.‘ ’II‘ .‘

ri‘Ar-O‘tl

..| 1.9.!0 00.
. v Q I

.O
n!

v . '
fi‘g“i'0‘ V '

'u'l '

3m

3::

u U
. -\.. .
. .(vs «Jafr
-..L.f . . .
tn ‘n I .. u
o. ...t.v~... INCL-fl...
. ..u. . h I 5..
-04 ,u

9 4
”"03! .1... ~ ‘0‘.“ J. .r. l v

....\:.f

O.-\! .v l 8.! O. OJ
. . 0‘... \v. 5.... .
§.- ‘40.. .

0.1.C‘

«as...

‘Q
I..ot‘
;_ .,‘.¢
..o|_|”4“ O.

I O.
.A ‘1.
. .gi‘ .
» ml.
.. .v9. ..
‘ p0]
0‘
s . Ho HO! 0-. ‘ ‘ . . . .
.v‘ .o o st'Ion; nkfl. .
x... . 4.1:: ~r -;¢‘. .

.

Q

n
S
I

 

'tv‘rv‘ldrli ’5. I). ;.

‘ o
n
\ y\
~
A.
.
. u
I
.. a.
\
a 1.
4. A I
.1
.&
~
w.» . .2
Jr
..
I J...
P
1 .
J. .
1-
I
K .
.
'.

v“
C ‘
“\Q“

by»:
\

The Bicameral 5ystem.

Thesis for Degree of M. A.

7

Mildred H. Hilton.

1927.

rages

 

ACKMUWLmuUhmAmTD.

I wish to acknowledge my appreciation for the
helpful interest of E. H. Ryder in this problem.
Although it is impossible, here, to eXpress
adequately my gratitude to all those who have given
generous aid throughout, I wish especially to
acknowledge the helpful criticism, suggestions, and
the sincere kindness that Mr. J. T. Caswell has offered

me in the final review of this thesis.

101413

The Bicameral System.

by. Mildred H. Hilton.

The Bicameral System

The division of the legislature into two houses was
one of the great questions in the Constitutional Conven-
tion. It has never been the habit of the American people
to have a single chamber, with few exceptions, to enact
laws, nor the habit of their ancestors, for five centur-
ies, to regard a single chamber as favorable to liberty or
wise legislation.

The following discussion attempts to show the evolu-
tion of this governmental system which our forefathers
adapted from the place where it first took root, its adOp-
tion in the United States, the working of the systemthen
land afterwards, and its gradual decline. The utility oi the
bicameral legislature as an instrument of democratic govern-
ment is, however, now being vigorously challenged, there-
fore, the question will be discussed in some detail later.

When the Romans crossed the EuroPean Continent and
reached the islands off the coast of EurOpe now called the
British Isles, they found these islands inhabited by
Pe0ple called Britains. The descent of these peeple have
never_been known, and it was this group that the Romans
succeeded in conquering and immediately began to Romanize.
In.the lowland regions of the South and East part of Britain,
Romans attempted to introduce some of their customs and

institutions. In the rugged regions of the North and West

West part of the islands, the population was Celtic and
here few people existed?

Few Roman traders reached Britain and the mdgration
of other classes of Romans was small.2 The climate of this
region was decidedly different and due to the distance
many preferred to remain in their own native land rather than
come to this region and dominate their captives. In the
early years of the fifth century, the tr00ps were withdrawn.

A generation passed and then the Germanic tribes began
to conquer the Britains making the natives captives. These
tribes were called the Angles and Saxons.3

This called for a new reorganization of society. Many
of the Britains were made slaves by the Germanic tribes. 0f;
ten many of them were as intelligent or even more so than
their masters. -The slaves were usually restricted to the
soil and were unable to leave it.4 Next in order came the
:non-noble freemen who were not restricted to the soil and
were allowed to move about if they chose. Above the non-
noblo freeman were the warriors. These men were grant-
ed a piece of land by a certain lord and he in turn was to
fight for this lord during a period of conquest. Then came

5
the true nobility who were granted titles by the king.

 

1. White - Constitutional History of England p. 4, 5.

2. Cross- A Shorter History of England and Great Britain p. 14.
3. White - op. cit. p. 6

4. Knight. Charles - History of England p. 61. - cf. White p. 15.
5. Hume - History of England - Vol. I. p. 158-59 Appendix I.

