Section 1. _Origin of the Federal Union._

CIVIL GOVERNMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES

CONSIDERED WITH SOME REFERENCE

TO ITS ORIGINS

BY

JOHN FISKE

[Greek: Aissomai pai Zaevos Heleutheroiu,

Imeran eurnsthene amphipolei, Soteira Tucha

tiv gar en ponto kubernontai thoai

naes, en cherso te laipsaeroi polemoi

kagorai boulaphoroi.]

PINDAR, _Olymp_. xii.

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!...

Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee.

Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,

Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,

Are all with thee,--are all with thee!

LONGFELLOW.

1890

BY JOHN FISKE.

_Dedication_

This little book is dedicated, with the author's best wishes and

sincere regard, to the many hundreds of young friends whom he has

found it so pleasant to meet in years past, and also to those whom he

looks forward to meeting in years to come, in studies and readings

upon the rich and fruitful history of our beloved country.

PREFACE.

Some time ago, my friends, Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., requested

me to write a small book on Civil Government in the United States,

which might be useful as a text-book, and at the same time serviceable

and suggestive to the general reader interested in American history.

In preparing the book certain points have been kept especially in

view, and deserve some mention here.

It seemed desirable to adopt a historical method of exposition, not

simply describing our political institutions in their present shape,

but pointing out their origin, indicating some of the processes

through which they have acquired that present shape, and thus keeping

before the student's mind the fact that government is perpetually

undergoing modifications in adapting itself to new conditions.

Inasmuch as such gradual changes in government do not make themselves,

but are made by men--and made either for better or for worse--it is

obvious that the history of political institutions has serious lessons

to teach us. The student should as soon as possible come to understand

that every institution is the outgrowth of experiences. One probably

gets but little benefit from abstract definitions and axioms

concerning the rights of men and the nature of civil society, such as

we often find at the beginning of books on government. Metaphysical

generalizations are well enough in their place, but to start with such

things--as the French philosophers of the eighteenth century were fond

of doing--is to get the cart before the horse. It is better to have

our story first, and thus find out what government in its concrete

reality has been, and is. Then we may finish up with the metaphysics,

or do as I have done--leave it for somebody else.

I was advised to avoid the extremely systematic, intrusively

symmetrical, style of exposition, which is sometimes deemed

indispensable in a book of this sort. It was thought that students

would be more likely to become interested in the subject if it were

treated in the same informal manner into which one naturally falls in

giving lectures to young people. I have endeavoured to bear this in

mind without sacrificing that lucidity in the arrangement of topics

which is always the supreme consideration. For many years I have been

in the habit of lecturing on history to college students in different

parts of the United States, to young ladies in private schools, and

occasionally to the pupils in high and normal schools, and in writing

this little book I have imagined an audience of these earnest and

intelligent young friends gathered before me.

I was especially advised--by my friend, Mr. James MacAlister,

superintendent of schools in Philadelphia, for whose judgment I have

the highest respect--to make it a _little_ book, less than three

hundred pages in length, if possible. Teachers and pupils do not have

time enough to deal properly with large treatises. Brevity, therefore,

is golden. A concise manual is the desideratum, touching lightly upon

the various points, bringing out their relationships distinctly, and

referring to more elaborate treatises, monographs, and documents, for

the use of those who wish to pursue the study at greater length.

Within limits thus restricted, it will probably seem strange to

some that so much space is given to the treatment of local

institutions,--comprising the governments of town, county, and city.

It may be observed, by the way, that some persons apparently conceive

of the state also as a "local institution." In a recent review of

Professor Howard's admirable "Local Constitutional History of the

United States," we read, the first volume, which is all that is yet

published, treats of the development of the township, hundred, and

shire; the second volume, we suppose, being designed to treat of

the State Constitutions. The reviewer forgets that there is such a

subject as the "development of the city and local magistracies" (which

is to be the subject of that second volume), and lets us see that in

his apprehension the American state is an institution of the same

order as the town and county. We can thus readily assent when we

are told that many youth have grown to manhood with so little

appreciation of the political importance of the state as to believe

it nothing more than a geographical division.[1] In its historic

genesis, the American state is not an institution of the same order

as the town and county, nor has it as yet become depressed or

"mediatized" to that degree. The state, while it does not possess such

attributes of sovereignty as were by our Federal Constitution granted

to the United States, does, nevertheless, possess many very important

and essential characteristics of a sovereign body, as is here

pointed out on pages 172-177. The study of our state governments is

inextricably wrapped up with the study of our national government,

in such wise that both are parts of one subject, which cannot be

understood unless both parts are studied. Whether in the course of our

country's future development we shall ever arrive at a stage in which

this is not the case, must be left for future events to determine.

But, if we ever do arrive at such a stage, "American institutions"

will present a very different aspect from those with which we are now

familiar, and which we have always been accustomed (even, perhaps,

without always understanding them) to admire.

[Footnote 1: Young's _Government Class Book_, p. iv.]

The study of local government properly includes town, county, and

city. To this part of the subject I have devoted about half of my

limited space, quite unheedful of the warning which I find in the

preface of a certain popular text-book, that "to learn the duties of

town, city, and county officers, has nothing whatever to do with the

grand and noble subject of Civil Government," and that "to attempt

class drill on petty town and county offices, would be simply

burlesque of the whole subject." But, suppose one were to say, with

an air of ineffable scorn, that petty experiments on terrestrial

gravitation and radiant heat, such as can be made with commonplace

pendulums and tea-kettles, have nothing whatever to do with the grand

and noble subject of Physical Astronomy! Science would not have got

very far on that plan, I fancy. The truth is, that science, while it

is perpetually dealing with questions of magnitude, and knows very

well what is large and what is small, knows nothing whatever of any

such distinction as that between things that are "grand" and things

that are "petty." When we try to study things in a scientific spirit,

to learn their modes of genesis and their present aspects, in order

that we may foresee their tendencies, and make our volitions count

for something in modifying them, there is nothing which we may safely

disregard as trivial. This is true of whatever we can study; it is

eminently true of the history of institutions. Government is not a

royal mystery, to be shut off, like old Deiokes,[2] by a sevenfold

wall from the ordinary business of life. Questions of civil government

are practical business questions, the principles of which are as often

and as forcibly illustrated in a city council or a county board of

supervisors, as in the House of Representatives at Washington. It is

partly because too many of our citizens fail to realize that local

government is a worthy study, that we find it making so much trouble

for us. The "bummers" and "boodlers" do not find the subject beneath

their notice; the Master who inspires them is wide awake and--for a

creature that divides the hoof--extremely intelligent.

[Footnote 2: Herodotus, i. 98.]

It is, moreover, the mental training gained through contact with

local government that enables the people of a community to conduct

successfully, through their representatives, the government of the

state and the nation. And so it makes a great deal of difference

whether the government of a town or county is of one sort or another.

If the average character of our local governments for the past quarter

of a century had been _quite_ as high as that of the Boston

town-meeting or the Virginia boards of county magistrates, in the days

of Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, who can doubt that many an airy

demagogue, who, through session after session, has played his pranks

at the national capital, would long ago have been abruptly recalled to

his native heath, a sadder if not a wiser man? We cannot expect the

nature of the aggregate to be much better than the average natures

of its units. One may hear people gravely discussing the difference

between Frenchmen and Englishmen in political efficiency, and

resorting to assumed ethnological causes to explain it, when, very

likely, to save their lives they could not describe the difference

between a French commune and an English parish. To comprehend the

interesting contrasts between Gambetta in the Chamber of Deputies, and

Gladstone in the House of Commons, one should begin with a historical

inquiry into the causes, operating through forty generations, which

have frittered away self-government in the rural districts and small

towns of France, until there is very little left. If things in America

ever come to such a pass that the city council of Cambridge must ask

Congress each year how much money it can be allowed to spend for

municipal purposes, while the mayor of Cambridge holds his office

subject to removal by the President of the United States, we may

safely predict further extensive changes in the character of the

American people and their government. It was not for nothing that our

profoundest political thinker, Thomas Jefferson, attached so much

importance to the study of the township.

In determining the order of exposition, I have placed local government

first, beginning with the township as the simplest unit. It is well to

try to understand what is near and simple, before dealing with what is

remote and complex. In teaching geography with maps, it is wise to get

the pupil interested in the streets of his own town, the country roads

running out of it, and the neighbouring hills and streams, before

burdening his attention with the topographical details of Borrioboola

Gha. To study grand generalizations about government, before attending

to such of its features as come most directly before us, is to run the

risk of achieving a result like that attained by the New Hampshire

school-boy, who had studied geology in a text-book, but was not aware

that he had ever set eyes upon an igneous rock.

After the township, naturally comes the county. The city, as is here

shown, is not simply a larger town, but is much more complex in

organization. Historically, many cities have been, or still are,

equivalent to counties; and the development of the county must be

studied before we can understand that of the city. It has been briefly

indicated how these forms of local government grew up in England, and

how they have become variously modified in adapting themselves to

different social conditions in different parts of the United States.

Next in order come the general governments, those which possess and

exert, in one way or another, attributes of sovereignty. First, the

various colonial governments have been considered, and some features

of their metamorphosis into our modern state governments have been

described. In the course of this study, our attention is called to

the most original and striking feature of the development of civil

government upon American soil,--the written constitution, with the

accompanying power of the courts in certain cases to annul the acts

of the legislature. This is not only the most original feature of our

government, but it is in some respects the most important. Without the

Supreme Court, it is not likely that the Federal Union could have been

held together, since Congress has now and then passed an act which the

people in some of the states have regarded as unconstitutional and

tyrannical; and in the absence of a judicial method of settling such

questions, the only available remedy would have been nullification. I

have devoted a brief chapter to the origin and development of written

constitutions, and the connection of our colonial charters therewith.

Lastly, we come to the completed structure, the Federal Union; and by

this time we have examined so many points in the general theory

of American government, that our Federal Constitution can be more

concisely described, and (I believe) more quickly understood, than if

we had made it the subject of the first chapter instead of the last.

In conclusion, there have been added a few brief hints and suggestions

with reference to our political history. These remarks have been

intentionally limited. It is no part of the purpose of this book

to give an account of the doings of political parties under the

Constitution. But its study may fitly be supplemented by that of

Professor Alexander Johnston's "History of American Politics."

This arrangement not only proceeds from the simpler forms of

government to the more complex, but it follows the historical order of

development. From time immemorial, and down into the lowest strata

of savagery that have come within our ken, there have been clans and

tribes; and, as is here shown, a township was originally a stationary

clan, and a county was originally a stationary tribe. There were

townships and counties (or equivalent forms of organization) before

there were cities. In like manner there were townships, counties, and

cities long before there was anything in the world that could properly

be called a state. I have remarked below upon the way in which English

shires coalesced into little states, and in course of time the English

nation was formed by the union of such little states, which lost their

statehood (_i.e._, their functions of sovereignty, though not

their self-government within certain limits) in the process. Finally,

in America, we see an enormous nationality formed by the federation

of states which partially retain their statehood; and some of these

states are themselves of national dimensions, as, for example, New

York, which is nearly equal in area, quite equal in population, and

far superior in wealth, to Shakespeare's England.

In studying the local institutions of our different states, I have been

greatly helped by the "Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and

Politics," of which the eighth annual series is now in course of

publication. In the course of the pages below I have frequent occasion

to acknowledge my indebtedness to these learned and sometimes profoundly

suggestive monographs; but I cannot leave the subject without a special

word of gratitude to my friend, Dr. Herbert Adams, the editor of the

series, for the noble work which he is doing in promoting the study of

American history. It had always seemed to me that the mere existence of

printed questions in text-books proves that the publishers must have

rather a poor opinion of the average intelligence of teachers; and it

also seemed as if the practical effect of such questions must often be

to make the exercise of recitation more mechanical for both teachers and

pupils, and to encourage the besetting sin of "learning by heart."

Nevertheless, there are usually two sides to a case; and, in deference

to the prevailing custom, for which, no doubt, there is much to be said,

full sets of questions have been appended to each chapter and section.

It seemed desirable that such questions should be prepared by some one

especially familiar with the use of school-books; and for these I have

to thank Mr. F.A. Hill, Head Master of the Cambridge English High

School. I confess that Mr. Hill's questions have considerably modified

my opinion as to the merits of such apparatus. They seem to add very

materially to the usefulness of the book.

It will be observed that there are two sets of these questions,

entirely distinct in character and purpose. The first set--"Questions

on the Text"--is appended to each _section_, so as to be as near

the text as possible. These questions furnish an excellent topical

analysis of the text.[3] In a certain sense they ask "what the book

says," but the teacher is advised emphatically to discourage any such

thing as committing the text to memory. The tendency to rote-learning

is very strong. I had to contend with it in teaching history to

seniors at Harvard twenty years ago, but much has since been done

to check it through the development of the modern German seminary

methods. (For an explanation of these methods, see Dr. Herbert

Adams on "Seminary Libraries and University Extension," _J.H.U.

Studies_, V., xi.) With younger students the tendency is of course

stronger. It is only through much exercise that the mind learns how

to let itself--as Matthew Arnold used to say--"play freely about the

facts."

[Footnote 3: "This," says Mr. Hill, "will please those who prefer the

topical method, while it does not forbid the easy transformation

of topics to questions, which others may demand." In the table of

contents I have made a pretty full topical analysis of the book, which

may prove useful for comparison with Mr. Hill's.]

In order to supply the pupil with some wholesome exercise of this

sort, Mr. Hill has added, at the end of each _chapter_, a set of

"Suggestive Questions and Directions." Here he has thoroughly divined

the purpose of the book and done much to further it.

Problems or cases are suggested for the student to consider, and

questions are asked which cannot be disposed of by a direct appeal to

the text. Sometimes the questions go quite outside of the text, and

relate to topics concerning which it provides no information whatever.

This has been done with a purpose. The pupil should learn how to go

outside of the book and gather from scattered sources information

concerning questions that the book suggests. In other words, he should

begin to learn _how to make researches_, for that is coming to be

one of the useful arts, not merely for scholars, but for men and

women in many sorts of avocations. It is always useful, as well as

ennobling, to be able to trace knowledge to its sources. Work of this

sort involves more or less conference and discussion among classmates,

and calls for active aid from the teacher; and if the teacher does not

at first feel at home in these methods, practice will nevertheless

bring familiarity, and will prove most wholesome training. For the aid

of teachers and pupils, as well as of the general reader who wishes to

pursue the subject, I have added a bibliographical note at the end of

each chapter, immediately after Mr. Hill's "Suggestive Questions and

Directions."

This particular purpose in my book must be carefully borne in mind.

It explains the omission of many details which some text-books on the

same subject would be sure to include. To make a manual complete and

self-sufficing is precisely what I have not intended. The book is

designed to be suggestive and stimulating, to leave the reader with

scant information on some points, to make him (as Mr. Samuel Weller

says) "vish there wos more," and to show him how to go on by himself.

I am well aware that, in making an experiment in this somewhat new

direction, nothing is easier than to fall into errors of judgment. I

can hardly suppose that this book is free from such errors; but if in

spite thereof it shall turn out to be in any way helpful in bringing

the knowledge and use of the German seminary method into our higher

schools, I shall be more than satisfied.

Just here, let me say to young people in all parts of our country:--If

you have not already done so, it would be well worth while for you

to organize a debating society in your town or village, for the

discussion of such historical and practical questions relating to the

government of the United States as are suggested in the course of this

book. Once started, there need be no end of interesting and profitable

subjects for discussion. As a further guide to the books you need

in studying such subjects, use Mr. W.E. Foster's "References to the

Constitution of the United States," the invaluable pamphlet mentioned

below on page 277. If you cannot afford to buy the books, get the

public library of your town or village to buy them; or, perhaps,

organize a small special library for your society or club. Librarians

will naturally feel interested in such a matter, and will often

be able to help with advice. A few hours every week spent in such

wholesome studies cannot fail to do much toward the political

education of the local community, and thus toward the general

improvement of the American people. For the amelioration of things

will doubtless continue to be effected in the future, as it has been

effected in the past, not by ambitious schemes of sudden and universal

reform (which the sagacious man always suspects, just as he

suspects all schemes for returning a fabulously large interest upon

investments), but by the gradual and cumulative efforts of innumerable

individuals, each doing something to help or instruct those to whom

his influence extends. He who makes two clear ideas grow where there

was only one hazy one before, is the true benefactor of his species.

In conclusion, I must express my sincere thanks to Mr. Thomas Emerson,

superintendent of schools in Newton, for the very kind interest he has

shown in my work, in discussing its plan with me at the outset, in

reading the completed manuscript, and in offering valuable criticisms.

CAMBRIDGE, _August_ 5, 1890.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

TAXATION AND GOVERNMENT.

"Too much taxes".

What is taxation?

Taxation and eminent domain.

What is government?

The "ship of state".

"The government".

Whatever else it may be, "the government" is the power which imposes

taxes.

Difference between taxation and robbery.

Sometimes taxation is robbery.

The study of history is full of practical lessons, and helpful to

those who would be good citizens.

Perpetual vigilance is the price of liberty.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

CHAPTER II.

THE TOWNSHIP.

Section 1. _The New England Township_.

The most ancient and simple form of government.

New England settled by church congregations.

Policy of the early Massachusetts government as to land grants.

Smallness of the farms

Township and village

Social position of the settlers

The town-meeting

Selectmen; town-clerk

Town-treasurer; constables; assessors of taxes and overseers of the

poor

Act of 1647 establishing public schools

School committees

Field-drivers and pound-keepers; fence-viewers; other town officers

Calling the town-meeting

Town, county, and state taxes

Poll-tax

Taxes on real-estate; taxes on personal property

When and where taxes are assessed

Tax-lists

Cheating the government

The rate of taxation

Undervaluation; the burden of taxation

The "magic-fund" delusion

Educational value of the town-meeting

By-laws

Power and responsibility

There is nothing especially American, democratic, or meritorious about

"rotation in office"

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 2. _Origin of the Township_.

Town-meetings in ancient Greece and Rome

Clans; the _mark_ and the _tun_

The Old-English township, the manor, and the parish

The vestry-meeting

Parish and vestry clerks; beadles, waywardens, haywards,

common-drivers, churchwardens, etc.

Transition from the English parish to the New England township

Building of states out of smaller political units

Representation; shire-motes; Earl Simon's Parliament

The township as the "unit of representation" in the shire-mote and in

the General Court

Contrast with the Russian village-community which is not represented

in the general government

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CHAPTER III.

THE COUNTY.

Section 1. _The County in its Beginnings_.

Why do we have counties?

Clans and tribes

The English nation, like the American, grew out of the union of small

states

Ealdorman and sheriff; shire-mote and county court

The coroner, or "crown officer"

Justices of the peace; the Quarter Sessions; the lord lieutenant

Decline of the English county; beginnings of counties in Massachusetts

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 2. _The Modern County in Massachusetts_.

County commissioners, etc.; shire-towns and court-houses

Justices of the peace, and trial justices

The sheriff

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 3. _The Old Virginia County_.

Virginia sparsely settled; extensive land grants to individuals

Navigable rivers; absence of towns; slavery

Social position of the settlers

Virginia parishes; the vestry was a close corporation

Powers of the vestry

The county was the unit of representation

The county court was virtually a close corporation

The county-seat, or Court House

Powers of the court; the sheriff

The county-lieutenant

Contrast between old Virginia and old New England, in respect of local

government

Jefferson's opinion of township government

"Court-day" in old Virginia

Virginia has been prolific in great leaders

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CHAPTER IV.

TOWNSHIP AND COUNTY.

Section 1. _Various Local Systems._

Parishes in South Carolina

The back country; the "regulators"

The district system

The modern South Carolina county

The counties are too large

Tendency of the school district to develop into something like a

township

Local institutions in colonial Maryland; the hundred

Clans; brotherhoods, or phratries; and tribes

Origin of the hundred; the hundred court; the high constable

Decay of the hundred; hundred-meeting in Maryland

The hundred in Delaware; the levy court, or representative county

assembly

The old Pennsylvania county

Town-meetings in New Tort

The county board of supervisors

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 2. _Settlement of the Public Domain._

Westward movement of population along parallels of latitude

Method of surveying the public lands

Origin of townships in the West

Formation of counties in the West

Some effects of this system

The reservation of a section for public schools

In this reservation there were the germs of township government

But at first the county system prevailed

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 3. _The Representative Township-County System in the

West._

The town-meeting in Michigan

Conflict between township and county systems in Illinois

Effects of the Ordinance of 1787

Intense vitality of the township system

County option and township option in Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota,

and Dakota

Grades of township government in the West

An excellent result of the absence of centralization in the United

States

Effect of the self-governing school district in the South, in preparing

the way for the self-governing township

Woman-suffrage in the school district

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CHAPTER V.

THE CITY.

Section 1. _Direct and Indirect Government._

Summary of the foregoing results; township government is direct,

county government is indirect

Representative government is necessitated in a county by the extent of

territory, and in a city by the multitude of people

Josiah Quincy's account of the Boston town-meeting in 1830

Distinctions between towns and cities in America and in England

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 2. _Origin of English Boroughs and Cities._

Origin of the _chesters_ and _casters_ in Roman camps

Coalescence of towns into fortified boroughs

The borough as a hundred; it acquires a court

The borough as a county; it acquires a sheriff

Government of London under Henry I

The guilds; the town guild, and Guild Hall

Government of London as perfected in the thirteenth century; mayor,

aldermen, and common council

The city of London, and the metropolitan district

English cities were for a long time the bulwarks of liberty

Simon de Montfort and the cities

Oligarchical abuses in English cities, beginning with the Tudor period

The Municipal Reform Act of 1835

Government of the city of New York before the Revolution

Changes after the Revolution

City government in Philadelphia in the eighteenth century

The very tradition of good government was lacking in these cities

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 3. _The Government of Cities in the United States_.

Several features of our municipal governments

In many cases they do not seem to work well

Rapid growth of American cities

Some consequences of this rapid growth

Wastefulness resulting from want of foresight

Growth in complexity of government in cities

Illustrated by list of municipal officers in Boston.

How city government comes to be a mystery to the citizens, in some

respects harder to understand than state and national government

Dread of the "one-man power" has in many cases led to scattering and

weakening of responsibility

Committees inefficient for executive purposes; the "Circumlocution

Office"

Alarming increase of city debts, and various attempts to remedy the

evil

Experience of New York with state interference in municipal affairs;

unsatisfactory results

The Tweed Ring in New York

The present is a period of experiments

The new government of Brooklyn

Necessity of separating municipal from national politics

Notion that the suffrage ought to be restricted; evils wrought by

ignorant voters

Evils wrought by wealthy speculators; testimony of the Pennsylvania

Municipal Commission

Dangers of a restricted suffrage

Baneful effects of mixing city politics with national politics

The "spoils system" must be destroyed, root and branch; ballot reform

also indispensable

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CHAPTER VI.

THE STATE.

Section 1. _The Colonial Governments_.

Claims of Spain to the possession of North America

Claims of France and England

The London and Plymouth Companies

Their common charter

Dissolution of the two companies

States formed in the three zones

Formation of representative governments; House of Burgesses in

Virginia

Company of Massachusetts Bay

Transfer of the charter from England to Massachusetts

The General Court; assistants and deputies

Virtual independence of Massachusetts, and quarrels with the Crown

New charter of Massachusetts in 1692; its liberties curtailed

Republican governments in Connecticut and Rhode Island

Counties palatine in England; proprietary charter of Maryland

Proprietary charter of Pennsylvania

Quarrels between Penns and Calverts; Mason and Dixon's line

Other proprietary governments

They generally became unpopular

At the time of the Revolution there were three forms of colonial

government: 1. Republican; 2. Proprietary; 3. Royal

(After 1692 the government of Massachusetts might be described as

Semi-royal)

In all three forms there was a representative assembly, which alone

could impose taxes

The governor's council was a kind of upper house

The colonial government was much like the English system in miniature

The Americans never admitted the supremacy of parliament

Except in the regulation of maritime commerce

In England there grew up the theory of the imperial supremacy of

parliament

And the conflict between the British and American theories was

precipitated by becoming involved in the political schemes of George

III.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 2. _The Transition from Colonial to State Governments._

Dissolution of assemblies and parliaments

Committees of correspondence; provincial congresses

Provisional governments; "governors" and "presidents"

Origin of the senates

Likenesses and differences between British and American systems

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 3. _The State Governments_.

Later modifications

Universal suffrage

Separation between legislative and executive departments; its

advantages and disadvantages as compared with the European plan

In our system the independence of the executive is of vital importance

The state executive

The governor's functions: 1. Adviser of legislature; 2. Commander of

state militia; 3. Royal prerogative of pardon; 4. Veto power

Importance of the veto power as a safeguard against corruption In

building the state, the local self-government was left unimpaired

Instructive contrast with France

Some causes of French political incapacity

Vastness of the functions retained by the states in the American Union

Illustration from recent English history

Independence of the state courts

Constitution of the state courts

Elective and appointive judges

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CHAPTER VII.

WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS.

In the American state there is a power above the legislature

Germs of the idea of a written constitution

Development of the idea of contract in Roman law; mediaeval charters

The "Great Charter" (1215)

The Bill of Rights (1689)

Foreshadowing of the American idea by Sir Harry Vane (1666)

The Mayflower compact (1620)

The "Fundamental Orders" of Connecticut (1639)

Germinal development of the colonial charter toward the modern state

constitution

Abnormal development of some recent state constitutions, encroaching

upon the legislature

The process of amending constitutions

The Swiss "Referendum"

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CHAPTER VIII.

THE FEDERAL UNION.

Section 1. _Origin of the Federal Union_.

Circumstances favourable to the union of the colonies. The New England

Confederacy (1643-84). Albany Congress (1754); Stamp Act Congress

(1765); Committees of Correspondence (1772-75). The Continental Congress

(1774-89). The several states were never at any time sovereign states.

The Articles of Confederation. Nature and powers of the Continental

Congress. It could not impose taxes, and therefore was not fully endowed

with sovereignty. Decline of the Continental Congress. Weakness of the

sentiment of union; anarchical tendencies. The Federal Convention

(1787).

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

Section 2. _The Federal Congress_.

The House of Representatives. The three fifths compromise. The

Connecticut compromise. The Senate. Electoral districts; the

"Gerrymander". The election at large. Time of assembling. Privileges of

members. The Speaker. Impeachment in England; in the United States. The

president's veto power.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

Section 3. _The Federal Executive_.

The title of "President". The electoral college. The twelfth

amendment. The electoral commission (1877). Provisions against a lapse

of the presidency.

Original purpose of the electoral college not fulfilled

Electors formerly chosen in many states by districts; now always on a

general ticket

"Minority presidents"

Advantages of the electoral system

Nomination of candidates by congressional caucus (1800-24)

Nominating conventions; the "primary"; the district convention; the

national convention

Qualifications for the presidency; the term of office

Powers and duties of the president

The president's message

Executive departments; the cabinet

The secretary of state

Diplomatic and consular service

The secretary of the treasury

The other departments

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 4. _The Nation and the States._

Difference between confederation and federal union

Powers granted to Congress

The "Elastic Clause"

Powers denied to the states

Evils of an inconvertible paper currency

Powers denied to Congress

Bills of attainder

Intercitizenship; mode of mating amendments

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 5. _The Federal Judiciary._

Need for a federal judiciary

Federal courts and judges

District attorneys and marshals

The federal jurisdiction

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 6. _Territorial Government._

The Northwest Territory and the Ordinance of 1787

Other territories and their government

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 7. _Ratification and Amendments_.

Provisions for ratification

Concessions to slavery

Demand for a bill of rights

The first ten amendments

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

Section 8. _A Few Words about Politics_.

Federal taxation

Hamilton's policy; excise; tariff

Origin of American political parties; strict and loose construction of

the Elastic Clause

Tariff, Internal Improvements, and National Bank.

Civil Service reform

Origin of the "spoils system" in the state polities of New Tort and

Pennsylvania

"Rotation in office;" the Crawford Act

How the "spoils system" was made national

The Civil Service Act of 1883

The Australian ballot

The English system of accounting for election expenses

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

APPENDIX.

A. The Articles of Confederation

B. The Constitution of the United States

C. Magna Charta

D. Part of the Bill of Rights, 1689

E. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

F. The States classified according to origin

G. Table of states and territories

H. Population of the United States 1790-1880, with percentages of

urban population

I. An Examination Paper for Customs Clerks

J. The New York Corrupt Practices Act of 1890

K. Specimen of an Australian ballot

INDEX

CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, CONSIDERED WITH SOME REFERENCE

TO ITS ORIGINS.

CHAPTER I.

TAXATION AND GOVERNMENT.

In that strangely beautiful story, "The Cloister and the Hearth," in

which Charles Reade has drawn such a vivid picture of human life at the

close of the Middle Ages, there is a good description of the siege of a

revolted town by the army of the Duke of Burgundy. Arrows whiz,

catapults hurl their ponderous stones, wooden towers are built, secret

mines are exploded. The sturdy citizens, led by a tall knight who seems

to bear a charmed life, baffle every device of the besiegers. At length

the citizens capture the brother of the duke's general, and the

besiegers capture the tall knight, who turns out to be no knight after

all, but just a plebeian hosier. The duke's general is on the point of

ordering the tradesman who has made so much trouble to be shot, but the

latter still remains master of the situation; for, as he dryly observes,

if any harm comes to him, the enraged citizens will hang the general's

brother. Some parley ensues, in which the shrewd hosier promises for the

townsfolk to set free their prisoner and pay a round sum of money if the

besieging army will depart and leave them in peace. The offer is

accepted, and so the matter is amicably settled. As the worthy citizen

is about to take his leave, the general ventures a word of inquiry as to

the cause of the town's revolt. "What, then, is your grievance, my good

friend?" Our hosier knight, though deft with needle and keen with lance,

has a stammering tongue. He answers: "Tuta--tuta--tuta--tuta--too much

taxes!"

[Sidenote: "Too much taxes."]

"Too much taxes:" those three little words furnish us with a clue

wherewith to understand and explain a great deal of history. A great

many sieges of towns, so horrid to have endured though so picturesque

to read about, hundreds of weary marches and deadly battles, thousands

of romantic plots that have led their inventors to the scaffold, have

owed their origin to questions of taxation. The issue between the

ducal commander and the warlike tradesman has been tried over and

over again in every country and in every age, and not always has the

oppressor been so speedily thwarted and got rid of. The questions as

to how much the taxes shall be, and who is to decide how much they

shall be, are always and in every stage of society questions of most

fundamental importance. And ever since men began to make history, a

very large part of what they have done, in the way of making history,

has been the attempt to settle these questions, whether by discussion

or by blows, whether in council chambers or on the battlefield. The

French Revolution of 1789, the most terrible political convulsion of

modern times, was caused chiefly by "too much taxes," and by the fact

that the people who paid the taxes were not the people who decided

what the taxes were to be. Our own Revolution, which made the United

States a nation independent of Great Britain, was brought on by the

disputed question as to who was to decide what taxes American citizens

must pay.

[Sidenote: What is taxation?]

What, then, are taxes? The question is one which is apt to come up,

sooner or later, to puzzle children. They find no difficulty in

understanding the butcher's bill for so many pounds of meat, or the

tailor's bill for so many suits of clothes, where the value received

is something that can be seen and handled. But the tax bill, though

it comes as inevitably as the autumnal frosts, bears no such obvious

relation to the incidents of domestic life; it is not quite so clear

what the money goes for; and hence it is apt to be paid by the head

of the household with more or less grumbling, while for the younger

members of the family it requires some explanation.

It only needs to be pointed out, however, that in every town some

things are done for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the town,

things which concern one person just as much as another. Thus roads

are made and kept in repair, school-houses are built and salaries paid

to school-teachers, there are constables who take criminals to jail,

there are engines for putting out fires, there are public libraries,

town cemeteries, and poor-houses. Money raised for these purposes,

which are supposed to concern all the inhabitants, is supposed to be

paid by all the inhabitants, each one furnishing his share; and the

share which each one pays is his town tax.

[Sidenote: Taxation and eminent domain.]

From this illustration it would appear that taxes are private property

taken for public purposes; and in making this statement we come

very near the truth. Taxes are portions of private property which a

government takes for its public purposes. Before going farther, let

us pause to observe that there is one other way, besides taxation, in

which government sometimes takes private property for public purposes.

Roads and streets are of great importance to the general public; and

the government of the town or city in which you live may see fit, in

opening a new street, to run it across your garden, or to make you

move your house or shop out of the way for it. In so doing, the

government either takes away or damages some of your property. It

exercises rights over your property without asking your permission.

This power of government over private property is called "the right of

eminent domain." It means that a man's private interests must not be

allowed to obstruct the interests of the whole community in which

he lives. But in two ways the exercise of eminent domain is unlike

taxation. In the first place, it is only occasional, and affects only

certain persons here or there, whereas taxation goes on perpetually

and affects all persons who own property. In the second place, when

the government takes away a piece of your land to make a road, it pays

you money in return for it; perhaps not quite so much as you believe

the piece of land was worth in the market; the average human nature is

doubtless such that men seldom give fair measure for measure unless

they feel compelled to, and it is not easy to put a government under

compulsion. Still it gives you something; it does not ask you to part

with your property for nothing. Now in the case of taxation, the

government takes your money and seems to make no return to you

individually; but it is supposed to return to you the value of it in

the shape of well-paved streets, good schools, efficient protection

against criminals, and so forth.

[Sidenote: What is government?]

In giving this brief preliminary definition of taxes and taxation, we

have already begun to speak of "the government" of the town or city

in which you live. We shall presently have to speak of other

"governments,"--as the government of your state and the government of

the United States; and we shall now and then have occasion to allude

to the governments of other countries in which the people are free,

as, for example, England; and of some countries in which the people

are not free, as, for example, Russia. It is desirable, therefore,

that we should here at the start make sure what we mean by

"government," in order that we may have a clear idea of what we are

talking about.

[Sidenote: The "ship of state."]

Our verb "to govern" is an Old French word, one of the great host of

French words which became a part of the English language between the

eleventh and fourteenth centuries, when so much French was spoken in

England. The French word was _gouverner_, and its oldest form was

the Latin _gubernare_, a word which the Romans borrowed from

the Greek, and meant originally "to steer the ship." Hence it very

naturally came to mean "to guide," "to direct," "to command." The

comparison between governing and steering was a happy one. To govern

is not to command as a master commands a slave, but it is to issue

orders and give directions for the common good; for the interests of

the man at the helm are the same as those of the people in the ship.

All must float or sink together. Hence we sometimes speak of the "ship

of state," and we often call the state a "commonwealth," or something

in the weal or welfare of which all the people are alike interested.

Government, then, is the directing or managing of such affairs as

concern all the people alike,--as, for example, the punishment of

criminals, the enforcement of contracts, the defence against foreign

enemies, the maintenance of roads and bridges, and so on. To the

directing or managing of such affairs all the people are expected to

contribute, each according to his ability, in the shape of taxes.

Government is something which is supported by the people and kept

alive by taxation. There is no other way of keeping it alive.

[Sidenote: "The government."]

The business of carrying on government--of steering the ship of

state--either requires some special training, or absorbs all the

time and attention of those who carry it on; and accordingly, in all

countries, certain persons or groups of persons are selected or in

some way set apart, for longer or shorter periods of time, to perform

the work of government. Such persons may be a king with his council,

as in the England of the twelfth century; or a parliament led by a

responsible ministry, as in the England of to-day; or a president

and two houses of congress, as in the United States; or a board of

selectmen, as in a New England town. When we speak of "a government"

or "the government," we often mean the group of persons thus set

apart for carrying on the work of government. Thus, by "the Gladstone

government" we mean Mr. Gladstone, with his colleagues in the cabinet

and his Liberal majority in the House of Commons; and by "the Lincoln

government," properly speaking, was meant President Lincoln, with the

Republican majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

[Sidenote: Whatever else it may be, "the government" is the power which

taxes]

"The government" has always many things to do, and there are many

different lights in which we might regard it. But for the present

there is one thing which we need especially to keep in mind. "The

government" is the power which can rightfully take away a part of your

property, in the shape of taxes, to be used for public purposes. A

government is not worthy of the name, and cannot long be kept in

existence, unless it can raise money by taxation, and use force, if

necessary, in collecting its taxes. The only general government of the

United States during the Revolutionary War, and for six years after

its close, was the Continental Congress, which had no authority to

raise money by taxation. In order to feed and clothe the army and pay

its officers and soldiers, it was obliged to _ask_ for money from

the several states, and hardly ever got as much as was needed. It was

obliged to borrow millions of dollars from France and Holland, and to

issue promissory notes which soon became worthless. After the war was

over it became clear that this so-called government could neither

preserve order nor pay its debts, and accordingly it ceased to be

respected either at home or abroad, and it became necessary for the

American people to adopt a new form of government. Between the old

Continental Congress and the government under which we have lived

since 1789, the differences were many; but by far the most essential

difference was that the new government could raise money by taxation,

and was thus enabled properly to carry on the work of governing.

If we are in any doubt as to what is really the government of some

particular country, we cannot do better than observe what person or

persons in that country are clothed with authority to tax the people.

Mere names, as customarily applied to governments, are apt to be

deceptive. Thus in the middle of the eighteenth century France and

England were both called "kingdoms;" but so far as kingly power was

concerned, Louis XV. was a very different sort of a king from George

II. The French king could impose taxes on his people, and it might

therefore be truly said that the government of France was in the king.

Indeed, it was Louis XV's immediate predecessor who made the famous

remark, "The state is myself." But the English king could not impose

taxes; the only power in England that could do that was the House of

Commons, and accordingly it is correct to say that in England, at the

time of which we are speaking, the government was (as it still is) in

the House of Commons.

[Sidenote: Difference between taxation and robbery.]

I say, then, the most essential feature of a government--or at any

rate the feature with which it is most important for us to become

familiar at the start--is its power of taxation. The government is

that which taxes. If individuals take away some of your property for

purposes of their own, it is robbery; you lose your money and get

nothing in return. But if the government takes away some of your

property in the shape of taxes, it is supposed to render to you an

equivalent in the shape of good government, something without which

our lives and property would not be safe. Herein seems to lie the

difference between taxation and robbery. When the highwayman points

his pistol at me and I hand him my purse and watch, I am robbed. But

when I pay the tax-collector, who can seize my watch or sell my house

over my head if I refuse, I am simply paying what is fairly due from

me toward supporting the government.

[Sidenote: Sometimes taxation _is_ robbery.]

In what we have been saying it has thus far been assumed that the

government is in the hands of upright and competent men and is

properly administered. It is now time to observe that robbery may be

committed by governments as well as by individuals. If the business of

governing is placed in the hands of men who have an imperfect sense of

their duty toward the public, if such men raise money by taxation and

then spend it on their own pleasures, or to increase their political

influence, or for other illegitimate purposes, it is really robbery,

just as much as if these men were to stand with pistols by the

roadside and empty the wallets of people passing by. They make a

dishonest use of their high position as members of government, and

extort money for which they make no return in the shape of services

to the public. History is full of such lamentable instances of

misgovernment, and one of the most important uses of the study of

history is to teach us how they have occurred, in order that we may

learn how to avoid them, as far as possible, in the future.

[Sidenote: The study of history.]

