POPULAR CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT
_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the people, both
directly and indirectly, control all branches of government in the
United States._
PUBLIC OPINION AND REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
[Sidenote: The ultimate sovereignty of the people.]
=How the People Rule.=—In free governments the will of the people
prevails in the decision of all important matters. This does not mean,
of course, that the people decide every question directly, but merely
that when a substantial majority of them have reached a decision upon
any point their will prevails through one channel or another. The wishes
of the American people have at times been thwarted by their government;
but in the long run, when the people have made up their minds, their
will has brushed aside every obstacle and has become the supreme law of
the land. This popular control of American government is exerted in four
ways, namely, by the pressure of public opinion upon all officials, by
the periodic election of representatives, by direct law-making through
the initiative and referendum, and by the action of the people in
amending their state constitutions.
The pressure of public opinion is continuous, and it is exerted in
various ways. The government cannot proceed very far in defiance of it.
The election of representatives, on the other hand, takes place at
stated intervals, and in the period between elections the people do not
have direct control over those whom they elect. But where provision for
the initiative and referendum exists, the people may frame and enact
laws without the intervention of their representatives and thus may
exercise direct control. Finally, the ultimate agency of popular
sovereignty is the power of the people to amend their constitutions. So
far as the state constitutions are concerned they accept or reject
proposed changes by their own votes; in the case of the national
constitution they act through their representatives in Congress and in
the state legislatures. By these four methods of control we maintain
what is known as the sovereignty of the people.
[Sidenote: What is public opinion?]
=Popular Rule through Public Opinion.=—We hear a good deal nowadays
about public opinion. What is it? How is it ascertained? How does it
make itself felt? In general, public opinion is the term which we apply
to the predominating sentiment among the people. Public opinion is the
sum-total of opinions held by individuals. It is not merely the
snap-judgment of the majority, however, because _intensity_ of belief is
a factor which counts in determining it. Public opinion is a composite
of numbers and intensity. A majority of the people may hold a certain
belief upon any public question; but if they hold it lightly, without
attaching much importance to it, we do not speak of their sentiment as
public opinion. It is only when sentiment attains the earnestness of
conviction that the term public opinion can be properly applied to it.
[Sidenote: The channels through which it makes itself felt.]
Public opinion, in this sense, is continually exerting pressure upon all
branches of government in the United States. It finds expression through
the editorial columns of newspapers, through resolutions adopted by
societies and organizations, through letters from voters to their
representatives in Congress and in the legislatures, and through the
conversation of people wherever they are gathered together. The
representatives of the people are ever on the alert to discern the drift
of public opinion.[24] They desire to keep in touch with it. A capable
representative always keeps his hand upon the public pulse. When public
opinion undergoes a change, the attitude of the government swings with
it, slowly perhaps, but inevitably. Public opinion is not easy to
ascertain exactly, for it cannot be measured by any process of
arithmetic. Some men are better at gauging it than others. One of the
attributes of a successful politician is his ability to estimate public
opinion accurately. When we say, therefore, that we have “government by
public opinion”, we mean that those who are in authority are influenced
and guided by it.
[Sidenote: Government by representatives.]
=Popular Rule through Representatives.=—Although public opinion exerts a
guiding influence upon the course of government, the actual work of
making the laws and putting them into operation must be performed, for
the most part, by individuals selected for this purpose, that is by
elective or appointive officers. We say “elective or appointive” because
these are the two ways in which officers of government may be chosen;
they may be elected by popular vote, or they may be appointed by some
authority which, in turn, has been elected by the people. The members of
all legislative bodies in the United States (Congress, the state
legislatures, city and town councils) are directly elected by the
people. The chief executive officers in the nation, state, and city
(President, governors, and mayors) are chosen in the same way.[25] In
many states it is also the custom to choose some other executive
officers, such as the attorney-general, state auditors, superintendent
of education, as well as the judges and prosecuting attorneys by direct
popular election. Subordinate officers of administration, on the other
hand, are for the most part appointed. In the national government all
officials of administration subordinate to the President are appointed
by him, likewise all judges and court officers. In the state and local
governments, some subordinate officers are elected but most of them are
appointed by the governor, the county commissioners, or the mayor, as
the case may be.
[Sidenote: When we should elect and when appoint.]
