Government in the United States, National, State and Local

Convention Committees.– Frequently rival delegations appear from some county or district, and the convention must decide which one is entitled to seats. Questions of this kind are referred to the committee on credentials, which, after hearing both sides, reports to the convention recommending which delegation shall be seated, and the recommendation of the committee usually, though not always, is approved. Sometimes, however, both contesting delegations are seated, each delegate being allowed half a vote.

The committee on rules frames the rules of procedure by which the business of the convention is to be transacted; its report is usually adopted without alteration.

The committee on permanent organization proposes the names of candidates for permanent chairman, secretary, and such other officers of the convention as may be needed. The officers suggested by this committee are usually elected, though sometimes the convention elects a different ticket.

The chairman of the committee on resolutions presents a draft of the platform, which is adopted by the convention, usually, though not always, without change.

The Nominations.– The convention is now ready for the chief business for which it was called, namely, the nomination of candidates which the party desires to put forward for the offices to be filled at the coming election. The names of the candidates are usually presented to the convention in highly eulogistic speeches, and the nominations are generally seconded by one or more delegates. The balloting then proceeds until the nominations are all made. Sometimes where more than two candidates are placed in nomination no one of them is able to secure a majority, and a "deadlock" ensues, lasting maybe for days or even weeks, and terminated by the nomination of a "dark horse."

Objections to the Convention Method.– When deadlocks occur, the "dark horse" chosen is likely to be an inferior candidate. Another objection to the method of nomination by convention is that the nominations are frequently determined by a small number of leaders or "bosses" who control the convention, and thus the nominations do not represent the choice of the party. How a convention may be thus controlled by a few politicians is thus stated by a careful writer who is fully conversant with party methods:23

"The program of the convention, in practice, is almost always decided upon down to the minutest detail, before the convention meets. The party leader, or 'boss,' and his lieutenants discuss the relative claims of candidates and decide who shall be nominated. The party platform is written and submitted to the 'boss' for his approval. The officers of the convention are agreed upon and their speeches revised. All this is outside the law, which ignores the existence of the party leader and assumes that the delegates are free to exercise their own judgment. The real interest in the convention is usually centered in the secret conferences of the leaders which precede it and in which the contests over the nominations are fought out, sometimes with much stubbornness. The 'slate' is finally made up by agreement between leaders who control a majority of the delegates in the convention. The leaders of the minority may either surrender or they may register their protest by presenting the names of other candidates in the convention with the certainty of defeat, for it is rare in state conventions that there is so equal a division of strength as to leave the result in doubt.

"While the leaders are settling what the convention is to do, the delegates are left to their own devices, ignorant of what is going on in the 'headquarters' where the leaders are assembled. They are not consulted and their advice is not asked. It often happens that they do not know whom they are to nominate until they hear for the first time in the convention hall the names of the candidates agreed upon by the leaders. Although the law gives them the right to bring forward the names of other candidates, they seldom exercise it, and the delegate bold enough to disobey orders is regarded with disapproval."

Nomination by the People: the Direct Primary.– About 1889, because of growing dissatisfaction with the convention system, some of the states began to experiment with the method of popular nomination, that is, direct nomination by the primary instead of by convention. Instead of calling on the voters to choose delegates to a convention to which the task of nomination was intrusted, they were now called upon to vote directly for the candidates themselves. It was said that if the voters were competent to choose delegates to a convention they were equally competent to select the candidates themselves. The movement for the direct primary, as it was called, spread rapidly particularly in the South and West. Thus the convention has been done away with in a large number of states except where it is still retained to frame platforms, appoint the central committee, and select delegates to the national convention, and in some states it has been abolished even for these purposes, other means having been provided for taking care of these matters.

Objections.– The direct primary has been criticized because under it candidates for state offices need to canvass the entire state in order to become acquainted with the voters – a task which requires much time and is very expensive. Such a system, it is argued, gives the candidate of leisure and wealth a decided advantage over the poor man who cannot afford the large expense involved.

The direct primary method, however, has given general satisfaction where it has been adopted.

