Social Civics

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the relation of the states to the nation, to show how the state governments are organized, and what services they render the people.

The Sovereign States.—It is customary to speak of the American Republic as made up of “sovereign states”, but unless this expression is clearly explained it is apt to be misleading. On July 4th, 1776, the thirteen colonies became free and independent states, each entitled to frame its own plan of government. These new states were subject to no restrictions except the very mild ones which, by adopting the Articles of Confederation, they had agreed to place upon themselves. They were very jealous of their independence and disinclined to surrender any of their powers, even to create a unified nation. For this reason, when the national constitution was framed in 1787, the states reserved to themselves all powers not conveyed to the new federal government by the provisions of that document. It was intended that the preponderance of power should rest with the states, that most of the work of government should be performed by them, and that the first interest of the citizen should be in the affairs of his own state.

But scarcely had the new federal government become established when it began to gather strength. By a series of decisions the Supreme Court gave a liberal interpretation to the powers of Congress as set forth in the constitution, each decision widening the authority of the central government. The state governments did not look with favor upon this development; but on the whole the people of the country approved it. Little by little the nation forged ahead of the states in its hold upon the interest and loyalty of the people. The Civil War was an important factor in all this, for the real issue in that conflict concerned the respective rights of the federal and the state governments. The union came out of the war much stronger than before and for the last sixty years it has kept gaining. Today people think of themselves as citizens of the United States, rather than as citizens of a particular state; their first interest is in matters of national government; they look to the nation for the solution of all the great problems and are disposed to give the national government even broader powers, as recent amendments to the constitution have shown.^[91] In theory the place of the states in the nation is almost exactly what it was a hundred and thirty years ago; they still remain sovereign in name; but in actual fact their relative authority has been greatly diminished.

Nevertheless the forty-eight states are even yet very from being mere administrative divisions as are the counties of England or the departments in France. In these two countries the government is highly centralized; all power emanates from London or from Paris. In America the forty-eight state capitals are still the location of important governmental powers and in all probability will continue to be. This decentralization in government sometimes leads to friction and controversy; but it has the advantage of keeping the people in more direct control of their local affairs.

How States are Admitted.—In addition to the thirteen original states there was territory enough in 1787 for the creation of many more. All the land east of the Mississippi had been surrendered by Great Britain and although much of this was claimed by the states along the Atlantic seaboard they finally agreed to turn it all over to Congress. The national government thereupon made provision for governing this territory and expressly stipulated that it should be given rights of statehood whenever the growth of population might warrant that step. A little later the Louisiana territory was purchased; then Florida, and from time to time during the next fifty years additional areas were obtained in the Southwest, Northwest, and West. In every case these areas were administered by territorial governments under the authority of Congress, but always with the stipulation that the territories would become states as soon as they had obtained a sufficient population.

We do not commonly think of the United States as a colonizing power, in the sense that Great Britain has been such, nevertheless the whole history of the American people has been a chronicle of colonization. From the Alleghenies to the Pacific ocean the march of settlement went steadily on for nearly a hundred years; lands were thrown open to settlers; territories were formed; and in the end each territory became a state.

The makers of the federal constitution had no idea, of course, that the union would ever become so large, but they did foresee that some day there would be more than thirteen states. Hence, they made provision in the constitution that new states might be admitted from time to time at the discretion of Congress. In keeping with this provision the usual first step is the sending of a petition to Congress from the people of the territory which seeks to be admitted. If Congress regards this petition with favor it passes an Enabling Act, which authorizes the people of the territory to draw up a tentative state constitution. This document, having been framed and ratified at the polls by the people of the territory, is then submitted to Congress. If Congress finds the constitution satisfactory, it may then, by resolution, declare the territory to be a state. Congress has been generous in granting full statehood to the home territories, in some cases even before they had acquired large populations, and this attitude has been wise. It has welded the country together as no other policy could have unified it.

