third house, the lobby, not provided by the Constitution and yet practically a component part of every General Assembly. Its members dealt with lawmakers as being upon the same plane as lawbreakers, for they were organized, one section of them at least as the public was informed by the chief, upon the model of the secret service of the United States. The always vicious and often criminal methods of the lobby involved in their discredit all efforts to influence legislation however open and honorable the methods employed. The business of the lobby was sometimes to obtain a grant, but usually to see that nothing was done. Its members led in the hue and cry against overlegislation as disturbing to business and yet that their own business might not suffer, they frequently instigated the very measures they reprehended. They made no attempt to mould public opinion, but only to influence the action of public representatives. The member of weak moral fiber was debased and degraded by association with them and the honest man was often constrained to approve whatever they opposed to keep himself above suspicion of their influence. At the most, they could only hinder and delay and what they prevented at one session was often enacted at another in more radical form.

Lobbying contracts have always been held to be illegal, but this did not restrain the practice. It was denounced in constitutions, in statutes and in legislative rules and flourished in spite of them all. There was no definition or regulation of what might properly be done, and the lobbyist, unless detected in flagrant crime, moved upon the same footing with men who represented legitimate interests in a legitimate way. Wisconsin ten years ago passed an act to regulate the practice of legislative counsel, requiring registration of counsel and publicity as to his operations and the interests represented by him. Similar laws have been passed from time to time in other states and this year marks the passage of such laws in Kansas and New Hampshire. These laws all recognize the right of any interest affected by proposed legislation to be heard before committees or at the bar of the House, and honorable men under such a system may render honorable service before a legislative body without incurring reproach. The members of

our association are peculiarly interested in this reform, for the lobbyist nearly always professed himself to be a lawyer, although his legal learning was often limited to the text and glosses of the constitutional provision against self-incrimination.

Nearly all of the states added to their laws governing the conduct of primaries and general elections, with the purpose to protect the integrity of the ballot and to secure a greater measure of intelligence and independence in the exercise of the suffrage. The selection of judges has been, and in most of our states still is, accomplished through party machinery, but there is a growing sense that the judiciary should, as far as possible, be divorced from partisan politics. Kansas provides that so far as state offices are concerned, men holding judicial positions may be candidates only for judicial positions. In Montana all nominations for judgeships must be by petition. In North Dakota, alike at the primaries and at the general elections, there is to be a separate judiciary ballot and on this the names of candidates will appear without party designation. Nebraska went to the extreme of not only prohibiting party nominations, but also the endorsement, recommendation, censure or criticism of candidates for judicial office by any party convention or at any primary. This act has been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the state as denying the right of criticism in matters of public interest. There are currents and counter currents in our public life, and the State of Washington has reverted from non-partisan primary nominations to judicial nominations by party conventions. This, however, is said to be due to the peculiar character of the primary law which was believed to defeat in practice the very purpose it was framed to serve.

Five states adopted resolutions in favor of an amendment to the federal Constitution making United States Senators elective by popular vote. Four states provide for Senatorial nominations at party primaries. Regardless of amendment to the Constitution, Senators in some of the states are now elected by popular vote, for the legislature simply registers the decree rendered at the polls, as has always been done by our electoral colleges.

Colorado has blazed a new way for itself in the conduct of

politics. There can be no contributions for election purposes, except by candidates and the state itself. Ten days after nominations are made by any political party, the state treasurer is to pay to the state chairman of the party a sum equal to twenty-five cents for each vote cast by the party at the previous general election, one-half of this to be turned over on a like basis to the county chairmen for use in their respective counties, the other half to be used by the state committee for general campaign purposes. Candidates may contribute for general purposes or for their own campaign expenses 40 per cent of the first year's salary of the office to which they aspire. No provision is made for new organizations or independent movements, except the negative one prohibiting contributions to or for any candidate, except by the candidate himself. This may not be wearing the livery of the state to serve the party in, but it looks very much like it.

To prevent the evil influence of the free pass in public affairs, New Jersey requires her railroads to carry her officials free during their terms of office. The officials retain all the benefits of free passes, but are relieved from the obligation of gratitude. Idaho and New Hampshire with more robust virtue dispense with both.

