European readers must again be cautioned against drawing for themselves too dark a picture of the Boss. He is not a demon. He is not regarded with horror even by those "good citizens" who strive to shake off his yoke. He is not necessarily either corrupt or mendacious, though he grasps at place, power, and wealth. He is a leader to whom certain peculiar social and political conditions have given a character dissimilar from the party leaders whom Europe knows. It is worth while to point out in what the dissimilarity consists.

A Boss needs fewer showy gifts than a European demagogue. His special theater is neither the halls of the legislature nor the platform, but the committee room. A power of rough and ready repartee, or a turn for florid declamation, will help him; but he can dispense with both. What he needs are the arts of intrigue and that knowledge of men which teaches him when to bully, when to cajole, whom to attract by the hope of gain, whom by appeals to party loyalty. Nor are so-called "social gifts" unimportant. The lower sort of city politicians congregate in clubs and barrooms; and as much of the cohesive strength of the smaller party organizations arises from their being also social bodies, so also much of the power which liquor dealers exercise is due to the fact that "heelers" and "workers" spend their evenings in drinking places, and that meetings for political purposes are held there. . . . A Boss ought therefore to be hail fellow well met with those who frequent these places, not fastidious in his tastes, fond of a drink and willing to stand one, jovial in manners, and ready to oblige even a humble friend.

The aim of a Boss is not so much fame as power, and not so much power over the conduct of affairs as over persons. Patronage is the sort of power he seeks, patronage understood in the largest sense in which it covers the disposal of lucrative contracts and other modes of enrichment as well as salaried places. The dependents who surround him desire wealth, or at least a livelihood; his business is to find this for them, and in doing so he strengthens his own position. It is as the bestower of riches that he holds his position, like the leader of a band of condottieri in the fifteenth century.

The interest of a Boss in political questions is usually quite secondary. Here and there one may be found who is a politician in the European sense, who, whether sincerely or not, purports and professes to be interested in some principle or measure affecting the welfare of the country. But the attachment of the ringster is usually given wholly to the concrete party, that is to the men who compose it, regarded as officeholders or office seekers; and there is often not even a profession of zeal for any party doctrine. . . . Among bosses, therefore, there is little warmth of party spirit. The typical boss regards the boss of the other

party much as counsel for the plaintiff regards counsel for the defendant. They are professionally opposed, but not necessarily personally hostile. Between bosses there need be no more enmity than results from the fact that the one has got what the other wishes to have. Accordingly it sometimes happens that there is a good understanding between the chiefs of opposite parties in cities; they will even go the length of making (of course secretly) a joint "deal," i.e. of arranging for a distribution of offices whereby some of the friends of one shall get places, the residue being left for the friends of the other. A well-organized city party has usually a disposable vote which can be so cast under the directions of the managers as to effect this, or any other desired result. The appearance of hostility must, of course, be maintained for the benefit of the public; but as it is for the interest of both parties to make and keep these private bargains, they are usually kept when made, though of course it is seldom possible to prove the fact.

The real hostility of the Boss is not to the opposite party, but to other factions within his own party. Often he has a rival leading some other organization, and demanding, in respect of the votes which that organization controls, a share of the good things going. . . . If neither can crush the other, it finds itself obliged to treat, and to consent to lose part of the spoils to its rival. Still more bitter, however, is the hatred of Boss and Ring toward those members of the party who do not desire and are not to be appeased by a share of the spoils, but who agitate for what they call reform. They are natural and permanent enemies; nothing but the extinction of the Boss himself and of bossdom altogether will satisfy them. They are moreover the common enemies of both parties, that is, of bossdom in both parties. Hence in ring-governed cities professionals of both parties will sometimes unite against the reformers, or will rather let their opponents secure a place than win it for themselves by the help of the "independent vote." Devotion to "party government," as they understand it, can hardly go farther.