When we begin in childhood the study of history we are attracted

chiefly by anecdotes of heroes and their battles, kings and their

courts, how the Spartans fought at Thermopylae, how Alfred let the

cakes burn, how Henry VIII. beheaded his wives, how Louis XIV. used to

live at Versailles. It is quite right that we should be interested in

such personal details, the more so the better; for history has been

made by individual men and women, and until we have understood the

character of a great many of those who have gone before us, and how

they thought and felt in their time, we have hardly made a fair

beginning in the study of history. The greatest historians, such as

Freeman and Mommsen, show as lively an interest in persons as in

principles; and I would not give much for the historical theories of a

man who should declare himself indifferent to little personal details.

[Sidenote: It is full of practical lessons;]

Some people, however, never outgrow the child's notion of history

as merely a mass of pretty anecdotes or stupid annals, without any

practical bearing upon our own every-day life. There could not be a

greater mistake. Very little has happened in the past which has not

some immediate practical lessons for us; and when we study history

in order to profit by the experience of our ancestors, to find out

wherein they succeeded and wherein they failed, in order that we may

emulate their success and avoid their errors, then history becomes the

noblest and most valuable of studies. It then becomes, moreover, an

arduous pursuit, at once oppressive and fascinating from its endless

wealth of material, and abounding in problems which the most diligent

student can never hope completely to solve.

[Sidenote: and helpful to those who would be good citizens.]

[Sidenote: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.]

Few people have the leisure to undertake a systematic and thorough

study of history, but every one ought to find time to learn the

principal features of the governments under which we live, and to get

some inkling of the way in which these governments have come into

existence and of the causes which have made them what they are. Some

such knowledge is necessary to the proper discharge of the duties of

citizenship. Political questions, great and small, are perpetually

arising, to be discussed in the newspapers and voted on at the polls;

and it is the duty of every man and woman, young or old, to try to

understand them. That is a duty which we owe, each and all of us, to

ourselves and to our fellow-countrymen. For if such questions are

not settled in accordance with knowledge, they will be settled in

accordance with ignorance; and that is a kind of settlement likely

to be fraught with results disastrous to everybody. It cannot be too

often repeated that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

People sometimes argue as if they supposed that because our national

government is called a republic and not a monarchy, and because we

have free schools and universal suffrage, therefore our liberties are

forever secure. Our government is, indeed, in most respects, a marvel

of political skill; and in ordinary times it runs so smoothly that now

and then, absorbed as most of us are in domestic cares, we are apt to

forget that it will not run of itself. To insure that the government

of the nation or the state, of the city or the township, shall

be properly administered, requires from every citizen the utmost

watchfulness and intelligence of which he is capable.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

_To the teacher_. Encourage full answers. Do not permit anything

like committing the text to memory. In the long run the pupil who

relies upon his own language, however inferior it may be to that of

the text, is better off. Naturally, with thoughtful study, the pupil's

language will feel the influence of that of the text, and so improve.

The important thing in any answer is the fundamental thought. This

idea once grasped, the expression of it may receive some attention.

The expression will often be broken and faulty, partly because of

the immaturity of the pupil, and partly because of the newness and

difficulty of the theme. Do not let the endeavour to secure excellent

expression check a certain freedom and spontaneity that should be

encouraged in the pupil. When the teacher desires to place special

stress on excellent presentation, it is wise to assign topics

beforehand, so that each pupil may know definitely what is expected of

him, and prepare himself accordingly.

1. Tell the story that introduces the chapter.

2. What lesson is it designed to teach?

3. What caused the French Revolution?

4. What caused the American Revolution?

5. Compare the tax bill with that of the butcher or tailor.

6. What are taxes raised for in a town? For whose benefit?

7. Define taxes.

8. Define the right of eminent domain.

9. Distinguish between taxes and the right of eminent domain.

10. What is the origin of the word "govern"?

11. Define government.

12. By whom is it supported, how is it kept alive, and by whom is it

carried on?

13. Give illustrations of governments.

14. What one power must government have to be worthy of the name?

15. What was the principal weakness of the government during the

American Revolution?

16. Compare this government with that of the United States since 1789.

17. If it is doubtful what the real government of a country is, how

may the doubt be settled?

18. Illustrate by reference to France and England in the eighteenth

century.

19. What is the difference between taxation and robbery?

20. Under what conditions may taxation become robbery?

21. To what are we easily attracted in our first study of history?

22. What ought to be learned from history?

23. What sort of knowledge is helpful in discharging the duties of

citizenship?

24. Show how "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.

_To the teacher_. The object of this series of questions and

suggestions is to stimulate reading, investigating, and thinking. It

is not expected, indeed it is hardly possible, that each pupil shall

respond to them all. A single question may cost prolonged study.

Assign the numbers, therefore, to individuals to report upon at a

subsequent recitation,--one or more to each pupil, according to the

difficulty of the numbers. Reserve some for class consideration or

discussion. Now and then let the teacher answer a question himself,

partly to furnish the pupils with good examples of answers, and partly

to insure attention to matters that might otherwise escape notice.

1. Are there people who receive no benefit from their payment of

taxes?

2. Are the benefits received by people in proportion to the amounts

paid by them?

3. Show somewhat fully what taxes had to do with the French

Revolution.

4. Show somewhat fully what taxes had to do with the American

Revolution.

5. Give illustrations of the exercise of the right of eminent domain

in your own town or county or state.

6. Do railroad corporations exercise such a right? How do they succeed

in getting land for their tracks?

7. In case of disagreement, how is a fair price determined for

property taken by eminent domain?

8. What persons are prominent to-day in the government of your own

town or city? Of your own county? Of your own state? Of the United

States?

9. Who constitute the government of the school to which you belong?

Does this question admit of more than one answer? Has the government

of your school any power to tax the people to support the school?

10. What is the difference between a state and the government of a

state?

11. Which is the more powerful branch of the English Parliament? Why?

12. Is it a misuse of the funds of a city to provide entertainments

for the people July 4? To expend money in entertaining distinguished

guests? To provide flowers, carriages, cigars, wines, etc., for such

guests?

13. What is meant by subordinating public office to private ends? Cite

instances from history.

14. What histories have you read? What one of them, if any, would you

call a "child's history," or a "drum and trumpet" history? What one of

them, if any, has impressed any lessons upon you?

15. Mention some principles that history has taught you.

16. Mention a few offices, and tell the sort of intelligence that is

needed by the persons who hold them. What results might follow if such

intelligence were lacking?

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

It is designed in the bibliographical notes to indicate some

authorities to which reference may be made for greater detail than is

possible in an elementary work like the present. It is believed

that the notes will prove a help to teacher and pupil in special

investigations, and to the reader who may wish to make selections from

excellent sources for purposes of self-culture. It is hardly necessary

to add that it is sometimes worth much to the student to know where

valuable information may be obtained, even when it is not practicable

to make immediate use of it.

Certain books should always be at the teacher's desk during the

instruction in civil government, and as easily accessible as the large

dictionary; as, for instance, the following: The General Statutes of the

state, the manual or blue-book of the state legislature, and, if the

school is in a city, the city charter and ordinances. It is also

desirable to add to this list the statutes of the United States and a

manual of Congress or of the general government. Manuals may be obtained

through representatives in the state legislature and in Congress. They

will answer nearly every purpose if they are not of the latest issue.

The _Statesman's Year Book_, published by Macmillan & Co., New York,

every year, is exceedingly valuable for reference. Certain almanacs,

particularly the comprehensive ones issued by the New York _Tribune_ and

the New York _World_, are rich in state and national statistics, and so

inexpensive as to be within everybody's means.

TAXATION AND GOVERNMENT.--As to the causes of the American revolution,

see my _War of Independence_, Boston, 1889; and as to the weakness of

the government of the United States before 1789, see my _Critical Period

of American History_, Boston, 1888. As to the causes of the French

revolution, see Paul Lacombe, _The Growth of a People_, N.Y., 1883, and

the third volume of Kitchin's _History of France_, London, 1887; also

Morse Stephens, _The French Revolution_, vol. i., N.Y., 1887; Taine,

_The Ancient Regime_,--N.Y., 1876, and _The Revolution_, 2 vols., N.Y.,

1880. The student may read with pleasure and profit Dickens's _Tale of

Two Cities_. For the student familiar with French, an excellent book is

Albert Babeau, _Le Village sous l'ancien Régime_, Paris, 1879; see also

Tocqueville, _L'ancien Régime et la Révolution_, 7th ed., Paris, 1866.

There is a good sketch of the causes of the French revolution in the

fifth volume of Leeky's _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_,

N.Y., 1887; see also Buckle's _History of Civilization_, chaps,

xii.-xiv. There is no better commentary on my first chapter than the

lurid history of France in the eighteenth century. The strong contrast

to English and American history shows us most instructively what we have

thus far escaped.

CHAPTER II.

THE TOWNSHIP.

Section 1. _The New England Township_.

Of the various kinds of government to be found in the United States,

we may begin by considering that of the New England township. As

we shall presently see, it is in principle of all known forms of

government the oldest as well as the simplest. Let us observe how the

New England township grew up.

[Sidenote: New England was settled by church congregations.]

When people from England first came to dwell in the wilderness of

Massachusetts Bay, they settled in groups upon small irregular-shaped

patches of land, which soon came to be known as townships. There were

several reasons why they settled thus in small groups, instead of

scattering about over the country and carving out broad estates for

themselves. In the first place, their principal reason for coming to

New England was their dissatisfaction with the way in which church

affairs were managed in the old country. They wished to bring about a

reform in the church, in such wise that the members of a congregation

should have more voice than formerly in the church-government, and

that the minister of each congregation should be more independent than

formerly of the bishop and of the civil government. They also wished

to abolish sundry rites and customs of the church of which they had

come to disapprove. Finding the resistance to their reforms quite

formidable in England, and having some reason to fear that they might

be themselves crushed in the struggle, they crossed the ocean in order

to carry out their ideas in a new and remote country where they might

be comparatively secure from interference. Hence it was quite natural

that they should come in congregations, led by their favourite

ministers,--such men, for example, as Higginson and Cotton, Hooker and

Davenport. When such men, famous in England for their bold preaching

and imperiled thereby, decided to move to America, a considerable

number of their parishioners would decide to accompany them, and

similarly minded members of neighbouring churches would leave their

own pastor and join in the migration. Such a group of people, arriving

on the coast of Massachusetts, would naturally select some convenient

locality, where they might build their houses near together and all go

to the same church.

[Sidenote: Land grants.]

This migration, therefore, was a movement, not of individuals or of

separate families, but of church-congregations, and it continued to be

so as the settlers made their way inland and westward. The first

river towns of Connecticut were founded by congregations coming from

Dorchester, Cambridge, and Watertown. This kind of settlement was

favoured by the government of Massachusetts, which made grants of

land, not to individuals but to companies of people who wished to live

together and attend the same church.

In the second place, the soil of New England was not favourable to the

cultivation of great quantities of staple articles, such as rice

or tobacco, so that there was nothing to tempt people to undertake

extensive plantations.

[Sidenote: Small farms.]

Most of the people lived on small farms, each family raising but

little more than enough food for its own support; and the small size

of the farms made it possible to have a good many in a compact

neighbourhood. It appeared also that towns could be more easily

defended against the Indians than scattered plantations; and this

doubtless helped to keep people together, although if there had been

any strong inducement for solitary pioneers to plunge into the great

woods, as in later years so often happened at the West, it is not

likely that any dread of the savages would have hindered them.

[Sidenote: Township and village.]

[Sidenote: Social positions of settlers.]

Thus the early settlers of New England came to live in townships. A

township would consist of about as many farms as could be disposed

within convenient distance from the meeting-house, where all the

inhabitants, young and old, gathered every Sunday, coming on horseback

or afoot. The meeting-house was thus centrally situated, and near

it was the town pasture or "common," with the school-house and the

block-house, or rude fortress for defence against the Indians. For the

latter building some commanding position was apt to be selected, and

hence we so often find the old village streets of New England running

along elevated ridges or climbing over beetling hilltops. Around the

meeting-house and common the dwellings gradually clustered into a

village, and after a while the tavern, store, and town-house made

their appearance.

Among the people who thus tilled the farms and built up the villages of

New England, the differences in what we should call social position,

though noticeable, were not extreme. While in England some had been

esquires or country magistrates, or "lords of the manor,"--a phrase

which does not mean a member of the peerage, but a landed proprietor

with dependent tenants[1]; some had been yeomen, or persons holding

farms by some free kind of tenure; some had been artisans or tradesmen

in cities. All had for many generations been more or less accustomed to

self-government and to public meetings for discussing local affairs.

That self-government, especially as far as church matters were

concerned, they were stoutly bent upon maintaining and extending.

Indeed, that was what they had crossed the ocean for. Under these

circumstances they developed a kind of government which we may describe

in the present tense, for its methods are pretty much the same to-day

that they were two centuries ago.

[Footnote 1: Compare the Scottish "laird."]

[Sidenote: The town-meeting.]

In a New England township the people directly govern themselves; the

government is the people, or, to speak with entire precision, it is

all the male inhabitants of one-and-twenty years of age and upwards.

The people tax themselves. Once each year, usually in March but

sometimes as early as February or as late as April, a "town-meeting"

is held, at which all the grown men of the township are expected to be

present and to vote, while any one may introduce motions or take part

in the discussion. In early times there was a fine for non-attendance,

but at is no longer the case; it is supposed that a due regard to his

own interests will induce every man to come.

The town-meeting is held in the town-house, but at first it used to be

held in the church, which was thus a "meeting-house" for civil as well

as ecclesiastical purposes. At the town-meeting measures relating

to the administration of town affairs are discussed and adopted or

rejected; appropriations are made for the public expenses of the

town, or in other words the amount of the town taxes for the year is

determined; and town officers are elected for the year. Let us first

enumerate these officers.

[Sidenote: Selectmen.]

The principal executive magistrates of the town are the selectmen.

They are three, five, seven, or nine in number, according to the size

of the town and the amount of public business to be transacted. The

odd number insures a majority decision in case of any difference of

opinion among them. They have the general management of the public

business. They issue warrants for the holding of town-meetings, and

they can call such a meeting at any time during the year when there

seems to be need for it, but the warrant must always specify the

subjects which are to be discussed and acted on at the meeting. The

selectmen also lay out highways, grant licenses, and impanel jurors;

they may act as health officers and issue orders regarding sewerage,

the abatement of nuisances, or the isolation of contagious diseases;

in many cases they act as assessors of taxes, and as overseers of the

poor. They are the proper persons to listen to complaints if anything

goes wrong in the town. In county matters and state matters they speak

for the town, and if it is a party to a law-suit they represent it in

court; for the New England town is a legal corporation, and as such

can hold property, and sue and be sued. In a certain sense the

selectmen may be said to be "the government" of the town during the

intervals between the town-meetings.

[Sidenote: Town-clerk.]

An officer no less important than the selectmen is the town-clerk. He

keeps the record of all votes passed in the town-meetings. He also

records the names of candidates and the number of votes for each in

the election of state and county officers. He records the births,

marriages, and deaths in the township, and issues certificates to

persons who declare an intention of marriage. He likewise keeps on

record accurate descriptions of the position and bounds of public

roads; and, in short, has general charge of all matters of

town-record.

[Sidenote: Town-treasurer.]

Every town has also its treasurer, who receives and takes care of the

money coming in from the taxpayers, or whatever money belongs to the

town. Out of this money he pays the public expenses. He must keep a

strict account of his receipts and payments, and make a report of them

each year.

[Sidenote: Constables.]

Every town has one or more constables, who serve warrants from the

selectmen and writs from the law courts. They pursue criminals and

take them to jail. They summon jurors. In many towns they serve as

collectors of taxes, but in many other towns a special officer is

chosen for that purpose. When a person, fails to pay his taxes,

after a specified time the collector has authority to seize upon his

property and sell it at auction, paying the tax and costs out of the

proceeds of the sale, and handing over the balance to the owner. In

some cases, where no property can be found and there is reason to

believe that the delinquent is not acting in good faith, he can be

arrested and kept in prison until the tax and costs are paid, or until

he is released by the proper legal methods.

[Sidenote: Assessors of taxes and overseers of the poor.]

Where the duties of the selectmen are likely to be too numerous, the

town may choose three or more assessors of taxes to prepare the tax

lists; and three or more overseers of the poor, to regulate the

management of the village almshouse and confer with other towns

upon such questions as often arise concerning the settlement and

maintenance of homeless paupers.

[Sidenote: Public schools.]

Every town has its school committee. In 1647 the legislature of

Massachusetts enacted a law with the following preamble: "It being

one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the

knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an

unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of

tongues, that so at least the true sense and meaning of the original

might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of deceivers; to the

end that learning may not be buried in the graves of our forefathers,

in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavours;" it was

therefore ordered that every township containing fifty families or

householders should forthwith set up a school in which children might

be taught to read and write, and that every township containing one

hundred families or householders should set up a school in which

boys might be fitted for entering Harvard College. Even before this

statute, several towns, as for instance Roxbury and Dedham, had begun

to appropriate money for free schools; and these were the beginnings

of a system of public education which has come to be adopted

throughout the United States.

[Sidenote: School committees.]

The school committee exercises powers of such a character as to make

it a body of great importance. The term of service of the members is

three years, one third being chosen annually. The number of members

must therefore be some multiple of three. The slow change in the

membership of the board insures that a large proportion of the members

shall always be familiar with the duties of the place. The school

committee must visit all the public schools at least once a month, and

make a report to the town every year. It is for them to decide what

text-books are to be used. They examine candidates for the position

of teacher and issue certificates to those whom they select. The

certificate is issued in duplicate, and one copy is handed to the

selectmen as a warrant that the teacher is entitled to receive a

salary. Teachers are appointed for a term of one year, but where their

work is satisfactory the appointments are usually renewed year after

year. A recent act in Massachusetts _permits_ the appointment of

teachers to serve during good behaviour, but few boards have as yet

availed themselves of this law. If the amount of work to be done seems

to require it, the committee appoints a superintendent of schools. He

is a sort of lieutenant of the school committee, and under its general

direction carries on the detailed work of supervision.

Other town officers are the surveyors of highways, who are responsible

for keeping the roads and bridges in repair; field-drivers and

pound-keepers; fence-viewers; surveyors of lumber, measurers of wood,

and sealers of weights and measures.

[Sidenote: Field-drivers and pound keepers.]

The field-driver takes stray animals to the pound, and then notifies

their owner; or if he does not know who is the owner he posts a

description of the animals in some such place as the village store

or tavern, or has it published in the nearest country newspaper.

Meanwhile the strays are duly fed by the pound-keeper, who does not

let them out of his custody until all expenses have been paid.

[Sidenote: Fence-viewers.]

If the owners of contiguous farms, gardens, or fields get into a

dispute about their partition fences or walls, they may apply to

one of the fence-viewers, of whom each town has at least two. The

fence-viewer decides the matter, and charges a small fee for his

services. Where it is necessary he may order suitable walls or fences

to be built.

[Sidenote: Other officers.]

The surveyors of lumber measure and mark lumber offered for sale.

The measurers of wood do the same for firewood. The sealers test the

correctness of weights and measures used in trade, and tradesmen

are not allowed to use weights and measures that have not been thus

officially examined and sealed. Measurers and sealers may be appointed

by the selectmen.

Such are the officers always to be found in the Massachusetts town,

except where the duties of some of them are discharged by the

selectmen. Of these officers, the selectmen, town-clerk, treasurer,

constable, school committee, and assessors must be elected by ballot

at the annual town-meeting.

[Sidenote: Calling the town-meeting.]

When this meeting is to be called the selectmen issue a warrant for

the purpose, specifying the time and place of meeting and the nature

of the business to be transacted. The constable posts copies of the

warrant in divers conspicuous places not less than a week before the

time appointed. Then, after making a note upon the warrant that he has

duly served it, he hands it over to the town-clerk. On the appointed

day, when the people have assembled, the town-clerk calls the meeting

to order and reads the warrant. The meeting then proceeds to choose by

ballot its presiding officer, or "moderator," and business goes on

in accordance with parliamentary customs pretty generally recognized

among all people who speak English.

[Sidenote: Town, country, and state taxes.]

At this meeting the amount of money to be raised by taxation for town

purposes is determined. But, as we shall see, every inhabitant of a

town lives not only under a town government, but also under a county

government and a state government, and all these governments have to

be supported by taxation. In Massachusetts the state and the county

make use of the machinery of the town government in order to assess

and collect their taxes. The total amounts to be raised are equitably

divided among the several towns and cities, so that each town pays its

proportionate share. Each year, therefore, the town assessors know

that a certain amount of money must be raised from the taxpayers of

their town,--partly for the town, partly for the county, partly for

the state,--and for the general convenience they usually assess it

upon the taxpayers all at once. The amounts raised for the state and

county are usually very much smaller than the amount raised for

the town. As these amounts are all raised in the town and by town

officers, we shall find it convenient to sum up in this place what we

have to say about the way in which taxes are raised. Bear in mind that

we are still considering the New England system, and our illustration

is taken from the practice in Massachusetts. But the general

principles of taxation are so similar in the different states that,

although we may now and then have to point to differences of detail,

we shall not need to go over the whole subject again. We have now to

observe how and upon whom the taxes are assessed.

[Sidenote: Poll-tax.]

They are assessed partly upon persons, but chiefly upon property, and

property is divisible into real estate and personal estate. The tax

assessed upon persons is called the poll-tax, and cannot exceed the

sum of two dollars upon every male citizen over twenty years old. In

cases of extreme poverty the assessors may remit the poll-tax.

[Sidenote: Real-estate taxes.]

As to real estate, there are in every town some lands and buildings

which, for reasons of public policy, are exempted from paying taxes;

as, for example, churches, graveyards, and tombs; many charitable

institutions, including universities and colleges; and public

buildings which belong to the state or to the United States. All lands

and buildings, except such as are exempt by law, must pay taxes.

[Sidenote: Taxes on personal property.]

Personal property includes pretty much everything that one can own

except lands and buildings,--pretty much everything that can be moved

or carried about from one place to another. It thus includes ready

money, stocks and bonds, ships and wagons, furniture, pictures, and

books. It also includes the amount of debts due to a person in excess

of the amount that he owes; also the income from his employment,

whether in the shape of profits from business or a fixed salary.

Some personal property is exempted from taxation; as, for example,

household furniture to the amount of $1,000 in value, and income

from employment to the extent of $2,000. The obvious intent of this

exemption is to prevent taxation from bearing too hard upon persons

of small means; and for a similar reason the tools of farmers and

mechanics are exempted.[2]

[Footnote 2: United States bonds are also especially exempted from

taxation.]

[Sidenote: When and where taxes are assessed.]

The date at which property is annually reckoned for assessment is in

Massachusetts the first day of May. The poll-tax is assessed upon each

person in the town or city where he has his legal habitation on that

day; and as a general rule the taxes upon his personal property are

assessed to him in the same place. But taxes upon lands or buildings

are assessed in the city or town where they are situated, and to the

person, wherever he lives, who is the owner of them on the first day

of May. Thus a man who lives in the Berkshire mountains, say for

example in the town of Lanesborough, will pay his poll-tax to that

town. For his personal property, whether it he bonds of a railroad in

Colorado, or shares in a bank in New York, or costly pictures in his

house at Lanesborough, he will likewise pay taxes to Lanesborough. So

for the house in which he lives, and the land upon which it stands, he

pays taxes to that same town. But if he owns at the same time a house

in Boston, he pays taxes for it to Boston, and if he owns a block of

shops in Chicago he pays taxes for the same to Chicago. It is very apt

to be the case that the rate of taxation is higher in large cities

than in villages; and accordingly it often happens that wealthy

inhabitants of cities, who own houses in some country town, move into

them before the first of May, and otherwise comport themselves as

legal residents of the country town, in order that their personal

property may be assessed there rather than in the city.

[Sidenote: Tax lists.]

About the first of May the assessors call upon the inhabitants of

their town to render a true statement as to their property. The most

approved form is for the assessors to send by mail to each taxable

inhabitant a printed list of questions, with blank spaces which he is

to fill with written answers. The questions relate to every kind

of property, and when the person addressed returns the list to the

assessors he must make oath that to the best of his knowledge and

belief his answers are true. He thus becomes liable to the penalties

for perjury if he can be proved to have sworn falsely. A reasonable

time--usually six or eight weeks--is allowed for the list to be

returned to the assessors. If any one fails to return his list by the

specified time, the assessors must make their own estimate of the

probable amount of his property. If their estimate is too high, he may

petition the assessors to have the error corrected, but in many cases

it may prove troublesome to effect this.

[Sidenote: Cheating the government.]

Observe here an important difference between the imposition of taxes

upon real estate and upon personal property. Houses and lands cannot

run away or be tucked out of sight. Their value, too, is something

of which the assessors can very likely judge as well as the owner.

Deception is therefore extremely difficult, and taxation for real

estate is pretty fairly distributed among the different owners. With

regard to personal estate it is very different. It is comparatively

easy to conceal one's ownership of some kinds of personal property, or

to understate one's income. Hence the temptation to lessen the burden

of the tax bill by making false statements is considerable, and

doubtless a good deal of deception is practised. There are many people

who are too honest to cheat individuals, but still consider it a

venial sin to cheat the government.

[Sidenote: The rate of taxation.]

After the assessors have obtained all their returns they can calculate

the total value of the taxable property in the town; and knowing the

amount of the tax to be raised, it is easy to calculate the rate at

which the tax is to be assessed. In most parts of the United States a

rate of one and a half per cent, or $15 tax on each $1,000 worth of

property, would be regarded as moderate; three per cent would be

regarded as excessively high. At the lower of these rates a man worth

$50,000 would pay $750 for his yearly taxes. The annual income of

$50,000, invested on good security, is hardly more than $2,500.

Obviously $750 is a large sum to subtract from such an income.

[Sidenote: Undervaluation.]

[Sidenote: The burden of taxation.]

In point of fact, however, the tax is seldom quite as heavy as

this. It is not easy to tell exactly how much a man is worth, and

accordingly assessors, not wishing to be too disagreeable in the

discharge of their duties, have naturally fallen into a way of giving

the lower valuation the benefit of the doubt, until in many places a

custom has grown up of regularly undervaluing property for purposes of

taxation. Very much as liquid measures have gradually shrunk until

it takes five quart bottles to hold a gallon, so there has been a

shrinkage of valuations until it has become common to tax a man for

only three fourths or perhaps two thirds of what his property is

worth in the market. This makes the rate higher, to be sure, but

the individual taxpayer nevertheless seems to feel relieved by it.

Allowing for this undervaluation, we may say that a man worth $50,000

commonly pays not less than $500 for his yearly taxes, or about one

fifth of the annual income of the property. We thus begin to see what

a heavy burden taxes are, and how essential to good government it is

that citizens should know what their money goes for, and should be

able to exert some effective control over the public expenditures.

Where the rate of taxation in a town rises to a very high point, such

as two and a half or three per cent, the prosperity of the town is apt

to be seriously crippled. Traders and manufacturers move away to other

towns, or those who would otherwise come to the town in question stay

away, because they cannot afford to use up all their profits in paying

taxes. If such a state of things is long kept up, the spirit of

enterprise is weakened, the place shows signs of untidiness and want

of thrift, and neighbouring towns, once perhaps far behind it in

growth, by and by shoot ahead of it and take away its business.

[Sidenote: The "magic fund" delusion.]

Within its proper sphere, government by town-meeting is the form of

government most effectively under watch and control. Everything is

done in the full daylight of publicity. The specific objects for which

public money is to be appropriated are discussed in the presence of

everybody, and any one who disapproves of any of these objects, or of

the way in which it is proposed to obtain it, has an opportunity to

declare his opinions. Under this form of government people are not

so liable to bewildering delusions as under other forms. I refer

especially to the delusion that "the Government" is a sort of

mysterious power, possessed of a magic inexhaustible fund of wealth,

and able to do all manner of things for the benefit of "the People."

Some such notion as this, more often implied than expressed, is very

common, and it is inexpressibly dear to demagogues. It is the prolific

root from which springs that luxuriant crop of humbug upon which

political tricksters thrive as pigs fatten upon corn. In point of

fact no such government, armed with a magic fund of its own, has ever

existed upon the earth. No government has ever yet used any money

for public purposes which it did not first take from its own

people,--unless when it may have plundered it from some other people

in victorious warfare.

The inhabitant of a New England town is perpetually reminded that "the

Government" is "the People." Although he may think loosely about

the government of his state or the still more remote government at

Washington, he is kept pretty close to the facts where local affairs

are concerned, and in this there is a political training of no small

value.

[Sidenote: Educational value of the town-meeting.]

In the kind of discussion which it provokes, in the necessity of facing

argument with argument and of keeping one's temper under control, the

town-meeting is the best political training school in existence. Its

educational value is far higher than that of the newspaper, which, in

spite of its many merits as a diffuser of information, is very apt to do

its best to bemuddle and sophisticate plain facts. The period when

town-meetings ware most important from the wide scope of their

transactions was the period of earnest and sometimes stormy discussion

that ushered in our Revolutionary war. Country towns were then of more

importance relatively than now; one country town--Boston--was at the

same time a great political centre; and its meetings were presided over

and addressed by men of commanding ability, among whom Samuel Adams,

"the man of the town-meeting," was foremost[3]. In those days

great principles of government were discussed with a wealth of knowledge

and stated with masterly skill in town-meeting.

[Footnote 3: The phrase is Professor Hosmer's: see his _Samuel Adams, the

Man of the Town Meeting_, in "Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies," vol. II. no.

iv.; also his _Samuel Adams_, in "American Statesmen" series; Boston,

1885.]

[Sidenote: By-laws.]

The town-meeting is to a very limited extent a legislative body; it can

make sundry regulations for the management of its local affairs. Such

regulations are known by a very ancient name, "by-laws." _By_ is an Old

Norse word meaning "town," and it appears in the names of such towns as

_Derby_ and _Whitby_ in the part of England overrun by the Danes in the

ninth and tenth centuries. By-laws are town laws[4].

[Footnote 4: In modern usage the roles and regulations of clubs, learned

societies, and other associations, are also called by-laws.]

[Sidenote: Power and responsibility.]

In the selectmen and various special officers the town has an

executive department; and here let us observe that, while these

officials are kept strictly accountable to the people, they are

entrusted with very considerable authority. Things are not so arranged

that an officer can plead that he has failed in his duty from lack of

power. There is ample power, joined with complete responsibility. This

is especially to be noticed in the case of the selectmen. They must

often be called upon to exercise a wide discretion in what they do,

yet this excites no serious popular distrust or jealousy. The annual

election affords an easy means of dropping an unsatisfactory officer.

But in practice nothing has been more common than for the same persons

to be reelected as selectmen or constables or town-clerks for year

after year, as long as they are able or willing to serve. The notion

that there is anything peculiarly American or democratic in what

is known as "rotation in office" is therefore not sustained by the

practice of the New England town, which is the most complete democracy

in the world. It is the most perfect exhibition of what President

Lincoln called "government of the people by the people and for the

people."

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. What reason exists for beginning the study of government with that of

the New England township?

2. Give the origin of the township in New England according to the

following analysis:--

a. Settlement in groups.

b. The chief reason for coming to New England.

c. The leaders of the groups.

d. The favouring action of the Massachusetts government.

e. Small farms.

f. Defence against the Indians.

g. The limits of a township.

h. The village within the township.

3. What was the social standing of the first settlers?

4. What training had they received in self-government?

5. Who do the governing in a New England township?

6. Give an account of the town-meeting in accordance with the following

analysis:--

a. The name of the meeting.

b. The time for holding it.

c. The place for holding it.

d. The persons who take part in it.

e. The sort of business done in it.

7. Give an account of the selectmen:--

a. Their number.

b. The reason for an odd number.

c. Their duties.

8. When public schools were established by Massachusetts in 1647, what

reasons were assigned for the law?

9. What classes or grades of schools were then established?

10. What are the duties of the Massachusetts school committee?

11. What is the term of service of teachers in that state?

12. What are the duties of the following officers?--

a. Field-drivers.

b. Pound-keepers.

c. Fence-viewers.

d. Surveyors of lumber.

e. Measurers of wood.

f. Sealers of weights and measures.

13. What are the duties of the following officers?--

a. The town-clerk.

b. The treasurer.

c. Constables.

d. Assessors.

e. Overseers of the poor.

14. Describe a warrant for a town-meeting.

15. For what other purposes than those of the town are taxes raised?

16. Explain the following:--

a. The poll-tax.

b. The tax on personal property,

c. The tax on real estate.

17. What kinds of real estate are exempted from taxation, and why?

18. What kinds of personal property are exempted, and why?

19. Where must the several kinds of taxes be assessed and paid?

Illustrate.

20. If a person changes his residence from one town in the state to

another before May 1, what consequences about taxes might follow?

21. How do the assessors ascertain the property for which one should be

taxed?

22. What difficulties beset the taxation of personal property?

23. Mention a common practice in assigning values to property.

What is the effect on the tax-rate? Illustrate.

24. How do high taxes operate as a burden?

25. Describe a delusion from which people who directly govern

themselves are practically free.

26. What is the educational value of the town-meeting?

27. What are by-laws? Explain the phrase.

28. What of the power and responsibility of selectmen?

Section 2. _Origin of the Township_.

[Sidenote: Town-meetings in Greece and Rome.]

It was said above that government by town-meeting is in principle the

oldest form of government known in the world. The student of ancient

history is familiar with the _comitia_ of the Romans and the

_ecclesia_ of the Greeks. These were popular assemblies, held in

those soft climates in the open air, usually in the market-place,--the

Roman _forum_, the Greek _agora_. The government carried on

in them was a more or less qualified democracy. In the palmy days of

Athens it was a pure democracy. The assemblies which in the Athenian

market-place declared war against Syracuse, or condemned Socrates to

death, were quite like New England town-meetings, except that they

exercised greater powers because there was no state government above

them.

[Sidenote: Clans.]

The principle of the town-meeting, however, is older than Athens or

Rome. Long before streets were built or fields fenced in, men wandered

about the earth hunting for food in family parties, somewhat as lions

do in South Africa. Such family groups were what we call _clans_,

and so far as is known they were the earliest form in which civil

society appeared on the earth. Among all wandering or partially

settled tribes the clan is to be found, and there are ample

opportunities for studying it among our Indians in North America. The

clan usually has a chief or head-man, useful mainly as a leader in

wartime; its civil government, crude and disorderly enough, is in

principle a pure democracy.

[Sidenote: The _mark_ and the _tun_.]

When our ancestors first became acquainted with American Indians, the

most advanced tribes lived partly by hunting and fishing, but partly

also by raising Indian corn and pumpkins. They had begun to live in

wigwams grouped together in small villages and surrounded by strong rows

of palisades for defence. Now what these red men were doing our own

fair-haired ancestors in northern and central Europe had been doing some

twenty centuries earlier. The Scandinavians and Germans, when first

known in history, had made considerable progress in exchanging a

wandering for a settled mode of life. When the clan, instead of moving

from place to place, fixed upon some spot for a permanent residence, a

village grew up there, surrounded by a belt of waste land, or somewhat

later by a stockaded wall. The belt of land was called a _mark_, and the

wall was called a _tun_.[5] Afterwards the enclosed space came to be

known sometimes as the _mark_, sometimes as the _tun_ or _town_. In

England the latter name prevailed. The inhabitants of a mark or town

were a stationary clan. It was customary to call them by the clan name,

as for example "the Beorings" or "the Crossings;" then the town would be

called _Barrington_, "town of the Beorings," or _Cressingham_,

"home of the Cressings." Town names of this sort, with which the map of

England is thickly studded, point us back to a time when the town was

supposed to be the stationary home of a clan.

[Footnote 1: Pronounced "toon."]

[Sidenote: The Old English township.]

[Sidenote: The manor.]

The Old English town had its _tungemot_, or town-meeting, in

which "by-laws" were made and other important business transacted.

The principal officers were the "reeve" or head-man, the "beadle" or

messenger, and the "tithing-man" or petty constable. These officers

seem at first to have been elected by the people, but after a while,

as great lordships grew up, usurping jurisdiction over the land, the

lord's steward and bailiff came to supersede the reeve and beadle.

After the Norman Conquest the townships, thus brought under the sway

of great lords, came to be generally known by the French name of

manors or "dwelling places." Much might be said about this change, but

here it is enough for us to bear in mind that a manor was essentially

a township in which the chief executive officers were directly

responsible to the lord rather than to the people. It would be

wrong, however, to suppose that the manors entirely lost their

self-government. Even the ancient town-meeting survived in them, in a

fragmentary way, in several interesting assemblies, of which the most

interesting were the _court leet_, for the election of certain

officers and the trial of petty offences, and the _court baron_,

which was much like a town-meeting.

[Sidenote: The parish.]

Still more of the old self-government would doubtless have survived

in the institutions of the manor if it had not been provided for in

another way. The _parish_ was older than the manor. After the

English had been converted to Christianity local churches were

gradually set up all over the country, and districts called parishes

were assigned for the ministrations of the priests. Now a parish

generally coincided in area with a township, or sometimes with a group

of two or three townships. In the old heathen times each town seems to

have had its sacred place or shrine consecrated to some local deity,

and it was a favourite policy with the Roman missionary priests to

purify the old shrine and turn it into a church. In this way the

township at the same time naturally became the parish.

[Sidenote: Township, manor, and parish.]

[Sidenote: The vestry-meeting.]

As we find it in later times, both before and since the founding of

English colonies in North America, the township in England is likely

to be both a manor and a parish. For some purposes it is the one, for

some purposes it is the other. The townsfolk may be regarded as a

group of tenants of the lord's manor, or as a group of parishioners of

the local church. In the latter aspect the parish retained much of the

self-government of the ancient town. The business with which the lord

was entitled to meddle was strictly limited, and all other business

was transacted in the "vestry-meeting," which was practically the old

town-meeting under a new name. In the course of the thirteenth century

we find that the parish had acquired the right of taxing itself for

church purposes. Money needed for the church was supplied in the

form of "church-rates" voted by the ratepayers themselves in the

vestry-meeting, so called because it was originally held in a room of

the church in which vestments were kept.

[Sidenote: Parish officers.]

The officers of the parish were the constable, the parish and vestry

clerks,[6] the beadle,[7] the "waywardens" or surveyors of highways,

the "haywards" or fence-viewers, the "common drivers," the collectors

of taxes, and at the beginning of the seventeenth century overseers of

the poor were added. There were also churchwardens, usually two for

each, parish. Their duties were primarily to take care of the church

property, assess the rates, and call the vestry-meetings. They also

acted as overseers of the poor, and thus in several ways remind one of

the selectmen of New England. The parish officers were all elected by

the ratepayers assembled in vestry-meeting, except the common driver

and hayward, who were elected by the same ratepayers assembled in

court leet. Besides electing parish officers and granting the rates,

the vestry-meeting could enact by-laws; and all ratepayers had an

equal voice in its deliberations.

[Footnote 6: Of these two officers the vestry clerk is the counterpart

of the New England town-clerk.]

[Footnote 7: Originally a messenger or crier, the beadle came to

assume some of the functions of the tithing-man or petty constable,

such as keeping order in church, punishing petty offenders, waiting on

the clergyman, etc. In New England towns there were formerly officers

called tithing-men, who kept order in church, arrested tipplers,

loafers, and Sabbath-breakers, etc.]

