The reorganization of departments, which has just been described, is assoclated in the popular mind with the demand for the short ballot. The voter on election day has in the past been compelled to choose not only his candidates for governor and for lieutenant governor, but also his candidates for numerous other State officers. It was found in practice that it was impossible for the voter to exercise discrimination in making his choice. He knew something about the candidates for governor, but little about the other candidates, and perhaps about some of them nothing at all. The reform adopted by the advocates of the short ballot had for its object to relieve the voters of the embarrassment caused by this multiplicity of offices and candidates on the ballot which he was required to cast on election day. And the short ballot reform movement, on this ground alone, made considerable headway among the public. But the reorganization of the administrative activities of the State and the consolidation of them into a limited number of departments was necessitated not only by the political considerations involved in the short ballot movement, but also by requirements dictated by the principles of sound administration. From an administrative point of view the machinery of the State government was hopelessly defective. For good administration there must be some supreme authority who is ultimately responsible. In the State government this must be the governor. But the governor in the past shared the jurisdiction of the executive department with many other officers, some of them statutory, others of them constitutional, each occupying a circumscribed field in which he was practically independent of the governor. There was, therefore, no single agent who could ultimately be held responsible for the administration of State affairs. In the second place, the principles of good administration require that the supreme executive authority shall have the right to select and dismiss his assistants. This is what is done in private business and this is what is done in the Government of the United States and in the government of our cities.

The new constitution proposes that the governor shall exercise ultimate control of the administrative affairs of the State with a free hand to select and dismiss his assistants. Consequently, the governor can hereafter be held responsible by the people for the administration which he gives them. In the past it was unjust to hold him responsible because over large portions of the administrative field he had no jurisdiction and could wield no authority.

Our State governments have been far less developed than our Federal Government and our city governments. Many Western States have realized the evil, and they have endeavored to cure it, but the remedies which they have adopted were such fads as the initiative, referendum, and recall, etc., which, while they exercise a certain deterrent effect upon evildoers, have no potency to stimulate to higher service either the average or the superior man. Their aim was to make evildoing difficult or impossible. The recent constitutional convention of New York State on the contrary, while not blind to the dangers of corrupt administration, was especially dominated by the thought of securing efficient government by the concentration of power and responsibility. We have not yet exhausted the duties which the new constitution proposes to put upon the governor. One other function of supreme importance was assigned to him. In the past the appropriations of public moneys have been made by the legislature and made in a thoroughly haphazard manner. The governor indeed had the right to veto any appropriation made by the legislature, either at the time or within 30 days after the adjournment of the legislature. This procedure. however, is in direct contravention of the practice followed by our best city administrations, and also of the practice of the most advanced governments in the world. In all these bodies it has been recognized that the preparation of

the budget is a function belonging to the executive and not to the legislative department. The proper work of the legislature is to legislate; it has no administrative control or authority over the bureaus or departments which spend the money of the State and can not, therefore, correctly appraise their needs. Furthermore, since the legislature is made up of members who represent localities, each is naturally anxious to secure appropriations for his district, so that the appropriation bill when finally adopted represents a compromise or bargain between districts, rather than a deliberate and well-digested grant to meet the legitimate needs of the different agencies of the State government. Finally, the appropriation bill, as it has been enacted in the past, is put through with little or no publicity and little or no debate and criticism. The procedure hitherto followed needs to be reversed. As the chief executive is responsible for the operations of the executive agencies that spend the State's money, he alone, after consultation with the heads of these agencies, is in a position to prepare an estimate of the proposed expenditures for the next fiscal year. It should be the duty of the governor of the State of New York, as it is the duty of the executive branch of the government in European countries, to go before the legislature with his estimates and ask that the legislature grant the appropriations needed for carrying on the public service. It is the duty of the legislature to scrutinize every item asked for and to criticize anything that is open to criticism, but the legislature should not have power to make any increase in the items of appropriation asked for by the governor. It should, of course, have a right to reduce or strike out any item and legislative criticism may sometimes lead to reductions; but before changes are made the governor and heads of departments should be heard on their financial proposals. The new constitution provides that they shall have the right to go before the legislature and, when requested by the legislature, it shall be their duty to appear to explain the items in the annual estimate. The new constitution further provides that the governor, along with the estimates of proposed expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year, shall present to the legislature a financial statement of the current resources and liabilities of the State, including its debts and various funds, and including also, for the purpose of comparison, a statement of its current expenditures and revenues in past years. And, if it shall appear that the resources of the State are inadequate to meet the proposed expenditures, the governor shall submit a proposition for new measures of taxation.