Prince or a nobleman who beCame heir or a prince of the
royal family. The status of the true nobility and athel-
ings was based on blood rather than on officers or services?
After the eighth century the true nobility became a landed
aristocracy. Land became a form.of wealth. Agriculture
was the chief occupation of people and the individual who
owned large tracts of land could dominate those who were
forced to live on it. Land was soon controlled by a few
families and these families received titles or were classed
as true nobility. These men had considerable influence
.with the King.2

Before the union of Anglo-Saxon tribes, the highest
form.of political and Judicial organization was the folk-
moot. At this assembly the great landowners, freeman,
priest, who performed religious functions, reeve, who was
an overseer of the administrative area, and four men, who
were freeman, met twice a year under the chief.3

After tribal states were united, administrative dis-
tricts began to appear. If a district was free from.a lord,
it was called a township. if under the influence of a lord,
it was called a manor which was a tract of land occupied

by tenants. The next district above the township or manor

was the hundred which originally was a district of a tribal

kingdom.which had been allotted to a hundred warriors or

 

1. Green - The‘Making of.England. p. 173-174

2. 'hite - Constitutional History of England p. 13.

3. Cross - A Shorter History of England and Great Britain p. 45.
4. _Ibid p. 46.

The reeve, who was later known as the sheriff, and
the four men, who formerly attended the folk moot, contin-
ued to attend the shire moot, to Speak for their township,
and to see 'folk right' done, and were unconsciously giving
life to a principle of representation which was to affect
the whole modern world. It was here the principle took root
and began to grow.1

many regions or towns which were fortified because of
invaders received the name of borough. They were at first
called ”burhs" and later received the name borough. The
term city was applied to those regions or towns having a
cathedral church.2 A court system was established in the
shires and hundreds by the central government. if the
hundred court failed to decide the case, it was taken to the
shire, and if it failed there it was taken to the king.
Often, many cases were taken directly from the hundred to the
king. The shire court was summoned twice a year by the sher-
iff and he together with the bishop and the ealdorman, who
was a great royal official, composed the court.

Toward the end of the Anglo-Saxon period lords controlled
large tracts of land. Tenants worked the land of the lord and

made payments in services and money for the use of the land as

well as for guidance and protection. Every lord had a court
4

' ' and w re tried
1. Edinburgh Review - Vol. 177 1895, (The English Parlia-

ment) p. 389.
2. White - Constitutional History of England p. 30.
3. Hume, Edward - History of England Vol I. p. 164.
4. White - op. cit. p. 34.

 

As a result of the manorial system, wandering tribes
became fixed to the soil and consequently changes in gov-
ernment were needed. A local government had formerly been
established and it should have met the governmental needs.
This it failed to do. Land was rapidly passing from the
hands of the many into the hands of the few and its results
may be called Anglo-Saxon feudalism. However, at the end of
the Anglo-Saxon period, the process was far from complete
and institutions were in a very fluid state.1

When the Anglo-Saxon entered England a kingship had
been established. 2 No detailed account can be given of the
growth of kingship during the Anglo-Saxon period, but towards
the end of the period a king ruled over a larger and a more
diversified population and this in turn brought in new pro-
blems of government.

The Witan, an advisory council, of the king was composed
of the royal household, great lay lords, ecclesiastical offi-
cials, bishops, great abbots, and other men whose wealth, in-
fluence of attainments made the king desire their presence.
After the lapse of a few years, the Witan finally came under

the control of a few families. Historians have been unable

to trace or prove that Anglo-Saxons ever had a national assem-

bly either in England or on the continent. ‘We do know, however,
1. Hume, Edward - History of the British People p. 35.

2. Orman - England before the Norman Conquest p. 352-53.
3. Ibid. p. 567.

family, officials, great warriors, 'and.bodies correSponding
to the smaller assemblies.1 From such councils it is-thought
the witan descended.

In 1066, the Normans came across the English Channel
from Normandy and conquered the Anglo-Saxons. Norman kings
succeeded the Anglo-Saxon kings as heir to the throne.

The most~far-reaching result of the Norman Conquest was the
strengthening of the central government combined with local'
independence. After the Conquest, the central government
was composed of the king and his court, formerly of the king
and the Witan. William I, the Norman Conqueror, did not
care to upset the entire organization of the Anglo-Saxon
kings by introducing new local organizations.