[Sidenote: The transition from England to New England.]

During the last two centuries the constitution of the English parish

has undergone some modifications which need not here concern us. The

Puritans who settled in New England had grown up under such parish

government as is here described, and they were used to hearing the

parish called, on some occasions and for some purposes, a township. If

we remember now that the earliest New England towns were founded

by church congregations, led by their pastors, we can see how town

government in New England originated. It was simply the English

parish government brought into a new country and adapted to the new

situation. Part of this new situation consisted in the fact that the

lords of the manor were left behind. There was no longer any occasion

to distinguish between the township as a manor and the township as a

parish; and so, as the three names had all lived on together, side by

side, in England, it was now the oldest and most generally descriptive

name, "township," that survived, and has come into use throughout a

great part of the United States. The townsfolk went on making by-laws,

voting supplies of public money, and electing their magistrates in

America, after the fashion with which they had for ages been familiar

in England. Some of their offices and customs were of hoary antiquity.

If age gives respectability, the office of constable may vie with that

of king; and if the annual town-meeting is usually held in the month

of March, it is because in days of old, long before Magna Charta was

thought of, the rules and regulations for the village husbandry were

discussed and adopted in time for the spring planting.

[Sidenote: Building up states.]

To complete our sketch of the origin of the New England town, one

point should here be briefly mentioned in anticipation of what will

have to be said hereafter; but it is a point of so much importance

that we need not mind a little repetition in stating it.

[Sidenote: Representation.]

We have seen what a great part taxation plays in the business of

government, and we shall presently have to treat of county, state, and

federal governments, all of them wider in their sphere than the town

government. In the course of history, as nations have gradually been

built up, these wider governments have been apt to absorb or supplant

and crush the narrower governments, such as the parish or township;

and this process has too often been destructive to political freedom.

Such a result is, of course, disastrous to everybody; and if it were

unavoidable, it would be better that great national governments need

never be formed. But it is not unavoidable. There is one way of

escaping it, and that is to give the little government of the town

some real share in making up the great government of the state. That

is not an easy thing to do, as is shown by the fact that most peoples

have failed in the attempt. The people who speak the English language

have been the most successful, and the device by which they have

overcome the difficulty is REPRESENTATION. The town sends to the wider

government a delegation of persons who can _represent_ the town

and its people. They can speak for the town, and have a voice in the

framing of laws and imposition of taxes by the wider government.

[Sidenote: Shire-motes.]

[Sidenote: Earl Simon's Parliament.]

In English townships there has been from time immemorial a system of

representation. Long before Alfred's time there were "shire-motes," or

what were afterwards called county meetings, and to these each town

sent its reeve and "four discreet men" as _representatives_. Thus

to a certain extent the wishes of the townsfolk could be brought to

bear upon county affairs. By and by this method was applied on a much

wider scale. It was applied to the whole kingdom, so that the people

of all its towns and parishes succeeded in securing a representation

of their interests in an elective national council or House of

Commons. This great work was accomplished in the thirteenth century by

Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and was completed by Edward

I. Simon's parliament, the first in which the Commons were fully

represented, was assembled in 1265; and the date of Edward's

parliament, which has been called the Model Parliament, was 1295.

These dates have as much interest for Americans as for Englishmen,

because they mark the first definite establishment of that grand

system of representative government which we are still carrying on

at our various state capitals and at Washington. For its humble

beginnings we have to look back to the "reeve and four" sent by the

ancient townships to the county meetings.

[Sidenote: Township as unit of representation.]

The English township or parish was thus at an early period the "unit

of representation" in the government of the county. It was also a

district for the assessment and collection of the national taxes; in

each parish the assessment was made by a board of assessors chosen by

popular vote. These essential points reappear in the early history of

New England. The township was not only a self-governing body, but

it was the "unit of representation" in the colonial legislature,

or "General Court;" and the assessment of taxes, whether for town

purposes or for state purposes, was made by assessors elected by the

townsfolk. In its beginnings and fundamentals our political liberty

did not originate upon American soil, but was brought hither by

our forefathers the first settlers. They brought their political

institutions with them as naturally as they brought their language and

their social customs.

[Sidenote: The Russian village community; not represented in the

national government.]

Observe now that the township is to be regarded in two lights. It must

be considered not only in itself, but as part of a greater whole.

We began by describing it as a self-governing body, but in order to

complete our sketch we were obliged to speak of it as a body which

has a share in the government of the state and the nation. The latter

aspect is as important as the former. If the people of a town had only

the power of managing their local affairs, without the power of taking

part in the management of national affairs, their political freedom

would be far from complete. In Russia, for example, the larger part of

the vast population is resident in village communities which have to a

considerable extent the power of managing their local affairs. Such

a village community is called a _mir_, and like the English

township it is lineally descended from the stationary clan. The people

of the Russian _mir_ hold meetings in which they elect sundry

local officers, distribute the burden of local taxation, make

regulations concerning local husbandry and police, and transact other

business which need not here concern us. But they have no share in the

national government, and are obliged to obey laws which they have

no voice in making, and pay taxes assessed upon them without their

consent; and accordingly we say with truth that the Russian people do

not possess political freedom. One reason for this has doubtless

been that in times past the Russian territory was the great frontier

battle-ground between civilized Europe and the wild hordes of western

Asia, and the people who lived for ages on that turbulent frontier

were subjected to altogether too much conquest. They have tasted too

little of civil government and too much of military government,--a

pennyworth of wholesome bread to an intolerable deal of sack. The

early English, in their snug little corner of the world, belted by

salt sea, were able to develop their civil government with less

destructive interference. They made a sound and healthful beginning

when they made the township the "unit of representation" for the

county. Then the township, besides managing its own affairs, began to

take part in the management of wider affairs.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.

1. Obtain the following documents:--

a. A town warrant.

b. A town report.

c. A tax bill, a permit, a certificate, or any town paper that

has or may have an official signature.

d. A report of the school committee.

If you live in a city, send to the clerk of a neighbouring town for a

warrant, inclosing a stamp for the reply. City documents will answer

most of the purposes of this exercise.

Make any of the foregoing documents the basis of a report.

2. Give an account of the following:--

a. The various kinds of taxes raised in your town, the amount of each

kind, the valuation, the rate, the proposed use of the money, etc.

b. The work of any department of the town government for a year, as, for

example, that of the overseers of the poor.

c. Any pressing need of your town, public sentiment towards it, the

probable cost of satisfying it, the obstacles in the way of meeting

it, etc.

3. A good way to arouse interest in the subject of town government is to

organize the class as a town-meeting, and let it discuss live local

questions in accordance with articles in a warrant. For helpful details

attend a town-meeting, read the record of some meeting, consult some

person familiar with town proceedings, or study the General Statutes.

To insure a discussion, it may be necessary at the outset for the

teacher to assign to the several pupils single points to be expanded and

presented in order.

There is an advantage in the teacher's serving as moderator. He may, as

teacher, pause to give such directions and explanations as may be

helpful to young citizens.

The pupils should be held up to the more obvious requirements of

parliamentary law, and shown how to use its rules to accomplish various

purposes.

4. Has the state a right to direct the education of its youth? If the

state has such a right, are there any limits to the exercise of it? Does

the right to direct the education of its youth carry with it the right

to abolish private schools?

5. Is it wise to assist private educational institutions with public

funds?

6. Ought teachers, if approved, to be appointed for one year only, or

during good behaviour?

7. What classes of officers in a town should serve during good

behaviour? What classes may be frequently changed without injury to the

public?

8. Compare the school committee in your own state (if it is not

Massachusetts) with that in Massachusetts.

9. Illustrate from personal knowledge the difference between

real estate and personal property.

10. A loans B $1000. May A be taxed for the $1000? Why? May B be taxed

for the $1000? Why? Is it right to tax both for $1000? Suppose B with

the money buys goods of C. Is it right to tax the three for $1000 each?

11. A taxpayer worth $100,000 in personal property makes no return to

the assessors. In their ignorance the assessors tax him for $50,000

only, and the tax is paid without question. Does the taxpayer act

honourably?

12. What difficulties beset the work of the assessors?

13. Would anything be gained by exempting personal property from

taxation? If so, what? Would anything be lost? If so, what?

14. Does any one absolutely escape taxation?

15. Does the poll-tax payer pay, in any sense, more than his poll-tax?

16. Are there any taxes that people pay without seeming to know it? If

so, what? (See below, chap. viii. section 8.).

17. Have we clans to-day among ourselves? (Think of family reunions,

people of the same name in a community, descendants of early settlers,

etc.). What important differences exist between these modern so-called

clans and the ancient ones?

18. What is a "clannish" spirit? Is it a good spirit or a bad

one? Is it ever the same as patriotism?

19. Look up the meaning of _ham_, _wick_, and _stead_. Think of towns

whose names contain these words; also of towns whose names contain the

word _tun_ or _ton_ or _town_.

20. Give an account of the tithing-man in early New England.

21. In what sense is the word "parish" commonly used in the United

States? Is the parish the same as the church? Has it any limits of

territory?

22. In Massachusetts, clergymen were formerly paid out of the taxes of

the township. How did this come about? In this practice was there a

union or a separation of church and state?

23. Ministers are not now supported by taxation in the United States.

What important change in the parish idea does this fact indicate? Is it

a change for the better?

24. Are women who do not vote represented in town government?

25. Are boys and girls represented in town government?

26. Is there anybody in a town who is not represented in its government?

27. How are citizens of a town represented in state government?

28. How are citizens of a town represented in the national government?

29. Imagine a situation in which the ballot of a single voter in

a town might affect the action of the national government.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

Section 1. THE NEW ENGLAND TOWNSHIP. There is a good account in

Martin's _Text Book on Civil Government in the United States_. N.

T. & Chicago, 1875.

Section 2. ORIGIN OF THE TOWNSHIP. Here the _Johns Hopkins University

Studies in Historical and Political Science_, edited by Dr. Herbert

Adams, are of great value. Note especially series I, no. i, E. A.

Freeman, _Introduction to American Institutional History_; I., ii. iv.

viii. ix.-x. H. B. Adams, _The Germanic Origin of New England Towns,

Saxon Tithing-Men in America, Norman Constables in America, Village

Communities of Cape Ann and Salem_; II., x. Edward Channing, _Town and

County Government in the English Colonies of North America_; IV.,

xi.-xii. Melville Egleston, _The Land System of the New England

Colonies_; VII., vii.-ix. C. M. Andrews, _The River Towns of

Connecticut_.

See also Howard's _Local Constitutional History of the United

States_, vol. i. "Township, Hundred, and Shire," Baltimore, 1889, a

work of extraordinary merit.

The great book on local self-government in England is Toulmin Smith's

_The Parish_, 2d ed., London, 1859. For the ancient history of the

township, see Gomme's _Primitive Folk-Moots_, London, 1880; Gomme's

_Village Community_, London, 1890; Seebohm's _English Village

Community_, London, 1883; Nasse's _Agricultural Community of the Middle

Ages_, London, 1872; Laveleye's _Primitive Property_, London, 1878;

Phear's _Aryan Village in India and Ceylon_, London, 1880; Hearn (of the

University of Melbourne, Australia), _The Aryan Household_, London &

Melbourne, 1879; and the following works of Sir Henry Maine: _Ancient

Law_, London, 1861; _Village Communities in the East and West_, London,

1871; _Early History of Institutions_, London, 1875; _Early Law and

Custom_, London, 1883. All of Maine's works are republished in New York.

See also my _American Political Ideas_, N. Y., 1885.

Gomme's _Literature of Local Institutions_, London, 1886,

contains an extensive bibliography of the subject, with valuable

critical notes and comments.

CHAPTER III.

THE COUNTY.

Section 1. _The County in its Beginnings._

It is now time for us to treat of the county, and we may as well begin

by considering its origin. In treating of the township we began by

sketching it in its fullest development, as seen in New England. With.

the county we shall find it helpful to pursue a different method and

start at the beginning.

If we look at the maps of the states which make up our Union, we see

that they are all divided into counties (except that in Louisiana the

corresponding divisions are named parishes). The map of England shows

that country as similarly divided into counties.

[Sidenote: Why do we have counties?]

If we ask why this is so, some people will tell us that it is

convenient, for purposes of administration, to have a state, or a

kingdom, divided into areas that are larger than single towns. There

is much truth in this. It is convenient. If it were not so, counties

would not have survived, so as to make a part of our modern maps.

Nevertheless, this is not the historic reason why we have the

particular kind of subdivisions known as counties. We have them

because our fathers and grandfathers had them; and thus, if we would

find out the true reason, we may as well go back to the ancient times

when our forefathers were establishing themselves in England.

[Sidenote: Clans and tribes.]

We have seen how the clan of our barbarous ancestors, when it became

stationary, was established as the town or township. But in those early

times _clans_ were generally united more or less closely into _tribes_.

Among all primitive or barbarous races of men, so far as we can make

out, society is organized in tribes, and each tribe is made up of a

number of clans or family groups. Now when our English forefathers

conquered Britain they settled there as clans and also as tribes. The

clans became townships, and the tribes became shires or counties; that

is to say, the names were applied first to the people and afterwards to

the land they occupied. A few of the oldest county names in England

still show this plainly. _Essex_, _Middlesex_, and _Sussex_ were

originally "East Saxons," "Middle Saxons," and "South Saxons;" and on

the eastern coast two tribes of Angles were distinguished as "North

folk" and "South folk," or _Norfolk_ and _Suffolk_. When you look on the

map and see the town of _Icklinghiam_ in the county of _Suffolk_, it

means that this place was once known as the "home" of the "Icklings" or

"children of Ickel," a clan which formed part of the tribe of "South

folk."

[Sidenote: The English nation, like the American, grew out of the

union of small states.]

In those days there was no such thing as a Kingdom of England; there

were only these groups of tribes living side by side. Each tribe had its

leader, whose title was _ealdorman_ or "elder man." [1] After a while, as

some tribes increased in size and power, their ealdormen took the title

of kings. The little kingdoms coincided sometimes with a single shire,

sometimes with two or more shires. Thus there was a kingdom of Kent, and

the North and South Folk were combined in a kingdom of East Anglia. In

course of time numbers of shires combined into larger kingdoms, such as

Northumbria, Mercia, and the West Saxons; and finally the king of the

West Saxons became king of all England, and the several _shires_ became

subordinate parts or "shares" of the kingdom. In England, therefore, the

shires are older than the nation. The shires were not made by dividing

the nation, but the nation was made by uniting the shires. The English

nation, like the American, grew out of the union of little states that

had once been independent of one another, but had many interests in

common. For not less than three hundred years after all England had been

united under one king, these shires retained their self-government

almost as completely as the several states of the American Union.[2] A

few words about their government will not be wasted, for they will help

to throw light upon some things that still form a part of our political

and social life.

[Footnote 1: The pronunciation, was probably something like yáwl-dor-man.]

[Footnote 2: Chalmers, _Local Government_, p. 90.]

[Sidenote: Shire-mote, ealdorman, and sheriff.]

The shire was governed by the _shire-mote_ (i.e. "meeting"),

which was a representative body. Lords of lands, including abbots and

priors, attended it, as well as the reeve and four selected men

from each township. There were thus the germs of both the kind of

representation that is seen in the House of Lords and the much more

perfect kind that is seen in the House of Commons. After a while,

as cities and boroughs grew in importance, they sent representative

burghers to the shire-mote. There were two presiding officers; one was

the _ealdorman_, who was now appointed by the king; the other was

the _shire-reeve_ (i.e. "sheriff"), who was still elected by the

people and generally held office for life.

[Sidenote: The county court.]

This shire-mote was both a legislative body and a court of justice. It

not only made laws for the shire, but it tried civil and criminal

causes. After the Norman Conquest some changes occurred. The shire now

began to be called by the French name "county," because of its analogy

to the small pieces of territory on the Continent that were governed by

"counts." [3] The shire-mote became known as the county court, but cases

coming before it were tried by the king's _justices in eyre_, or circuit

judges, who went about from county to county to preside over the

judicial work. The office of ealdorman became extinct. The sheriff was

no longer elected by the people for life, but appointed by the king for

the term of one year. This kept him strictly responsible to the king. It

was the sheriff's duty to see that the county's share of the national

taxes was duly collected and paid over to the national treasury. The

sheriff also summoned juries and enforced the judgments of the courts,

and if he met with resistance in so doing he was authorized to call out

a force of men, known as the _posse comitatus_ (i.e. power of the

county), and overcome all opposition. Another county officer was the

_coroner_, or crowner_,[4] so called because originally (in Alfred's

time) he was appointed by the king, and was especially the crown officer

in the county. Since the time of Edward I., however, coroners have been

elected by the people. Originally coroners held small courts of inquiry

upon cases of wreckage, destructive fires, or sudden death, but in

course of time their jurisdiction became confined to the last-named

class of cases. If a death occurred under circumstances in any way

mysterious or likely to awaken suspicion, it was the business of the

coroner, assisted by not less than twelve _jurors_ (i. e, "sworn men"),

to hold an _inquest_ for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death.

The coroner could compel the attendance of witnesses and order a medical

examination of the body, and if there were sufficient evidence to charge

any person with murder or manslaughter, the coroner could have such

person arrested and committed for trial.

[Footnote 3: Originally _comites_, or "companions" of the king.]

[Footnote 4: This form of the word, sometimes supposed to be a vulgarism,

is as correct as the other. See Skeat, _Etym_. Dict., s.v.]

[Sidenote: Justices of the peace.]

[Sidenote: The Quarter sessions.]

[Sidenote: The lord-lieutenant.]

Another important county officer was the _justice of the peace_.

Originally six were appointed by the crown in each county, but in

later times any number might be appointed. The office was created by a

series of statutes in the reign of Edward III., in order to put a stop

to the brigandage which still flourished in England; it was a common

practice for robbers to seize persons and hold them for ransom.[5] By

the last of these statutes, in 1362, the justices of the peace in each

county were to hold a court four times in the year. The powers of this

court, which came to be known as the Quarter Sessions, were from time

to time increased by act of parliament, until it quite supplanted the

old county court. In modern times the Quarter Sessions has become

an administrative body quite as much as a court. The justices, who

receive no salary, hold office for life, or during good behaviour.

They appoint the chief constable of the county, who appoints the

police. They also take part in the supervision of highways and

bridges, asylums and prisons. Since the reign of Henry VIII., the

English county has had an officer known as the lord-lieutenant, who

was once leader of the county militia, but whose functions to-day are

those of keeper of the records and principal justice of the peace.

[Footnote 5: Longman's _Life and Times of Edward III._, vol. i.

p. 301.]

[Sidenote: Beginnings of Massachusetts counties.]

During the past five hundred years the English county has gradually

sunk from a self-governing community into an administrative district;

and in recent times its boundaries have been so crossed and

crisscrossed with those of other administrative areas, such as those

of school-boards, sanitary boards, etc., that very little of the old

county is left in recognizable shape. Most of this change has been

effected since the Tudor period. The first English settlers in America

were familiar with the county as a district for the administration of

justice, and they brought with them coroners, sheriffs, and quarter

sessions. In 1635 the General Court of Massachusetts appointed four

towns--Boston, Cambridge, Salem, and Ipswich--as places where courts

should be held quarterly. In 1643 the colony, which then included

as much of New Hampshire as was settled, was divided into four

"shires,"--Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Norfolk, the latter lying

then to the northward and including the New Hampshire towns. The

militia was then organized, perhaps without consciousness of the

analogy, after a very old English fashion; the militia of each town

formed a company, and the companies of the shire formed a regiment.

The county was organized from the beginning as a judicial district,

with its court-house, jail, and sheriff. After 1697 the court, held by

the justices of the peace, was called the Court of General Sessions.

It could try criminal causes not involving the penalty of death or

banishment, and civil causes in which the value at stake was less than

forty shillings. It also had control over highways going from town to

town; and it apportioned the county taxes among the several towns.

The justices and sheriff were appointed by the governor, as in England

by the king.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. Why do we have counties in the United States? Contrast the popular

reason with the historic.

2. What relation did the tribe hold to the clan among our ancestors?

3. In time what did the clans and the tribes severally become?

4. Show how old county names in England throw light on the

county development.

5. Trace the growth of the English nation in accordance with

the following outline:--

a. Each tribe and its leader,

b. A powerful tribe and its leader.

c. The relation of a little kingdom to the shire.

d. The final union under one king.

e. The relative ages of the shire and the nation.

6. Give an account (1) of the shire-mote, (2) of the two kinds

of representation in it, (3) of its presiding officers, and

(4) of its two kinds of duties.

7. Let the pupil make written analyses or outlines of the following

topics, to be used by him in presenting the topics

orally, or to be passed in to the teacher:--

a. What changes took place in the government of the shire

after the Norman Conquest?

b. Trace the development of the coroner's office.

c. Give an account of the justices of the peace and the courts

held by them.

d. Show what applications the English settlers in Massachusetts made of

their knowledge of the English county.

Section 2. The Modern County in Massachusetts.

The modern county system of Massachusetts may now be very briefly

described. The county, like the town, is a corporation; it can hold

property and sue or be sued. It builds the court-house and jail, and

keeps them in repair. The town in which these buildings are placed is

called, as in England, the shire town.

[Sidenote: County commissioners.]

In each county there are three commissioners, elected by the people.

Their term of service is three years, and one goes out each year.

These commissioners represent the county in law-suits, as the

selectmen represent the town. They "apportion the county taxes among

the towns;" "lay out, alter, and discontinue highways within the

county;" "have charge of houses of correction;" and erect and keep in

repair the county buildings.[6]

[Footnote 6: Martin's _Civil Government_, p. 197.]

[Sidenote: County treasurer.]

The revenues of the county are derived partly from taxation and partly

from the payment of fines and costs in the courts. These revenues are

received and disbursed by the county treasurer, who is elected by the

people for a term of three years.

[Sidenote: Courts.]

The Superior Court of the state holds at least two sessions annually

in each county, and tries civil and criminal causes. There is also

in each county a probate court with jurisdiction over all matters

relating to wills, administration of estates, and appointment of

guardians; it also acts as a court of insolvency. The custody of wills

and documents relating to the business of this court is in the hands

of an officer known as the register of probate, who is elected by the

people for a term of five years.

[Sidenote: Shire town and court-house.]

To preserve the records of all land-titles and transfers of land

within the county, all deeds and mortgages are registered in an

office in the shire town, usually within or attached to the court The

register of deeds is an officer elected by the people for a term of

three years. In counties where there is much business there may be

more than one.

[Sidenote: Justices of the peace.]

Justices of the peace are appointed by the governor for a term of seven

years, and the appointment may be renewed. Their functions have been

greatly curtailed, and now amount to little more than administering

oaths, and in some cases issuing warrants and taking bail. They may join

persons in marriage, and, when specially commissioned as "trial

justices," have criminal jurisdiction over sundry petty offences.

[Sidenote: The Sheriff.]

The sheriff is elected by the people for a term of three years. He may

appoint deputies, for whom he is responsible, to assist him in his

work. He must attend all county courts, and the meetings of the county

commissioners whenever required. He must inflict, either personally

or by deputy, the sentence of the court, whether it be fine,

imprisonment, or death. He is responsible for the preservation of the

peace within the county, and to this end must pursue criminals and may

arrest disorderly persons. If he meets with resistance he may call out

the _posse comitatus_; if the resistance grows into insurrection

he may apply to the governor and obtain the aid of the state militia;

if the insurrection proves too formidable to be thus dealt with, the

governor may in his behalf apply to the president of the United States

for aid from the regular army. In this way the force that may be

drawn upon, if necessary, for the suppression of disorder in a single

locality, is practically unlimited and irresistible.

We have now obtained a clear outline view of the township and county in

themselves and in their relation to one another, with an occasional

glimpse of their relation to the state; in so far, at least, as such a

view can be gained from a reference to the history of England and of

Massachusetts. We must next trace the development of local government in

other parts of the United States; and in doing so we can advance at

somewhat quicker pace, not because our subject becomes in any wise less

important or less interesting, but because we have already marked out

the ground and said things of general application which will not need to

be said over again.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

Give an account of the modern county in Massachusetts under

the following heads:--

1. The county a corporation.

2. The county commissioners and their duties.

3. The county treasurer and his duties.

4. The courts held in a county.

5. The shire town and the court-house.

6. The register of deeds and his duties.

7. Justices of the peace and trial justices.

8. The sheriff and his duties.

9. The force at the sheriff's disposal to suppress disorder.

Section 3. _The Old Virginia County._

By common consent of historians, the two most distinctive and most

characteristic lines of development which English forms of government

have followed, in propagating themselves throughout the United States,

are the two lines that have led through New England on the one hand

and through Virginia on the other. We have seen what shape local

government assumed in New England; let us now observe what shape it

assumed in the Old Dominion.

[Sidenote: Virginia sparsely settled.]

The first point to be noticed in the early settlement of Virginia is

that people did not live so near together as in New England. This was

because tobacco, cultivated on large estates, was a source of wealth.

Tobacco drew settlers to Virginia as in later days gold drew settlers

to California and sparsely Australia. They came not in organized

groups or congregations, but as a multitude of individuals. Land

was granted to individuals, and sometimes these grants were of

enormous extent. John Bolling, who died in 1757, left an estate of

40,000 acres, and this is not mentioned as an extraordinary amount of

land for one man to own.[7] From an early period it was customary

to keep these great estates together by entailing them, and this

continued until entails were abolished in 1776 through the influence

of Thomas Jefferson.

[Footnote 7: Edward Channing, "Town and County Government," in

_Johns Hopkins University Studies_, vol. ii. p. 467.]

[Sidenote: Absence of towns.]

A glance at the map of Virginia shows to what a remarkable degree it

is intersected by navigable rivers. This fact made it possible for

plantations, even at a long distance from the coast, to have each its

own private wharf, where a ship from England could unload its cargo of

tools, cloth, or furniture, and receive a cargo of tobacco in return.

As the planters were thus supplied with most of the necessaries of

life, there was no occasion for the kind of trade that builds up

towns. Even in comparatively recent times the development of town life

in Virginia has been very slow. In 1880, out of 246 cities and towns

in the United States with a population exceeding 10,000, there were

only six in Virginia.

[Sidenote: Slavery]

The cultivation of tobacco upon large estates caused a great demand for

cheap labour, and this was supplied partly by bringing negro slaves from

Africa, partly by bringing criminals from English jails. The latter were

sold into slavery for a limited term of years, and were known as

"indentured white servants." So great was the demand for labour that it

became customary to kidnap poor friendless wretches on the streets of

seaport towns in England and ship them off to Virginia to be sold into

servitude. At first these white servants were more numerous than the

negroes, but before the end of the seventeenth century the blacks had

come to be much the more numerous.

[Sidenote: Social position of settlers.]

In this rural community the owners of plantations came from the same

classes of society as the settlers of New England; they were for the

most part country squires and yeomen. But while in New England there

was no lower class or society sharply marked off from the upper, on

the other hand in Virginia there was an insurmountable distinction

between the owners of plantations and the so-called "mean whites" or

"white trash." This class was originally formed of men and women

who had been indentured white servants, and was increased by such

shiftless people as now and then found their way to the colony, but

could not win estates or obtain social recognition. With such a

sharp division between classes, an aristocratic type of society was

developed in Virginia as naturally as a democratic type was developed

in New England.

[Sidenote: Virginia parishes.]

[Sidenote: The vestry of a close corporation.]

In Virginia there were no town-meetings. The distances between

plantations cooperated with the distinction between classes to prevent

the growth of such an institution. The English parish, with its

churchwardens and vestry and clerk, was reproduced in Virginia under

the same name, but with some noteworthy peculiarities. If the whole

body of ratepayers had assembled in vestry meeting, to enact by-laws

and assess taxes, the course of development would have been like that

of the New England town-meeting. But instead of this the vestry, which

exercised the chief authority in the parish, was composed of twelve

chosen men. This was not government by a primary assembly, it was

representative government. At first the twelve vestrymen were elected

by the people of the parish, and thus resembled the selectmen of

New England; but after a while "they obtained the power of filling

vacancies in their own number," so that they became what is called a

"close corporation," and the people had nothing to do with choosing

them. Strictly speaking, that was not representative government; it

was a step on the road that leads towards oligarchical or despotic

government.

[Sidenote: Powers of the vestry.]

It was the vestry, thus constituted, that apportioned the parish

taxes, appointed the churchwardens, presented the minister for

induction into office, and acted as overseers of the poor. The

minister presided in all vestry meetings. His salary was paid in

tobacco, and in 1696 it was fixed by law at 16,000 pounds of tobacco

yearly. In many parishes the churchwardens were the collectors of the

parish taxes. The other officers, such as the sexton and the parish

clerk, were appointed either by the minister or by the vestry.

With the local government thus administered, we see that the larger

part of the people had little directly to do. Nevertheless in these

small neighbourhoods government was in full sight of the people. Its

proceedings went on in broad daylight and were sustained by public

sentiment. As Jefferson said, "The vestrymen are usually the most

discreet farmers, so distributed through the parish that every part of

it may be under the immediate eye of some one of them. They are well

acquainted with the details and economy of private life, and they

find sufficient inducements to execute their charge well, in their

philanthropy, in the approbation of their neighbours, and the

distinction which that gives them." [8]

[Footnote 8: See Howard, _Local Constitutional History of the United

States_, vol. i. p. 122.]

[Sidenote: The county was the unit of representation.]

The difference, however, between the New England township and the

Virginia parish, in respect of self-government, was striking enough.

We have now to note a further difference. In New England, as we have

seen, the township was the unit of representation in the colonial

legislature; but in Virginia the parish was not the unit of

representation. The county was that unit. In the colonial legislature

of Virginia the representatives sat not for parishes, but for

counties. The difference is very significant. As the political life of

New England was in a manner built up out of the political life of

the towns, so the political life of Virginia was built up out of the

political life of the counties. This was partly because the vast

plantations were not grouped about a compact village nucleus like the

small farms at the North, and partly because there was not in Virginia

that Puritan theory of the church according to which each congregation

is a self-governing democracy. The conditions which made the New

England town-meeting were absent. The only alternative was some kind

of representative government, and for this the county was a small

enough area. The county in Virginia was much smaller than in

Massachusetts or Connecticut. In a few instances the county consisted

of only a single parish; in some cases it was divided into two

parishes, but oftener into three or more.

[Sidenote: The county court was virtually a close corporation.]

In Virginia, as in England and in New England, the county was an area

for the administration of justice. There were usually in each county

eight justices of the peace, and their court was the counterpart of

the Quarter Sessions in England. They were appointed by the governor,

but it was customary for them to nominate candidates for the governor

to appoint, so that practically the court filled its own vacancies and

was a close corporation, like the parish vestry. Such an arrangement

tended to keep the general supervision and control of things in the

hands of a few families.

This county court usually met as often as once a month in some

convenient spot answering to the shire town of England or New England.

More often than not the place originally consisted of the court-house

and very little else, and was named accordingly from the name of the

county, as Hanover Court House or Fairfax Court House; and the small

shire towns that have grown up in such spots often retain these names

to the present day. Such names occur commonly in Virginia, West

Virginia, and South Carolina, very rarely in Kentucky, North Carolina,

Alabama, Ohio, and nowhere else in the United States.[9] Their number

has diminished from the tendency to omit the phrase "Court House,"

leaving the name of the county for that of the shire town, as for

example in Culpeper, Va. In New England the process of naming has been

just the reverse; as in Hartford County, Conn., or Worcester County,

Mass., which have taken their names from the shire towns. In this,

as in so many cases, whole chapters of history are wrapped up in

geographical names.[10]

[Footnote 9: In Mitchell's Atlas, 1883, the number of cases is in Va.

38, W. Va. 13, S. C. 16, N. C. 2, Ala. 1, Ky. 1, Ohio, 1.]

[Footnote 10: A few of the oldest Virginia counties, organized as

such in 1634, had arisen from the spreading and thinning of single

settlements originally intended to be cities and named accordingly.

Hence the curious names (at first sight unintelligible) of "James City

County," and "Charles City County."]

[Sidenote: Powers of the court]

The county court in Virginia had jurisdiction in criminal actions not

involving peril of life or limb, and in civil suits where the sum at

stake exceeded twenty-five shillings. Smaller suits could be tried

by a single justice. The court also had charge of the probate and

administration of wills. The court appointed its own clerk, who kept

the county records. It superintended the construction and repair of

bridges and highways, and for this purpose divided the county into

"precincts," and appointed annually for each precinct a highway

surveyor. The court also seems to have appointed constables, one for

each precinct. The justices could themselves act as coroners, but

annually two or more coroners for each parish were appointed by the

governor. As we have seen that the parish taxes--so much for salaries

of minister and clerk, so much for care of church buildings, so much

for relief of the poor, etc.--were computed and assessed by the

vestry; so the county taxes, for care of court-house and jail, roads

and bridges, coroner's fees, and allowances to the representatives

sent to the colonial legislature, were computed and assessed by the

county court. The general taxes for the colony were estimated by a

committee of the legislature, as well as the county's share of the

colony tax.

[Sidenote: The sheriff.]

The taxes for the county, and sometimes the taxes for the parish also,

were collected by the sheriff. They were usually paid, not in money,

but in tobacco; and the sheriff was the custodian of this tobacco,

responsible for its proper disposal. The sheriff was thus not only

the officer for executing the judgments of the court, but he was also

county treasurer and collector, and thus exercised powers almost as

great as those of the sheriff in England in the twelfth century. He

also presided over elections for representatives to the legislature.

It is interesting to observe how this very important officer was

chosen. "Each year the court presented the names of three of its

members to the governor, who appointed one, generally the senior

justice, to be the sheriff of the county for the ensuing year." [11]

Here again we see this close corporation, the county court, keeping

the control of things within its own hands.

[Footnote 11: Edward Channing, _op. cit_. p. 478.]

[Sidenote: The county lieutenant]

One other important county officer needs to be mentioned. We have seen

that in early New England each town had its train-band or company of

militia, and that the companies in each county united to form the

county regiment. In Virginia it was just the other way. Each county

raised a certain number of troops, and because it was not convenient

for the men to go many miles from home in assembling for purposes of

drill, the county was subdivided into military districts, each with

its company, according to rules laid down by the governor. The

military command in each county was vested in the county lieutenant,

an officer answering in many respects to the lord lieutenant of

the English shire at that period. Usually he was a member of the

governor's council, and as such exercised sundry judicial functions.

He bore the honorary title of "colonel," and was to some extent

regarded as the governor's deputy; but in later times his duties were

confined entirely to military matters.[12]

[Footnote 12: For an excellent account of local government in Virginia

before the Revolution, see Howard, _Local Const. Hist. of the U.S._,

vol. i. pp. 388-407; also Edward Ingle in _Johns Hopkins Univ.

Studies_, III., ii.-iii.]

If now we sum up the contrasts between local government in Virginia

and that in New England, we observe:--

1. That in New England the management of local affairs was mostly in the

hands of town officers, the county being superadded for certain

purposes, chiefly judicial; while in Virginia the management was chiefly

in the hands of county officers, though certain functions, chiefly

ecclesiastical, were reserved to the parish.

2. That in New England the local magistrates were almost always, with

the exception of justices, chosen by the people; while in Virginia,

though some of them were nominally appointed by the governor, yet in

practice they generally contrived to appoint themselves--in other

words the local boards practically filled their own vacancies and were

self-perpetuating.

[Sidenote: Jefferson's opinion of township government.]

These differences are striking and profound. There can be no doubt

that, as Thomas Jefferson clearly saw, in the long run the interests

of political liberty are much safer under the New England system

than under the Virginia system. Jefferson said, "Those wards,

called townships in New England, are the vital principle of their

governments, and have proved themselves the wisest invention ever

devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government,

and for its preservation[13]....As Cato, then, concluded every speech

with the words _Carthago delenda est_, so do I every opinion with

the injunction: Divide the counties into wards!" [14]

[Footnote 13: Jefferson's _Works_, vii. 13.]

[Footnote 14: _Id_., vi. 544]

[Sidenote: "Court Day."]

We must, however, avoid the mistake of making too much of this contrast.

As already hinted, in those rural societies where people generally knew

one another, its effects were not so far-reaching as they would be in

the more complicated society of to-day. Even though Virginia had not the

town-meeting, it had its familiar court-day, which was a holiday for

all the country-side, especially in the fall and spring. From all

directions came in the people on horseback, in wagons, and afoot. On the

court-house green assembled, in indiscriminate confusion, people of all

classes,--the hunter from the backwoods, the owner of a few acres, the

grand proprietor, and the grinning, heedless negro. Old debts were

settled, and new ones made; there were auctions, transfers of property,

and, if election times were near, stump-speaking.[15]

[Sidenote: Virginia prolific in great leaders.]

For seventy years or more before the Declaration of Independence the

matters of general public concern, about which stump speeches were made

on Virginia court-days, were very similar to those that were discussed

in Massachusetts town-meetings when representatives were to be chosen

for the legislature. Such questions generally related to some real or

alleged encroachment upon popular liberties by the royal governor, who,

being appointed and sent from beyond sea, was apt to have ideas and

purposes of his own that conflicted with those of the people. This

perpetual antagonism to the governor, who represented British imperial

interference with American local self-government, was an excellent

schooling in political liberty, alike for Virginia and for

Massachusetts. When the stress of the Revolution came, these two leading

colonies cordially supported each other, and their political

characteristics were reflected in the kind of achievements for which

each was especially distinguished. The Virginia system, concentrating

the administration of local affairs in the hands of a few county

families, was eminently favourable for developing skilful and vigorous

leadership. And while in the history of Massachusetts during the

Revolution we are chiefly impressed with the wonderful degree in which

the mass of the people exhibited the kind of political training that

nothing in the world except the habit of parliamentary discussion can

impart; on the other hand, Virginia at that time gave us--in Washington,

Jefferson, Henry, Madison, and Marshall, to mention no others--such a

group of consummate leaders as the world has seldom seen equalled.

[Footnote 15: Ingle, _loc. cit._]

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. Why was Virginia more sparsely settled than Massachusetts?

2. Why was it that towns were built up more slowly in Virginia than in

Massachusetts?

3. How was the great demand for labour in Virginia met?

4. What distinction of classes naturally arose?

5. Contrast the type of society thus developed in Virginia with that

developed in New England.

6. Compare the Virginia parish in its earlier government with the

English parish from which it was naturally copied.

7. Show how the vestry became a close corporation.

8. Who were usually chosen as vestrymen, and what were their powers?

9. Compare Virginia's unit of representation in the colonial

legislature with that of Massachusetts, and give the reason for the

difference.

10. Describe the county court, showing in particular how it became a

close corporation.

11. Bring out some of the history wrapped up in the names of county

seats.

12. What were the chief powers of the county court?

13. Describe the assessment of the various taxes.

14. What were the sheriff's duties?

15. Describe the organization and command of the militia in each

county.

16. Sum up the differences between local government in Virginia and

that in New England (1) as to the management of local affairs and (2)

as to the choice of local officers.

17. What did Jefferson think of the principle of township government?

18. What was the equivalent in Virginia of the New England

town-meeting?

19. What was the value of this frequent assembling?

20. What schooling in political liberty before the Revolution did

Virginia and Massachusetts alike have?

