and supervise articles and advertisements for the press, payment of newspapers for publishing materials, rent of offices and club rooms, compensation of clerks, agents, and attorneys managing the "reasonable business of elections," preparation of lists of voters, personal expenses of candidates, travelling expenses, compensation of workers at the polls, and the hire of carriages. Indeed, this act goes into such detail that it appears to the laymen in politics as an insurmountable barrier to illegal election expenditures; but probably to the eye of an experienced election worker there are plenty of loopholes.

The most unique experiment for controlling party funds was devised by the legislature of Colorado in 1909 by the passage of an act declaring that "the expenses of conducting campaigns to elect state, district, and county officers at general elections shall be paid only by the state and by the candidates." It is made a felony for any other person or any corporation to contribute to any party committee or any candidate for these offices and also it is a felony for any candidate or committee to accept such a contribution. The amount of money which the candidates may themselves personally contribute and expend is regulated by the salaries or fees of the offices for which they are respectively candidates. In addition, the state contributes to each political party twenty-five cents for every vote cast by that party for governor at the last preceding election. The amount is paid over to the state chairman of each party who is made responsible under bond for the proper distribution of this money among the county chairmen in accordance with the strength of the local vote, and also for the proper expenditure of the funds so contributed by the state.1

Non-Partisan Politics

While strongly emphasizing the place of party government in American politics the influence of non-partisan organizations should by no means be lost sight of. The non-partisan or independent vote is often the really decisive element, particularly in those cases in which the two great parties are more or less evenly divided; and there is no doubt that there is an everincreasing proportion of the voters who are independent of party

1 Digest by Professor Leon E. Aylsworth in the American Political Science Review, August, 1909, p. 382.

organization. In many a national election an appeal has been made to the non-partisan voter. The first Republican platform of 1856 invited the affiliation and cooperation of the men of all politics, and the platform of 1860, after enunciating the principles of the party, appealed for "the coöperation of all citizens, however differing on other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support." The Democrats in 1876 appealed to their "fellow-citizens of every former political connection"; and from that day to this the independent element of the nation has not been overlooked in national campaigns.

However, it is in local, and especially municipal, politics that the non-partisan or independent element is strongest. In every great city there is a non-partisan citizens' organization of one form or another. In 1896, the Municipal Voters' League of Chicago was founded to fight corruption in the government of that city. The League is composed of voters scattered throughout the city who express their approval of its purpose and methods by signing cards. The purpose of the League is not the establishment of a new party but the concentration of public opinion and public scrutiny upon the candidates nominated by the other parties. It is, in a word, a publicity committee: prior to each city election it maintains headquarters into which pour suggestions for nominations and criticisms of city officials; as soon as candidates are announced or nominated it sends letters of inquiry to them in order to ascertain what stand they intend to take if elected; and through the campaign it endeavors to secure the widest publicity with regard to the character and policies of the various candidates. It has undoubtedly wielded some influence for good in the city, and party managers in selecting candidates in many wards in the city can no longer ignore its recommendations.

The non-partisan organization of New York is the Citizens' Union, a group of persons united without regard to party for the purpose of securing the honest and efficient government of the city of New York by the nomination and election of candidates or by indorsing the nominations of regular parties whose character and policy the Union can approve. The Citizens' Union, however, differs from the Municipal Voters' League in being a sort of political party with officers, committees, and conventions modeled somewhat on the plan of the older parties. By uniting with the Republican party, which is in a minority in New York

City, it was able in 1901 to contribute powerfully to the election of Mr. Seth Low as mayor; but it was unsuccessful in the next mayoralty contest, and since that time has confined its work largely to political education and the indorsement or nomination of candidates for minor offices.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, formerly had an organization known as the Library Hall Association. It stood for the principle of non-partisanship in municipal politics but was not a political organization itself — that is, it did not attempt to create political machinery like that established by the Citizens' Union. At first the representatives of the association attended the sessions of the city council and a record of all the members of the council was published in the local newspapers and in pamphlet form. The failure of the voters to take an interest in this work of publication led the association to abandon it and adopt the plan of holding meetings immediately before the city elections for the purpose of scrutinizing the candidates nominated by the various parties and groups. At this meeting the names of all the candidates were discussed and the association decided upon the men it would support. In some instances, however, it made nominations of its own. The association thus prepared a slate of its own and waged a campaign in its support. This association, however, finally went to pieces; and its place has been taken by a "Non-partisan Municipal Party" which is for all practical purposes an organized party, but it is opposed to bringing national issues into city politics.

