Franchises.—The permit thus granted is called a "franchise," and is in the nature of a contract between the city and the company. Public service franchises are often of great value to the companies which receive them, for the business of these companies in a large city is apt to be very profitable. Sometimes the dividends which they pay their stockholders are very large, and not infrequently, to deceive the public as to the real amount, the profits are concealed by "watering" the stock, that is, by increasing it beyond the amount of the capital actually invested. Experience has shown that in granting franchises certain restrictions or conditions should be placed on the companies to whom they are granted.
First of all, the duration of the franchise should be limited. Formerly, it was not uncommon to grant franchises for fifty or one hundred years, and indeed sometimes for an indefinite period. The objection to this practice is that with the growth of the city, the increased value of the franchise resulting from such growth goes entirely to the company, while the city is deprived of the opportunity of making a better bargain with the company. A franchise ought, however, to be for a period sufficiently long to enable the company to derive a reasonable return on its investment. Obviously, no company could afford to establish an electric light plant or gas plant if its franchise were limited to a period as short as five years. The better opinion now is that twenty or twenty-five years is a reasonable period, and the constitution or statutes of a number of states forbid the granting of franchises for a longer period.
Frequently the franchise contains provisions in regard to the rates to be charged and the quality of service to be performed. In many states there are state commissions which have power to supervise the operations of all public service corporations and in some cases even to fix the rates which they shall be allowed to charge. As long as such rates are reasonable, that is, high enough to allow the corporation a reasonable return on its investment, the courts will not interfere.
It is now the practice to require public service companies to pay a reasonable compensation for the franchises which they receive. This is usually a certain percentage of the gross receipts, or sometimes, in the case of street railway companies, a certain sum for each car operated. When the compensation is a certain percentage of the receipts, provision ought to be made for examination of the books of the company in order to prevent the public from being defrauded of its share of the earnings.
Municipal Ownership.—Sometimes, instead of relying upon private corporations to supply the people with water, gas, and electric light, the city itself undertakes to do this. Very many cities own their waterworks,[8] while some own their electric light plants, and a few own their gas plants. In Europe, municipal ownership and operation of such public utilities is very common, and even the telephone and street railway services are often supplied by the city.
The advantages claimed for municipal ownership are that better service will be furnished when the business is conducted by the city, because in that case it will be operated solely with the interest of the public in view; and, secondly, the cost of the service to the community will be less because the earning of large dividends will not be the main end in view. The principal objection urged against municipal ownership in the United States is that "spoils" politics still play such an important part in our city government that the management of such enterprises is likely to fall into the hands of incompetent politicians and party workers. Experience with municipal ownership has been satisfactory in a great many cases where it has been tried, although the principle upon which it rests is contrary to the notions of many people in regard to the proper functions of government.
Municipal Courts.—In every city there are certain inferior courts called by various names, police courts, magistrates' courts, or municipal courts, which have jurisdiction over offenses against the ordinances of the city. These courts constitute a very important part of our governmental machinery, and they have rarely received the consideration which their importance requires. They are practically courts of last resort for a large number of persons charged with minor offenses, and from them many ignorant persons in the large cities gain their impression of American institutions. In the city of New York, for example, more than 100,000 persons are brought before these courts every year.
The magistrates who hold municipal courts are often men of little or no legal training, and the experience of some cities has been that many of them are without integrity. Recently there has been much discussion of how to improve the character and usefulness of these courts, and in several cities notable reforms have already been introduced. The Chicago municipal court recently established is an excellent example of what can be accomplished in this direction. It consists of thirty-one judges, and the salary paid them is sufficiently large to attract well-trained lawyers of respectability. The procedure of the court is simple and it is so organized as to dispatch rapidly the cases brought before it, so that justice is administered more swiftly, perhaps, in this city than in any other in America.
The Commission Plan of Government.—The increasing dissatisfaction with the government of our cities by mayor and councils has recently led a number of cities to abandon the system for a new method known as the commission plan. The principal feature of this method is that all the powers of government heretofore exercised by the mayor and council are intrusted to a small commission usually chosen from the city at large. The plan was first put into operation in the city of Galveston after the great storm of 1900 which destroyed the lives of some 6,000 of its citizens and left the city in a condition of bankruptcy.
Under the new charter which was adopted, practically all the powers of government were vested in a mayor and four commissioners, each of these men being put in charge of one of the five departments into which the administrative service was divided.
Merits.—Several advantages are claimed for this plan of municipal government. In the first place, it does away with the evils of the ward system by providing that the commissioners shall be chosen from the city at large, and this tends to secure the election of men of larger ability. Again, it is argued that a small body of men is better fitted to govern a city than a large council composed of members who consider themselves the special representatives of the petty districts from which they are chosen. The affairs of a city are necessarily complex and often technical in nature and require for their special management skill and efficiency. City government is often compared to the management of a business enterprise like a bank or a manufacturing concern, which, as experience has shown, can be better conducted by a small board of directors than by the whole body of stockholders. Finally, the concentration of the powers of the city in a small body of men tends to secure a more effective responsibility than can be secured under a system in which the responsibility is divided between the mayor and council.
