Frequent Elections

The practical objection, however, is that it is difficult to discover when any particular government accurately represents public opinion and that if some authority were vested with the power of deciding when an election should be held it could readily enter into ways of usurpation. Indeed, it was this practical objection which led the founders of American governments to adopt the principle of "frequent elections." Previous to the Revolution, the tenure of the governors in the royal colonies was at the king's pleasure and those governors had the power of dissolving the assemblies and calling new elections. When the royal element was eliminated and elected governors were created, the fear of the royal executive which formerly entertained was carried over to the elected executive, and the power of appealing to the voters to ascertain popular will at any one time was taken away altogether. Lest usurpation might occur, it was thought better to risk the waste of frequent elections which resulted in no material changes rather than to invite the dangers incident to long possession of power.

Longer Tenure and Provision for Reference of Issues to Electorate

As confidence in democracy advanced, however, it was seen that the fear of the executive which had been entertained when he was a royal officer was unfounded when he was elected by popular vote. Accordingly, the term of the governor was quite generally increased from one year to two and in many instances to four years, although in New York it has been reduced from three to two. It would seem that by this time confidence of democracy in its own capacity for self government had advanced far enough to grant to elected officers and agents of the government four year terms, particularly if a method is provided for getting issues on which there is a deadlock before the people by call of the executive or other means of "recall." (See below, p. 79.)

Present Tenures Not Consistent with Requirements of Responsive,

Responsible and Efficient Government

At all events, from the point of view of responsiveness, the present constitution which gives to the senators and the governor a two years' term and to the assembly a term of a single year is indefensible. It was not devised for the purpose of making the government responsive but to prevent it from being immediately responsive. The senate was originally a class body representing the landed class of the state, and it was given a longer term in order to endow it with greater weight against the more popular house, the assembly. When, however, the two houses were placed on the same basis as to the suffrage (see above, p. 18), this reason disappeared, but the longer term was preserved in order to prevent

BILITY OF THE GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE AND
CHART IV.-SHOWING PRESCRIBED METHODS OF APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL,
GROUPED TO BRING OUT THE INTERMINGLING OF RESPONSI-

OFFICERS.

OTHER

KEY TO CHART IV.-SHOWING METHODS OF APPOINTMENT

AND REMOVAL REGROUPED TO SHOW INTERMINGLING OF RESPONSIBILITY. KEY то SYMBOLS AND LINES APPEARS ON CHART PAGE 44a. NUMBERS REFER TO ᏚᎪᎷᎬ ᏟᎻᎪᎡᎢ .

the government from responding immediately to a popular election of assemblymen.

The confusion introduced by this system is of course apparent. If the election of assemblymen results in the return of a party in opposition to that in control of the senate, friction, irresponsibility and, usually, contemptible petty politics result. If the election of assemblymen returns to power the party in possession of the senate, no good has accrued to anyone, and the state has been put to an enormous expense. The same reasoning applies to the introduction of any diversity of terms in the case of the governor and the legislature.

From the point of view of responsibility, it may be said that the shorter the term the slighter are the opportunities for the incumbents to learn their duties and, therefore, the less the justification for imposing any genuine responsibility upon them. If, however, a long term without possibility of removal is introduced, the greater is the opportunity to shirk responsibility when power is once secured. Of the two evils, the former, namely, the short term, is open to the more serious objection: it has been tried and found wanting. Unless the new constitution, like all former constitutions, is to be founded on the principle of negation, an experiment of greater promise, surrounded by proper safeguards, should be tried.

When responsibility and efficiency are taken into consideration, there is a special objection to diversity of terms within the executive department of the government. It is a matter of common observation that no sane person will assume responsibility for the effective conduct of a large enterprise if he has no power over the selection of the important subordinates who are to assist him. Yet, when a governor is inaugurated in New York, and undertakes the exercise of the executive power vested in him by the constitution, he finds himself at the head of a staff of officers already installed for two, three, four or five years, as the case may be, and able to resist his power of removal in most instances by political combinations in the senate. So far as the constitution is responsible for this violation of the ordinary rules of business enterprise, it cannot be criticized too severely. (See below, pp. 91-92.)

This system of overlapping tenures, so far as it is founded on principle, is based on the theory of negation, namely, that the governor cannot be entrusted with power adequate to discharge the trust imposed in him. In a large measure, however, it is the result of accident, temporary expedients and party considerations. Whatever the reason, it is incompatible with constructive principles of government based upon practical experience in the conduct of private affairs.

CONDITIONS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

Provisions Governing Promotion in the Public Service

In forming a government which, it is hoped, will make for greater efficiency in the public service, the fundamental task of providing methods for maintaining an administrative personnel of high quality, requires a careful review of the question of how to make it possible for able men and women to find careers in official life, through an orderly and equitable process of promotion. That the shifting of civil servants to private employment is responsible in a large measure for the constant derangement of public business has often been the subject of remark and requires no extended comment here. In searching for the cause of that evil, many discerning men have traced it to the lack of that opportunity to rise in the service of the state which is afforded in private life, in other words, to an absence of proper facilities for promotion to high positions in the government. This affects the entire service, for efficient work in the lower branches is not to be expected where no human rewards can accrue from it.

This continual transfer of able civil servants to private life weakens administration in a manner still more serious; it cripples the government in dealing with powerful private agencies, because the servants of the former are all too often rewarded by promotions to the service of the latter when they are sufficiently pliant. Where the state must, in the exercise of its police and other powers, constantly antagonize private interests, it can only hope to perform its tasks well by possessing a body of loyal officers and employees who look to the public service for their careers and not to private employments. The changed circumstances of modern economic life, therefore, require that the government shall have a body of trained servants whose first loyalty through a life career is to the state and not to private interests. In order to establish and maintain this body, provisions must be made for a system of promotions that will quickly reward loyal and efficient service to the state. In the face of such a problem, the mere provision that promotions, so far as practicable, shall be based on examinations is pitiably inadequate.

The civil service reform movement, when launched nearly half a century ago, was primarily negative in character. It was concerned with the "overthrow of the spoils system," to use the favorite slogan of the time. It has only been within the last few years that a constructive ideal has begun to appear in the study and formulation of a complete program for surrounding the official personnel of the government with those conditions which not merely prevent partisan evils, but are at the same time conducive to the highest standards of responsive and efficient government. This constructive program, although in the early stages of its development, is now occupying the interest of all persons who seek