1 See article in Municipal Affairs, Vol. IV, p. 363, June, 1900.

CHAPTER XXXI

TAXATION AND FINANCE

THE raising and appropriation of revenues is always one of the leading subjects of controversy in state constitutional conventions. This function of government has been a source of logrolling and jobbery of every kind, great and small; and the tendency, everywhere manifest, to misappropriate funds and to rush headlong into debt has forced the adoption of many constitutional provisions in behalf of the taxpayer. No safeguard seems to be too minute to be unworthy of a constitutional sanction: the legislature of Alabama must even buy its fuel according to the rules laid down in the fundamental law of the commonwealth.

The early state constitutions gave the legislatures a free hand, but the reckless abandon with which money was raised and spent soon gave the taxpayers pause, and they began to devise plans for stopping one form of malversion after another, only to find the legislature ingenious enough to discover new loopholes. Before taking up the actual methods for raising and disbursing state revenues, it will be necessary, therefore, to consider the general character of the limitations under which the state legislature must work.

Constitutional Limitations

The ancient rule that money bills must originate in the lower house once so prominent, in Anglo-Saxon polity — is now laid down in less than one-half of our state constitutions. A number of them, in fact, specifically state that any bill may originate in either house: "Any bill may originate in either house of the legislature and all bills passed by one house may be amended by the other," runs the New York constitution; but as a general practice the senate concedes to the lower house the right of initiating measures for raising revenues and often general appropriation bills as well. It can hardly be said, however, with due respect 1 Agger, The Budget in the American Commonwealth (Columbia University Studies), p. 22.

for this ancient and honorable doctrine on money bills, that it constitutes any safeguard against careless and corrupt finance in legislatures; and it must be admitted also that it has slowly been declining in public esteem.

Perhaps the most important safeguard against reckless finance is the precise limitation on indebtedness imposed quite generally by the recent constitutions. New York, for example, fixes the debt limit at $1,000,000; and, except for certain urgent reasons to suppress insurrection and wage war the legislature can create an additional debt only for a specified purpose, which must be submitted to a popular vote and receive a majority of all the votes cast for and against it.' Ohio goes further: after establishing the debt limit at $750,000 the constitution provides that no other debt whatsoever may be created by or on behalf of the state, except debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, defend the state in war, or to redeem the present outstanding indebtedness. Coupled with this definite limitation, there is usually a clause requiring the legislature, on creating a new debt, to make provision for meeting it when it falls due.

The various devices for restricting the debt-contracting powers of state legislatures have had a decided effect in reducing and controlling expenditures. The total outstanding debt of all the commonwealths in 1870 was $325,866,898; in 1890, $223,107,883; and in 1902 the total debt of the states and territories was only $234,908,873. Massachusetts now comes first with a debt of $78,097,595; New York second with $41,230,660; and Virginia third with $24,986,959. A few of the states, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, and South Dakota, were reported in 1908-1909 as having no indebtedness at all. It certainly may be said that the finances of the American commonwealths are on a sound basis so far as indebtedness is concerned.

In a majority of states some provision is made for uniformity in taxation. This varies from state to state. In Pennsylvania all taxes must be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority laying the tax. Ohio adheres to a still older principle: "Laws shall be passed taxing 1 See Readings, p. 461.

2 It is the common practice for the state to exempt from tax the buildings and certain other property of religious, educational, and charitable institutions.