform. S. J. Duncan-Clark, The Progressive
Movement, passim.
4. Tammany Hall. Gustavus Myers, History of Tammany Hall, pp. 267-298; Encyclopedia
Americana, Vol. XXVI, pp. 235-237.
5. The boss as a personality. M. Ostrogorski, Democracy and Political Parties, pp. 250-263.
6. The Tweed Ring. J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States, Vol. VI, pp. 392-411.
7. How the machine works. Theodore Roosevelt, Autobiography, pp. 61-101; 144-184; 185-
222.
8. The nationalizing influence of parties. Henry J. Ford, Rise and Growth of American Politics,
pp. 150-161.
9. Municipal political parties. M. R. Maltbie, in Proceedings, National Municipal League, VI,
pp. 226ff.
10. The reform of party organization. F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy, pp. 228-261.

Questions
1. Can you improve the definition of a political party given in this chapter?
2. Among the various functions of political parties which do you consider the most important, and
why?
3. Why do political parties refrain at times from making their platform pledges more definite?
What new proposal would you like to see inserted in a party platform?
4. Account for the fact that constitutional questions played a more important part in American
politics prior to 1860 than since that date.
5. Give brief sketches of the Federalist, Democratic-Republican, and Whig parties and their work
before the Civil War.
6. Explain why the “mortality rate” among “third parties” has been so high. Account for the fact
that some of these parties have survived a considerable period of time while others have not.
7. Make an outline showing the type of party organization used in your own state.
8. Prepare a list of things for which money can be legally expended by political parties during an
election campaign.
9. If you were a voter, to which political party would you belong? Give your reasons.
10. What are the important points to be emphasized in discussing the reform of party organization?
Name some reforms which you think would be advantageous.

Topics for Debate
1. Municipal elections should be conducted on party lines.
2. The campaign expenses of presidential candidates should be paid from the national treasury.
3. A three-party system would be preferable in this country to the present two-party organization.

CHAPTER IX
COUNTIES AND RURAL COMMUNITIES

The purpose of this chapter is to show how the counties, towns, and villages of the United
States are governed, who their local officials are, and what they do.

What Local Government Is.—The functions The division of
performed by governments fall into two divisions. First, governmental
functions.
there are functions which relate mainly to the life and
activities of the neighborhood, such as police administration, fire
protection, the cleaning of streets, and the care of the poor. These things can
best be managed by the local authorities. Second, there are functions of a
more general character which relate to the life and activities of the entire
state or nation, such as the regulation of the railroads, the coining of money,
the maintenance of post offices, and the control of corporations. These
functions we have committed, accordingly, to the state and national
governments. In earlier days, before industry and commerce developed so
greatly, local functions were the more numerous; but as population grows
the whole country tends to become one great community, hence many
functions formerly performed by the local authorities are being taken over
by the states and the nation. It is impossible to lay down any rule as to what
functions are local and what functions are general. A few years ago each
town and village made its own regulations concerning the speed limit for
automobiles; to-day that matter has been taken over almost everywhere by
the state authorities.
The Beginnings of Local Government in the Local government in
United States.—Local government is the oldest branch the colonies.
of government; both the state and the national government have grown out
of it. When colonists first came from England to Plymouth and
Massachusetts Bay they settled on small farms and built their houses within
short distances of one another. In Virginia, on the other hand, the colonists

took up large plantations for the growing of tobacco and cotton; their homes
were spread over a wide area. Because of the difference in the manner of
settlement the New England colonists organized themselves into towns (or
townships) while the Southern colonists created larger units of local
government known as counties. From the Atlantic seaboard these two types
of local administration—township and county government—have spread
out over the rest of the country. In the course of this spread they have been
considerably altered from their original forms.

County Government

The County.—Every state in the Union is now Nature of the county.
divided into counties.[59] The division is made by the state legislature, but
when county boundaries are once fixed they are seldom changed thereafter.
In the older states the counties are often small; in the newer states they
sometimes cover several hundred square miles.[60] Counties, like cities, are
public corporations, that is to say they have the right to own property, to
raise taxes, to borrow money, and to make contracts. They may sue and be
sued in the courts. But counties have no inalienable rights of their own. All
their powers are derived from the state. They are merely political divisions
of the state, created for the more convenient administration of local affairs.
In a few states the people of each county are permitted to select and
establish such form of county government as they may choose, but as a rule
the state legislature prescribes a uniform type of county government for all
the counties within the state.
The County Officers.—The chief governmental authority of the county
is the county board, the members of which are usually known as
commissioners or supervisors. These members are either directly elected by
the voters of the county or sent as representatives from the townships.
County boards may have only three members or as many as fifteen—each
state has its own regulations on this point. The board has its headquarters at
the county seat, where the county courthouse is located.
The functions of the county board may be County functions.
summarized under six heads. 1. Financial. Most county boards have the
right to levy county taxes and to make appropriations for expenditure. They
have authority from the state legislature to borrow money on the county’s
credit. This borrowing power is exercised in order to construct county
roads, build bridges, or provide county buildings. 2. Highways and bridges.
In many states all the main highways are designated as state or county
roads. The towns and townships are responsible for the construction of
minor highways only. The state roads are built by state highway
commissions or some such body; the county roads are constructed and
maintained by the county board. In some states these county roads are
numerous; in others they are very few. Main bridges, which connect two

cities, towns, or townships, are also built and maintained by the county
board. 3. Public buildings. Every county requires certain public buildings,
including a courthouse, a county jail, a registry of deeds, a county
poorhouse, and sometimes a county hospital. These buildings are erected
and managed by the county board. 4. Poor-relief and correction. The
function of providing public poor-relief is to some extent performed by the
state and municipal authorities but a good deal of the responsibility still
rests upon the county boards. 5. Elections. In most states of the West and
South the county board has charge of the local arrangements for state and
national elections. It designates the polling places, appoints the election
officers, and provides the ballots. The county, in most of the states, serves
as the unit for the selection of senators and assemblymen in the state
legislature. 6. Miscellaneous. Finally, the county boards have sundry other
functions. Occasionally they grant charters of incorporation to companies.
In some states they construct irrigation works and arrange for the abolition
of grade crossings on railroads. They often help in the selection of jurors
and have authority to grant certain licenses.
Have County Boards been Satisfactory?—The The faults of county
work of the county boards has not received much public government.
attention in most of the states until the last few years. The county has been
called “the jungle of American politics” because the masses of the people
know so little about what is going on in the offices of the county authorities.
On the whole county government has not been conspicuously bad, but it has
been far from what it ought to be. American counties, as a rule, have been
more honestly and more economically governed than American cities. The
fundamental objection to the existing system of county government is that it
places in the hands of an elective body, the members of which are usually
chosen for purely political reasons, the performance of many difficult
executive functions. The management of finances, construction of roads,
bridges, and public buildings, the proper treatment of the poor, the sick, and
the insane are all tasks which require ability, skill, and experience. Elective
county supervisors cannot reasonably be expected to perform them well,
and this is especially the case when the nominations and elections are
dominated by professional politicians.
The County Manager Plan.—In view of the large amount of executive
work, requiring skill and experience, which is imposed upon the county
boards, and especially in consideration of the fact that this executive work

is steadily growing, it has been proposed that the boards should confine
themselves to matters of general policy, leaving to a county manager the
entire work of actual administration. In a few counties this proposal has
been adopted. The county manager, a trained and highly-paid official, is
appointed by the county board to purchase all materials and supplies, to hire
labor, to prepare contracts for the construction of public buildings, and to
attend to all the details which arise in connection with the board’s work. In
this way, by concentrating authority in a single hand, a great deal of waste
and inefficiency is avoided. The plan is in harmony with the principle that
responsibility for purely executive work, particularly when it is of a
technical character, should be entrusted to men who have special
qualifications for performing it (see pp. 197-198).
The County as a Judicial Area.—In the County courts.
administration of justice the county plays an important part. County courts
exist in nearly all the states, and although they form an integral part of the
state judiciary they have jurisdiction over such matters within the county as
the laws may provide. Both the organization and the jurisdiction of the
county courts differ greatly from state to state. In some states each county
has its own judge; in others there is one judge for a group of counties. This
judge holds sessions in one county after another. The county court usually
hears appeals from the local courts and has original jurisdiction in cases
where a jury is in order. The probating of wills is in most cases a function of
the county court. Appeals from its decisions may usually be carried to the
higher tribunals of the state.
The Sheriff.—Every county has a peace officer His functions.
known as the sheriff, usually elected by the voters of the county. He is the
chief guardian of the law and the right-arm of the county court. Historically
this is the oldest office in the country. It goes back to the time of William
the Conqueror or earlier, when the shire-reeve was the agent of the king in
keeping law and order. Sheriffs have the right to appoint deputy-sheriffs
whose duty it is to help preserve the public peace, to make arrests, and to
serve court papers. Sometimes the sheriff and his deputies are paid regular
salaries, but more often they obtain their remuneration from fees. The
sheriff is the custodian of prisoners in the county jail; he summons the
jurors to the court sessions and carries out all the judgments rendered by the
court.

The Prosecuting Attorney.—Attached to every Work of the grand
county court there is a legal officer who is commonly jury.
known as the prosecuting attorney or county attorney, usually elected by the
people.[61] His chief duty is to conduct prosecutions before the county court.
He investigates crimes, prepares the evidence, and usually lays the case,
first of all, before a body known as the grand jury. This jury, as will later be
explained, is selected by lot from among the voters of the county. It does
not go into the question of guilt or innocence, but merely determines
whether an accused person should be placed on trial before a trial jury in a
county court. In some states it is not necessary for the prosecuting attorney
to lay the case before the grand jury; he may merely file a sworn
declaration, called an information or complaint, stating his belief that there
is sufficient ground for placing the accused person on trial. Prosecuting
attorneys everywhere have a good deal of discretion in the way of
discontinuing or “nol-prossing” criminal cases.[62]
Other County Officers.—There are various other officers connected
with county government. The county assessors go about the county and
assess or value property for purposes of taxation. The county treasurer
receives the taxes and pays the county’s bills. The county auditors inspect
the financial accounts of all county officers. The registrar of deeds or
recorder keeps books in which all deeds and mortgages on land are entered.
[63]
The county coroner has the duty of holding an The coroner.
investigation or inquest whenever a death takes place under circumstances
which excite suspicion of crime. For this purpose he summons a coroner’s
jury of citizens to determine the facts. They do not determine guilt or
innocence, but may recommend that a suspected person be arrested and
held for trial. In some states the office of coroner has been abolished and its
functions given to an appointive official known as the medical examiner,
who is always a physician. In many counties there is a county
superintendent of schools whose duties are indicated by his title. Practically
all these officers are elected, usually for a short term of years.
Civil Service Reform in Counties.—Besides the The selection of
foregoing officers there are, in the service of county county employees.
government, large numbers of subordinate officials and employees,
including deputy-sheriffs, attendants in the jail and poorhouse, foremen on
road construction, clerks in the county offices, and so on. All of these are
still chosen, in most counties, under the spoils system. Positions on the

county pay roll are given almost everywhere the reward of party or personal
service. The merit system of selecting subordinate officials by competitive
examination has made little or no progress in the counties of the United
States although there is no good reason why it should not be used there as
well as in the municipal, state, and national service. The county remains the
last fortress of the spoils system because the people as a whole have not
been fully awakened to the importance of its work and because the political
influences which control county government have heretofore been strong
enough to prevent the loss of patronage which the introduction of the merit
system would entail.
The Metropolitan Counties.—Special problems of Relations of county
county government arise whenever a large city spreads and city.
itself over a whole county or even over a very large portion of it. The
growth of great municipal centers during recent years has changed many
American counties from rural into urban or metropolitan areas. Examples
are to be found in New York City which includes five counties within the
city limits. The city of Philadelphia includes the whole of Philadelphia
county; Suffolk county is almost entirely covered by the city of Boston, and
the city of Cleveland contains nine tenths of the population of Cuyahoga
county. The cities are largely independent of the counties within which they
are located, but the functions of city and county government run close
together at many points. For example the sheriff of the county and the
police commissioner or police chief of the city are both responsible for the
maintenance of law and order. The result is, quite often, a duplication of
work and a waste of money. It has been proposed that the city and county
governments, in the case of metropolitan counties, should be substantially
combined to prevent this duplication. To some extent this has been done, as
in the case of St. Louis, Baltimore, Boston, and San Francisco. In other
large cities various plans for entire or partial unification are under way.
The Reform of County Government.—For the Desirable changes in
improvement of county government throughout the county organization.
country three important changes in present organization and methods seem
to be needed. In the first place some provision should 1. A centralized
be made for the better handling of executive work. As executive.
matters now stand there is no county official corresponding to the President,
the governor, and the mayor in national, state, and city government
respectively. Responsibility is scattered into too many hands. It ought to be

centralized in a county manager or some other single administrative official.
Second, the number of elective county officers should 2. A shorter ballot.
be reduced. There is no sound reason why treasurers, auditors, and
superintendents of schools should be appointed in cities (as is usually the
case), but elected in counties. The practice of electing so many
administrative officers makes the ballot long and cumbersome; it also leads
to the choice of men who have no qualifications other than popularity. What
is even worse, it encourages frequent changes in the incumbents of these
offices and thus interferes with the efficient management of the county’s
business. Finally, the merit system could be 3. The merit system.
advantageously extended to include all subordinate county positions.

Towns and Townships
The Areas of Community Government.—For The various units of
purposes of local administration the counties are local government.
divided into towns, townships, or county districts, but whenever any portion
of the county becomes thickly settled it is usually organized as an
incorporated village, an incorporated town, a borough, or a city. It will be
seen, therefore, that there are at least seven different units of community
government in the United States, not to speak of the special districts which
exist in some individual states. The reason for this great diversity is to be
found in the fact that the American system of local government has grown
up gradually and in each state independently. In most European countries
the system of local government is uniform; in the United States it is not.
Each state has its own system and in no two states are these systems exactly
alike. For this reason only the broad outline of the subject can be presented;
the details must be studied in the localities concerned.
The New England Town.—Among the areas of The town meeting.
community government the New England town is the oldest and the most
interesting. It is not always, or even usually, a thickly-settled place. These
towns differ greatly both in size and in population; they are usually quite
irregular in shape and may contain anywhere from a few hundred to several
thousand people. The New England town does not possess a charter of
incorporation but it has the usual corporate powers (see p. 177). The chief
governing organ of the New England town is the town meeting, an
assembly of all the voters, both men and women. This town meeting is
called together at least once a year and often three or four times. It elects
the town officers, votes the appropriations, and decides all questions of
general policy. Sometimes the town meeting lasts all day; occasionally it
continues even longer. Every citizen has the right to a voice and a vote.
During the interval between the town meetings the The selectmen.
affairs of the town are managed by a board of selectmen, composed of three
or five members, elected by the voters. The selectmen prepare the business
for the town meeting and carry out its decisions. The larger towns also
maintain various other boards, such as a school board, a water board, and a
board of health, the members being in all cases elected at the town meeting.