=Election or Appointment, Which is Better?=—We often encounter the
question: Which is the better plan of securing good men in public
office—to elect them or to have them appointed? The answer to this
question depends upon what we expect the officials to do. If the
function of the official is to _represent_ the people in deciding
questions of general policy as in the case of a congressman, a state
legislator, or a municipal councilman, the people ought to choose him.
It is the right and the duty of the people to choose their own
representatives. If they did not do so, we should not have
“representative” government. But if the function of the official is not
to decide questions of general policy but to do work which requires
skill and experience, it is better to make the office appointive. The
rule, in brief, may be stated as follows: When you want representation,
elect; when you want skill or experience, appoint. Some difficulty
arises, however, in the case of officials who are expected both to
represent the people and to perform functions which require expertness.
Take, for example, the state treasurer or the state auditor. These
officials represent the financial interests of the people; they are also
called upon to perform functions which require skill and experience.
Officials in this dual class are in some states elected; in others they
are appointed by the governor. Whether we ought to use one method or the
other depends upon where we place the emphasis—upon representation or
upon administrative efficiency. Account should also be taken of the fact
that if too many officials are elected the ballot will be long and
complicated. In that case some poorly-qualified candidates are likely to
be chosen because voters will not go through a long list carefully (see
p. 132).
[Sidenote: Should a representative obey his own conscience or the will
of the voters?]
=The Function of a Representative.=—The function of a representative, as
the term implies, is to represent. But how is he to be guided in the
performance of this function? Is it the duty of a representative in
Congress or in a state legislature to reflect the public opinion of his
district whether he personally agrees with it or not? Should he obey the
dictates of his own conscience and follow his own view of what the
public welfare demands, or should he disregard these things and consider
only the opinions of those voters who elected him? Let us suppose, for
example, that a congressman personally believes in free trade. He is
absolutely convinced, let us assume, that this is the only right policy.
But he also knows, let us say, that the voters of his district are
overwhelmingly in favor of high protective duties because they believe
that wages will be higher if foreign goods are shut out. What is the
duty of this congressman when called upon to vote for or against a
protective tariff? Which should control—his own conviction or the
opinions of those who elected him as their representative?
[Sidenote: Edmund Burke’s views.]
Many years ago the eminent Irish orator and statesman, Edmund Burke,
gave his opinion on this matter in a speech to the voters of Bristol,
whom he represented in the British House of Commons. A representative,
according to Burke, ought to give due weight to the opinions of those
who elected him, but he ought not to sacrifice his own best judgment to
any man or to any group of men. It is the function of a representative
to master all the details of public problems, which the people of his
district cannot be expected to do, and to make his decision accordingly.
“I maintained your interests against your opinions,” he said to the
voters of Bristol in defending his actions. “A representative worthy of
you ought to be a person of stability. I am to look, indeed, to your
opinions, but to such opinions as you and I must have five years hence.
I am not to look to the flash of the day.”
Public officials in the United States do not usually talk that way. They
dilate upon the wisdom of the people, and profess their own readiness to
conform to whatever the people demand. They are prone to forget that a
representative in Congress or in a state legislature does not represent
his own district alone. He is in effect a representative of the whole
people in nation or state. It is poor patriotism to sacrifice the best
interests of the whole to the desires of any single community. At the
same time when public opinion is strong and clear, we expect the
representatives of the people to hearken to it. When it is vague or in
doubt, the representative must depend upon his own judgment. If a
representative cannot, because of his own conscientious belief, do what
the people expect him to do, his duty is to resign. Representatives,
however, do not often resign for this or any other reason.
THE APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
=Methods of Appointment.=—There are three ways of making appointments.
First, appointments may be made by some high executive officer, such as
the President or the governor of a state, subject to the confirmation of
a legislative body. Second, they may be made by the executive without
the advice and consent of anyone else. Third, they may be made under
civil service rules by a competitive examination.[26]
[Sidenote: The merits and defects of confirmation.]