Objections.—The chief objections that have been urged against the commission plan are that, by intrusting both the legislative and the executive power to the same hands, it sacrifices the principle of the separation of powers—a principle long cherished in America. In the second place, by doing away with the council, it sacrifices to a certain extent the representative principle and places all the vast powers of the city in the hands of a few men.
Nevertheless, the system has much to commend it, and it has been adopted in about four hundred towns and cities.
The City Manager Plan.—A still more recent form of municipal government vests the management of the affairs of the city in a single person, called the city manager. He is paid a reasonably high salary and is chosen by the commission because of his expert knowledge. This plan has been introduced in Dayton, Springfield, and Sandusky, Ohio; Newburgh and Niagara Falls, New York; Sumter, South Carolina; Jackson, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo, Michigan; San Diego and Alameda, California; and some seventy other cities and towns.
Village Government.—Differing from cities chiefly in size and in the extent of governmental powers, are small municipal corporations variously called villages, boroughs, and incorporated towns. The procedure of incorporation is usually by petition from a certain number of the inhabitants, and a popular vote on the question. The law generally prescribes a minimum population, which is usually small—sometimes as low as one hundred inhabitants.
Village Officers.—The principal authority is usually a small board of trustees or a council, consisting of from three to seven members elected from the village at large, though in some instances the number is larger, and some villages have the ward system. The village board is empowered to adopt ordinances relating to police, health, and other matters affecting the good order and welfare of the community. They may levy taxes, borrow money, open and construct streets, construct drains, establish water and lighting plants and the like, and may license peddlers, hack drivers, and other persons who use the streets for the conduct of their business. The chief officer of the village is the mayor, president, or chairman of the trustees, elected either by the voters or by the trustees. There is also usually a clerk or recorder, a treasurer, a marshal or constable, and sometimes a street commissioner, a justice of the peace, and an attorney.
When the population reaches a certain number, which varies in the different states (pp. 25-26), the village organization is put aside, the community organizes itself into a city, takes on a more elaborate organization, receives larger powers, and undertakes a wider range of activities.
References.—Beard, American Government and Politics, chs. xxvii-xxviii. Bryce, The American Commonwealth (abridged edition), chs. xlix-li. Goodnow, City Government in the United States, chs. vi-xiii. Hart, Actual Government, ch. ix. Howe, The City the Hope of Democracy, chs. i-iv. Strong, The Challenge of the City, chs. ii-iii. Wilcox, The American City, chs. ii, iii, iv, v, vi, ix, x, xii, xiii.
Documentary and Illustrative Material.—1. A copy of the city charter or municipal code of the state. 2. A copy of the revised ordinances of the city. 3. The volume of the last census report dealing with the population of cities. 4. The latest census bulletin on statistics of cities. 5. A map of the city showing its division into wards, police and fire districts, sewer districts, etc., and the location of the city building, police stations, fire stations, the source of the water supply, parks, slum districts, etc. 6. A copy of the last city budget and tax ordinance. 7. A copy of a paving or other public improvement ordinance.
1. What is the population of the largest city in your state? its area? How many cities in your state have a population of 8,000 or over? What percentage of the total population is found in the cities? How much faster has the city population grown during the past decade than the rural population? What percentage of the population of your city is foreign-born?
2. Why do cities require a different form of government from that which is provided for rural communities?
3. What are the provisions in the constitution of your state, if any, in regard to the government of cities?
4. How many representatives does the largest city of your state have in the legislature? What proportion of the total membership is it? Are there any constitutional restrictions upon the number of members of the legislature which may be elected from any one city?
5. Are there any restrictions upon the power of the legislature of your state to enact special legislation applying to a single city? If so, what are they?
6. If you live in a city, when did it receive its present charter? What are the provisions in the charter relating to the organization and powers of the city?
7. Do you think the people of a city should be allowed to frame their own charter and govern themselves without interference on the part of the state legislature?
8. How many members are there in the city council of your city? Are they chosen by wards or from the city at large? What is their term and salary? In what ward do you live, and what is the name of the alderman or aldermen from that ward?
9. For what term is the mayor of your city or town elected? To what political party does he belong? Does he preside over the meetings of the city council? What officers, if any, does he appoint?
10. Name the administrative departments in your city. Are they organized according to the board system, or is each under the control of a single official?
11. Does your city have a civil service law under which appointments to the municipal service are made on the basis of merit? If so, what are its principal provisions?
12. Does the city own and operate its waterworks plant, or is the water supply furnished by a private company? Does the city own and operate any of its other public utilities, such as the electric light or gas plant? If not, what are the terms of the franchises under which they are operated by private companies? Do these companies pay the city anything for the privilege of using the streets?
13. What are the duties of the public utilities commissions in New York and Wisconsin? Do you think the policy of regulation preferable to municipal ownership and operation?
14. How is the cost of street and sidewalk paving met in your city,—by special assessment on the property benefited, or by appropriation out of the city treasury?
15. What is the method of garbage disposal in your city?
16. Describe the organization and activities of the health authority in your city. What does it do to secure a supply of clean and pure milk?
17. Are there any improvement leagues or civic organizations working for the uplift and good government of your city? What are their methods, and what are some of the specific services they have rendered?
18. What are the principal sources of revenue in your village or city? What is the rate of taxation on the taxable property?