Nomination by Petition.– While most candidates for public office are nominated by the recognized political parties, the laws of many states allow candidates to be nominated also by petition of independent voters. The procedure of nomination by petition is for the candidate or his friends to prepare a nomination paper or petition containing the title of the office to be filled, together with the name and residence of the candidate, get a certain number of voters to sign it, and then file it with the proper election officer. The number of signatures necessary to nominate varies according to the nature of the office to be filled and the population of the district or territory over which the jurisdiction of the office extends. Thus in New York a petition for the nomination of a candidate for a state office must contain the signatures of at least 12,000 legal voters (including at least 50 from each county), while in Massachusetts 1,000 is sufficient. For the nomination of candidates for local offices the number of petitioners required is smaller. Thus in New York candidates for the legislature may be nominated by 500 voters; in Massachusetts candidates for local offices may be nominated by petitions signed by one per cent of the number of voters.

References.– Beard, American Government and Politics, chs. vii, xxx. Bryce, The American Commonwealth (abridged edition), ch. xlv. Fuller, Government by the People, chs. iv, v, xi. Hart, Actual Government, ch. v. Merriam, Primary Elections, chs. i, v.

Documentary and Illustrative Material.– 1. Legislative manual or blue book of the state. 2. Copy of the primary election law of the state. 3. Democratic and Republican campaign textbooks. 4. Copies of party platforms. 5. Specimen ballots. 6. Copies of delegates' credentials, nomination certificates, petitions, etc.

Research Questions

1. Do you consider political parties essential under a system of popular government? Would it be better if there were in each state of the Union at least two strong political parties instead of one, as is virtually the case in some of the Southern states as well as in some of the North?

2. Do you think every voter ought to join some political party and support its candidates and policies? Suppose he does not approve the candidates which it has nominated and the policies which it has adopted, what should he do? Ought independent voting to be encouraged? If so, why?

3. How many votes were cast by the Democratic party in your state for governor at the last election? How many by the Republican party?

4. How is the state central committee of each party constituted in your state? Who are the members from your county or district?

5. At what places were the last state conventions of the Democratic and Republican parties held in your state? How many delegates were there in each?

6. How are municipal officers nominated in your state?

7. Is there a primary law in your state? If so, what are its provisions?

8. Has the method of nomination by direct primary been introduced into your state? If so, to what offices does it apply? How are members of party committees selected? What test does the primary law of your state provide for participation in the primary? Does it permit the people to express their choice for United States senator? In what order are candidates arranged on the primary ballot? Did a large proportion of the voters take part in the last primary election? What is the date fixed for holding the primary?

9. Are any officers nominated in your state by conventions?

10. If candidates are nominated by a direct primary in your state, what is the method devised for preparing the platform of the party?

CHAPTER IX

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNION

The Articles of Confederation.– The Continental Congress, which managed the common affairs of the Union during the early stages of the Revolution, was a body whose authority was not defined by any constitution or fundamental law. It assumed large powers in the belief that the people, relying upon its patriotism and wisdom, would acquiesce in its acts. As yet, however, the states were not closely united, and each was free to go its own way. As time passed, the advantages of union became more manifest, and the states began to recognize the desirability of creating a common government with larger powers and with definite authority. After a debate lasting off and on for more than a year, Congress adopted in November, 1777, an instrument called the Articles of Confederation, which was to go into effect when ratified by all the states.

Ratification of the Articles.– During the years 1778 and 1779, all the states except Maryland ratified the Articles. Maryland withheld her approval because she doubted the advantage of a union among states, some of which held vast territory in the West while some did not. The states claiming lands northwest of the Ohio River were Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. As these lands had been wrested from Great Britain while that power was weakened by her war with all the states, Maryland insisted, as a condition to her adhesion, that the states claiming these lands should surrender them to the nation for the benefit of all the states. This argument appealed to the sense of patriotism and justice of the states claiming this northwestern territory, and in the course of the next few years they ceded most of their lands to the United States for the common benefit. When it became certain that this would be done, Maryland ratified the Articles, and the Confederation of the states was completed.

Government under the Articles.– The Confederation thus formed was styled a "firm league of friendship" under the name of "the United States of America," and its declared purpose was to provide for the common defense of the states, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare. To secure these ends the states bound themselves to assist each other against all attacks upon either or all of them, upon any pretense whatever.

For the management of certain affairs common to the states composing the Confederation, the Articles provided for an annual Congress of delegates to be chosen by the states, no state to be represented by less than two members or more than seven. Unlike the Continental Congress, the Congress of the Confederation was given express power to deal with certain affairs, and therefore it did not have to assume the powers it exercised. Among these were the power to declare war and make peace; to send and receive diplomatic representatives; to enter into treaties; to make rules regarding captures on the high seas; to grant letters of marque and reprisal; to settle disputes between the states, upon petition of the disputants; to regulate the alloy and value of coin, whether struck under the authority of Congress or by the states; to fix the standard of weights and measures throughout the United States; to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians; to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces; to establish post offices; and a few other powers of a like character.