Other town officials include a town clerk, a treasurer, an auditor, and a
superintendent of schools.
When towns grow large the town meeting becomes Recent changes in the
unwieldy and the system of administration by numerous system.
boards fails to work smoothly. For this reason some New England towns
have recently adopted a “limited town meeting” system, by which the
voters of the town elect delegates to represent them in the town meeting. A
few towns have also abolished the various administrative boards and have
placed town administration in charge of a town manager appointed by the
selectmen.[64]
The Township.—In the great group of Central and Middle Western
states, ranging from New York and Pennsylvania to Nebraska and the
Dakotas, the principal area of community government is the township,
although it is sometimes called the town. In the older states these townships
(or towns) are of irregular shape; in several of the newer states the so-called
“congressional” townships were laid out in uniform blocks, six miles
square. In some of the states, both old and new, the towns or townships
have town meetings, as in New England, but nowhere outside of New
England have these meetings attained any great importance. Their chief
function in the Central and Middle Western states is to elect the town or
township officers. The work of township (or town) administration is carried
on either by a board of trustees or by a single official commonly known as a
supervisor. There are also various subordinate officials, all of whom are
usually elected by the voters.
The County Districts.—In most states of the South and Far West there
are no townships. The county remains the principal area of local
government, but for the management of various community affairs the
county is divided into districts. There are school districts, road districts, and
election districts, for example. Each district has its own elective officers
who are in charge of the function for which the district was established.
The Incorporated Communities.—The vitality of Incorporated towns,
townships and district government has been weakened boroughs, villages.
and

by the practice of incorporating as a village, town,
borough, or city, any portion of the area which becomes thickly settled. The
laws of the various states usually provide that whenever any part of a
community becomes sufficiently populous a designated number of the
inhabitants may petition for incorporation. The question is then submitted to

a vote, and if the vote is favorable, a charter of incorporation is granted. A
certain minimum of population is required; usually from two to three
hundred in the case of a village, one to three thousand in the case of a town,
and more than three thousand in the case of a city. These figures vary from
state to state. In some Western states the minimum for incorporation for a
city is only a few hundred. In any event when the place becomes
incorporated as a village, town, borough, or city it becomes separate, for
administrative purposes, from the township or district to which it belonged
and sets up a local government of its own. The nature of this government,
the officials, and the scope of their powers are all fixed by the laws of the
state. There are more than 15,000 incorporated villages, towns, boroughs,
and cities in the United States, nearly three fourths of them being places of
less than 2500 population.
The Merits and Defects of the Local Government The advantages.
System.—The most marked feature of the American system of local
government, when surveyed as a whole, is its decentralization. Nothing is
uniform throughout the country; each state follows its own plan, and
everywhere a large measure of home rule in local affairs is granted.
Contrast this with the system of local government in the French Republic
for example, where all communities, whether large or small, are governed
in exactly the same way and strictly controlled by the central authorities in
Paris. The American system has the advantage of allowing each section of
the country to adopt whatever scheme best suits its own particular needs. It
also facilitates the making of experiments in local government and through
these experiments we learn better ways of doing things. The large measure
of local home rule brings community government close to the people,
giving them control over it and responsibility for it. It fosters initiative and
tends to develop a wholesome rivalry in good work. Local government is a
fine school for the teaching of democracy.
On the other hand the American system has its The defects.
defects. So many areas of local government have been created in some of
the states that the people are over-governed. The multiplication of local
offices has led to wastefulness. Local home rule, moreover, has in some
cases been a synonym for local misrule. The result is that we have required,
during recent years, an increase in the amount of control exercised over the
government of the local communities by state and county authorities.
Townships, towns, and villages are areas of government established to meet

local needs, but they are also the channels through which the state
authorities carry on a portion of their work. This latter phase of local self-
government should not be overlooked.
General References
Everett Kimball, State and Local Government, pp. 309-344;
Charles A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 638-705; Ibid., Readings in American
Government and Politics, pp. 556-566;
James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 596-616;
W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 535-571;
H. G. James, Local Government in the United States, especially pp. 254-299;
John A. Fairlie, Local Government in Counties, Towns and Villages, especially pp. 57-140;
American Academy of Political and Social Science, County Government, pp. 81-111; Cyclopedia of
American Government (see under County, Towns and Townships, Borough).

Group Problems
1. Should the county-manager plan be adopted? With what county functions do you now come
into contact? How important to you and to your home is the work of the county officials in the matter
of road-building, the maintenance of prisons, the care of the poor, the registration of deeds, and the
supervision of schools? Are any of these things now mismanaged and, if so, in what way can the
situation be improved? The present multiplication of county authorities. Duties of each. How these
duties are performed. The cause of waste or inefficiency. What the county-manager system aims to
do. Comparison of the city-manager and the county-manager plans. References: H. G. James, Local
Government in the United States, pp. 425-451; John A. Fairlie, Local Government in Counties,
Towns and Villages, pp. 75-94; H. G. Gilbertson, The County, pp. 151-180; “County Government”
in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. XLVII (May, 1913);
National Short Ballot Organization, Documents on County Government; C. C. Maxey, County
Government, pp. 45-62.
2. How town government can be improved. References: H. G. James, Local Government in the
United States, pp. 254-283; C. S. Bird, Town Planning for Small Communities, pp. 311-340;
Cyclopedia of American Government (see under Towns and Townships); Annual Reports of Town
Officers.
3. What your township officials do. References: John A. Fairlie, Local Government in
Counties, Towns and Villages, pp. 164-181; H. G. James, Local Government in the United States, pp.
268-283; John Fiske, Civil Government in the United States, pp. 89-95; Everett Kimball, State and
Local Government, pp. 333-344; Annual Reports of Township Supervisor or Chairman.

Short Studies
1. The importance of local government in a democracy. A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in
America, Vol. I, pp. 74-87.
2. French and English methods of local government. H. G. James, Local Government in the
United States, pp. 1-65.
3. The county board. John A. Fairlie, Local Government in Counties, Towns and Villages, pp.
75-94; Everett Kimball, State and Local Government, pp. 317-332.
4. Politics in county government. H. S. Gilbertson, The County, pp. 43-65.
5. Where the county’s money goes. H. G. James, Local Government in the United States, pp.
232-250.
6. City and county consolidation. Ibid., pp. 437-448.

7. A New England town meeting. John Fiske, Civil Government in the United States, pp. 16-34.
8. The enforcement of the state laws in rural communities. J. M. Mathews, Principles of
American State Administration, pp. 430-462.
9. How good planning helps the small town. C. S. Bird, Town Planning for Small Communities,
pp. 1-19; 76-99.
10. Home rule for counties. H. S. Gilbertson, The County, pp. 207-250.
11. The government of an urban county. Cook County, Board of Commissioners, A Study of
Cook County, pp. 5-21.
12. The county courts. J. W. Smith, Training for Citizenship, pp. 185-197; American Academy of
Political and Social Science, County Government, pp. 120-133; Illinois Constitutional Convention,
1920, Bulletins, No. 11, pp. 905-925 (Local Government in Chicago and Cook County).

Questions
1. Why do we need a system of local government? Suppose all the areas of local government were
to be abolished and the management of local affairs taken over by the state, what advantages and
disadvantages would result?
2. To what extent does the constitution of your state restrict the freedom of the state legislature in
interfering with local government? Are these restrictions too great? Why should not counties and
towns be given complete home rule?
3. Name the qualifications which a good sheriff ought to have. An efficient coroner.
4. Why do we need a registry of deeds? If deeds were not registered what difficulties would be
encountered? Is a deed invalid if not registered?
5. If counties were to be abolished, which of their present functions would you transfer to the state
and which to the townships, towns, or villages?
6. Why is it thought desirable that when places become thickly-settled they should be given
separate incorporation?
7. Explain how local government serves as a school for democracy.
8. What ought to be the minimum limit of population for an incorporated village, an incorporated
town, a city?

Topics for Debate
1. All county administrative officials, except the highest, should be chosen by civil service rules.
2. City and county government should be consolidated in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia,
Cleveland, and Los Angeles.

CHAPTER X
CITY GOVERNMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to explain who the city authorities are and what they do.

What is a City?—The poet Cowper once said that To be a city a place
“God made the country and man made the town”, a must have a charter.
remark which was not intended to flatter the cities. Nor is there any reason
why life in a crowded community should particularly appeal to poets
although it may have a strong fascination for more worldly-minded men. A
large body of people living closely together, a place of busy streets and tall
buildings, a huge, noisy, jostling throng—that is the customary notion of an
American city, and on the whole it is not far wide of the facts. Not all cities,
however, are big, busy, and congested. In the entire United States there are
today about a thousand places which call themselves cities, yet more than
half of them are places of less than fifteen thousand people. In
Massachusetts no place can become a city until it has at least ten thousand
people; but in Oklahoma the figure is two thousand and in Kansas only two
hundred. A city may be anything, therefore, from a rural hamlet with only a
few hundred people to a great metropolitan community with several
millions. Size or population are not the things that determine cityhood. A
place is a city if it has been so incorporated and possesses a city charter. So
far as its government is concerned, it cannot be called a city, no matter how
populous it may be, unless it has been given a charter by authority of the
state.[65] In the West the practice has been to grant such charters to relatively
small places; in the East the requirements are more strict.

THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN CITIES
The table and diagram on the reverse of this page will
serve to make clear the phenomenal growth of American

cities during the past hundred and thirty years. In 1820 only
one person in twenty lived in cities and towns of over 8,000
population; today nine persons in every twenty live in these
communities. The population of the whole country has been
growing steadily during the past hundred years; but the cities
have been increasing even more rapidly. These figures
should be studied in connection with the discussion on pages
184-186.
—Population in Places of 8,000 Inhabitants or More: 1790-
1920.
PLACES OF 8,000 INHABITANTS
OR MORE.
CENSUS Total Population. Number Per cent of
YEAR. Population. of total
places. population.
1920 105,710,620 46,307,640 924 43.8
1910 91,972,256 35,570,334 768 38.7
1900 75,994,575 25,018,335 547 32.9
1890 62,947,714 18,244,239 445 29.0
1880 50,155,783 11,365,698 285 22.7
1870 38,558,371 8,071,875 226 20.9
1860 31,443,321 5,072,256 141 16.1
1850 23,191,876 2,897,586 85 12.5
1840 17,069,453 1,453,994 44 8.5
1830 12,866,020 864,509 26 6.7
1820 9,638,453 475,135 13 4.9
1810 7,239,881 356,920 11 4.9
1800 5,308,483 210,873 6 4.0
1790 3,929,214 131,472 6 3.3

Population in Places of 8,000 Inhabitants or More at
Each Census: 1790-1920.]

The Phenomenal Growth of Cities.—The Why American cities
remarkable drift of population into the cities has have grown so
rapidly.
already been pointed out. It is one of the most striking
social facts in American history during the past hundred years.[66] In the
days when the national constitution was framed there were only eight or ten
places that could be called cities and even these were, with one or two
exceptions, nothing but good-sized towns. New York, the largest of them,
had a population of less than 50,000; it has grown a hundred-fold since that
time. In Washington’s day no country had as many as fifty cities and the
largest city in the world, London, had less than a million people. The cities
counted for very little in the early days of the Republic; they then contained
less than five per cent of the national population. During the course of the
nineteenth century, however, cities sprang into existence everywhere; a
large part of the immigration poured into them; the development of industry
and commerce built them up; and today about half the people of the United
States reside in cities of all sizes. There are now more cities in America than
in any other country and more large cities. We have twelve great centers
with populations exceeding half a million,[67] while the entire British empire
(including India, Canada, and Australia) has only ten; Germany has only

four and France has only two. At the present rate of progress the United
States in 1950 will probably contain more large cities than all the rest of the
world put together. The causes of this remarkable growth have been
indicated elsewhere and there is no need to repeat them. Factories,
railroads, and steamships have been the great factors in this urban
expansion.
Effects of City Growth upon the National Life.— Some features of city
The growth of large cities has had profound effects life:
upon American life and temperament. It has changed the whole character of
the country, its problems and its habits of mind. A century ago the United
States was predominantly an agricultural land; the great majority of the
people were engaged in earning their living from the soil. They had the
same occupation and common interests. But with the 1. Diversity of
growth of industries in cities the occupations of the occupation.
people have become diversified, and no bond of common vocation holds
the population together. The city-worker in the shops and factories is
employed at a specialized task which the division of labor assigns to him
(see pp. 44-46); he develops expertness at this one task and depends upon
others for everything else. The farmer supplies many of his own wants, but
the industrial worker depends almost wholly upon others. Among the rural
population there is a large property-owning class, men 2. The absence of
who own their farms and homes; but in the cities, strong home ties.
particularly in the larger cities, the great majority of the people live in
homes that are owned by others. In New York City seven families out of
every eight live in rented houses or apartments; in Boston four out of every
five. This tends to make the population restless; the people are constantly
moving about from one job to another and from one home to another; they
do not acquire a strong attachment to any neighborhood, as is the case in
rural districts. One result of this is that people in the crowded centers know
little about their neighbors, and strange as it may seem, the crowded
sections of the large cities are in some respects the most lonely places in the
world.[68]
The tendency of the city population is to become 3. The docility of the
absorbed in its daily work, to depend upon the people.
newspapers for its opinions and to display marked docility in obeying its
leaders. The people of the cities depend upon official or professional
organizations for pretty nearly everything: if disorder breaks out, they

expect the police to attend to it; when they want recreation, they expect the
city authorities to provide it (by furnishing parks, playgrounds, band
concerts, neighborhood dances, and so on); the functions of the home are
largely given over to the school, the club, and the social organizations. The
city is thought to be radical; but it is radical only in spots. Its population as
a whole tends to be conservative (see p. 108, footnote).
The city is a place where extremes meet. Great 4. A place of
wealth and abject poverty exist in the cities side by extremes.
side; in the rural districts there is a closer approach to a common level. The
same is true if we compare city and country from the standpoint of
education, earning-power, obedience to law, respect for government, or any
other social feature. The city runs to extremes; it contains both the highest
erudition and the most utter ignorance; it has earners of enormous incomes
and plenty of people who can earn no incomes at all; it has reactionaries in
one quarter and anarchists in another—a strange social mosaic when you
study it and very much in contrast with the general uniformity of the rural
area.
Nevertheless, along nearly all lines of activity the 5. A place of
cities lead the nation. To say that half the people live in leadership.
cities does not tell the whole story. The influence which this half exerts is
greater than its numerical strength implies. The cities are the headquarters
of those who direct the great industries, the transportation systems, and the
banking interests of the country. The newspapers of the great cities
influence the moulding of public opinion the country over. The political
power of the cities, their influence upon every phase of public policy is very
great. Hence the character and the spirit of the cities will go far to determine
the national characteristics of the future.
The City and the State.—The inhabitants of a city The city charter.
are a corporate body with certain legal rights and privileges. These rights
are granted to them by the state in their city charter.[69] The charter is a
document having the force of law; it enumerates the powers of the city, tells
what form of government the inhabitants shall have, and determines the
duties of the various city officials. In the larger cities it is a very long
document covering a hundred printed pages or more.
How are these charters framed and under what 1. The general charter
arrangements are they granted to cities? Three or four plan.
different plans are in vogue. In some states the legislature has passed a

general law relating to cities, and their charters are all alike in accordance
with the provisions of this law. The difficulty with this plan is that cities
differ greatly in size and in the nature of their problems. The charter that
suits one may not fit another. A seaport city, for example, needs a harbor
commission with power to license pilots and regulate the anchoring-places
of ships; but it is absurd to require, for the sake of uniformity, that inland
cities shall also have harbor boards. To render this general charter system
more flexible, therefore, some states have adopted the expedient of dividing
cities, according to their size, into three or four classes and giving a uniform
charter to all cities in the same class.[70]
A more common method is to deal with each city as a 2. The special charter
special case, giving it a charter by special act of the plan.
legislature, the result of this plan being that no two cities of the state are
governed in exactly the same way. The special charter system has the merit
of adapting the form of government to the immediate needs of each
particular city; but it places a great burden upon the legislature, for
whenever any city desires an amendment to its charter a special legislative
act is necessary. The system also encourages the legislature to interfere in
city affairs, making changes in city charters on its own initiative without
any request from the citizens. This is particularly objectionable because so
many members of the legislature come from rural districts and consequently
have little or no knowledge of the city’s problems.
Municipal Home Rule.—In order to diminish this 3. Home rule charters.
interference by the legislature many states have made provision for
municipal home rule. This is a plan whereby cities make their own charters
just as states frame their own constitutions. The methods by which they do
this vary somewhat from state to state but everywhere the main idea is the
same. The voters of the city elect a charter commission, or board of
freeholders as it is sometimes called. This miniature constitutional
convention, made up of perhaps fifteen or twenty members, proceeds to
draw up the provisions of a new city charter. When their work is finished
they submit it to the people of the city at an election and if the people
approve it, the charter goes into effect. In some states there are certain
formalities to be gone through after the people have voted, but the
important thing is that each city obtains, sooner or later, whatever sort of
charter its voters desire. In this way the city becomes supreme in the
handling of its own local affairs.