The Newer Territories.—Down to 1867, therefore, the problem of territorial government was not difficult and it was always handled satisfactorily. |How the territories were governed.| Each territory was administered by a governor, who was appointed by the President, and by a territorial legislature which was elected by the people. Laws passed by the territorial legislature were subject to disapproval by Congress, but this right was seldom exercised. The people of the territories quickly showed their capacity to govern themselves and Congress let them alone. But after the Civil War and particularly after the Spanish War, territorial problems of a new sort arose. |The new insular territories.| In 1867 the United States purchased Alaska from Russia; in 1898 Porto Rico and the Philippines were acquired from Spain; in the same year Hawaii was annexed, and during the past quarter of a century other distant possessions (Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, and the Virgin Islands) have been added.

These acquisitions differ from the old territories in two respects; they are outside the regular national boundaries (in some cases far outside), and they contain for the most part populations which have not had much experience in self-government.^[92] All have been given some form of territorial government; but the question is: Can they be ultimately admitted as states of the union? If they should be so admitted, they must be given exactly the same rights as all the other states. There is no such thing as partial or qualified admission. If Porto Rico or Hawaii should be admitted to statehood they will have exactly the same status as New York or Pennsylvania.

Three courses are open. First, these territories may be admitted in due course to full rights of statehood. In the case of Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico this policy may be the one adopted if their populations are deemed to be large enough. Second, the existing form of territorial government may be continued indefinitely. This means that they would have a large measure of control over their own local affairs but not full control in the sense that the states have it. Third, they might be given their independence with a guarantee of American protection from outside enemies. In the case of the Philippines this is virtually what has been promised; but independence is not to be given until the islands prove entirely capable of governing themselves.^[93] Apart from the Philippines none of these territories is asking for independence.^[94]

The State Constitutions.—It has been pointed out that before any territory is admitted as a state it must frame a constitution. |State constitutional conventions.| This constitution is drawn, as a rule, by a constitutional convention composed of delegates elected by the people. Such a convention is called when a state enters the union and again whenever a general revision of the original document seems to be desirable. As a rule there is an interval of ten years or more between such conventions and sometimes an interval of thirty or forty years.^[95] Due to differences in the growth and progress of the state a constitution may become out-of-date in one more rapidly than in another. If only slight alterations in the constitution are needed, it is not necessary or usual to call a convention. Individual amendments, as will be shown presently, can be made more easily.

What these Constitutions Contain.—These state constitutions are rather long documents, much longer than the constitution of the United States. In early days they were much shorter, but the state governments perform far more numerous functions today than they did fifty years ago. It has become the tendency, moreover, in recent years to cover many things in constitutions which formerly were left to be dealt with by acts of the legislature. This has meant a great lengthening of constitutional provisions.

In general a state constitution sets forth the form of government, prescribes the powers and duties of state officers, prohibits the legislature from doing certain things (such as changing the state capitol, for example), and guarantees certain fundamental rights to the citizens. But this is not all. Some of them contain long provisions relating to the powers of local governments, the pay of officials, the borrowing of money, and the regulation of banks. Putting such details into the state constitution is an unwise policy because constitutional provisions are difficult to change, whereas these various matters need to be dealt with somewhat differently from time to time.

How State Constitutions are Amended.—There are two common ways of amending a state constitution. The first, which exists in nearly all the states, is by concurrent action of the legislature and the people. The legislature takes the first step by proposing the amendment; then the people at the polls accept or reject the proposal.^[96] The other way is by action of the people alone. By means of the initiative, as already described, the people may propose an amendment, have it put on the ballot, and accept or reject it as they desire. This method of amending the constitution is used in less than half the states and even there it is not employed with great frequency. The great majority of the amendments to state constitutions (scores of them are made every year in the country as a whole) are made by the first-named plan.

The Powers of the States.—Some years ago a foreign student of government, desiring to find out what powers belonged to the legislature of Massachusetts, took a copy of the state constitution and began reading it carefully. Much to his surprise he found that it contained no list of the powers which the legislature might exercise but merely stated some things which the legislature must not do. The reason for this, of course, is simple enough. The states retain all the powers which they have not given to the national government. The way to find out whether a state possesses a certain power is to look in the constitution of the United States. If the power is there given exclusively to Congress or prohibited to the states, then the state legislature cannot exercise it. But if the power is not mentioned in the national constitution, either expressly or by implication, then the state legislatures have it.