Place of the States in Our Federal System.—Proceeding upward from the county, township, and city, we come to the state, the authority to which the local governments described in the preceding chapters are all subject. The consideration of state government properly precedes the study of national government, not only because the states existed before the national government did, and in a sense furnished the models upon which it was constructed, but because their governments regulate the larger proportion of our public affairs and hence concern more vitally the interests of the mass of people than does the national government.
The states collectively make up our great republic, but they are not mere administrative districts of the union created for convenience in carrying on the affairs of national government. They do not, for example, bear the same relation to the union that a county does to the state, or a township to the county. A county is nothing more than a district carved out of the state for administrative convenience, and provided with such an organization and given such powers of local government as the state may choose to give it. The states, on the other hand, are not creations of the national government; their place as constituent members of the union is determined by the Federal Constitution, framed by the people of the United States, and their rights and obligations are fixed by the same authority. Each state, however, determines its own form of government and decides for itself what activities it will undertake.
Division of Powers.—The Federal Constitution has marked out a definite sphere of power for the states, on the one hand, and another sphere for the national government on the other, and each within its sphere is supreme. Upon the domain thus created for each the other may not encroach. Each is kept strictly within its own constitutional sphere by the federal Supreme Court, and the balance between the union and its members is harmoniously preserved.
The states were already in existence with organized governments in operation when the national government was created. The founders of the national government conferred upon it only such powers as experience and reason demonstrated could be more effectively regulated by a common government than by a number of separate governments; they left the states largely as they were, and limited their powers only so far as was necessary to establish a more effective union than the one then existing. Experience had taught them, for example, that commerce with foreign countries and among the states themselves should be regulated by a single authority acting for the entire country: only in this way could uniformity be secured, and uniformity in such matters was indispensable to the peace and perpetuity of the union. Accordingly, the national government was vested with power over this and other matters which clearly required uniformity of regulation, and the remaining powers of government were left with the states, where they had always been. Thus it came about that the national government was made an authority of enumerated or delegated powers, while the states have reserved powers.
Prohibitions.—It was thought wise, however, to prohibit both the national government and those of the states from doing certain things, and thus we find provisions in the Federal Constitution forbidding both governments from granting titles of nobility, from passing ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, etc. Likewise the states were prohibited from entering into treaties with foreign countries, from coining money, from impairing the obligation of contracts, and from passing laws on certain other subjects which it was clearly unwise to leave to state regulation.
Powers of the States.—The powers left to the states, unlike those conferred upon the national government, cannot be enumerated. They are so varied in character, and so extensive, that an attempt to enumerate them would involve cataloguing all the multitudinous business and social relationships of life. The powers of the national government seem much greater by comparison than those of the states, partly because they are set forth in the Constitution and partly because of their application throughout the entire country, but in reality they are not only far less numerous but affect less vitally the great mass of the people. The powers of the states include such matters as the regulation of the ownership, use, and disposition of property; the conduct of business and industry; the making and enforcing of contracts; the conduct of religious worship; education; marriage, divorce, and the domestic relations generally; suffrage and elections; and the making and enforcement of the criminal law. In the division of governmental powers between the nation and the state, says Bryce, the state gets the most and the nation the highest, and so the balance between the two is preserved.
"An American," says Mr. Bryce, "may, through a long life, never be reminded of the federal government except when he votes at presidential and congressional elections, buys a package of tobacco bearing the government stamp, lodges a complaint against the post office, and opens his trunks for a customhouse officer on the pier at New York when he returns from a tour in Europe. His direct taxes are paid to officials acting under state laws. The state or local authority constituted by state statutes registers his birth, appoints his guardian, pays for his schooling, gives him a share in the estate of his father deceased, licenses him when he enters a trade (if it be one needing a license), marries him, divorces him, entertains civil actions against him, declares him a bankrupt, hangs him for murder; the police that guard his house, the local boards which look after the poor, control highways, impose water rates, manage schools—all these derive their legal powers from his state alone."
Rights and Privileges of the States as Members of the Union.—The states have certain rights and privileges which are guaranteed them by the Federal Constitution, and of which they cannot be deprived by the national government without their consent.
Republican Government.—Thus it is made the duty of the United States to guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government, that is, a government by the chosen representatives of the people of the state. In a few cases rival governments have been set up in a state, each claiming to be the legitimate government and entitled to the obedience of the people; the one recognized by the federal authorities has always prevailed.
Protection Against Invasion.—It is also made the duty of the national government to protect the states against invasion. This is right and proper, since the states are forbidden by the Constitution to keep ships of war or troops in times of peace.
Protection Against Domestic Violence.—Again, it is made the duty of the national government to protect the people of the states against domestic violence arising from insurrection or riots, provided that application has been made by the proper state authorities. The purpose of this proviso is to remove the temptation to federal interference in state affairs for political or other reasons against the wishes of the people of the state. The ordinary procedure for the suppression of a local disturbance is for the sheriff of the county, or the mayor of the city, to make use of the local police, and if necessary he may call upon the citizens to come to his aid. If this is not effective, the governor may be called upon to order out the state militia for the suppression of the riot. If, however, the riot should spread and assume such proportions that the power of the state and local authorities is insufficient, it becomes the right and duty of the governor, or the legislature if it be in session, to call on the President of the United States for the assistance of national troops. If in the President's judgment the situation is one which warrants federal intervention, he sends a detachment of troops from a near-by military post to restore order. Many times in our history federal troops have been used to put down riots where the state authorities had shown themselves incapable of maintaining order; two recent examples being in connection with strikes among the miners of Nevada in 1907, and of Colorado in 1914.
