went, not eo put an end to bribery and intimitation of the n the thing of the vote, but it would unzen zãe the very looundations of the Machine: it would deprive stefaprotest for interioritz with elections, for employing 'workers," Vyang Essessinat lts, and would strip its candidates of their BTV eges ang later; the assent of the Machine would no longer De equired for getting on the printed list; the state, which would Kroportu make up this ballot, would enter every candidate on it berber recon mer ded by a party organization or not, would stomat them all without distinction to the electors: a poor man would therefore have the same facilities as a rich man, and an independent the same chances as a party hack of entering public The promoters of the reform succeeded in creating a genume curtent of opinion in its favor; sermons were preached in the Catches for the Australian ballot, numerous petitions were addressed to the legislat ires, and eventually the reformers ended by antinating the politicians intrenched in those assemblies." State after state adopted the Australian system, and assumed De responsibility of printing and distributing the ballots and safeguarding the secrecy of elections. To-day only two states, South Carolina and Georgia, have not adopted some form of the Australian ballot. It has falled to realize the high hopes of its promoters, but it has been of such undoubted service in purifying elections that no one would think of returning to the old methods. The failure of this serious attempt to abolish party machines by merely regulating elections while leaving the preliminary Dominating work to the untrammelled control of party organizations, soon raised a demand that the state should go behind the elections and supervise the primaries of parties, their committers, conventions, and campaign funds. Lven before the adoption of the Australian ballot, California seems to have opened this new phase in the evolution of party government by passing, in 1500, a tentative measure providing tor regularity and publicity in the conduct of primaries and caucuses, but at the same time allowing party committees to decide whether the rules laid down in the statute should become binding on them. Five years later. Obio enacted a law contain2 Sex below, CJA KIL Ostrogorski. Vol. II. p. 590. ing similar optional regulations; and in a short time other states followed with uncertain and halting steps the examples thus afforded. The notion of compulsory regulation of party concerns was vigorously combated, because it was urged that whenever the members of a party believed abuses existed the voluntary adoption of the statutory regulations would immediately follow. Logic, however, was defied by events, or rather by pressures which were not apparent to the logicians. Permissive statutes failed completely to accomplish the purpose for which they were at first deemed sufficient. After a lapse of a few years, during which the results of the Australian ballot were awaited, there began to come from our state legislatures a series of compulsory statutes, attacking first the minor features of party organization and operations, and then extending in every direction, until the laws of the last decade have made the party system an integral part of the legal framework of government. "The method of naming candidates for elective public offices by political parties and voluntary political organizations," runs the Oregon primary law of 1905, "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." ' A careful, but probably not exhaustive, review of the state legislation of the six years 1901-1906, reveals more than sixtytwo statutes, many of them broad and comprehensive, regulating political parties in their varied operations." The years 'For this interesting preamble, see Readings, p. 132. In 1901 statutes relating to primaries were enacted in Nebraska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Tennessee; in 1902, in Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, and New York; in 1903, in California, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island; in 1904, in Alabama, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin; in 1905, in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Oklahoma; in 1906, in Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, Louisiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. For a partial review of 1907-1908, see Political Science Review, Vol. II, No. 3, p. 417. showed no relaxation of legislative activity in this electors and to frauds in th restion, for they gave us the most revolutionary direct primary dermine the very tramont vet devised those of Wisconsin, New Jersey, Iowa, Illinois, it of a pretext for interiemal Nebraska, Washington, and Kansas, leaving out of for levying as ment String measures. Oklahoma came into the Union privileged chargers Startling constitution requiring, among other things, be required for pakial mact laws for a mandatory primary getting egislature shall henceforth make no lines which shall provide for the nomination of all candidates elections for state, district, county, and municipal offices, merising that of United States Senator. In New York, Govor Hughes, urged drastic reform in the primaries and party independent at the legislative sessions of 1908, 1909, and 1910; and Connecticut a commission has reported to the legislature in ine current ONCE Javor of direct nominations. churches for heve new laws fix the dates and places of party primaries, dressed to it9 de official ballots furnished by the government to all parties without charge, regulate the composition and powers of party abolish conventions altogether or control their composition and procedure, institute, in many instances, direct porbinations by party vote for nominations by conventions, forbid contributions by corporations, compel party committees to account for the receipt and disbursement of funds, limit the Amount which the respective candidates may spend, and otherwise control the machinery and practices of all parties.1 PART II THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHAPTER VIII THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF The Doctrine of Limited Government It is a common error to regard the federal Constitution as an instrument relating solely to the government that has its seat at Washington. In reality, it provides a general political system by distributing the public functions between the state and national governments and by laying down certain fundamental limitations on the powers which each may exercise. In other words, while creating a national executive, legislature, and judiciary, and marking out their spheres of power, the Constitution, expressly and by implication, also limits the domain within which the government of each state must operate. It does more: it creates a system of private rights secure against all government interference; it provides for each person "a sphere of anarchy" - of no government - so to speak, within which he may act without any intervention on the part of public officials. In some matters the individual is protected from the federal government, in others from the state government, and in still others he is entirely free from both governments. These limitations are not mere political theories or vague declarations of rights; they are fairly precise rules of law expounded and applied by the courts, enforced by proper executive authorities, and respected by the citizens.2 'See Burgess, Political Science and Constitutional Law, Vol. I, pp. 174 ff. 1 For the constitutional limitations on the federal government, see Readings, pp. 134 ff., and on the state governments, ibid., pp. 391 ff. By a comparison the limitations common to both may be ascertained. 1907-08 showed no relaxation of legislative ac These new laws fix the dates and 'This whole subject is trot 3 ver, ...tion ments. rastered cial de this fact "the rights : city forbid a immediately gnant citizens the "rights of United States." they refer shows the freedom of es in dealing with ens that make this as the Republican platform, "That the in the Declaration ceral Constitution,y are endowed by their that among these are life, chat to secure these rights, .. deriving their just powers essential to the preservaOf course any student of stitution does not embody d government is controlled insed by the written instru these rules may be best illusPe English system. Any law Kong, Lords, and Commons, nyced into question by any on is at the ballot-box when siste elected. If the British A low confiscating the land ... would be no relief for the a at a skccccding one could be いま It the Congress of the |