On this basis a certain division of powers is made between the nation and the states. The general principles on which the division is made are easy enough to understand, but the exact distribution of powers is something that can only be mastered by studying it. Even lawyers do not always get hold of it accurately and newspapers are constantly making mistakes because they fail to realize just where the boundaries of the various governmental powers begin and end. So let us try to condense the matter into a nutshell, or, to be more accurate, into four nutshells as follows:

1. Some powers belong exclusively to the nation. These include the power to declare war, to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, to coin money, to establish post offices, and so on. No share in the management of these things belongs to the state governments.

2. Some powers belong concurrently both to the nation and the states. Both the nation and the states, each within its own sphere, have the power to tax, to borrow money, to charter banks, to promote education, and to do many other things. These are called concurrent powers because the national and state authorities may both exercise them at the same time.

3. Some powers are prohibited to the nation and some are prohibited to the states. The national and state governments, for example, are forbidden to pass any bill of attainder, to grant titles of nobility, or to take private property for public use without compensation. The states, in addition, are forbidden to make treaties, coin money, or levy tariff duties. There are various other prohibitions upon both the nation or the states, as will be seen by reading carefully the provisions of the national constitution.^[97]

4. All other governmental powers are reserved to the states. Every power which does not fall within the foregoing three classes belongs to the several states exclusively. This is not only in accordance with the theory of the national constitution as a grant of powers but it is expressly stated in the Tenth Amendment.^[98]

The General Similarity of State Governments.—No two states, among the forty-eight, are governed alike. A description of state government in Massachusetts would not fit Illinois, much less Idaho or Nevada. On the other hand no two states are governed very differently; in all the essential features they conform to a single type. They all have constitutions; every state has an elective legislature of two chambers; each has an elective governor; and they all have state courts. In all the states there is universal suffrage (save for the exclusion of negroes in the South); the secret ballot is used throughout the country; the same political parties are in existence everywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific; and the principal laws are essentially the same. The citizen who moves from one state to another finds the difference so slight that it is hardly noticeable. It is not worth while, therefore, to spend any time in studying the points of difference between the government of one state and that of another. State government everywhere has now been reduced to a type which is uniform for all practical purposes.

The State Legislature.—Every state has a legislature which is the paramount branch of the state government. It makes the laws, levies the state taxes, appropriates money for the management of state administration, and decides all questions of public policy. This legislature is composed of two chambers, which have substantially concurrent lawmaking powers. The upper chamber, commonly called the Senate, is the smaller of the two; its members are elected by counties or senatorial districts, usually for a term of two or four years. The lower chamber, which is variously known as the Assembly, or House of Representatives, or House of Delegates, is much the larger body; its members are also elected from counties or parts of counties. Nominations are made either by conventions or by a primary; the latter is now the more common method except in the Southern states. Sessions of the legislature are held every alternate year except in a few states where they are held annually.

The powers of the state legislature are in actual operation very broad. They comprise the whole field of lawmaking except in so far as it has been restricted by the national constitution or by the constitution of the state itself. The state laws come closer to the life of the individual than do those of the nation.^[99] They make provision for the registration of a child’s birth; they determine the age at which he must go to school; they establish the schools and fix the qualifications of the teachers. When the boy becomes a man he will find that the state laws regulate his profession or business. The state laws enable him to marry, to accumulate property, to vote, and to hold office. When he dies the state laws regulate the transmission of his property to his heirs. Thus from birth to death the citizen comes almost daily into contact with the lawmaking authority of the state. These laws determine most of the taxes that he pays; they safeguard his life, health, and property; they punish him when he does wrong; and they provide for his maintenance if he becomes poor or crippled or insane. Where the federal government touches the citizen once, the state government touches him a dozen times. The average citizen does not always appreciate this fact.

