be found in the application of diverse theories as to the division of public powers. POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION A somewhat artificial separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches in the government of the United States and an effort to establish a system of checks and balances by setting one department against the others have tended to distract attention from the timehonored grouping of public functions into two great divisions: first, the function of the formation of public policies, and, second, the function of the execution of these policies. In European governments the two functions are rather clearly defined under the terms politics and administration. The term politics is understood to mean the formation of public policies. In this formation the influence of public opinion holds sway; elections and political campaigns result in the victory of one policy over another and in the carrying out of the party programs and the determination of general principles of public management. The term administration is understood to include the execution of these policies and the formulation of those rules and regulations by which the policies may be effectively enforced. The administration comprises the officers and personnel of the executive and judicial branches of the government and includes the laws and regulations under which these officers perform their functions. In politics, all the elements of human nature are at work, and the necessary complexity of the factors involved makes it often a matter of chance as to what policy may be temporarily adopted. While the motives and the forces of public opinion and the conduct of the electorate may be analyzed much more completely and systematically than has yet been done, there will always be a large element of uncertainty in the determination of public policies through the avenues of public opinion, elections, and legislative chambers. Administration, on the other hand, in many of its branches requires that specialization and technic which the man of experience and training alone possesses. For this reason European nations have long required a thorough training in secondary school, college, and university for those who enter the permanent administrative service. And by a system of probation, promotion through meritorious work, and permanence of tenure they have developed government administration into a science calling for and giving opportunities to many of their best and ablest citizens. In the United States, the policy-determining and policyexecuting functions have been confused under the general term politics. Administration Administration separated from politics has not come into general use. The failure to distinguish between these two functions and to recognize that the one, politics, necessarily involves all of the play of human interests and emotions, and that the other calls for training, experience, and the development of a scientific technic, has retarded the acceptance of the merit principle and the development of a permanent tenure in government service. On account of this difference in division of powers, the function of administration on the Continent is much more important than it is in England or in the United States. Administrative officers have a larger sphere of discretionary action. The officers who do this work are more competent, because, as a rule, greater attention is given to their education for the important duties which they discharge, and greater care has been taken to make their positions permanent in character. The Anglo-American system of administration is decentralized in character in the sense that locally elected officers administer local laws under the supervision and control of an independent judiciary. The continental administrative system is highly centralized in the sense that centrally appointed officers execute the instructions of administrative superiors and are to a large extent independent of judicial control. During the nine teenth century the Anglo-American system has tended toward centralization, and the continental system toward decentralization, the two approaching in the direction of a single general plan. The tendency toward centralization is quite marked in the American state governments in the establishment of boards, bureaus, and commissions with supervisory functions in many instances over local officers and subordinate units of government. Finally, centralization of all of these boards into a Governor's Cabinet and the concentration of executive authority are distinct tendencies in state governments. The same centralization has been established from the beginning in the Federal government. Continental governments have tried, on the other hand, to grant a greater degree of independence to local officers. It is still true, however, that Anglo-American administration is decentralized, whereas continental European administration is centralized. EXECUTIVE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS1 The primary function of the executive of a nation is to supervise and direct the administration of its laws. It is sometimes suggested that it is the function of the legislature to formulate the will of the nation and of the executive to carry out the policies thus formulated. But normally, the duties of the executive involve much more than the enforcement of legislative policies. The chief duties of the executive may be stated briefly as follows: To act as head of the government and to represent the government in its relations with other countries; to appoint and remove officers, mostly in the higher branches of the public service; to act as commander-in-chief of the military forces of the government; to grant reprieves and pardons; in certain cases, to approve or disapprove acts of the legislature; 1 See especially W. F. Willoughby, The Government of Modern States (The Century Company, 1919), chap. xiv, and F. J. Goodnow, Principles of Constitutional Government (Harper & Brothers, 1916), chaps. viii and ix. sometimes to summon and adjourn its sessions; and generally to supervise the enforcement of the laws. In the performance of these duties it is often necessary for the executive to exercise his discretion and use judgment as to the scope and the methods of law enforcement. For this reason, much depends upon the personal views of the executive as to what laws will be effectively enforced. Laws sometimes remain on the statute book for years, with little or no effect, until some vigorous type of executive or one to whom the laws make a special appeal proceeds to enforce them. For example, it is generally conceded that, owing largely to the personal views of two Presidents, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was not enforced for a period of eight years; and it is a fact that numerous restrictive and prohibitive liquor laws have not been enforced when clemency or nonenforcement appeared to accord with the popular will. Personality and individual views enter into the execution of the laws to such a large extent that much more consideration should be given to the rôle of discretion and to the individual judgments of executive officers. In addition to the exercise of judgment and discretion in the enforcement of laws, it is likewise regarded as part of the executive function to formulate constructive policies and in a measure to direct the public life of the state. Everywhere may be seen a tendency to increase the responsibility of executive officers and to enlarge their functions. Owing to the necessity for prompt and effective action, the executive authority rests in a single person in every nation except Switzerland, where it is placed in a committee of seven. Though there is a noteworthy resemblance in the ordinary powers and functions allotted to the executives of the various countries, there is a fundamental difference between the European and the American conceptions of the executive power. This difference involves one of the foremost problems of executive organization. The European Doctrine of Executive Power.-The idea of executive power in European countries differs materially from the notion prevalent in the United States. Though certain powers such as those of military command, of appointment of officers, and of the granting of pardons are quite similar in all countries, the practical methods of exercising such powers vary considerably. The European executive is not personally responsible for his official acts, the responsibility resting upon the Minister who countersigns all public acts. Moreover, the heads of executive departments are granted the power to issue rules and regulations in the form of ordinances which have the force of law. Thus, in large part, the details of administration are left directly in charge of executive officers. European executives are also accorded the right to dissolve the legislative chambers, to initiate legislative measures, and, through Cabinet officers, to participate actively in the legislative process. Owing to the responsibility of the executive to his Cabinet and of the Cabinet to the lower house, it has been found unnecessary to define the limits of the executive powers, because they are invariably subject to the control of Parliament. Legislation is ordinarily confined to the formulation of general rules and principles which are carried into effect by executive ordinances on the Continent and by provisional orders in England. The American Doctrine of Executive Power.-The American idea of executive power was largely influenced by Montesquieu's theory, which involved the separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial, and which required that each one of the authorities was to be independent of the others. Despite the fact that Montesquieu misinterpreted the English system of government (from which he professed to derive his theory) and that the principle of separation into three powers has never been accepted in England or France, nevertheless, the theory was made a part of the public law of the United States. And the well-defined distribution of government activities between the three branches, each of which has a certain realm of independent powers and duties, is the first prin |