21. What was an impressive feature of the New England system?

22. What was an impressive feature of the Virginia system?

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.

1. How many counties are there in your state?

2. Name and place them if the number is small.

3. In what county do you live?

4. Give its dimensions. Are they satisfactory? Why?

5. Give its boundaries.

6. Is there anything interesting in the meaning or origin of its name?

7. How many towns and cities does it contain?

8. What is the county seat? Is it conveniently situated? Reasons for

thinking so?

9. If convenient, visit any county building, note the uses to which it

is put, and report such facts as may be thus found out.

10. Obtain a deed, no matter how old, and answer these questions about

it:--

a. Is it recorded? If so, where?

b. Would it be easy for you to find

the record?

c. Why should such a record be kept?

d. What officer

has charge of such records?

e. What sort of work must he and his

assistants do?

f. The place of such records is called what?

g. What sort of facilities for the public should such a place have? What

safety precautions should be observed there?

h. Why should the county

keep such records rather than the city or the town?

i. Is there a record of the deed by which the preceding owner came into

possession of the property?

j. What sort of title did the first owner have? Is

there any record of it? Was the first owner Indian or European?

(The teacher might obtain a deed and base a class exercise upon it. It

is easy with a deed for a text to lead pupils to see the common-sense

basis of an important county institution, and thereafter to give very

sensible views as to what it should be, even if it is not fully known

what it is.)

11. Is there a local court for your town or city? 12. How do its cases

compare in magnitude with those tried at the county seat?

13. If a man steals and is prosecuted, who becomes the plaintiff?

14. If a man owes and is sued for debt, who becomes the plaintiff?

15. What is a criminal action?

16. What is a civil action?

17. What is the result to the defendant in the former case, if he is

convicted?

18. What is the result to the defendant in the latter case, if the

decision is against him?

19. Is lying a crime or a sin? May it ever become a crime?

20. Are courts of any service to the vast numbers who are never

brought before them? Why?

21. May good citizens always keep out of the courts if they choose? Is

it their duty always to keep out of them?

22. Is there any aversion among people that you know to being brought

before the courts? Why?

23. What is the purpose of a jail? Is this purpose realized in fact?

24. Should a disturbance of a serious nature break out in your town,

whose immediate duty would it be to quell it? Suppose this duty should

prove too difficult to perform, then what?

25. What is the attitude of good citizenship towards officers who are

trying to enforce the laws? What is the attitude of good citizenship

if the laws are not satisfactory or if the officers are indiscreet in

enforcing them?

26. Suppose a man of property dies and leaves a will, what troubles

are possible about the disposal of his property? Suppose he leaves no

will, what troubles are possible? Whose duty is it to exercise control

over such matters and hold people up to legal and honourable conduct

in them?

27. What is an executor? What is an administrator?

28. If parents die, whose duty is it to care for their children? If

property is left to such children, are they free to use it as they

please? What has the county to do with such cases?

29. How much does your town or city contribute towards county

expenses? How does this amount compare with that raised by other towns

in the county?

30. Give the organization of your county government.

31. Would it be better for the towns to do themselves the work now

done for them by the county?

* * * * *

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

Section 1. THE COUNTY IN ITS BEGINNINGS. This subject is treated in

connection with the township in several of the books above mentioned.

See especially Howard, _Local Const. Hist._

Section 2. THE MODERN COUNTY IN MASSACHUSETTS. There is a good account

in Martin's _Text Book_ above mentioned.

Section 3. THE OLD VIRGINIA COUNTY. The best account is in _J.H.U.

Studies_, III., ii.-iii. Edward Ingle, _Virginia Local Institutions._

In dealing with the questions on page 69, both teachers and pupils

will find Dole's _Talks about Law_ (Boston, 1887) extremely

valuable and helpful.

CHAPTER IV.

TOWNSHIP AND COUNTY.

Section 1. _Various Local Systems_.

We have now completed our outline sketch of town and county government

as illustrated in New England on the one hand and in Virginia on the

other. There are some important points in the early history of local

government in other portions of the original thirteen states, to

which we must next call attention; and then we shall be prepared to

understand the manner in which our great western country has been

organized under civil government. We must first say something about

South Carolina and Maryland.

[Sidenote: Parishes in South Carolina.]

South Carolina was settled from half a century to a century later

than Massachusetts and Virginia, and by two distinct streams of

immigration. The lowlands near the coast were settled by Englishmen

and by French Huguenots, but the form of government was purely

English. There were parishes, as in Virginia, but popular election

played a greater part in them. The vestrymen were elected yearly by

all the taxpayers of the parish. The minister was also elected by his

people, and after 1719 each parish sent its representatives to the

colonial legislature, though in a few instances two parishes were

joined together for the purpose of choosing representatives. The

system was thus more democratic than in Virginia; and in this

connection it is worth while to observe that parochial libraries and

free schools were established as early as 1712, much earlier than in

Virginia.

[Sidenote: The back country]

During the first half of the eighteenth century a very different stream

of immigration, coming mostly along the slope of the Alleghanies from

Virginia and Pennsylvania, and consisting in great part of Germans,

Scotch Highlanders, and Scotch-Irish, peopled the upland western regions

of South Carolina. For some time this territory had scarcely any civil

organization. It was a kind of "wild West." There were as yet no

counties in the colony. There was just one sheriff for the whole colony,

who "held his office by patent from the crown." [1] A court sat in

Charleston, but the arm of justice was hardly long enough to reach

offenders in the mountains. "To punish a horse-thief or prosecute a

debtor one was sometimes compelled to travel a distance of several

hundred miles, and be subjected to all the dangers and delays incident

to a wild country." When people cannot get justice in what in civilized

countries is the regular way, they will get it in some irregular way. So

these mountaineers began to form themselves into bands known as

"regulators," quite like the "vigilance committees" formed for the same

purposes in California a hundred years later. For thieves and murderers

the "regulators" provided a speedy trial, and the nearest tree served as

a gallows.

[Footnote 1: B. J. Ramage, in _Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies_, I., xii.]

[Sidenote: The district system.]

In order to put a stop to this lynch law, the legislature in 1768

divided the back country into districts, each with its sheriff and

court-house, and the judges were sent on circuit through these

districts. The upland region with its districts was thus very

differently organized from the lowland region with its parishes, and the

effect was for a while almost like dividing South Carolina into two

states. At first the districts were not allowed to choose their own

sheriffs, but in course of time they acquired this privilege. It was

difficult to apportion the representation in the state legislature so as

to balance evenly the districts in the west against the parishes in the

east, and accordingly there was much dissatisfaction, especially in the

west which did not get its fair share. In 1786 the capital was moved

from Charleston to Columbia as a concession to the back country, and in

1808 a kind of compromise was effected, in such wise that the uplands

secured a permanent majority in the house of representatives, while the

lowlands retained control of the senate. The two sections had each its

separate state treasurer, and this kind of double government lasted

until the Civil War.

[Sidenote: The modern South Carolina county.]

At the close of the war "the parishes were abolished and the district

system was extended to the low country." But soon afterward, by the

new constitution of 1868, the districts were abolished and the state

was divided into 34 counties, each of which sends one senator to the

state senate, while they send representatives in proportion to

their population. In each county the people elect three county

commissioners, a school commissioner, a sheriff, a judge of probate,

a clerk, and a coroner. In one respect the South Carolina county is

quite peculiar: it has no organization for judicial purposes. "The

counties, like their institutional predecessor the district, are

grouped into judicial circuits, and a judge is elected by the

legislature for each circuit. Trial justices are appointed by the

governor for a term of two years."

[Sidenote: The counties are too large.]

This system, like the simple county system everywhere, is a

representative system; the people take no direct part in the

management of affairs. In one respect it seems obviously to need

amendment. In states where county government has grown up naturally,

after the Virginia fashion, the county is apt to be much smaller than

in states where it is simply a district embracing several township

governments. Thus the average size of a county in Massachusetts is 557

square miles, and in Connecticut 594 square miles; but in Virginia

it is only 383 and in Kentucky 307 square miles. In South Carolina,

however, where the county did not grow up of itself, but has been

enacted, so to speak, by a kind of afterthought, it has been made too

large altogether. The average area of the county in South Carolina is

about 1,000 square miles. Charleston County, more than 40 miles in

length and not less than 35 in average width, is larger than the

state of Rhode Island. Such an area is much too extensive for

local self-government. Its different portions are too far apart to

understand each other's local wants, or to act efficiently toward

supplying them; and roads, bridges, and free schools suffer

accordingly. An unsuccessful attempt has been made to reduce the size

of the counties. But what seems perhaps more likely to happen is the

practical division of the counties into school districts, and the

gradual development of these school districts into something like

self-governing townships. To this very interesting point we shall

again have occasion to refer.

[Sidenote: The _hundred_ in Maryland.]

[Sidenote: Clans, brotherhoods, and tribes]

We come now to Maryland. The early history of local institutions in

this state is a fascinating subject of study. None of the American

colonies had a more distinctive character of its own, or reproduced

old English usages in a more curious fashion. There was much in

colonial Maryland, with its lords of the manor, its bailiffs and

seneschals, its courts baron and courts leet, to remind one of the

England of the thirteenth century. But of these ancient institutions,

long since extinct, there is but one that needs to be mentioned in the

present connection. In Maryland the earliest form of civil community

was called, not a parish or township, but a _hundred_. This

curious designation is often met with in English history, and the

institution which it describes, though now almost everywhere extinct,

was once almost universal among men. It will be remembered that the

oldest form of civil society, which is still to be found among some

barbarous races, was that in which families were organized into clans

and clans into tribes; and we saw that among our forefathers in

England the dwelling-place of the clan became the township, and the

home of the tribe became the shire or county. Now, in nearly all

primitive societies that have been studied, we find a group that is

larger than the clan but smaller than the tribe,--or, in other words,

intermediate between clan and tribe. Scholars usually call this group

by its Greek name, _phratry_ or "brotherhood", for it was known

long ago that in ancient Greece clans were grouped into brotherhoods

and brotherhoods into tribes. Among uncivilized people all over the

world we find this kind of grouping. For example, a tribe of North

American Indians is regularly made up of phratries, and the phratries

are made up of clans; and, strange as it might at first seem, a good

many half-understood features of early Greek and Roman society have

had much light thrown upon them from the study of the usages of

Cherokees and Mohawks.

Wherever men have been placed, the problem of forming civil society

has been in its main outlines the same; and in its earlier stages it

has been approached in pretty much the same way by all.

[Sidenote: The hundred court.]

The ancient Romans had the brotherhood, and called it a _curia_.

The Roman people were organized in clans, curies, and tribes. But for

military purposes the curia was called a _century_, because

it furnished a quota of one hundred men to the army. The word

_century_ originally meant a company of a hundred men, and it was

only by a figure of speech that it afterward came to mean a period

of a hundred years. Now among all Germanic peoples, including the

English, the brotherhood seems to have been called the hundred.

Our English forefathers seem to have been organized, like other

barbarians, in clans, brotherhoods, and tribes; and the brotherhood

was in some way connected with the furnishing a hundred warriors to

the host. In the tenth century we find England covered with small

districts known as hundreds. Several townships together made a

hundred, and several hundreds together made a shire. The hundred

was chiefly notable as the smallest area for the administration of

justice. The hundred court was a representative body, composed of the

lords of lands or their stewards, with the reeve and four selected men

and the parish priest from each township. There was a chief magistrate

for the hundred, known originally as the hundredman, but after the

Norman conquest as the high constable.

[Sidenote: Decay of the hundred.]

[Sidenote: Hundred meetings in Maryland]

By the thirteenth century the importance of the hundred had much

diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between township

and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of the hundred were

gradually absorbed by the county. Almost everywhere in England, by the

reign of Elizabeth, the hundred had fallen into decay. It is curious

that its name and some of its peculiarities should have been brought

to America, and should in one state have remained to the present day.

Some of the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but

they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name soon

became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see, for example,

Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred flourished and became the

political unit, like the township in New England. The hundred was the

militia district, and the district for the assessment of taxes. In the

earliest times it was also the representative district; delegates

to the colonial legislature sat for hundreds. But in 1654 this was

changed, and representatives were elected by counties. The officers

of the Maryland hundred were the high constable, the commander of

militia, the tobacco-viewer, the overseer of roads, and the assessor

of taxes. The last-mentioned officer was elected by the people, the

others were all appointed by the governor. The hundred had also its

assembly of all the people, which was in many respects like the New

England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings enacted by-laws, levied

taxes, appointed committees, and often exhibited a vigorous political

life. But after the Revolution they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the

hundred became extinct in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up

in that of the county.

[Sidenote: The hundred in Delaware]

[Sidenote: The levy court, or representative county assembly.]

In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this day. There it

is simply an imperfectly developed township, but its relations with

the county, as they have stood with but little change since 1743,

are very interesting. Each hundred used to choose its own assessor

of taxes, and every year in the month of November the assessors from

all the hundreds used to meet in the county court-house, along with

three or more justices of the peace and eight grand jurors, and assess

the taxes for the ensuing year. A month later they assembled again,

to hear complaints from persons who considered themselves overtaxed;

and having disposed of this business, they proceeded to appoint

collectors, one for each hundred. This county assembly was known as

the "court of levy and appeal," or more briefly as the levy court.

It appointed the county treasurer, the road commissioners, and the

overseers of the poor. Since 1793 the levy court has been composed

of special commissioners chosen by popular vote, but its essential

character has not been altered. As a thoroughly representative body,

it reminds one of the county courts of the Plantagenet period.

[Sidenote: The old Pennsylvania county.]

We next come to the great middle colonies, Pennsylvania and New York.

The most noteworthy feature of local government in Pennsylvania was

the general election of county officers by popular vote. The county

was the unit of representation in the colonial legislature, and on

election days the people of the county elected at the same time their

sheriffs, coroners, assessors, and county commissioners. In this

respect Pennsylvania furnished a model which has been followed by most

of the states since the Revolution, as regards the county governments.

It is also to be noted that before the Revolution, as Pennsylvania

increased in population, the townships began to participate in the

work of government, each township choosing its overseers of the poor,

highway surveyors, and inspectors of elections.[3]

[Footnote 3: Town-meetings were not quite unknown in Pennsylvania;

see W. P. Holcomb, "Pennsylvania Boroughs," _J. H. U. Studies_,

IV., iv.]

[Sidenote: Town-meetings in New York.]

[Sidenote: The county board of supervisors.]

New York had from the very beginning the rudiments of an excellent

system of local self-government. The Dutch villages had their

assemblies, which under the English rule were developed into

town-meetings, though with less ample powers than those of New

England. The governing body of the New York town consisted of the

constable and eight overseers, who answered in most respects to the

selectmen of New England. Four of the overseers were elected each year

in town-meeting, and one of the retiring overseers was at the same

time elected constable. In course of time the elective offices came

to include assessors and collectors, town clerk, highway surveyors,

fence-viewers, pound-masters, and overseers of the poor. At first

the town-meetings seem to have been held only for the election of

officers, but they acquired to a limited extent the power of levying

taxes and enacting by-laws. In 1703 a law was passed requiring each

town to elect yearly an officer to be known as the "supervisor," whose

duty was "to compute, ascertain, examine, oversee, and allow the

contingent, publick, and necessary charges" of the county.[4] For

this purpose the supervisors met once a year at the county town. The

principle was the same as that of the levy court in Delaware. This

board of supervisors was a strictly representative government, and

formed a strong contrast to the close corporation by which county

affairs were administered in Virginia. The New York system is

of especial interest, because it has powerfully influenced the

development of local institutions throughout the Northwest.

[Footnote 4: Howard, _Local Const. Hist_., i. 111.]

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. Describe the early local government of eastern South Carolina.

2. Describe the early local government of western South Carolina.

3. Explain the difference.

4. What effort was made in 1768 to put a stop to lynch law?

5. What difficulties arose from the attempted adjustment of

1768?

6. What compromises were made between the two sections

down to the time of the Civil War?

7. What changes have been made in local government since the

Civil War?

8. Mention a peculiarity of the South Carolina county.

9. Compare its size with that of counties in other states.

10. What disadvantage is due to this great size?

11. What was the earliest form of civil community in Maryland,

and from what source did it come?

12. Trace the development of the hundred in accordance with

the following outline:--

a. Intermediate groups between clans and tribes.

b. Illustrations from Greece and the North American Indians.

c. The Roman century and the German hundred.

13. Describe the English hundred in the tenth century.

14. Describe the hundred court.

15. Describe the Maryland hundred and its decay.

16. What is the relation of the Delaware hundred to the county?

17. Describe the Delaware levy court.

18. What were the prominent features of the Pennsylvania

county?

19. Compare the town-meetings of New York with those of New

England.

20. What was the government of the New York county?

21. How did this government compare with that of the Virginia county?

Section 2. _Settlement of the Public Domain._

[Sidenote: Westward movement of population.]

The westward movement of population in the United States has for the

most part followed the parallels of latitude. Thus Virginians and

North Carolinians, crossing the Alleghanies, settled Kentucky and

Tennessee; thus people from New England filled up the central and

northern parts of New York, and passed on into Michigan and Wisconsin;

thus Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois received many settlers from New York

and Pennsylvania. In the early times when Kentucky was settled, the

pioneer would select a piece of land wherever he liked, and after

having a rude survey made, and the limits marked by "blazing" the

trees with a hatchet, the survey would be put on record in the state

land-office. So little care was taken that half a dozen patents would

sometimes be given for the same tract. Pieces of land, of all shapes

and sizes, lay between the patents.... Such a system naturally begat

no end of litigation, and there remain in Kentucky curious vestiges of

it to this day. [5]

[Footnote 5: Hinsdale, _Old Northwest_, p. 261.]

[Sidenote: Method of surveying the public lands.]

[Sidenote: Origins of Western townships.]

In order to avoid such confusion in the settlement of the territory

north of the Ohio river, Congress passed the land-ordinance of 1785,

which was based chiefly upon the suggestions of Thomas Jefferson, and

laid the foundation of our simple and excellent system for surveying

national lands. According to this system as gradually perfected, the

government surveyors first mark out a north and south line which is

called the _principal meridian_. Twenty-four such meridians have been

established. The first was the dividing line between Ohio and Indiana;

the last one runs through Oregon a little to the west of Portland. On

each side of the principal meridian there are marked off subordinate

meridians called _range [6] Then a true parallel of latitude is drawn,

crossing these meridians at right angles. It is called the _base line_,

or standard parallel. Eleven such base lines, for example, run across

the great state of Oregon. Finally, on each side of the base line are

drawn subordinate parallels called _township lines_, six miles apart,

and numbered north and south from their base line. By these range lines

and township lines the whole land is thus divided into townships just

six miles square, and the townships are all numbered. Take, for example,

the township of Deerfield in Michigan. That is the fourth township north

of the base line, and it is in the fifth range east of the first

principal meridian. It would be called township number 4 north range 5

east, and was so called before it was settled and received a name.

Evidently one must go 24 miles from the principal meridian, or 18 miles

from the base line, in order to enter this township. It is all as simple

as the numbering of streets in Philadelphia.[7]

[Footnote 6: The following is a diagram of the first principal meridian,

and of the base line running across southern Michigan. A B is the

principal meridian; C D is the base line. The figures on the base line

mark the range lines; the figures on the principal meridian mark the

township lines. E is township 4 north in range 5 east; F is township 5

south in range 4 west; G is township 3 north in range 3 west.

[Illustration] As the intervals between meridians diminish as we go

northward, it is sometimes necessary to introduce a correction line, the

nature of which will be seen from the following diagram:--

[Illustration: DIAGRAM OF CORRECTION LINE.]]

[Footnote 7: In Philadelphia the streets for the most part cross each

other at right angles and at equal distances, so that the city is laid

out like a checkerboard. The parallel streets running in one direction

have names, often taken from trees. Market Street is the central

street from which the others are reckoned in both directions according

to the couplet

"Market, Arch, Race, and Vine,

Chestnut, Walnut, Spruce, and Pine," etc.

The cross streets are not named but numbered, as First, Second, etc.

The houses on one side of the street have odd numbers and on the other

side even numbers, as is the general custom in the United States. With

each new block a new century of numbers begins, although there are

seldom more than forty real numbers in a block. For example, the

corner house on Market Street, just above Fifteenth, is 1501 Market

Street. At somewhere about 1535 or 1539 you come to Sixteenth Street;

then there is a break in the numbering, and the next corner house is

1601. So in going along a numbered street, say Fifteenth, from Market,

the first number will be 1; after passing Arch, 101; after passing

Race, 201, etc. With this system a very slight familiarity with the

city enables one to find his way to any house, and to estimate the

length of time needful for reaching it. St. Louis and some other large

cities have adopted the Philadelphia plan, the convenience of which

is as great as its monotony. In Washington the streets running in

one direction are lettered A, B, C, etc., and the cross streets are

numbered; and upon the checkerboard plan is superposed another plan in

which broad avenues radiate in various directions from the Capitol,

and a few other centres. These avenues cut through the square system

of streets in all directions, so that instead of the dull checkerboard

monotony there is an almost endless variety of magnificent vistas.]

[Sidenote: and of Western counties.]

If now we look at Livingston County, in which, this township of Deerfield

is situated, we observe that the county is made up of sixteen townships,

in four rows of four; and the next county, Washtenaw, is made up of

twenty townships, in five rows of four. Maps of our Western states

are thus apt to have somewhat of a checkerboard aspect, not unlike

the wonderful country which Alice visited after she had gone through

the looking-glass. Square townships are apt to make square or

rectangular counties, and the state, too, is likely to acquire a more

symmetrical shape.

Nothing could be more unlike the jagged, irregular shape of counties

in Virginia or townships in Massachusetts, which grew up just as it

happened. The contrast is similar to that between Chicago, with its

straight streets crossing at right angles, and Boston, or London, with

their labyrinths of crooked lanes. For picturesqueness the advantage

is entirely with the irregular city, but for practical convenience it

is quite the other way. So with our western lands the simplicity and

regularity of the system have made it a marvel of convenience for the

settlers, and doubtless have had much to do with the rapidity with

which civil governments have been built up in the West. "This fact,"

says a recent writer, "will be appreciated by those who know from

experience the ease and certainty with which the pioneer on the

great plains of Kansas, Nebraska, or Dakota is enabled to select his

homestead or 'locate his claim' unaided by the expensive skill of the

surveyor." [8]

[Footnote 8: Howard, _Local Const. Hist. of U. S._, vol. i. p.

139.]

[Sidenote: Some effects of the system.]

There was more in it than this, however. There was a germ of

organization planted in these western townships, which must be noted

as of great importance. Each township, being six miles in length and

six miles in breadth, was divided into thirty-six numbered sections,

each containing just one square mile, or 640 acres. Each section,

moreover, was divided into 16 tracts of 40 acres each, and sales to

settlers were and are generally made by tracts at the rate of a dollar

and a quarter per acre. For fifty dollars a man may buy forty acres of

unsettled land, provided he will actually go and settle upon it, and

this has proved to be a very effective inducement for enterprising

young men to "go West." Many a tract thus bought for fifty dollars has

turned out to be a soil upon which princely fortunes have grown. A

tract of forty acres represents to-day in Chicago or Minneapolis an

amount of wealth difficult for the imagination to grasp.

[Sidenote: The reservation for public schools.]

[Sidenote: In this reservation there were the germs of township

government.]

But in each of these townships there was at least one section which

was set apart for a special purpose. This was usually the sixteenth

section, nearly in the centre of the township; and sometimes the

thirty-sixth section, in the southeast corner, was also reserved.

These reservations were for the support of public schools. Whatever

money was earned, by selling the land or otherwise, in these sections,

was to be devoted to school purposes. This was a most remarkable

provision. No other nation has ever made a gift for schools on so

magnificent a scale. We have good reason for taking pride in such a

liberal provision. But we ought not to forget that all national

gifts really involve taxation, and this is no exception to the rule,

although in this case it is not a taking of money, but a keeping of it

back. The national government says to the local government, whatever

revenues may come from that section of 640 acres, be they great or

small, be it a spot in a rural grazing district, or a spot in some

crowded city, are not to go into the pockets of individual men and

women, but are to be reserved for public purposes. This is a case of

disguised taxation, and may serve to remind us of what was said some

time ago, that a government _cannot_ give anything without in one

way or another depriving individuals of its equivalent. No man can sit

on a camp-stool and by any amount of tugging at that camp-stool lift

himself over a fence. Whatever is given comes from somewhere,

and whatever is given by governments comes from the people. This

reservation of one square mile in every township for purposes of

education has already most profoundly influenced the development of

local government in our western states, and in the near future its

effects are likely to become still deeper and wider. To mark out a

township on the map may mean very little, but when once you create in

that township some institution that needs to be cared for, you have

made a long stride toward inaugurating township government. When

a state, as for instance Illinois, grows up after the method just

described, what can be more natural than for it to make the township a

body corporate for school purposes, and to authorize its inhabitants

to elect school officers and tax themselves, so far as may be

necessary, for the support of the schools? But the school-house,

in the centre of the township, is soon found to be useful for many

purposes. It is convenient to go there to vote for state officers or

for congressmen and president, and so the school township becomes an

election district. Having once established such a centre, it is almost

inevitable that it should sooner or later be made to serve sundry

other purposes, and become an area for the election of constables,

justices of the peace, highway surveyors, and overseers of the poor.

In this way a vigorous township government tends to grow up about the

school-house as a nucleus, somewhat as in early New England it grew up

about the church.

[Sidenote: At first the county system prevailed.]

This tendency may be observed in almost all the western states and

territories, even to the Pacific coast. When the western country was

first settled, representative county government prevailed almost

everywhere. This was partly because the earliest settlers of the West

came in much greater numbers from the middle and southern states than

from New England. It was also partly because, so long as the country

was thinly settled, the number of people in a township was very small,

and it was not easy to have a government smaller than that of the

county. It was something, however, that the little squares on the

map, by grouping which the counties were made, were already called

townships. There is much in a name. It was still more important that

these townships were only six miles square; for that made it sure

that, in due course of time, when population should have become dense

enough, they would be convenient areas for establishing township

government.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. What feature is conspicuous in the westward movement of population

in the United States?

2. What looseness characterized early surveys in Kentucky?

3. What led to the passage of the land ordinance of 1785?

4. Give the leading features of the government survey of western

lands:--_a_. The principal meridians.

b. The range lines,

c. The base lines.

d. The township lines.

5. Illustrate the application of the system in the case of a town.

6. Contrast in shape western townships and counties with corresponding

divisions in Massachusetts and Virginia.

7. Contrast them in convenience and in picturesqueness.

8. What had the convenience of the government system to do with the

settlement of the West?

9. What were the divisions of the township, and what disposition was

made of them?

10. What important reservations were made in the townships?

11. Show how these reservations involved a kind of taxation.

12. What profound influence has the reservation for schools exerted

upon local government?

13. Why did the county system prevail at first?

Section 3. _The Representative Township-County System in the

West_.

[Sidenote: The town-meeting in Michigan.] The first western state to

adopt the town-meeting was Michigan, where the great majority of the

settlers had come from New England, or from central New York, which

was a kind of westward extension of New England.[9] Counties were

established in Michigan Territory in 1805, and townships were first

incorporated in 1825. This was twelve years before Michigan became a

state. At first the powers of the town-meeting were narrowly

limited. It elected the town and county officers, but its power of

appropriating money seems to have been restricted to the purpose

of extirpating noxious animals and weeds. In 1827, however, it was

authorized to raise money for the support of schools, and since then

its powers have steadily increased, until now they approach those of

the town-meeting in Massachusetts.

[Footnote 9: "Of the 496 members of the Michigan Pioneer Association

in 1881, 407 are from these sections" [New England and New York].

Bemis, _Local Government in Michigan and the Northwest_, J. H. U.

Studies, I., v]

[Sidenote: Settlement of Illinois.]

The history of Illinois presents an extremely interesting example of

rivalry and conflict between the town system of New England and the

county system of the South. Observe that this great state is so long

that, while the parallel of latitude starting from its northern

boundary runs through Marblehead in Massachusetts, the parallel

through its southernmost point, at Cairo, runs a little south of

Petersburg in Virginia. In 1818, when Illinois framed its state

government and was admitted to the Union, its population was chiefly

in the southern half, and composed for the most part of pioneers from

Virginia and Virginia's daughter-state Kentucky. These men brought

with them the old Virginia county system, but with the very great

difference that the county officers were not appointed by the

governor, or allowed to be a self-perpetuating board, but were elected

by the people of the county. This was a true advance in the democratic

direction, but an essential defect of the southern system remained in

the absence of any kind of local meeting for the discussion of public

affairs and the enactment of local laws.

[Sidenote: Effects of the Ordinance of 1787.]

By the famous Ordinance of 1787, to which we shall again have occasion

to refer, negro slavery had been forever prohibited to the north of

the Ohio river, so that, in spite of the wishes of her early settlers,

Illinois was obliged to enter the Union as a free state. But in 1820

Missouri was admitted as a slave state, and this turned the stream of

southern migration aside from Illinois to Missouri. These emigrants,

to whom slaveholding was a mark of social distinction, preferred to

go where they could own slaves. About the same time settlers from New

England and New York, moving along the southern border of Michigan

and the northern borders of Ohio and Indiana, began pouring into

the northern part of Illinois. These new-comers did not find the

representative county system adequate for their needs, and they

demanded township government. A memorable political struggle ensued

between the northern and southern halves of the state, ending in 1848

with the adoption of a new constitution. It was provided that the

legislature should enact a general law for the political organization

of townships, under which any county might act whenever a majority of

its voters should so determine.[10] This was introducing the principle

of local option, and in accordance therewith township governments with

town-meetings were at once introduced in the northern counties of the

state, while the southern counties kept on in the old way. Now comes

the most interesting part of the story. The two systems being thus

brought into immediate contact in the same state, with free choice

between them left to the people, the northern system has slowly but

steadily supplanted the southern system, until at the present day only

one fifth part of the counties in Illinois remain without township

government.

[Footnote 10: Shaw, _Local Government if Illinois_, J. H. U.

Studies, I., iii.]

[Sidenote: Intense vitality of the township system.]

This example shows the intense vitality of the township system. It is

the kind of government that people are sure to prefer when they

have tried it under favourable conditions. In the West the hostile

conditions against which it has to contend are either the recent

existence of negro slavery and the ingrained prejudice in favour of

the Virginia method, as in Missouri; or simply the sparseness of

population, as in Nebraska. Time will evidently remove the latter

obstacle, and probably the former also. It is very significant that in

Missouri, which began so lately as 1879 to erect township governments

under a local option law similar to that of Illinois, the process

has already extended over about one sixth part of the state; and in

Nebraska, where the same process began in 1883, it has covered nearly

one third of the organized counties of the state.

[Sidenote: County option and township option.]

The principle of local option as to government has been carried still

farther in Minnesota and Dakota. The method just described may be

called county option; the question is decided by a majority vote of

the people of the county. But in Minnesota in 1878 it was enacted that

as soon as any one of the little square townships in that state should

contain as many as twenty-five legal voters, it might petition the

board of county commissioners and obtain a township organization, even

though, the adjacent townships in the same county should remain under

county government only. Five years later the same provision was

adopted by Dakota, and under it township government is steadily

spreading.

[Sidenote: Grades of township government.]

Two distinct grades of township government are to be observed in the

states west of the Alleghanies; the one has the town-meeting for

deliberative purposes, the other has not. In Ohio and Indiana, which

derived their local institutions largely from Pennsylvania, there is

no such town-meeting, the administrative offices are more or less

concentrated in a board of trustees, and the town is quite subordinate

to the county. The principal features of this system have been

reproduced in Iowa, Missouri, and Kansas.

The other system, was that which we have seen beginning in

Michigan, under the influence of New York and New England. Here the

town-meeting, with legislative powers, is always present. The most

noticeable feature of the Michigan system is the relation between

township and county, which was taken from New York. The county board

is composed of the supervisors of the several townships, and thus

represents the townships. It is the same in Illinois. It is held

by some writers that this is the most perfect form of local

government,[11] but on the other hand the objection is made that county

boards thus constituted are too large.[12] We have seen that in the

states in question there are not less than 16, and sometimes more than

20, townships in each county. In a board of 16 or 20 members it is

hard to fasten responsibility upon anybody in particular; and thus

it becomes possible to have "combinations," and to indulge in that

exchange of favours known as "log-rolling," which is one of the

besetting sins of all large representative bodies. Responsibility

is more concentrated in the smaller county boards of Massachusetts,

Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

[Footnote 11: Howard, _Local Const. Hist._, passim.]

[Footnote 12: Bemis, _Local Government in Michigan_, J. H. U.

Studies, I., v.]

[Sidenote: An excellent result of the absence of centralization in the

United States.]

It is one signal merit of the peaceful and untrammelled way in which

American institutions have grown up, the widest possible scope being

allowed to individual and local preferences, that different states

adopt different methods of attaining the great end at which all are

aiming in common,--good government. One part of our vast country can

profit by the experience of other parts, and if any system or method

thus comes to prevail everywhere in the long run, it is likely to

be by reason of its intrinsic excellence. Our country affords an

admirable field for the study of the general principles which lie at

the foundations of universal history. Governments, large and small,

are growing up all about us, and in such wise that we can watch

the processes of growth, and learn lessons which, after making due

allowances for difference of circumstance, are very helpful in the

study of other times and countries.

The general tendency toward the spread of township government in the

more recently settled parts of the United States is unmistakable, and

I have already remarked upon the influence of the public school system

in aiding this tendency. The school district, as a preparation for

the self-governing township, is already exerting its influence in

Colorado, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and

Washington.

[Sidenote: Township government is germinating in the South.]

Something similar is going on in the southern states, as already

hinted in the case of South Carolina. Local taxation for school

purposes has also been established in Kentucky and Tennessee, in both

Virginias, and elsewhere. There has thus begun a most natural and

wholesome movement, which might easily be checked, with disastrous

results, by the injudicious appropriation of national revenue for

the aid of southern schools. It is to be hoped that throughout the

southern, states, as formerly in Michigan, the self-governing school

district may prepare the way for the self-governing township, with its

deliberative town-meeting. Such a growth must needs be slow, inasmuch

as it requires long political training on the part of the negroes and

the lower classes of white people; but it is along such a line of

development that such political training can best be acquired; and in

no other way is complete harmony between the two races so likely to be

secured.

[Sidenote: woman suffrage.]

Dr. Edward Bemis, who in a profoundly interesting essay[13] has called

attention to this function of the school district as a stage in the

evolution of the township, remarks also upon the fact that "it is in

the local government of the school district that woman suffrage is

being tried." In several states women may vote for school committees,

or may be elected to school committees, or to sundry administrative

school offices. At present (1894) there are not less than twenty-one

states in which women have school suffrage. In Colorado and Wyoming

women have full suffrage, voting at municipal, state, and

national elections. In Kansas they have municipal suffrage, and a

constitutional amendment granting them full suffrage is now awaiting

ratification. In England, it may be observed, unmarried women and

widows who pay taxes vote not only on school matters, but generally in

the local elections of vestries, boroughs, and poor-law unions. In

the new Parish Councils Bill this municipal suffrage is extended

to married women. In the Isle of Man women vote for members of

Parliament. In Australia they have long had municipal suffrage, and in

1893 they were endowed with full rights of suffrage in New Zealand.

[Footnote 13: Local Government in Michigan and the Northwest, J.H.U.

Studies, I., v.]

The historical reason why the suffrage has so generally been

restricted to men is perhaps to be sought in the conditions under

which voting originated. In primeval times voting was probably adopted

as a substitute for fighting. The smaller and presumably weaker party

yielded to the larger without an actual trial of physical strength;

heads were counted instead of being broken. Accordingly it was only

the warriors who became voters. The restriction of political activity

to men has also probably been emphasized by the fact that all the

higher civilizations have passed through a well-defined patriarchal

stage of society in which each household was represented by its

oldest warrior. From present indications it would seem that under the

conditions of modern industrial society the arrangements that have so

long subsisted are likely to be very essentially altered.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. Describe the origin and development of the town-meeting in

Michigan.

2. Describe the settling of southern Illinois.

3. Describe the settling of northern Illinois.

4. What difference in thought and feeling existed between these

sections?

5. What systems of local government came into rivalry in Illinois, and

why?

6. What compromise between them was put into the state constitution?

7. Which system, the town or the county, has shown the greater

vitality, and why?

8. What obstacles has the town system to work against?

9. Show how the principle of local option in government has been

applied in Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Dakota.

10. What two grades of town government exist west of the Alleghanies?

11. What objection exists to large county boards of government?

12. Why is our country an excellent field for the study of the

principles of government?

13. What unmistakable tendency in the ease of township government is

noticeable?

14. Speak of township government in the South.

15. What part have women in the affairs of the school district in many

states?

16. What is the historical reason why suffrage has been restricted to

men?

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.

It may need to be repeated (see page 12) that it is not expected

that each pupil shall answer all the miscellaneous questions put, or

respond to all the suggestions made in this book. Indeed, the teacher

may be pardoned if now and then he finds it difficult himself to

answer a question,--particularly if it is framed to provoke thought

rather than lead to a conclusion, or if it is better fitted for some

other community or part of the country than that in which he lives.

Let him therefore divide the questions among his pupils, or assign to

them selected questions. In cases that call for special knowledge,

let the topics go to pupils who may have exceptional facilities for

information at home.

The important point is not so much the settlement of all the questions

proposed as it is the encouragement of the inquiring and thinking spirit

on the part of the pupil.

1. What impression do you get from this chapter about the hold of town

government upon popular favour?

2. What do you regard as the best features of town government?

3. Is there any tendency anywhere to divide towns into smaller towns? If

it exists, illustrate and explain it.

4. Is there any tendency anywhere to unite towns into larger towns or

into cities? If it exists, illustrate and explain it.

5. In every town-meeting there are leaders,--usually men of character,

ability, and means. Do you understand that these men practically have

their own way in town affairs,--that the voters as a whole do but little

more than fall in with the wishes and plans of their leaders? Or is

there considerable independence in thought and action on the side of the

voters?

6. Can a town do what it pleases, or is it limited in its action? If

limited, by whom or by what is it restricted, and where are the

restrictions recorded? (Consult the Statutes.)

7. Why should the majority rule in town-meeting? Suggest, if possible, a

better way.

8. Is it, on the whole, wise that the vote of the poor man shall count

as much as that of the rich, the vote of the ignorant as much as that of

the intelligent, the vote of the unprincipled as much as that of the

high-toned?

9. Have the poor, the ignorant, or the unprincipled any interests to be

regarded in government?

10. Is the single vote a man casts the full measure of his influence and

power in the town-meeting?

11. What are the objections to a suffrage restricted by property and

intellectual qualifications? To a suffrage unrestricted by such

qualifications?

12. Do women vote in your town? If so, give some account of their voting

and of the success or popularity of the plan.

13. Is lynch law ever justifiable?

14. Ought those who resort to lynch law to be punished? If so, for what?

15. Compare the condition or government of a community where lynch law

is resorted to with the condition or government of a community where it

is unknown.

16. May the citizen who is not an officer of the law interfere (1) to

stop the fighting of boys in the public streets, (2) to capture a thief

who is plying his trade, (3) to defend a person who is brutally

assaulted? Is there anything like lynch law i.e. such interference? Where

does the citizen's duty begin and end In such cases?

