office nominally by popular election, but in reality by the "slate makers," than it is to read Dean Swift or Rabelais or to play chess. The point is to get a state veterinarian who knows his business, not to keep civic virtue at a certain degree of temperature by political exercise. Whether this contention is sound or not, the fact remains that the mass of the voters take slight interest in the details of politics. As Mr. Roosevelt vigorously puts it: It may be accepted as a fact, however unpleasant, that, if steady work and much attention to detail are required, ordinary citizens to whom participation in politics is merely a disagreeable duty will always be beaten by the organized army of politicians to whom it is both duty, business, and pleasure, and who are knit together and to outsiders by their social relations. On the other hand, average citizens take a spasmodic interest in public affairs; and we should therefore so shape our governmental system that the action required by the voters should be as simple and direct as possible, and should not need to be taken any more often than is necessary. Governmental power should be concentrated in the hands of a very few men who would be so conspicuous that no citizen could help knowing all about them; and the elections should not come too frequently. Not one decent voter in ten will take the trouble annually to inform himself as to the character of the host of petty candidates to be ballotted for, but he will be sure to know all about the mayor, comptroller, etc. It is not to his credit that we can only rely, and that without much certainty, upon his taking a spasmodic interest in the government that affects his own well-being; but such is the case, and accordingly we ought, as far as possible, to have a system requiring on his part intermittent and not sustained action.' Finally, this simplification of politics and reduction in the weight and complexity of our party organization - a programme which by no means includes the destruction of party organizations ought to have a wholesome effect in giving us some real politics at our city halls and state capitols instead of the sham politics of warfare between "reformers" and "bosses" the distinguishing futility of American political life. A wag at Albany once remarked that the chief function of parties is to give the organizations that polled the highest and the next highest number of votes at the last preceding gubernatorial election places on the newly created boards and commissions. Whoever 1 American Ideals, p. 132. doubts the essential soundness of this penetrating analysis by an "expert" may find overwhelming demonstration of its truth in President Lowell's statistics on party voting in the United States. If we could get the office-filling machine out of the way, we might possibly get an alignment of parties on real issues. 1 The Government of England, Vol. II, chap. xxx; see also Report of the American Historical Association for 1901. CHAPTER XXIV THE STATE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 1 The Office of Governor IN no branch of the state government have we departed further from the example set by the first state constitutions than in the executive department. This has been due in part to social and economic changes which have multiplied administrative offices, and in part to a growing distrust of the legislature and an increasing confidence in the governor. In their contest against British dominion, the colonists had used their legislatures with great effect against the provincial governors, and it was only natural that, after securing independence, they should have regarded the executive with great jealousy, and looked rather to the legislature as the safeguard of their liberties. At the outset, therefore, the governor was a mere nonentity, or at best a servant of the legislature; but from this position of political insignificance, the office has been gradually raised by the addition of new powers and duties, until to-day the governor of the state possesses a constitutional and administrative authority of no mean proportions; and when he becomes, as he may, the representative of great popular interests he not only overshadows the legislature, but sometimes springs into prominence as a national figure.2 Notwithstanding this increase of power, the governor, in his relation to the state administration, does not yet possess any such high authority as is vested in the President of the United States by the Constitution. The national executive office was created by men who feared the usurpation of all power by the legislature, and placed their hopes in the controlling influence of an energetic executive elected in an indirect manner. The best principles of the Federalists, especially those relating to efficiency and strength The principle of separation of powers is applied in our state governments as well as in the federal government. Above, p. 152. 2 See Readings, p. 442. in a government, have been unhappily too often discarded along with the doctrines of class rule by our state constitution-makers in their haste to avoid everything which did not have at least a democratic appearance according to the tenets of the Jeffersonian school. Consequently, we have not yet given the governor the control over state administration which is required for the efficient and responsible conduct of an executive business greater than that which fell upon our early Presidents.1 It must be remembered that the population of the state of New York alone is now greater than that of the entire nation at the beginning of the new federal government. That commonwealth also now has an army of about 10,000 state employees many times the number under Washington at the close of his first administration. In all of the states except Mississippi 2 the governor is elected by direct popular vote, the plan of selection by the legislature having been abandoned long ago. In many states, the candidates for the office of governor are nominated by party conventions composed of delegates apportioned among the counties or other subdivisions of the state according to party vote, or population, or some arbitrary rule. In New York, the Democratic state convention is composed of three delegates from each assembly district, and the Republican convention of one delegate from each assembly district and one additional delegate for each 1000 Republican votes cast in the district at the last preceding presidential election. In a large number of states (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Kansas, Oregon, Oklahoma, etc.) the state convention has been abolished by law, and each party is compelled to select its candidates for governor and other state offices by direct vote, usually of the enrolled party members. This "direct primary" is like an election within each party. For example, any Republican who wants to be a candidate for the office of governor in Oregon must get his name on the primary ballot of his party by securing the signatures of a certain number of Republican voters to a petition; and on primary day, each Republican may designate one among the several persons whose names are thus placed on the ballot as his choice for the Republican candidate for governor at the next ensuing general election. The person receiving the 3 1 For Governor Hughes' view of this, see Readings, p. 436. See below, chap. xxx. highest number of votes at this primary is declared to be the official Republican candidate, and his name is then printed on the regular election ticket along with the names of the candidates of other parties selected in the same manner. The nominees of the several parties are then placed before the voters of the state at a general election. It is now the commonly accepted practice to declare that candidate for governor elected who receives the highest number of votes not necessarily a majority.' In New York, the governor must be thirty years of age, and this is the rule for all except a few states. Citizenship and a term of residence in the state (five years in New York) are almost unvarying qualifications. Some states stipulate that the governor cannot be reëlected to succeed himself; Indiana, for example, provides that he shall hold office for four years, but shall not be eligible for more than four in any period of eight years. Other states, however, place no limitation whatever on the number of terms which a governor may serve; but general practice has fixed it at not more than two terms, though the third-term rule is by no means so absolute as in the case of the presidency. It is a customary practice also to forbid the governor to hold any federal office during his term of service; and Alabama, California, and Utah provide that he shall not be elected to the United States Senate during his term of office. Twenty-two states fix the governor's term at four years, and twenty-one at two years; only two states, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, retain the older practice of annual elections; and New Jersey alone has a triennial election. The tendency is strongly in the direction of the longer term; even the new constitution of Oklahoma, which reflects in many clauses the spirit of the Jeffersonian democracy, fixes it at four years. This is the result of the recognition of the patent fact that the governor must have time at least to master the details of the complicated system over which he presides if there is to be an efficient administration. No considerable attempt, however, has been made to coördinate the governor's term with those of the administrative officers whom he may appoint. In fact, the terms of the latter are frequently longer than the governor's. 1 Most of the states provide that, in case of a tie, the legislature, in joint session, shall choose from among the leading candidates. 2 See table on the next page. |