Page images

The latter, all things considered, has maintained by far the highest average of efficiency, and commands public respect for its responsiveness to public opinion, as well. Its powers have been too limited, however, to obtain the best results, and the trend of current opinion is that they should be much enlarged. This enlarged power should include the formation of a budget, leaving with congress the power to cut any items, but not to add to them. This would put the responsibility of expenses, as well as the apportionment of them, where it belongs, on the men who handle the money. The power to initiate legislation should also be granted to the president and his cabinet, as the president is largely responsible for the party platform on which he is elected, and should openly lead in the enactment into law of pledges, many of which he will have to carry out in his administration. The prevention of congressional interference with details of administration will greatly increase the efficiency of administrative departments, and this efficiency should be carried still further by the extension of civil service to all employees, under the leadership of permanent technical bureau chiefsexperts subject to the cabinet secretaries in policy only, and removable only for inefficiency or dishonesty.

There should be provision made for referendum to popular vote of important issues on which the various departments— legislative, judicial, and executive-disagree. For instance, suppose the secretary of war, with the approval of the president and the other cabinet chiefs, incorporates in the budget an estimate for army expenses which is cut severely by congress. The people may think congress is very efficient and able as a whole, and agree with their general attitude, so that they would reëlect a majority of them; yet on the vital issue of national defence they may side with the secretary or war, and at the same time approve of the president's course as a whole. So both sides would come back into power, with no way to tell how the people felt on the issue in question. In such a case, the president should have authority to submit the question of army expenses, to take the example above, directly to the people at the next general elections, or sooner, if he deemed it urgently important. In the same way, congressional recommendations

[ocr errors]

regarding conduct of an administrative department, if the question were highly important, and non-technical, should be submitted to the people, if they were not acted on by the administration. Or if judicial interpretation of the powers of an administrative commission, as enacted in law by congress, were held by the president to interfere with the commission's work as intended by congress, he should be able to refer the issue to the people; for the court might be very able, honest, and not persistently obstructive, so that he would not care to use his power of dismissal. Similarly, if the supreme court considered a law enacted by congress and signed by the president dangerous to the public welfare, in place of declaring it unconstitutional, as they now can do, they would have the power to refer it to the people. In all such cases, public sentiment would soon kill any attempts to appeal trivial or unimportant questions at the instigation of departmental jealousy, by deciding against the department thus acting, and provision that only gravely urgent disagreements be submitted between regular elections would prevent frequent referenda making the institution burdensome.

The state governments should be made uniform and similar in their general design to the central government, to which they should be strictly subordinated in all cases of conflicting interest. Thus, the governor and his various appointive officials, including many now elective, would correspond to the president and his cabinet; and have similar powers of introducing legislation, making budgets, and managing departments without legislative interference. The state legislature would be single-chambered, the judiciary appointive for life, subject to removal by the governor for obstructive tactics, inefficiency, or dishonesty. All state employees would be under civil service, with permanent technical bureau heads. There would be a referendum of important matters, disputed between departments, to the voters of the state. Counties should be abolished as separate governmental units administered by elective officials; their affairs being handled through administrative departments of the state governments. The logical development of city government leads to the non-partisan commission-manager plan.

The voter's task would be much simplified under a highly centralized government such as outlined above. The ballot

would indeed be short, the city voter choosing city commissioners, members of the state legislature, governor, lieutenant-governor, members of congress, president and vice-president, while the rural voter would dispense even with voting for commissioners, leaving but six officials to be chosen by him. Elections could be made uniform in time for state and national officials throughout the country, so that, retaining the primary system, there would still not be frequent elections to cause citizens to lose interest. To make sure of response to the poplar will, every elected official should be subject to recall in case of emergency. To increase efficiency, terms of president and governor, heads of complicated administrative machines, should be long.