17. How came the United States to own the public domain or any part of

it? (Consult my _Critical Period of Amer. Hist_., pp. 187-207.)

18. How does this domain get into the possession of individuals?

19. Is it right for the United States to give any part of it away? If

right, under what conditions is it right? If wrong, under what

conditions is It wrong?

20. What is the "homestead act" of the United States, and what is its

object?

21. Can perfect squares of the same size be laid out with the range and

township lines of the public surveys? Are all the sections of a township

of the same size? Explain.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

Section 1. VARIOUS LOCAL SYSTEMS.--_J.H.V. Studies_, I., vi.,

Edward Ingle, _Parish Institutions of Maryland_; I., vii., John

Johnson, _Old Maryland Manors_; I., xii., B.J. Ramage, _Local

Government and Free Schools in South Carolina_; III., v.-vii., L.

W. Wilhelm, _Local Institutions of Maryland_; IV., i., Irving

Elting, _Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson River_.

Section 2. SETTLEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.--_J. H. U. Studies_,

III., i. H. B. Adams, _Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to

the United States_; IV., vii.-ix., Shoshuke Sato, _History of the

Land Question in the United States_.

Section 3. THE REPRESENTATIVE TOWNSHIP-COUNTY SYSTEM.--_J H. U.

Studies_, I., iii., Albert Shaw, _Local Government in Illinois_; I., v.,

Edward Bemis, _Local Government in Michigan and the Northwest_; II.,

vii., Jesse Macy, _Institutional Beginnings in a Western State (Iowa)_.

For farther illustration of one set of institutions supervening upon

another, see also V., v.-vi., J. G. Bourinot, _Local Government in

Canada_; VIII., in., D. E. Spencer, _Local Government in Wisconsin_.

CHAPTER V.

THE CITY.

Section 1. _Direct and Indirect Government_.

[Sidenote: Summary of foregoing results.]

In the foregoing survey of local institutions and their growth, we

have had occasion to compare and sometimes to contrast two different

methods of government as exemplified on the one hand in the township

and on the other hand in the county. In the former we have direct

government by a primary assembly,[1] the town-meeting; in the latter

we have indirect government by a representative board. If the county

board, as in colonial Virginia, perpetuates itself, or is appointed

otherwise than by popular vote, it is not strictly a representative

board, in the modern sense of the phrase; the government is a kind of

oligarchy. If, as in colonial Pennsylvania, and in the United States

generally to-day, the county board consists of officers elected by

the people, the county government is a representative democracy. The

township government, on the other hand, as exemplified in New England

and in the northwestern states which have adopted it, is a pure

democracy. The latter, as we have observed, has one signal advantage

over all other kinds of government, in so far as it tends to make

every man feel that the business of government is part of his own

business, and that where he has a stake in the management of public

affairs he has also a voice. When people have got into the habit of

leaving local affairs to be managed by representative boards, their

active interest in local affairs is liable to be somewhat weakened, as

all energies in this world are weakened, from want of exercise. When

some fit subject of complaint is brought up, the individual is too apt

to feel that it is none of his business to furnish a remedy, let the

proper officers look after it. He can vote at elections, which is a

power; he can perhaps make a stir in the newspapers, which is also a

power; but personal participation in town-meeting is likewise a

power, the necessary loss of which, as we pass to wider spheres of

government, is unquestionably to be regretted.

[Footnote 1: A primary assembly is one in which the members attend of

their own right, without having been elected to it; a representative

assembly is composed of elected delegates.]

[Sidenote: Direct government impossible in a county.]

Nevertheless the loss is inevitable. A primary assembly of all the

inhabitants of a county, for purposes of local government, is out

of the question. There must be representative government, for this

purpose the county system, an inheritance from the ancient English

shire, has furnished the needful machinery. Our county government is

near enough to the people to be kept in general from gross abuses of

power. There are many points which can be much better decided in

small representative bodies than in large miscellaneous meetings. The

responsibility of our local boards has been fairly well preserved. The

county system has had no mean share in keeping alive the spirit of

local independence and self-government among our people. As regards

efficiency of administration, it has achieved commendable success,

except in the matter of rural highways; and if our roads are worse

than those of any other civilized country, that is due not so much

to imperfect administrative methods as to other causes,--such as the

sparseness of population, the fierce extremes of sunshine and frost,

and the fact that since this huge country began to be reclaimed from

the wilderness, the average voter, who has not travelled in Europe,

knows no more about good roads than he knows about the temples of

Paestum or the pictures of Tintoretto, and therefore does not realize

what demands he may reasonably make.

This last consideration applies in some degree, no doubt, to the

ill-paved and filthy streets which are the first things to arrest

one's attention in most of our great cities. It is time for us now to

consider briefly our general system of city government, in its origin

and in some of its most important features.

[Sidenote: The Boston town-meeting in 1820.]

Representative government in counties is necessitated by the extent of

territory covered; in cities it is necessitated by the multitude

of people. When the town comes to have a very large population, it

becomes physically impossible to have town-meetings. No way could be

devised by which all the taxpayers of the city of New York could be

assembled for discussion. In 1820 the population of Boston was about

40,000, of whom rather more than 7,000 were voters qualified to attend

the town-meetings. Consequently when a town-meeting was held on any

exciting subject in Faneuil Hall, those only who obtained places near

the moderator could even hear the discussion. A few busy or interested

individuals easily obtained the management of the most important

affairs in an assembly in which the greater number could have neither

voice nor hearing. When the subject was not generally exciting,

town-meetings were usually composed of the selectmen, the town

officers, and thirty or forty inhabitants. Those who thus came were

for the most part drawn to it from some official duty or private

interest, which, when performed or attained, they generally troubled

themselves but little, or not at all, about the other business of the

meeting.[2]

[Footnote 2: Quincy's _Municipal History of Boston_, p. 28.]

Under these circumstances it was found necessary in 1822 to drop

the town-meeting altogether and devise a new form of government for

Boston. After various plans had been suggested and discussed, it was

decided that the new government should be vested in a Mayor; a select

council of eight persons to be called the Board of Aldermen; and a

Common Council of forty-eight persons, four from each of twelve wards

into which the city was to be divided. All these officials were to be

elected by the people. At the same time the official name "Town of

Boston" was changed to "City of Boston."

[Sidenote: Distinctions between towns and cities.]

There is more or less of history involved in these offices and

designations, to which we may devote a few words of explanation. In

New England local usage there is an ambiguity in the word "town."

As an official designation it means the inhabitants of a township

considered as a community or corporate body. In common parlance it

often means the patch of land constituting the township on the map, as

when we say that Squire Brown's elm is "the biggest tree in town." But

it still oftener means a collection of streets, houses, and families

too large to be called a village, but without the municipal government

that characterizes a city. Sometimes it is used _par excellence_

for a city, as when an inhabitant of Cambridge, itself a large

suburban city, speaks of going to Boston as going "into town." But

such cases are of course mere survivals from the time when the suburb

was a village. In American usage generally the town is something

between village and city, a kind of inferior or incomplete city. The

image which it calls up in the mind is of something urban and not

rural. This agrees substantially with the usage in European history,

where "town" ordinarily means a walled town or city as contrasted with

a village. In England the word is used either in this general sense,

or more specifically as signifying an inferior city, as in America.

But the thing which the town lacks, as compared with the complete

city, is very different in America from what it is in England. In

America it is municipal government--with mayor, aldermen, and common

council--which must be added to the town in order to make it a city.

In England the town may (and usually does) have this municipal

government; but it is not distinguished by the Latin name "city"

unless it has a cathedral and a bishop. Or in other words the English

city is, or has been, the capital of a diocese. Other towns in England

are distinguished as "boroughs," an old Teutonic word which was

originally applied to towns as _fortified_ places.[3] The voting

inhabitants of an English city are called "citizens;" those of

a borough are called "burgesses." Thus the official corporate

designation of Cambridge is "the mayor, aldermen, and _burgesses_

of Cambridge;" but Oxford is the seat of a bishopric, and its

corporate designation is "the mayor, aldermen, and _citizens_ of

Oxford."

[Footnote 3: The word appears in many town names, such as

_Edinburgh, Scarborough, Canterbury, Bury St. Edmunds_; and

on the Continent, as _Hamburg, Cherbourg, Burgos_, etc. In

Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, the name

"borough" is applied to a certain class of municipalities with some of

the powers of cities.]

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. What is the essential difference between township government

and county government?

2. What is the distinct advantage of the former?

3. Why is direct government impossible in the county?

4. Speak of the degree of efficiency in county government.

5. Why is direct government impossible in a city?

6. What difficulties in direct government were experienced in

Boston in 1820 and many years preceding?

7. What remedy for these difficulties was adopted?

8. Show how the word "town" is used to indicate

a. The land of a township.

b. A somewhat large collection of streets, houses, and families.

c. And even, in some instances, a city.

9. What is the town commonly understood to be in American

usage?

10. What is the difference in the United States between a town

and a city?

11. What is the difference in England between a town and a

city?

12. Distinguish between citizens and burgesses in England.

Section 2. _Origin of English Boroughs and Cities_.

[Sidenote: "Chesters."]

[Sidenote: Coalescence of towns to fortified boroughs.]

What, then, was the origin of the English borough or city? In the days

when Roman legions occupied for a long time certain military stations in

Britain, their camps were apt to become centres of trade and thus to

grow into cities. Such places were generally known as _casters_ or

_chesters_, from the Latin _castra_, "camp," and there are many of them

on the map of England to-day. But these were exceptional cases. As a

rule the origin of the borough was as purely English as its name. We

have seen that the town was originally the dwelling-place of a

stationary clan, surrounded by palisades or by a dense quickset hedge.

Now where such small enclosed places were thinly scattered about they

developed simply into villages. But where, through the development of

trade or any other cause, a good many of them grew up close together

within a narrow compass, they gradually coalesced into a kind of

compound town; and with the greater population and greater wealth, there

was naturally more elaborate and permanent fortification than that of

the palisaded village. There were massive walls and frowning turrets,

and the place came to be called a fortress or "borough." The borough,

then, was simply several townships packed tightly together; a hundred

smaller in extent and thicker in population than other hundreds.[4]

[Footnote 4: Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, vol. v. p. 466. For a

description of the _hundred_, see above, pp. 75-80.]

[Sidenote: The borough as a hundred.]

From this compact and composite character of the borough came several

important results. We have seen that the hundred was the smallest area

for the administration of justice. The township was in many respects

self-governing, but it did not have its court, any more than the New

England township of the present day has its court. The lowest court

was that of the hundred, but as the borough was equivalent to a

hundred it soon came to have its own court. And although much

obscurity still surrounds the early history of municipal government in

England, it is probable that this court was a representative board,

like any other hundred court, and that the relation of the borough to

its constituent townships resembled the relation of the modern city to

its constituent wards.

[Sidenote: The borough as a county.]

But now as certain boroughs grew larger and annexed outlying

townships, or acquired adjacent territory which presently became

covered with streets and houses, their constitution became still more

complex. The borough came to embrace several closely packed hundreds,

and thus became analogous to a shire. In this way it gained for itself

a sheriff and the equivalent of a county court. For example, under the

charter granted by Henry I. in 1101, London was expressly recognized

as a county by itself. Its burgesses could elect their own chief

magistrate, who was called the port-reeve, inasmuch as London is a

seaport; in some other towns he was called the borough-reeve. He was

at once the chief executive officer and the chief judge. The burgesses

could also elect their sheriff, although in all rural counties Henry's

father, William the Conqueror, had lately deprived the people of

this privilege and appointed the sheriffs himself. London had its

representative board, or council, which was the equivalent of a county

court. Each ward, moreover, had its own representative board, which

was the equivalent of a hundred court. Within the wards, or hundreds,

the burgesses were grouped together in township, parish, or manor....

Into the civic organization of London, to whose special privileges

all lesser cities were ever striving to attain, the elements of local

administration embodied in the township, the hundred, and the shire

thus entered as component parts.[5] Constitutionally, therefore,

London was a little world in itself, and in a less degree the same was

true of other cities and boroughs which afterwards obtained the same

kind of organization, as for example, York and Newcastle, Lincoln and

Norwich, Southampton and Bristol.

[Footnote 5: Hannis Taylor, _Origin and Growth of the English

Constitution_, vol. i. p. 458.]

[Sidenote: The guilds.]

[Sidenote: mayor, aldermen, and common council.]

In such boroughs or cities all classes of society were brought into

close contact,--barons and knights, priests and monks, merchants and

craftsmen, free labourers and serfs. But trades and manufactures,

which always had so much to do with the growth of the city, acquired

the chief power and the control of the government. From an early

period tradesmen and artisans found it worth while to form themselves

into guilds or brotherhoods, in order to protect their persons and

property against insult and robbery at the hands of great lords and

their lawless military retainers. Thus there came to be guilds, or

"worshipful companies," of grocers, fishmongers, butchers, weavers,

tailors, ironmongers, carpenters, saddlers, armourers, needle-makers,

etc. In large towns there was a tendency among such trade guilds

to combine in a "united brotherhood," or "town guild," and this

organization at length acquired full control of the city government.

In London this process was completed in the course of the thirteenth

century. To obtain the full privileges of citizenship one had to

be enrolled in a guild. The guild hall became the city hall. The

_aldermen_, or head men of sundry guilds, became the head men

of the several wards. There was a representative board, or _common

council_, elected by the citizens. The aldermen and common council

held their meetings in the Guildhall, and over these meetings presided

the chief magistrate, or port-reeve, who by this time, in accordance

with the fashion then prevailing, had assumed the French title of

_mayor_. As London had come to be a little world in itself,

so this city government reproduced on a small scale the national

government; the mayor answering to the king, the aristocratic board of

aldermen to the House of Lords, and the democratic common council to

the House of Commons. A still more suggestive comparison, perhaps,

would be between the aldermen and our federal Senate, since the

aldermen represented wards, while the common council represented the

citizens.

[Sidenote: The city of London.]

The constitution thus perfected in the city of London[6] six hundred

years ago has remained to this day without essential change. The voters

are enrolled members of companies which represent the ancient guilds.

Each year they choose one of the aldermen to be lord mayor. Within the

city he has precedence next to the sovereign and before the royal

family; elsewhere he ranks as an earl, thus indicating the equivalence

of the city to a county, and with like significance he is lord

lieutenant of the city and justice of the peace. The twenty-six

aldermen, one for each ward, are elected by the people, such as are

entitled to vote for members of parliament; they are justices of the

peace. The common councilmen, 206 in number, are also elected by the

people, and their legislative power within the city is practically

supreme; parliament does not think of overruling it. And the city

government thus constituted is one of the most clean-handed and

efficient in the world.[7]

[Footnote 6: The city of London extends east and west from the Tower

to Temple Bar, and north and south from Finsbury to the Thames, with

a population of not more than 100,000, and is but a small part of the

enormous metropolitan area now known as London, which is a circle of

twelve miles radius in every direction from its centre at Charing

Cross, with a population of more than 5,000,000. This vast area is an

agglomeration of many parishes, manors, etc., and has no municipal

government in common.]

[Footnote 7: Loftie, _History of London _, vol. i. p. 446]

[Sidenote: English cities, the bulwarks of liberty.]

The development of other English cities and boroughs was so far like

that of London that merchant guilds generally obtained control, and

government by mayor, aldermen, and common council came to be the

prevailing type. Having also their own judges and sheriffs, and not

being obliged to go outside of their own walls to obtain justice, to

enforce contracts and punish crime, their efficiency as independent

self-governing bodies was great, and in many a troubled time they

served as staunch bulwarks of English liberty. The strength of their

turreted walls was more than supplemented by the length of their

purses, and such immunity from the encroachments of lords and king

as they could not otherwise win, they contrived to buy. Arbitrary

taxation they generally escaped by compounding with the royal

exchequer in a fixed sum or quit-rent, known as the _firma

burgi_. We have observed the especial privilege which Henry I.

confirmed to London, of electing its own sheriff. London had been

prompt in recognizing his title to the crown, and such support, in

days when the succession was not well regulated, no prudent king could

afford to pass by without some substantial acknowledgment. It was

never safe for any king to trespass upon the liberties of London, and

through the worst times that city has remained a true republic with

liberal republican sentiments. If George III. could have been guided

by the advice of London, as expressed by its great alderman Beckford,

the American colonies would not have been driven into rebellion.

[Sidenote: Simon de Montfort and the cities.]

The most signal part played by the English boroughs and cities, in

securing English freedom, dates from the thirteenth century, when

the nation was vaguely struggling for representative government on a

national scale, as a means of curbing the power of the crown. In that

memorable struggle, the issue of which to some extent prefigured

the shape that the government of the United States was to take five

hundred years afterward, the cities and boroughs supported Simon de

Montfort, the leader of the popular party and one of the foremost

among the heroes and martyrs of English liberty. Accordingly on the

morrow of his decisive victory at Lewes in 1264, when for the moment

he stood master of England, as Cromwell stood four centuries later

Simon called a parliament to settle the affairs of the kingdom, and

to this parliament he invited, along with the lords who came by

hereditary custom, not only two elected representatives from each

rural county, but also two elected representatives from each city and

borough. In this parliament, which met in 1265, the combination of

rural with urban representatives brought all parts of England together

in a grand representative body, the House of Commons, with interests

in common; and thus the people presently gained power enough to defeat

all attempts to establish irresponsible government, such as we call

despotism, on the part of the crown.

[Sidenote: Oligarchical abuses in English cities (cir. 1500-1835).]

If we look at the later history of English cities and boroughs, it

appears that, in spite of the splendid work which they did for the

English people at large, they did not always succeed in preserving

their own liberties unimpaired. London, indeed, has always maintained

its character as a truly representative republic. But in many English

cities, during the Tudor and Stuart periods, the mayor and aldermen

contrived to dispense with popular election, and thus to become close

corporations or self-perpetuating oligarchical bodies. There was a

notable tendency toward this sort of irresponsible government in

the reign of James I., and the Puritans who came to the shores of

Massachusetts Bay were inspired with a feeling of revolt against such

methods. This doubtless lent an emphasis to the mood in which they

proceeded to organize themselves into free self-governing townships.

The oligarchical abuses in English cities and boroughs remained until

they were swept away by the great Municipal Reform Act of 1835.

[Sidenote: Government of the city of New York (1686-1821).]

The first city governments established in America were framed in

conscious imitation of the corresponding institutions in England.

The oldest city government in the United States is that of New York.

Shortly after the town was taken from the Dutch in 1664, the new

governor, Colonel Nichols, put an end to its Dutch form of government,

and appointed a mayor, five aldermen, and a sheriff. These officers

appointed inferior officers, such as constables, and little or nothing

was left to popular election. But in 1686, under Governor Dongan,

New York was regularly incorporated and chartered as a city. Its

constitution bore an especially close resemblance to that of Norwich,

then the third city in England in size and importance. The city of New

York was divided into six wards. The governing corporation consisted

of the mayor, the recorder, the town-clerk, six aldermen, and six

assistants. All the land not taken up by individual owners was granted

as public land to the corporation, which in return paid into the

British exchequer one beaver-skin yearly. This was a survival of the

old quit-rent or _firma burgi_.[8] The city was made a county,

and thus had its court, its sheriff and coroner, and its high

constable. Other officers were the chamberlain or treasurer, seven

inferior constables, a sergeant-at-arms, and a clerk of the market,

who inspected weights and measures, and punished delinquencies in the

use of them. The principal judge was the recorder, who, as we have

just seen, was one of the corporation. The aldermen, assistants, and

constables were elected annually by the people; but the mayor and

sheriff were appointed by the governor. The recorder, town-clerk, and

clerk of the market were to be appointed by the king, but in case

the king neglected to act, these appointments also were made by the

governor. The high constable was appointed by the mayor, the treasurer

by the mayor, aldermen, and assistants, who seem to have answered

to the ordinary common council. The mayor, recorder, and aldermen,

without the assistants, were a judicial body, and held a weekly court

of common pleas. When the assistants were added, the whole became a

legislative body empowered to enact by-laws.

[Footnote 8: Jameson, "The Municipal Government of New York," _Mag.

Amer. Hist_., vol. viii. p. 609.]

Although this charter granted very imperfect powers of

self-government, the people contrived to live under it for a hundred

and thirty-five years, until 1821. Before the Revolution their

petitions succeeded in obtaining only a few unimportant amendments.[9]

When the British army captured the city in September, 1776, it was

forthwith placed under martial law, and so remained until the army

departed in November, 1783. During those seven years New York was not

altogether a comfortable place in which to live. After 1783 the city

government remained as before, except that the state of New York

assumed the control formerly exercised by the British crown. Mayor and

recorder, town-clerk and sheriff, were now appointed by a council of

appointment consisting of the governor and four senators. This did not

work well, and the constitution of 1821 gave to the people the power

of choosing their sheriff and town-clerk, while the mayor was to be

elected by the common council. Nothing but the appointment of the

recorder remained in the hands of the governor. Thus nearly forty

years after the close of the War of Independence the city of New York

acquired self-government as complete as that of the city of London.

In 1857, as we shall see, this self-government was greatly curtailed,

with results more or less disastrous.

[Footnote 9: Especially in the so-called Montgomerie charter of 1730.]

[Sidenote: City government in Philadelphia (1701-1789).]

The next city governments to be organized in the American colonies,

after that of New York, were those of Philadelphia, incorporated in

1701, and Annapolis, incorporated in 1708. These governments were

framed after the wretched pattern then so common in England. In

both the mayor, the recorder, the aldermen, and the common council

constituted a close self-electing corporation. The resulting abuses

were not so great as in England, probably because the cities were

so small. But in course of time, especially in Philadelphia as it

increased in population, the viciousness of the system was abundantly

illustrated. As the people could not elect the governing corporation

or any of its members, they very naturally and reasonably distrusted

it, and through the legislature they contrived so to limit its powers

of taxation that it was really unable to keep the streets in repair,

to light them at night, or to support an adequate police force. An

attempt was made to supply such wants by creating divers independent

boards of commissioners, one for paving and draining, another for

street-lamps and watchmen, a third for town-pumps, and so on. In this

way responsibility got so minutely parcelled out and scattered, and

there was so much jealousy and wrangling between the different boards

and the corporation, that the result was chaos. The public money was

habitually wasted and occasionally embezzled, and there was general

dissatisfaction. In 1789 the close corporation was abolished, and

thereafter the aldermen and common council were elected by the

citizens, the mayor was chosen by the aldermen out of their own

number, and the recorder was appointed by the mayor and aldermen. Thus

Philadelphia obtained a representative government.

[Sidenote: Traditions of good government lacking.]

These instances of New York and Philadelphia sufficiently illustrate

the beginnings of city government in the United States. In each case

the system was copied from England at a time when city government

in England was sadly demoralized. What was copied was not the free

republic of London, with its noble traditions of civic honour and

sagacious public spirit, but the imperfect republics or oligarchies

into which the lesser English boroughs were sinking, amid the foul

political intrigues and corruption which characterized the Stuart

period. The government of American cities in our own time is admitted

on all hands to be far from satisfactory. It is interesting to observe

that the cities which had municipal government before the Revolution,

though they have always had their full share of able and high-minded

citizens, do not possess even the tradition of good government. And

the difficulty, in those colonial times, was plainly want of adequate

self-government, want of responsibility on the part of the public

servants toward their employers the people.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. What was the origin of the _casters_ and _chesters_ that are found

in England to-day?

2. Trace the development of the English borough until it became

a kind of hundred.

3. Compare this borough, with the hundred in the administration

of justice.

4. Trace the further development of the borough in cases in

which it became a county.

5. Illustrate this development with London, showing how the elements of

the township, the hundred, and the shire government enter into its civic

organization.

6. Explain the origin and the objects of the various guilds.

7. Speak of the "town guild" under the following heads:--

a. Its composition and power.

b. Its relation to citizenship.

c. Its place of meeting.

d. The aldermen.

e. The common council.

f. The chief magistrate.

8. Compare the government of London with that of Great Britain or of the

United States.

9. Give some account of the lord mayor, the aldermen, and the councilmen

of London.

10. Distinguish between London the city and London the metropolis.

11. Show how the English cities and boroughs became bulwarks of liberty

by (1) their facilities for obtaining justice, (2) the strength of their

walls, and (3) the length of their purses.

12. Contrast the power of London with that of the throne.

13. What notable advance in government was made under the leadership of

Simon de Montfort?

14. What abuses crept into the government of many of the English cities?

15. What was the Puritan attitude towards such abuses?

16. Give an account of the government of New York city:--

a. The charter of 1686.

b. The governing corporation.

c. The public land.

d. The city's privileges as a county.

e. Officers by election and by appointment.

f. Judicial functions.

g. Martial law.

h. The charter of 1821.

17. Give an account of the government of Philadelphia:--

a. The governments after which it was patterned.

b. The viciousness of the system adopted.

c. The legislative interference that was thus provoked.

d. The division of responsibility and the results of such

division.

e. The nature of the changes made in 1789.

18. Why are the traditions of good government lacking in the older

American cities?

Section 3. The Government of Cities in the United States.

[Sidenote: Several features of our city governments.]

At the present day American municipal governments are for the most

part constructed on the same general plan, though with many variations

in detail. There is an executive department, with the mayor at its

head. The mayor is elected voters of the city, and holds office

generally for one year, but sometimes for two or three years, and in

St. Louis and Philadelphia even for four years. Under the mayor are

various heads of departments,--street commissioners, assessors,

overseers of the poor, etc.,--sometimes elected by the citizens,

sometimes appointed by the mayor or the city council. This city

council Is a legislative body, usually consisting of two chambers, the

aldermen and the common council, elected by the citizens; but in many

small cities, and a few of the largest,--such as New York, Brooklyn,

Chicago, and San Francisco,--there is but one such chamber. Then there

are city judges, sometimes appointed by the governor of the state, to

serve for life or during good behaviour, but usually elected by the

citizens for short terms.

All appropriations of money for city purposes are made by the city

council; and as a general rule this council has some control over the

heads of executive departments, which it exercises through committees.

Thus there may be a committee upon streets, upon public buildings,

upon parks or almshouses or whatever the municipal government is

concerned with. The head of a department is more or less dependent

upon his committee, and in practice this is found to divide and weaken

responsibility. The heads of departments are apt to be independent of

one another, and to owe no allegiance in common to any one. The mayor,

when he appoints them, usually does so subject to the approval, of the

city council or of one branch of it. The mayor is usually not a member

of the city council, but can veto its enactments, which however can be

passed over his veto by a two thirds majority.

[Sidenote: They do not seem to work well.]

[Sidenote: some difficulties to be stated.]

City governments thus constituted are something like state governments

in miniature. The relation of the mayor to the city council is

somewhat like that of the governor to the state legislature, and of

the president to the national congress. In theory nothing could well

be more republican, or more unlike such city governments as those of

New York and Philadelphia before the Revolution. Yet in practice it

does not seem to work well. New York and Philadelphia seem to

have heard as many complaints in the nineteenth century as in the

eighteenth, and the same kind of complaints,--of excessive taxation,

public money wasted or embezzled, ill-paved and dirty streets,

inefficient police, and so on to the end of the chapter. In most of

our large cities similar evils have been witnessed, and in too many of

the smaller ones the trouble seems to be the same in kind, only less

in degree. Our republican government, which, after making all due

allowances, seems to work remarkably well in rural districts, and in

the states, and in the nation, has certainly been far less successful

as applied to cities. Accordingly our cities have come to furnish

topics for reflection to which writers and orators fond of boasting

the unapproachable excellence of American institutions do not like to

allude. Fifty years ago we were wont to speak of civil government

in the United States as if it had dropped from heaven or had been

specially created by some kind of miracle upon American soil; and we

were apt to think that in mere republican forms there was some kind of

mystic virtue which made them a panacea for all political evils. Our

later experience with cities has rudely disturbed this too confident

frame of mind. It has furnished facts which do not seem to fit our

self-complacent theory, so that now our writers and speakers are

inclined to vent their spleen upon the unhappy cities, perhaps too

unreservedly. We hear them called "foul sinks of corruption" and

"plague spots on our body politic." Yet in all probability our cities

are destined to increase in number and to grow larger and larger; so

that perhaps it is just as well to consider them calmly, as presenting

problems which had not been thought of when our general theory of

government was first worked out a hundred years ago, but which, after

we have been sufficiently taught by experience, we may hope to succeed

in solving, just as we have heretofore succeeded in other things. A

general discussion of the subject does not fall within the province of

this brief historical sketch. But our account would be very incomplete

if we were to stop short of mentioning some of the recent attempts

that have been made toward reconstructing our theories of city

government and improving its practical working. And first, let us

point out a few of the peculiar difficulties of the problem, that we

may see why we might have been expected, up to the present time,

to have been less successful in managing our great cities than in

managing our rural communities, and our states, and our nation.

[Sidenote: Rapid growth of American cities.]

In the first place, the problem is comparatively new and has taken us

unawares. At the time of Washington's inauguration to the presidency

there were no large cities in the United States. Philadelphia had a

population of 42,000; New York had 33,000; Boston, which came next, with

18,000, was not yet a city. Then came Baltimore, with 13,000; while

Brooklyn was a village of 1,600 souls. Now these five cities have a

population of more than 4,000,000, or more than that of the United

States in 1789. And consider how rapidly new cities have been added to

the list. One hardly needs to mention the most striking cases, such as

Chicago, with 4,000 inhabitants in 1840. and at least 1,000,000 in 1890;

or Denver, with its miles of handsome streets and shops, and not one

native inhabitant who has reached his thirtieth birthday. Such facts are

summed up in the general statement that, whereas in 1790 the population

of the United States was scarcely 4,000,000, and out of each 100

inhabitants only 3 dwelt in cities and the other 97 in rural places; on

the other hand in 1880, when the population was more than 50,000,000,

out of each 100 inhabitants 23 dwelt in cities and 77 in rural places.

But duly to appreciate the rapidity of this growth of cities, we must

observe that most of it has been subsequent to 1840. In 1790 there were

six towns in the United States that might be ranked as cities from their

size, though to get this number we must include Boston. In 1800 the

number was the same. By 1810 the number had risen from 6 to 11; by 1820

it had reached 13; by 1830 this thirteen had doubled and become 26; and

in 1840 there were 44 cities altogether. The urban population increased

from 210,873 in 1800 to 1,453,994 in 1840. But between 1840 and 1880 the

number of new cities which came into existence was 242, and the urban

population increased to 11,318,547. Nothing like this was ever known

before in any part of the world, and perhaps it is not strange that such

a tremendous development did not find our methods of government fully

prepared to deal with it.

[Sidenote: Want of practical foresight.]

This rapidity of growth has entailed some important consequences. In the

first place it obliges the city to make great outlays of money in order

to get immediate results. Public works must be undertaken with a view to

quickness rather than thoroughness. Pavements, sewers, and reservoirs of

some sort must be had at once, even if inadequately planned and

imperfectly constructed; and so, before a great while, the work must be

done over again. Such conditions of imperative haste increase the

temptations to dishonesty as well as the liability to errors of judgment

on the part of the men who administer the public funds.[10] Then the

rapid growth of a city, especially of a new city, requiring the

immediate construction of a certain amount of public works, almost

necessitates the borrowing of money, and debt means heavy taxes. It is

like the case of a young man who, in order to secure a home for his

quickly growing family, buys a house under a heavy mortgage. Twice a

year there comes in a great bill for interest, and in order to meet it

he must economize in his table or now and then deny himself a new suit

of clothes. So if a city has to tax heavily to pay its debts, it must

cut down its current expenses somewhere, and the results are sure to be

visible in more or less untidiness and inefficiency. Mr. Low tells us

that "very few of our American cities have yet paid in full the cost of

their original water-works." Lastly, much wastefulness results from want

of foresight. It is not easy to predict how a city will grow, or the

nature of its needs a few years hence. Moreover, even when it is easy

enough to predict a result, it is not easy to secure practical foresight

on the part of a city council elected for the current year. Its members

are afraid of making taxes too heavy this year, and considerations of

ten years hence are apt to be dismissed as "visionary." It is always

hard for us to realize how terribly soon ten years hence will be here.

The habit of doing things by halves has been often commented on (and,

perhaps, even more by our own writers than by foreigners) as especially

noticeable in America. It has doubtless been fostered by the conditions

which in so many cases have made it absolutely necessary to adopt

temporary makeshifts. These conditions have produced a certain habit of

mind.

[Footnote 10: This and some of the following considerations have been

ably set forth and illustrated by Hon. Seth Low, president of Columbia

College, and lately mayor of Brooklyn, in an address at Johns Hopkins

University, published in _J. H. U. Studies, Supplementary Notes_,

no. 4.]

[Sidenote: Growth in complexity of government in cities.]

Let us now observe that as cities increase in size the amount of

government that is necessary tends in some respects to increase.

Wherever there is a crowd there is likely to be some need of rules and

regulations. In the country a man may build his house pretty much as he

pleases; but in the city he may be forbidden to build it of wood, and

perhaps even the thickness of the party walls or the position of the

chimneys may come in for some supervision on the part of the government.

For further precaution against spreading fires, the city has an

organized force of men, with costly engines, engine-houses, and stables.

In the country a board of health has comparatively little to do; in the

city it is often confronted with difficult sanitary problems which call

for highly paid professional skill on the part of physicians and

chemists, architects and plumbers, masons and engineers. So, too, the

water supply of a great city is likely to be a complicated business, and

the police force may well need as much, management as a small army. In

short, with a city, increase in size is sure to involve increase in

complexity of organization, and this means a vast increase in the number

of officials for doing the work and of details to be superintended. For

example, let us enumerate the executive department and officers of the

city of Boston at the present time.

[Sidenote: Municipal officers in Boston.]

There are three street commissioners with power to lay out streets and

assess damages thereby occasioned. These are elected by the people. The

following officers are appointed by the mayor, with the concurrence of

the aldermen: a superintendent of streets, an inspector of buildings,

three commissioners each for the fire and health departments, four

overseers of the poor, besides a board of nine directors for the

management of almshouses, houses of correction, lunatic hospital, etc.;

a city hospital board of five members, five trustees of the public

library, three commissioners each for parks and water-works; five chief

assessors, to estimate the value of property and assess city, county,

and state taxes; a city collector, a superintendent of public buildings,

five trustees of Mount Hope Cemetery, six sinking fund commissioners,

two record commissioners, three registrars of voters, a registrar of

births, deaths, and marriages, a city treasurer, city auditor, city

solicitor, corporation counsel, city architect, city surveyor,

superintendent of Faneuil Hall Market, superintendent of street lights,

superintendent of sewers, superintendent of printing, superintendent of

bridges, five directors of ferries, harbour master and ten assistants,

water registrar, inspector of provisions, inspector of milk and vinegar,

a sealer and four deputy sealers of weights and measures, an inspector

of lime, three inspectors of petroleum, fifteen inspectors of pressed

hay, a culler of hoops and staves, three fence-viewers, ten

field-drivers and pound-keepers, three surveyors of marble, nine

superintendents of hay scales, four measurers of upper leather, fifteen

measurers of wood and bark, twenty measurers of grain, three weighers of

beef, thirty-eight weighers of coal, five weighers of boilers and heavy

machinery, four weighers of ballast and lighters, ninety-two

undertakers, 150 constables, 968 election officers and their deputies. A

few of these officials serve without pay, some are paid by salaries

fixed by the council, some by fees. Besides these there is a clerk of

the common council elected by that body, and also the city clerk, city

messenger, and clerk of committees, in whose election both branches of

the city council concur. The school committee, of twenty-four members,

elected by the people, is distinct from the rest of the city government,

and so is the board of police, composed of three commissioners appointed

by the state executive.[11]

[Footnote 11: Bugbee, "The City Government of Boston," _J.H.U.

Studies_, V., iii.]

[Sidenote: How city government comes to be a mystery.]

This long list may serve to give some idea of the mere quantity of

administrative work required in a large city. Obviously under such

circumstances city government must become more or less of a mystery to

the great mass of citizens. They cannot watch its operations as the

inhabitants of a small village can watch the proceedings of their

township and county governments. Much work must go on which cannot

even be intelligently criticised without such special knowledge as it

would be idle to expect in the average voter, or perhaps in any voter.

It becomes exceedingly difficult for the taxpayer to understand just

what his money goes for, or how far the city expenses might reasonably

be reduced; and it becomes correspondingly easy for municipal

corruption to start and acquire a considerable headway before it can

be detected and checked.

[Sidenote: In some respects it is more of a mystery that state and

national government.]

In some respects city government is harder to watch intelligently

than the government of the state or of the nation. For these wider

governments are to some extent limited to work of general supervision.

As compared with the city, they are more concerned with the

establishment and enforcement of certain general principles, and less

with the administration of endlessly complicated details. I do not

mean to be understood as saying that there is not plenty of intricate

detail about state and national governments. I am only comparing one

thing with another, and it seems to me that one chief difficulty with

city government is the bewildering vastness and multifariousness of

the details with which it is concerned. The modern city has come to be

a huge corporation for carrying on a huge business with many branches,

most of which call for special aptitude and training.

[Sidenote: The mayor at first had too little power.]

As these points have gradually forced themselves upon public attention

there has been a tendency in many of our large cities toward

remodeling their governments on new principles. The most noticeable

feature of this tendency is the increase in the powers of the mayor.

A hundred years ago our legislators and constitution-makers were much

afraid of what was called the "one-man power." In nearly all the

colonies a chronic quarrel had been kept up between the governors

appointed by the king and the legislators elected by the people, and

this had made the "one-man power" very unpopular. Besides, it was

something that had been unpopular in ancient Greece and Rome, and it

was thought to be essentially unrepublican in principle. Accordingly

our great grandfathers preferred to entrust executive powers to

committees rather than to single individuals; and when they assigned

an important office to an individual they usually took pains to

curtail its power and influence. This disposition was visible in our

early attempts to organize city governments like little republics.

First, in the board of aldermen and the common council we had a

two-chambered legislature. Then, lest the mayor should become

dangerous, the veto power was at first generally withheld from him,

and his appointments of executive officers needed to be confirmed by

at least one branch of the city council. These executive officers,

moreover, as already observed, were subject to more or less control or

oversight from committees of the city council.

[Sidenote: Scattering and weakening of responsibility.]

Now this system, in depriving the mayor of power, deprived him of

responsibility, and left the responsibility nowhere in particular. In

making appointments the mayor and council would come to some sort of

compromise with each other and exchange favours. Perhaps for private

reasons incompetent or dishonest officers would get appointed, and

if the citizens ventured to complain the mayor would say that he

appointed as good men as the council could be induced to confirm,

and the council would declare their willingness to confirm good

appointments if the mayor could only be persuaded to make them.

[Sidenote: Committees inefficient for executive purposes.]