Ordinarily the President has no lawful right to interpose in the affairs of the state by the employment of troops until he has received an application from the governor or the legislature, but if the disturbance is one which interferes with the operations of the national government or with the movement of interstate commerce, the President may intervene whenever in his opinion the situation calls for federal action. Thus during the Chicago strike riots of 1894, President Cleveland ordered a detachment of federal troops to that city against the protests of the governor, upon being assured that the strikers were interfering with the movement of the mails and with the conduct of interstate commerce and were also disregarding the writs and processes of the United States courts. The interference of the President was criticized by some persons, but the great body of citizens approved his course, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the validity of his action.
Other Rights of the States.—Among the other rights of the states under the Federal Constitution may be mentioned the right of equal representation in the senate, a right of which no state can be deprived without its consent, and the right of territorial integrity: no new state may be created within the jurisdiction of another state, nor may any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states, without the consent of the states concerned.
Obligations and Duties of the States.—Rights and privileges usually imply obligations, and so we find that the states owe certain duties to one another and to the union of which they are a part, and the harmony and success of the federal system are dependent in a large measure upon the performance of these duties in good faith.
Full Faith and Credit.—First of all, each state must give full faith and credit to the acts, judicial proceedings, and records of the other states. This means, for example, that a properly authenticated copy of a will or deed duly executed in one state will be taken notice of and rights depending on it will be enforced in other states as though the instrument were made therein. Likewise, a marriage legally celebrated in one state will usually be treated as valid in another state, and the facts of a case at law will be recognized in other states without the necessity of retrial. The provision as to full faith and credit does not mean that one state must enforce within its borders the laws of other states, or that its courts in reaching their decisions are bound by the decisions of the courts of its sister states. As a matter of practice, however, courts in one state in deciding difficult questions of law will examine the decisions of the courts of other states on similar points for their own enlightenment, and will show respect for these decisions, the degree of deference depending on the standing of the judges rendering the decision and upon the similarity of the laws and policies of the states concerned.
Surrender of Fugitives from Justice.—In the next place, it is made the constitutional duty of the executive of each state to surrender criminals escaping from other states, in order that they may be returned for trial and punishment in the state from which they have fled. The demand for the surrender of such fugitives is made by the governor of the state from which the criminal has fled, and the governor upon whom the demand is made ought to comply with it unless for very substantial reasons. There is no way, however, by which this obligation may be enforced, and there have been many cases where governors have refused to deliver up criminals escaping from other states—usually for the reason that, in the governor's opinion, the fugitive would not receive a fair trial in the state from which he had fled.
Treatment of Citizens of Other States.—Still another obligation imposed by the Federal Constitution on the states is that of treating the citizens of other states as they treat their own citizens, i. e., without discrimination. But this obligation has reference rather to civil rights than to political privileges. It does not mean that an illiterate man who is allowed to vote in Illinois may go to Massachusetts and vote where an educational qualification for the suffrage is required; nor does it mean that a woman who is allowed to practice law in one state may therefore practice in another state which excludes women from engaging in that profession. What the provision does mean, is that whatever privileges and immunities a state allows to its own citizens, it must allow the citizens of other states on the same terms, and subject to the same conditions and no more. Thus a state cannot subject the citizens of other states to higher taxes than are imposed upon its own citizens.
Other Obligations.—Finally, it goes without saying that it is the duty of each state to treat its sister states in the spirit of comity and courtesy; to carry out the mandates of the Federal Constitution relating to the election of senators, representatives, and presidential electors so as to keep up the existence of the national government; and, in general, to perform in good faith all their other obligations as members of the union, without the performance of which the republic would be a mere makeshift. The existence of the states is essential to the union, and their preservation is as much within the care of the Constitution as is the union itself. Indeed, the Constitution in all its parts, said the Supreme Court of the United States in a famous case, looks to an indestructible union of indestructible states.
The State Constitution; how Framed.—The governmental organization of each of the states is set forth in a written instrument called a constitution. Unlike the constitutions of some of the European states, which were granted by kings, and unlike, also, those of the British self-governing colonies, which were enacted by Parliament, all the American constitutions now in existence were framed by constituent bodies representing the people, and in most cases they were approved by the people before they went into effect. As Mr. Bryce has remarked, the American state constitutions are the oldest things in the political history of America. Before the Federal Constitution was framed each of the thirteen original states had a constitution of its own, most of them being framed by popular conventions chosen especially for the purpose.
Later, when a territory asked to be admitted to the union as a new state, Congress, through what is called an "enabling act," empowered the people of the territory to choose a convention to frame a constitution which, when submitted to the voters and approved by them, became the fundamental law of the new state. In a number of cases, however, the people of the territory went ahead on their own initiative, and without the authority of an enabling act framed their constitution and asked to be admitted, and sometimes they were admitted as though they had acted under the authority of Congress. Whenever an existing state wishes to frame a new constitution for itself, the usual mode of procedure is for the legislature either to pass a resolution calling a convention, or to submit to the voters the question of the desirability of a new constitution. A resolution calling a convention usually requires an extraordinary majority of both houses of the legislature, two thirds of the members being the most common rule.