Americans have been peculiarly sensitive to criticism by foreigners. They have invariably resented unfavorable opinions of themselves or their institutions in whatever spirit expressed as Mrs. Trollope and Charles Dickens both discovered. There is to this one notable exception and that is as to the government of our large cities. Mr. Bryce, in his American Commonwealth, says, "There is no denying that the government of cities is the one conspicuous failure of the United States." This so far from being resented has been repeated with unctious approval by our own writers a thousand times. For years it was in terms as of acquiescence in the inevitable, but in recent years it is announced as in recognition of the necessity for radical improvement. In every section of the country, in large cities and in small, and in towns and villages as well, there is a movement for the revision of municipal charters. The spirit of civic reform is universal, but its manifestations are various. We have the Des Moines plan

upon the one hand, with its close commission of five members, in whom all the city's powers are vested, and upon the other hand, the Newport plan, which harks back as closely as possible to the town meeting with its House of Representatives of one hundred and ninety-five members. The general tendency, however, is to a small number of elective offices, that there may be less opportunity for intrigue and combination in securing nominations, and that the electors may know something of those for whom they vote. It is coming to be seen that the elective principle is weakened by diffusion and that when many officers are to be elected few, if any, are really chosen by the people. Also that too many checks and balances are hindrances to efficiency of action and are not necessarily guarantees of integrity. The round robin of irresponsibility which existed during the Tweed regime and was so well illustrated in the cartoon of Thomas Nast, is to be abolished. In nearly every case, wherever a new system has been adopted, whatever it may be, it is reported as an improvement over the old, due in large measure to the fact that the same public spirit which brought about the change has thus far attended the change in its operation and so long as this is true, it will be well, but no system of government will avail without perpetual vigilance, for this is the price of integrity as well as liberty.

In many instances party nominations are prohibited, and all candidacies are to be by petition of voters and to be passed upon. at a general primary, the nominees of the primary to be placed upon a ticket for the general election without party designation. Nominations for municipal offices made by parties organized on lines of national policy are certainly illogical, and yet party spirit is not to be utterly condemned, for there is in it something of public spirit. If it were wholly bad our national government must be a failure. It is easy to conceive of something better than our Republican and Democratic organizations for purely municipal purposes, and it is easy also to conceive of something worse. When they are debarred what shall take their place? In the selection of judges, the profession of the law is always concerned and as its members represent every element and every interest in the

community, they may be depended upon for a constant stimulus to the public zeal. But how will it be as to municipal affairs?

Under present conditions the vote cast at a city election is usually a light one. Will it be larger when parties are eliminated? Some persons we know will be deeply concerned and ready at all times to sponsor the work of the city government. Public service companies, franchise seekers, contractors and placemen, these will readily form alliances to do what others neglect and who will there be to oppose them? Will the civic leagues which are formed to promote charter revision continue long in the field after this work is done? Past history is not altogether encouraging. Movements for municipal reform while accomplishing great specific good have usually been short lived and have rarely survived their own success, while the forces overthrown by them have risen from defeat as if from it they had derived new vigor. This is the serious side of the city problem which no mere law or charter will solve.

Cities cannot be governed altogether like private corporations. The purpose is an entirely different one. It is not pecuniary profit, but the public good. And the principle of control is not the same. Citizens may be likened to shareholders, but it is to be remembered that in private corporations, the power resides with the greatest number of shares, even though these be held in one hand, while in the case of cities each shareholder has the same measure of power. The management of private corporations has usually been honest and largely because the personal interest of those in charge has been identical with the interest of the company. Where this has not been so, where the interests have been diverse, the management of private companies has disclosed sometimes a disregard of duty as flagrant as anything in the history of our great cities. Good business methods are indispensable, and here we may learn much from the companies, but beyond these, there must be a public spirit which will maintain an active and constant zeal for the municipal welfare, bring the best men always into the city's service and support them always in their well doing, for the most beneficent political institution human ingenuity can devise is a good man in the right place.