political study. They confess frankly at the outset, and with several repetitions, that they have found no general wish, either in Boston or the surrounding cities or towns, for the annexation of the latter to Boston, and they therefore distinctly abandon that idea. But they could not let

their work go for nothing; and they proceed, as by the Act they were clearly authorized to do, to propose a wholly new form of government. They proposed to submit to a vote of the people of twenty-nine cities and towns- Boston having about five hundred thousand inhabitants, and the rest taken together about as many—whether they wish to be united to form one county. If they voted Yes, then the governor was to appoint a commission of five persons to draw up a plan of government by a county council with representatives, who certainly could not be less than fifty or sixty in number, from the component parts. This council would be endowed with legislative functions and choose its executive subordinates. It would require too much space, though it would be easy, to point out the absurd and impracticable character of this scheme. It is enough to say that it would involve a complete political revolution in the character and traditions of our government. Thus, to take one particular, whereas through the nation, the States, and the cities, we have now at least a nominal if comparatively impotent executive head, this plan proposes to abolish altogether a separate executive branch, and to vest both executive and legislative power in a single representative body.

This concrete example will show the kind of procedure in legislation which is going on all over the United States. Here are three men of undoubted honesty and singleness of purpose-business men of unstained reputation, but whom the internal evidence shows to be ignorant of the first principles of government-who are intrusted with the formation of a plan for turning our whole political

system upside down; and the only tribunal to which it is submitted is a committee not very much above an ordinary jury, and without the guidance of a judge. Fortunately, in this case the committee reported to refer the plan to the next legislature, but if they had done otherwise there is no reason why it should not have been launched upon all these inhabitants, powerless to resist.

Observe, further, that this is an extremely favorable case, because there is no doubt as to purity of intention and correctness of procedure. If we can imagine the multitude of schemes based on pecuniary gain, and backed by the power of the lobby, we shall see plainly enough why it is that the State governments are filling men's minds with despair. Yet here again it must be urged that the fault is not with democracy or universal suffrage, but with the organization of government. The retort of course will be that this want of organization is precisely the fault of democracy; but the rejoinder is, that this is a pure begging of the question, and that at least another century must pass before that can safely be said of the people of the United States. And is history, then, so full of the successes of royal and aristocratic government in this respect?

A collection of messages lies before us, addressed by the governors of different States to their respective legislatures in the year 1895. They all have the same character of paternal exhortation from the outside, as if the writers had really nothing to do with the government, but were expected only to furnish information and advice to the legislature with which the whole government really rested. Flashes of light, however, are here and there shed upon the items of internal organization above described. Thus Governor Morrill of Kansas:

There seems to be no system of checks or counter-checks on any of the State boards. The Board of Charities expend about $350,000

per year. They make their own contracts, audit their own accounts, and manage matters after their own will. There is no provision even for the investigation of their accounts, except when the legis lature is seized with a spasm of virtue, and examinations of this kind are of but little value.

And he then points out a method by which they should be brought under the control of the governor, to which it is safe to say the legislature paid no attention whatever. Governor Griggs of New Jersey :

I consider it most important, however, that you should at once take into consideration the object of restriction in the volume of legislation. The mass of statute law has now become so immense that it may be said to be almost beyond the power of the legal mind to acquire it or of the judicial mind to interpret it. . . . The same tendency to multitudinous and slipshod legislation prevails in other States of the Union, and has attracted the attention of many thoughtful persons. Besides the uncertainty and confusion that ensue from the existence of so many separate statutes, the easy change of existing law tends to create popular disrespect for the sanctity of the law. What can be so readily made and so easily altered can fairly be considered of small importance.

Governor Culberson of Texas, in a special message of March 5, 1895: —

The legislature has practically been in session sixty days, in which time the constitution contemplates that the work of the session may be accomplished; and the fact that no measures of urgency or general importance have been enacted into laws, impels me to call attention anew to those of large consequence and the imperative duty which confronts you in reference to them.