Ratification of New Constitutions.—When the draft of the constitution has been completed by the convention, it is usually submitted to the voters of the state at a general or a special election, and if it is approved by a majority of those voting on the constitution, or (in some states) of those voting at the election, it supersedes the old constitution and goes into effect on a day prescribed. In some instances, however, new constitutions were not submitted to popular vote; instead, the convention assumed the right to put them into effect without popular approval. Of the twenty-five state constitutions adopted before the year 1801, only three were submitted to the voters for their approval, but as time passed the practice of giving the people an opportunity to approve or reject proposed constitutions became the rule. In the twenty years between 1890 and 1910 eight new constitutions were submitted to the people, and only five were put into force without popular ratification, namely, those of Mississippi (1890), South Carolina (1895), Delaware (1897), Louisiana (1898), and Virginia (1902).
Frequency of New Constitutions.—The frequency with which the states revise their constitutions varies in different sections of the country. In New England new constitutions are rare, while in the states of the West and the South new constitutions are framed, on an average, at least once in every generation and sometimes oftener. Since the Revolution more than two hundred constitutions have been made by the states, though some of them never went into operation. Several of the states within a period of less than one hundred years have had as many as six, and a few have had even more. The constitution of Massachusetts of 1780, with several subsequent amendments, is still in force; but outside of New England there are few constitutions that are more than thirty years old. Some of the states, indeed, have inserted provisions in their constitutions making it the duty of the legislature at stated intervals to submit to the voters the question of calling a convention to revise the existing constitution or to adopt an entirely new one. In this way the people are given an opportunity to determine whether the constitution under which they live shall be revised or superseded by a new one, independently of the will of the legislature.
Contents of State Constitutions.—The early state constitutions were brief documents and dealt only with important matters of a fundamental and permanent character. They were remarkably free from detail and rarely contained more than 5,000 words. As time passed, however, there was an increasing tendency to incorporate in them provisions in regard to many matters that had formerly been left to the legislature to be regulated by statute, so that some of the constitutions of the present day are bulky codes containing detailed provisions concerning many matters that might more properly be dealt with by statute. The constitution of Virginia, for example, has expanded from a document of a few pages to one of seventy-five, from an instrument of about 1,500 words to one of more than 30,000. The present constitution of Alabama contains about 33,000 words; that of Louisiana, about 45,000; and that of Oklahoma, about 50,000. The Virginia constitution contains a lengthy article on the organization of counties; one on the government of cities, constituting a code almost as elaborate as a municipal corporations act; one on agriculture and immigration; one on corporations, containing fourteen sections; one on taxation and finance, etc. The constitution of Oklahoma contains an article of seven sections on federal relations, one of which deals with the liquor traffic; elaborate provisions regarding the referendum and initiative; a section describing the seal of the state; a detailed enumeration of those who are permitted to accept railroad passes; an article on insurance; one on manufactures and commerce; and one on alien and corporate ownership of lands.
Parts of a Constitution.—A typical constitution consists of several parts: (1) a preamble; (2) a bill of rights; (3) a series of provisions relating to the organization of the government and the powers and duties of the several departments; (4) a number of miscellaneous articles dealing with such matters as finance, revenue and debts, suffrage and elections, public education, local government, railroads, banks, and other corporations generally; (5) an article describing the procedure by which amendments may be proposed and ratified; and (6) a schedule. Many constitutions contain an article defining the boundaries of the state, and most of them one on the distribution of the powers of government. Some of the newer constitutions also prescribe numerous limitations upon the legislature, so great is the popular mistrust of legislatures to-day; while others lay down various rules as to the procedure of the legislature. The schedule contains provisions for submitting the constitution to the voters and making necessary arrangements for putting the new constitution into effect.
The Bill of Rights, says Bryce, is historically the most interesting part of the state constitution, and if we may judge by the space devoted to these provisions and the attention paid to their framing, they constitute a very important part of the constitution. In a sense they are the lineal descendants of great English enactments like Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement, and of the various declarations of the Revolutionary Congresses in America. They consist of limitations upon the government and of statements of the fundamental rights of man.
Some Provisions of the Bills of Rights.—Examining these bills of rights, we find that they all contain declarations in favor of freedom of religious worship, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and of the press, and most of them forbid the establishment of a state church or the appropriation of money for the establishment or support of any religious denomination. Most of them contain declarations providing for trial by jury in criminal cases, indictments by grand jury, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the right of the accused to a speedy and public trial; a declaration of the right of citizens to bear arms; the prohibition of excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments, general search warrants, and imprisonment for debt; the prohibition of titles of nobility, ex post facto laws, and bills of attainder[9]; and provisions forbidding the taking of private property except for public purposes and then only when just compensation is made.[10] Many of them contain philosophical enunciations of political doctrines such as the assertion that all governments originate with the people, and are instituted solely for their good; that all men are equal; that all power is inherent in the people; and that the people have at all times the right to alter, reform, or abolish their government. Some of the newer constitutions declare that monopolies and perpetuities are contrary to the principles of free government; that every citizen shall be free to obtain employment wherever possible; that a long lease of office is dangerous to the liberties of the people; that aliens shall have the same rights of property as citizens; and so on.