The consent of both chambers of the state legislature is necessary to the making of laws. The process of lawmaking is very much like that used in Congress (see pp. 275-278). Bills are introduced, referred to committees, reported back to the legislature, and voted on by each chamber.^[100] Disagreements between the two chambers are adjusted by a conference committee. The rules of procedure are very complicated and new members of a state legislature often have some difficulty in understanding them. The purpose of the rules is threefold: To expedite business, to ensure the careful consideration of each measure, and to protect the rights of the minority party in the legislature. Despite the rules, however, legislative business is often unduly delayed; at other times measures are hustled through without proper consideration, and the rights of the minority are frequently over-ridden.^[101] This is done by suspending the rules or by merely disregarding them.

The State Executive.—The executive branch of the state government is made up of the governor and the heads of the various state departments. The governor is elected by the people for a term of two or four years. His powers are extensive. He is charged with the general supervision over the enforcement of the laws and the conduct of administrative affairs. He makes most of the important appointments to state administrative offices, the chief exceptions being the heads of state departments and the judges of the state courts, both of whom are in most cases elected by the people. The governor’s appointments, before they become effective, usually require confirmation by the upper branch of the state legislature or by an elective executive council. Where the civil service system is in force, moreover, it places a limit on the governor’s discretion in appointments. The governor also possesses the veto power over acts of the state legislature, but this may be over-ridden, as a rule, by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. In all essential features the veto power of the governor is much like that of the President. The power to pardon offenders convicted in the state courts likewise belongs to the governor in most states; in some states, however, he must obtain the concurrence of a pardoning-board or some other authority, and in a few states the entire power of pardon is given to a special board. The governor is commander-in-chief of the state militia and may call it out for service in emergencies. Like the President the governor is removable from office by impeachment.

For carrying on its administrative work the state has, in addition to the governor, a considerable number of administrative officials and boards. These include the secretary of state, who keeps the official records; the treasurer; the auditor; the attorney-general, who conducts the legal affairs of the state; the state superintendent or commissioner of education; together with state boards of health, charity, public works, public utilities, and so on. The titles and functions of these various boards differ greatly from state to state. In Massachusetts there are only twenty-one state departments; in New York there are more than one hundred. Everywhere the number displays a tendency to increase, for the functions of the state are everywhere broadening. The officials and members of boards who perform all this administrative work are sometimes elected but more often they are appointed by the governor.

The State Courts: Their Organization.—In each state there are three gradations in the judiciary, and sometimes four. First, there are local courts, presided over by justices of the peace, or police justices. These courts try cases of minor importance. When persons charged with serious offences are brought before them, the offenders are held for trial by the next higher court. These next higher courts are known as county or district or superior courts. They are empowered to conduct jury trials; they have prosecuting attorneys at their service; they have a wider range of jurisdiction to try important cases, and their decisions are usually final so far as the facts of the case are concerned. Finally, there is in each state a supreme court (sometimes called the Court of Errors) which hears appeals, chiefly on disputed points of law, from the courts below. This court is composed of from five to fifteen judges (the number is fixed by law in each state), and it has the last word in all cases save where an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.^[102]

The Selection and Removal of Judges.—In more than three-fourths of the states the judges of these various courts are elected by the people. In the rest they are either appointed by the governor or chosen by the state legislature. One plan cannot be said, in general terms, to be better than the other. Good judges have been secured by all three methods of selection, and poor ones too. It is worth noting, however, that the judges of all the federal courts are appointed for life and that they are men of fine quality.^[103] It is everywhere conceded that the courts ought to be kept out of party politics and this is much easier if the judges are appointed for life or for long terms than if they are chosen by the people for short terms. But whether appointed or elected it is desirable that judges, so long as their work is satisfactory, should be kept in office. If judges are denied reappointment or re-election because their decisions do not prove popular with those who are influential in politics, it will be very hard to get men of ability and integrity to accept judicial positions.