=Appointments with Confirmation.=—In the national government practically
all appointments of high importance, including heads of departments,
ambassadors, judges, and so on, are made by the President subject to the
consent of the Senate. The President nominates, but the final
appointment depends upon confirmation by a majority of the senators (see
p. 270). So in state government the appointment of higher administrative
officials is usually shared by the governor and the upper chamber of the
state legislature. In the larger cities it has been the custom to
require confirmation of the mayor’s appointments by the city council or
the upper branch of it; but this requirement is now being generally
abandoned. The purpose of requiring confirmation is to prevent too great
a growth in power on the part of the chief executive; its effect has
been to divide responsibility and it has resulted, very often, in poor
appointments. It is good policy, in local and state government at least,
to insist that the responsibility for appointments shall be centralized
and not divided. In the national government, where the appointing power
is of such enormous importance, and might, if unchecked, be so easily
used to perpetuate a President in office, the safeguard of confirmation
is more easily justified.
=Appointments without Confirmation.=—The practice of permitting a chief
executive to make appointments without confirmation began in the large
cities. New York made the start, many years ago, by allowing the mayor
to appoint the heads of the city departments on his own responsibility.
Since then the plan has spread widely and in some cases the states have
given the governor a similar power. In other cases the confirmation has
become, for the most part, a matter of routine, the understanding being
that the governor has the real responsibility and hence should be left
free to make his own selections.
THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
[Sidenote: Giving the offices to politicians.]
=Patronage and Partisanship.=—When appointments are made by an executive
officer, with or without confirmation, or by a legislative body, there
is always a danger that partisan motives will influence the selection.
Nearly all executive and legislative officers are themselves partisan.
They are themselves nominated, in most cases, by party conventions or
primaries; they are elected with the aid of party workers; and they are
therefore under obligation to help the party interest in any reasonable
way. Now it has been commonly believed that one effective way of helping
a party organization is to appoint prominent and active members of the
party to public office, thus giving a reward for their work in the
party’s behalf. Men who have helped a President or a governor to gain
the party nomination and get elected do not usually allow these
officials to forget their obligations when appointments are to be made.
The appointing power, in other words, may be used as a means of
bestowing “patronage”, or rewards for party service and it has been so
used in all branches of American government.
=Rise of the Spoils System.=—In the earlier days of the Republic it was
the custom to make appointments with little or no reference to party
politics.[27] But with the election of Andrew Jackson officials were
removed in large numbers to provide patronage for the leaders of the
victorious political party. Jackson’s supporters frankly enunciated the
doctrine that “to the victors belong the spoils”, hence the practice of
displacing one set of officials and filling the vacant posts with
another set became known as the “spoils system”. From this time to 1883,
a full half-century, it was customary to remove large numbers of
administrative officials whenever a new President came in. The notion
spread that offices ought to be passed around; that four years was long
enough for anyone to be on the public payroll, and that in a democracy
everyone ought to have his share of the patronage.
=The Iniquities of the Spoils System.=—This doctrine, although it was
for more than fifty years accepted by public opinion in the United
States, rested upon a false conception of democratic government. It
assumed the interests of the political party to be more important than
efficiency in the government service. It assumed that administrative
work could be well-enough performed by men who had no qualifications in
the way of education or experience—nothing but a record of party
service. The spoils system regarded public office in nation, state, and
city as mere booty for the victorious hordes after an election, whereas
public office is “a public trust”, as Grover Cleveland once quite
rightly said. It is a privilege and a responsibility; not a right or a
reward. No man has a right to hold public office merely because he
belongs to the winning party. He has a right only when he is qualified
to perform the functions which the tenure of public office involves.
[Sidenote: Results of the spoils system.]
Being based upon a false doctrine the spoils system was pernicious in
its results. It filled the administrative offices of the land with party
henchmen who were incompetent to perform the difficult work of
administration; it resulted in such frequent changes of officials that a
man no sooner learned the duties of his position than he was removed to
make room for someone else; it debased the whole tone of the public
service. It spread from the national government to the states and from
the states to the cities, making the government service everywhere less
efficient than private enterprise. Presidents, senators, and
representatives were forced to spend a large portion of their time in
listening to the pleas of office-seekers. Even Lincoln, in the dark days
of the Civil War, could not escape the deluge of applicants for
appointments.[28] Not everyone who sought office could be appointed, of
course, and where refusals were made they often caused much bitterness.
The seriousness of the whole situation was strongly impressed upon the
public mind in 1881, when President Garfield was shot by a man whose
request for an appointment had been refused.
