to a strong and upright man, the opportunity of making it a post of effective leadership. The people are coming to look upon the head of their commonwealth as the person responsible for giving them a firm and honest administration. When they are convinced of his rectitude, they regard him as the representative of their own best will and purpose, and have in some instances shown that they are prepared to support him against the legislature, and to require the latter to take the path he has pointed out. James Bryce, "The American Commonwealth," Vol I., p. 500.

5 The Conference of Governors.-This is the place for noticing a remarkable novelty in the relations of the States and their respective executive heads to the Nation and its head. In 1908 the President of the United States invited the Governors of all the States to meet him and some persons of exceptional knowledge and experience in a conference at Washington for the purpose of considering a matter of high public consequence, namely, the best method of conserving and turning to full account the natural resources of the country, such as forests, mines, and water power. The object was to enlist the interest of the States in the adoption of a national policy upon this great national matter, and if possible to induce them to legislate each for itself in accordance with some general principles which might also be recognized and carried out by the National Government in its own sphere. The Conference met in the winter of 1908 and again early in 1909. Not only did its deliberations command much attention from the people, but the scheme of bringing the States through their Governors into council with the National administration in a way not provided for by, but in no wise inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, appeared to set a precedent capable of being used thereafter, as a means of arousing public opinion and concentrating it upon some common aim, which might be found difficult to attain through the action of Congress. In 1910 arrangements were made for holding conferences of Governors at stated times in the future.- James Bryce, "The American Commonwealth," Vol. I., þ. 501.

6 The Growth of Administrative Commissions.—In America, for a hundred years before the Civil War, the governmental

questions uppermost in men's minds were chiefly, though not exclusively, constitutional; since the war they have been administrative. That is to say, prior to the Civil War questions of independence, of the interrelationship of governmental departments, of state rights, of suffrage, occupied most attention; while, since the reconstruction period, interest has been centered on the relations of the state to great corporations, on capital and labor in their industrial struggles, on state aid in the development of the country's resources, on the methods and measure of taxation, on the protection of the health and morals of the people, and on the furthering of educational, industrial, and philanthropic enterprises. The problems here have been largely those of administration,- of efficient exercise of power by governmental agencies.

This increased administrative activity has sometimes found expression in the laws general in character and requiring no special machinery for their execution; but more frequently a special need industrial, scientific, educational, philanthropic — has called into existence a special organ of government to supervise, aid, or manage the affair. This is the source of those boards and commissions which have in late years become prominent in all the states, but more particularly in those having the most complex and highly developed industrial organization. These bodies are the latest product of governmental evolution. They have developed since the Civil War, many of them during the last two decades; and a study of their form and action will reveal the tendencies of governmental progress and the advance already made in certain directions toward paternalism and state socialism. —F. H. White, quoted in Paul S. Reinsch, “Readings on American State Government," p. 222.

7 Corrective and Philanthropic Commissions.- Under this caption may be grouped such bodies and officers as boards of police and of charity and correction, general superintendent of prisons (Massachusetts), state agent to prevent cruelty to animals (North Dakota). Nearly half of the states have state boards of charities. In all the states having institutions for the defective, dependent, and delinquent classes there are boards of control. Leaving these out of account, the various bodies or officers under this head, with one exception (Massachusetts,

State Aid), are the result of attempts to centralize administration in the state government, to supervise and control local authorities. To a certain extent, therefore, they are in opposition to the policy of home rule.

Such work, however, was undertaken reluctantly by the state governments, and only when the abuses under the local governments were too great to be borne. The administration of public charitable institutions, like the almshouses and hospitals for the insane, or corrective institutions, like the jails and prisons, was admittedly bad almost everywhere. This was due sometimes to the poverty of the local communities, but usually to ignorance of actual conditions and to lack of acquaintance with better methods, or to the shortsighted penuriousness of the people of the community.

The state boards of charities in Indiana, Ohio, and New York are doing an incalculable amount of good by inspection and the requirement of reports. It has been found in England, however, after long centuries of trial, and in this country after a considerable period of experience, that the local authorities cannot be relied upon to reform their methods of poor relief, or to stay reformed, if by chance they have a spasm of virtue and improve matters for a while.