No provision, however, was made for an executive department or for a national judiciary, with the single exception of a court of appeal in cases involving captures on the high seas in time of war.

Prohibitions on the States.– In the interest of the general peace and security, the states were forbidden, except with the consent of Congress, to send diplomatic representatives to foreign countries, or enter into treaties or alliances, or levy any duties on articles imported from abroad, if such duties should conflict with the provisions of foreign treaties; or keep ships of war in times of peace; or engage in war; or grant letters of marque and reprisal.

Defects of the Articles of Confederation.– Although the Articles of Confederation proved of great value in securing concert of action among the states in certain matters, the weaknesses of the union which they created and the defects of the governmental machinery provided by them soon proved serious.

The States Retained too Much Power.– The union turned out to be the loosest sort of a league, in which the states for the most part did as they pleased. Each retained its own sovereignty and could not be compelled to perform its obligations as a member of the Confederation. Some of them deliberately violated the treaty of peace with Great Britain, and the Congress was unable to prevent such infractions. Congress being thus powerless to carry out the stipulations of the treaty, Great Britain refused to perform her obligations thereunder. Since no executive department and no courts were created to enforce and apply the laws passed by Congress, the nation had to depend upon the states to carry out its will.

The Congress was not well Organized.– In the organization and procedure of Congress there were serious defects. No member could serve for more than three years in six, and each state paid its own members and might recall them at pleasure. Thus the dependence of the representative upon his state was emphasized and his character as a national representative minimized. Worse than this was the provision that allowed each state, regardless of its population and size, but one vote in Congress. Thus Georgia with a population of only a few thousand souls enjoyed the same power in all matters of national legislation that Virginia did, although the population of Virginia was some sixteen times as great. Still another serious weakness was the rule which required the assent of nine states to pass any important bill, such as those for borrowing or appropriating money, issuing bills of credit, declaring war, entering into treaties, coining money, building war ships, raising military forces, selecting commanders, and the like. As it was frequently impossible to secure the concurrence of so large a proportion of the states, needed legislation was often prevented by the opposition of a few members or by the lack of a quorum. Thus in April, 1783, there were present only twenty-five members from eleven states, nine being represented by only two members each. It would have been possible, therefore, for three members to defeat any important measure.24

Congress had No Power of Taxation.– Not only were the defects in the organization and procedure of Congress of a serious character, but the powers conferred upon it by the Articles of Confederation were so meager that its authority was little more than a shadow and carried little weight. One of the essential powers of government is that of taxation, yet the Congress had no authority to impose a dollar of taxes on any individual in the land. Money was needed to pay the soldiers who were fighting the battles of the country, to pay the salaries and expenses of diplomatic representatives who had been sent to Europe to negotiate treaties and solicit the aid of foreign friends, to pay interest on loans incurred in France and Holland, to defray the cost of building war ships and equipping the army, and to meet the various other expenses which every government must needs incur, yet the government of the Confederation was powerless to raise the necessary funds by taxation. In the absence of all power to levy and collect taxes, Congress adopted the policy of apportioning the national expenses among the states. But no state could be compelled to contribute a dollar toward its quota; some of them in fact contributed little, and most of those which did respond to the appeal of Congress did so grudgingly and tardily. Of the $15,000,000 apportioned among the states between 1781 and 1786 less than $2,000,000 was actually paid in. Often there was not a dollar in the treasury of the Confederation to pay the obligations of the government.

Two attempts were made to amend the Articles of Confederation so as to give Congress power to levy a five per cent tariff duty on imported goods, but since it required the assent of each of the thirteen states to adopt an amendment, the scheme fell through, in both cases on account of the opposition of a single state.

Congress had No Power to Regulate Commerce, either with foreign countries or among the states themselves. This was a serious defect. Each state had its own tariff system and its own customhouses, and collected its own duties on goods brought into its ports from abroad. As each state was anxious to exploit this source of revenue for itself, it naturally framed its tariff regulations and tonnage laws in such a way as to attract foreign commerce to its own ports. And so it was with regard to commerce among the states themselves. Each framed its trade regulations with its neighbors according to its own selfish interests and without regard to the general good. The result was continual jealousies, dissensions, and sometimes reprisals and retaliations. New York levied an import duty on certain articles brought in from its less fortunate neighbors, Connecticut and New Jersey, and each in turn retaliated as best it could. For purposes of foreign and interstate commerce, each state was a nation itself, and the Confederation was a nonentity.