Then the want of subordination of the different executive departments

made it impossible to secure unity of administration or to carry out

any consistent and generally intelligible policy. Between the various

executive officers and visiting committees there was apt to be a

more or less extensive interchange of favours, or what is called

"log-rolling;" and sums of money would be voted by the council only

thus to leak away in undertakings the propriety or necessity of which

was perhaps hard to determine. There was no responsible head who could

be quickly and sharply called to account. Each official's hands were

so tied that whatever went wrong he could declare that it was not his

fault. The confusion was enhanced by the practice of giving executive

work to committees or boards instead of single officers. Benjamin

Franklin used to say, if you wish to be sure that a thing is done, go

and do it yourself. Human experience certainly proves that this is the

only absolutely safe way. The next best way is to send some competent

person to do it for you; and if there is no one competent to be

had, you do the next best thing and entrust the work to the least

incompetent person you can find. If you entrust it to a committee your

prospect of getting it done is diminished and it grows less if

you enlarge your committee. By the time you have got a group of

committees, independent of one another and working at cross purposes,

you have got Dickens's famous Circumlocution Office, where the great

object in life was "how not to do it."

[Sidenote 1: Increase of city debts.]

[Sidenote 2: Attempt to cure the evil by state interference;

experience of New York.]

Amid the general dissatisfaction over the extravagance and

inefficiency of our city governments, people's attention was first

drawn to the rapid and alarming increase of city indebtedness in

various parts of the country. A heavy debt may ruin a city as surely

as an individual, for it raises the rate of taxation, and thus, as was

above pointed out, it tends to frighten people and capital away from

the city. At first it was sought to curb the recklessness of city

councils in incurring lavish expenditures by giving the mayor a veto

power. Laws were also passed limiting the amount of debt which a city

would be allowed to incur under any circumstances. Clothing the

mayor with the veto power is now seen to have been a wise step; and

arbitrary limitation of the amount of debt, though a clumsy expedient,

is confessedly a necessary one. But beyond this, it was in some

instances attempted to take the management of some departments of city

business out of the hands of the city and put them into the hands of

the state legislature. The most notable instance of this was in New

York in 1857. The results, there and elsewhere, have been generally

regarded as unsatisfactory. After a trial of thirty years the

experience of New York has proved that a state legislature is not

competent to take proper care of the government of cities. Its

members do not know enough about the details of each locality, and

consequently local affairs are left to the representatives from each

locality, with "log-rolling" as the inevitable result. A man fresh

from his farm on the edge of the Adirondacks knows nothing about the

problems pertaining to electric wires in Broadway, or to rapid transit

between Harlem and the Battery; and his consent to desired legislation

on such points can very likely be obtained only by favouring some

measure which he thinks will improve the value of his farm, or perhaps

by helping him to debauch the civil service by getting some neighbour

appointed to a position for which he is not qualified. All this is

made worse by the fact that the members of a state government are

generally less governed by a sense of responsibility toward the

citizens of a particular city than even the worst local government

that can be set up in such a city.[12]

[Footnote 1: It is not intended to deny that there may be instances

in which the state government may advantageously participate in the

government of cities. It may be urged that, in the case of great

cities, like New York or Boston, many people who are not residents

either do business in the city or have vast business interests there,

and thus may be as deeply interested in its welfare as any of the

voters. It may also be said that state provisions for city government

do not always work badly. There are many competent judges who approve

of the appointment of police commissioners by the executive of

Massachusetts. There are generally two sides to a question; and to

push a doctrine to extremes is to make oneself a _doctrinaire_

rather than a wise citizen. But experience clearly shows that in all

doubtful cases it is safer to let the balance incline in favour of

local self-government than the other way.]

Moreover, even if legislatures were otherwise competent to manage the

local affairs of cities, they have not time enough, amid the pressure

of other duties, to do justice to such matters. In 1870 the number of

acts passed by the New York legislature was 808. Of these, 212, or

more than one fourth of the whole, related to cities and villages. The

808 acts, when printed, filled about 2,000 octavo pages; and of these

the 212 acts filled more than 1,500 pages. This illustrates what

I said above about the vast quantity of details which have to be

regulated in municipal government. Here we have more than three

fourths of the volume of state-legislation devoted to local affairs;

and it hardly need be added that a great part of these enactments were

worse than worthless because they were made hastily and

without due consideration,--though not always, perhaps, without what

lawyers call _a_ consideration.[13]

[Footnote 13: Nothing could be further from my thought than to cast any

special imputation upon the New York legislature, which is probably a

fair average specimen of law-making bodies. The theory of legislative

bodies, as laid down in text-books, is that they are assembled for the

purpose of enacting laws for the welfare of the community in

general. In point of fact they seldom rise to such a lofty height of

disinterestedness. Legislation is usually a mad scramble in which the

final result, be it good or bad, gets evolved out of compromises and

bargains among a swarm of clashing local and personal interests.

The "consideration" may be anything from log-rolling to bribery. In

American legislatures it is to be hoped that downright bribery is

rare. As for log-rolling, or exchange of favours, there are many

phases of it in which that which may be perfectly innocent shades

off by almost imperceptible degrees into that which is unseemly or

dishonourable or even criminal; and it is in this hazy region that

Satan likes to set his traps for the unwary pilgrim.]

[Sidenote: Tweed Ring in New York.]

The experience of New York thus proved that state intervention and

special legislation did not mend matters. It did not prevent the

shameful rule of the Tweed Ring from 1868 to 1871, when a small band

of conspirators got themselves elected or appointed to the principal

city offices, and, having had their own corrupt creatures chosen

judges of the city courts, proceeded to rob the taxpayers at their

leisure. By the time they were discovered and brought to justice,

their stealings amounted to many millions of dollars, and the rate of

taxation had risen to more than two per cent.

[Sidenote: New experiments.]

The discovery of these wholesale robberies, and of other villainies

on a smaller scale in other cities, has led to much discussion of the

problems of municipal government, and to many attempts at practical

reform. The present is especially a period of experiments, yet in

these experiments perhaps a general drift of opinion may be discerned.

People seem to be coming to regard cities more as if they were huge

business corporations than as if they were little republics. The

lesson has been learned that in executive matters too much limitation

of power entails destruction of responsibility; the "ring" is now more

dreaded than the "one-man power;" and there is accordingly a manifest

tendency to assail the evil by concentrating power and responsibility

in the mayor.

[Sidenote: New government of Brooklyn.]

The first great city to adopt this method was Brooklyn. In the first

place the city council was simplified and made a one-chambered council

consisting of nineteen aldermen. Besides this council of aldermen, the

people elect only three city officers,--the mayor, comptroller,

and auditor. The comptroller is the principal finance officer and

book-keeper of the city; and the auditor must approve bills against

the city, whether great or small, before they can be paid. The mayor

appoints, without confirmation by the council, all executive heads of

departments; and these executive heads are individuals, not

boards. Thus there is a single police commissioner, a single fire

commissioner, a single health commissioner, and so on; and each of

these heads appoints his own subordinates; so that the principle

of defined responsibility permeates the city government from top

to bottom,[14] In a few cases, where the work to be done is rather

discretionary than executive in character, it is intrusted to a board;

thus there is a board of assessors, a board of education, and a board

of elections. These are all appointed by the mayor, but for terms

not coinciding with his own; "so that, in most cases, no mayor would

appoint the whole of any such board unless he were to be twice elected

by the people." But the executive officers are appointed by the mayor

for terms coincident with his own, that is for two years. "The mayor

is elected at the general election in November; he takes office on the

first of January following, and for one month the great departments of

the city are carried on for him by the appointees of his predecessor.

On the first of February it becomes his duty to appoint his own heads

of departments, and thus each incoming mayor has the opportunity to

make an administration in all its parts in sympathy with himself."

[Footnote 14: Seth Low on "Municipal Government," in Bryce's

_American Commonwealth_, vol. i. p. 626.]

With all these immense executive powers entrusted to the mayor,

however, he does not hold the purse-strings. He is a member of a board

of estimate, of which the other four members are the comptroller

and auditor, with the county treasurer and supervisor. This board

recommends the amounts to be raised by taxation for the ensuing year.

These estimates are then laid before the council of aldermen, who

may cut down single items as they see fit, but have not the power to

increase any item. The mayor must see to it that the administrative

work of the year does not use up more money than is thus allowed him.

[Sidenote: Some of its merits.]

This Brooklyn system has great merits. It ensures unity of

administration, it encourages promptness and economy, it locates

and defines responsibility, and it is so simple that everybody can

understand it. The people, having but few officers to elect, are

more likely to know something about them. Especially since everybody

understands that the success of the government depends upon the

character of the mayor, extraordinary pains are taken to secure good

mayors; and the increased interest in city politics is shown by the

fact that in Brooklyn more people vote for mayor than for governor

or for president. Fifty years ago such a reduction in the number of

elective officers would have greatly shocked all good Americans. But

In point of fact, while in small townships where everybody knows

everybody popular control is best ensured by electing all public

officers, it is very different in great cities where it is impossible

that the voters in general should know much about the qualifications

of a long list of candidates. In such cases citizens are apt to vote

blindly for names about which they know nothing except that they occur

on a Republican or a Democratic ticket; although, if the object of

a municipal election is simply to secure an upright and efficient

municipal government, to elect a city magistrate because he is a

Republican or a Democrat is about as sensible as to elect him because

he believes in homoeopathy or has a taste for chrysanthemums.[15] To

vote for candidates whom one has never heard of is not to insure

popular control, but to endanger it. It is much better to vote for

one man whose reputation we know, and then to hold him strictly

responsible for the appointments he makes. The Brooklyn system seems

to be a step toward lifting city government out of the mire of party

politics.

[Footnote 15: Of course from the point of view of the party politician,

it Is quite different. Each party has its elaborate "machine" for

electing state and national officers; and in order to be kept at

its maximum of efficiency the machine must be kept at work on all

occasions, whether such occasions are properly concerned with

differences in party politics or not. To the party politician it

of course makes a great difference whether a city magistrate is a

Republican or a Democrat. To him even the political complexion of his

mail-carrier is a matter of importance. But these illustrations

only show that party politics may be carried to extremes that are

inconsistent with the best interests of the community. Once in a while

it becomes necessary to teach party organizations to know their place,

and to remind them that they are not the lords and masters but the

servants and instruments of the people.]

This system went into operation in Brooklyn in January, 1882, and

seems to have given general satisfaction. Since then changes in a

similar direction, though with variations in detail, have been made in

other cities, and notably in Philadelphia.

[Sidenote: Notion that the suffrage ought to be restricted.]

In speaking of the difficulties which beset city government in the

United States, mention is often (and perhaps too exclusively) made

of the great mass of ignorant voters, chiefly foreigners without

experience in self-government, with no comprehension of American

principles and traditions, and with little or no property to suffer

from excessive taxation. Such people will naturally have slight

compunctions about voting away other people's money; indeed, they are

apt to think that "the Government" has got Aladdin's lamp hidden away

somewhere in a burglar-proof safe, and could do pretty much everything

that is wanted, if it only would. In the hands of demagogues such

people may be dangerous, they are supposed to be especially accessible

to humbug and bribes, and their votes have no doubt been used to

sustain and perpetuate most flagrant abuses. We often hear it said

that the only way to get good government is to deprive such people of

their votes and limit the suffrage to persons who have some property

at stake. Such a measure has been seriously recommended in New York,

but it is generally felt to be impossible without a revolution.

[Sidenote: Testimony of Pennsylvania Municipal Commission.]

Perhaps, after all, it may not be so desirable as it seems. The

ignorant vote has done a great deal of harm, but not all the harm. In

1878 it was reported by the Pennsylvania Municipal Commission, as

a remarkable but notorious fact, that the accumulations of debt in

Philadelphia and other cities of the state have been due, not to a

non-property-holding, irresponsible element among the electors, but to

the desire for speculation among the property-owners themselves. Large

tracts of land outside the built-up portion of the city have been

purchased, combinations made among men of wealth, and councils

besieged until they have been driven into making appropriations to

open and improve streets and avenues, largely in advance of the real

necessities of the city. Extraordinary as the statement may seem

at first, the experience of the past shows clearly that frequently

property-owners need more protection against themselves than against

the non-property-holding class.[16] This is a statement of profound

significance, and should be duly pondered by advocates of a restricted

suffrage.

[Footnote 16: Allinson and Penrose, _Philadelphia, 1681-1887; a

History of Municipal Development_, p. 278.]

[Sidenote: Dangers of a restricted suffrage.]

It should also be borne in mind that, while ignorant and needy voters,

led by unscrupulous demagogues, are capable of doing much harm with

their votes, it is by no means clear that the evil would be removed

by depriving them of the suffrage. It is very unsafe to have in any

community a large class of people who feel that political rights

or privileges are withheld from them by other people who are their

superiors in wealth or knowledge. Such poor people are apt to have

exaggerated ideas of what a vote can do; very likely they think it is

because they do not have votes that they are poor; thus they are ready

to entertain revolutionary or anarchical ideas, and are likely to be

more dangerous material in the hands of demagogues than if they were

allowed to vote. Universal suffrage has its evils, but it undoubtedly

acts as a safety-valve. The only cure for the evils which come

from ignorance and shiftlessness is the abolition of ignorance and

shiftlessness; and this is slow work. Church and school here find

enough to keep them busy; but the vote itself, even if often misused,

is a powerful educator; and we need not regret that the restriction of

the suffrage has come to be practically impossible.

[Sidenote: Baneful effects of mixing city politics with national

politics.]

The purification of our city governments will never be completed

until they are entirely divorced from national party politics. The

connection opens a limitless field for "log-rolling," and rivets

upon cities the "spoils system," which is always and everywhere

incompatible with good government. It is worthy of note that the

degradation of so many English boroughs and cities during the Tudor

and Stuart periods was chiefly due to the encroachment of national

politics upon municipal politics. Because the borough returned members

to the House of Commons, it became worth while for the crown to

intrigue with the municipal government, with the ultimate object of

influencing parliamentary elections. The melancholy history of the

consequent dickering and dealing, jobbery and robbery, down to 1835,

when the great Municipal Corporations Act swept it all away, may be

read with profit by all Americans.[17] It was the city of London only,

whose power and independence had kept it free from complications with

national politics, that avoided the abuses elsewhere prevalent, so

that it was excepted from the provisions of the Act of 1835, and still

retains its ancient constitution.

[Footnote 17: See _Parliamentary Reports_, 1835, "Municipal

Corporations Commission;" also Sir Erskine May, _Const. Hist._,

vol. ii. chap, xv.]

In the United States the entanglement of municipal with national

politics has begun to be regarded as mischievous and possibly

dangerous, and attempts have in some cases been made toward checking

it by changing the days of election, so that municipal officers may

not be chosen at the same time with presidential electors. Such a

change is desirable, but to obtain a thoroughly satisfactory result,

it will be necessary to destroy the "spoils system" root and branch,

and to adopt effective measures of ballot reform. To these topics I

shall recur when treating of our national government. But first we

shall have to consider the development of our several states.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

Give an account of city government in the United States, under the

following heads:--

1. The American city:--

a. The mayor.

b. The heads of departments.

c. The city council.

d. The judges.

e. Appropriations.

f. The power of committees.

2. The practical workings of city governments:--

a. The contrast they show between theory and practice.

b. Various complaints urged against city governments.

c. Their effect upon the old-time confidence in the perfection of our

institutions.

3. The growth of American cities:--

a. The cities of Washington's time and those of to-day.

b. The population of cities in 1790 and their population to-day.

c. City growth since 1840.

4. Some consequences of rapid city growth:--

a. The pressure to construct public works.

b. The incurring of heavy debts.

c. The wastefulness due to a lack of foresight.

d. The increase in government due to the complexity of a city.

e. An illustration of this complexity in Boston.

f. The consequent mystery that enshrouds much of city government.

5. Some evils due to the fear of a "one-man" power:--

a. The objection to such power a century ago.

b. Restrictions imposed upon the mayor's power.

c. The division and weakening of responsibility.

d. The lack of unity in the administration of business.

e. The inefficiency of committees for executive purposes.

f. The alarming increase in city debts.

6. Attempts to remedy some of the evils of city government:--

a. The power of veto granted to the mayor.

b. The limitation of city indebtedness.

c. State control of some city departments.

7. Difficulties inherent in state control of cities:--

a. Lack of familiarity with city affairs.

b. The tendency to "log-rolling."

c. Lack of time due to the pressure of state affairs.

d. The failure of state control as shown in the rule of the Tweed ring.

8. The government of the city of Brooklyn:--

a. The elevation of the "one-man" power above that of the "ring."

b. Officers elected by the people.

c. Officers appointed by the mayor.

d. The principle of well-defined responsibility.

e. The appointment of certain boards by the mayor.

f. The holding of the purse-strings.

g. The inadequacy of the township elective system, in a city like

Brooklyn.

9. Restriction of the suffrage:--

a. The dangers from large masses of ignorant voters.

b. The responsibility for the debt of Philadelphia and other cities.

c. The dangers from large classes who feel that political rights are

denied them.

d. Suffrage as a "safety-valve."

10. The mixture of city politics with those of the state or nation:

a. The degradation of the English borough.

b. The exemption, of London from the Municipal Corporations Act.

c. The importance of separate days for municipal elections.

d. The importance of abolishing the "spoils system."

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.

(Chiefly for pupils who live in cities.)

1. When was your city organized?

2. Give some account of its growth, its size, and its present

population. How many wards has it? Give their boundaries.

In which ward do you live?

3. Examine its charter, and report a few of its leading provisions.

4. What description of government in this chapter comes nearest

to that of your city?

5. Consider the suggestions about the study of town government

(pp. 43, 44), and act upon such of them as are applicable

to city government.

6. What is the general impression about the purity of your city

government? (Consult several citizens and report what you find out.)

7. What important caution should be observed about vague rumours of

inefficiency or corruption?

8. What are the evidences of a sound financial condition in a city?

9. Is the financial condition of your city sound?

10. When debts are incurred, are provisions made at the same time for

meeting them when due?

11. What are "sinking funds"?

12. What wants has a city that a town is free from?

13. Describe your system of public water works, making an analysis of

important points that may be presented.

14. Do the same for your park system or any other system that involves a

long time for its completion as well as a great outlay.

15. Are the principles of civil service reform recognized in your city?

If so, to what extent? Do they need to be extended further?

16. Describe the parties that contended for the supremacy in your last

city election and tell what questions were at issue between them.

17. What great corporations exact an influence in your city affairs? Is

such influence bad because it is great? What is a possible danger from

such influence?

18. In view of the vast number and range of city interests, what is the

most that the average citizen can reasonably be asked to know and to do

about them? What things is it indispensable for him to know and to do is

he is to contribute to good government?

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

Section 1. DIRECT AND INDIRECT GOVERNMENT.--The transition from

direct to indirect government, as illustrated in the gradual

development of a township into a city, may be profitably studied in

Quincy's _Municipal History of Boston_, Boston, 1852; and in

Winsor's _Memorial History of Boston_, vol. iii. pp. 189-302,

Boston, 1881.

Section 2. ORIGIN OF ENGLISH BOROUGHS AND CITIES.--See Loftie's

_History of London_, 2 vols., London, 1883; Toulmin Smith's

_English Gilds_, with Introduction by Lujo Brentano, London,

1870; and the histories of the English Constitution, especially those

of Gneist, Stubbs, Taswell-Langmead, and Hannis Taylor.

Section 3. GOVERNMENT OF CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.--_J.H.U. Studies_,

III., xi.-xii., J.A. Porter, _The City of Washington_; IV., iv., W.P.

Holcomb, _Pennsylvania Boroughs_; IV., x., C.H. Lovermore, _Town and

City Government of New Haven_; V., i.-ii., Allinson and Penrose, _City

Government of Philadelphia_; V., iii., J.M. Bugbee, _The City Government

of Boston_; V., iv., M.S. Snow, _The City Government of St. Louis_;

VII., ii.-iii., B. Moses, _Establishment of Municipal Government in San

Francisco_; VII., iv., W.W. Howe, _Municipal History of New Orleans_;

also _Supplementary Notes_, No. 4, Seth Low, _The Problem of City

Government_ (compare No. 1, Albert Shaw, _Municipal Government in

England_.) See, also, the supplementary volumes published at

Baltimore,--Levermore's _Republic of New Haven_, 1886, Allinson and

Penrose's _Philadelphia_, 1681-1887: _a History of Municipal

Development_, 1887.

CHAPTER VI.

THE STATE.

Section 1. _The Colonial Governments._

[Sidenote: Claims of Spain to the possession of North America.]

In the year 1600 Spain was the only European nation which had obtained

a foothold upon the part of North America now comprised within the

United States. Spain claimed the whole continent on the strength of

the bulls of 1493 and 1494, in which Pope Alexander VI. granted her

all countries to be discovered to the west of a certain meridian

which, happens to pass a little to the east of Newfoundland. From

their first centre in the West Indies the Spaniards had made a

lodgment in Florida, at St. Augustine, in 1565; and from Mexico they

had in 1605 founded Santa Fé, in what is now the territory of New

Mexico.

[Sidenote: Claims of France and England.]

France and England, however, paid little heed to the claim of Spain.

France had her own claim to North America, based on the voyages of

discovery made by Verrazano in 1524 and Cartier in 1534, in the course

of which New York harbour had been visited and the St. Lawrence partly

explored. England had a still earlier claim, based on the discovery

of the North American continent in 1497 by John Cabot. It presently

became apparent that to make such claims of any value, discovery must

be followed up by occupation of the country. Attempts at colonization

had been made by French Protestants in Florida in 1562-65, and by the

English in North Carolina in 1584-87, but both attempts had failed

miserably. Throughout the sixteenth century French and English sailors

kept visiting the Newfoundland fisheries, and by the end of the

century the French and English governments had their attention

definitely turned to the founding of colonies in North America.

[Sidenote: The London and Plymouth Companies.]

In 1606 two great joint-stock companies were formed in England for

the purpose of planting such colonies. One of these companies had its

headquarters at London, and was called the London Company; the other

had its headquarters at the seaport of Plymouth, in Devonshire, and

was called the Plymouth Company. To the London Company the king

granted the coast of North America from 34° to 38° north latitude;

that is, about from Cape Fear to the mouth of the Rappahannock. To the

Plymouth Company he granted the coast from 41° to 45°; that is, about

from the mouth of the Hudson to the eastern extremity of Maine. These

grants were to go in straight strips or zones across the continent

from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. Almost nothing was then known

about American geography; the distance from ocean to ocean across

Mexico was not so very great, and people did not realize that further

north it was quite a different thing. As to the middle strip, starting

from the coast between the Rappahannock and the Hudson, it was open to

the two companies, with the understanding that neither was to plant a

colony within 100 miles of any settlement already begun by the

other. This meant practically that it was likely to be controlled by

whichever company should first come into the field with a flourishing

colony. Accordingly both companies made haste and sent out settlers in

1607, the one to the James River, the other to the Kennebec. The

first enterprise, after much suffering, resulted in the founding of

Virginia; the second ended in disaster, and it was not until 1620 that

the Pilgrims from Leyden made the beginnings of a permanent settlement

upon the territory of the Plymouth Company.

[Sidenote: Their common charter.]

These two companies were at first organized under a single charter.

Each was to be governed by a council in England appointed by the king,

and these councils were to appoint councils of thirteen to reside in

the colonies, with powers practically unlimited. Nevertheless the king

covenanted with his colonists as follows: Also we do, for us, our

heirs and successors, declare by these presents that all and every the

persons, being our subjects, which shall go and inhabit within the

said colony and plantation, and every their children and posterity,

which shall happen to be born within any of the limits thereof, shall

have and enjoy all liberties, franchises, and immunities of free

denizens and natural subjects within any of our other dominions, to

all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within

this our realm of England, or in any other of our dominions. This

principle, that British subjects born in America should be entitled to

the same political freedom as if born in England, was one upon which

the colonists always insisted, and it was the repeated and persistent

attempts of George III. to infringe it that led the American colonies

to revolt and declare themselves independent of Great Britain.

[Sidenote: Dissolution of the two companies.]

[Sidenote: Settlement of the three zones.]

Both the companies founded in 1606 were short-lived. In 1620 the

Plymouth Company got a new charter, which made it independent of the

London Company. In 1624 the king, James I., quarreled with the London

Company, brought suit against it in court, and obtained from the

subservient judges a decree annulling its charter. In 1635 the

reorganized Plymouth Company surrendered its charter to Charles I.

in pursuance of a bargain which need not here concern us.[1] But the

creation of these short-lived companies left an abiding impression

upon the map of North America and upon the organization of civil

government in the United States. Let us observe what was done with the

three strips or zones into which the country was divided: the northern

or New England zone, assigned to the Plymouth Company; the southern or

Virginia zone, assigned to the London Company; and the central zone,

for which the two companies were, so to speak, to run a race.

[Footnote 1: See my _Beginnings of New England_, p. 112.]

[Sidenote: 1. the northern zone.]

[Sidenote: 2. The southern zone.]

In 1663 Charles II. cut off the southern part of Virginia, the area

covering the present states of North and South Carolina and Georgia,

and it was formed into a new province called Carolina. In 1729 the

two groups of settlements which had grown up along its coast were

definitively separated into North and South Carolina; and in 1732

the frontier portion toward Florida was organized into the colony of

Georgia. Thus four of the original thirteen states--Virginia, the two

Carolinas, and Georgia--were constituted in the southern zone.

To this group some writers add Maryland, founded in 1632, because its

territory had been claimed by the London Company; but the earliest

settlements in Maryland, its principal towns, and almost the whole of

its territory, come north of latitude 38° and within the middle zone.

[Sidenote: 3. The middle zone.]

Between the years 1614 and 1621 the Dutch founded their colony of New

Netherland upon the territory included between the Hudson and Delaware

rivers, or, as they quite naturally called them, the North and South

rivers. They pushed their outposts up the Hudson as far as the site

of Albany, thus intruding far into the northern zone. In 1638 Sweden

planted a small colony upon the west side of Delaware Bay, but in 1655

it was surrendered to the Dutch. Then in 1664 the English took New

Netherland from the Dutch, and Charles II. granted the province to his

brother, the Duke of York. The duke proceeded to grant part of it to

his friends, Berkeley and Carteret, and thus marked off the new colony

of New Jersey. In 1681 the region west of New Jersey was granted to

William Penn, and in the following year Penn bought from the Duke of

York the small piece of territory upon which the Swedes had planted

their colony. Delaware thus became an appendage to Penn's greater

colony, but was never merged in it. Thus five of the original

thirteen states--Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and

Delaware--were constituted in the middle zone.

As we have already observed, the westward movement of population in

the United States has largely followed the parallels of latitude, and

thus the characteristics of these three original strips or zones have,

with more or less modification, extended westward. The men of New

England, with their Portland and Salem reproduced more than 3000 miles

distant in the state of Oregon, and within 100 miles of the Pacific

Ocean, may be said in a certain sense to have realized literally the

substance of King James's grant to the Plymouth Company. It will be

noticed that the kinds of local government described in our earlier

chapters are characteristic respectively of the three original zones:

the township system being exemplified chiefly in the northern zone,

the county system in the southern zone, and the mixed township-county

system in the central zone.

[Sidenote: House of Burgesses in Virginia.]

The London and Plymouth companies did not perish until after state

governments had been organized in the colonies already founded upon

their territories. In 1619 the colonists of Virginia, with the aid of

the more liberal spirits in the London Company, secured for themselves

a representative government; to the governor and his council,

appointed in England, there was added a general assembly composed of

two burgesses from each "plantation," [2] elected by the inhabitants.

This assembly, the first legislative body that ever sat in America,

met on the 30th of July, 1619, in the choir of the rude church at

Jamestown. The dignity of the burgesses was preserved, as in the House

of Commons, by sitting with their hats on; and after offering prayer,

and taking the oath of allegiance and supremacy, they proceeded to

enact a number of laws relating to public worship, to agriculture, and

to intercourse with the Indians. Curiously enough, so confident was

the belief of the settlers that they were founding towns, that they

called their representatives "burgesses," and down to 1776 the

assembly continued to be known as the House of "Burgesses," although

towns refused to grow in Virginia, and soon after counties were

organized in 1634 the burgesses sat for counties. Such were the

beginnings of representative government in Virginia.

[Footnote 2: The word "plantation" is here used, not in its later and

ordinary sense, as the estate belonging to an individual planter,

but in an earlier sense. In this early usage it was equivalent to

"settlement." It was used in New England as well as in Virginia;

thus Salem was spoken of by the court of assistants in 1629 as "New

England's Plantation."]

[Sidenote: Company of Massachusetts Bay.]

The government of Massachusetts is descended from the Dorchester

Company formed in England in 1623, for the ostensible purpose of

trading in furs and timber and catching fish on the shores of

Massachusetts Bay. After a disastrous beginning this company was

dissolved, but only to be immediately reorganized on a greater scale.

In 1628 a grant of the land between the Charles and Merrimack rivers

was obtained from the Plymouth Company; and in 1629 a charter was

obtained from Charles I. So many men from the east of England had

joined in the enterprise that it could no longer be fitly called a

Dorchester Company. The new name was significantly taken from the

New World. The charter created a corporation under the style of the

Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay in New England. The freemen

of the Company were to hold a meeting four times a year; and they were

empowered to choose a governor, a deputy governor, and a council of

eighteen assistants, who were to hold their meetings each month. They

could administer oaths of supremacy and allegiance, raise troops

for the defence of their possessions, admit new associates into the

Company, and make regulations for the management of their business,

with the vague and weak proviso that in order to be valid their

enactment must in no wise contravene the laws of England. Nothing was

said as to the place where the Company should hold its meetings, and

accordingly after a few months the Company transferred itself and

its charter to New England, in order that it might carry out its

intentions with as little interference as possible on the part of the

crown.

Whether this transfer of the charter was legally justifiable or not

is a question which has been much debated, but with which we need not

here vex ourselves. The lawyers of the Company were shrewd enough to

know that a loosely-drawn instrument may be made to admit of great

liberty of action. Under the guise of a mere trading corporation the

Puritan leaders deliberately intended to found a civil commonwealth in

accordance with their own theories of government.

[Sidenote: Government of Massachusetts; the General Court]

After their arrival in Massachusetts, their numbers increased so

rapidly that it became impossible to have a primary assembly of all

the freemen, and so a representative assembly was devised after the

model of the Old English county court. The representatives sat for

townships, and were called deputies. At first they sat in the same

chamber with the assistants, but in 1644 the legislative body was

divided into two chambers, the deputies forming the lower house, while

the upper was composed of the assistants, who were sometimes called

magistrates. In elections the candidates for the upper house were put

in nomination by the General Court and voted on by the freemen. In

general the assistants represented the common or central power of

the colony, while the deputies represented the interests of popular

self-government. The former was comparatively an aristocratic and the

latter a democratic body, and there were frequent disputes between the

two.

It is worthy of note that the governing body thus constituted was at

once a legislative and a judicial body, like the English county court

which served as its model. Inferior courts were organized at an early

date in Massachusetts, but the highest judicial tribunal was the

legislature, which was known as the General Court. It still bears this

name to-day, though it long ago ceased to exercise judicial functions.

[Sidenote: New charter of Massachusetts]

Now as the freemen of Massachusetts directly chose their governor and

deputy-governor, as well as their chamber of deputies, and also took

part in choosing their council of assistants, their government was

virtually that of an independent republic. The crown could interpose

no effective check upon its proceedings except by threatening to annul

its charter and send over a viceroy who might be backed up, if need

be, by military force. Such threats were sometimes openly made, but

oftener hinted at. They served to make the Massachusetts government

somewhat wary and circumspect, but they did not prevent it from

pursuing a very independent policy in many respects, as when,

for example, it persisted in allowing none but members of the

Congregational church to vote. This measure, by which it was intended

to preserve the Puritan policy unchanged, was extremely distasteful to

the British government. At length in 1684 the Massachusetts charter

was annulled, an attempt was made to suppress town-meetings, and the

colony was placed under a military viceroy, Sir Edmund Andros. After

a brief period of despotic rule, the Revolution in England worked a

change. In 1692 Massachusetts received a new charter, quite different

from the old one. The people were allowed to elect representatives to

the General Court, as before, but the governor and lieutenant-governor

were appointed by the crown, and all acts of the legislature were

to be sent to England for royal approval. The general government of

Massachusetts was thus, except for its possession of a charter, made

similar to that of Virginia.

[Sidenote: Connecticut and Rhode Island]

The governments of Connecticut and Rhode Island were constructed

upon the same general plan as the first government of Massachusetts.

Governors councils, and assemblies were elected by the people. These

governments were made by the settlers themselves, after they had come

out from Massachusetts; and through a very singular combination of

circumstances[3] they were confirmed by charters granted by Charles II

in 1662, soon after his return from exile. So thoroughly republican

were these governments that they remained without change until 1818 in

Connecticut and until 1842 in Rhode Island.

[Footnote 3: See my _Beginnings of New England_, pp. 192-196.]

We thus observe two kinds of state government in the American

colonies. In both kinds the people choose a representative legislative

assembly; but in the one kind they also choose their governor, while

in the other kind the governor is appointed by the crown. We have now

to observe a third kind.

[Sidenote: Counties palatine in England]

[Sidenote: Charter of Maryland]

After the downfall of the two great companies founded in 1606, the

crown had a way of handing over to its friends extensive tracts of

land in America. In 1632 a charter granted by Charles I to Cecilius

Calvert, Lord Baltimore, founded the palatinate colony of Maryland. To

understand the nature of this charter, we must observe that among the

counties of England there were three whose rulers from an early time

were allowed special privileges. Because Cheshire and Durham bordered

upon the hostile countries, Wales and Scotland, and needed to be ever

on the alert, their rulers, the earls of Chester and the bishops of

Durham, were clothed with almost royal powers of command, and similar

powers were afterwards granted through favouritism to the dukes of

Lancaster. The three counties were called counties palatine (i.e.

"palace counties"). Before 1600 the earldom of Chester and the duchy

of Lancaster had been absorbed by the crown, but the bishopric of

Durham remained the type of an almost independent state, and the

colony palatine of Maryland was modelled after it. The charter of

Maryland conferred upon Lord Baltimore the most extensive privileges

ever bestowed by the British crown upon any subject. He was made

absolute lord of the land and water within his boundaries, could erect

towns, cities, and ports, make war or peace, call the whole fighting

population to arms and declare martial law, levy tolls and duties,

establish courts of justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other

civil officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could erect

manors, with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer titles and

dignities, so that they differed from those of England. He could make

laws with the assent of the freemen of the province, and, in cases of

emergency, ordinances not impairing life, limb, or property, without

their assent. He could found churches and chapels, have them

consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and

appoint the incumbents.[4] For his territory and these royal powers

Lord Baltimore was to send over to the palace at Windsor a tribute of

two Indian arrows yearly, and to reserve for the king one fifth part

of such gold and silver as he might happen to get by mining. "The king

furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay no taxes, customs,

subsidies, or contributions whatever upon the people of the province,

and in case of any such demand being made, the charter expressly

declared that this clause might be pleaded as a discharge in full."

Maryland was thus almost an independent state. Baltimore's title was

Lord Proprietary of Maryland, and his title and powers were made

hereditary in his family, so that he was virtually a feudal king. His

rule, however, was effectually limited. The government of Maryland was

carried on by a governor and a two-chambered legislature. The governor

and the members of the upper house of the legislature were appointed

by the lord proprietary, but the lower house of the legislature was

elected, here as elsewhere, by the people; and in accordance with

time-honoured English custom all taxation must originate in the lower

house, which represented the people.

[Footnote 4: Browne's _Maryland: the History of a Palatinate_, p.

19.]

[Sidenote: Charter of Pennsylvania.]

[Sidenote: Mason and Dixon's line]

Half a century after the founding of Maryland, similar though somewhat

less extensive proprietary powers were granted by Charles II. to

William Penn, and under them the colony of Pennsylvania was founded

and Delaware was purchased. Pennsylvania and Delaware had each its

house of representatives elected by the people; but there was only one

governor and council for the two colonies. The governor and council

were appointed by the lord proprietary, and as the council confined

itself to advising the governor and did not take part in legislation,

there was no upper house. The legislature was one-chambered. The

office of lord proprietary was hereditary in the Penn family. For

about eighty years the Penns and Calverts quarrelled, like true

sovereigns, about the boundary-line between their principalities,

until in 1763 the matter was finally settled. A line was agreed upon,

and the survey was made by two distinguished mathematicians, Charles

Mason and Jeremiah Dixon. The line ran westward 244 miles from the

Delaware River, and every fifth milestone was engraved with the arms

of Penn on the one side and those of Calvert on the other. In later

times, after all the states north of Maryland had abolished slavery,

Mason and Dixon's line became famous as the boundary between slave

states and free states.

[Sidenote: Other proprietary governments.]

At first there were other proprietary colonies besides those just

mentioned, but in course of time the rights or powers of their lords

proprietary were resumed by the crown. When New Netherland was

conquered from the Dutch it was granted to the duke of York as lord

proprietary; but after one-and-twenty years the duke ascended the

throne as James II., and so the part of the colony which he had kept

became the royal province of New York. The part which he had sold to

Berkeley and Carteret remained for a while the proprietary colony of

New Jersey, sometimes under one government, sometimes divided between

two; but the rule of the lords proprietary was very unpopular, and in

1702 their rights were surrendered to the crown. The Carolinas and

Georgia were also at first proprietary colonies, but after a while

they willingly came under the direct sway of the crown. In general the

proprietary governments were unpopular because the lords proprietary,

who usually lived in England and visited their colonies but seldom,

were apt to regard their colonies simply as sources of personal

income. This was not the case with William Penn, or the earlier

Calverts, or with James Oglethorpe, the illustrious founder of

Georgia; but it was too often the case. So long as the lord's rents,

fees, and other emoluments were duly collected, he troubled himself

very little as to what went on in the colony. If that had been all,

the colony would have troubled itself very little about him. But the

governor appointed by this absentee master was liable to be more

devoted to his interests than to those of the people, and the civil

service was seriously damaged by worthless favourites sent over from

England for whom the governor was expected to find some office that

would pay them a salary. On the whole, it seemed less unsatisfactory

to have the governors appointed by the crown; and so before the

Revolutionary War all the proprietary governments had fallen, except

those of the Penns and the Calverts, which doubtless survived because

they were the best organized and best administered.

[Sidenote: At the time of the Revolution there were three forms of

colonial government: 1. Republican, 2. Proprietary, 3. Royal.]

There were thus at the time of the Revolutionary War three forms of

state government in the American colonies. There were, _first_,

the Republican colonies, in which the governors were elected by the

people, as in Rhode Island and Connecticut; _secondly,_the

Proprietary colonies, in which the governors were appointed by

hereditary proprietors, as in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware;

_thirdly_, the Royal colonies,[5] in which the governors were

appointed by the crown, as in Georgia, the two Carolinas, Virginia,

New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. It is

customary to distinguish the Republican colonies as _Charter_

colonies, but that is not an accurate distinction, inasmuch as the

Proprietary colonies also had charters. And among the Royal colonies,

Massachusetts, having been originally a republic, still had a charter

in which her rights were so defined as to place her in a somewhat

different position from the other Royal colonies; so that Prof.

Alexander Johnston, with some reason, puts her in a class by herself

as a _Semi-royal_ colony.

[Footnote 5: Or, as they were sometimes called, Royal

_provinces._ In the history of Massachusetts many writers

distinguish the period before 1692 as the _colonial_ period, and

the period 1692 to 1774 as the _provincial_ period.]

[Sidenote: In all three forms there was a representative assembly, which

alone could impose taxes.]

