member of the Democratic party, although there are thousands of Democrats in the State. To secure a representation for the minority numerous devices have been proposed. Two of these have been practically applied. The first is known as the "limited vote" plan. When a group of three officers is to be chosen in a district, as, for example, three commissioners in a county, if no person is allowed to vote for more than two candidates, one of the three successful candidates may be a member of the political party which is in a minority. This plan has been adopted in Pennsylvania in the election of county officers. The second device for representing the minority involves the plan of "cumulative voting." Under this plan each voter may cast as many votes as there are candidates for office, and may distribute his votes or give them all to one candidate. By concentrating their votes upon one candidate a minority can generally secure representation. Cumulative voting has been practiced for many years in Illinois.

The People and their Representatives. In a representative democracy government on election-day passes out of the hands of the people for a time into the hands of their chosen agents. In the long run these agents will be like the people they represent. If the voters want good government their representatives will give it to them. As William Penn said: "Governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad; for if it be ill they will cure it. But if men be bad, let the government be ever so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil to their turn. I know some say let us have good laws and no matter for the men that execute them; but let them consider that though good laws do well, good men do better, for good laws may want good men and be abolished by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer ill ones." The truth and logic of these words cannot be escaped. The character of a government depends upon the voters who control it. It is of little use

to scold our representatives, for they are one with us. When we become better they will become better. Nor should we attempt to shift responsibility from ourselves to our representatives. Representation is a device of great convenience, But it cannot work political magic. It cannot remove the burden of responsibility from the shoulders of the individual. When we assume the task of self-government we assume personal duties which no political contrivance will enable us to escape.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

1. What is a representative government?

2. What is a republic?

3. Contrast pure democracy with representative democracy?

4. Give an account of the growth of representative government in England.

5. What has been the history of representative government in the United States?

6. State the principles which govern in the United States in the matter of representation.

7. State two devices by which the minority may be represented. 8. Show that representatives are like their constituents.

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES

1. Name the four essentials of a good representative system. See Bryce, Vol. I, p. 296.

2. Distinguish between a "delegate" and a "representative.'' 3. What qualities are developed in the citizen of a pure democracy? Which is better for the individual, a direct or an indirect democracy? 4. In a number of the States local affairs-especially school affairsare managed by the people meeting as a pure democracy. State the advantages and disadvantages of this custom.

5. In England voters sometimes choose as a representative one who does not reside among themselves. Give reasons for and against such a

custom.

6. Give illustrations of representative bodies that are not political. 7. Arrange the following forms of government according to merit, placing the best first: Oligarchy, absolute monarchy, representative democracy, aristocracy, anarchy, pure democracy, limited monarchy.

8. Answer the following questions in reference to the relations that should exist between a representative and his constituents: Under what circumstances will a representative be justified in opposing the wishes of the people who elected him? If the wishes of the voters change after election, should the representative act according to the changed

views of his constituents? Should the representative under all circumstances act according to his own judgment? Should he abide by the promises made before his election? Should he resign if his views do not accord with the views of his constituents? When a representative is instructed by his constituents as to a course of action should he obey the instructions?

9. The Recall. In some places the people keep their representatives under complete control by means of a political device known as the "'recall.'' Where the recall is in use the voters, upon the complaint or petition of a certain number of citizens, vote upon the question whether a certain officer shall be deprived of (recalled from) his office before his term expires and if the vote is in favor of the officer's removal he must give up his office before the end of his term. The recall is in operation in a number of cities along the Pacific Coast, and in several of the cities governed by the commission system (p. 222). It is also in general operation in the State of Oregon. What do you think of the recall as a political contrivance?

Topics for Special Work.-Representative Government: 4, 174-183. Four Essentials of a Representative System: 2, 217-218. The Limited and Cumulative Vote: 13, 86–98. The Recall: 30, 526–527.

IV

THE THREE DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT

How the Power of Government is Separated. The people of a free state will not confer all the power of government upon one person, or upon one body of persons. Experience has taught that it is better to divide governmental power into three portions, and to establish three departments of government, allotting to each department its own peculiar portion. The three departments of a popular government are: (1) The legislative department, upon which is conferred the power of making laws; (2) the judicial department, which is entrusted with the power of deciding how the law shall apply in particular cases when disputes arise; (3) the executive department, which is vested with the power of enforcing laws.

The Development of the Three-Department System. In the earliest times the king was legislator, judge, and executive: he made the law, he sat in judgment upon those charged with violating it, and he enforced the penalties against the guilty. Later, but still very early in the history of politics, the king began to share the power of government with a council of elders (p. 5). The council expressed the will of the state and the king executed what the council advised. Here was the first separation of governmental power. The growth of democracy in the ancient world brought a further separation. We find that in Athens as early as 500 B.C. there were lawmakers and judges and executive officers. It must not be thought, however, that in ancient times the three depart

ments were fully developed, and that each department was entrusted only with power of a certain kind. Athenian lawmakers sometimes did what only judges ought to do, and Athenian judges would sometimes do what only law-makers ought to do.

In the early history of England the folkmoot exercised legislative, judicial, and executive powers, but along with the development of representative government there was developed a system of distributing the powers to three great departments. Parliament confined itself chiefly to making laws, a class learned in the law acted as judges, and the king carried the law into effect. The lines that divided the three departments were not always clear, and one department frequently encroached upon another. In the seventeenth century a king (James I) ventured to sit on the bench as a judge, but his conduct was universally condemned. The protest which arose against the encroachment of James shows that Englishmen then had learned to draw the lines that should separate the departments, and in the struggle which followed it was settled that these lines should not be blurred or effaced. In 1765 the most celebrated expounder of English law (Blackstone) could say that in England the three departments of government were separate and distinct.

The Three-Department System in the United States. In America the lines which divide the three departments from each other are quite distinct and clear. In very few instances shall we find one branch doing what properly belongs to another branch. When the founders of the republic distributed the powers to the three departments they took great care that judges should do only the work of judges, that legislatures should only make laws, and that executives should be concerned only with the carrying out of laws, and they placed around each department effectual barriers against encroachment by the other departments. And the policy of the fathers has been continued to the present time. In the United States political power is everywhere distributed