The committee went on to say: "There is hardly a State of our Union in which the Congressional districts are not gerrymandered in the interests of party."

which the outer district nearly encircled the rest of the county and presented a rude resemblance to an animal, added with his pencil a beak to the upper end and claws below, exclaiming, “There, that will do for a Salamander!" "Salamander!" said Mr. Russell, the editor. "I call it a Gerrymander!" The saying was repeated, and a rude cut of the figure published in the Sentinel and in the

Salem Gazette with the natural history of the monster duly set forth, served to fix the word in the political vocabulary of the country. So efficient, we are told, "was the law that at the elections of 1812, 50,163 Democratic voters elected twenty-nine senators against eleven elected by 55,766 Federalists; and Essex county, which, when voting as a single district, had sent five Federalists to the Senate, was now represented in that body by three Democrats and two Federalists. It was repealed in 1814, and the death and burial of the monster were celebrated in prose and verse throughout the country" (American "Law Review," pp. 28, 29).

Again, the same committee observed that the system of single seats "has not secured fair representation of political interests, while it has continued in existence in a somewhat mitigated form the evils of the plan of selection by general ticket. Besides the single district plan has called into existence inconveniences peculiar to itself, and which did not attach to the former plan. It excludes from Congress men of ability and merit, whose election was possible before, and thus exerts a baneful influence upon the constitution of the House. Two causes operate to this end; in the first place, no man who adheres to a minority in any particular district can be returned, and next, great rapidity of change is produced by fluctuation of party power in the district. Single districts will almost always be unfairly made. They will be formed in the interest of party." One great evil of the American system, as they pointed out, was that members were never secure in their seats; that, in fact, a large number in the House only sat for a single term. And of this they reported that the system of single seats was the chief The single seat system had carried the idea of local representation to excess. The insecurity of their seats, they stated, prevented members from devoting themselves to public business with zeal and confidence. They were engaged in a perpetual struggle for existence. "In brief," the committee said, "his time and his efforts, instead of being expended for the public, must be expended on personal objects, if he desires to remain for any considerable time a representative of the people.

cause.

66

Undoubtedly, many of the best men of the country must be deterred from entering upon a Congressional career, continuance in which requires such sacrifices to an evil system, so much of unpleasant effort attended with uncertainty and probable mortification." And, in conclusion, they endorsed the opinion of Mr. John Stuart Mill, that the result of the single-member system, which Parliament has now adopted here, had in the United States brought things to such a pass, that it is an admitted fact that in the American democracy, which is constructed on this faulty model, the highly cultivated members of the community, except such as are willing to sacrifice their own judgment and conscience to the behests of party, and become the servile echo of those who are their inferiors in knowledge, do not allow their names as candidates for Congress or the Legislatures, so certain it is they would be defeated."

Lord Spencer also has pointed out in the House of Lords that "in America for many years past great complaints have been made that large numbers of persons, men of influence, of intellect, of wealth and position, refrained from taking any part in political life. Why was that? Because they felt that they were a hopeless minority, whose opinions were crushed by the overwhelming mass of the majority."

In France, again, where the system of single seats has also been tried, it has been found to work so badly that

the Chamber has recently decided to relinquish it by the enormous majority of 410 to 67.1

It is hardly necessary to point out how the system of single seats limits the freedom of the elector. The Liberal Committee put forward one candidate, the Conservative another, and all the elector can do is to choose between them. Perhaps the elector does not approve of either. This is no doubt one reason why, in large constituencies, we see so many abstentions. But, however little he may be disposed to support either candidate, he cannot bring forward a third without dividing his party, and generally ensuring the return of a political opponent.

Professor Ware, of Columbia College, New York, has forcibly pointed out that under this system, though the elector is "nominally free to vote for whom he pleases, the knowledge that his vote is thrown away unless it is given for the regular candidate binds him hand and foot."

Again, this system has a tendency to promote bribery. It often happens that in a constituency the two great parties are evenly balanced, and a few votes suffice to turn the scale. There may be, say, 2,500 Liberals, 2,500 Conservatives, and 250 persons with no political views. In the hands of these last, then, the whole representation rests. If the agent of either party purchases 100, or 50, nay, even 10 of them, the weight of the constituency is thrown into the scale of the party for which he acts.

Again, and for a similar reason, the system of single seats greatly increases the influence of small cliques. The Times, March 23, 1885.

Wherever the two great parties are evenly divided, a small section of 100, or even 50 electors, who may be sufficiently enthusiastic to subordinate all other considerations, say, to the question of vaccination, are in a position to put great pressure on a candidate. Of this they are perfectly aware. In one of my earlier political contests I had an amusing illustration. The supporters of a particular measure asked me to see them one afternoon at six. They came, however, an hour before the time. I told them I was glad to see them, but had not expected them so soon. The spokesman hesitated a little, and then said that I was quite right: they were coming at six, when they proposed to bring a reporter and press me on the subject; but that they were anxious for my success, and fearing that I might not know how weak they were in the constituency, they had come privately to put me on my guard, for fear I should say too much. I thanked them for their consideration, and they went away, returning again at six with a reporter. At this second interview they pressed me strongly, but I stood as firm as a rock. It is not always, however, that constituents are so thoughtful.

There has been much difference of opinion expressed as to whether the single seat system will secure a representation of minorities or not. This depends very much on the sense in which the term is used.

Those who support the single member system appear to be under the impression that if constituencies were