The real importance of the bills of rights, now that executive tyranny is a thing of the past, is not very great.
Amendment of State Constitutions.—The practice of inserting in the constitution many provisions which are temporary in character, makes frequent alteration a necessity if the constitution is to meet the rapidly changing needs and conditions of the state. Some of the early constitutions contained no express provision for their own amendment, but as time passed changes became manifestly necessary, and in time they were all amended or supplanted entirely by new ones, notwithstanding the absence of amending provisions. Ultimately the advantage of pointing out in the constitution a legal and orderly way of amendment came to be generally appreciated, and at the present time all of the constitutions contain amending provisions. These clauses provide that amendments may be proposed, either by a convention called by the legislature, or by the legislature itself, usually by an extraordinary majority; in either case the proposed amendment must be submitted to the voters for their approval, and it becomes a part of the constitution only if ratified by a majority of those voting on the proposed amendment or, in some states, by a majority of those voting at the election at which the proposed amendment is submitted. A new method of amendment by popular initiative was adopted in Oregon in 1902. According to this method a proposed amendment may be framed by the people by petition and submitted to a popular vote without the necessity of the intervention of the legislature in any form.
In spite of the restrictions imposed, most of the constitutions are frequently amended. During the two decades from 1900 to 1919, 1500 amendments were proposed by the legislatures of the several states, or by popular initiative, and of these about 900 were ratified. At the general election of 1918, no less than 130 amendments were voted on by the people of the different states, and a number of others were awaiting the action of the legislatures soon to meet. In five western states alone 270 amendments were submitted from 1914 to 1919.
References.—Beard, American Government and Politics, chs. xxii-xxiii. Bryce, The American Commonwealth (abridged edition), chs. xxxiv-xxxv. Dealey, Our State Constitutions, chs. ii-iii. Hart, Actual Government, ch. vi. Hinsdale, The American Government, chs. xl, xli, xlix, l. Wilson, The State, secs. 1087-1095. Willoughby, Rights and Duties of Citizenship, ch. x. Willoughby, The American Constitutional System, chs. ii-x.
Documentary and Illustrative Material.—1. Thorpe's Constitutions and Organic Laws, or Poore's Charters and Constitutions, both published by the Government Printing Office. 2. Pamphlet copies of state constitutions can usually be obtained from the secretaries of state of the various states. 3. The legislative manual of the state, where usually a review of the constitutional history of the state may be found.
1. In what two senses is the word "state" used? In what sense is New York a state and in what sense is it not?
2. Were the states ever sovereign? What were the two views in this country prior to the Civil War in regard to the sovereignty of the states?
3. The constitution and laws of the United States are declared to be supreme over those of the states; what is the meaning of that provision? Does that mean that any law passed by Congress will override a conflicting law passed by a state, even though the law passed by the state is clearly within its powers?
4. Distinguish between reserved powers and delegated powers.
5. Do you believe the powers of the national government should be increased so as to include the regulation of such matters as marriage and divorce, the business of corporations, factory labor, and insurance?
6. What is the purpose of the commissions on uniform legislation in the different states, and what are they seeking to accomplish? Is there such a commission in your state?
7. Which of the following matters fall within the jurisdiction of the United States and which within the jurisdiction of the states? (1) the levying of tariff duties, (2) the transfer of land, (3) the building of lighthouses, (4) the protection of religious worship, (5) the granting of passports, (6) punishment of crime, (7) the granting of pensions, (8) the regulation of labor in mines and factories, (9) the protection of the public health, (10) the support of schools, (11) the regulation of navigation, (12) the erection of fortifications.
8. Name some powers that may be exercised by both Congress and the states; some that may be exercised by neither; some that may be exercised by the states only with the consent of Congress.
9. May the United States government coerce a state? Suppose a state should refuse or neglect to perform its constitutional duties as a member of the union, could it be punished or compelled to fulfill its obligations?
10. May a state be sued by a citizen of the state? by a citizen of another state? by another state itself?
11. Suppose a state should refuse to pay a debt which it has incurred, has the person to whom the debt is due any remedy?
12. Will a divorce granted in Nevada to a citizen of Massachusetts be recognized as valid in Massachusetts?
13. Suppose a man, standing on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River, should fire a shot across the river and kill a man in Pennsylvania, would the governor of New Jersey be bound to surrender the criminal upon demand of the governor of Pennsylvania, in order that he might be tried in Pennsylvania?
14. What is the difference between a constitution, a statute, and a charter? Between a written and an unwritten constitution?
15. When was the present constitution of your state adopted? Was it submitted to the voters before being put into effect? How many constitutions has your state had since its admission to the union? Were they all adopted by popular ratification? Who was the delegate from your county to the last constitutional convention?
16. How may the constitution of your state be amended? Is a majority of those voting at the election necessary to ratify, or only a majority of those voting on the proposed amendment? How many times has the present constitution of your state been amended? Do you think the method of amendment is too rigid?