These differences, it will be observed, related to the character and

method of filling the governor's office. In the Republican colonies

the governor naturally represented the interests of the people, in the

Proprietary colonies he was the agent of the Penns or the Calverts,

in the Royal colonies he was the agent of the king. All the thirteen

colonies alike had a legislative assembly elected by the people. The

basis of representation might be different in different colonies,

as we have seen that in Massachusetts the delegates represented

townships, whereas in Virginia they represented counties; but in all

alike the assembly was a truly representative body, and in all alike

it was the body that controlled the expenditure of public money. These

representative assemblies arose spontaneously because the founders of

the American colonies were Englishmen used from time immemorial to tax

themselves and govern themselves. As they had been wont to vote for

representatives in England, instead of leaving things to be controlled

by the king, so now they voted for representatives in Maryland or New

York, instead of leaving things to be controlled by the governor. The

spontaneousness of all this is quaintly and forcibly expressed by the

great Tory historian Hutchinson, who tells us that in the year 1619 a

house of burgesses _broke out_ in Virginia! as if it had been the

mumps, or original sin, or any of those things that people cannot help

having.

[Sidenote: The governor's council was a kind of upper house.]

This representative assembly was the lower house in the colonial

legislatures. The governor always had a council to advise with him and

assist him in his executive duties, in imitation of the king's privy

council in England. But in nearly all the colonies this council took

part in the work of legislation, and thus sat as an upper house, with

more or less power of reviewing and amending the acts of the assembly.

In Pennsylvania, as already observed, the council refrained from this

legislative work, and so, until some years after the Revolution, the

Pennsylvania legislature was one-chambered. The members of the council

were appointed in different ways, sometimes by the king or the lord

proprietary, or, as in Massachusetts, by the outgoing legislature, or,

as in Connecticut, they were elected by the people.

[Sidenote: The colonial government was like the English system in

miniature.]

Thus all the colonies had a government framed after the model to which

the people had been accustomed in England. It was like the English

system in miniature, the governor answering to the king, and the

legislature, usually two-chambered, answering to parliament. And as

quarrels between king and parliament were not uncommon, so quarrels

between governor and legislature were very frequent indeed, except

in Connecticut and Rhode Island. The royal governors, representing

British imperial ideas rather than American ideas, were sure to come

into conflict with the popular assemblies, and sometimes became

the objects of bitter popular hatred. The disputes were apt to be

concerned with questions in which taxation was involved, such as

the salaries of crown officers, the appropriations for war with

the Indians, and so on. Such disputes bred more or less popular

discontent, but the struggle did not become flagrant so long as the

British parliament refrained from meddling with it.

[Sidenote: The Americans never admitted the supremacy of parliament;]

The Americans never regarded parliament as possessing any rightful

authority over their internal affairs. When the earliest colonies were

founded, it was the general theory that the American wilderness was

part of the king's private domain and not subject to the control of

parliament. This theory lived on in America, but died out in England.

On the one hand the Americans had their own legislatures, which stood

to them in the place of parliament. The authority of parliament was

derived from the fact that it was a representative body, but it did

not represent Americans. Accordingly the Americans held that the

relation of each American colony to Great Britain was like the

relation between England and Scotland in the seventeenth century.

England and Scotland then had the same king, but separate parliaments,

and the English parliament could not make laws for Scotland. Such is

the connection between Sweden and Norway at the present day; they have

the same king, but each country legislates for itself. So the American

colonists held that Virginia, for example, and Great Britain had the

same king, but each its independent legislature; and so with the

other colonies,--there were thirteen parliaments in America, each as

sovereign within its own sphere as the parliament at Westminster, and

the latter had no more right to tax the people of Massachusetts than

the Massachusetts legislature had to tax the people of Virginia.

In one respect, however, the Americans did admit that parliament had a

general right of supervision over all parts of the British empire.[6]

Maritime commerce seemed to be as much the affair of one part of the

empire as another, and it seemed right that it should be regulated by

the central parliament at Westminster. Accordingly the Americans did

not resist custom-house taxes as long as they seemed to be imposed

for purely commercial purposes; but they were quick to resist direct

taxation, and custom-house taxes likewise, as soon as these began to

form a part of schemes for extending the authority of parliament over

the colonies.

[Footnote 6: except in the regulation of maritime commerce.]

In England, on the other hand, this theory that the Americans were

subject to the king's authority but not to that of parliament

naturally became unintelligible after the king himself had become

virtually subject to parliament.[7] The Stuart kings might call

themselves kings by the grace of God, but since 1688 the sovereigns of

Great Britain owe their seat upon the throne to an act of parliament.

[Footnote 7: In England there grew up the theory of the imperial

supremacy of parliament.]

To suppose that the king's American subjects were not amenable to the

authority of parliament seemed like supposing that a stream could rise

higher than its source. Besides, after 1700 the British empire began

to expand in all parts of the world, and the business of parliament

became more and more imperial. It could make laws for the East India

Company; why not, then, for the Company of Massachusetts Bay?

[Sidenote: Conflict between the British and the American theories was

precipitated by George III.]

Thus the American theory of the situation was irreconcilable with

the British theory, and when parliament in 1765, with no unfriendly

purpose, began laying taxes upon the Americans, thus invading the

province of the colonial legislatures, the Americans refused to

submit. The ensuing quarrel might doubtless have been peacefully

adjusted, had not the king, George III., happened to be entertaining

political schemes which were threatened with ruin if the Americans

should get a fair hearing for their side of the case.[8] Thus

political intrigue came in to make the situation hopeless. When a

state of things arises, with which men's established methods of civil

government are incompetent to deal, men fall back upon the primitive

method which was in vogue before civil government began to exist.

They fight it out; and so we had our Revolutionary War, and became

separated politically from Great Britain. It is worthy of note, in

this connection, that the last act of parliament, which brought

matters to a crisis, was the so-called Regulating Act of April, 1774,

the purpose of which was to change the government of Massachusetts.

This act provided that members of the council should be appointed by

the royal governor, that they should be paid by the crown and thus

be kept subservient to it, that the principal executive and judicial

officers should be likewise paid by the crown, and that town-meetings

should be prohibited except for the sole purpose of electing town

officers. Other unwarrantable acts were passed at the same time, but

this was the worst. Troops were sent over to aid in enforcing this

act, the people of Massachusetts refused to recognize its validity,

and out of this political situation came the battles of Lexington and

Bunker Hill.

[Footnote 8: See my _War of Independence_, pp. 58-64, 69-71

(Riverside Library for Young People).]

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. Various claims to North America:--

a. Spanish.

b. English.

c. French.

2. What was needed to make such claims of any value?

3. The London and Plymouth companies:--

a. The time and purpose of their organization.

b. The grant to the London Company.

c. The grant to the Plymouth Company.

d. The magnitude of the zones granted.

e. The peculiar provisions for the intermediate zone.

f. First attempts at settlement.

4. To what important principle of the common charter of these

two companies did the colonists persistently cling?

5. The influence of these short-lived companies upon the settlement

and government of the United States:--

a. A review of the zones and their assignment.

b. The states of the northern zone and their origin.

c. The states of the southern zone and their origin.

d. The states of the middle zone and their origin.

e. The influence of the movement of population on local

government in each zone.

6. Early state government in Virginia:--

a. The part appointed and the part elected.

b. The first legislative body in America.

c. The dignity of its members.

d. The reason for the name "House of Burgesses."

7. Early state government in Massachusetts:--

a. The Dorchester Company.

b. The government provided for the Company of Massachusetts

Bay by its charter.

c. The real purpose of the Puritan leaders.

d. The change from the primary assembly of freemen to the

representative assembly.

e. The division of this assembly into two houses, with a comparison

of the houses.

f. The reason for the name "General Court."

g. The loss of the charter and the causes that led to it.

h. The new charter as compared with the old.

8. Compare the early governments of Connecticut and Rhode

Island with the first government of Massachusetts.

9. What two kinds of state government have thus far been

observed?

10. Early state government in Maryland:--

a. The favouritism of the crown as shown in land grants.

b. The palatine counties of England.

c. The bishopric of Durham the model of the colony of

Maryland.

d. The extraordinary privileges granted Lord Baltimore.

e. The tribute to be paid in return.

f. The ruler a feudal long.

g. Limitations of the ruler's power.

11. Early state government in Pennsylvania and Delaware:--

a. The powers of Penn as compared with those of Calvert.

b. One governor and council,

c. The legislature of each colony.

d. The quarrels of the Penns and Calverts.

e. Mason and Dixon's line.

12. What other proprietary governments were organized, and

what was their fate?

13. Why were proprietary governments unpopular? (Note the

exceptions, however.)

14. Classify and define the forms of colonial government in existence

at the beginning of the Revolution.

15. Show that these forms differed chiefly in respect to the governor's

office.

16. A representative assembly in each of the thirteen colonies:--

a. The basis of representation.

b. The control of the public money.

c. The spontaneousness of the representative assembly.

17. The governor's council:--

a. The custom in England.

b. The council as an upper house.

c. The council in Pennsylvania.

18. Compare the colonial systems with the British (1) in organization

and (2) in the nature of their political quarrels.

19. What was the American theory of the relation of each colony

to the British parliament?

20. What was the American attitude towards maritime regulations?

21. What was the British theory of the relation of the American

colonies to parliament?

22. How was the Revolutionary War brought on?

23. Describe the last act of parliament that brought matters to a

crisis.

Section 2. _The Transition from Colonial to State Governments._

[Sidenote: Dissolution of assemblies and parliaments.]

[Sidenote: Committees of Correspondence.]

During the earlier part of the Revolutionary War most of the states

had some kind of provisional government. The case of Massachusetts

may serve as an illustration. There, as in the other colonies, the

governor had the power of dissolving the assembly. This was like the

king's power of dissolving parliament in the days of the Stuarts.

It was then a dangerous power. In modern England there is nothing

dangerous in a dissolution of parliament; on the contrary, it is a

useful device for ascertaining the wishes of the people, for a new

House of Commons must be elected immediately. But in old times the

king would turn his parliament out of doors, and as long as he could

beg, borrow, or steal enough money to carry on government according to

his own notions, he would not order a new election. Fortunately such

periods were not very long. The latest instance was in the reign of

Charles I, who got on without a parliament from 1629 to 1640.[9] In

the American colonies the dissolution of the assembly by the governor

was not especially dangerous, but it sometimes made mischief by

delaying needed legislation. During the few years preceding the

Revolution, the assemblies were so often dissolved that it became

necessary for the people to devise some new way of getting their

representatives together to act for the colony. In Massachusetts this

end was attained by the famous "Committees of Correspondence." No one

could deny that town-meetings were legal, or that the people of

one township had a right to ask advice from the people of another

township. Accordingly each township appointed a committee to

correspond or confer with committees from other townships. This system

was put into operation by Samuel Adams in 1772, and for the next two

years the popular resistance to the crown was organized by these

committees. For example, before the tea was thrown into Boston

harbour, the Boston committee sought and received advice from every

township in Massachusetts, and the treatment of the tea-ships was from

first to last directed by the committees of Boston and five neighbour

towns.

[Footnote: 9: The kings of France contrived to get along without a

representative assembly from 1614 to 1789, and during this long period

abuses so multiplied that the meeting of the States-General in 1789

precipitated the great revolution which overthrew the monarchy.]

[Sidenote: Provincial Congress]

In 1774 a further step was taken. As parliament had overthrown the old

government, and sent over General Gage as military governor, to put

its new system into operation, the people defied and ignored Gage, and

the townships elected delegates to meet together in what was called a

"Provincial Congress." The president of this congress was the chief

provincial executive officer of the commonwealth, and there was a

small executive council, known as the "Committee of Safety."

[Sidenote: Provisional governments; "governors" and "presidents."]

This provisional government lasted about a year. In the summer of

1775 the people went further. They fell back upon their charter and

proceeded to carry on their government as it had been carried on

before 1774, except that the governor was left out altogether. The

people in town-meeting elected their representatives to a general

assembly, as of old, and this assembly chose a council of twenty-eight

members to sit as an upper house. The president of the council was the

foremost executive officer of the commonwealth, but he had not the

powers of a governor. He was no more the governor than the president

of our federal senate is the president of the United States. The

powers of the governor were really vested in the council, which was

an executive as well as a legislative body, and the president was

its chairman. Indeed, the title "president" is simply the Latin for

"chairman," he who "presides" or "sits before" an assembly. In 1775

it was a more modest title than "governor," and had not the smack of

semi-royalty which lingered about the latter. Governors had made so

much trouble that people were distrustful of the office, and at first

it was thought that the council would be quite sufficient for the

executive work that was to be done. Several of the states thus

organized their governments with a council at the head instead of

a governor; and hence in reading about that period one often comes

across the title "president," somewhat loosely used as if equivalent

to governor. Thus in 1787 we find Benjamin Franklin called "president

of Pennsylvania," meaning "president of the council of Pennsylvania."

But this arrangement did not prove satisfactory and did not last long.

It soon appeared that for executive work one man is better than a

group of men. In Massachusetts, in 1780, the old charter was replaced

by a new written constitution, under which was formed the state

government which, with some emendations in detail, has continued to

the present day. Before the end of the eighteenth century all the

states except Connecticut and Rhode Island, which, had always been

practically Independent, thus remodelled their governments.

[Sidenote: Origin of the Senates.]

These changes, however, were very conservative. The old form of

government was closely followed. First there was the governor, elected

in some states by the legislature, in others by the people. Then there

was the two-chambered legislature, of which the lower house was the

same institution after the Revolution that it had been before. The

upper house, or council, was retained, but in a somewhat altered

form. The Americans had been used to having the acts of their popular

assemblies reviewed by a council, and so they retained this revisory

body as an upper house. But the fashion of copying names and titles

from the ancient Roman republic was then prevalent, and accordingly

the upper house was called a Senate. There was a higher property

qualification for senators than for representatives, and generally

their terms of service were longer. In some states they were chosen by

the people, in others by the lower house. In Maryland they were chosen

by a special college of electors, an arrangement which was copied in

our federal government in the election of the president of the United

States. In most of the states there was a lieutenant-governor, as

there had been in the colonial period, to serve in case of the

governor's death or incapacity; ordinarily the lieutenant-governor

presided over the senate.

[Sidenote: Likenesses and differences between British and American

systems.]

Thus our state governments came to be repetitions on a small scale of

the king, lords, and commons of England. The governor answered to the

king, with his dignity very much curtailed by election for a short

period. The senate answered to the House of Lords except in being a

representative and not a hereditary body. It was supposed to represent

more especially that part of the community which was possessed of most

wealth and consideration; and in several states the senators were

apportioned with some reference to the amount of taxes paid by

different parts of the state.[10] When New York made its senate a

supreme court of appeal, it was in deliberate imitation of the House

of Lords. On the other hand, the House of Representatives answered to

the House of Commons as it used to be in the days when its power was

really limited by that of the upper house and the king. At the present

day the English of Commons is a supreme body. In case of a serious

difference with the House of Lords, the upper house must yield, or

else new peers will be created in sufficient number to reverse its

vote; and the lords always yield before this point is reached. So,

too, though the veto power of the sovereign has never been explicitly

abolished, it has not been exercised since 1707, and would not now be

tolerated for a moment. In America there is no such supreme body. The

bill passed by the lower house may be thrown out by the upper house,

or if it passes both it may be vetoed by the governor; and unless the

bill can again pass both houses by more than a simple majority, the

veto will stand. In most of the states a two-thirds vote in the

affirmative is required.

[Footnote 10: See my _Critical Period of American History_, p.

68.]

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. The dissolution of assemblies and parliaments:--

a. The governor's power over the assembly in the colonies.

b. The king's power over parliament in England.

c. The danger of dissolution in the time of the Stuarts.

d. The safety of dissolution in modern England.

e. The frequency of dissolution before the Revolution.

2. Representation of the people in the provisional government

of Massachusetts:--

a. The committees of correspondence.

b. Their function, with an illustration from the "tea-ships."

c. The provincial congress.

d. The committee of safety.

e. The return to the two-chambered legislature of the charter.

3. Executive powers in the provisional government of Massachusetts;--

a. The foremost executive officer.

b. Where the power of governor was really vested.

c. Why the name of president was preferred to that of governor.

d. The example of Massachusetts followed elsewhere.

e. The end of provisional government in 1780.

4. The council transformed to a senate:--

a. The principle of reviewing the acts of the popular assembly.

b. The borrowing of Roman names.

c. The qualifications and service of senators.

d. The lieutenant-governor.

5. Our state governments patterned after the government of

England:--

a. The governor and the king.

b. The Senate and the House of Lords.

c. The House of Representatives and the House of Commons.

d. Some differences between the British system and the American.

Section 3. _The State Governments._

[Sidenote: Later modifications.]

During the present century our state governments have undergone

more or less revision, chiefly in the way of abolishing property

qualifications for offices making the suffrage universal, and electing

officers that were formerly appointed. Only in Delaware does there

still remain a property qualification for senators. There is no longer

any distinction in principle between the upper and lower houses of the

legislature. Both represent population, the usual difference being

that the senate consists of fewer members who represent larger

districts. Usually, too, the term of the representatives is two years,

and the whole house is elected at the same time, while the term of

senators is four years, and half the number are elected every two

years. This system of two-chambered legislatures is probably retained

chiefly through a spirit of conservatism, because it is what we

are used to. But it no doubt has real advantages in checking hasty

legislation. People are always wanting to have laws made about all

sorts of things, and in nine cases out of ten their laws would be

pernicious laws; so that it is well not to have legislation made too

easy.

[Sidenote: The suffrage.]

The suffrage by which the legislature is elected is almost universal.

It is given in all the states to all male citizens who have reached

the age of one-and-twenty. In many it is given also to _denizens_

of foreign birth who have declared an intention of becoming citizens.

In some it is given without further specification to every male

_inhabitant_ of voting age. Residence in the state for some

period, varying from three months to two years and a half, is also

generally required; sometimes a certain length of residence in the

county, the town, or even in the voting precinct, is prescribed. In

many of the states it is necessary to have paid one's poll-tax. There

is no longer any property qualification, though there was until

recently in Rhode Island, Criminals, idiots, and lunatics are excluded

from the suffrage. Some states also exclude duellists and men who bet

on elections. Connecticut and Massachusetts shut out persons who are

unable to read. In no other country has access to citizenship and the

suffrage been made so easy.

[Sidenote: Separation between legislation and the executive.]

A peculiar feature of American governments, and something which it is

hard for Europeans to understand, is the almost complete separation

between the executive and the legislative departments. In European

countries the great executive officers are either members of the

legislature, or at all events have the right to be present at its

meetings and take part in its discussions; and as they generally have

some definite policy by which they are to stand or fall, they are wont

to initiate legislation and to guide the course of the discussion. But

in America the legislatures, having no such central points about which

to rally their forces, carry on their work in an aimless, rambling

sort of way, through the agency of many standing committees. When

a measure is proposed it is referred to one of the committees for

examination before the house will have anything to do with it. Such a

preliminary examination is of course necessary where there is a vast

amount of legislative work going on. But the private and disconnected

way in which our committee work is done tends to prevent full and

instructive discussion in the house, to make the mass of legislation,

always chaotic enough, somewhat more chaotic, and to facilitate the

various evil devices of lobbying and log-rolling.

In pointing out this inconvenience attendant upon the American plan of

separating the executive and legislative departments, I must not be

understood as advocating the European plan as preferable for this

country. The evils that inevitably flow from any fundamental change in

the institutions of a country are apt to be much more serious than the

evils which the change is intended to remove. Political government is

like a plant; a little watering and pruning do very well for it, but

the less its roots are fooled with, the better. In the American system

of government the independence of the executive department, with

reference to the legislative, is fundamental; and on the whole it is

eminently desirable. One of the most serious of the dangers which

beset democratic government, especially where it is conducted on a

great scale, is the danger that the majority for the time being will

use its power tyrannically and unscrupulously, as it is always tempted

to do. Against such unbridled democracy we have striven to guard

ourselves by various constitutional checks and balances. Our written

constitutions and our Supreme Court are important safeguards, as

will be shown below. The independence of our executives is another

important safeguard. But if our executive departments were mere

committees of the legislature--like the English cabinet, for

example--this independence could not possibly be maintained; and the

loss of it would doubtless entail upon us evils far greater than those

which mow flow from want of leadership in our legislatures.[11]

[Footnote 11: In two admirable essays on "Cabinet Responsibility and

the Constitution," and "Democracy and the Constitution," Mr. Lawrence

Lowell has convincingly argued that the American system is best

adapted to the circumstances of this country. Lowell, _Essays on

Government_, pp. 20-117, Boston, 1890.]

We must remember that government is necessarily a cumbrous affair,

however conducted.

The only occasion on which the governor is a part of the legislature

is when he signs or vetoes a bill. Then he is virtually in himself

a third house.[12] As an executive officer the governor is far less

powerful than in the colonial times. We shall see the reason of

this after we have enumerated some of the principal offices in the

executive department. There is always a secretary of state, whose main

duty is to make and keep the records of state transactions. There is

always a state treasurer, and usually a state auditor or comptroller

to examine the public accounts and issue the warrants without which

the treasurer cannot pay out a penny of the state's money. There is

almost always an attorney-general, to appear for the state in the

supreme court in all cases in which the state is a party, and in

all prosecutions for capital offences. He also exercises some

superintendence over the district attorneys, and acts as legal adviser

to the governors and the legislature. There is also in many states

a superintendent of education; and in some there are boards of

education, of health, of lunacy and charity, bureau of agriculture,

commissioners of prisons, of railroads, of mines, of harbours, of

immigration, and so on. Sometimes such boards are appointed by the

governor, but such officers as the secretary of state, the treasurer,

auditor, and attorney-general are, in almost all the states, elected

by the people. They are not responsible to the governor, but to the

people who elect them. They are not subordinate to the governor, but

are rather his colleagues. Strictly speaking, the governor is not the

head of the executive department, but a member of it. The executive

department is parcelled out in several pieces, and his is one of the

pieces.

[Footnote 12: The state executive.]

[Sidenote: The governor's functions: 1. Advisor of legislature. 2.

Commander of state militia. 3. Royal prerogative of pardon. 4. Veto power.]

The ordinary functions of the governor are four in number. 1. He

sends a message to the legislature, at the beginning of each session,

recommending such measures as he would like to see embodied in

legislation. 2. He is commander-in-chief of the state militia, and as

such can assist the sheriff of a county in putting down a riot, or

the President of the United States, in the event of a war. On such

occasions the governor may become a personage of immense importance,

as, for example, in our Civil War, when President Lincoln's demands

for troops met with such prompt response from the men who will be

known to history as the great "war governors." 3. The governor is

invested with the royal prerogative of pardoning criminals, or

commuting the sentences pronounced upon them by the courts. This power

belongs to kings in accordance with the old feudal notion that the

king was the source or fountain of justice. When properly used it

affords an opportunity for rectifying some injustice for which the

ordinary machinery of the law could not provide, or for making such

allowances for extraordinary circumstances as the court could not

properly consider. In our country it is too often improperly used to

enable the worst criminals to escape due punishment, just because

it is a disagreeable duty to hang them. Such misplaced clemency is

pleasant for the murderers, but it makes life less secure for honest

men and women, and in the less civilized regions of our country it

encourages lynch law. 4. In all the states except Rhode Island,

Delaware, Ohio, and North Carolina, the governor has a veto upon the

acts of the legislature, as above explained; and in ordinary times

this power, which is not executive but legislative, is probably the

governor's most important and considerable power. In thirteen of

the states the governor can veto particular items in a bill for the

appropriation of public money, while at the same time he approves

the rest of the bill. This is a most important safeguard against

corruption, because where the governor does not have this power it is

possible to make appropriations for unworthy or scandalous purposes

along with appropriations for matters of absolute necessity, and then

to lump them all together in the same bill, so that the governor must

either accept the bad along with the good or reject the good along

with the bad. It is a great gain when the governor can select the

items and veto some while approving others. In such matters the

governor is often more honest and discreet than the legislature, if

for no other reason, because he is one man, and responsibility can be

fixed upon him more clearly than upon two or three hundred.

Such, in brief outline, is the framework of the American state

governments. But our account would be very incomplete without some

mention of three points, all of them especially characteristic of

the American state, and likely to be overlooked or misunderstood by

Europeans.

[Sidenote: In building the state, the local self-government was left

unimpaired.]

_First_, while we have rapidly built up one of the greatest

empires yet seen upon the earth, we have left our self-government

substantially unimpaired in the process. This is exemplified in

two ways: first, in the relationship of the state to its towns

and counties, and, secondly, in its relationship to the federal

government. Over the township and county governments the state

exercises a general supervision; indeed, it clothes them with their

authority. Townships and counties have no sovereignty; the state, on

the other hand, has many elements of sovereignty, but it does not use

them to obliterate or unduly restrict the control of the townships

and counties over their own administrative work. It leaves the local

governments to administer themselves. As a rule there is only just

enough state supervision to harmonize the working of so many local

administrations. Such a system of government comes as near as possible

toward making all American citizens participate actively in the

management of public affairs. It generates and nourishes a public

spirit and a universal acquaintance with matters of public interest

such as has probably never before been seen in any great country.

Public spirit of equal or greater intensity may have been witnessed

in small and highly educated communities, such as ancient Athens or

mediaeval Florence, but in the United States it is diffused over an

area equal to the whole of Europe. Among the leading countries of the

world England is the one which comes nearest to the United States

in the general diffusion of enlightened public spirit and political

capacity throughout all classes of society.

[Sidenote: Instructive contrast with France.]

A very notable contrast to the self-government which has produced such

admirable results is to be seen in France, and as contrasts are

often instructive, let me mention one or two features of the French

government. There is nothing like the irregularity and spontaneity

there that we have observed in our survey of the United States.

Everything is symmetrical. France is divided into eighty-nine

_departments_, most of them larger than the state of Delaware,

some of them nearly as large as Connecticut, and the administration

of one department is exactly like that of all the others. The chief

officer of the department is the prefect, who is appointed by

the minister of the interior at Paris. The prefect is treasurer,

recruiting officer, school superintendent, all in one, and he appoints

nearly all inferior officers. The department has a council, elected

by universal suffrage, but it has no power of assessing taxes. The

central legislature in Paris decides for it how much money it shall

use and how it shall raise it. The department council is not even

allowed to express its views on political matters; it can only attend

to purely local details of administration.

The smallest civil division in France is the _commune_, which may

be either rural or urban. The commune has a municipal council which

elects a mayor; but when once elected the mayor becomes directly

responsible to the prefect of the department, and through him to the

minister of the interior. If these greater officers do not like what

the mayor does, they can overrule his acts or even suspend him from

office; or upon their complaint the President of the Republic can

remove him.

[Sidenote: In France whether it is nominally a despotic empire or a

republic at the top, there is scarcely any self-government at the

bottom. Hence government there rests on an insecure foundation.]

Thus in France people do not manage their own affairs, but they are

managed for them by a hierarchy of officials with its head at Paris.

This system was devised by the Constituent Assembly in 1790 and

wrought into completeness by Napoleon in 1800. The men who devised

it in 1790 actually supposed that they were inaugurating a system or

political freedom(!), and unquestionably it was a vast improvement

upon the wretched system which it supplanted; but as contrasted with

American methods and institutions, it is difficult to call it anything

else than a highly centralized despotism. It has gone on without

essential change through all the revolutions which have overtaken

France since 1800. The people have from time to time overthrown an

unpopular government at Paris, but they have never assumed the direct

control of their own affairs.

Hence it is commonly remarked that while the general intelligence

of the French people is very high, their intelligence in political

matters is, comparatively speaking, very low. Some persons try to

explain this by a reference to peculiarities of race. But if we

Americans were to set about giving to the state governments things

to do that had better be done by counties and towns, and giving the

federal government things to do that had better be done by the states,

it would not take many generations to dull the keen edge of our

political capacity. We should lose it as inevitably as the most

consummate of pianists will lose his facility if he stops practising.

It is therefore a fact of cardinal importance that in the United

States the local governments of township, county, and city are left to

administer themselves instead of being administered by a great bureau

with its head at the state capital. In a political society thus

constituted from the beginning it has proved possible to build up

our Federal Union, in which the states, while for certain purposes

indissolubly united, at the same time for many other purposes retain

their self-government intact. As in the case of other aggregates, the

nature of the American political aggregate has been determined by the

nature of its political units.

[Sidenote: Vastness of the functions retained by the states in the

American Union.]

_Secondly_, let us observe how great are the functions retained

by our states under the conditions of our Federal Union. The

powers granted to our federal government, such as the control over

international questions, war and peace, the military forces, the

coinage, patents and copyrights, and the regulation of commerce

between the states and with foreign countries,--all these are powers

relating to matters that affect all the states, but could not be

regulated harmoniously by the separate action of the states. In order

the more completely to debar the states from meddling with such

matters, they are expressly prohibited from entering into agreements

with each other or with a foreign power; they cannot engage in war,

save in case of actual invasion or such imminent danger as admits of

no delay; without consent of Congress they cannot keep a military or

naval force in time of peace, or impose custom-house duties. Besides

all this they are prohibited from granting titles of nobility, coining

money, emitting bills of credit, making anything but gold and silver

coin a tender in payment of debts, passing bills of attainder, _ex

post facto_ laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

The force of these latter restrictions will be explained hereafter.

Such are the limitations of sovereignty imposed upon the states within

the Federal Union.

Compared with the vast prerogatives of the state legislatures, these

limitations seem small enough. All the civil and religious rights

of our citizens depend upon state legislation; the education of the

people is in the care of the states; with them rests the regulation

of the suffrage; they prescribe the rules of marriage, the legal

relations of husband and wife, of parent and child; they determine the

powers of masters over servants and the whole law of principal and

agent, which is so vital a matter in all business transactions; they

regulate partnership, debt and credit, insurance; they constitute all

corporations, both private and municipal, except such as specially

fulfill the financial or other specific functions of the federal

government; they control the possession, distribution, and use of

property, the exercise of trades, and all contract relations; and they

formulate and administer all criminal law, except only that which

concerns crimes committed against the United States, on the high seas,

or against the law of nations. Space would fail in which to enumerate

the particulars of this vast range of power; to detail its parts would

be to catalogue all social and business relationships, to examine all

the foundations of law and order.[13]

[Footnote 13: Woodrow Wilson, _The State: Elements of Historical and

Practical Politics_, p. 437.]

This enumeration, by Mr. Woodrow Wilson, is so much to the point that I

content myself with transcribing it. A very remarkable illustration of

the preponderant part played by state law in America is given by Mr.

Wilson, in pursuance of the suggestion of Mr. Franklin Jameson.[14]

Consider the most important subjects of legislation in England during

the present century, the subjects which make up almost the entire

constitutional history of England for eighty years. These subjects are

Catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform, the abolition of slavery,

the amendment of the poor-laws, the reform of municipal corporations,

the repeal of the corn laws, the admission of Jews to parliament, the

disestablishment of the Irish church, the alteration of the Irish land

laws, the establishment of national education, the introduction of the

ballot, and the reform of the criminal law. In the United States only

two of these twelve great subjects could be dealt with by the federal

government: the repeal of the corn laws, as being a question of national

revenue and custom-house duties, and the abolition of slavery, by virtue

of a constitutional amendment embodying some of the results of our Civil

War. All the other questions enumerated would have to be dealt with by

our state governments; and before the war that was the case with the

slavery question also. A more vivid illustration could not be asked for.

[Footnote 14: Jameson, "The Study of the Constitutional

History of the States" _J.H.U. Studies_, IV., v.]

How complete is the circle of points in which the state touches the

life of the American citizen, we may see in the fact that our

state courts make a complete judiciary system, from top to bottom

independent of the federal courts.[15] An appeal may be carried from

a state court to a federal court in cases which are found to involve

points of federal law, or in suits arising between citizens of

different states, or where foreign ambassadors are concerned. Except

for such cases the state courts make up a complete judiciary world of

their own, quite outside the sphere of the United States courts.

[Footnote 15: Independence of the state courts.]

[Sidenote: Constitution of the state courts.]

We have already had something to say about courts in connection with

those primitive areas for the administration of justice, the hundred

and the county. In our states there are generally four grades of

courts. There are, first, the _justices of the peace _, with

jurisdiction over "petty police offences and civil suits for trifling

sums." They also conduct preliminary hearings in cases where persons

are accused of serious crimes, and when the evidence seems to warrant

it they may commit the accused person for trial before a higher court.

The mayor's court in a city usually has jurisdiction similar to that

of justices of the peace. Secondly, there are _county_ and

_municipal courts_, which hear appeals from justices of the peace

and from mayor's courts, and have original jurisdiction over a more

important grade of civil and criminal cases. Thirdly, there are

_superior courts_, having original jurisdiction over the most

important cases and over wider of the state areas of country, so that

they do not confine their sessions to one place, but move about from

place to place, like the English _justices in eyre_. Cases are

carried up, on appeal, from the lower to the superior court. Fourthly,

there is in every state a _supreme court_, which generally has no

original jurisdiction, but only hears appeals from the decisions of

the other courts. In New York there is a "supremest" court, styled

the _court of appeals_, which has the power of revising sundry

judgments of the supreme court; and there is something similar in New

Jersey, Illinois, Kentucky, and Louisiana.[16]

[Footnote 16: Wilson. The State, pp. 509-513.]

[Sidenote: Elective and appointive judges.]

In the thirteen colonies the judges were appointed by the governor,

with or without the consent of the council, and they held office

during life or good behaviour. Among the changes made in our state

constitutions since the Revolution, there have been few more important

than those which have affected the position of the judges. In most of

the states they are now elected by the people for a term of years,

sometimes as short as two years. There is a growing feeling that this

change was a mistake. It seems to have lowered the general character

of the judiciary. The change was made by reasoning from analogy: it

was supposed that in a free country all offices ought to be elective

and for short terms. But the case of a judge is not really analogous

to that of executive officers, like mayors and governors and

presidents. The history of popular liberty is much older than the

history of the United States, and it would be difficult to point to

an instance in which popular liberty has ever suffered from the

life tenure of judges. On the contrary, the judge ought to be as

independent as possible of all transient phases of popular sentiment,

and American experience during the past century seems to teach us that

in the few states where the appointing of judges during life or good

behaviour has prevailed, the administration of justice has been better

than in the states where the judges have been elected for specified

terms. Since 1869 there has been a marked tendency toward lengthening

the terms of elected judges, and in several states there has been a

return to the old method of appointing judges by the governor, subject

to confirmation by the senate.[17] It is one of the excellent features

of our system of federal government, that the several states can thus

try experiments each for itself and learn by comparison of results.

When things are all trimmed down to a dead level of uniformity by the

central power, as in France, a prolific source of valuable experiences

is cut off and shut up.

[Footnote 17: For details, see the admirable monograph of Henry Hitchcock,

_American State Constitutions_, p. 53.]

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. Modifications of state government during the present century:--

a. Property qualifications for office.

b. The distinction between the upper and the lower house.

c. The advantage in retaining a two-chambered legislature.

2. The suffrage:--

a. The persons to whom it is granted.

b. The qualifications established.

c. The persons excluded from its exercise.

3. The separation of the executive and legislative departments:--

a. The relation of the great executive officers to legislation in

Europe.

b. The work of legislation in the United States.

c. The most serious of the dangers that beset democratic

government.

d. Important safeguards against such a danger.

4. The state executive:--

a. The governor as a part of the legislature.

b. Officers always belonging to executive departments.

c. Officers frequently belonging to executive departments.

d. The relation of the governor to other elected executive

officers.

5. The ordinary functions of the governor:--

a. Advising the legislature.

b. Commanding the militia.

c. Pardoning criminals or commuting their sentences.

d. Vetoing acts of the legislature.

6. Why is the power to veto particular items in a bill appropriating

public money an important safeguard against corruption?

7. Local self-government in the United States left unimpaired:--

a. The extent of state supervision of towns and counties.

b. The spirit thus developed in American citizens.

8. A lesson from the symmetry of the French government:--

a. The departments and their administration.

b. The prefect and his duties.

c. The department council and its sphere of action.

d. The commune.

e. The French system contrasted with the American.

f. A common view of the political intelligence of the French.

g. The probable effect of excessive state control upon the

political intelligence of Americans.

9. The greatness of the functions retained by the states under

the federal government:--

a. Powers granted to the government of the United States.

b. The reason for granting such powers,

c. The powers denied to the states.

d. The reason for such prohibitions.

e. The vast range of powers exercised by the states.

f. The most important subjects of legislation in England for the past

eighty years.

g. The governments, state or national, to which these twelve

subjects would have fallen in the United States.

10. Speak of the independence of the state courts.

11. In what cases only may matters be transferred from them to

a federal court?

12. The constitution of the state courts:--

a. Justices of the peace; the mayor's court.

b. County and municipal courts.

c. The superior courts.

d. The supreme court.

e. Still higher courts in certain states.

13. The selection of judges and their terms of service:--

a. In the thirteen colonies.

b. In most of the states since the Revolution.

c. The reasons for a life tenure.

d. The tendency since 1869.

14. Mention a conspicuous advantage of our system of government over the

French.

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.

1. Was there ever a charter government in your state? If so, where is

the charter at the present time? What is its present value? Try to see

it, if possible. Pupils of Boston and vicinity, for example, may

examine in the office of the secretary of state, at the state house, the

charter of King Charles (1629) and that of William and Mary (1692).

2. When was your state organized under its present government? If it is

not one of the original thirteen, what was its history previous to

organization; that is, who owned it and controlled it, and how came it

to become a state?

3. What are the qualifications for voting in your state?

4. What are the arguments in favour of an educational qualification for

voters (as, for example, the ability to read the Constitution of the

United States)? What reasons might be urged against such qualifications?

5. Who is the governor of your state? What political party supported him

for the position? For what ability or eminent service was he selected?

6. Give illustrations of the governor's exercise of the four functions

of advising, vetoing, pardoning, and commanding (consult the newspapers

while the legislature is in session).

7. Mention some things done by the governor that are not included

in the enumeration of his functions in the text.

8. Visit, if practicable, the State House. Observe the various offices,

and consider the general nature of the business done there. Attend a

session of the Senate or the House of Representatives. Obtain some

"orders of the day."

9. If the legislature is in session, follow its proceedings in the

newspapers. What important measures are under discussion? On what sort

of questions are party lines pretty sharply drawn? On what sort of

questions are party distinctions ignored?

10. Consult the book of general or public statutes, and report on

the following points:--

a. The magnitude of the volume.

b. Does it contain all the laws? If not, what are omitted?

c. Give some of the topics dealt with.

d. Where are the laws to be found that have been made since the printing

of the volume?

e. Are the originals of the laws in the volume? If not, where are they

and in what shape?

11. Is everybody expected to know all the laws?

12. Does ignorance of the law excuse one for violating it?

13. Suppose people desire the legislature to pass some law, as, for

example, a law requiring towns and cities to provide flags for

school-houses, how is the attention of the legislature secured? What are

the various stages through which the bill must pass before it can become

a law? Why should there be so many stages?

14. Give illustrations of the exercise of federal government, state

government, and local government, in your own town or city. Of which

government do you observe the most signs? Of which do you observe the

fewest signs? Of which government do the officers seem most sensitive to

local opinion?

15. Are the sessions of the legislature in your state annual or

biennial? What is the argument for each system?