Norman feudalism introduced a well organized form of
land tenure and a system of government. At the head was
the lord and he in turn held the land 9: the king . William
was the supreme land owner of all English soil.4 Anglo-Saxons
were allowed to remain in possession of their land if they
would yield their title of land to the king and promise ser-
vice likewise.5 Grants were made by the kings to the lords
and they in turn were to furnish the king armed knights to

serve him in foreign campaigns for a stated period each year -
6

usually forty days.

 

l. Hume, Edward - History of England p. 155

2. Knight - History of England Vol. I. p. 185

3. White - Constitutional History of England p. 114-15.
4. Terry, B. - A History of England p. 168.

5. ‘Cross -op. cit. p. 58.

6. Ibid p. 58.

The Witan of the Anglo-Saxons was continued under
the Norman kings as the King's Council. The same people

who were in the Witan would be found in the Council; and
l
the same kind of business was transacted. The council

met from time to time upon the call of the King. A large
body met only when the occasion demanded it and a smaller
body met more frequently and for longer terms. Slowly this
council developed into separate institutions such as the

Court of the Exchequer, the Court of the Kings Bench and
2

Parliament.

The King's Council acted as a court in the modern sense
3
of the word. ‘Many suits were tried in this council such

as those relating to tenants-in-chiefs who might have refused

to fulfill his obligations in return for his grant of land.

The Council sent some of its members from place to place

throughout the kingdom at different times to sit with the sher-

iffs in the shire courts.4 This lessened some of the powers

of the sheriff and caused local courts to become nationalized.
All financial duties were conducted and carried on by the

King's Council. That is, if the king desired money, he acted

in accordance with the Council in regard to means by raising it.5
In 1258, the Provisions of Oxford were drawn up. This

provision provided for the establishment of a permanent council

of fifteen barons, who were tenants holding land‘directly from

1. Freeman, Edward - The Norman Conquest p. 76

2. Hume, Edward - A History of the British People p. 68

3. Edinburgh Review - Vol. 177 (The English Parliament). p. 393.
4. Davis - England under the Normans and Angevine p. 43.

5. Hume, Edward. op. cit. p. 69.

necessary for every act of the country, and they in turn had the
power to create other committees that were to have charge of
the national finances and do other business that had been done
fermerly by the Great Council.1 Three years later, this act was
repudiated by Henry III. As a result, a Civil War followed and
Simon-de-Montfort, a brother-in-law of the King, defeated and
captured the King? In December of 1264, Simon's famous parlia-
ment was summoned. To this were summoned ecclesiastical and sec-
ular nobles, the great council, two knights from every shire, two
citizens from.each city and two burgesses from each borough.
The citizens, burgesses, and the knights from.the Shires con-
stituted the representative element which was eventually to
constitute the House of Commons.3

In 1295 Edward I summoned his MOdel Parliament. This
Parliament contained the body of prelates and greater barons
which was to become the House of Lords. The lay members
numbered forty-eight in this meeting, seven earls and forty-
one barons below the rank of earl. The prelates, comprised
the two archbishops, eighteen bishOps, sixty-seven abbots,
and the heads of three religious order, the Hospitallers,
Templars, and the Order of Sempringham. The bishOps were

ordered to cite before hand the priors of their cathe-

dral chapters, the archdeacons of their dioceses, one rep-

meantime
l. Ogg, Frederick - Greater European Governments p. 12 p

2. Terry - A History of England p. 287.
3. White- Constitutional History of England p. 364.

Two knights were summoned from every shire and two burgesses
from every city and borough.l

All experimental and tentative stages were passed by
1295; and out of blind movements had emerged a parliament
for essential purposes in the lorm we know it today -- a
Parliament of Lords and Commons. The newer house bears
traces of the county courts, the Upper house with its earls
and bishops and its great officers of state, more nearly
resembles the Witan.2

Under the first Parliament of Edward III, the knights
took their seats with the Commons. 3 The bicameral principle
had now become fixed to exist throughout subsequent periods
(e xcept the Cromwellian period).4

With the development of the bicameral principle , during
the reign of Edward III, Parliament had been able taggaiu some
power. By this time, the consent of Parliament was necessary
for new laws. Other members of the government could not im-
pose or collect taxes only within the corn ent of Parliament.
The legislative department also obtained the right to impeach
the minister of the king. Heretofore, kings had made known
their wishes in regard to certain measures and demanded that
their wishes be fulfilled. His will was supreme. flow Par-

liament had developed to a point where it went so far as to

inform the king of its views in regard to certain measures.