But the principle of municipal home rule is subject to Difficulties connected
some important practical limitations, most of which can with the home rule
system.
be indicated by asking the question “What are local
affairs?” Where is the line to be drawn between things which concern only
the inhabitants of the city and those which affect the interests of the whole
state. At first glance it might seem as though the care of streets, the
maintenance of police, the provision of a water-supply system, and the
control of education were matters of local concern, which each city ought to
handle as its citizens deem best.
But are any of them strictly local in nature? The main streets of the city
are arteries of traffic which link up with the state highways; were it not for
the speed-limit signs, it would be difficult to tell where one class of streets
ends and the other begins. The city police enforce the state laws and it is
hardly plausible to urge that the state legislature shall have no control over
the enforcement of its own statutes. The work of the city police is not,
therefore, a matter of strictly local concern. So it is with health regulation,
water supply, education, poor-relief, and many other municipal functions.
The state cannot allow the children of any community to grow illiterate; it
cannot afford to take the risk of an epidemic through the defective care of
the public health in some negligent city; and it cannot fairly be expected to
stand by idly when a city neglects the sick or the poor because its taxpayers
wish to save money. Municipal home rule, if it were permitted to cover all
these things, would be another name for local chaos. The relations between
a city and the surrounding country are so intimate, and each depends so
much upon the other, that no rigid line of separation between local and
general interests can be drawn. To make every city a little sovereign
republic, wrapped up in its own local affairs and subject to no control from
outside, would not promote the common interests of the whole people.
Municipal home rule means in practice, therefore, Difference between
that cities shall be free to frame their own charters and the theory and the
practice of home rule.
to determine for themselves their form of municipal
government provided they do not infringe upon the general laws of the state
or detract from the authority of the state officials. This is a very broad
limitation and leaves the city a comparatively narrow field of self-
determination. Nevertheless, in spite of this limitation the home rule system
has substantial advantages. It relieves the legislature from having to do with
a multitude of local matters at every session; it helps to separate municipal

from state politics; and it encourages the people of the city to take an active
interest in the making of their own charters.[71]
The Organization of City Government.—Twenty- The older form of
five years ago the general plan of city government, as municipal
organization.
established by these charters, was fairly uniform
throughout the country. Charters were granted in different ways; their
provisions varied in many details; but the main framework of city
government which they set up had everywhere the same general features.
This was the mayor-and-council type of government, its chief feature being
a division of powers between the mayor, who performed executive
functions, and the council, which served as a municipal legislature. In other
words the cities were governed on the same principle as the nation and the
states. Even today most of the larger cities retain this plan.
During the opening years of the twentieth century, The newer forms.
however, a new plan of city government came to the front and spread with
great rapidity through many sections of the country. This is known as the
commission system of government. Instead of dividing powers between a
mayor and council it combines them all in the hands of a small elective
board. This plan of government now prevails in several hundred American
cities, but most of them are small places.
Out of the commission plan has grown a third scheme of city government
during the past few years. This is called the city manager plan. It gives to an
elective commission or small council the general supervision of city affairs,
but entrusts to a professional administrator, or city manager, the immediate
charge of the actual work.
Let us look at these three types of city government a little more closely.
The Mayor-and-Council Plan.—Among the fifty largest cities of the
United States, the mayor-and-council system of government exists in all but
twelve. Despite the spread of the other two plans, therefore, it is still the
prevailing type of government in the more important communities. The
mayor, under this system, is the city’s chief official. He Position and powers
is elected by the people, usually for a two-year or four- of the mayor.
year term, and the election campaign is in most cities conducted on a party
basis. Occasionally men of high ability have served as mayors in various
cities, but far more frequently the position has gone to active politicians
who can be relied upon to use the powers and patronage of the office in
promoting the interests of the party.[72] The authority of the mayor is in

general like that exercised by the governor in state affairs. He makes
appointments (which in some cases require confirmation by the council);
and he may veto ordinances or resolutions passed by the council. In some
cities he has the exclusive right to propose expenditures and in some others
his assent is necessary in all municipal contracts. He represents the city on
all occasions of ceremony and is the “first citizen” of the community. City
charters usually provide that the mayor shall be responsible for the general
observance of the laws and the maintenance of order. In a few cities he
presides at meetings of the council but for the most part he does not have
this duty. When he desires to address the council he does so by message or
written communication.
The Heads of Departments.—It is impossible, of The city’s
course, for any one official to manage directly all administrative
officials.
branches of city administration; hence the mayor is
assisted in this work by various officials and boards, such as the
superintendent of streets, the head of the police department, the water
board, and the board of health. In the larger cities the Commissioners vs.
tendency now is to put each department of boards.
administration in charge of a single commissioner rather than a board
because the members of a board are too prone to disagree among
themselves and delay business. In the smaller cities the board system is still
widely used, partly because it is less expensive. When a single official is
given charge of a department (such as police, fire protection, or streets) he
must devote his whole time to it and hence has to be paid a good salary; but
members of a board can divide the work among themselves, each giving
only part-time to it, and serving without any pay. It is questionable,
however, if this policy means any saving in the long run. When a city
attains a population of twenty, thirty, or forty thousand its administrative
work grows to a point where it requires close and skilled attention in order
to prevent extravagance and waste.
In behalf of the board system it is sometimes argued that it gives political
parties a chance to be represented, whereas a single official represents the
controlling party only. But there is no good reason why departments which
have purely business functions to perform should be influenced by party
considerations at all. The board system has some distinct advantages when
applied to such departments as schools, public libraries, poor-relief, or city
planning, where discussion and deliberation are desirable; but it does not

work well in such departments as police, fire protection, and streets, for
these are branches of work which demand quick decisions and firm action.
There is no more reason for placing a board in charge of the city’s police
than for putting a board of generals in command of an army.
The City Council.—The city council a generation How organized.
ago was usually made up of two branches; today it is almost everywhere
composed of one chamber only. A single chamber is quite enough for all
that the council now has to do. Its members are elected, Election by wards and
sometimes by wards, sometimes at large. The objection election at large.
to the ward system is that it encourages the election of inferior men and
inspires them, when elected, to strive for the interests of their own
particular wards rather than for the welfare of the city as a whole. When
councilmen are elected at large, on the other hand, the dominant political
party is likely to elect its entire slate and control the whole council, thus
allowing the minority no representation at all. In some cities an endeavor
has been made to meet these objections by having the council chosen in part
under each plan, some councilmen from wards and some at large.[73]
The council enacts the local laws or ordinances and Its powers.
appropriates whatever money is needed to carry on the city’s affairs. No
expenditures can be made without its approval and its consent is almost
always needed before municipal debts can be incurred. Its authority was
large in earlier days when it controlled through its committees the
management of the various city departments; but with the steady growth of
the mayor’s authority the powers of the council have been diminished. It is
a legislative body, and in city government there is relatively little legislative
work to be done. The state laws cover almost everything of importance.
The chief defect of the mayor-and-council plan is its Defects of the mayor-
unwieldiness. There are too many separate authorities. and-council plan.
Power and responsibility are scattered into too many hands. When things go
wrong the council blames the mayor; the mayor blames the council; the
voters do not know who is at fault. Time is wasted and money is misspent
because independent authorities fail to agree. The political bosses take
advantage of this situation to gain their own ends by helping one side or the
other. The citizen who tries to find out the real facts has a hard time of it. It
is like threading his way through a jungle. When he has a complaint to
make he is often referred from one official to another until he loses
patience. In the largest cities the mayor-and-council plan does not operate

so badly, because the methods of conducting business are more definitely
prescribed and the mayor is given so much power that he cannot well evade
the responsibility. It is in the smaller communities that this plan of
government obtains the least satisfactory results.
The Commission Plan.—Twenty-five years ago it How commission
seemed impossible to secure any substantial government began.
improvement in the administration of American cities. Foreign observers
spoke of city government as a “conspicuous failure”, and there was a good
deal of basis for that statement. People realized that city government had
become cumbrous and top-heavy. They saw that the system of checks and
balances, whatever its merits in state and national government, was not
working well in the cities. Yet they had grown so accustomed to the
complicated network of officials, boards, and councils that they hesitated to
sweep the whole thing away in order to put some simple form of
government in its place. So things drifted along until 1901, when the city of
Galveston, driven to heroic measures as the result of a catastrophe, installed
an entirely new scheme of government known as the commission plan.[74]
The success of this experiment was so marked that other cities became
interested and followed Galveston’s example, until today the commission
plan has been established in nearly four hundred municipalities, scattered
all over the country.[75]

THE COMMISSION PLAN
The way in which the various branches of municipal
administration are apportioned among members of the city
commission is shown by the diagram on the other side of
this page. The final administrative authority, however, is not
vested with these commissioners (or councilmen as they are
sometimes called). It rests with the commission or council as
a body. All the lines of administrative responsibility
converge inward, which is what they ought to do in any
well-organized government. Above the commission or
council stands the electorate, the whole body of voters,
which can exercise ultimate control over the whole city

government by means of the initiative, referendum, and
recall.

The commission plan is simplicity itself. The people What the plan
elect a board or commission of five members. This involves.
commission has entire control of the city government in all its branches
with the exception of schools, which are usually left in charge of a school
board. They pass the ordinances, vote appropriations, make appointments,
and award contracts. For purposes of actual management the city’s
administrative work is divided into five general departments (public works,
public welfare, public finance, public safety, and public health, or some
other such division) and one of the commissioners takes immediate charge
of each. The final authority in all matters, however, remains with the
commission as a whole.
Its Merits and Defects.—The outstanding feature of Advantages of the
this scheme is that it lodges all power and responsibility commission system.
in one place. There is no division of authority, no checks and balances, no
complicated network of officials, boards, councils, and committees. The

commission meets every day; does its business publicly; takes full
responsibility for its actions, and when it makes decisions sees that they are
promptly carried out. The plan is so simple that any citizen can understand
it. It is truly democratic in that the voters are enabled to enforce
responsibility when taxes are too heavy or public funds are wasted. The
commission plan tends to bring better men into office and affords them
greater opportunities for the exercise of their abilities.
The objection is made that the commission plan, by Reputed defects of
giving so much authority to a few men, may prove to be commission
government.
dangerous and result in establishing an oligarchy. But
the commissioners, like mayors and councils, are chosen by the people and
cannot remain long in office unless the people re-elect them. Moreover,
most cities that use the commission plan have established the initiative,
referendum, and recall (see p. 107) as additional safeguards.
And so it is with the complaint that a commission of five members is not
large enough to be representative of all classes among the people. Good
representation is not merely a matter of numbers. Large bodies, in fact, can
be easily handled by bosses. Congress with more than five hundred
members has sometimes failed to reflect public opinion; the President on
occasions has done this much better. Five men can find out what the people
want just as well as fifty, and they are more likely to try. Quite as much to
the point—they are in a better position to carry out the people’s wishes
when the time comes.
There is one serious defect in the commission plan, The most serious
however, and it is this: The control of the various city fault.
departments is not brought to a single center but is parceled out into five
separate hands. Each commissioner looks after a certain portion of the city’s
business; no one is supreme over them all. The commission as a whole is
supreme, it is true, but it must trust its own individual members to handle
their own branches of work. In other words, the commission plan
establishes a five-headed executive; it leaves room for disagreements
among the commissioners on a three-against-two basis, and does not make
some one man responsible for getting a dollar’s worth of value for every
hundred cents expended. Dividing the responsibility among five men is
better, of course, than dividing it among fifty or sixty, as the mayor-and-
council plan does; but putting it all upon the shoulders of one man is more
effective still.

THE CITY-MANAGER PLAN
The diagram which is printed on the reverse of this page
will make clear the analogy between the organization of a
business corporation and that of a city in which the city-
manager plan of government is followed. The people of the
city correspond to the stockholders of the corporation in that
they possess the ultimate power. This power is exercised in
the one case through a board of directors, in the other
through a council or commission. Administrative authority,
however, in both cases devolves upon a manager, who, in
turn, appoints and removes his subordinates. All the
activities of corporate business and of city-manager
government are linked together or correlated at a single
administrative center.
This diagram should be studied in connection with the
discussion on pages 203-206.

A COMPARISON
THE FACTORY THE CITY

The City-Manager Plan.—In keeping with the Position and powers
principle, therefore, that some one official ought to of the manager.
have direct charge of the city’s administrative work, the city-manager plan
has been devised. Under this plan the commission (or a small elective
council) continues in full control, but its members do not divide the various
functions among themselves. Instead they appoint a well-paid, expert
official to act as general manager and he takes charge of all the city
departments. The city administration, under this arrangement, is conducted
like that of any ordinary business corporation. The commission or council

serves as a board of directors; the city manager becomes, as it were, a
general superintendent.[76] In selecting its manager a city often goes outside
its own limits; usually it chooses a man who is an engineer by profession
because so much of the work is of a technical nature. When the manager is
appointed he plans the work to be done, estimates the cost, awards the
contracts, purchases the materials, and hires the labor. The city-manager
plan has been adopted by more than a hundred cities, but only a few are
large communities.[77]
This scheme of city government has all the Merits of the plan.
advantages of the commission plan and some of its defects. The detailed
work falls on the city manager who is qualified to do it. There is a single,
responsible head of the administration. When a citizen has any complaint to
make, he knows exactly where to go. In all these respects it is an ideal
arrangement. But there are two practical questions Two practical
connected with the plan which only the future can questions.
answer. In the first place will cities be willing to pay the 1. Will the cities pay
high salaries which they must pay in order to obtain the adequate salaries?
services of thoroughly competent managers? Men who are capable of
handling the affairs of a great corporation, which a city is, cannot be
secured without paying them the market price for their skill and experience.
Private corporations pay high salaries to their general managers, and the
cities, if they want the right men, must do likewise. But public opinion in
most American cities is inclined to balk at high salaries. People who have to
work hard for their own living do not see why anyone should get a salary of
eight or ten thousand dollars a year from the city, and particularly they do
not see why such a large salary should go to an outsider. In consequence
many cities are striving to get good managers at low salaries, which is a
very difficult if not an impossible thing to do. The sentiment which strongly
favors appointing a “local man” as city manager is also likely to work
harmfully. Local appointments in the long run are almost certain to be
influenced by local politics.
A second limitation concerns the applicability of the 2. Is the plan
city-manager plan to very large communities. A applicable to very
large cities?
competent official can take charge of the entire
administration in a place of fifty or one hundred thousand people. But how
about a city of a million? Would the task be too big? This is a question
which cannot yet be answered, because no very large city has yet tried the

plan. It is pointed out that giant business enterprises, with operations
extending into many countries, are sometimes managed by one capable man
who ensures success by a careful selection of his subordinates. Until the
experiment is made we are not safe in assuming that the city-manager
scheme can be advantageously adopted by all communities of whatever
size.
The Future of City Government.—What the final solution of the
problem will be we cannot yet tell. The new plans of city government which
have been described in the foregoing pages may be merely a prelude to
something still newer. But at any rate the cities are making headway. They
are simplifying their governments, making them more responsive to public
opinion and better fitted to do the work which has to be done. American city
government is no longer a conspicuous failure. Misgovernment and waste
have not wholly or even largely disappeared, it is true; but conditions are far
better today than they were twenty-five years ago. The people have
awakened; they are no longer misled by promises and excuses but are
insisting upon knowing the facts. The crooked methods of a generation ago
would not be tolerated today. The present task is to hold what we have thus
gained and add to it. That is a duty which belongs to every citizen whatever
his age, occupation, or party allegiance. The world is becoming a world of
cities, and he who helps to make his home city a better place is performing
one of the highest duties of patriotism.
General References
F. J. Goodnow and F. G. Bates, Municipal Government, pp. 3-43;
W. B. Munro, The Government of American Cities, pp. 80-101;
C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 578-602; Ibid., Readings in American
Government and Politics, pp. 509-534;
H. G. James, Local Government in the United States, pp. 300-357;
T. S. Chang, History and Analysis of the Commission and City Manager Plans of Municipal
Government, pp. 75-96;
Henry Bruère, The New City Government, pp. 171-204;
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Commission Government and the City-
Manager Plans, revised edition, pp. 49-77;
Everett Kimball, State and Municipal Government, pp. 345-453.

Group Problems
1. The charter of your own city (or some nearby city). Study the main types of city charter.
Examine the procedure by which your city charter was adopted; make a summary of its chief
provisions; compare these with the main provisions in the charter of some other comparable city;
point out what seem to be the chief merits and defects; state your conclusions as to desirable changes,
and explain how these may be secured. References: Nathan Matthews, Municipal Charters, pp. 97-

163; H. G. James, Applied City Government, pp. 39-53; H. A. Toulmin, The City Manager, pp. 170-
193; National Municipal League, Municipal Program (ed. C. R. Woodruff), passim. (Copies of the
city charter can always be found in the public library and in all but the larger cities may usually be
had from the office of the city clerk.)
2. The city-manager plan: what are its merits and its limitations? References: H. A. Toulmin,
The City Manager, pp. 73-97; C. E. Rightor, The City Manager in Dayton, pp. 31-56; E. C. Mabie,
Selected Articles on the City Manager Plan of Municipal Government, passim (Debaters’ Handbook
series); T. S. Chang, History and Analysis of the Commission and City Manager Plans of Municipal
Government, pp. 158-220; National Municipal League, The Story of the City Manager Plan
(pamphlet); The Year Book of the City Managers’ Association and the National Municipal Review
also contain recent material.

Short Studies
1. Characteristics of city populations. W. B. Munro, The Government of American Cities, pp.
29-52.
2. The city and the state. C. A. Beard, American City Government, pp. 31-51.
3. The city charter. H. G. James, Local Government in the United States, pp. 304-311.
4. The position and powers of the mayor. W. B. Munro, The Government of American Cities,
pp. 207-237; R. M. Story, The American Municipal Executive, passim.
5. The mayor as a human being. Brand Whitlock, Forty Years of It, especially pp. 205-236.
6. The most striking mayor of his day. Tom L. Johnson, My Story, pp. 108-143; Carl Lorenz,
Tom L. Johnson, pp. 21-66.
7. The city council. F. J. Goodnow and F. G. Bates, Municipal Government, pp. 179-229.
8. Parties and politics in city government. W. B. Munro, The Government of American Cities,
pp. 153-179.
9. The selection and training of city administrators. Henry Bruère, The New City Government,
pp. 335-361.
10. How our cities have improved during the past twenty years. W. B. Munro, Principles and
Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 1-29.

Questions
1. If you compare a city of 100,000 people with a rural district of the same population, which
would have (a) the larger income per capita; (b) the larger proportion of property owners; (c) the
greater number of illiterates; (d) the greater number of criminals? Give reasons for your answer in
each case.
2. Compare a city charter with a state constitution, pointing out wherein they are similar and
wherein they are different.
3. Name some branches of administration which you think ought to be wholly under the
jurisdiction of the city and free from state interference.
4. Which do you think is the better, municipal home rule or the optional charter plan? Why do you
think so?
5. In mayor-and-council cities what are the principal powers and duties of the mayor? What are the
chief functions of the city council?
6. State which of the following officials ought to be appointed by the mayor and which of them
elected by the people, giving your reasons in each case: superintendent of streets, chief or
commissioner of police, head of the fire department, city treasurer, overseers of the poor, members of
the school board, public library trustees.
7. “A city’s affairs are of the nature of business, not of government.” Is this statement absolutely
correct? Why or why not?

