66

government, so that the popular will shall be most. readily and effectively translated into the public will. This applies particularly to nominations and elections, and the determination of policies. The machinery of government and, in particular, that part of it through which the popular will is crystallized and expressed, needs to be perfected. The machine" in politics, as it now exists, is a more or less private affair which does not furnish a means for the free expression of the people's will. The boss, our uncrowned king, is the man who manipulates the machine. There is nothing objectionable in the paramount influence of certain individuals, so long as they are the normally chosen leaders of the people, and can hold their power only while the people will it.1

In fact what we need more than anything else in politics is the freeing of the individual, so that any citizen or group of citizens shall be able to take their purposes before the people and get a definite expression of the popular will on any subject that appeals to the people's interests. For this reason, the percentage of voters required on the initiative and referendum petitions should not be high. Ten per cent is enough in large cities. The freeing of the individual would encourage those who are specially qualified along particular lines to associate themselves with the municipal departments in

1 See Professor Goodnow's chapters on "The Boss" and "Responsibility of Parties and Party Leaders,” in Politics and Administration, pp. 168-254.

voluntary committees to give the public the benefit of their knowledge and interest. As things now are in most American cities little or no effort is made to secure the voluntary coöperation of citizens with the city government in this way.

It seems hardly necessary to add at the close of this chapter that all the means suggested for securing the better political organization of the people would be futile without a carefully protected ballot. Absolute honesty in the conduct of elections is a matter of primary importance, and the election officer who commits fraud, the citizen who corruptly bargains away his vote, and all those who strive to thwart the honest expression of the people's will should be dealt with unsparingly by the law and the public prosecutors. The grosser forms of election frauds have become comparatively rare in New York City in recent years. Baltimore has cleaned itself up to a considerable extent. But Philadelphia still wallows in the slough of electoral corruption. It is not believed, however, that election frauds on a large scale take place any more in most of our cities. The corruption of the electorate now common is accomplished by promises of position, by the distribution of cigars and beer, by appeals to personal or party prejudices, and by other means which operate chiefly outside of the polling place.

"The people are responsible" for the character of their government, but this responsibility is more theoretical than actual where no adequate methods

are devised for their making response. The purpose of the changes in our form of government suggested in this chapter is to enable the people to respond, so that the government will truly reflect their will and furnish an accurate measure of the progress or decay of the political capacity of nation, state, or city.

CHAPTER X

OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY

THERE is no consistent theory of official responsibility in American cities, and consequently we find every type of municipal organization in various degrees and combinations, so that, viewed as a whole, our city government is a chaos of forms. We have a half-hearted theory that the separation of legislative and executive powers, which is a marked characteristic of our state and national governments, should be carried out in local government also, and in a general way this is done, though subject to countless limitations and exceptions. We also think that the chief executive of the city should be elected by the people. This rule is universal with us outside of the city of Washington, except when Mr. Quay suspends popular government in Pennsylvania for a season. We also have everywhere, except in Washington city, a municipal legislative assembly variously called the common council, the city council, councils, the board of aldermen, the board of supervisors, the municipal assembly, etc., and having at least a nucleus of ordinance-making powers.

We are toying with the theory that official responsibility should be concentrated in the hands of

one man elected by the people for a comparatively short term of office. But the real desideratum of municipal organization is the definition rather than the concentration of responsibility. The citi

zens should be able to find with ease which one of their official servants is responsible for the performance of any particular function of government, and get at him if he fails to do his duty. We want to be able to tell who is neglecting what, and bring pressure to bear upon him to compel him to carry out the will of the people. We want also so to distribute official duties that we shall get the best possible results when the average character of the men likely to hold office is taken into account. This is extremely important, for it is no more possible to get an adequate response from heaping responsibility upon an ignorant or weak man than it is to store a pail of water in a teaspoon. The responsibility will slop over if the man is not big enough. It is a great mistake to think that there are plenty of men in any city who are capable of taking up the executive and administrative work of the city, and carrying it on successfully if only they are given full authority. We have few trained mayors in the United States, and mere business experience often proves almost worthless in a great political office.

The "council system" may be regarded, the whole world considered, as the norm of municipal organization under popular government, and all other systems as modifications of it. The council