=The Rise of the Civil Service System.=—Popular aversion to the spoils
system ultimately moved Congress to pass the Civil Service Act of 1883.
Although this statute has been several times amended and its provisions
broadened, it still remains the basis of the merit system as applied to
federal appointments. Briefly, it provides for a Civil Service
Commission of three persons appointed by the President with the
confirmation of the Senate. It gives the President power to classify the
various subordinate offices, with the provision that all offices so
classified must thereafter be filled by competitive examinations. When
the law went into force only about fourteen thousand positions were
placed in the classified service but the list has been steadily widened
until today more than three hundred thousand positions in the employ of
the national government are filled by examination. These examinations
are conducted by the Civil Service Commission.
[Sidenote: The spread of civil service.]
From the national government the civil service system spread to many of
the states and cities where it has steadily made progress although it is
yet far from being universally established. More than half the states
are even yet without civil service laws. In the larger cities the
adoption of the merit system had been more general; nearly all of them
have now established it in one form or other. The system of patronage is
everywhere losing its hold although the politicians often fight hard to
retain it. From the present outlook it is only a question of time until
all administrative offices except the very highest will be filled under
civil service rules.
[Sidenote: The nature of civil service tests.]
=How the Merit System Works.=—The actual operation of the civil service
or merit system is as follows: Whenever a classified position is to be
filled, the appointing officer calls upon the Civil Service Commission
to send him the names of suitable persons. If the commission has
recently held competitions for a similar position, it may have names on
hand. For example, if the appointment is to the position of mail-clerk,
stenographer, postman, or policeman, there is no delay in sending in the
names because examinations for these posts, owing to the steady demand,
are held frequently. But if some unusual position is to be filled, such
as that of chemist in the city’s water department, it is usually
necessary to hold a special competition. Public announcement is made;
applications are received; examination papers are made out; the tests
are taken by the various applicants, and the results are figured out.
Then the Civil Service Commission certifies to the appointing officer
the names which are highest on the list, usually the three highest, and
the appointment is made from among these names.
[Sidenote: They are practical in their nature.]
Do not imagine, however, that a civil service competition takes the form
of examinations like those given in school or college. The questions
relate to the work which the applicant will have to do. Candidates for
appointment as stenographers are given a practical test to determine
whether they can take dictation rapidly, read it accurately, and write
it out neatly with a typewriter. Civil service tests for policemen take
the form of a physical examination, questions on elementary law, and on
the duties of a policeman. There are different examinations for each
kind of position. The examiners study what qualifications a position
demands and then devise a set of examinations which will test these
qualifications. The Civil Service Commission does not make the
appointments; it merely certifies the names of those who stand highest.
From these names the appointing officer usually selects the first on the
list, but in some cases he is permitted to choose any one of the first
three names.
=Value of the Merit System.=—The merit system does not always succeed in
picking out the best among those who apply for a vacant position. No
system of competitive tests is infallible. Even school examinations do
not always prove who is the best scholar. But they come nearer doing so
than any other method. Civil service tests do succeed in weeding out the
unfit. They protect the public service against the appointment of
officials who are clearly incompetent and have no qualifications except
political influence. If the civil service system does not always select
the best it certainly enables us to avoid the worst, which is something
that the spoils system never did.
[Sidenote: The democratic character of the civil service system.]
The civil service system is democratic. It gives everyone an equal
chance. It matters not who the candidates are, whether rich or poor,
Republicans or Democrats, with friends or without friends—all have an
equal opportunity. Merit is the only thing that counts. And it is the
only thing that ought to count in filling public positions. It is true
that the candidate with an education usually has an advantage in
answering civil service questions; but does not education help a man or
woman in every branch of life? In a country where education is free can
we call a system of appointment “undemocratic” because it gives the
educated candidate an advantage? Under the merit system men and women
_win_ appointments; they do not receive appointments by favor. They hold
their posts during good behavior and are protected against dismissal
without cause. The cause must be specific and stated in writing. This
being done, the appointing officer usually has the right to dismiss a
subordinate and this right is necessary to the maintenance of proper
discipline. Under the civil service system, however, dismissals are not
frequent.[29]
DIRECT LEGISLATION BY THE PEOPLE
[Sidenote: Some definitions.]
