of his colleagues in some other measure in which he is personally interested, as, for instance, a measure which will add to the value of land near a particular city. This is log-rolling,” and is the most difen't method to deal with, because its milder forms are scarcely distinguishable from that legitimate give and take which must go on in all legislative bodies. It is, however, deemed so mischievous, that four new constitutions have expressly enacted that it shall be held to constitute the offence of solicitation or bribery, and be punishable accordingly. A third is black-mailing. A member brings in a bill either specially directed against some particular great corporation, probably a railway, or proposing so to alter the general law as in fact to injure such a corporation, or a group of corporations. He intimates privately that he is willing to "see" the directors or the law-agents of the corporation, and is in many cases bought off by them, keeping his bill on the paper till the last moment so as to prevent some other member from repeating the trick. Of course the committees are the focus of intrigue, and the chairmanship of a committee the position which affords the greatest facilities for an unscrupulous man. Round the committees there buzzes that swarm of professional agents which is called "the lobby," soliciting the members, threatening them with trouble in their constituencies, plying them with all sorts of inducements, treating them to dinners, drinks, and cigars.

I escape from this Stygian pool to make some observations which seem applicable to State legislatures generally, and not merely to the most degraded.

The spirit of localism, surprisingly strong everywhere in America, completely rules them. A member is not a member for his State, chosen by a district but bound to think first of the general welfare of the commonwealth. He is a member for Brownsville, or Pompey, or the seventh district, and so forth, as the case may be. His first and main duty is to get the most he can for his constituency out of the State treasury, or by means of State legislation. No appeal to the general interest would have weight with him against the interests of that spot. What is more, he is deemed by his colleagues of the same party to be the sole exponent of the wishes of the spot, and solely entitled to handle its affairs. If he approves

a bill which affects the place and nothing but the place, that is conclusive. Nobody else has any business to interfere. This rule is the more readily accepted, because its application all round serves the private interest of every member alike, while members of more enlarged views, who ought to champion the interests of the State and sound general principles of legislation, are rare. When such is the accepted doctrine, as well as invariable practice, log-rolling becomes natural and almost legitimate. Each member being the judge of the measure which touches his own constituency, every other member supports that member in passing the measure, expecting in return the like support in a like cause. He who in the public interest opposes the bad bill of another, is certain to find that other opposing, and probably with success, his own bill however good.

The defects noted (Chapters XIII.-XVI.) as arising in Congress from the want of recognized leadership and of persons officially bound to represent and protect the interests of the people at large reappear in the State legislatures, on a smaller scale, no doubt, but in an aggravated form, because the level of ability is lower and the control of public opinion less. There is no one to withstand the petty localism already referred to; no one charged with the duty of resisting proposals which some noisy section may demand, but whose ultimate mischief, or pernicious effect as precedents, thoughtful men perceive. There are members for districts, but no members for the people of the State. Thus many needless bills and many bad bills are passed. And when some difficult question arises, it may happen that no member is found able to grapple with it. Sometimes the governor comes to the rescue by appointing a commission of eminent men to devise and suggest to the legislature a measure to deal with the question. Sometimes the Constitution contains a provision that the judges shall report upon all defects in the judicial system in order that the needed reform may be thereupon carried. Such are the roundabout ways in which efforts are made to supply the want of capacity in the legislators, and the absence of a proper system of co-operation between the executive and legislative departments.

There is in State legislators, particularly in the West, a

restlessness which, coupled with their limited range of knowledge and undue appreciation of material interests, makes them rather dangerous. Meeting for only a few weeks in the year, or probably in two years, they are alarmingly active during those weeks, and run measures through whose results are not apprehended till months afterwards. It is for this reason, no less than from the fear of jobbery, that the meeting of the legislature is looked forward to with anxiety by the "good citizens" in these communities, and its departure hailed as a deliverance.

Both this restlessness and the general character of State legislation are illustrated by the enormous numbers of bills introduced in each session, comparatively few of which pass, because the time is too short, or opposing influences can be brought to bear on the committees.

