CHAPTER VI
POPULAR CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT
The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the people, both directly and indirectly, control all branches of government in the United States.
Public Opinion and Representative Government
How the People Rule.—In free governments the 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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] |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.
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:
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. |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. |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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.