8. “The commission plan embodied both a protest and a policy.” Against what was it a protest? To
what extent does it avoid the defects of the mayor-and-council plan?
9. What are the practical difficulties connected with the city-manager plan? Do you believe that
preference should be given to a “local man” in choosing the manager? The salary of the mayor in a
medium-sized city is usually not more than $5000. Should a city manager be paid more?
10. Explain what training and personal qualities a city manager ought to have.

Topics for Debate
1. The head of the police department in large cities (over 100,000 population) should be appointed
by the governor.
2. The city-manager plan is better than the mayor-and-council or commission form of government
for cities under 100,000 population.
3. Home rule should be granted to cities in every state.
4. The members of the city council should be chosen from the city at large rather than from wards.

CHAPTER XI
MUNICIPAL PROBLEMS OF TODAY

The purpose of this chapter is to point out some of the difficult things which our cities have to
do and to discuss the various ways of doing them.

Government or Business: Which is it?—At the The city’s annual
close of each year the city authorities issue a printed report.
volume, its pages well packed with figures of all sorts and interspersed with
a good deal of very dry reading matter. This is called the annual report; it
contains a statement of revenues and expenditures compiled by the auditor,
a summary of what each department has done during the year, and a great
many other facts about the work of the city officials. Very few people ever
read these annual reports, and not many would understand them if they did.
But any thoughtful man or woman who takes the trouble to look through
one of these publications from cover to cover would be tempted to ask the
question: Why do they call such things government? They are not
government in any sense, nothing but business. Here is an account of how
streets have been paved, water purified and distributed to the people, school
buildings constructed, supplies purchased, contracts awarded, labor
employed, money collected and money paid out—why do they call these
things government when they are simply business operations and nothing
else? The problems that arise in connection with them are business
problems; the methods needed are business methods; the organization best
fitted to do the work is a business organization.
Now there is a good deal to be said for this point of Most of the city’s
view. A large part of the work which the city officials work is business.
perform is of a business rather than a governmental nature. Making laws
and enforcing them is a relatively small portion of their task. The great
majority of city officials and employees are engaged in rendering social and
economic services—such as teaching in schools, caring for the public

health, building streets, inspecting markets, attending to the water supply,
putting out fires, and making out tax bills; all of which tasks are quite
different in nature from the work which legislatures or governors or courts
perform. It is work which, in order to be effective, must be done in
accordance with the methods of everyday business with emphasis on
intelligence, punctuality, and honesty.
Nevertheless we should be careful not to press this But not all of it can be
point too far. The aim of all organized business is to managed according to
business principles.
secure a profit, but the purpose of city administration is
to promote the well-being of the citizens. It must be conducted in
compliance with the desires of the voters, whatever these desires may be,
and must give them what they want. Business can sometimes be managed
without any heed to public opinion, but municipal administration cannot.
The science of municipal government is, to a considerable extent, that of
keeping the people satisfied. The voters must have what they want and they
do not always want what some expert may deem to be the best or the
cheapest. Government by the best people is not necessarily the best
government. There is no denying that business methods can be
advantageously applied to city administration at many points (particularly
in the awarding of contracts and the buying of supplies), but it does not
follow that such departments as poor-relief, correction, and public health
should be managed according to exactly the same principles as a railroad or
a cotton factory. Success or failure in these departments cannot always be
measured in terms of dollars and cents. The administration must be
sympathetic and humane; it avails little to save a little money if the saving
entails a great deal of human misery. The strict rules of business may easily
be pressed too far.

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
The accompanying diagram indicates the way in which
the administrative work of a large American city such as
Boston is distributed among various officials and
departments. It will be noted that there were, in 1920, some
forty departments under the control of the mayor. Some

consolidation has since been made, but the number of
departments is still larger in Boston than in any other city.
This chart should be referred to in connection with Group
Problem No. 1 (page 223).

COMMONWEALTH
OF
MASSACHUSETTS

The Need for Better Co-operation among City One reason for waste
Departments.—The greatest obstacle to satisfactory in city administration.
work on the part of city officials is the absence of close co-operation among
the various city departments. Some heads of departments are elected; some
are appointed. Even when they are all chosen in the same way they often
fail to work in complete harmony. Each department is jealous of its own
functions and anxious to follow its own policy.[78]
Each desires all the credit when things go right and Some examples.
wants none of the blame when things go wrong. The various departments,
when unpleasant or unpopular tasks have to be performed, often try to put

the responsibility on someone else. They have become very proficient in
what is colloquially known as “passing the buck”. The result is that team
play is usually lacking, and friction is not at all uncommon. How frequently
we see examples of this failure to save the city’s money by co-operation!
The street department puts down a new pavement; but the surface is
scarcely dry before the water department proceeds to tear it up in order to
lay new mains, or the sewer department sends its men along to dig a new
manhole, or the gas and electric light employees come with picks and
shovels to make excavations in it. Why not do all this before the new
pavement goes down? In the city of Boston nearly ten thousand excavations
are made in the streets during a single year. Some of these are unavoidable,
no doubt, but many of them are simply the result of poor planning or no
planning at all.
Or, take another illustration. Many city departments require materials and
supplies of the same sort. Coal, for example, is needed in police stations,
fire stations, the schools, the city hall, and all other public buildings. Why
not get together, buy it all in one large order at wholesale prices, pay spot
cash, and secure a discount, instead of having each department purchase its
own supplies in relatively small quantities from local dealers? The answer
is that each department, jealous of its own independence, usually goes
ahead in all its activities without informing the others or consulting them.
The situation is not nearly so bad nowadays as it was twenty or more years
ago but there is still plenty of room for more effective co-operation.[79]

City Planning and Public Works

City Planning.—A second defect in American city The lack of planning.
administration has been the lack of careful planning. The mayor and other
city officials serve in office for short terms and their main concern is to do
whatever happens to be urgent at the time, leaving the more difficult
problems for their successors. Much of their work thus becomes makeshift
in character,—a street is widened, a temporary schoolhouse is erected, a fire
engine is bought, and a few new sewers put in—but no comprehensive plan
for street improvement or schoolhouse construction or the motorization of
fire apparatus or sewage disposal is usually made and followed. Public
buildings are often badly placed because political influences rather than
public convenience determines their location. The congestion of traffic on
the down-town streets, the lack of parks and open spaces in certain sections
of the city, the unsightliness due to the myriad of poles, wires, signs, and
billboards in many of the city’s thoroughfares—these things are all due in
large measure to the absence of planning.
Many cities take little or no thought for the morrow. European cities are
They expect to grow bigger and busier, but they give better planned.
small thought to the impending problems which growth is bound to bring.
European cities have been far ahead in this respect. If Paris is outwardly the
most attractive city in the world, it is because the authorities, more than
seventy years ago, set out to make it so. The best-built city in the United
States is Washington, the streets and parks of which were all planned before
a single building was erected.[80]
What City Planning Includes.—City planning is The broad scope of
the science of designing cities, or parts of cities, so that city planning.
they may be better places for people to live in. It includes the arranging of
streets, the locating of public buildings, the providing of parks and
playgrounds, the devising of a proper transportation system, and the
regulating of private property in such way as to promote the best interests of
the whole community. It is, therefore, or ought to be, the center or focus of
all the city’s activities, each one of which should be carried on in harmony
with the general plan. It is only in this way that a great waste of the city’s
money and serious inconvenience to all classes of citizens can be prevented.

Although city planning is not a new art it is only within recent years that
American cities have given much attention to it. For many decades the
cities and their suburbs were allowed to grow haphazard. What was once a
country highway became a village road, then the main street of a town, and
finally the chief business thoroughfare of a large city. To have widened it in
early days would have been cheap and easy; but when a city has grown up
on both sides of it the project becomes too expensive. Lack of planning is
responsible for much of the traffic congestion with which the cities are
wrestling nowadays.
The Streets.—The streets are very important factors The great importance
in the daily life of every community, far more so than of streets.
we commonly realize. They are the city’s arteries. On their surface they
carry vehicles of every sort. Their surface also affords locations for lamp
posts, telephone poles, hydrants, and many other instrumentalities of public
service. Underneath the street surface are sewers, water mains, gas pipes,
and conduits; overhead are wires and signs and balconies. The streets give
access to the shops and houses; they are likewise the principal channels for
light and air, both of which are essential to life in the buildings alongside.
Nearly every form of public service depends upon the streets; without them
private property would have little or no value. About one-third of all the
land in the city is occupied by the streets, so that proper street planning
becomes a matter of great importance to the community.[81]
In most American cities the streets are laid out in The layout of streets.
rectangular form, with long, broad avenues running one way and narrower
cross-streets the other. This means that each intersects the other at right
angles and the city blocks become squares like those of a checker-board.
This plan has been widely used in America because it takes less land for
streets than any other plan would require and it makes all building lots of
convenient rectangular shape.[82] The chief objection to this gridiron plan is
that it makes traffic more congested at the junction of important
thoroughfares. It also gives a sameness to the appearance of all the streets
and hampers the development of architectural variety. European visitors
often comment on this. Street after street in the shopping or residential
districts all look alike to the stranger; all have been laid out with a pencil
and ruler, the same widths (or nearly the same); every lot of land is of the
same size; and the long rows of houses seem to be all of the same type. In
the cities of Europe, on the other hand, the streets are more often curved or

winding; some are very broad and some very narrow, so that each street has
its own individuality. To some extent American cities are now laying out
diagonal and winding streets in their newer suburbs on the principle that
picturesqueness ought to be combined with utility.
How Wide Ought a Street to be?—Until very The old and the newer
recent years in all American cities, and even yet in methods of
determining widths.
some of them, the practice has been to lay out streets in
widths of forty, sixty, or eighty feet,—always using multiples of ten. This is
a mere rule-of-thumb method and bears no direct relation to the needs of
traffic. The downtown streets of the older cities are, for the most part, too
narrow; in the newer suburbs they are often a good deal wider than they
need be. “But what harm is done by having more street space than is
necessary?” it may be asked. Well, every square foot of street space costs
money; it has to be paved, kept in repair, cleaned, and lighted. The proper
policy in laying out streets is to adapt their width to the probable needs of
future traffic. This cannot always be done with mathematical accuracy,
because the density of traffic changes from decade to decade; but with
careful study a fairly dependable estimate can usually be made.
The best practice nowadays is to fix the width of new The traffic “zones”.
streets in terms of traffic zones, not merely in multiples of ten feet. A stream
of traffic—motor cars, trucks, and other vehicles following one another—
requires a certain sluiceway or zone to move in. This zone is ordinarily
reckoned as ten feet in width. A zone of parked vehicles alongside the curb
uses about eight feet. In order to allow full parking privileges and still have
space for two streams of traffic to flow along easily (one in each direction)
a street should be thirty-six feet in width from curb to curb. Anything less
than this usually means that parking must be restricted or the thoroughfare
must be made a one-way street. Anything more than this is useless unless a
full zone of ten feet is added, and it is of relatively little value unless two
additional zones are put on.[83]

The normal roadway width is based on an allowance of 10
feet for each line of moving vehicles and 8 feet for each line
of standing vehicles.
Where space is absolutely limited this unit allowance may
be reduced to 9 feet for moving and 7 feet for standing
vehicles.
The sidewalk width above suggested may be increased or
reduced to meet special requirements as to pedestrian traffic
or special demands for a tree and lawn strip.

TRAFFIC ZONES
The congestion of traffic in the downtown streets of our
large cities is due to four causes: (a) the increased number of

vehicles, (b) the different rates of speed at which different
types of vehicles desire to move (horse-drawn vehicles,
street cars, motor trucks, trucks, motor cars, motorcycles,
etc.), (c) the inadequate width and faulty arrangement of
streets due to the lack of planning, and (d) the improper
driving and parking of vehicles.
The older streets cannot now be widened except at very
great expense because the private property which fronts on
them is so valuable. But new streets can be planned to take
care of future traffic growth. No city street should be laid out
with less than fifty-six feet between curb and curb. The
sidewalk space varies with the width of the street, as the
accompanying diagram shows.

Street Pavements.—Apart from good planning and Types of pavement.
adequate width, the usefulness of a street depends to a considerable extent
on its paving. The qualities of an ideal pavement are easy enough to specify,
but not so easy to secure. To reach perfection a street pavement should be
cheap to construct, durable, easy to repair, easy to keep clean, smooth, safe
for traffic, noiseless, and attractive in appearance. Unfortunately there is no
type of pavement possessing all these qualities. A pavement of granite
blocks will last for many years under heavy traffic, but it is expensive to
build, noisy, and hard to keep clean. The asphalt pavement is cheaper,
cleaner, and easier to drive upon; but it is slippery in wet weather and
breaks down very quickly when heavy traffic is allowed on it. Wood blocks
have come into favor in many cities during recent years because they are
believed to make a pavement which is sufficiently strong to stand the
burden now placed on the streets by truck traffic and yet afford a surface
which is easy to drive over, not difficult to keep clean, and relatively
noiseless. There is no one best form of pavement for all sections of the city.
[84]
It would be absurd to lay asphalt in the dock and shipping districts where
the streets are filled with five-ton trucks, and just as absurd to put a granite-
block surface on the streets of fine residential districts. The nature of the
pavement should be adapted to neighborhood conditions.
When the pavement has been selected it can be laid The contract and
in either of two ways—by contract or by city labor. direct labor systems.

Most pavements have been built by contract. The city officials prepare the
plans, and call for bids; paving contractors submit their figures, and the
contract is supposed to go to the one whose bid is the lowest. That,
however, is not what always happens. Contracts for street paving have often
been awarded, on one pretext or another, to contractors who were able to
exert political influence.[85] In some cities the work is done by regular
employees of the street department, the city buying its own materials. This
plan is usually more expensive and it is not very practicable when a city
wants a great deal of work done in a hurry; on the other hand it results, as a
rule, in getting pavement of a better quality. Contract work, too often, is
done hastily and proves defective. Direct construction by the city’s own
labor force is slower, and more expensive, but usually more durable.
Parks and Recreation Grounds.—Public parks are of two types, first
the large open spaces which cover many acres and can be used by the whole
city, and second, the small areas which are provided for use by a single
neighborhood only. Every large city has parks of both types. The old-style
park which served more for ornament than for use, is now out of favor.
Cities are placing more stress on grounds which can be used for athletic
games or for other forms of recreation. In all communities which have the
advantage of being located on the ocean, on a lake, or on a river, the water-
front is a highly desirable addition to the available recreation spaces.
Suitable bathing beaches in particular ought to be acquired by the cities for
free use by the people. The development of street railway and motor
transportation has lessened the pressure upon the downtown parks by
making it more easy for the people to get out into the country.
Public Buildings.—From the standpoint of suitable The various classes of
location the public buildings of a city may be divided public buildings:
into three classes. First, there are those public buildings 1. Those which need
which ought to be centrally located so that they may be central locations.
easily reached from every part of the community. This class includes the
post-office, the city hall, the court house, and the public library. In a few
cities these buildings, or most of them, have been brought together in a
civic center; but as a rule they are scattered here and there all over the
community, wherever they may chance to have been placed in obedience to
the influences or whims of the moment. The desirability of bringing them
together, both as a matter of good planning and for the public convenience,
is easy to realize.

