the legislature at the beginning of each session the budget of anticipated receipts and expenditures. There is also a strong tendency to define more generously his power in removal and to increase his power of appointment in the case of officials other than heads of departments. This power he regularly exercises by and with the advice and consent of the senate, though the wisdom of this requirement may be questioned. It is impossible to specify these details by states in so short a space but a comparative study would show great differences in the extent of executive power. In late years the trend towards centralization may be observed in such states as Oregon, Kansas, Nebraska and Ohio; but compare, for example, some of the newer constitutions such as those of Alabama, Idaho, Montana, New York, Utah and Wyoming; and an older set, such as those of Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Texas and West Virginia; and a still older set, such as those of Iowa, and Wisconsin; and finally the New England set as an example of executive power at its minimum.

The reason for the longer term and larger salary of the modern governor is now obvious. His duties are so onerous that he must be adequately paid and time be given him to show his capacity as head of the administration. By centralizing administrative responsibility on his shoulders his office becomes powerful, commands respect and is eagerly sought after by capable men. It becomes also a prize in party politics and for that reason should be supplemented by an adequate civil service law modeled after one of the rival systems of either Massachusetts or New York.1 In short, the loosely coördinated administrative system of the

1 See Article V, Section 9, New York constitution. Within the last three years over a third of the states have either adopted civil service rules or revised the systems already adopted.

revolutionary period is at last disappearing, and in its place the states are beginning to centralize administrative powers into the governor's hands, as in the national system.

Future conventions should pay much more attention to the proper organization of the administration, which might be arranged in a separate article apart from the executive. A beginning in this direction already has been made in eight constitutions,1 but imperfectly, as these were prepared before present evils had fully developed. A convention that would originate a carefully studied system of reorganized administration, would start a reform that would rapidly pass into the constitutions of other states, since all begin to realize the need of improvement.

THE RECALL

Undoubtedly the most significant trend in state constitutions is the steady growth in the power of the electorate to control and dominate the several divisions of government. In recent years this has taken the form of the initiative and the referendum, and, since 1908, the recall. The citizens of Oregon, in seeking to get control of their government, thought it necessary to assert their right to discharge at discretion from public service any officer, judge, or representative in lawmaking body. An initiatory petition was therefore submitted to the voters and passed, November, 1908, asserting the right of the voters to recall any public officer of the state, and providing methods for so doing. In 1911 California adopted a similar provision but with improvements that make its system superior to the pioneer method of Oregon. In 1912 Arkansas, Nevada and

1 See Arizona, Article VIII; Article VI, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oregon; Georgia, Article V, Section II; Colorado, Article XII; New Jersey, Article VII; and Tennessee, Article VII.

Colorado adopted the state wide recall; and two other states, Michigan, Idaho, adopted it but excepted judicial officers. In 1914 four other states voted on referenda, providing for the recall, but it passed in Louisiana and Kansas only, both excepting judges.1

This remarkable assertion of authority, it is said, is not intended for frequent use or a radical exercise of power, but rather as an extension of the principle of democracy; placing on record in the fundamental law, a definite statement of the authority of the electorate over every public servant, but assuming that the occasions for its use would be few and far between.

The recall, under the systems in use, applies to "every elective officer," or to "every public officer" including therefore those appointed as well as those elected. The provisions inserted in the constitution regularly apply also to county, township and municipality, as well as to state officers; though it may here be said that the use of the recall against local officials antedated its use by the state. The city charter of Los Angeles, California, by amendment in 1893 introduced the recall principle into municipal government and it is now widely in use, especially in connection with the commission form of city charter. The recall takes the form of a petition to be signed by a given fraction of the voters of the state, eight per cent for example, or by a larger fraction of a locality or district, twenty or twentyfive per cent. The petition asks for a referendum and a special election. The referendum is on the question whether a designated officer shall be recalled, assuming that he does not resign before the day set; the election is for the purpose of filling the vacancy if the officer should be recalled. The law usually provides that no petition may be

1 It was defeated in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

circulated against an official until at least six months after he has assumed office, except in case of legislators. The two subjects may be (1) combined into an election, in which the official is a candidate, and is recalled if he fails to receive a plurality over his opponent; or (2) they may be voted on separately but on the same day, with the requirement that each voter must vote on both propositions, the recall and the choice, if his vote is to be counted; or (3) the recall vote precedes the election, which takes place only if the official is recalled. Provision may be made for payment of the official's election expenses, whether sustained or not, or only if sustained. Both the Oregon and the California systems provide for publicity of reasons pro and con for the recall.

CHAPTER XIV

THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE judiciary is the department of our government which, up to recent years, has undergone fewest changes and given most satisfaction. The touching confidence of old-time constitution makers in the wisdom and integrity of legislator and judge, may still be seen in the constitutions of the New England states, which dispose of the subject of judicial organization in few words, leaving it almost entirely to the discretion of the lawmakers. Contrast these with recent constitutions and the difference is marked. One of the chief sins of the Louisiana constitution is that it devotes about twelve thousand words to the courts of the state and of the city and parish of New Orleans. It is really a statute under the form of a constitutional article, and yet can be amended only by a slow and tedious process. But, though the chief of sinners in this respect, Louisiana is not alone in this tendency. The rapid multiplication of population and wealth, our democratic fondness for litigation and lawmaking, with social unrest thrown in as a disturber of the peace, all compel movements for the reorganization of the judiciary. The effect of this is seen in the addition to our constitutions of numerous pages devoted to the judicial department; for conventions, filled with distrust of legislatures, realize that a judicial system with organization and functions defined by constitution is beyond the power and control of the lawmaking body.