The Need of Reform in State Administration.—There are two distinct weaknesses in state administration at the present day. One results from the fact that the functions of the state have been enormously expanded during the past fifty years while the administrative machinery has not kept pace. The state has taken over new duties in the field of public health, the regulation of industry, the administration of prisons, the control of public utilities, and many other matters. In each case it has merely set up one more department or bureau or board until the whole organization has become top-heavy. State administration, in other words, is now divided into too many compartments. The other weakness arises from the fact that these various departments are not all responsible to the governor or to any central head. Some officials and boards are appointed; some are elected. Some hold office for long terms, some for short. The governor bears the responsibility for the proper conduct of state administration, yet the work is done by officials who are not required to obey his instructions.^[104] He is like a general who is expected to win battles without having officers who will obey his commands. The result is not only a good deal of friction but a waste of time, money, and patience. Several states have felt the need of reforming this condition and have proceeded to make changes in their administrative organization. These changes involve a reduction in the number of departments and the placing of them all under the general control of the governor.^[105] In the national administration all departments are responsible to the President. The same principle ought to be applied in state administration.

The Proposed Reconstruction of State Government.—The system of state government, as it now stands, is not obtaining satisfactory results. The state legislatures have declined in popular confidence during the past generation; men of inferior quality are frequently elected to them; the work of lawmaking is influenced too much by party considerations; the administrative departments are too numerous in most of the states and often fail to do their work efficiently. State taxes are everywhere going up rapidly and state debts are increasing. Various plans for a radical reconstruction in state government have been proposed in order to remedy these defects. One proposal is that the two-chambered legislature should be abolished and a single small body of representatives put in its place. It is argued that if fewer legislators were elected better men would be chosen and that the process of lawmaking would thereby be improved. Some have even gone so far as to urge that we should establish commission government for states as well as for cities. State government, they argue, has become so complicated that it now needs a smaller number of capable men giving their undivided attention to it. A two-chambered legislature, which meets for a few months every second year, cannot handle the business effectively. Nevertheless the people have become thoroughly accustomed to double-chambered legislatures, and where the proposal to establish a single chamber has been submitted to them (as in Oregon) they have rejected it.

Another plan proposes the vesting of larger powers in the hands of the governor, giving him the initiative in financial matters and making all the state administrative departments responsible to him. Today the drift is very strongly in this direction. Already, in some states, the governor is a more important factor than the legislature, and this is strangely in contrast with the situation as it was a hundred years or more ago. James Madison, in his time, spoke of the governors as “little more than ciphers” and declared that the legislatures were omnipotent. In our day this has entirely changed, or is changing. The balance of power is steadily swinging from the legislative to the executive branch.

C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 428-577; Ibid., Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 391-508;

Everett Kimball, State and Municipal Government, pp. 131-308;

W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 389-459;

A. N. Holcombe, State Government in the United States, pp. 240-393;

J. T. Young, The New American Government and Its Work, pp. 298-341;

Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 315-336;

P. S. Reinsch, Readings in American Federal Government, pp. 222-239;

J. M. Mathews, Principles of American State Administration, pp. 25-214;

W. W. Willoughby and Lindsay Rogers, Introduction to the Problem of Government, pp. 407-429.

1. A revision of your state constitution. Make a tabulation of the more important provisions in your state constitution, under the following heads: 1. Organization of the legislature. 2. Powers of the governor. 3. Relations between the governor and the legislature. 4. Organization of the state departments. 5. Control of state finances. Compare these in parallel columns with the corresponding provisions in the model state constitution of the National Municipal League. Discuss the relative merits of each provision. References: National Municipal Review, Vol. IX, No. 11, pp. 711-715, November, 1920. Copies of the state constitution may usually be had on application to the Secretary of State at the State Capitol. The state constitution is also published in the handbook or manual which is supplied to members of the legislature. For general discussions of the subject, see C. G. Haines and Bertha H. Haines, Principles and Problems of American Government, pp. 321-338; 423-440; W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 522-534; J. M. Mathews, Principles of American State Administration, pp. 499-516; A. N. Holcombe, State Government in the United States, pp. 106-142; Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, Nos. 2, 4, 10, 15, 29 and 35; New York State Constitutional Convention, 1915, Index Digest of State Constitutions, passim.