For answers to numbers 16, 17, 18, and 19, consult the public statutes,

a lawyer, or some intelligent business man. A fair idea of the

successive steps in the courts may be obtained from a good unabridged

dictionary by looking up the technical terms employed in these

questions.

16. What is the difference between a civil action and a criminal?

a. In respect to the object to be gained in each?

b. In respect to the party that is the plaintiff?

c. In respect to the consequences to the defendant if the case goes

against him?

17. Give an outline of the procedure in a minor criminal action that is

tried without a jury in a lower court. Consider

(1) the complaint, (2) the warrant, (3) the return, (4) the recognizance,

(5) the subpoena, (6) the arraignment, (7) the plea, (8) the testimony,

(9) the arguments,(10) the judgment and sentence, and (11) the penalty and

its enforcement.

What is an appeal?--This procedure seems cumbrous, but it

is founded in common sense. What one of the foregoing steps, for

example, would you omit? Why?

18. Give an outline of the procedure in a criminal action that is tried

with a jury in a higher court. The action is begun in a lower court

where the first five stages are the same as in number 17. Then follow

(6) the examination of witnesses, (7) the binding over of the accused to

appear before the higher court for trial, (8) the sending of the

complaint and the proceedings thereon to the district or county

attorney, (9) the indictment, (10) the action of the grand jury upon the

indictment, (11) the challenging of jurors before the trial, (12) the

arraignment, (13) the plea, (14) the testimony, (15) the arguments, (16)

the charge to the jury, (17) the verdict, and (18) the sentence, with

its penalty and the enforcement of it. What are "exceptions?"--Why

should there be a jury in the higher court when there is none in the

lower? What is the objection to dispensing with any one of the foregoing

steps? Does this machinery make it difficult to punish crime? Why should

an accused person receive so much consideration?

19. Give an outline of the procedure in a minor civil action. Consider

(1) the writ, (2) the attachment, (3) the summons to the defendant, (4)

the return, (5) the pleading, (6) the testimony, (7) the arguments, (8)

the judgment or decision of the judge, and (9) the execution.--If the

action is conducted in a higher court, then a jury decides the question

at issue, the judge instructing the jurors in points of law.

20. Suppose an innocent man is tried for an alleged crime and

acquitted, has he any redress?

21. Is the enforcement of law complete and satisfactory in your

community?

22. What is your opinion of the general security of person and property

in your community?

23. Is there any connection between public sentiment about a law and the

enforcement of that law? If so, what is it?

24. Any one of the twelve subjects of legislation cited on page 177 may

be taken as a special topic. Consult any modern history of England.

25. Which do you regard as the more important possession for the

citizen,--an acquaintance with the principles and details of government

and law, or a law-abiding and law-supporting spirit? What reasons have

you for your opinion? Where is your sympathy in times of disorder, with,

those who defy the law or with those who seek to enforce it? (Suppose a

case in which you do not approve the law, and then answer.)

26. May you ever become an officer of the law? Would you as a citizen be

justified in withholding from an officer that obedience and moral

support which you as an officer might justly demand from every citizen?

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

The State.--For the founding of the several colonies, their charters,

etc., the student may profitably consult the learned monographs in

Winsor's _Narrative and Critical History of America_, 8 vols.,

Boston, 1886-89. A popular account, quite full in details, is given in

Lodge's _Short History of the English Colonies in America_,

N. Y., 1881. There is a fairly good account of the revision and

transformation of the colonial governments in Bancroft's _History of

the United States_, final edition, N.Y., 1886, vol. v. pp. 111-125.

The series of "American Commonwealths," edited by H.E. Scudder, and

published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., will be found helpful. The

following have been published: Johnston, _Connecticut: a Study

of a Commonwealth-Democracy_, 1887; Roberts, _New York: the

Planting and Growth of the Empire State_, 2 vols., 1887; Browne,

_Maryland: the History of a Palatinate_, 2d ed., 1884; Cooke,

_Virginia: a History of the People_, 1883; Shaler, _Kentucky:

a Pioneer Commonwealth_, 1884; King, _Ohio: First Fruits of

the Ordinance of 1787_,1888; Dunn, _Indiana: a Redemption from

Slavery_, 1888; Cooley, _Michigan: a History of Governments_,

1885; Carr, _Missouri: a Bone of Contention_, 1888; Spring,

_Kansas: the Prelude to the War for the Union_, 1885; Royce,

_California: a Study of American Character_, 1886; Barrows,

_Oregon: the Struggle for Possession_, 1883.

In connection with the questions on page 183, the student is advised

to consult Dole's _Talks about Law: a Popular Statement of What

our Law is and How it is Administered_, Boston, 1887. This book

deserves high praise. In a very easy and attractive way it gives an

account of such facts and principles of law as ought to be familiarly

understood by every man and woman.

CHAPTER VII.

WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS.

[Sidenote: In the American state there is a power above the

legislature.]

Toward the close of the preceding chapter[1] I spoke of three points

especially characteristic of the American state, and I went on to

mention two of them. The third point which I had in mind is so

remarkable and important as to require a chapter all to itself. In the

American state the legislature is not supreme, but has limits to its

authority prescribed by a written document, known as the Constitution;

and if the legislature happens to pass a law which violates the

constitution, then whenever a specific case happens to arise in which

this statute is involved, it can be brought before the courts, and

the decision of the court, if adverse to the statute, annuls it and

renders it of no effect. The importance of this feature of civil

government in the United States can hardly be overrated. It marks a

momentous advance in civilization, and it is especially interesting as

being peculiarly American. Almost everything else in our fundamental

institutions was brought by our forefathers in a more or less highly

developed condition from England; but the development of the written

constitution, with the consequent relation of the courts to the

law-making power, has gone on entirely upon American soil.

[Footnote 1: See above, p. 172.]

[Sidenote: Germs of the idea of a written constitution.]

[Sidenote: Our indebtedness to the Romans.]

[Sidenote: Mediæval charters.]

The germs of the written constitution existed a great while ago.

Perhaps it would not be easy to say just when they began to exist.

It was formerly supposed by such profound thinkers as Locke and such

persuasive writers as Rousseau, that when the first men came together

to live in civil society, they made a sort of contract with one

another as to what laws they would have, what beliefs they would

entertain, what customs they would sanction, and so forth. This

theory of the Social Contract was once famous, and exerted a notable

influence on political history, and it is still interesting in the

same way that spinning-wheels and wooden frigates and powdered wigs

are interesting; but we now know that men lived in civil society,

with complicated laws and customs and creeds, for many thousand years

before the notion had ever entered anybody's head that things could

be regulated by contract. That notion we owe chiefly to the ancient

Romans, and it took them several centuries to comprehend the idea and

put it into practice. We owe them a debt of gratitude for it. The

custom of regulating business and politics and the affairs of life

generally by voluntary but binding agreements is something without

which we moderns would not think life worth living. It was after the

Roman world--that is to say, Christendom, for in the Middle Ages the

two terms were synonymous--had become thoroughly familiar with the

idea of contract, that the practice grew up of granting written

charters to towns, or monasteries, or other corporate bodies. The

charter of a mediaeval town was a kind of written contract by which

the town obtained certain specified immunities or privileges from the

sovereign or from a great feudal lord, in exchange for some specified

service which often took the form of a money payment. It was common

enough for a town to buy liberty for hard cash, just as a man might

buy a farm. The word _charter_ originally meant simply a paper or

written document, and it was often applied to deeds for the transfer

of real estate. In contracts of such importance papers or parchment

documents were drawn up and carefully preserved as irrefragable

evidences of the transaction. And so, in quite significant phrase the

towns zealously guarded their charters as the "title-deeds of their

liberties."

[Sidenote: The "Great Charter" (1215).]

After a while the word charter was applied in England to a particular

document which specified certain important concessions forcibly wrung by

the people from a most unwilling sovereign. This document was called

_Magna Charta_, or the "Great Charter," signed at Runnymede, June 15,

1215, by John, king of England. After the king had signed it and gone

away to his room, he rolled in a mad fury on the floor, screaming

curses, and gnawing sticks and straw in the impotence of his, wrath.[2]

Perhaps it would be straining words to call a transaction in which the

consent was so one-sided a "contract," but the idea of Magna Charta was

derived from that of the town charters with which people were already

familiar. Thus a charter came to mean "a grant made by the sovereign

either to the whole people or to a portion of them, securing to them the

enjoyment of certain rights." Now in legal usage a charter differs from

a constitution in this, that the former is granted by the sovereign,

while the latter is established by the people themselves: both are the

fundamental law of the land.[3] a The distinction is admirably

expressed, but in history it is not always easy to make it. Magna Charta

was in form a grant by the sovereign, but it was really drawn up by the

barons, who in a certain sense represented the English people; and

established by the people after a long struggle which was only in its

first stages in John's time. To some extent it partook of the nature of

a written constitution.

[Footnote 2: Green, _Hist. of the English People_, vol. i. p.

248.]

[Footnote 3: Bouvier, _Law Dictionary_, 12th ed., vol. i. p.

259.]

[Sidenote: The "Bill of Rights" (1689).]

Let us now observe what happened early in 1689, after James II had

fled from England. On January 28th parliament declared the throne

vacant. Parliament then drew up the "Declaration of Rights," a

document very similar in purport to the first eight amendments to

our Federal Constitution, and on the 13th of February the two houses

offered the crown to William and Mary on condition of their accepting

this declaration of the "true, ancient, and indubitable rights of the

people of this realm." The crown having been accepted on these terms,

parliament in the following December enacted the famous "Bill of

Rights," which simply put their previous declaration into the form of

a declaratory statute. The Bill of Rights was not--even in form--a

grant from a sovereign; it was an instrument framed by the

representatives of the people, and without promising to respect

it William and Mary could no more have mounted the throne than a

president of the United States could be inducted into office if he

were to refuse to take the prescribed oath of allegiance to the

Federal Constitution. The Bill of Rights was therefore, strictly

speaking, a piece of written constitution; it was a constitution as

far as it went.

[Sidenote: Foreshadowing of the American idea by Sir Harry Vane

(1656).]

The seventeenth century, the age when the builders of American

commonwealths were coming from England, was especially notable in

England for two things. One was the rapid growth of modern commercial

occupations and habits, the other was the temporary overthrow of

monarchy, soon followed by the final subjection of the crown to

parliament. Accordingly the sphere of contract and the sphere of

popular sovereignty were enlarged in men's minds, and the notion of a

written constitution first began to find expression. The "Instrument

of Government" which in 1653 created the protectorate of Oliver

Cromwell was substantially a written constitution, but it emanated

from a questionable authority and was not ratified. It was drawn up

by a council of army officers; and "it broke down because the first

parliament summoned under it refused to acknowledge its binding

force." [4] The dissolution of this parliament accordingly left Oliver

absolute dictator. In 1656, when it seemed so necessary to decide what

sort of government the dictatorship of Cromwell was to prepare the way

for, Sir Harry Vane proposed that a _national convention_ should

be called for drawing up a written constitution.[5] The way in which

he stated his case showed that he had in him a prophetic foreshadowing

of the American idea as it was realized in 1787. But Vane's ideas were

too far in advance of his age to be realized then in England. Older

ideas, to which men were more accustomed, determined the course of

events there, and it was left for Americans to create a government by

means of a written constitution. And when American statesmen did so,

they did it without any reference to Sir Harry Vane. His relation to

the subject has been discovered only in later days, but I mention him

here in illustration of the way in which great institutions grow. They

take shape when they express the opinions and wishes of a multitude

of persons; but it often happens that one or two men of remarkable

foresight had thought of them long beforehand.

[Footnote 4: Gardiner, _Constitutional Documents of the Puritan

Revolution_, p. lx.]

[Footnote 5: See Hosmer's _Young Sir Henry Vane_, pp.

432-444,--one of the best books ever written for the reader who wishes

to understand the state of mind among the English people in the crisis

when they laid the foundations of the United States.]

[Sidenote: The Mayflower compact(1620).]

In America the first attempts at written constitutions were in the

fullest sense made by the people, and not through representatives but

directly. In the Mayflower's cabin, before the Pilgrims had landed on

Plymouth rock, they subscribed their names to a compact in which they

agreed to constitute themselves into a "body politic," and to enact such

laws as might be deemed best for the colony they were about to

establish; and they promised "all due submission and obedience" to such

laws. Such a compact is of course too vague to be called a constitution.

Properly speaking, a written constitution is a document which defines

the character and powers of the government to which its framers are

willing to entrust themselves. Almost any kind of civil government might

have been framed under the Mayflower compact, but the document is none

the less interesting as an indication of the temper of the men who

subscribed their names to it.

[Sidenote: The "Fundamental Orders of Connecticut" (1639).]

The first written constitution known to history was that by which the

republic of Connecticut was organized in 1639. At first the affairs

of the Connecticut settlements had been directed by a commission

appointed by the General Court of Massachusetts, but on the 14th of

January, 1639, all the freemen of the three river towns--Windsor,

Hartford, and Wethersfield--assembled at Hartford, and drew up a

written constitution, consisting of eleven articles, in which the

frame of government then and there adopted was distinctly described.

This document, known as the "Fundamental Orders of Connecticut",

created the government under which the people of Connecticut lived for

nearly two centuries before they deemed it necessary to amend it. The

charter granted to Connecticut by Charles II. in 1662 was simply a

royal recognition of the government actually in operation since the

adoption of the Fundamental Orders.

[Sidenote: Germinal development of the colonial charter toward the

modern state constitution.]

In those colonies which had charters these documents served, to a

certain extent, the purposes of a written constitution. They limited the

legislative powers of the colonial assemblies. The question sometimes

came up as to whether some statute made by the assembly was not in

excess of the powers conferred by the charter. This question usually

arose in connection with some particular law case, and thus came before

the courts for settlement,--first before the courts of the colony;

afterwards it might sometimes be carried on appeal before the Privy

Council in England. If the court decided that the statute was in

transgression of the charter, the statute was thereby annulled.[6] The

colonial legislature, therefore, was not a supreme body, even within the

colony; its authority was restricted by the terms of the charter. Thus

the Americans, for more than a century before the Revolution, were

familiarized with the idea of a legislature as a representative body

acting within certain limits prescribed by a written document. They had

no knowledge or experience of a supreme legislative body, such as the

House of Commons has become since the founders of American states left

England. At the time of the Revolution, when the several states framed

new governments, they simply put a written constitution into the

position of supremacy formerly occupied by the charter. Instead of a

document expressed in terms of a royal grant, they adopted a document

expressed in terms of a popular edict. To this the legislature must

conform; and people were already somewhat familiar with the method of

testing the constitutionality of a law by getting the matter brought

before the courts. The mental habit thus generated was probably more

important than any other single circumstance in enabling our Federal

Union to be formed. Without it, indeed, it would have been impossible to

form a durable union.

[Footnote 6: Bryce, _American Commonwealth_, vol. i. pp. 243,

415.]

[Sidenote: Abnormal development of the state constitution, encroaching

upon the province of the legislature.]

[Sidenote: The Swiss "Referendum" 196]

Before pursuing this subject, we may observe that American state

constitutions have altered very much in character since the first part

of the present century. The earlier constitutions were confined to a

general outline of the organization of the government. They did not

undertake to make the laws, but to prescribe the conditions under

which laws might be made and executed. Recent state constitutions

enter more and more boldly upon the general work of legislation. For

example, in some states they specify what kinds of property shall be

exempt from seizure for debt, they make regulations as to railroad

freight-charges, they prescribe sundry details of practice in the

courts, or they forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors. Until

recently such subjects would have been left to the legislatures, no

one would have thought of putting them into a constitution. The motive

in so doing is a wish to put certain laws into such a shape that it

will be difficult to repeal them. What a legislature sees fit to enact

this year it may see fit to repeal next year. But amending a state

constitution is a slow and cumbrous process. An amendment may be

originated in the legislature, where it must secure more than a mere

majority--perhaps a three fifths or two thirds vote--in order to pass;

in some states it must be adopted by two successive legislatures,

perhaps by two thirds of one and three fourths of the next; in some

states not more than one amendment can be brought before the same

legislature; in some it is provided that amendments must not be

submitted to the people oftener than once in five years; and so

on. After the amendment has at length made its way through the

legislature, it must be ratified by a vote of the people at the next

general election. Another way to get a constitution amended is to call

a convention for that purpose. In order to call a convention, it is

usually necessary to obtain a two thirds vote in the legislature; but

in some states the legislature is required at stated intervals to

submit to the people the question of holding such a convention, as

in New Hampshire every seven years; in Iowa, every ten years; in

Michigan, every sixteen years; in New York, Ohio, Maryland, and

Virginia, every twenty years.[7] A convention is a representative

body elected by the people to meet at some specified time and

place for some specified purpose, and its existence ends with the

accomplishment of that purpose. It is in this occasional character

that the convention differs from an ordinary legislative assembly.

With such elaborate checks against hasty action, it is to be presumed

that if a law can be once embodied in a state constitution, it will be

likely to have some permanence. Moreover, a direct vote by the people

gives a weightier sanction to a law than a vote in the legislature.

There is also, no doubt, a disposition to distrust legislatures and in

some measure do their work for them by direct popular enactment. For

such reasons some recent state constitutions have come almost to

resemble bodies of statutes. Mr. Woodrow Wilson suggestively compares

this kind of popular legislation with the Swiss practice known as the

_Referendum_; in most of the Swiss cantons an important act of

the legislature does not acquire the force of law until it has been

_referred_ to the people and voted on by them. "The objections

to the, _referendum_," says Mr. Wilson, "are, of course, that it

assumes a discriminating judgment and a fullness of information on the

part of the people touching questions of public policy which they do

not often possess, and that it lowers the sense of responsibility on

the part of legislators." [8] Another serious objection to our recent

practice is that it tends to confuse the very valuable distinction

between a constitution and a body of statutes, to necessitate a

frequent revision of constitutions, and to increase the cumbrousness

of law-making. It would, however, be premature at the present time to

pronounce confidently upon a practice of such recent origin. It is

clear that its tendency is extremely democratic, and that it implies

a high standard of general intelligence and independence among the

people. If the evils of the practice are found to outweigh its

benefits, it will doubtless fall into disfavour.

[Footnote 7: See Henry Hitchcock's admirable monograph, _American

State Constitutions_, p. 19.]

[Footnote 8: Wilson. The State, p. 490.]

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT. What is to be said with regard to the following

topics?

I. A power above the legislature:--

a. The constitution.

b. The relation of the courts to laws that violate the constitution.

c. The importance of this relation.

d. The American origin of the written constitution.

2. The germs of the idea of a written constitution:--

a. The theory of a "social contract."

b. The objection to this theory.

c. Roman origin of the idea of contract.

3. Mediæval charters:--

a. The charter of a town.

b. The word _charter_.

c. Magna Charta.

d. The difference between a charter and a constitution.

e. The form of Magna Charta as contrasted with its essential nature.

4. Documents somewhat resembling written constitutions:--

a. The Declaration of Rights.

b. The Bill of Rights.

5. The foreshadowing of the American idea of written constitutions:--

a. Two conditions especially notable in England in the seventeenth

century.

b. The influence of these conditions on popular views of government.

c. The "Instrument of Government."

d. Sir Harry Vane's proposition.

e. Why allude to Vane's scheme when nothing came of it?

6. Early suggestions of written constitutions in America:--

a. The compact on the Mayflower.

b. Wherein the compact fell short of a written constitution.

c. The "Fundamental Orders of Connecticut."

7. The development of the colonial charter into a written constitution:--

a. The limitation of the powers of colonial assemblies.

b. The decision of questions relating to the transgression of a charter

by a colonial legislature.

c. The colonial assembly as contrasted with the House of

Commons.

d. The difference between the written constitution and the

charter for which it was substituted.

e. The readiness of the people to adopt written constitutions.

8. The extensive development of the written constitution in

some states:--

a. The simplicity of the earlier constitutions.

b. Illustrations of the legislative tendencies of later constitutions.

c. The motive for such extension of a constitution.

d. The difficulty of amending a constitution.

e. The legislative method of amendment.

f. The convention method of amendment.

g. The presumed advantage of embodying laws in the constitution.

h. A comparison with the Swiss Referendum.

i. Objections to the Swiss Referendum.

j. Other objections to the practice of putting laws into the

constitution.

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.

1. Do you belong to any society that has a constitution? Has the society

rules apart from the constitution? Which may be changed the more

readily? Why not put all the rules into the constitution?

2. Read the constitution of your state in part or in full. Give some

account of its principal divisions, of the topics it deals with, and its

magnitude or fullness. Are there any amendments? If so, mention two or

three, and give the reasons for their adoption. Is there any declaration

of rights in it? If so, what are some of the rights declared, and whose

are they said to be?

3. Where is the original of your state constitution kept? What sort of

looking document do you suppose it to be? Where would you look for a

copy of it? If a question arises in any court about the interpretation

of the constitution, must the original be produced to settle the wording

of the document?

4. Has any effort been made in your state to put into the constitution

matters that have previously been subjects of legislative action? If so,

give an account of the effort, and the public attitude towards it.

5. Which is preferable,--a constitution that commands the approval of

the people as a whole or that which has the support of a dominant

political party only?

6. Suppose it is your personal conviction that a law is

unconstitutional, may you disregard it? What consequences might ensue

from such disregard?

7. May people honestly and amicably differ about the interpretation of

the constitution or of a law, in a particular case? If important

interests are dependent on the interpretation, how can the true one be

found out? Does a lawyer's opinion settle the interpretation? What value

has such an opinion? Where must people go for authoritative and final

interpretations of the laws? Can they get such interpretations by simply

asking for them?

8. The constitution of New Hampshire provides that when the governor

cannot discharge the duties of his office, the president of the senate

shall assume them. During the severe sickness of a governor recently,

the president of the senate hesitated to act in his stead; it was not

clear that the situation was grave enough to warrant such a course.

Accordingly the attorney-general of the state brought an action against

the president of the senate for not doing his duty; the court considered

the situation, decided against the president of the senate, and ordered

him to become acting governor. Why was this suit necessary? Was it

conducted in a hostile spirit? Wherein did the decision help the state?

Wherein did it help the defendant? Wherein may it possibly prove helpful

in the future history of the state?

9. Mention particular things that the governor, the legislature, and the

judiciary of your state have done or may do. Then find the section or

clause or wording in your state constitution that gives authority for

each of these things. For example, read the particular part that

authorizes your legislature:--

a. To incorporate a city.

b. To compel children to attend school.

c. To buy uniforms for a regiment of soldiers.

d. To establish a death penalty.

e. To send a committee abroad to study a system of waterworks.

10. Trace the authority of a school-teacher, a policeman, a selectman, a

mayor, or of any public officer, back to some part of your constitution.

11. Mention any parts of your constitution that seem general and

somewhat indefinite, and that admit, therefore, of much freedom in

interpretation.

12. Show how the people are, in one aspect, subordinate to the

constitution; in another, superior to it.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

Written Constitutions.--Very little has been written or published with

reference to the history of the development of the idea of a written

constitution. The student will find some suggestive hints in Hannis

Taylor's _Origin and Growth of the English Constitution_, vol. i,

Boston, 1889. See Henry Hitchcock's _American State Constitutions; a

Study of their Growth_, N.Y., 1887, a learned and valuable essay. See

also _J.H.U. Studies_, I., xi., Alexander Johnston, _The Genesis of a

New England State (Connecticut)_; III., ix.-x., Horace Davis, _American

Constitutions_; also Preston's _Documents Illustrative of American

History_, 1606-1863, N.Y., 1886; Stubbs, _Select Charters and other

Illustrations of English Constitutional History_, Oxford, 1870;

Gardiner's _Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution_, Oxford,

1888.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE FEDERAL UNION.

Section 1. _Origin of the Federal Union._

Having now sketched the origin and nature of written constitutions, we

are prepared to understand how by means of such a document the

government of our Federal Union was called into existence. We have

already described so much of the civil government in operation in the

United States that this account can be made much more concise than if we

had started at the top instead of the bottom and begun to portray our

national government before saying a word about states and counties and

towns. Bit by bit the general theory of American self-government has

already been set before the reader. We have now to observe, in

conclusion, what a magnificent piece of constructive work has been

performed in accordance with that general theory. We have to observe the

building up of a vast empire out of strictly self-governing elements.

[Sidenote: English institutions in all the colonies.]

There was always one important circumstance in favour of the union of

the thirteen American colonies into a federal nation. The inhabitants

were all substantially one people. It is true that in some of the

colonies there were a good many persons not of English ancestry, but

the English type absorbed and assimilated everything else.

All spoke the English language, all had English institutions. Except

the development of the written constitution, every bit of civil

government described in the preceding pages came to America directly

from England, and not a bit of it from any other country, unless by

being first filtered through England. Our institutions were as English

as our speech. It was therefore comparatively easy for people in one

colony to understand people in another, not only as to their words but

as to their political ideas. Moreover, during the first half of the

eighteenth century, the common danger from the aggressive French

enemy on the north and west went far toward awakening in the thirteen

colonies a common interest. And after the French enemy had been

removed, the assertion by parliament of its alleged right to tax the

Americans threatened all the thirteen legislatures at once, and thus

in fact drove the colonies into a kind of federal union.

[Sidenote: The New England confederacy (1643-84).]

[Sidenote: Albany Congress(1754).]

[Sidenote: Stamp Act Congress (1765).]

Confederations among states have generally owed their origin, in

the first instance, to military necessities. The earliest league in

America, among white people at least, was the confederacy of New

England colonies formed in 1643, chiefly for defence against the

Indians. It was finally dissolved amid the troubles of 1684, when the

first government of Massachusetts was overthrown. Along the Atlantic

coast the northern and the southern colonies were for some time

distinct groups, separated by the unsettled portion of the central

zone. The settlement of Pennsylvania, beginning in 1681, filled this

gap and made the colonies continuous from the French frontier of

Canada to the Spanish frontier of Florida. The danger from France

began to be clearly apprehended after 1689, and in 1698 one of the

earliest plans of union was proposed by William Penn. In 1754, just

as the final struggle with France was about to begin, there came

Franklin's famous plan for a permanent federal union; and this plan

was laid before a congress assembled at Albany for renewing the

alliances with the Six Nations.[1] Only seven colonies were

represented in this congress. Observe the word "congress." If it

had been a legislative body it would more likely have been called

a "parliament." But of course it was nothing of the sort. It was a

diplomatic body, composed of delegates representing state governments,

like European congresses,--like the Congress of Berlin, for example,

which tried to adjust the Eastern Question in 1878. Eleven years after

the Albany Congress, upon the news that parliament had passed the

Stamp Act, a congress of nine colonies assembled at New York in

October, 1765, to take action thereon.

[Footnote 1: Franklin's plan was afterward submitted to the several

legislatures of the colonies, and was everywhere rejected because the

need for union was nowhere strongly felt by the people.]

[Sidenote: Committees of Correspondence (1772-75).]

Nine years elapsed without another congress. Meanwhile the political

excitement, with occasional lulls, went on increasing, and some sort

of cooperation between the colonial governments became habitual. In

1768, after parliament had passed the Townshend revenue acts, there

was no congress, but Massachusetts sent a circular letter to the other

colonies, inviting them to cooperate in measures of resistance, and

the other colonies responded favourably. In 1772, as we have seen,

committees of correspondence between the towns of Massachusetts acted

as a sort of provisional government for the commonwealth. In 1773

Dabney Carr, of Virginia, enlarged upon this idea, and committees of

correspondence were forthwith instituted between the several colonies.

Thus the habit of acting in concert began to be formed. In 1774,

after parliament had passed an act overthrowing the government of

Massachusetts, along with other offensive measures, a congress

assembled in September at Philadelphia, the city most centrally

situated as well as the largest. If the remonstrances adopted at this

congress had been heeded by the British government, and peace had

followed, this congress would probably have been as temporary an

affair as its predecessors; people would probably have waited until

overtaken by some other emergency. But inasmuch as war followed,

the congress assembled again in May, 1775, and thereafter became

practically a permanent institution until it died of old age with the

year 1788.

[Sidenote: Continental Congress (1774-1789).]

This congress was called "continental" to distinguish it from the

"provincial congresses" held in several of the colonies at about the

same time. The thirteen colonies were indeed but a narrow strip on the

edge of a vast and in large part unexplored continent, but the word

"continental" was convenient for distinguishing between the whole

confederacy and its several members.

[Sidenote: The several states were never at any time sovereign

states.]

[Sidenote: The Articles of Confederation]

The Continental Congress began to exercise a certain amount of

directive authority from the time of its first meeting in 1774. Such

authority as it had arose simply from the fact that it represented an

agreement on the part of the several governments to pursue a certain

line of policy. It was a diplomatic and executive, but scarcely yet a

legislative body. Nevertheless it was the visible symbol of a kind of

union between the states. There never was a time when any one of the

original states exercised singly the full powers of sovereignty. Not

one of them was ever a small sovereign state like Denmark or Portugal.

As they acted together under the common direction of the British

government in 1759, the year of Quebec, so they acted together under

the common direction of that revolutionary body, the Continental

Congress, in 1775, the year of Bunker Hill. In that year a

"continental army" was organized in the name of the "United Colonies."

In the following year, when independence was declared, it was done

by the concerted action of all the colonies; and at the same time a

committee was appointed by Congress to draw up a written constitution.

This constitution, known as the "Articles or Confederation," was

submitted to Congress in the autumn of 1777, and was sent to the

several states to be ratified. A unanimous ratification was necessary,

and it was not until March 1781, that unanimity was secured and the

articles adopted.

Meanwhile the Revolutionary War had advanced into its last stages,

having been carried on from the outset under the general direction

of the Continental Congress. When reading about this period of our

history, the student must be careful not to be misled by the name

"congress" into reasoning as if there were any resemblance whatever

between that body and the congress which was created by our Federal

Constitution. The Continental Congress was not the parent of our

Federal Congress; the former died without offspring, and the latter

had a very different origin, as we shall soon see. The former simply

bequeathed to the latter a name, that was all.

[Sidenote: Nature and powers of the Continental Congress]

The Continental Congress was an assembly of delegates from the thirteen

states, which from 1774 to 1783 held its sessions at Philadelphia.[2] It

owned no federal property, not even the house in which it assembled, and

after it had been turned out of doors by a mob of drunken soldiers in

June, 1783, it flitted about from place to place, sitting now at

Trenton, now at Annapolis, and finally at New York.[3] Each state sent

to it as many delegates as it chose, though after the adoption of the

articles no state could send less than two or more than seven. Each

state had one vote, and it took nine votes, or two thirds of the whole,

to carry any measure of importance. One of the delegates was chosen

president or chairman of the congress, and this position was one of

great dignity and considerable influence, but it was not essentially

different from the position, of any of the other delegates. There were

no distinct executive officers. Important executive matters were at

first assigned to committees, such as the Finance Committee and the

Board of War, though at the most trying time the finance committee was a

committee of one, in the person of Robert Morris, who was commonly

called the Financier. The work of the finance committee was chiefly

trying to solve the problem of paying bills without spending money, for

there was seldom any money to spend. Congress could not tax the people

or recruit the army. When it wanted money or troops, it could only ask

the state governments for them; and generally it got from a fifth to a

fourth part of the troops needed, but of money a far smaller proportion.

Sometimes it borrowed money from Holland or France, but often its only

resource was to issue paper promises to pay, or the so-called

Continental paper money. There were no federal courts,[4] nor marshals

to execute federal decrees. Congress might issue orders, but it had no

means of compelling obedience.

[Footnote 2: Except for a few days in December, 1776, when it fled

to Baltimore; and again from September, 1777, to June, 1778, when

Philadelphia was in possession of the British; during that interval

Congress held its meetings at York in Pennsylvania.]

[Footnote 3: See my _Critical Period of American History_, pp.

112, 271, 306]

[Footnote 5: Except the "Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture," for

an admirable account of which see Jameson's _Essays in the

Constitutional History of the United States_, pp. 1-45.]

[Sidenote: It was not fully endowed with sovereignty.]

The Continental Congress was therefore not in the full sense a

sovereign body. A government is not really a government until it can

impose taxes and thus command the money needful for keeping it in

existence. Nevertheless the Congress exercised some of the most

indisputable functions of sovereignty. "It declared the independence

of the United States; it contracted an offensive and defensive

alliance with France; it raised and organized a Continental army; it

borrowed large sums of money, and pledged what the lenders understood

to be the national credit for their repayment; it issued an

inconvertible paper currency, granted letters of marque, and built a

navy." [6] Finally it ratified a treaty of peace with Great Britain. So

that the Congress was really, in many respects, and in the eyes of the

world at large, a sovereign body. Time soon showed that the continued

exercise of such powers was not compatible with the absence of the

power to tax the people. In truth the situation of the Continental

Congress was an illogical situation. In the effort of throwing off

the sovereignty of Great Britain, the people of these states were

constructing a federal union faster than they realized. Their theory

of the situation did not keep pace with the facts, and their first

attempt to embody their theory, in the Articles of Confederation, was

not unnaturally a failure.

[Footnote 6: _Critical Period_, p. 93.]

[Sidenote: Decline of the Continental Congress.]

At first the powers of the Congress were vague. They were what are

called "implied war powers;" that is to say, the Congress had a war

with Great Britain on its hands, and must be supposed to have power to

do whatever was necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

At first, too, when it had only begun to issue paper money, there

was a momentary feeling of prosperity. Military success added to its

appearance of strength, and the reputation of the Congress reached its

high water mark early in 1778, after the capture of Burgoyne's army

and the making of the alliance with France. After that time, with the

weary prolonging of the war, the increase of the public debt, and the

collapse of the paper currency, its reputation steadily declined.

There was also much work to be done in reorganizing the state

governments, and this kept at home in the state legislatures many of

the ablest men who would otherwise have been sent to the Congress.

Thus in point of intellectual capacity the latter body was distinctly

inferior in 1783 to what it had been when first assembled nine years

earlier.

[Sidenote: Anarchical tendencies.]

The arrival of peace did not help the Congress, but made matters worse.

When the absolute necessity of presenting a united front to the common

enemy was removed, the weakness of the union was shown in many

ways that were alarming. The _sentiment_ of union was weak. In spite of

the community in language and institutions, which was so favourable to

union, the people of the several states had many local prejudices which

tended to destroy the union in its infancy. A man was quicker to

remember that he was a New Yorker or a Massachusetts man than that he

was an American and a citizen of the United States. Neighbouring states

levied custom-house duties against one another, or refused to admit into

their markets each other's produce, or had quarrels about boundaries

which went to the verge of war. Things grew worse every year until by

the autumn of 1786, when the Congress was quite bankrupt and most of the

states nearly so, when threats of secession were heard both in New

England and in the South, when there were riots in several states and

Massachusetts was engaged in suppressing armed rebellion, when people in

Europe were beginning to ask whether we were more likely to be seized

upon by France or reconquered piecemeal by Great Britain, it came to be

thought necessary to make some kind of a change.

[Sidenote: The Federal Convention (1787).]

Men were most unwillingly brought to this conclusion, because they were

used to their state assemblies and not afraid of them, but they were

afraid of increasing the powers of any government superior to the states,

lest they should thus create an unmanageable tyranny. They believed that

even anarchy, though a dreadful evil, is not so dreadful as despotism,

and for this view there is much to be said. After no end of trouble a

convention was at length got together at Philadelphia in May, 1787, and

after four months of work with closed doors, it was able to offer to the

country the new Federal Constitution. Both in its character and in

the work which It did, this Federal Convention, over which Washington

presided, and of which Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton were members,

was one of the most remarkable deliberative bodies known to history.

We have seen that the fundamental weakness of the Continental Congress

lay in the fact that it could not tax the people. Hence although it

could for a time exert other high functions of sovereignty, it could

only do so while money was supplied to it from other sources than

taxation; from contributions made by the states in answer to its

"requisitions," from foreign loans, and from a paper currency. But such

resources could not last long. It was like a man's trying to live upon

his own promissory notes and upon gifts and unsecured loans from his

friends. When the supply of money was exhausted, the Congress soon found

that it could no longer comport itself as a sovereign power; it could

not preserve order at home, and the situation abroad may be illustrated

by the fact that George III. kept garrisons in several of our

northwestern frontier towns and would not send a minister to the United

States. This example shows that, among the sovereign powers of a

government, the power of taxation is the fundamental one upon which all

the others depend. Nothing can go on without money.

But the people of the several states would never consent to grant the

power of taxation, to such a body as the Continental Congress, in

which they were not represented. The Congress was not a legislature,

but a diplomatic body; it did not represent the people, but the state

governments; and a large state like Pennsylvania had no more weight in

it than a little state like Delaware. If there was to be any central

assembly for the whole union, endowed with the power of taxation,

it must be an assembly representing the American people just as the

assembly of a single state represented the people of the state.

As soon as this point became clear, it was seen to be necessary to

throw the Articles of Confederation overboard, and construct a new

national government. As was said above, our Federal Congress is not

descended from the Continental Congress. Its parentage is to be sought

in the state legislatures. Our federal government was constructed

after the general model of the state governments, with some points

copied from British usages, and some points that were original and

new.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.

1. What are the reasons for reserving the Constitution of the

United States for the concluding chapter?

2. Circumstances that favoured union of the colonies:--

a. The origin of their inhabitants.

b. All the details of their civil government.

c. The ease with which they understood one another.

d. Their common dangers, two in particular.

3. Earlier unions among the colonies:--

a. The New England Confederacy,--its time, purpose, and

duration.

b. The French danger, and plans to meet it.

c. The Albany Congress,--its nature and immediate purpose.

d. The Stamp Act Congress.

4. Committees of correspondence:--

a. The circular letter of Massachusetts in 1768.

b. Town committees of correspondence in Massachusetts in

1772.

c. Colonial committees of correspondence in 1773.

d. The habit established through these committees.

5. The Continental Congress:--

a. The immediate causes that led to it.

b. How it might have been temporary.

c. How it became permanent.

d. Its date, place of meeting, and duration.

e. Why "continental" as distinguished from "provincial?"

f. The nature and extent of its authority.

g. The states represented in it never fully sovereign.

6. Give an account of the "Articles of Confederation."

7. Distinguish between the Continental Congress and the

Federal.

8. The powers of the Continental Congress:--

a. Its homelessness and wandering.

b. Its delegates and their voting power.

c. Its presiding officer.

d. Its management of executive matters.

e. The finance committee and its problems.

f. The raising of money.

g. The compelling of obedience.

9. The Continental Congress not a sovereign body:--

a. The nature of real government.

b. Some functions of sovereignty exercised by the Congress.

c. The situation illogical.

10. Explain the "implied war powers" of the Congress.

11. When was the Congress at the height of its reputation, and

why?

12. Explain the decline in its reputation from 1778 to 1783.

13. The alarming weakness of the union after 1783:--

a. The effect of peace upon the union.

b. Local prejudices.

c. State antagonisms.

d. The gloomy outlook in 1786.

14. The Federal Convention in 1787:--

a. The reluctance to make the change that was felt to be needed.

b. Some facts about the Convention.

c. The character of its delegates.

d. The fundamental weakness of the Continental Congress.

e. The fundamental power of a strong government.

f. The objection to granting the power of taxation to the Continental

Congress.

g. The sort of assembly demanded for exercising the taxing power.

h. The model on which the federal government was built.