It will be seen that this reform completely reverses the existing relations between the governor and the legislature in the matter of appropriations. At the present time the initiative in the making of appropriations is with the legislature and the governor has the right to veto what the legislature proposes. Under the new constitution, on the other hand, it is provided that the initiative in matters of appropriation shall be with the governor who submits to the legislature an estimate of the expenditures which he deems necessary for carrying on the State's business and requests the legislature to make the appropriations for that purpose. The legislature is at once put in the position of critic and reviser of the governor's financial program. No legislator can put his finger in the treasury to get appropriations for his own locality, and hence all legislators will be interested in keeping down the expenditures of the State.

It is not, however, intended absolutely to prohibit all financial legislation by the legislature. But it provided that neither house shall consider further appropriations until the appropriation bill proposed by the governor shall have finally

been acted upon by both houses. Additional appropriations may then be made by separate bills, each for a single work or object, but these bills are subject to the governor's veto. The estimates of the financial needs of the legislature and of the judiciary are made independently of the governor, the former being certified by the presiding officers of each house and the latter by the comptroller. These are transmitted to the governor for inclusion in his annual budget; he may not revise them, but he is free to make such recommendations as he may think proper.

If one attempted to describe in language borrowed from foreign governments the governor's powers, functions, and duties under the new constitution, it might be said that he is really the prime minister or chief executive of the State and at the same time minister of finance or chancellor of the exchequer. There is no reason why the real head of the State in Canada, England, France, or Australia should not occupy such a twofold position. If in practice he does not ordinarily do so, it is probably due to the fact that the burdens of a finance minister are too heavy to combine with the position of head of the cabinet; and in any event the prime minister selects the minister of finance and is responsible for his official work.

It will be seen that the new constitution puts very grave and onerous duties on the chief executive. He is made definitely responsible for the success of his administration. There can be little doubt that the State will gain by this concentration of power and responsibility. And the opportunity of rendering such large and important service to the State should attract to the office of governor a class of men who in the past have felt little or no ambition for the honor. In view of the larger powers which have been vested in the governor, it is essential that he should be held to strict accountability by the people. For this reason the convention made no change in the governor's term of office. The committee on governor and other State officers reported indeed in favor of extending the term from two to four years and this proposal was favored by an influential group in the convention. But after careful consideration and discussion the convention decided by an overwhelming vote in favor of leaving the term as it is. If the governor makes a good record in two years, the people will have an opportunity of reelecting him; if he makes a poor record, the people will have an opportunity of getting rid of him. The committee on governor and other State officers recommended the four-year term with ineligibility for reelection. Had this been adopted it would have removed the governor for four years beyond the control of the electorate. But, since in a Republic the voters will in the end control their own officials, I have no doubt that if the four-year term had been adopted it would have led in a short time to a strong demand for the recall. The good judgment of the convention was shown in leaving the term as it has been. Under the cabinet system of Great Britain and other parliamentary countries the chief executive may be dismissed at any time by an adverse vote of a majority of the representatives of the people in the legislature.

The present constitutional inhibition against members of the legislature receiving any civil appointment within this State or the Senate of the United States from the governor, the governor and Senate, the legislature, or any city government was omitted from the new constitution. The motive for the change was to furnish additional inducements to young men of character and ability to lead them to devote themselves to the service of the State. Under the amended constitution a candidate for election to membership in the assembly or senate might also aspire to appointment as head of one of the administrative departments and consequently to a seat in the governor's cabinet. At present even the ablest young men after a term or two in the legislature

retire to private life. The proposed amendment would tend to keep them longer in the public service and familiarize them both with the administrative and the legislative branches of the government.

Of course this change would tend to break down the rigid barriers that now separate and often antagonize the legislative and executive departments of the Government. Each would be kept better informed of the sentiments and policies of the other. Unnecessary friction would be avoided. Directness and simplicity would take the place of roundabout and complex methods. Party responsibility could be more directly enforced. The one danger to be guarded against is the subordination of legislative independence to executive domination. But party solidarity and frequent elections will probably prove a sufficient protection; if not, other remedies can be devised in the light of experience. For the rest, the eligibility of legislators for administrative posts and cabinet positions, like the reorganization of the executive department and establishment of an executive budget, is only another step toward that representative and responsible cabinet government which most civilized countries have adopted. For the sake of efficiency and definite responsibility this system invests the chief executive or prime minister with large powers. And among those powers is leadership in the legislature—leadership exercised both directly and through the agency of cabinet members. The power to appoint legislators as members of his cabinet will enable the governor to exercise a leadership, not indeed so complete, yet sufficiently influential, in the Legislature of the State of New York. Indirectly, a strong and wise governor, if he enjoys popular confidence, may through his cabinet guide the legislature; directly he is real head of the executive department and responsible minister of finance.

RELACIONES ENTRE LOS PODERES JUDICIAL Y LEGISLATIVO. Por CARLOS BRAVO,

Profesor de la Universidad de Bogotá, Colombia.