=The Initiative and Referendum: What they are.=—The machinery of direct
legislation consists of two political devices which usually go together
and are known as the initiative and referendum. By the initiative is
meant the right of a stated percentage of voters in any state or other
political division to propose a law and to require that if this proposal
is not forthwith adopted by the regular law-making authorities it shall
be submitted to the people for their decision at the polls. The
initiative usually covers constitutional amendments as well as laws. To
put it in less technical language, if anyone believes that a new law or
ordinance should be passed, he draws up the law or ordinance in such
form as he desires; then he gets a certain number of voters to sign a
petition asking for its passage. If the legislature enacts it, well and
good; if it does not enact it the question whether the law will be
adopted goes on the ballot for the voters to decide.
The referendum, on the other hand, is an arrangement whereby a measure
already passed by the legislature or city council may, under certain
conditions, be withheld from going into effect until the people have had
an opportunity to accept or reject it at the polls. The conditions
usually are that a certain number of voters shall present a petition
asking that the measure be withheld from going into force. The
referendum, as a rule, cannot be invoked in the case of emergency
measures.
=Their Progress in America.=—It is only about a quarter of a century
since the initiative and referendum, in this form, made their appearance
in America, the first state to establish them being South Dakota in
1898.[30] Other states soon took up the idea and today nearly half the
entire number of states have made provision for direct legislation in
one form or another.[31] [Sidenote: Spread of direct legislation.] From
the states the movement spread to the cities, a large number of which
now have provisions for the initiative and referendum inserted in their
charters. The extension of the system to the national government, by
means of an amendment to the constitution, is now being urged by some
organizations, including the American Federation of Labor.
[Sidenote: Reasons for this rapid extension.]
How is the rapid spread of this movement for direct legislation in the
United States to be accounted for? Two reasons for it, at least, may be
given. One is the decline of popular confidence in lawmaking by
legislators. The work of the legislatures in many of the states, and of
the city councils in most of the cities, has been unsatisfactory to the
people on a good many occasions. It has given vogue to the idea that the
people themselves could not do much worse and might do a great deal
better. The second reason may be found in the habit of waiving
responsibility which many legislatures and city councils have acquired
in recent years. When difficult questions come before legislatures, the
legislators frequently find an easy solution, so far as they themselves
are concerned, by “putting the matter directly up to the people”. In
other words they agree to place the questions on the ballot at the next
election. In many states this practice of passing measures with a
“referendum clause” has become very common. It has paved the way for
direct legislation on a wider scale.
=The Initiative and Referendum in Practice.=—In actual practice the
initiative and referendum do not provide a simple and easy means of
making laws. Their use is hedged about by all sorts of formalities and
conditions. In no two states are these conditions exactly alike, but in
a general way the practical workings of direct legislation are somewhat
as follows:
[Sidenote: The petition.]
As the first step, those who desire a new law make a draft of it in
writing. Then they write out a brief petition to accompany it and obtain
as many signatures as they can. The usual requirement is that a certain
percentage of the qualified voters must sign the petition before it will
be accepted by the authorities. These signatures are secured by holding
meetings, or by a house-to-house canvass, or by placing copies of the
petition in banks, stores, and other public places where voters can sign
them. When enough signatures have been obtained, the petition,
accompanied by the draft of the proposed law, is presented to the proper
official at the state Capitol or city hall and this official checks the
names with a copy of the voters’ list. [Sidenote: The scrutiny.] If he
finds that all the requirements have been fulfilled, he endorses on the
petition a statement to this effect and makes provision for placing the
question on the ballot at the next election or, in some cases, at a
special election held for the purpose. Meanwhile, the legislature or
city council may enact the measure, in which case the question need not
be placed on the ballot. [Sidenote: The voting.] To inform the voters
concerning the various initiative measures which are to be voted on,
some states have provided that a pamphlet shall be prepared and mailed
to every voter previous to the election. These pamphlets contain the
texts of the proposed laws and also, in some cases, a summary of the
arguments for and against each proposal. At the election the voters mark
their ballots with a cross opposite the words Yes or No and the proposed
law is adopted or rejected in accordance with the will of the majority.