2. What we get for our state expenditures. References: United States Bureau of the Census, Financial Statistics of States (issued annually since 1918); W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 445-472; R. T. Ely, Taxation in American States and Cities, pp. 13-24; J. M. Mathews, Principles of American State Administration, pp. 296-400.

3. Can the procedure in state legislatures be simplified? References: P. S. Reinsch, American Legislatures and Legislative Methods, pp. 126-158; H. W. Dodds, The Procedure of State Legislatures, pp. 36-62; A. N. Holcombe, State Government in the United States, pp. 253-279; H. M. Robert, Rules of Order, passim.

1. The place of the states in the nation. W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 389-403.

2. The organization and procedure of constitutional conventions. Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, Bulletins, No. 1 (The Procedure of Constitutional Conventions).

3. Committees and committee work in state legislatures. P. S. Reinsch, American Legislatures and Legislative Methods, pp. 159-182.

4. The growth of executive power in state government. J. M. Mathews, Principles of American State Administration, pp. 25-133.

5. The drift of legislation in recent years. F. J. Stimson, Popular Lawmaking, pp. 117-123.

6. Reasons for the popular distrust of state legislatures. James T. Young, The New American Government and Its Work, pp. 643-651.

7. How state administration has been simplified. C. G. Haines and Bertha M. Haines, Principles and Problems of Government, pp. 323-338.

8. The government of the Philippines. Dean C. Worcester, The Philippines, Past and Present, Vol. I, pp. 325-407; Vol. II, pp. 768-791.

9. The appointment and removal of judges. S. E. Baldwin, The American Judiciary, pp. 311-343; A. M. Kales, Unpopular Government in the United States, pp. 225-251.

10. Plans for the reconstruction of state government. W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 522-534; A. M. Kales, Unpopular Government in the United States, pp. 166-180.

1. The national constitution provides that the United States shall guarantee to each state a republican form of government. What does that mean? Would a state government be un-republican if it (a) raised the voting age to thirty years; (b) abolished the legislature and gave all lawmaking powers to an appointive board of five; (c) gave up the system of trial by jury in the state courts; (d) abolished private property?

2. If you were redistributing the respective powers of the national and state governments today where would you place (a) marriage and divorce; (b) education; (c) the regulation of child labor; (d) the chartering of banks; (e) the punishment of counterfeiting; (f) the protection of foreigners in the United States; (g) the punishment of persons for lynching; (h) the control of the national guard?

3. Go through your state constitution and check off four or five provisions which you think might better be left to be dealt with by the laws.

4. How may your state constitution be amended? What amendments have been made within the last ten years and by which method? Are amendments, in your opinion, too easy or too difficult to make?

5. If every state is entirely free to determine its own form of government why are they all so much alike?

6. Make a list of all the steps in the passage of a law from its introduction in the legislature to its final enactment. Does the governor give any reason when he vetoes a bill? Should he be required to do so?

7. Put each of the following offices at the head of a column and insert under each a list of matters with which the officials have to do: Board of Public Works; Commissioner of Corrections; Public Utilities Commission; Fish and Game Bureau; Board of Labor and Industries; Industrial Accident Board; Department of Social Welfare; Board of Agriculture; Attorney-General; Civil Service Commission.

8. Make a list of all the activities in which your state government is engaged where it acts in the capacity of (a) a business man or corporation; (b) an arbiter between parties; (c) a benevolent agency. In which of these does it meet competition from private individuals?

9. Make a chart showing the organization of the courts in your state, the number of judges in each, and the general jurisdiction of each court.

1. The commission plan of government, as it now exists in many cities, should be applied to the states.

2. The United States should not acquire any territory which cannot ultimately be admitted as a state.

3. Which is the better plan of choosing Supreme Court judges: (a) appointment for life by the governor (Massachusetts), or, (b) election every six years by the people (Illinois)?