pleads not guilty the trial proceeds and is conducted after the same manner as in civil cases.

In the trial of all cases the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff and the state. A man is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Thus in criminal cases, for instance, if the jury cannot agree and do not bring in a unanimous verdict, the prisoner must be released or held for trial before another jury. If found not guilty he must be released, and cannot be again tried for the same offense.

The punishment for crime is usually by fine, imprisonment, or death. In a great many states capital punishment has been abandoned. More of the idea of reformation is permeating our judicial system and the idea of punishment is gradually being eliminated. Most prison sentences, therefore, may be shortened by exemplary behavior.

SUPPLEMENTARY READING

CHAPTER VII

State Administration

1 The Executive Department.-The organization of the executive department of the state government is different in one important respect from that of the executive department of the United States. In the national government the responsibility for the administration of executive affairs is concentrated in the hands of the President, and the heads of the various departments are all his appointees; they are responsible directly to him for the discharge of their duties, are, within the limits of the law, subject to his direction, and may be removed by him for any reason which to him may seem expedient. The executive power of the state, on the contrary, instead of being concentrated in the hands of the governor, is really divided between him and a number of other state officers, who are generally elected by the people and over whom he has little or no control. They are, in short, his colleagues rather than his subordinates. This method of organizing the executive power has justly been criticized on the ground that it introduces a division of responsibility and lack of coördination in the state administration. Thus, although the governor is charged with the execution of the laws, he usually has no power to direct the attorney-general to institute proceedings against a person or corporation for violating the law, as the President of the United States might do in a similar case. Again, he may have reason to believe that the state treasurer is a defaulter, but in most of the states he has no power to examine into the affairs of the treasurer's office, or to remove him from office. And so with the other principal officers that collectively make up the executive department. The responsibility of these officials is

usually to the people alone, and responsibility in such cases cannot always be enforced, for they are elected for specific terms, except by the cumbersome method of impreachment.-J. W. Garner, "Government in the United States," p. 92.

2 The Governor's Power of Investigation.- A slight step, however, in the direction of strengthening the governor's administrative control has been taken in many states, by vesting in him the power to make special inquiries into the working of the various executive departments. The constitution of Montana, for example, provides that, "The governor may require information in writing from the officers of the executive department upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, which information shall be given upon oath whenever so required; he may also require information at any time, under oath, from all officers and managers of state institutions upon any subject relating to the condition, management, and expenses of their respective offices and institutions, and may, at any time he deems it necessary, appoint a committee to investigate and report to him the condition of any executive office or state institution."

The constitution of Georgia makes it obligatory upon the governor to examine under oath, quarterly or even more frequently, the treasurer and comptroller-general on all matters pertaining to their respective offices and to inspect and review their books and accounts. Occasionally, but not often, the governor is given power to suspend certain state officers during a recess of the legislature. The governor of New York, for example, may temporarily suspend the treasurer whenever it shall appear to him that that officer has violated his duty in any particular; and under the Moreland act of 1908 he may order an investigation of any department. In several states, the various officers are required to make periodical reports or render opinions in writing to the governor, but these are generally perfunctory, or at best of slight significance in advancing the governor's power of control over the administration.— Chas. A. Beard, "American Government and Politics," p. 494.

3 The Governor and the President.— Compare the Federal President with the State Governor. The former has foreign policy to deal with, the latter has none. The former has a vast,

patronage, the latter scarcely any. The former has the command of the army and navy, the latter has only that of the militia, insignificant in ordinary times. The former has a postoffice, but there is no State postal-service. Little remains to the Governor except his veto, which is not so much an executive as a legislative function; the duty of maintaining order, which becomes important only when insurrection or riot breaks out; and the almost mechanical function of representing the State for various matters of routine, such as demanding from other States the extradition of offenders, issuing writs for the election of congressmen or of the State legislature, receiving the reports of the various State officials. These officials, even the highest of them who correspond to the cabinet ministers in the National government, are either mere clerks, performing work, such as that of receiving and paying out State moneys, strictly defined by statute, and usually checked by other officials, or else are in the nature of commissioners of inquiry, who may inspect and report, but can take no independent action of importance. Policy does not lie within their province; even in executive details their discretion is confined within narrow limits. They have, no doubt, from the governor downwards, opportunities for jobbing and malversation; but even the less scrupulous are restrained from using these opportunities by the fear of some investigating committee of the legislature, with possible impeachment or criminal prosecution as a consequence of its report. Holding for terms which seldom exceed two or three years, they feel the insecurity of their position; but the desire to earn reëlection by the able and conscientious discharge of their functions is a less effective motive than it would be if the practice of reëlecting competent men were more frequent. Unfortunately here, as in Congress, the tradition of many States is, that when a man has enjoyed an office, however well he may have served the public, some one else ought to have the next turn.

The reason, therefore, why the system I have sketched rubs along in the several States is, that the executive has little to do, and comparatively small sums to handle. The further reason why it has so little to do is two-fold. Local government is so fully developed that many functions, which in Europe would

devolve on a central authority, are in all American States left to the county, or the city, or the township, or the school district. These minor divisions narrow the province of the State, just as the State narrows the province of the central government. And the other reason is, that legislation has in the several States pushed itself to the farthest limits, and so encroached on subjects which European legislatures would leave to the executive, that executive discretion is extinct, and the officers are the mere hands of the legislative brain, which directs them by statutes drawn with extreme minuteness, carefully specifies the purposes to which each money grant is to be applied, and supervises them by inquisitorial committees.-James Bryce, “The American Commonwealth," Vol. I., p. 537.

4 A Stepping Stone to the Presidency.- Although less sought after and prized than in "the days of the Fathers," when a State governor sometimes refused to yield precedence to the President of the United States, the governorship is still, particularly in New England, and the greater States, a post of some dignity, and affords an opportunity for the display of character and talents. It was in his governorship of New York that Mr. Cleveland, for instance, commended himself to his party, and rose to be President of the United States. Similarly Mr. Hayes was put forward for the Presidency in 1876 because he had been a good governor of Ohio. During the Civil War, when each governor was responsible for enrolling, equipping, officering, and sending forward troops from his State, and when it rested with him to repress attempts at disorder, much depended on his energy, popularity, and loyalty. In some States men still talk of the "war governors" of those days as heroes to whom the North owed deep gratitude. And since the Pennsylvania riots of 1877 and those which have subsequently occurred in Cincinnati and Chicago have shown that tumults may suddenly grow to serious proportions, it has in many States become important to have a man of prompt decision and fearlessness in the office which issues orders to the State militia.

The decline already noted in the respect and confidence felt for and in the legislatures has latterly, in some States, tended to attach more influence to the office of governor, and has opened,