404. Necessity for party responsibility in the United States. Goodnow states a fundamental principle in American political organization as follows:1

Our formal governmental system makes no provision for the coördination of the functions of expressing and executing the will of the state. through the instrumentalities of government. On the contrary, it is so formed as to make that coördination impossible. That is, the work of the party is not completed when it has elected a legislature. It must elect a

1 Copyright, 1900, by The Macmillan Company.

series of executive officers as well, not only for the nation and the state, but also for the localities. Further, the fact that the terms of these executive and legislative officers are not coincident makes it probable that even if one party has elected all the officers it can elect at a given election, such party does not have complete control of the government. The political storm center in the United States is therefore not in the government, but in the party. All attempts to make the boss responsible must take account of this fact. The party must be made responsible to the people. After this is done, the boss will have been attacked in his stronghold, and will be forced to capitulate. In that way, and in that way alone, can we hope to see our government conducted by party leaders amenable to popular control.

405. Legal recognition of political parties. Political parties originated as voluntary associations, outside the legal framework of the governmental system. A realization of the fact that legal control of the parties is necessary if they are to be responsible to popular will is indicated in the following preamble to a recent Oregon law:

Under our form of government, political parties are useful and necessary at the present time. It is necessary for the public welfare and safety that every practical guaranty shall be provided by law to assure the people generally, as well as the members of the several parties, that political parties shall be fairly, freely, and honestly conducted, in appearance as well as in fact. The method of naming candidates for elective public offices by political parties and voluntary political organizations is the best plan yet found for placing before the people the names of qualified and worthy citizens from whom the electors may choose the officers of our government. The government of our State by its electors and the government of a political party by its members are rightfully based on the same general principles. Every political party and every volunteer political organization has the same right to be protected from the interference of persons who are not identified with it as its known and publicly avowed members, that the government of the State has to protect itself from the interference of persons who are not known and registered as its electors.

It is as great a wrong to the people, as well as to the members of a political party, for one who is not known to be one of its members to vote or take any part at any election or other proceedings of such political party, as it is for one who is not a qualified and registered elector to vote at any State election or take any part in the business of the State.

Every political party and voluntary political association is rightfully entitled to the sole and exclusive use of every word of its official name. The people of the State and the members of every political party and voluntary political organization are rightfully entitled to know that every person who offers to take any part in the affairs or business of any political party or voluntary political organization in the State is in good faith a member of such party. The reason for the law which requires a secret ballot when all the electors choose their officers, equally requires a secret ballot when the members of a party choose their candidates for public office. It is as necessary for the preservation of the public welfare and safety that there shall be a free and fair vote and an honest count, as well as a secret ballot at primary elections, as it is that there shall be a free and fair vote and an honest count in addition to the secret ballot at all elections of public officers. All qualified electors who wish to serve the people in an elective public office are rightfully entitled to equal opportunities under the law. The purpose of this law is better to secure and to preserve the rights of political parties and voluntary political organizations, and their members and candidates, and especially of the rights above stated.

406. Primary election reform. The essential features of a satisfactory primary election law may be stated as follows:

1. The primary elections of all parties should be held together in every election precinct on the same day. The time and place of these elections should be fixed by law and not left to be determined by party committees. In this way the election day will be known, the polling places will be fixed and not precarious; machine gerrymandering and snap primaries will be prevented; and the voters of one party will be prevented from packing the Primary of the other for the purpose of nominating weak candidates for their opponents.

2. A good registration law. The party voters must be registered a certain number of days before the Primary. Careful registration always tends to promote fair elections.

3. The right to vote at a party Primary should be secured against fraud by the registration of the party affiliation, or preference of all voters who seek to vote at the Primary. No opponent of a party has a right to participate in its Primary. .

4. The Australian secret-ballot system of voting should be used in the Primary as in the regular election day. . . .

Other minor features urged by primary election advocates are: (1) The application of the law should be made mandatory and not left

to the option of party committees. Primary elections should be under State control, not under party control; (2) The rotation of names in the printed ballots. Any name appearing first in all the ballots would have a manifest advantage. . . .

Several objections are urged to the system of making nominations by direct primaries :

1. It tends to promote rather than to check electoral corruption. A primary election is merely another election, and as elections are now conducted we have enough of them.

...

2. It promotes plurality nominations. A man may be nominated who represents but one third or one fourth of the party voters. . . .

3. It tends to a multiplicity of candidates and the consequent confusion of the voters.

...

4. The primary system tends to weaken and destroy the party. It causes jealousies and divisions within the party and prevents efficient party organization.