Second, there are many public buildings which must 2. Those which must
be located in different parts of the city rather than at a be scattered.
single center. These include the fire engine houses, police stations,
elementary schools, and branch libraries. They must necessarily be
scattered, but this does not mean that planning is superfluous. Very often in
the past these buildings have been located at inconvenient points because
political influence rather than the public interest has determined the choice
of a location. When a prominent politician has land to sell at a fancy price
the city is usually a good customer. There is no good reason why police and
fire stations should not, as a rule, be housed under the same roof. There is
no good reason why the school, the playground, and the branch library
should not be placed upon the same plot of ground, yet rarely are these
three places of instruction and recreation within sight of one another.
Haphazard location and slipshod construction have resulted in large
amounts of needless expense in the case of public buildings.
Third, there are certain public buildings which have 3. Those which need
to be placed in special locations. Public baths, for special locations.
example, go to the water’s edge, wherever it is. The hospital should be
situated outside the zone of heavy traffic and continuous noise. The city
prison, the poorhouse, the garbage disposal plant, and the other waifs
among public buildings—nobody wants their company. They are not
welcome in any neighborhood, yet they must be placed somewhere. Timely
planning would help to solve this problem by securing convenient and
spacious tracts of land before the city grows so large that all the available
sites are occupied, but most of our cities give no thought to such questions
until the problem becomes very urgent.
Regulating Private Property.—No matter what the The private citizen
city authorities may do in the way of planning streets and the “City
Beautiful”.
properly, and expending great care upon public
buildings, the outward attractiveness of a community depends to a large
extent upon the good taste and civic pride of its individual inhabitants.
Within reasonable bounds a man can erect anything he pleases upon his
own land. He may build something which is a notable adornment or, on the
other hand, something which is an architectural eyesore to the whole
neighborhood. He may keep his grounds and dwelling in perfect order,
everything spick and span. Or he may let them go into ramshackle, the
house unpainted, the lawn grown up in weeds, and signs of neglect apparent

everywhere. Each section of the city is as its people make it. It is absurd for
men and women to clamor for fine parks, monumental public buildings, and
brilliantly-lighted streets if they do not obey the precept that civic pride,
like charity, ought to begin at home.
One of the worst offenders against civic beauty and The billboard
good taste is the flaming billboard which stares from nuisance.
every vacant lot into the faces of the passers-by. For the most part
billboards serve no very useful purpose. The advertising which they carry
ought to be given to the newspapers, which reach a far wider circle of
people and are actively engaged in promoting the best interests of the
community. These billboards often mar what would otherwise be an
attractive avenue or landscape.[86] The cities of Continental Europe virtually
prohibit them altogether. It is not possible to do that in the United States
because of constitutional restrictions which protect private property; but
billboards can be restricted by law and some American cities have adopted
the policy of so restricting them.[87] It is also possible to levy taxes upon
them and thus to make billboard advertising less profitable.
The Municipal Utilities.—In addition to streets, parks, and public
buildings every city maintains various other physical utilities. These
include, in some cases, bridges, docks, markets, ferries, and so on. More
important, however, are the so-called utilities, the water supply and the
sewerage system. Both of these are intimately connected with the public
health and can better be dealt with when we come to that general topic.
Some cities own and operate their lighting plants, and in a few cases their
street railways. But lighting and transportation are still, for the most part, in
private hands and they present problems of such importance that they need
a chapter to themselves (see pp. 474-481).
Police Protection.—The practice of maintaining in Beginning of the
cities a body of professional, uniformed policemen who police system.
give their full time to the work of preserving law and order is less than a
hundred years old. Until well into the nineteenth century the work of
protecting life and property was performed by untrained constables and
watchmen (in England and America), or by squads of soldiers (in most of
the larger cities of Continental Europe).[88] London, in 1829, was the first
city to install a regular police force, and this action met with great popular
opposition. It was regarded as a step in the direction of tyranny.[89] But
regular policemen proved to be so much better, as guardians of law and

order, than the untrained constable in citizen’s clothes, that other cities
followed the example of London and eventually the system was established
in the United States, the first city to adopt the new plan being New York.
Although New York was at that time a city of over 300,000 population the
work of policing was largely performed by elective constables and by
citizen watchmen until 1844.
During the past three-quarters of a century the Police organization
system of municipal police has been steadily improved. today.
The police are organized on what is practically a military model, with a
commissioner or chief in command. Under him are deputies at
headquarters, captains and lieutenants in charge of stations, sergeants and
patrolmen, who do the work of investigating, making arrests, handling
traffic, and patrolling the streets. The patrolmen in most American cities are
now selected by civil service tests; they have regular hours on and off duty,
and are subject to strict discipline. The large cities have established training
schools in which newly-appointed policemen receive instruction for a
month or more before they are sent to do regular duty. The number of
policemen in all large cities has had to be greatly increased during recent
years because of the growing need for traffic officers. A considerable
proportion of the whole force is now assigned to this duty at certain hours
of the day. Policewomen are now being appointed in most of the larger
cities because there are various forms of duty which it is believed they can
perform more effectively than men.
Police protection, until recent years, has been largely State constabularies.
confined to the cities and towns; the rural districts have had to depend upon
civilian constables and the sheriff’s deputies. Some states, however, have
now established bodies known as state constabularies, the members of
which patrol the country roads and perform the usual functions of police in
cities. Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and other states have
undertaken to give the rural districts adequate protection in this way. The
men are equipped with motorcycles and are thus enabled to cover large
areas of territory in the course of a day. The constabulary is under the
control of the governor and may be used in any portion of the state. The
establishment of these state police forces has been opposed by the labor
organizations which fear that they may be used to coerce strikers during
labor controversies.

Fire Prevention.—The annual loss by fire in the Our enormous annual
United States is larger than that of all European losses by fire.
countries put together. Chicago and Paris are cities of about the same size;
but the yearly fire-losses in the former are four or five times that of the
latter. Whether New York has a larger population than London is still a
disputed question but there is no dispute about which has the larger number
of fires. New York City holds the world’s record in fire-losses, seven or
eight million dollars per annum.
In every part of the United States the losses are enormous year after year.
It has been estimated that they amount to half a million dollars per day,
taking the country as a whole. If all the buildings burned in the United
States during a single year were placed side by side they would form an
unbroken street from Chicago to New York. The loss of life in these fires is
also appalling; it amounts to about three thousand per year. What are the
reasons for this situation; why is it so much worse than in other countries?
There are two reasons for it; one of them we cannot Reasons for this
control, the other we can. We cannot easily alter the fact heavy loss.
that most of the buildings, whether in the cities or the rural districts of the
United States, have been built of inflammable materials. Lumber has been
cheap and it has been used lavishly. In Europe most buildings are of brick
or stone.[90] With the depletion of the timber supply in America and the
increased price of lumber fewer frame buildings will be constructed in the
United States as time goes on. The other reason for our large fire-losses is
one which can be controlled. It is summed up in a single word—
carelessness. To some extent this carelessness is the fault of the public
authorities; to a larger extent it is the fault of private individuals.
The public authorities have not been sufficiently Public prevention
active in framing and enforcing measures for the measures.
prevention of fires. They have allowed certain neighborhoods to become
veritable fire-traps, liable to be wiped out by a conflagration at any
moment. During the past few years the state and city officials have been
coming to realize the importance of prevention, however, and the laws
relating to fire hazards have been growing more strict. Special rules are now
applied to theaters, factories, garages, tenements, and other buildings in
which fires are liable to result in the loss of life. Special fire prevention
officials have been appointed in some of the larger communities; their duty
is to inspect all buildings in which fires are likely to occur and to enforce

the fire prevention rules. An endeavor has also been made to educate the
people to the need of exercising greater care. This is done by distributing
circulars and by instruction in the schools.
The great majority of fires are the result of some The chief causes of
individual’s carelessness. Rubbish is left lying about fires.
near the cellar furnace; matches are placed where children can reach them;
kerosene or gasoline is used to light the kitchen fire; chimneys are allowed
to go unrepaired and uncleaned; ends of cigarettes are thrown on the floor
or into the waste basket—individual carelessness may take many forms. But
every fire is the same size when it starts and a trivial accident may cause the
destruction of a whole city. Fire departments are necessary and they should
be kept up to the highest efficiency, with well-trained men and motorized
apparatus; but dollar for dollar the money spent in prevention brings far
more return than expenditures for putting out fires after they occur.
The work of fighting fires is spectacular and makes an impression on the
people; there is nothing spectacular about fire prevention, hence it obtains
far less attention from the average individual. Newspapers devote great
headlines to the bravery of the fireman who carries somebody down the
sheer wall of a high building in the midst of roaring flames and blinding
smoke, but the man who quietly builds his tenement so that no such rescue
will ever be necessary—he gets no headlines at all. For this the newspapers
are of course not to blame; they merely follow the trend of popular interest.
The City’s Share in Health and Welfare Work.—Many functions
which formerly devolved wholly upon the city government have now been
taken over to some extent by the state authorities. The state makes the
general regulations and prescribes how things shall be done, but the city
officials still remain largely responsible for putting the regulations into
effect. This is true of public health protection, public The broadening field
utilities, poor-relief, correction, sanitation, and of municipal activity.
education, all of which are dealt with in later chapters of this book. No clear
separation between state and local activities can be made nowadays, the two
overlap and are intermixed. The city still retains, however, almost complete
responsibility for the care of its streets, for street lighting, for the
maintenance of parks, and for the provision of recreation. But whether it
acts merely as the agent of the state or entirely on its own behalf the city’s
functions are being broadened year by year. It is expected to do more and
more for the social welfare of its people.

Compare the American city of today with its A typical example.
prototype of seventy-five years ago. In 1845, for example, Boston was a
city of more than 40,000 people. It had no paved streets, not one. There was
no public water supply; the people brought enough for their daily needs
from neighborhood wells. A few sewers had been built, wooden drains they
were, and only in the more thickly-settled portions of the city. Provision for
the care of the public health was altogether lacking; there was no regular
police force and only a volunteer bucket-brigade to put out fires. Public
playgrounds were unknown; so were public baths, neighborhood centers,
band concerts, branch libraries, electric street lights, trolley cars, subways,
and the long list of things which come within the range of municipal
enterprise today. Those were days of intense individualism when welfare
work was left almost wholly to private auspices. Now the city has become a
leader in almost every form of social and economic activity. This
socializing of urban life has gone on, and still goes on, without attracting
much attention, but it is one of the most far-reaching developments of the
past century.
Where will the Cities Get the Money?—This The problem of
expansion in municipal activities has brought with it an making
meet.
both ends

incessant need for more money—more money for
streets, parks, playgrounds, schools, poor-relief, recreation, pensions, and
for a dozen other things. Cities have many hard problems, but the hardest of
all is that of making both ends meet. New enterprises mean new
expenditures, and even the older activities keep steadily costing more.
Now it might be surmised that this problem of ways The effect of high
and means would be an easy one to solve. “Just raise taxes.
the tax rate and get more money” someone may suggest. That betrays the
existence of a very common impression, namely, that city tax rates have the
sky as their limit. But the fact is quite otherwise. In most cases, to be sure,
there is no legal limitation upon the amount of taxes which the city officials
can exact from the people; the limit is a purely practical one. Most of the
city’s revenue comes from taxes upon real property—on lands and
buildings (see pp. 445-446). By raising the tax rate on such property
additional revenue can be secured up to a certain point. But when the tax
rate keeps on increasing year after year it finally reaches a level where it
becomes an obstacle to the erection of new buildings; it deters new
industries from coming to the city; it causes rents to rise and acts as a brake

upon the expansion of business. Under such conditions the value of
property stops rising and may even decline, so that further increases in the
tax rate do not yield a proportionate revenue. The people, moreover, grow
restive under the soaring tax rate on their homes; they manifest their
displeasure by turning the elective city officials out of office and installing
others who pledge themselves to cut the expenses down. Such pledges, as a
matter of fact, can rarely be kept. Considerable economies are undoubtedly
practicable in the government of all American cities without exception; but
the big outlays are bound to go on increasing so long as the people keep
making demands for more and better services.
If more revenue must be had, how can it be best Newer sources of
obtained? Taxes on property have now reached a point revenue.
in many cities where they can hardly go much higher. Taxes on incomes are
already levied by the nation and by some of the states; the cities can hardly
look forward to laying a heavy tax on top of these. Some cities, notably Los
Angeles, Cincinnati, and St. Louis are imposing business taxes—so much
per year on every lawyer, doctor, merchant, dealer, broker, and so on, the
rate varying in each case. Chicago obtains a considerable income from a
wheel tax imposed on all automobiles which use the city streets.
Everywhere the quest for new sources of revenue is being carried on
earnestly but not with any great measure of success. One serious difficulty
lies in the fact that some of the more lucrative sources have already been
tapped by the national and state governments. Congress and the state
legislatures are keenly on the scent for new revenues; wherever the
opportunity appears, they seize it. In this way the range from which the
cities may draw their income is gradually being narrowed. It can fairly be
said, therefore, that the problem of paying its way is the most difficult of all
the problems which confront the American city at the present time.
General References
C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 603-637; Ibid., Readings, pp. 535-555;
W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration, pp. 30-73 (City Planning);
74-121 (Streets); 260-313 (Police Administration);
H. G. James, Municipal Functions, pp. 1-24;
F. J. Goodnow and F. C. Bates, Municipal Government, pp. 316-396;
F. C. Howe, The Modern City and its Problems, pp. 34-75;
Everett Kimball, State and Municipal Government, pp. 454-550.

Group Problems

1. Make a plan of administrative organization which will include the undermentioned
municipal functions. Provide as few departments as possible without putting unrelated functions
into the same department. Each department should include all functions which are actually related
and none which are not related to its main work. Consider, for example, such questions as these:
Should playgrounds be included in the school department or combined with parks in some other
department? Where does poor-relief belong, in a department by itself or along with health or with
prisons and correction? Where should we place the public library? If you desire to include all these
functions within seven or eight departments, the public library cannot have a department all to itself.
Where should it go? Think over carefully the proper placing of such things as the inspection of
weights and measures, auditing, pensions, printing, assessments and collection of taxes, billboards,
care of hydrants, censorship of amusements, charities and poor-relief, child welfare, collection and
disposal of ashes, excess condemnation, food and milk inspection, free employment bureaus, free
legal aid, grade-crossing elimination, hospital administration, housing laws and their enforcement,
licensing, limitation of building heights, management of bridges and ferries, municipal accounts,
municipal budget making, municipal concerts, municipal courts, municipal purchasing, parks and
playgrounds, paving, playground administration, prevention of incendiarism, prisons, protection of
life and property, public lighting, public recreation, public water supply, registration of voters,
garbage collection and disposal, regulation of explosives, regulation of the location of buildings,
sewerage and sewage disposal, sinking funds, smoke prevention, snow removal, street construction,
street widening, supervision of lodging houses, tree planting, vocational and industrial education,
zoning.
2. Select three or four cities of approximately the same size as your own and compare the cost
of public safety (police and fire department expenditures) on each of the following bases: (a) per
capita; (b) per square mile of territory; (c) per $1000 assessed valuation. (The data for all cities
having over 30,000 population can be found in the U. S. Bureau of the Census: Financial Statistics of
Cities [latest edition].)
3. What we get for our city taxes. Make up from your own community’s latest annual report a
table showing the per capita cost for each form of public service (streets, parks, schools, poor-relief,
etc.). The figures in the auditor’s report divided by the population will give you the items. When your
table is completed illustrate it by drawing a circle with sectors to represent the division of
expenditure.

Short Studies
1. City planning: its scope and importance. W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal
Administration, pp. 30-37.
2. The city’s streets. C. A. Beard, American City Government, pp. 212-260.
3. The organization of a city police force. Raymond Fosdick, European Police Systems, pp. 99-
148; E. D. Graper, American Police Administration, passim; Raymond Fosdick, American Police
Systems, pp. 188-216.
4. How the public can help the police. Arthur Woods, Policeman and Public, pp. 162-178.
5. What fire prevention means. E. F. Croker, Fire Prevention, pp. 1-37.
6. The city’s work for the social welfare. H. G. James, Municipal Functions, pp. 150-185.
7. City parks and boulevards. Charles Zueblin, American Municipal Progress, pp. 241-275.
8. The city’s part in health protection. Henry Bruère, The New City Government, pp. 314-334.
9. Municipal recreation. C. A. Beard, American City Government, pp. 334-355; John Nolen,
City Planning, pp. 139-158.
10. Raising and spending the city’s money. W. B. Munro, Principles and Methods of Municipal
Administration, pp. 403-478.

Questions

1. Make in parallel columns a list of municipal functions which you would classify as (a) political;
(b) social; (c) economic or business functions.
2. Can you give, from your own observation, any examples of the needless expense or public
inconvenience due to the failure of city departments to co-operate properly?
3. Take any atlas which contains the street plans of the larger cities and point out examples of the
following: (a) gridiron or checkerboard planning; (b) diagonal avenues; (c) radial streets; (d)
informal layout of streets.
4. Select some portion of your own city which seems to you to be well planned and some section
which seems to be poorly planned. Give reasons for your selections.
5. Make a sketch plan for a residential suburb about one mile square on level ground with a small
river, two hundred feet wide, running from east to west through it. Each building lot is to contain, on
the average, about 20,000 square feet with access to both a street and an alley. Make provision for
one double track street railway, conveniently located. Indicate appropriate locations for a one-acre
park, an elementary school, a playground, a branch of the public library, a police station, a fire engine
station, a bridge, a bath house, and an athletic field.
6. What is the geographical center of your community? The center of population? The center of
access, that is, the point which, by reason of traffic facilities can be most quickly and easily reached
by the largest number of people? If a civic center were being established, where ought it to be placed
and why?
7. In the largest cities there are about 20 policemen for every 10,000 people, in smaller cities only
10 or 12. Why is this? Is the number of arrests made by a policeman an indication of his efficiency?
Scandals are frequent in the police departments of large cities and this is sometimes explained by
saying that the police are exposed to more temptations than any other city officials. Discuss this
explanation.
8. What in your opinion are the most common causes of fires? Many schools set apart one day in
the year as Fire Prevention Day. Make some suggestions concerning a suitable program for this
occasion.
9. Can you think of any sources of revenue not now utilized by cities which might be drawn upon
to meet an urgent need without arousing a great deal of opposition from the people?
10. What civic organizations in your community are helping the public officials to solve their
problems? Give an account of the purposes and work of each.