In the case of the referendum a petition is also drawn up and a
designated number of signatures obtained. When enough signatures have
been secured, usually the same number as is required for the initiative,
the petition is presented, checked up, and certified in the same way.
The law in question, although duly enacted by the legislature, is then
withheld from going into effect until the voters ratify it at an
election.
In some states the initiative and referendum have been used quite
freely; in others hardly at all. In Oregon, during the decade 1906-1916,
no fewer than ninety-one measures were submitted to the voters at five
elections; in Massachusetts only four measures have been initiated by
petition in five years. Much greater use has been made of direct
legislation in the Far West than in the East.
[Sidenote: The arguments in favor.]
=Merits of Direct Legislation.=—The reputed merits of the initiative and
referendum may be summed up under four heads. 1. _It makes government
more democratic._ In legislatures the influence of some class, section,
or partisan element among the people has often determined the nature of
the laws. By the use of direct legislation the whole people can make
their will effective. 2. _It has an educative value._ People who are
called upon to vote upon measures will learn something about them before
going to the polls. When the legislators alone make the laws, the
individual voter takes no interest in the lawmaking. But when the
questions go on the ballot there is a general public discussion of the
arguments for and against. In this way the whole body of the voters
becomes informed on public problems. 3. _It gives the ordinary citizen a
chance to make his influence felt._ The legislature, in doing its work,
does not hear much from the plain man who attends to his own business.
It hears chiefly from the “vested interests”, the corporations, and
capitalists on the one hand, or from labor organizations or the farmers
on the other. It is also subjected to pressure by politicians and party
leaders. But a considerable part of the population is made up of men and
women who are neither capitalists, union workers, nor politicians.
Direct legislation gives this silent section of the electorate a chance.
4. _It keeps legislative bodies on their good behavior._ The initiative
and referendum are not intended to supplant lawmaking by legislatures.
Most of the laws will continue to be made by the old process. Direct
legislation is merely a remedy in the hands of the people for use when
the regular lawmaking bodies fail to carry out the popular will. Knowing
that the voters have this weapon ready for use, the legislators are more
careful about what they do. They know that an appeal may be taken to the
voters and their own decisions overturned. This is an incentive to
better work on their part. Hence the initiative and referendum will
really strengthen rather than destroy our system of representative
government.
[Sidenote: The arguments against.]
=Defects of Direct Legislation.=—But there are arguments on the other
side as well; and these also can be arranged under four headings. 1.
_Direct legislation weakens the civil rights of the individual._ These
rights are embodied in the state constitutions for the purpose of
preserving them. But if a majority of the voters can change these
constitutions at any time, there is no longer any distinction between
constitutions and laws. This means that there is no special protection
for the rights of property, for free speech, or for freedom of worship.
A majority can ride rough-shod over a minority at any time. 2. _Direct
legislation is usually the work of a majority in name only._ Not more
than eighty per cent of the people regularly cast their ballots on
election day; the proportion is often much smaller. Of those who go to
the polls many do not vote on all the questions. The result is that
measures are frequently ratified by the votes of only thirty or forty
per cent of the whole electorate, in other words by a distinct minority.
The alleged “rule of the majority” thus becomes a fiction, not a fact.
3. _Direct legislation results in appeals to public prejudice and leads
to demagogism._ When measures are submitted to the people the discussion
is not confined to the merits of the proposed laws. The supporters and
opponents alike appeal to the prejudice and the self-interest of the
voters. The demagogue uses his opportunity to the fullest extent, thus
inflaming bitterness between different classes among the people. There
is no opportunity for calm deliberation or compromise as in the
legislative halls. The voters can only say Yes or No. They must take the
measure as it stands or reject it entirely. As a rule, moreover, the man
who is ready to say Yes or No to any public question can be set down as
one who has given very little thought to the subject. 4. _Direct
legislation tends to break down the whole system of representative
government._ It divides the responsibility for lawmaking, encourages the
election of less efficient representatives, and places upon the people a
task which they cannot intelligently perform. The voters will not, and
cannot, fully inform themselves about the merits and defects of ten,
twenty, or thirty different questions on the ballot. It is absurd, the
opponents of direct legislation declare, to submit a long list of
questions to the voters when thousands of these voters are not even able
to read or write.[32]
[Sidenote: Which are the stronger?]