17. What is the purpose of a preamble to a constitution? Does the preamble of your constitution contain a recognition of God?
18. What are the provisions in the bill of rights to your constitution in regard to the rights of an accused person? in regard to freedom of the press? freedom of assembly? freedom of worship? right of the people to change their government?
Powers of the State Legislatures.—The powers of the state legislature, unlike those of the city council and those of the Congress of the United States, are not set forth in the constitution. In general, a state legislature may exercise any powers which are not denied to it by the Constitution of the United States or by the constitution of the state. Its powers, in other words, are residuary in character, rather than delegated or granted.
Limitations.—In recent years, however, mainly on account of the popular distrust in which our legislatures have come to be held, numerous limitations upon their powers have been imposed by the constitutions of many states. Thus they are frequently forbidden absolutely to pass local or special laws where a general law is applicable, or they are allowed to enact such laws only under certain restrictions. In most states, also, the legislature cannot run the state into debt beyond a certain amount, and its power to impose taxes and appropriate money is generally restricted. Finally, its power of legislation has been limited by the present practice of regulating many important matters in the constitution itself. In the newer constitutions especially we find a large number of provisions relating to schools, cities, towns, railroads, corporations, taxation, and other matters. To that extent, therefore, the legislature is deprived of its power of legislation on these subjects.
Extent of the Legislative Power.—In spite of the numerous restrictions, however, the power of the legislature is very large. It enacts the whole body of criminal law of the state; makes laws concerning the ownership, use, and disposition of property, laws concerning contracts, trade, business, industry, the exercise of such professions as law, medicine, pharmacy, and others; laws relating to the government of counties, towns, cities, and other localities; laws concerning the public health, education, charity, marriage and divorce, and the conduct of elections; laws concerning railroads, canals, ferries, drainage, manufacturing, eminent domain, and a great variety of other matters. The subjects concerning which the legislatures may enact laws are indeed so numerous and varied that it would be impossible to enumerate them all. For that reason the legislature is by far the most important branch of the state government, and it is highly important that it should be composed of honest, intelligent, and efficient members. Unfortunately, however, in many states the legislature has declined in public esteem. In the early days of our history the legislative branch of the government was all-powerful. It was not only practically unlimited as to its power of legislation, but it was intrusted with the choice of many important officers of the state. Now, however, there is a disposition to cut down its powers and place restrictions on the exercise of those that are left to it. In many states the people have secured the power to legislate for themselves by means of the initiative and referendum (pp. 85-89); and, to diminish the power of the legislature to enact useless laws, many constitutions limit the length of the sessions to forty or sixty days in the hope of compelling it to devote its time to the consideration of important measures of general interest.
Structure of the Legislature.—Every state legislature to-day consists of two houses. At first several states followed the example of the Congress of the Confederation and tried the single-chamber system, but they soon found its disadvantages serious, and substituted legislatures with two houses. The principal advantage of a bicameral legislature is that each house serves as a check upon the haste of the other and thus insures more careful consideration of bills. Nevertheless, proposals have recently been made in several states to establish a single-chambered legislature, and the question was voted on by the electors of Oregon in 1912 and in 1914, and by those of Arizona in 1916.
The lawmaking body popularly known as the legislature is officially so designated in some states, but in others the formal name is the general assembly or the legislative assembly, and in two, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the colonial title, "general court," is still retained. In all the states the upper house is styled the senate. In most of them the lower chamber is known as the house of representatives, though in a few it is styled the assembly and in three the house of delegates.
Both houses of the state legislature are chosen by the people. The principal differences in their make-up are, that the senate is a smaller body and therefore each senator represents a larger constituency, the senators in many states are chosen for a longer term, and usually the senate is vested with special functions such as the approval of executive appointments to office, and the trial of impeachment cases.
The State Senate.—The size of the senate varies from seventeen members in Delaware to sixty-seven in Minnesota, the average number being about thirty-five. In about two thirds of the states the term of senators is four years; in New Jersey their term is three years; in Massachusetts it is one year; in the remaining states it is two years. In about one third of the states the terms of the senators and the representatives are the same. In some states the senators are divided into classes, and only half of them retire at the same time.
The House of Representatives.—The house of representatives everywhere is a more numerous body than the senate, and in a few states the disproportion is very great. Thus the New Hampshire legislature with a senate of 24 members has a house of representatives of more than 400 members, the largest in any state, a body about as large as the national house of representatives. The Connecticut legislature is composed of a senate of 35 members and a house of representatives of 258 members; Vermont has a senate of 30 members and a house of representatives of 246; Massachusetts has a senate of 40 members and a house of 240. The smallest houses of representatives are those of Delaware and Arizona, each consisting of 35 members.