Topics for Debate
1. A maximum limit should be imposed by the state law upon the tax
rates of cities.
2. City employees, including policemen and firemen, should (or should
not) have the right to join a labor organization.
3. All public work should be done by contract (or by the city’s own
employees).

CHAPTER XII
STATE GOVERNMENT IN OUTLINE

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the relation of the states to the nation, to show how
the state governments are organized, and what services they render the people.
The Sovereign States.—It is customary to speak of Place of the states in
the nation.
the American Republic as made up of “sovereign
states”, but unless this expression is clearly explained it is apt to be
misleading. On July 4th, 1776, the thirteen colonies became free and
independent states, each entitled to frame its own plan of government.
These new states were subject to no restrictions except the very mild ones
which, by adopting the Articles of Confederation, they had agreed to place
upon themselves. They were very jealous of their independence and
disinclined to surrender any of their powers, even to create a unified nation.
For this reason, when the national constitution was framed in 1787, the
states reserved to themselves all powers not conveyed to the new federal
government by the provisions of that document. It was intended that the
preponderance of power should rest with the states, that most of the work of
government should be performed by them, and that the first interest of the
citizen should be in the affairs of his own state.
But scarcely had the new federal government become Relative strength of
established when it began to gather strength. By a series the national and the
state governments.
of decisions the Supreme Court gave a liberal
interpretation to the powers of Congress as set forth in the constitution, each
decision widening the authority of the central government. The state
governments did not look with favor upon this development; but on the
whole the people of the country approved it. Little by little the nation forged
ahead of the states in its hold upon the interest and loyalty of the people.
The Civil War was an important factor in all this, for the real issue in that
conflict concerned the respective rights of the federal and the state
governments. The union came out of the war much stronger than before and
for the last sixty years it has kept gaining. Today people think of themselves

as citizens of the United States, rather than as citizens of a particular state;
their first interest is in matters of national government; they look to the
nation for the solution of all the great problems and are disposed to give the
national government even broader powers, as recent amendments to the
constitution have shown.[91] In theory the place of the states in the nation is
almost exactly what it was a hundred and thirty years ago; they still remain
sovereign in name; but in actual fact their relative authority has been greatly
diminished.
Nevertheless the forty-eight states are even yet very Present importance of
from being mere administrative divisions as are the state government.
counties of England or the departments in France. In these two countries the
government is highly centralized; all power emanates from London or from
Paris. In America the forty-eight state capitals are still the location of
important governmental powers and in all probability will continue to be.
This decentralization in government sometimes leads to friction and
controversy; but it has the advantage of keeping the people in more direct
control of their local affairs.
How States are Admitted.—In addition to the Territories made into
thirteen original states there was territory enough in states.
1787 for the creation of many more. All the land east of the Mississippi had
been surrendered by Great Britain and although much of this was claimed
by the states along the Atlantic seaboard they finally agreed to turn it all
over to Congress. The national government thereupon made provision for
governing this territory and expressly stipulated that it should be given
rights of statehood whenever the growth of population might warrant that
step. A little later the Louisiana territory was purchased; then Florida, and
from time to time during the next fifty years additional areas were obtained
in the Southwest, Northwest, and West. In every case these areas were
administered by territorial governments under the authority of Congress,
but always with the stipulation that the territories would become states as
soon as they had obtained a sufficient population.
We do not commonly think of the United States as a colonizing power, in
the sense that Great Britain has been such, nevertheless the whole history of
the American people has been a chronicle of colonization. From the
Alleghenies to the Pacific ocean the march of settlement went steadily on
for nearly a hundred years; lands were thrown open to settlers; territories
were formed; and in the end each territory became a state.

The makers of the federal constitution had no idea, of Steps in admission to
course, that the union would ever become so large, but statehood.
they did foresee that some day there would be more than thirteen states.
Hence, they made provision in the constitution that new states might be
admitted from time to time at the discretion of Congress. In keeping with
this provision the usual first step is the sending of a petition to Congress
from the people of the territory which seeks to be admitted. If Congress
regards this petition with favor it passes an Enabling Act, which authorizes
the people of the territory to draw up a tentative state constitution. This
document, having been framed and ratified at the polls by the people of the
territory, is then submitted to Congress. If Congress finds the constitution
satisfactory, it may then, by resolution, declare the territory to be a state.
Congress has been generous in granting full statehood to the home
territories, in some cases even before they had acquired large populations,
and this attitude has been wise. It has welded the country together as no
other policy could have unified it.
The Newer Territories.—Down to 1867, therefore, the problem of
territorial government was not difficult and it was always handled
satisfactorily. Each territory was administered by a How the territories
governor, who was appointed by the President, and by a were governed.
territorial legislature which was elected by the people. Laws passed by the
territorial legislature were subject to disapproval by Congress, but this right
was seldom exercised. The people of the territories quickly showed their
capacity to govern themselves and Congress let them alone. But after the
Civil War and particularly after the Spanish War, territorial problems of a
new sort arose. In 1867 the United States purchased The new insular
Alaska from Russia; in 1898 Porto Rico and the territories.
Philippines were acquired from Spain; in the same year Hawaii was
annexed, and during the past quarter of a century other distant possessions
(Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, and the Virgin Islands) have been added.
These acquisitions differ from the old territories in Can they be admitted
two respects; they are outside the regular national as states?
boundaries (in some cases far outside), and they contain for the most part
populations which have not had much experience in self-government.[92] All
have been given some form of territorial government; but the question is:
Can they be ultimately admitted as states of the union? If they should be so
admitted, they must be given exactly the same rights as all the other states.

There is no such thing as partial or qualified admission. If Porto Rico or
Hawaii should be admitted to statehood they will have exactly the same
status as New York or Pennsylvania.
Three courses are open. First, these territories may be Future of these
admitted in due course to full rights of statehood. In the islands.
case of Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico this policy may be the one adopted
if their populations are deemed to be large enough. Second, the existing
form of territorial government may be continued indefinitely. This means
that they would have a large measure of control over their own local affairs
but not full control in the sense that the states have it. Third, they might be
given their independence with a guarantee of American protection from
outside enemies. In the case of the Philippines this is virtually what has
been promised; but independence is not to be given until the islands prove
entirely capable of governing themselves.[93] Apart from the Philippines
none of these territories is asking for independence.[94]
The State Constitutions.—It has been pointed out that before any
territory is admitted as a state it must frame a constitution. This constitution
is drawn, as a rule, by a constitutional convention State constitutional
composed of delegates elected by the people. Such a conventions.
convention is called when a state enters the union and again whenever a
general revision of the original document seems to be desirable. As a rule
there is an interval of ten years or more between such conventions and
sometimes an interval of thirty or forty years.[95] Due to differences in the
growth and progress of the state a constitution may become out-of-date in
one more rapidly than in another. If only slight alterations in the
constitution are needed, it is not necessary or usual to call a convention.
Individual amendments, as will be shown presently, can be made more
easily.
What these Constitutions Contain.—These state constitutions are
rather long documents, much longer than the constitution of the United
States. In early days they were much shorter, but the state governments
perform far more numerous functions today than they did fifty years ago. It
has become the tendency, moreover, in recent years to cover many things in
constitutions which formerly were left to be dealt with by acts of the
legislature. This has meant a great lengthening of constitutional provisions.
In general a state constitution sets forth the form of government,
prescribes the powers and duties of state officers, prohibits the legislature

from doing certain things (such as changing the state capitol, for example),
and guarantees certain fundamental rights to the citizens. But this is not all.
Some of them contain long provisions relating to the powers of local
governments, the pay of officials, the borrowing of money, and the
regulation of banks. Putting such details into the state constitution is an
unwise policy because constitutional provisions are difficult to change,
whereas these various matters need to be dealt with somewhat differently
from time to time.
How State Constitutions are Amended.—There are The two methods of
two common ways of amending a state constitution. amendment.
The first, which exists in nearly all the states, is by concurrent action of the
legislature and the people. The legislature takes the first step by proposing
the amendment; then the people at the polls accept or reject the proposal.[96]
The other way is by action of the people alone. By means of the initiative,
as already described, the people may propose an amendment, have it put on
the ballot, and accept or reject it as they desire. This method of amending
the constitution is used in less than half the states and even there it is not
employed with great frequency. The great majority of the amendments to
state constitutions (scores of them are made every year in the country as a
whole) are made by the first-named plan.
The Powers of the States.—Some years ago a The states have the
foreign student of government, desiring to find out what residuum of powers.
powers belonged to the legislature of Massachusetts, took a copy of the
state constitution and began reading it carefully. Much to his surprise he
found that it contained no list of the powers which the legislature might
exercise but merely stated some things which the legislature must not do.
The reason for this, of course, is simple enough. The states retain all the
powers which they have not given to the national government. The way to
find out whether a state possesses a certain power is to look in the
constitution of the United States. If the power is there given exclusively to
Congress or prohibited to the states, then the state legislature cannot
exercise it. But if the power is not mentioned in the national constitution,
either expressly or by implication, then the state legislatures have it.
On this basis a certain division of powers is made between the nation and
the states. The general principles on which the division is made are easy
enough to understand, but the exact distribution of powers is something that
can only be mastered by studying it. Even lawyers do not always get hold of

it accurately and newspapers are constantly making mistakes because they
fail to realize just where the boundaries of the various governmental powers
begin and end. So let us try to condense the matter into a nutshell, or, to be
more accurate, into four nutshells as follows:
1. Some powers belong exclusively to the nation. These include the power
to declare war, to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, to coin money,
to establish post offices, and so on. No share in the management of these
things belongs to the state governments.
2. Some powers belong concurrently both to the nation and the states.
Both the nation and the states, each within its own sphere, have the power
to tax, to borrow money, to charter banks, to promote education, and to do
many other things. These are called concurrent powers because the national
and state authorities may both exercise them at the same time.
3. Some powers are prohibited to the nation and some are prohibited to
the states. The national and state governments, for example, are forbidden
to pass any bill of attainder, to grant titles of nobility, or to take private
property for public use without compensation. The states, in addition, are
forbidden to make treaties, coin money, or levy tariff duties. There are
various other prohibitions upon both the nation or the states, as will be seen
by reading carefully the provisions of the national constitution.[97]
4. All other governmental powers are reserved to the states. Every power
which does not fall within the foregoing three classes belongs to the several
states exclusively. This is not only in accordance with the theory of the
national constitution as a grant of powers but it is expressly stated in the
Tenth Amendment.[98]
The General Similarity of State Governments.— Features which are
No two states, among the forty-eight, are governed similar states.
in all the

alike. A description of state government in
Massachusetts would not fit Illinois, much less Idaho or Nevada. On the
other hand no two states are governed very differently; in all the essential
features they conform to a single type. They all have constitutions; every
state has an elective legislature of two chambers; each has an elective
governor; and they all have state courts. In all the states there is universal
suffrage (save for the exclusion of negroes in the South); the secret ballot is
used throughout the country; the same political parties are in existence
everywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific; and the principal laws are
essentially the same. The citizen who moves from one state to another finds

the difference so slight that it is hardly noticeable. It is not worth while,
therefore, to spend any time in studying the points of difference between the
government of one state and that of another. State government everywhere
has now been reduced to a type which is uniform for all practical purposes.
The State Legislature.—Every state has a Organization of the
legislature which is the paramount branch of the state state legislature.
government. It makes the laws, levies the state taxes, appropriates money
for the management of state administration, and decides all questions of
public policy. This legislature is composed of two chambers, which have
substantially concurrent lawmaking powers. The upper chamber, commonly
called the Senate, is the smaller of the two; its members are elected by
counties or senatorial districts, usually for a term of two or four years. The
lower chamber, which is variously known as the Assembly, or House of
Representatives, or House of Delegates, is much the larger body; its
members are also elected from counties or parts of counties. Nominations
are made either by conventions or by a primary; the latter is now the more
common method except in the Southern states. Sessions of the legislature
are held every alternate year except in a few states where they are held
annually.
The powers of the state legislature are in actual The legislature’s
operation very broad. They comprise the whole field of powers.
lawmaking except in so far as it has been restricted by the national
constitution or by the constitution of the state itself. The state laws come
closer to the life of the individual than do those of the nation.[99] They make
provision for the registration of a child’s birth; they determine the age at
which he must go to school; they establish the schools and fix the
qualifications of the teachers. When the boy becomes a man he will find
that the state laws regulate his profession or business. The state laws enable
him to marry, to accumulate property, to vote, and to hold office. When he
dies the state laws regulate the transmission of his property to his heirs.
Thus from birth to death the citizen comes almost daily into contact with
the lawmaking authority of the state. These laws determine most of the
taxes that he pays; they safeguard his life, health, and property; they punish
him when he does wrong; and they provide for his maintenance if he
becomes poor or crippled or insane. Where the federal government touches
the citizen once, the state government touches him a dozen times. The
average citizen does not always appreciate this fact.

The consent of both chambers of the state legislature The process of state
is necessary to the making of laws. The process of legislation.
lawmaking is very much like that used in Congress (see pp. 275-278). Bills
are introduced, referred to committees, reported back to the legislature, and
voted on by each chamber.[100] Disagreements between the two chambers are
adjusted by a conference committee. The rules of procedure are very
complicated and new members of a state legislature often have some
difficulty in understanding them. The purpose of the rules is threefold: To
expedite business, to ensure the careful consideration of each measure, and
to protect the rights of the minority party in the legislature. Despite the
rules, however, legislative business is often unduly delayed; at other times
measures are hustled through without proper consideration, and the rights of
the minority are frequently over-ridden.[101] This is done by suspending the
rules or by merely disregarding them.
The State Executive.—The executive branch of the The governor.
state government is made up of the governor and the heads of the various
state departments. The governor is elected by the people for a term of two
or four years. His powers are extensive. He is charged with the general
supervision over the enforcement of the laws and the conduct of
administrative affairs. He makes most of the important appointments to
state administrative offices, the chief exceptions being the heads of state
departments and the judges of the state courts, both of whom are in most
cases elected by the people. The governor’s appointments, before they
become effective, usually require confirmation by the upper branch of the
state legislature or by an elective executive council. Where the civil service
system is in force, moreover, it places a limit on the governor’s discretion in
appointments. The governor also possesses the veto power over acts of the
state legislature, but this may be over-ridden, as a rule, by a two-thirds vote
of both chambers. In all essential features the veto power of the governor is
much like that of the President. The power to pardon offenders convicted in
the state courts likewise belongs to the governor in most states; in some
states, however, he must obtain the concurrence of a pardoning-board or
some other authority, and in a few states the entire power of pardon is given
to a special board. The governor is commander-in-chief of the state militia
and may call it out for service in emergencies. Like the President the
governor is removable from office by impeachment.
Officials and boards.

For carrying on its administrative work the state has, in addition to the
governor, a considerable number of administrative officials and boards.
These include the secretary of state, who keeps the official records; the
treasurer; the auditor; the attorney-general, who conducts the legal affairs of
the state; the state superintendent or commissioner of education; together
with state boards of health, charity, public works, public utilities, and so on.
The titles and functions of these various boards differ greatly from state to
state. In Massachusetts there are only twenty-one state departments; in New
York there are more than one hundred. Everywhere the number displays a
tendency to increase, for the functions of the state are everywhere
broadening. The officials and members of boards who perform all this
administrative work are sometimes elected but more often they are
appointed by the governor.
The State Courts: Their Organization.—In each state there are three
gradations in the judiciary, and sometimes four. First, there are local courts,
presided over by justices of the peace, or police justices. These courts try
cases of minor importance. When persons charged with serious offences are
brought before them, the offenders are held for trial by the next higher
court. These next higher courts are known as county or district or superior
courts. They are empowered to conduct jury trials; they have prosecuting
attorneys at their service; they have a wider range of jurisdiction to try
important cases, and their decisions are usually final so far as the facts of
the case are concerned. Finally, there is in each state a supreme court
(sometimes called the Court of Errors) which hears appeals, chiefly on
disputed points of law, from the courts below. This court is composed of
from five to fifteen judges (the number is fixed by law in each state), and it
has the last word in all cases save where an appeal may be taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States.[102]
The Selection and Removal of Judges.—In more The election vs. the
than three-fourths of the states the judges of these appointment
judges.
of

various courts are elected by the people. In the rest they
are either appointed by the governor or chosen by the state legislature. One
plan cannot be said, in general terms, to be better than the other. Good
judges have been secured by all three methods of selection, and poor ones
too. It is worth noting, however, that the judges of all the federal courts are
appointed for life and that they are men of fine quality.[103] It is everywhere
conceded that the courts ought to be kept out of party politics and this is

much easier if the judges are appointed for life or for long terms than if they
are chosen by the people for short terms. But whether appointed or elected
it is desirable that judges, so long as their work is satisfactory, should be
kept in office. If judges are denied reappointment or re-election because
their decisions do not prove popular with those who are influential in
politics, it will be very hard to get men of ability and integrity to accept
judicial positions.