I.

1. La sola enunciación del título de este estudio supone resuelta una controversia de Derecho Constitucional, a que dió origen el principio de feliz invención de la separación de los poderes del Estado, que apareció por primera vez en Inglaterra en el siglo XVII a iniciativa del publicista Locke' y que luego con caracteres más precisos, con desarrollo más completo y con más dilatadas consecuencias, planteó Montesquieu, que por eso es considerado como el verdadero preconizador de tan trascendental principio.

2. De acuerdo con él, la Administración de Justicia constituye uno de los poderes del Estado y es como los poderes legislativo y ejecutivo una emanación de la soberanía nacional, con órganos adecuados para el ejercicio de sus funciones. Cada poder es como el representante de un atributo distinto de la soberanía de la Nación.

3. Una de las consecuencias más importantes del principio de la separación de los poderes es la independencia de cada uno respecto de los otros. Esta independencia significa, en términos generales, que cada poder puede ejercer la función que le es propia espontáneamente o por propia autoridad; que en su ejercicio mismo esté libre de toda coacción o influencia extraña y que las de

1A. Esmein, Elementos de Derecho Constitucional francés y comparado, pág. 393.

cisiones o medidas que adopte regularmente sean acatadas por los otros poderes, sin que en manera alguna puedan hacerlas frustráneas. Esto es lo que en rigor exigiría el principio de la separación e independencia de los poderes y el concepto de soberanía que encarna cada uno de ellos.

4. Empero, no deben extremarse las consecuencias de la división de los poderes y de su independencia, de manera de hacer de ellos entidades totalmente extrañas o antagónicas, en atención a varias consideraciones: 1a, porque siendo todos ellos emanación de la soberanía del Estado, deben desarrollarse armónicamente para el logro de un fin común, que es el del mismo Estado; 2a, porque la limitación de los poderes, que es también canon de todo régimen constitucional, implica una serie de relaciones de coordinación, por una parte, y de subordinación o dependencia, por otra, que hace que en el orden de la sana razón no sea posible concebirlos sino unidos y vinculados en beneficio de la Administración pública y señaladamente del orden y de la libertad, que se harían imposibles con poderes absolutos y sin cohesión.1

Por consiguiente, dentro de la independencia de los poderes públicos existen necesarias y saludables relaciones, que ora son de superioridad, ora de subordinación; pero jamás puede hablarse de separación absoluta."

5. Cada uno de los poderes legislativo y judicial tiene una función especial en la vida del Estado que importa definir, siquiera sea en sus lineamientos generales, para determinar la situación de cada uno y llegar al conocimiento de las relaciones que deben existir entre ellos.

Al Poder Legislativo corresponde la función de dictar las leyes para todo el organismo del Estado. Por consiguiente, a él toca determinar el orden público y jurídico; reglamentar el ejercicio de los otros poderes y en general dictar la regla aplicable en todas las esferas de la actividad social, dentro de los límites que le haya trazado el Poder Constituyente. De ahí que pueda decirse que así como la expresión más alta de la soberanía del Estado es el acto originario de constituírse, esto es, de determinar las formas de su vida pública, interior y exterior, así en su vida ordinaria, el Poder Legislativo es la expresión regular y normal de su soberanía. Por estos motivos, la doctrina en el Derecho Constitucional, particularmente en el régimen representativo, no vacila en afirmar la supremacía del Poder Legislativo sobre los otros poderes.

La misión que corresponde al Poder Judicial en la vida del Estado consiste, según Bluntschli, en la protección y mantenimiento del derecho. Esa función se ejerce no solamente en los casos de disputas entre los individuos con ocasión de sus derechos civiles, sino cuando ocurre la violación de las leyes represivas o penales por causa de un delito. En suma, al Poder Judicial atañe la aplicación de la ley a los casos de la vida real, mediante un juicio o un proceso, a que pone fin una sentencia, que determina el derecho aplicable al litigio o delito de que se trate.

6. Desde el punto de vista más especial de las relaciones entra los poderes legislativo y judicial, según quedan definidos de una manera general, el principio de la separación de los poderes y de su independencia recíproca comporta las siguientes lógicas consecuencias:

1. El Poder Legislativo no puede ejercer la función de juzgar; por tanto, debe acatamiento y respeto a las decisiones judiciales, no solamente en cuanto no le sería dable anularlas, pero ni siquiera suspenderlas, modificarlas o discutirlas. Es más, no podría suspender el curso de un proceso en que la Nación fuera una de las partes, aún so pretexto de utilidad pública, porque

1 Art. 57 de la Constitución de Colombia: "Los poderes públicos son limitados y ejercen separadamente sus respectivas atribuciones."

2 Bluntschli, Teoría General del Estado, pág. 453. Bluntschli, Obr. cit., pág. 462.