The grades of crime in our State involving moral turpitude are increasing, and our code of criminal procedure, enacted to encourage and encompass miscarriages of justice, is permitted to remain unchanged against a just demand approaching popular revolt.

Conspiracies against the freedom of trade, entrenched behind organized capital and impelled by avarice and greed, dominate our commerce and every year take deeper and more dangerous root. From many quarters the legal department of the State government is receiving requests and demands from the people for protection against them, but is unable to render it for want of adequate and effective remedies.

The danger to the public schools is both imminent and wide-reaching, and legislative delay is astonishing. There is already a deficiency of $700,000 in the fund, and with that which is certain to accrue this year it will amount to $1,500,000 at the end of the present scholastic year. Unless some action is taken at this session this deficiency will approximate $2,225,000 at the end of 1896.

Governor Nelson of Wisconsin :

In conclusion permit me to suggest to you the importance of exercising economy both in appropriation and legislation. . Excessive and burdensome legislation, legislation to meet a lot of petty ills that are more easily cured within the realm of moral suasion, is one of the tendencies of our times, in respect to which we ought to practise a little self-restraint. The people can be burdened with too much and too cumbersome legislation as well as with too lavish expenditures and too heavy taxes.

Governor Hart of North Carolina upon uniform legislation:

The object of this legislation is to secure in the States of the Union a uniform system of laws, regulating the most important and frequently recurring conditions of our society. . . . As it is now each State has its own local system, in which no consideration is given to those of the others. As a result there is great confusion, conflict, and frequently serious pecuniary loss. Particularly is this so in the proof of the execution and authentication of deeds, wills, and other instruments upon which the titles of property depend, and in the laws regulating marriage and divorce, and those regulating the transmission and collection of commercial paper through the banks.

Governor Cleaves of Maine: —

January, 1893. A careful examination of the laws of 1887, 1889, and 1891, discloses the fact that more than four hundred and fifty pages in each volume are devoted to private and special legislation; a large portion of which relates to business corporations, for the incorporation of which ample provision existed under the general laws of the State at the time of granting such charters.

January, 1895. The absolute power to appropriate money is with the legislature. The authority is given you, and under the constitution the responsibility rests where it should, with the honorable senators and representatives. The party in control of the State government is responsible for all legislation and for every expenditure of public money.

Governor Carr of North Carolina :

In this State the responsibility for legislation is not a divided one between the legislative and the executive branches as in the federal government and in many of the States. Under our constitution the governor has no veto power; the most he can do is to recommend, and the whole responsibility is made to rest with the legislature. . . . If the changes you make fail to accomplish such results the responsibility will rest on you, but the people will have to bear the burdens and pay the expenses of your experiments.

Governor O'Ferrall of Virginia :

You have ninety days before you for work, every available hour of which will be required for the faithful discharge of your important duty. My own long experience is that it is the rule with legislative bodies to delay and only to enter earnestly upon their labors when compelled by the nearness of adjournment. It is in these last days of a session that ill-matured legislation occurs.

Governor Shortridge of North Dakota :

Much of our past legislation has been reckless, hasty, and ill-advised, to say the least of it; and it is to be hoped, for the honor of the State and the credit of this legislative body, that many practices which have characterized our legislatures in the past will be omitted by you. . . . The present financial condition of our State is not satisfactory, and is the result of the excessive number of State institutions authorized by our constitution and brought into existence by legislative enactments. Others of like character will no doubt claim recognition at your hands at an early day.

Governor Atkinson of Georgia :

The standard of the civilization of a people, the efficiency and character of a government, are determined not by the laws which it enacts, but by those which it enforces. . . . The responsibility of needed legislation is upon you, and I shall confidently rely upon your doing your full duty.

Governor Cotton of Connecticut :

It is probably true that some of the influences accompanying and to a greater or less degree shaping the legislation of the State have been now and then for years of such character as to constitute offence against the rights and interests of the people.

It is currently thought to have happened that arrangements have been made between persons outside with members inside of the Gen