SIMPLIFIED STATE ADMINISTRATION
Several states have simplified their administrative
machinery during recent years by reducing the number of
state departments. Illinois is one of these. Its plan of
administrative organization, as shown on the reverse of this
page, is simple enough for any voter to understand. This
contrasts with the situation in New York State, where there
are more than a hundred administrative departments.

ORGANIZATION OF STATE ADMINISTRATION

The Need of Reform in State Administration.— The present
There are two distinct weaknesses in state weakness.
administration at the present day. One results from the fact that the
functions of the state have been enormously expanded during the past fifty
years while the administrative machinery has not kept pace. The state has
taken over new duties in the field of public health, the regulation of
industry, the administration of prisons, the control of public utilities, and
many other matters. In each case it has merely set up one more department
or bureau or board until the whole organization has become top-heavy. State
administration, in other words, is now divided into too many compartments.
The other weakness arises from the fact that these various departments are
not all responsible to the governor or to any central head. Some officials
and boards are appointed; some are elected. Some hold office for long
terms, some for short. The governor bears the responsibility for the proper
conduct of state administration, yet the work is done by officials who are
not required to obey his instructions.[104] He is like a general who is
expected to win battles without having officers who will obey his
commands. The result is not only a good deal of friction but a waste of
time, money, and patience. Several states have felt the need of reforming
this condition and have proceeded to make changes in their administrative
organization. These changes involve a reduction in the number of
departments and the placing of them all under the general control of the
governor.[105] In the national administration all departments are responsible
to the President. The same principle ought to be applied in state
administration.
The Proposed Reconstruction of State Can the system of
Government.—The system of state government, as it commission
government be
now stands, is not obtaining satisfactory results. The applied to the states?
state legislatures have declined in popular confidence
during the past generation; men of inferior quality are frequently elected to
them; the work of lawmaking is influenced too much by party
considerations; the administrative departments are too numerous in most of
the states and often fail to do their work efficiently. State taxes are
everywhere going up rapidly and state debts are increasing. Various plans
for a radical reconstruction in state government have been proposed in order
to remedy these defects. One proposal is that the two-chambered legislature

should be abolished and a single small body of representatives put in its
place. It is argued that if fewer legislators were elected better men would be
chosen and that the process of lawmaking would thereby be improved.
Some have even gone so far as to urge that we should establish commission
government for states as well as for cities. State government, they argue,
has become so complicated that it now needs a smaller number of capable
men giving their undivided attention to it. A two-chambered legislature,
which meets for a few months every second year, cannot handle the
business effectively. Nevertheless the people have become thoroughly
accustomed to double-chambered legislatures, and where the proposal to
establish a single chamber has been submitted to them (as in Oregon) they
have rejected it.
Another plan proposes the vesting of larger powers in Should the governor’s
the hands of the governor, giving him the initiative in powers be increased?
financial matters and making all the state administrative departments
responsible to him. Today the drift is very strongly in this direction.
Already, in some states, the governor is a more important factor than the
legislature, and this is strangely in contrast with the situation as it was a
hundred years or more ago. James Madison, in his time, spoke of the
governors as “little more than ciphers” and declared that the legislatures
were omnipotent. In our day this has entirely changed, or is changing. The
balance of power is steadily swinging from the legislative to the executive
branch.
General References
C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 428-577; Ibid., Readings in American
Government and Politics, pp. 391-508;
Everett Kimball, State and Municipal Government, pp. 131-308;
W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 389-459;
A. N. Holcombe, State Government in the United States, pp. 240-393;
J. T. Young, The New American Government and Its Work, pp. 298-341;
Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 315-336;
P. S. Reinsch, Readings in American Federal Government, pp. 222-239;
J. M. Mathews, Principles of American State Administration, pp. 25-214;
W. W. Willoughby and Lindsay Rogers, Introduction to the Problem of Government, pp. 407-
429.

Group Problems
1. A revision of your state constitution. Make a tabulation of the more important provisions in
your state constitution, under the following heads: 1. Organization of the legislature. 2. Powers of the
governor. 3. Relations between the governor and the legislature. 4. Organization of the state

departments. 5. Control of state finances. Compare these in parallel columns with the corresponding
provisions in the model state constitution of the National Municipal League. Discuss the relative
merits of each provision. References: National Municipal Review, Vol. IX, No. 11, pp. 711-715,
November, 1920. Copies of the state constitution may usually be had on application to the Secretary
of State at the State Capitol. The state constitution is also published in the handbook or manual which
is supplied to members of the legislature. For general discussions of the subject, see C. G. Haines
and Bertha H. Haines, Principles and Problems of American Government, pp. 321-338; 423-440; W.
B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 522-534; J. M. Mathews, Principles of American
State Administration, pp. 499-516; A. N. Holcombe, State Government in the United States, pp. 106-
142; Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, Nos. 2, 4, 10, 15, 29 and 35;
New York State Constitutional Convention, 1915, Index Digest of State Constitutions, passim.
2. What we get for our state expenditures. References: United States Bureau of the Census,
Financial Statistics of States (issued annually since 1918); W. B. Munro, Government of the United
States, pp. 445-472; R. T. Ely, Taxation in American States and Cities, pp. 13-24; J. M. Mathews,
Principles of American State Administration, pp. 296-400.
3. Can the procedure in state legislatures be simplified? References: P. S. Reinsch, American
Legislatures and Legislative Methods, pp. 126-158; H. W. Dodds, The Procedure of State
Legislatures, pp. 36-62; A. N. Holcombe, State Government in the United States, pp. 253-279; H. M.
Robert, Rules of Order, passim.

Short Studies
1. The place of the states in the nation. W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 389-
403.
2. The organization and procedure of constitutional conventions. Massachusetts Constitutional
Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, No. 1 (The Procedure of Constitutional Conventions).
3. Committees and committee work in state legislatures. P. S. Reinsch, American Legislatures
and Legislative Methods, pp. 159-182.
4. The growth of executive power in state government. J. M. Mathews, Principles of American
State Administration, pp. 25-133.
5. The drift of legislation in recent years. F. J. Stimson, Popular Lawmaking, pp. 117-123.
6. Reasons for the popular distrust of state legislatures. James T. Young, The New American
Government and Its Work, pp. 643-651.
7. How state administration has been simplified. C. G. Haines and Bertha M. Haines,
Principles and Problems of Government, pp. 323-338.
8. The government of the Philippines. Dean C. Worcester, The Philippines, Past and Present,
Vol. I, pp. 325-407; Vol. II, pp. 768-791.
9. The appointment and removal of judges. S. E. Baldwin, The American Judiciary, pp. 311-
343; A. M. Kales, Unpopular Government in the United States, pp. 225-251.
10. Plans for the reconstruction of state government. W. B. Munro, Government of the United
States, pp. 522-534; A. M. Kales, Unpopular Government in the United States, pp. 166-180.

Questions
1. The national constitution provides that the United States shall guarantee to each state a
republican form of government. What does that mean? Would a state government be un-republican if
it (a) raised the voting age to thirty years; (b) abolished the legislature and gave all lawmaking
powers to an appointive board of five; (c) gave up the system of trial by jury in the state courts; (d)
abolished private property?
2. If you were redistributing the respective powers of the national and state governments today
where would you place (a) marriage and divorce; (b) education; (c) the regulation of child labor; (d)

the chartering of banks; (e) the punishment of counterfeiting; (f) the protection of foreigners in the
United States; (g) the punishment of persons for lynching; (h) the control of the national guard?
3. Go through your state constitution and check off four or five provisions which you think might
better be left to be dealt with by the laws.
4. How may your state constitution be amended? What amendments have been made within the
last ten years and by which method? Are amendments, in your opinion, too easy or too difficult to
make?
5. If every state is entirely free to determine its own form of government why are they all so much
alike?
6. Make a list of all the steps in the passage of a law from its introduction in the legislature to its
final enactment. Does the governor give any reason when he vetoes a bill? Should he be required to
do so?
7. Put each of the following offices at the head of a column and insert under each a list of matters
with which the officials have to do: Board of Public Works; Commissioner of Corrections; Public
Utilities Commission; Fish and Game Bureau; Board of Labor and Industries; Industrial Accident
Board; Department of Social Welfare; Board of Agriculture; Attorney-General; Civil Service
Commission.
8. Make a list of all the activities in which your state government is engaged where it acts in the
capacity of (a) a business man or corporation; (b) an arbiter between parties; (c) a benevolent agency.
In which of these does it meet competition from private individuals?
9. Make a chart showing the organization of the courts in your state, the number of judges in each,
and the general jurisdiction of each court.

Topics for Debate
1. The commission plan of government, as it now exists in many cities, should be applied to the
states.
2. The United States should not acquire any territory which cannot ultimately be admitted as a
state.
3. Which is the better plan of choosing Supreme Court judges: (a) appointment for life by the
governor (Massachusetts), or, (b) election every six years by the people (Illinois)?

CHAPTER XIII
THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION

The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the constitution was framed, how it has
developed, and how it can be changed.

The Achievement of Union.—The greatest E pluribus unum.
achievement of the American people has been the welding of separate states
into a single nation. To have brought into a permanent federation thirteen
relatively small communities, containing less than four million people in
all, may not seem to us to have been a remarkable feat. These thirteen
communities had won their independence together in a common war; they
were inhabited for the most part by people of the same race, speaking the
same language, and accustomed to the same laws. Why should there have
been any difficulty in getting them to form a union in order to provide for
the common defence and promote the general welfare? Is not unification a
natural process?
Well, if the gathering of different states into a single permanent union is
an easy matter, why did not the warring cities of Ancient Greece unite?
Why did they persist in their disunion, and through disunion ultimately fall
a prey to their common enemy? The whole of Attica was smaller than the
single state of South Carolina. Why did not the various states of Central
America, or of South America, form a union after they had won their
independence from Spain? How different the history of these Latin-
American countries would have been during the past hundred years if they
had established a federal union like that of the United States!
The forming of the American union was not an easy task. It was brought
about by dint of hard work, patience, a rare display of public spirit on the
part of the leaders in the several states, and the common sense of the masses
of the people. If the men and women of 1787 had regarded themselves
alone and given no thought to posterity; if they had placed the immediate

interests of the individual states above the ultimate well-being of the whole;
if they had allowed themselves to be moved by prejudice rather than by
patriotism, the American union would not have been formed.
Why the Task was Difficult.—The thirteen colonies Obstacles in the way
were founded independently. Some of them grew out of of union.
trading-company operations. Others were founded by men and women who
left their homes in the old country to escape religious persecution. Others,
again, owed their beginnings to wealthy men who obtained large grants of
land from the English crown in order to establish settlements. Founded in
different ways, these various colonies had from the outset very little
community of interest. Each had its own government and these
governments differed somewhat from one another. The people did not travel
about from one colony to another, for transportation was crude and
traveling was difficult. From Massachusetts to Georgia seemed a much
longer distance in 1787 than a journey across the entire continent seems
today. Each colony, moreover, was primarily interested in its own problems
and gave little thought to outside affairs except when dangers threatened. It
is true that the colonies also had some things in common, but the forces
which tended to keep them apart were far stronger than those which tended
to bring them together.
For this reason the first attempts at union resulted in Early attempts at
no permanent federation. As early as 1643 the four federation.
principal New England settlements united themselves into a league of
friendship known as the New England Federation, but this union went out
of existence after the danger of Indian attacks had passed away. William
Penn, in 1696, proposed a general union of all the colonies but nothing
came of his suggestion. At various times during the next sixty years
conferences were called and the matter discussed, the most important being
the Albany Congress of 1754, at which a plan of union was framed in detail.
Local jealousies, however, always proved too strong until the impending
quarrel with the mother country showed the necessity of united action.
How the War paved the Way for Union.—The The Revolution as a
attempt of the English government to tax the colonies unifying force.
without their consent brought home to them, for the first time, the fact that
they were all in the same boat. If they should attempt to resist these taxes
individually, they would be coerced one by one. For this reason they
hastened to consult with one another and in due course sent delegates to a

Continental Congress which handled the common interests of the colonies
during the war. The stress and strain of the war made unity essential for the
time being, but it did not produce an organic union. The colonies were
united in declaring their independence, but this declaration did not create a
union of new states.
The Declaration of Independence.—The Declaration of Independence
is one of the most famous documents in all history. Drawn by Thomas
Jefferson it is at once a statement of political principles and a recital of the
colonial grievances. Four outstanding political principles are set forth in the
following words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”
“That governments long established should not be changed for light
or transient causes.”
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of Importance of the
the land and never has been; its text is not legally Declaration.
binding upon Congress, the legislatures, or the courts. It is an assertion of
fundamental principles. It did not create a united nation, save in sentiment.
By the declaration thirteen new sovereign states were established, each with
the right to determine its own form of government. From a governmental
standpoint these thirteen communities were less united after the declaration
than they had been before it. Prior to 1776 there had been a single
sovereign; after that date there were thirteen. But although the Declaration
of Independence did not make any provision for the union of the several
states it is none the less an immortal document because it boldly asserted
principles that were new to the world. In 1776 there was very little
democracy anywhere. The four truths above mentioned are commonplace
today; but one hundred and fifty years ago they were a challenge to
revolution in all despotic countries. In our time the greater part of the
civilized world has come to accept them as the only sound basis of
democratic government. The declaration, therefore, is not merely a

landmark in the history of American democracy; it marks the beginning of a
great epoch in the history of human freedom.
The Articles of Confederation.—Having given their pledge to common
principles and having stood shoulder to shoulder through the dark hours of
a hard-fought war, it might be thought that these thirteen states would have
seen clearly the wisdom of welding themselves into a single, united nation.
But they were not yet ready to drop their jealousies or abate their zeal for
individual independence. The best they were willing to do, for the time
being, was to give their assent to a plan for a loose confederation,
something that was little better than an offensive and defensive alliance.
This plan, drawn up by the Continental Congress in Provisions of the
1777, was embodied in the Articles of Confederation articles.
and sent to the several states to be ratified. It met with very little
enthusiasm, and not until 1781 was it accepted by all the states. In truth,
these Articles did not deserve much enthusiasm, for they provided an
unworkable form of federal government. A Congress composed of a single
chamber made up of delegates from the states was the sole organ of the
Confederation. No provision was made for an executive or for a system of
courts. In the Congress of the Confederation all the states, large and small,
were given equal voting powers; the delegates were appointed by the states,
paid by the states, and subject to recall at any time by the states. The people,
as such, were given no direct share in the government; on the other hand the
central government could not deal directly with the people, it could act only
through the states.
The states were so jealous of their own sovereignty Weakness of the
and independence that they withheld from the Confederation.
government of the Confederation most of the essential powers which a
government must have in order to do its work. They gave it no power to tax
and hence no certain means of procuring a revenue. They gave it no power
to borrow money save with the assent of nine states. They gave it no power
to regulate trade. The Articles of Confederation, although drawn and
adopted in the midst of a war, gave the Congress no power to summon men
into the army. When it needed troops it could only call upon the states to
supply them. Sometimes the states responded to these calls, but more often
they did not, and in the latter case the Congress had no way of enforcing its
demands for men. Under the circumstances it is amazing that the

government of the Confederation managed to carry on the war and bring it
to a successful conclusion.
The Drift to Anarchy after the War.—Despite the The critical period.
utter weakness of the Confederation the war continued to be a unifying
force so long as it lasted. In the face of a common danger and with a
common goal ahead of them the states kept their jealousies in the
background. But as soon as the war was over the bickerings began in
earnest. Each state began to look upon its own interests as the thing of
greatest importance; each sought to gain advantages at the expense of its
neighbors. Each was at liberty to impose its own tariff and to regulate trade
at its own ports. So they began to quarrel among themselves over trading
privileges and over disputed boundaries until a civil war seemed to be quite
within the bounds of possibility.
Why did not the Congress of the Confederation Impotence of the
intervene to prevent this drift to anarchy? The Congress Congress.
would gladly have done so but it had no power. It had no authority to
intervene in disputes between the states, or even to prevent war among
them. It had no army of its own, no money to raise an army. Some of the
states, now that the war was over, took so little interest in the Confederation
that they stopped sending delegates to the Congress altogether. Time and
again it was found impossible to get a quorum in order to do business. The
utter weakness of the Congress was tragically displayed in 1783 when it
was driven out of its quarters at Philadelphia by a mob of soldiers
clamoring for their pay.
The whole country was in a bad way. During the war The economic
a huge debt had been created, and Congress now found disorder.
itself with no money to pay interest on it. Millions in paper money had been
issued, but nowhere was there any gold to redeem them. Prices had been
high during the war, as prices always are during war time. When the war
ended there was a general fall in prices with the result that the farmers got
less for their products and became discontented. Farmers, in those days,
formed ninety per cent of the population and they completely controlled the
legislatures of the various states. They clamored for relief from the effects
of the decline in prices, called for the issue of more paper money, for high
tariffs, and for measures that would lessen the burden of mortgages on their
lands. In some of the states there was open rioting and disorder. These years