Apportionment of Senators and Representatives.—Senators and representatives are apportioned among districts, usually on the basis of population. Political units, however, are often taken into consideration, and in some states such units rather than the number of inhabitants are the determining element. Thus it is frequently provided that each county shall be entitled to one senator, though the population of some counties may be many times as great as that of other counties. In some of the New England states the inequalities of representation are so glaring as to constitute a great injustice to the more populous towns. In Connecticut, for example, the members of the lower house are distributed among the towns of the state, without regard to their population. As a result each of the small towns of Union, Hartland, Killingworth, and Colebrook, with an average population of less than 1,000 persons, has two representatives, while New Haven, with 133,000 inhabitants, has only two. Hartford, with about 99,000, has only two, and so has Bridgeport with a population of 102,000, and Waterbury with 73,000. These four cities comprise about one third the population of the state, but they have only one thirty-second part of the membership of the house of representatives. A similar system of representation exists in Vermont and in the senate of Rhode Island.
Moreover, as a result of "gerrymandering" by the political party in control of the legislature the legislative districts are frequently so constructed as to give the majority party more than its fair share of representatives. As a result there are in some states great inequalities of representation among the different counties or legislative districts.
In order to prevent large cities from controlling the legislature and thereby dominating the state, a few constitutions limit their representation in the legislature. Thus in New York it is provided that no county, however populous, shall have more than one third of all the representatives, and a somewhat similar provision is contained in the constitutions of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.
Minority Representation in the Legislature.—Where there are two political parties in the state, it is worth considering whether some provision should not be made for allowing each party to choose a number of representatives in proportion to its numerical strength, or at least for allowing the weaker party some representation in the legislature. It not infrequently happens under the present system that the majority party in the state succeeds in electing nearly all the representatives, leaving the other party practically without representation, although it may be strong enough to cast hundreds of thousands of votes in the state as a whole. In the Oregon state election of 1906, for example, the Republican party, with only 55 per cent of the voting strength, elected eighty-eight members of the legislature, while the Democratic party, though casting 34 per cent of the total vote, elected only seven representatives.
The present constitution of Illinois contains a clause which makes it possible for the minority party in each of the fifty-one legislative districts into which the state is divided to elect at least one of the three representatives to which the district is entitled. Each voter is allowed three votes, and he may give one vote to each of three candidates, or he may give all three to one candidate, or two to one candidate and one to another. Usually the party having the majority in the district elects two candidates and the minority party one, the voters of the latter party concentrating all their votes on the one candidate.
Legislative Sessions.—In the great majority of states the legislatures hold regular sessions every two years. In New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Georgia, and South Carolina the legislature meets every year in regular session. Alabama is contented with a session once in every four years. In California the session is divided into two parts, the first being devoted exclusively to the introduction of bills. The legislature then takes a recess of a month to enable the members to consult their constituents in regard to the bills introduced, after which it reassembles for the enactment of such legislation as seems to be demanded. In all the states the governor is empowered to call extraordinary sessions for the consideration of special matters of an urgent character.
There is a popular belief that legislatures waste much of their time in the consideration of petty matters, and in many states the constitution either limits the length of the session,—sometimes to forty, fifty, or sixty days,—or provides that where the session is prolonged beyond a certain number of days, the pay of members shall cease. The wisdom of limiting the sessions to such brief periods, however, is doubtful, and several states that once imposed such restrictions have since removed them.
Legislative Compensation.—In all the states, members of the legislature receive pay for their services. This is either in the form of a definite amount per year, term, or session, or so much per day. The largest legislative salaries are those of Illinois ($3,500 per biennial session), New York ($1,500 per year), Massachusetts and Ohio ($1,000 per year), and Pennsylvania ($1,500 per biennial session). In New Hampshire, on the other hand, the salary is only $200 per biennial session, in Connecticut $300, and in South Carolina $200 for each annual session. In thirty states the per diem method of compensation prevails, the amount ranging from three dollars per day, which is the salary paid in Kansas and Oregon, to ten dollars per day, in Kentucky, Montana, and Nebraska, the most usual sum being four or five dollars per day. In several states, however, the per diem compensation ceases, or is reduced to a nominal amount, after the legislature has been in session 60 days or 90 days. Mileage ranging in amount from ten cents per mile to twenty-five cents is usually allowed, and in a number of states there is a small allowance for postage, stationery, and newspapers. In some states the pay of the legislators is fixed by the constitution, and hence the matter is beyond control of the legislature. Indeed, in only a few states is the matter of legislative pay left entirely to the discretion of the legislature without restriction.
In a number of them the constitution either forbids members to accept free passes on the railroads, or makes it the duty of the legislature to pass laws prohibiting the acceptance of such passes.
Organization of the Legislature.—Each house is usually free to organize itself as it may see fit, though where the office of lieutenant governor exists, the constitution designates that official as the presiding officer of the senate.
The Speaker.—The presiding officer of the lower house is styled the speaker, and in all the states he is chosen by the house from its own membership. He calls the house to order, presides over its deliberations, enforces the rules governing debate, puts motions and states questions, makes rulings on points of order, recognizes members who desire to address the house, appoints the committees, signs the acts and resolutions passed by the house, and maintains order and decorum. He usually belongs to the political party which is in the majority in the house, and in making up the committees and recognizing members for the purpose of debate he usually favors those of his own party.
The Clerk.—Each house has a clerk or secretary who keeps the journal of the proceedings, has custody of all bills and resolutions before the house, keeps the calendar of bills, calls the roll, reads bills, and performs other duties of a like character. He is often assisted by other clerks such as a reading clerk, an engrossing clerk, sometimes an enrolling clerk, etc.