=The Relative Weight of these Arguments.=—The fore-going paragraphs give
the arguments, both for and against direct legislation, as they are
commonly put forth by the two sides. The supporters of direct
legislation are inclined to magnify its merits; the opponents are
equally prone to overstate its defects. Due allowance should be made for
this in weighing their respective arguments. Direct legislation has not
put an end to the power of political bosses or destroyed the party
system or made all the laws righteous. On the other hand it has not led
to lawmaking by demagogues or impaired the fundamental rights of the
citizen. Laws passed by means of the initiative and referendum have
been, on the whole, no better and no worse than laws passed by
legislatures. The strong probability is, if one may venture a
prediction, that less use of direct legislation will be made as time
goes on. This does not mean, however, that the system will be valueless.
It still remains a highly important weapon of last resort which the
people can use if they need it. At any rate no one need hesitate to make
up his own mind as to the relative merits and defects of the initiative
and referendum, for he will find himself in pretty good company
whichever side he takes.
=The Recall.=—The recall is the right of a designated number of voters
to demand the immediate removal of any elective officeholder and to have
their demand submitted to the voters for decision. A petition for
removal is drawn up and circulated for signatures; when enough
signatures have been obtained it is presented to the proper authorities
who thereupon hold an election to decide the matter. The petition
usually states the reasons for demanding the officeholder’s removal
before the expiration of his term. If a majority of those who vote on
the question are in favor of the removal, the officeholder vacates his
post at once; if they reject the demand for a recall, he continues in
office. Provision for the recall was first established in Los Angeles
(1903), and during the past twenty years it has been adopted in many
cities in different parts of the country. Ten states have also provided
for the recall of elective state officers. Several city officials have
been removed at recall elections, but only one state officer has yet
been ousted from office by this procedure.[33]
The purpose of the recall is to ensure the complete and continual
responsibility of public officials to the people who have elected them.
It enables the establishment of longer terms of office without incurring
the danger of autocracy on the part of officeholders. On the other hand,
the recall is a weapon which may easily be perverted to wrongful use. If
attempts were made to oust an officeholder whenever his work gives
offence to any influential element among the voters, the recall
procedure would soon become an intolerable nuisance in that it would be
continually bringing the people to the polls. It would likewise deter
independent and capable men from accepting office at all. But as a
matter of fact the recall has not been widely used. For the most part
the people have held it in reserve for emergencies. It is like a
fire-escape on the outside of a building, not to be used at all under
ordinary circumstances, but exceedingly valuable when an emergency
comes.
General References
JAMES BRYCE, _Modern Democracies_, Vol. I, pp. 151-164 (Public Opinion);
Vol. II, pp. 417-434 (Direct Legislation by the People);
A. L. LOWELL, _Public Opinion and Popular Government_, pp. 113-232
(Methods of Expressing Public Opinion);
A. B. HART, _Actual Government_, pp. 270-273 (Appointing Power); 276-294
(Civil Service);
W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 501-521 (Direct
Legislation and the Recall);
E. M. PHELPS (editor), _Initiative and Referendum_ (Debaters’ Handbook
Series);
DELOS F. WILCOX, _Government by All the People_ (The Arguments in
Favor), pp. 104-128; 149-163;
ARNOLD B. HALL, _Popular Government_ (The Arguments Against), pp.
120-143.
Group Problems
1. =What is public opinion?= How is it formed? Influence of the press.
News columns and editorials. The press and propaganda. Influence of
advertisers. The large measure of independence in the press. Resolutions
of organizations. Communications to legislators. Relative importance of
the various channels of public opinion. =References=: A. V. DICEY, _The
Relations between Law and Public Opinion in England_, pp. 17-47; JAMES
BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. II, pp. 251-266; _Ibid._, _Modern
Democracies_, Vol. I, pp. 92-110; 151-164; A. L. LOWELL, _Public Opinion
and Popular Government_, pp. 4-56; G. H. PAYNE, _History of Journalism
in the United States_, pp. 347-359 and _passim_; ARNOLD B. HALL,
_Popular Government_, pp. 25-44; WALTER LIPPMAN, _Liberty and the News_,
_passim_.