have been well called the “critical period” of American history. It looked for
a time as though independence was to be merely a prelude to anarchy.
No wonder the leaders of the people were The leaders in despair.
discouraged and alarmed. Washington was in despair. “I am mortified
beyond expression”, he wrote, “when I view the clouds that have spread
over the brightest morn that ever dawned upon any country.... I am lost in
amazement when I behold what intrigue, ignorance, and jealousy are
capable of effecting.... It is but the other day that we were shedding our
blood to obtain the constitutions under which we now live—constitutions of
our own choice and making—and now we are unsheathing the sword to
overturn them.... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that
we are incapable of governing ourselves!” These are bitter words, but the
condition of the country quite justified them. Sensible men in all the states
shared this alarm and felt that what had been won during the war might
easily be lost, for if the states should fall to fighting among themselves, it
would be very easy for Europe to take a hand in the fray and divide the
spoils. The fate of Poland was fresh in the minds of those who had read
history.
The Triumph of Public Spirit over Selfishness.— A Constitutional
But presently there came a rift in the clouds. The four Convention called.
million people who formed the population of the thirteen states, despite
their sectional prejudices, were possessed of common sense and patriotism.
They were blessed, moreover, with as fine a group of leaders as ever carried
a young nation through troublous years. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin,
Madison, Hamilton, and the others of this notable galaxy held different
views as to the best means of bringing order out of chaos; but they were
ready, when the time came, to sink these personal differences in order that
some effective form of central government might be established. They lent
the weight of their great influence, therefore, to a movement for revising the
Articles of Confederation in such a way that a better union of the thirteen
states might be achieved. In truth it was a difficult task to induce the states
to move towards unity, for they were all headed in exactly the opposite
direction. But by the exercise of tact and patience, and after discouraging
delays, twelve of the states finally sent delegates to a convention that was
called to meet at Philadelphia in 1787 to see what could be done. If the
states had been asked to join in the making of an entirely new constitution
and the establishing of a real federal union, there is no doubt that some of

them would have declined. The convention was called to consider changes
in the Articles of Confederation. But when the delegates set to work they
soon found that no patchwork performance would ever solve the problem of
welding the American people into a unified nation. So they proceeded to
make an entirely new covenant containing provision for a real central
government endowed with adequate powers.
The Constitutional Convention: Its Members.—In the convention
there were fifty-five delegates representing twelve states. Some states sent
six or seven delegates; others only two or three. The number did not matter
much, for each state had one vote on all questions. The delegates were
never all present at any one time; some of them came and soon went away;
others kept coming and going; but the majority stayed right through the
summer and attended the meetings regularly. The convention met in the old
brick state house in Philadelphia, the building in which the Declaration of
Independence had been signed eleven years before. It met behind closed
doors and the delegates agreed that they would not tell what was going on.
Day after day, from May to September, they wrestled with the problem of
framing a new constitution and although their differences of opinion often
seemed impossible to adjust, the convention finally managed to draft a
document which a majority of the delegates were willing to sign.

WASHINGTON AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION OF 1787

By Violet Oakley
This picture is in the Pennsylvania State Capitol at
Harrisburg.
It portrays the Fathers of the Republic at their great work
of framing the national constitution. Washington, the
presiding officer of the convention, is appealing to his
colleagues with the notable words which encircle the top of
the picture. Around and below him are Benjamin Franklin,
James Madison, William Paterson, James Dickinson,
Edmund Randolph, Robert Morris, and Gouverneur Morris,

all of them in quaint costumes of the later eighteenth
century.
The picture is symbolic of America’s great aspiration—
Let us raise a standard to which the honest can repair!

WASHINGTON AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION.

By Violet Oakley

Copyright by Violet Oakley. From a Copley Print,
copyright by Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by
permission.

The men who took a prominent part in this The Fathers of the
convention performed a service of such value and Republic.
permanence that their names can never be forgotten. Washington, who
headed the delegation from Virginia, was chosen by the convention to be its
presiding officer. This debarred him from taking an active part in the
discussions on the floor, but his great personal influence was on many
occasions exerted in the interests of harmony. Benjamin Franklin, the wisest
man of his time, was the senior member of the Pennsylvania delegation. His
broad knowledge of men and affairs, gained through a long life of more
than eighty years, made him one of the most valuable members. Then there
was James Madison, still a young man but already a thorough scholar in
matters of government. Among all the delegates Madison ranked first in
point of active helpfulness and fully earned the distinction which posterity
has given him as the Father of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, of
New York, young and brilliant, with plenty of imagination and strong
political opinions, was the orator of the convention; but oratory did not
carry far with the delegates. They listened with rapt attention to Hamilton’s
impassioned speeches and applauded him generously at the end; but when
the question was put to a vote he sometimes got nobody’s vote but his own.
Arguments counted for more than eloquence in this gathering. Among the
delegates of ability and prominence were Robert Morris and James Wilson,
of Pennsylvania, the former a wizard in financial matters, the latter a hard-
headed Scotchman of great political sense; Roger Sherman, the shoemaker-
statesman, of Connecticut; the two Pinckneys, of South Carolina, John
Dickinson, of Delaware, and a dozen others whose names were known
throughout the nation in their day. They were not all of the same mind on
political questions, not by any means; some were conservative and some
were radical; some looked far into the future and others only to the needs of
the hour; some were always willing to compromise and others were not
ready to compromise at all; but taken as a whole they formed an able, well-

balanced group of men, fairly reflecting the intelligence and patriotism of
their time.[106]
How the Convention Solved its Difficulties.—In a The obstacles and the
body made up of men who held such widely-differing compromises.
opinions it was inevitable that bitter controversies should arise. And that is
what happened. Delegates from the smaller states disagreed with the
delegates from the larger states on the question whether, under the new
constitution, the voting power of the states should be equal, as it had been
under the Articles of Confederation. Delegates from the North clashed with
delegates from the South on the question of giving the new government
power to regulate trade; for the South did not want export taxes placed upon
tobacco, cotton, and the other plantation staples. The divergence of opinion
was often very wide, and on one occasion the convention almost broke off
its proceedings because there seemed to be no hope that any agreement
could be reached. But patience and public spirit finally prevailed on all
points and by means of one compromise after another the convention
managed to finish its work without splitting its ranks wide open.[107]
When all the main features had been agreed upon The constitution
they were put together into a constitution which thirty- drafted.
nine of the delegates were willing to sign. Of the others, some were absent;
some refused to put their names to it. Even among those who signed it there
were many who did so without the least enthusiasm. The provisions of the
new constitution were not what any individual delegate wanted, but merely
what a majority could be induced to agree upon. What influenced the
delegates most of all was the fact that everyone knew the existing situation
to be bad; the new constitution, whatever its defects, was sure to be an
improvement. The immediate thing was to get the states headed towards the
center and not towards the circumference of a circle. This being
accomplished, the leaders of the convention believed the future might be
trusted to take care of itself. It was in this broad and patriotic spirit that
thirty-nine men appended their names to what the English statesman,
Gladstone, once called “the greatest achievement ever struck off in a given
time by the hand and brain of man”,—the constitution of the United States.
The Final Step.—But by signing their names to this Ratification by the
document the members of the convention did not make states.
it the law of the land. Before the constitution could go into force it must be
submitted to the states and adopted by them. And there was grave danger

that several of the states would reject it. Public sentiment seemed to be
about evenly divided; the small farmers were largely opposed to accepting
the new government, while the people of the towns and the large property-
owners were in favor of it. Some of those who had been The Federalist.
leaders in the convention, notably Hamilton and Madison, organized a
campaign to influence public opinion in favor of the new constitution, in the
course of which they wrote numerous letters to the newspapers explaining
and defending the various provisions. These letters were subsequently
compiled into book form and published under the title of The Federalist.
Even today they form an admirable exposition of what the various
provisions of the constitution express and imply. In the end the campaign
for ratification was successful and notwithstanding strong opposition in
some of the states all were finally induced to accept the constitution. This
being accomplished the Congress of the Confederation dissolved and in
1789 the new federal government came into office with New York City as
the temporary capital.[108]
The Constitution as a Whole.—The constitution of A notable document.
the United States as framed by the convention is a relatively short
document. It is printed in the back of this book and can be read in about
twenty minutes. It is the oldest and the shortest among republican
constitutions in the great countries of the world. Napoleon Bonaparte once
said that a good constitution should be “short and obscure”, short, so that
people would not have to waste time in reading it, and obscure so that rulers
could interpret it in any way they chose. The constitution of the United
States fulfils the first of Napoleon’s requirements but not the second. It is a
remarkably clear document, well-arranged, saying in a few words exactly
what it means, and couched in admirable English. Let anyone read the first
six lines of it, for example, and see if he can put the purposes of a free
government into fewer and more telling words. It is the supreme law of the
land, the last word on all questions of American government. No one can
claim to know how the affairs of the United States are administered without
mastering, at least in a general way, the contents of the constitution.
How the Constitution has Developed.—But the Factors in the
constitution today is not what it was a hundred and development
constitution:
of the

twenty-odd years ago. Were that the case, it would be
sadly out of touch with the needs of the nation. To be satisfactory a
constitution must be capable of steady expansion and development; it must

be able to keep step with political, social, and economic progress. This the
constitution of the United States has been able to do through various
agencies of development, usage, judicial interpretation, and amendment.
Established for thirteen states containing four million people it has been
expanded to cover the needs of nearly four times as many states and more
than twenty-five times as many people. Framed in days of stage coaches
and sailing ships, hand-industry and primitive methods of agriculture, it has
carried through into the days of airships and tractors, giant factories and
miracles of industry. It is endowed with dynamic qualities.
Let us look a little more closely at these agencies of 1. Usage.
development. Usage is one of them. Alongside the written document there
have grown up many practices which have practically the strength of
written provisions. Take the method of electing the President, for example.
Indirect election is provided in the constitution; by usage the election has
become direct. The constitution provides that the President shall make
appointments with the “advice and consent” of the Senate; but as a matter
of usage its advice is never asked and its consent, in some cases, is never
refused (see p. 298). The constitution says not a word about the Cabinet, but
by usage a Cabinet system has grown up in the United States as in England.
Nor does it say a word about political parties, nevertheless usage has given
them a large part in government. These illustrations could be multiplied.
Why does no President seek a third term? Why does a President usually
consult individual representatives before making local appointments? Why
are non-residents in a congressional district practically never elected to
represent it? Usage answers these and many other questions.
The constitution has also been modified by decisions 2. Interpretation.
of the courts. The courts cannot change a single word in the constitution;
they merely interpret its meaning. Their function is jus dicere, non dare (to
interpret the law, not to make it), as the saying goes. But the fact remains
that changes in the meaning of words are equivalent for all practical
purposes to changes in the words themselves. The Supreme Court, in a long
series of decisions, has greatly expanded the powers of the national
government by the interpretation of words and clauses in the written
constitution. It has decided that the power to borrow money includes the
power to establish banks, that the power to regulate commerce includes the
power to fix railroad rates, that the power to establish post-offices includes
the power to punish those who use the mails for a fraudulent purpose, and

so on. It has been the function of the court to make the words spell out new
meanings to fit new situations. One cannot today obtain an adequate
knowledge of what these words and phrases mean by merely reading the
document; it is necessary to go through the decisions of the Supreme Court
and find out just how this great tribunal has interpreted them.
The constitution has been developed by law. Many 3. Statutes.
things were left in general terms in order that the details might be settled by
Congress or by the state legislature. Nothing is said in the constitution about
the organization or procedure of the federal courts. All this has been built up
by laws. Nor is anything said about the method of nominating congressmen,
or the form of the ballot, or the duties of election officials. That, too, is
arranged by law. Much of what we call the machinery of American
government today rests upon ordinary laws which can be changed by
Congress or the state legislatures at any time.
Finally, the constitution can be changed, and on 4. Amendments.
nineteen matters has been changed by amending it. The constitution
provides four possible methods of making and ratifying amendments,—two
of initiating and two of ratifying. These various ways are stated in the
document (Article V) more briefly and more clearly than they can be
recapitulated here. But every one of the amendments thus far made has been
proposed and adopted in one and the same way, namely, proposal by
Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. The other
plan of proposing amendments, that is by calling a Method of making
constitutional convention, would open the gates for a amendments.
general revision or for the submission of an entirely new constitution,
which is something that public opinion has not yet seemed to favor. If,
however, Congress should at any time endeavor to thwart the will of the
people by declining to propose an amendment strongly demanded by public
opinion its hand could be forced by resort to the convention method.
The Nineteen Amendments.—Of the nineteen Nature of the nineteen
amendments which have been made since the amendments.
constitution went into force, the first ten were added in 1791. When the
convention of 1787 finished its work and sent the document to the states for
their approval there was a chorus of protest because no Bill of Rights had
been included. “Where are there in this document”, the objectors cried out,
“any provisions guaranteeing us free speech, trial by jury, freedom of the
press, and the other securities against oppression?” The reply was that the

people needed no guarantees against their own government but only against
governments imposed upon them from outside. But this explanation did not
satisfy, and assurance was given that if the constitution were adopted in its
original form a Bill of Rights would be added. The first ten amendments
represent the keeping of that pledge. The last of these amendments is of
particular importance in explicitly proclaiming that all powers not given to
the national government by the constitution, or prohibited to the states, are
reserved to the states, respectively, and to the people.
The latest nine amendments require little comment although some are of
great importance. Three of them, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth,
were needed to make permanent the results of the Civil War. One of these,
the fourteenth, contains provisions, relating to the rights of citizens, which
have been given a wide application and have been the cause of a great deal
of litigation before the Supreme Court. Intended to protect the negro they
have been used, in large measure, to secure for business corporations the
equal protection of the laws. As for the negro he has gained very little from
amendments which were primarily made for his benefit. The fifteenth
amendment was intended to secure him the right to vote; but in many of the
states it has not succeeded in doing so. The two latest amendments, namely,
the eighteenth, which established national prohibition, and the nineteenth,
which provides for woman suffrage, have both been ratified since the World
War.
Twenty years ago it was commonly urged that the process of amending
the constitution ought to be made easier. It was pointed out in those days
that no amendment had been made for more than a generation. But the
adoption of four amendments during the past ten years seems to indicate
that when the people demand an amendment the process of getting it is not
too difficult. In each of these instances there was a strong popular demand.
Why Men Honor the Constitution.—Americans have a great respect
for the constitution of their country even though many of them would like
to see some changes made in it. And why should they not honor it? Its reign
has been long in the land. No king ever ruled his people so long or kept
faith with them so well. Under it the country has waxed great and
prosperous; the government which it established has become increasingly
democratic in form and in spirit; it has grown strong enough to protect its
citizens at home and abroad, and it has become the model upon which
several other governments of the world have been patterned.

It is easy enough to pick flaws in the constitution of the United States—
or in the constitution of any country for that matter—but where are the
Washingtons, Madisons, and Hamiltons of today whom we would trust with
the task of making a better one? During the past few years a dozen
countries of the world have framed new republican constitutions,—
Germany, Austria, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and so on. They have had the
experience of an additional century to draw upon and the combined political
wisdom of the world at their disposal. Is there any constitution in this list
which the rank and file of the American people would prefer to their own?
You can pick a line out of Shakespeare, here and there, and improve upon it.
But when it comes to improving upon the whole of Shakespeare’s work,—
ah, that is quite a different proposition.
General References
James Bryce, The American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 15-31; 360-410 (Abridged Edition, pp.
224-284);
Charles A. Beard, American Government and Politics, 3d edition, pp. 1-77; Ibid., Readings in
American Government and Politics, pp. 1-69; Ibid., History of the United States, pp. 139-161;
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 1-46;
W. B. Munro, The Government of the United States, pp. 1-70; Ibid., Selections from the
Federalist, pp. 1-17; 56-86;
Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States, especially pp. 42-67.

Group Problems
1. The means of securing co-operation among states and men as illustrated by the American
government before, during, and after the Revolution. The obstacles to union. The cohesive forces.
The influence and nature of leadership. Historical analogies in other parts of the world. The problem
of forming a league of states compared with that of forming a league of nations. References:
Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 267-298; John Fiske, The Critical Period, pp. 50-89; Max
Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution, pp. 65-112; A. C. McLaughlin, Confederation and the
Constitution, pp. 35-52.
2. The Declaration of Independence: its origin, its importance, and an analysis of its political
principles. References: C. H. Van Tyne, The American Revolution, pp. 50-87; John Fiske, The
American Revolution, Vol. I, pp. 147-197; The Madison Papers, Vol. I, pp. 19-27; H. Friedenwald,
The Declaration of Independence, an Interpretation and Analysis, pp. 121-151.
3. From what sources did the framers of the constitution borrow their ideas? References: C.
E. Stevens, The Sources of the Constitution, pp. 35-116; J. H. Robinson, The Original and Derived
Features of the Constitution, pp. 203-210; S. G. Fisher, The Evolution of the Constitution, pp. 11-25.
4. How the constitution has developed. References: James Bryce, The American
Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 360-410; W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 57-70; C.
G. Tiedeman, The Unwritten Constitution of the United States, pp. 16-53.

Short Studies
1. The spirit of America. Woodrow Wilson, History of the American People, Vol. II, pp. 98-126.