The control of the local police by the state is an experiment which has been thoroughly tried in Kansas and partially tried in Massachusetts. In neither state is there a central board, but the members of the local board are appointed by the governor and may be removed by him. This is the reason for placing them among the state officers. It is quite doubtful if the laws are better executed by this arrangement. In actual practice it is

found that the governor, as a rule, appoints in each city the kind of a commission the majority of the citizens wish. If a commission is appointed, not backed by the mass of the people, arrests and convictions are very difficult to obtain.

No one can glance over the foregoing activities of the commissions without remarking their varied and important character. They reflect the complexity of modern life and suggest the imminence of a government paternalism more far

reaching than our country has known in the past.— Ibid., pp. 229, 230.

8 Assessment and Equalization.-Throughout the Union, about seventy-five per cent. of state and local revenues is derived from the general property tax, which in theory is levied on the entire amount of property, real and personal, owned by taxpayers. The first step in administering the general property tax is that of assessment, or placing a valuation upon taxable property. Local assessors are generally elected by the city, township, or county; and these officers inspect and place a value upon the property of each taxpayer. To aid in this work, taxpayers are ordinarily required to make a declaration under oath of the amount of their personal property, these declarations being subject to correction by the assessors.

Real estate and visible personal property (as furniture, stock in trade, live stock, or other farm capital) can be readily discovered by the assessors; but it has proved exceedingly difficult to reach intangible personal property, as notes, bonds, stocks, and mortgages. Hence the most valuable portion of personal property owned by the wealthiest members of the community largely escapes taxation. In the United States as a whole, probably only one-fifth of all personal property is reached under the general property tax. Both real and personal property are assessed far below their true values, real estate being generally rated at from one-third to three-fourths of its actual value.

The work of local assessors is commonly subject to correction by a county board of equalization, since otherwise property in one section of the county may be assessed at a lower valuation than property in other sections, thus placing an unequal burden upon taxpayers. Furthermore, there is generally a State board of equalization charged with the duty of reviewing and equalizing the valuations within the various counties; for if the property in one county is undervalued as compared with the average rate of valuation throughout the commonwealth, the county escapes to that extent from its just burden of State taxation.— W. B. Guitteau, "Government and Politics in the United States,” p. 196.

Tax Reforms.-The reform in taxation most earnestly

advocated by students of this subject consists in the assignment of definite and exclusive sources of income to each of the several grades of government. Thus to the federal government would be assigned the revenue from customs duties and excise taxes, supplemented in case of need by the federal income tax. State revenue should be derived from taxation of corporations, inheritance taxes, and licenses. The effort to reach intangible personal property through the general property tax should be entirely abandoned, and the commonwealth should leave to local governments all taxation of real estate. In this way many of the defects of the general property tax would be remedied. The antiquated and unjust poll tax should be abandoned entirely.

The revenue for rural local governments should be derived chiefly from the tax upon real estate, supplemented, if necessary, by a tax upon visible personal property. In the cities large revenues should be derived from franchises and licenses, supplemented in case of need by a small tax upon real estate.— Ibid., p. 202.

10 The Grand Jury. At common law, no one could be tried for a felony unless a grand jury were first satisfied that there was good ground for it. The grand jury consisted of not more than twenty-four inhabitants of the county, and in practice never of more than twenty-three, summoned for that purpose to attend at the opening of a term of court. To authorize a prosecution the assent of twelve of them was required. They heard only the case for the prosecution and heard it in secret, after having been publicly charged by the court as to the nature of the business which would be brought before them. The court appointed one of them to act as their foreman, and he reported back their conclusions in writing, and in one or the other of two forms by presentment or indictment.

A presentment was a presentation, on their own motion, of an accusation against one or more persons. They were the official representatives of the public before the court, and it might well be that offenses had occurred, and become matters of common notoriety, prosecutions for which no one cared or dared to bring. Such a proceeding was comparatively rare.