2. =The initiative and referendum in their practical workings.=
=References=: J. D. BARNETT, _The Operation of the Initiative,
Referendum and Recall in Oregon_, pp. 101-125; Illinois Constitutional
Convention (1920), _Bulletins_, No. 2; Massachusetts Constitutional
Convention (1917-1918), _Bulletins_, No. 6; A. L. LOWELL, _Public
Opinion and Popular Government_, pp. 169-239; D. F. WILCOX, _Government
by All the People_, pp. 229-320; ARNOLD B. HALL, _Popular Government_,
pp. 120-143.
3. =The civil service system: its progress, aims, and methods.=
=References=: A. B. HART, _Actual Government_, pp. 276-294; C. A. BEARD,
_American Government and Politics_, pp. 222-230; P. S. REINSCH,
_Readings in American Federal Government_, pp. 683-702; W. B. MUNRO,
_Government of American Cities_, pp. 271-290; C. R. FISH, _The Civil
Service and the Patronage_, _passim_; J. T. YOUNG, _The New American
Government and its Work_, pp. 592-608.
Short Studies
1. =The responsibility of public officials.= F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized
Democracy_, pp. 394-409.
2. =The function of a representative.= J. W. JENKS, _Principles of
Politics_, pp. 77-84; J. S. MILL, _On Representative Government_
(Everyman’s Library), pp. 202-218; 228-241.
3. =The election vs. the appointment of public officials.= JOHN M.
MATHEWS, _Principles of American State Administration_, pp. 173-190.
4. =The spoils system.= JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. II,
pp. 136-145; JAMES A. WOODBURN, _Political Parties and Party Problems_,
pp. 254-265. See also W. D. FOULKE, _Fighting the Spoilsmen_, _passim_.
5. =Training for public service.= W. H. ALLEN, _Training for the Public
Service_, pp. 164-200.
6. =How civil service tests are given.= L. F. FULD, _Police
Administration_, pp. 75-97.
7. =The public service as a profession.= A. L. LOWELL, _Public Opinion
and Popular Government_, pp. 264-305; W. H. ALLEN, _Training for the
Public Service_, pp. 164-181; E. A. FITZPATRICK, _Experts in City
Government_, pp. 71-104.
8. =The recall of public officers.= ARNOLD B. HALL, _Popular
Government_, pp. 203-241.
Questions
1. How many “organs” of public opinion can you name? How does each exert
an influence? Which one do you consider the most influential?
2. Is public opinion always the sentiment of the majority? If it is not,
explain why. Give a concrete illustration.
3. Do you agree with Edmund Burke’s ideas as to the proper function of a
representative?
4. When the question of woman suffrage was before the United States
Senate, and only one additional vote was needed to pass it, a certain
senator declared that while he was personally in favor of granting the
suffrage to women the people of his own state had just voted against the
proposal and he therefore felt bound to follow their judgment. Was he
right or wrong in taking that attitude?
5. Make a list of the administrative officers of your state and
community, indicating which ones should be elected and which appointed.
Can you think of any proper exceptions to the rule that all
administrative offices requiring skill or experience should be filled by
appointment?
6. What arguments were put forward in behalf of the spoils system?
7. What sort of civil service tests ought to be applied in selecting
persons for the following positions: truck-and-ladder driver in the fire
department; gardener in the public park service; bookkeeper in the
office of the state treasurer; member of the United States life-saving
service; railway-mail clerk; analyst of food and drugs; inspector of
wires and lamps; woman police officer; probation officer; draftsman in
the state highway department.
8. In a city of 100,000 population what positions would you exempt from
civil service rules?
9. Is _good government_ more important than _popular government_? Can a
government be both _democratic_ and _efficient_? Do you regard
appointments by competition as _undemocratic_? Why or why not?
10. Work out a plan by which promotions in the police department could
be made under the merit system (consider the possibility of giving
credits for punctuality, acts of courage, number of arrests, etc., and
of making deductions for neglect of duty, etc.).
11. What is the strongest argument for direct legislation and what is
the weakest? Which argument on the other side impresses you the most and
which the least?
12. Is it more dangerous to subject judges to the possibility of recall
than other officials?
Topics for Debate
1. A congressman should obey his conscience rather than his constituents
when he cannot obey both.
2. Heads of state and city administrative departments should be chosen
under civil service rules.
3. The initiative and referendum should be extended to national
lawmaking.