Nothing is more remarkable about these State legislators than their timidity. No one seems to think of having an opinion of his own. In matters which touch the interests of his constituents, a member is, of course, their humble servant. In burning party questions-they are few, and mostly personal- he goes with his party. In questions of general public policy he looks to see how the cat jumps; and is ready to vote for anything which the people, or any active section of the people, cry out for, though of course he may be secretly unfriendly, and may therefore slyly try to spoil a measure. This want of independence has some good results. It enables a small minority of zealous men, backed by a few newspapers, to carry schemes of reform which the majority regard with indifference or hostility. Thus in bodies so depraved as the legislatures of New York and Pennsylvania, bills have lately been passed improving the charters of cities, creating a secret ballot, and even establishing an improved system of appointments to office. A few energetic reformers went to Albany and Harrisburg to strengthen the hands of the little knot of members who battle for good government there, and partly frightened, partly coaxed a majority of the Senate and House into adopting proposals opposed to the interests of professional politicians. Some ten years ago, two or three high-minded and sagacious ladies obtained by their presence at Albany the introduction of reforms into the charitable institutions of New

York City. The ignorance and heedlessness of the "professionals," who do not always see the results of legislative changes, and do not look forward beyond the next few months, help to make such triumphs possible; and thus, as the Bible tells us that the wrath of man shall praise God, the faults of politicians are turned to work for righteousness.

In the recent legislation of many States, especially Western States, there is a singular mixture of philanthropy and humanitarianism with the folly and jobbery I have described, like threads of gold and silver woven across a warp of dirty sacking. Every year sees bills passed to restrict the sale of liquor, to prevent the sale of indecent or otherwise demoralizing literature, to protect women and children, to stamp out lotteries and gambling houses, to improve the care of the blind, the insane, and the poor, which testify to a warm and increasing interest in all good works. These measures are to be explained, not merely by that power which an active and compact minority enjoys of getting its own way against a crowd of men bent each on his own private gain, and therefore not working together for other purposes, but also by the real sympathy which many of the legislators, especially in the rural districts, feel for morality and for suffering. Even the corrupt politicians of Albany were moved by the appeals of the philanthropic ladies to whom I have referred; much more then would it be an error to think of the average legislator as a bad man, merely because he will join in a job, or deal unfairly with a railroad. Laxity in the discharge of a political trust is a kind of fault which in some parts of the country is considered a comparatively venal offence. It is also one which is often hard to prove, even where grave suspicion exists. The newspapers accuse everybody; the ordinary citizen can seldom tell who is innocent and who is guilty. He makes a sort of compromise in his own mind by thinking nobody quite black, but everybody gray. And he goes on to think that what everybody does cannot be very sinful.

CHAPTER XLIV

REMEDIES FOR THE FAULTS OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

THE defects in State governments, which our examination of their working has disclosed, are not those we should have expected. It might have been predicted, and it was at one time believed, that these authorities, consumed by jealousy and stimulated by ambition, would have been engaged in constant efforts to extend the sphere of their action and encroach on the National government. This does not happen, and seems most unlikely to happen. The people of each State are now not more attached to the government of their own commonwealth than to the Federal government of the nation, whose growth has made even the greatest State seem insignificant beside it.

A study of the frame of State government, in which the executive department is absolutely severed from the legislative, might have suggested that the former would become too independent, misusing its powers for personal or party purposes, while public business would suffer from the want of concert between the two great authorities, that which makes and that which carries out the law.

This also has proved in practice to be no serious evil. The legislature might indeed conceivably work better if the governor, or some of his chief officials, could sit in it and exercise an influence on its deliberations. Such an adaptation of the English cabinet system has, however, never been thought of for American States; and the example of the provincial legislatures of Canada, in each of which there is a responsible ministry sitting in the legislature, does not seem to have recommended it for imitation. Those who founded the State governments did not desire to place any executive leaders in a representative assembly. Probably they were rather inclined to fear that the governor, not being accountable to the