The Annapolis Convention.– The worst evils described above reached a climax in 1786, and the political leaders of America such as Hamilton and Washington were convinced that the government of the Confederation must either be revised or superseded entirely by a new system. In September, 1786, there assembled at Annapolis, Maryland, a convention of delegates from five states, namely, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia, called at the instance of the legislature of Virginia to take into consideration the subject of uniform trade regulation among the states, the lack of which had come to be one of the chief evils of the Confederation. So few states were represented that the convention decided not to enter upon the business for which it had been called, but instead determined to put forth an effort to bring about the assembling of a convention representing all the states and empowered to take into consideration the question of a general revision of the Articles of Confederation so as to render them more adequate to the needs of the nation. Accordingly, a resolution prepared by Alexander Hamilton, one of the delegates from New York, was adopted, calling on the states to appoint delegates to a convention to be held at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787; Personnel.– In pursuance of this resolution, all the states except Rhode Island promptly appointed delegates, the failure of Rhode Island being due to her satisfaction with the Confederation, under which she enjoyed larger commercial advantages than she could hope to enjoy if the Articles were amended so as to take away from the states their control over commerce. Altogether fifty-five members sat in the convention at one time or another, though only thirty-nine signed the Constitution. From Virginia came George Washington, Edmund Randolph, and James Madison; from Massachusetts, Rufus King and Elbridge Gerry; from Connecticut, William Samuel Johnson and Roger Sherman; from New Hampshire, John Langdon; from New York, Alexander Hamilton; from New Jersey, William Livingston and William Paterson; from Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin, Robert and Gouverneur Morris, Jared Ingersoll, and James Wilson; from Delaware, John Dickinson; and from South Carolina, John Rutledge, Charles Pinckney, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Some of the delegates, as Benjamin Franklin, had been members of the Albany Congress as far back as 1754; some had been members of the Stamp Act Congress of 1765; most of them had served in the Continental or Confederation Congresses; and a number of them were signers of the Declaration of Independence. A great many of them had served in the legislatures of their states, and of the whole number there was not one who had not had some legislative experience.

The Work of the Convention of 1787.– When the convention had been duly organized, "plans" of a proposed constitution were submitted by the delegations of several states, and these became the bases of the discussion which followed.

The Virginia Plan.– The plan submitted by the Virginia delegation represented the views of delegates from the larger and more populous states, and the Constitution as finally adopted embodied more largely the features of this plan than those of any other. The most important resolution of this plan was that a national government ought to be established consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive. This resolution, adopted in committee of the whole, went directly to the root of the chief evil of the existing system, which contained no provision for an executive or a judicial department. It recognized also what has come to be a fundamental doctrine of American political science, namely, the separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

The New Jersey Plan.– The views of delegates from the small states were embodied in the New Jersey plan, which was laid before the convention by William Paterson. In general, the New Jersey plan provided for the retention of the principal features of the existing system, except that it proposed to enlarge the powers of Congress so as to make its authority more effective. This was all, in the judgment of the small states, that was necessary to remove the existing evils.

The Problem of Representation in Congress.– The convention without much discussion decided that Congress should consist of two chambers or houses instead of one as was the case under the Articles of Confederation. This done, the next problem was to determine the basis of representation in each. This proved to be one of the most difficult tasks of the convention. The delegates from the large states insisted that representation in both houses should be based on population, so that a state such as Virginia with sixteen times the population of Georgia should have sixteen times as many representatives in Congress. But to this system of proportional representation, the delegates from the small states objected. They maintained that the importance of a state was not to be measured by its population; that the states were sovereign political entities, and when it came to participation in the government of the nation they were all equal, large and small alike. There was no more reason, said a delegate from one of the small states, why a large state should have more representation in Congress than that a large man should have more votes than a small man. For a time the differences seemed irreconcilable, and more than once it looked as if the convention would be disrupted on this question. The spirit of compromise triumphed, however, and it was finally agreed that the states should be represented equally in the senate but in proportion to their population in the house of representatives. As a result of this rule, Nevada to-day with a population of less than 100,000 sends the same number of senators to Washington as does New York with a population of some 10,000,000 souls. New York, on the other hand, sends forty-three representatives to Congress while Nevada sends but one. This was the first great compromise of the Constitution.