A government on the above lines would result in concentrated power, permitting able men to do great things; yet they would be directly responsible to the people for success, and for putting the popular will into effect. It would be an efficient instrument for carrying the great economic burdens a modern state must bear. The general elective positions would demand trained statesmen to fill them properly. The permanent under-secretaries would have to be big business men of great experience and expert training, such as now are generally hostile to the government. Real power would do much to attract such men into public service, and give them a different outlook on government service; just as the realization that they held such great power would make the average citizen careful to choose men of broad vision and high ideals, coupled with qualities of practical leadership, to fill executive positions, shaping and supervising the policy that guided these permanent department chiefs, and responsible for the results achieved by them. It is evident that an educational test for eligibility to vote would be almost a necesssity, while schools, newspapers, and all agents that mould public opinion would have to coöperate in making such a political system a success. A system embodying the main ideas of concentrated authority and responsibility, however different from the admittedly theoretical and amateurish one outlined above, is vitally necessary to success in carrying out socialistic reforms. It should be the duty of every expert on political science to make constructive suggestions, that out of the many advanced, tradition

may be broken down, and a practicable political system adopted which will permit us to achieve the healthy economic development essential to ardent national spirit.


However well governmental activities of a socialistic type are perfected, the vast remaining field of private industry presents serious problems to be met, before the economic unrest will cease to be acute. Even with government insurance, control of basic industries, employment bureaus and legislations in the interests of shorter hours, better pay, and lower cost of living, labor in private industries will still demand recognition, as it does to-day. A spirit of conciliation on both sides is absolutely necessary for permanent security and welfare. Employers must cease to regard labor solely as a commodity and consider the human side. Labor must respond to this attitude, and replace its feeling of hostility with a spirit of coöperation and loyalty. Recognition of labor organizations; profit sharing; together with provision for hygienic and attractive working and living quarters, and facilities for recreation in factory centres; would do much to bring about a friendly relation. Fortunately, pioneer work in all these fields is being carried on to-day by enlightened employers, while a few unions have become strong enough to win for their members something approximating their due share of what they produce. A very important item, in a general programme to win the confidence of labor, is drastic restriction of immigration. Such restriction would not only remove the necessity of native labor to compete with a viciously low standard of living, but would help maintain a higher level of citizenship, by preventing the dregs of Europe from being dumped on our shores. With an adequate system of military defence, we should enforce such restriction without fear or favor from any foreign power.

A Low BIRTH Rate

The far-distant future holds one serious menace, no matter how solid our national spirit and sound our economic condition. That menace is overcrowding, and it is usually agreed to be the underlying cause of the great war. The fear of too many mouths

to feed is back of Germany's insistence on a "place in the sun. The fallacy of Germany's aggression is obvious-there will not always be room to expand, by war or otherwise—and in this matter we can learn from France. Wherever there is a high standard of living, we find the birth rate falling, as the upper classes of all countries illustrate. But France is the only large, highly civilized, healthy nation in which small families are the rule in all classes, and in which the birth and death rates have been approximately equal for a long period. This fact causes many to sneer at France's alleged decadence, but her conduct in the war should convince all those who ignored her great and continued contributions to the progress of civilization, that such a judgment was an absurd libel. She has demonstrated the fact that where quality and not number is the ideal, it is possible to limit the birth rate artificially, without sinking into decadence.

Our upper classes, who wish to give their children education and other advantages, do not have large families as a rule. Unfortunately, the large family is common among the very people with whom an extra child is often a grievous burden, a cause of sorrow. This condition should be looked squarely in the face, all hypocrisy put aside, and a campaign of education in harmless prevention of conception inaugurated, so that the necessity for foresight may be brought to the attention of the most thoughtless. Public opinion should be influenced to remove from prevention of conception the moral stigma, which is influential with the simple and lowly, but is secretly derided by the educated and prosperous.

It has been urged that this would cause an increase in illicit sex relations, and a decrease in the number of marriages. When this objection, usually greatly exaggerated by its supporters, is weighed against the present indiscriminate bringing into the world of undesired children, to be a burden to themselves, their parents and society generally, it seems to sink into insignificance. The vast majority are always normal and wholesome, glad to sacrifice themselves within reason for the sake of having children to love and cherish. Unquestionably the race would improve rapidly, if all children were the offspring of such parents, and the latter did not have so many children as to be handicapped

« PreviousContinue »