“ever before had a Parliament:mgde_§ugh_demanda:h

Ogg, Frederick - Greater EurOpean Governments. p. l2-l5.

 

Edinburgh Review Vol. 177 (The English Parliament} p . 595.
Ogg, Frederick - op. cit. p. 14.

*bid. 76.

. White - Constitutional History of England p. 574-575.

UIDCNN P

*V

The English city government which existed in early
times still survives with comparatively little change in the
English city today. It was simple in form. A single body -
the board of mayor, alderman, and assistants constituted the
government of the city. These exercised judicial and legis-
lative functions primarily. One or two other charter officers
were provided for such as a clerk, and a chamberlain; and the
simple administrative functions were carried on by this single
body. There was no separation of powers.1

Parliament by no means stood still under the Tudors. The
real growth of the House of Commons was not visible but remained
hidden.2 The House of‘Lords was composed of a small body who
were temporal and spiritual and who received from.the king an
individual summons.3 No one questioned the right of the arch-
bishops, bishops, and the abbots to be summoned as Lords.
Ihen a person was once summoned as a lord, he had the right
to be summoned again. The oldest son after him was to be sum-
moned in like manner.

During the fourteenth century the membership of the house
fluctuated. 'Ie may attribute the decline of baronage as one
of the cases. In the fifteenth century the body had become
still smaller. 'The number of Lords summoned to the first
Parliament of Henry'VII was but twenty-nine.4

At the beginning of the Tudor Period, the House of Commons

II “‘0 “ O ‘0 ’IO' “ C O. C. O l‘
.' .v . ‘ O ‘ . "|' " . . .

1. National Municipal Review. Vol Vi, 1917. Do 19.
2. Ogg, Frederick - Greater European Governments. P. 22
5. Gardiner, 8. R. History of England 701 I. page 5.

4. Ogg - op. cit. p. 25.

fifteenth century, county members were elected by the body

of free holders present at the county court, out by the stat-

ute of 1450 the electoral privilege was restricted to tree

holders resident in the county and holding land 01 a yearly

rental value of forty shillings, equivalent perhaps to

some thirty pounds in our present values. 1 Tue nunfler 01

eligible people for voting was increasing, and as a result

a rule was adapted to disfranchise large numbers oi peeple

of small means who claimed equality with the knights. This .

rule existed entil the great reform bill 01 1852 fias adopted.‘
Hereditary peers decreased from about eighty in the reign

of Eenry VIfii to only thirty-six at the accession of Uames l.

The opposite was occurring in_the house of Commons. This

house had doubled in size, new countiesswere incorporated,

and new constituencies- had been added. The greatest growth

occurred during the reign of Elizabeth. This was during a

period of growing prosperity oi the country, and due to the.

fact that the Tudors placed importance upon the commercial-and

industrial classes. The House of Commons was gradually gain-

ing power and the monarch who wanted to get along with the

house of Commoms after 1605 had to be both liberal and tactiul.
From 1649-1657 the English government was under the cone

trol of Oliver Cromwell,4and he in turn had established a uni-

cameral system. In 1657 a step was taken to restore the Old

bicameral Parliament. Put the principle failed to take root. hen

'like Cromwell realized that the_people were royalist at heart. by

l. Ogg, Frederick - Greater EurOpean Governments. p. 25.

2. Ibid p . 24.

5. lnnes--England Under the Tudors p. let
4. Green, J. - History of the English BeOple.

1660, Parliament was definitely restored; the two chambers
were established upon their earlier foundations, and had the
power to enact all legislation and taxation.

By 1690 steps were taken to reform the English Parlia-
ment but soon the attention of the people was drawn towards
the French.Revolutionf Soon after the French.Revolution,
began the long prolonged contest with.Napoleon. Both of
these great contests delayed the reform.movement. At the
close of the Napoleonic wars reform agitation was again re-
newed. The feeling became more intense as time elapsed un-
til the year 1852, when the great reform bill was passed.
This bill was related to the distribution of seats in Parlia-
ment and to the extension of the franchise. The House of
Commons was gradually demanding more power and placed itself
upon a broad democratic basis. In the franchise Bill of 1912
the House of Commons controlled the ascendancy in both finance
and legislation. The Act of 1918 introduced universal suffrage
based only upon residence, it contained also some provisions
slightly favoring trade and education.2

When the English Government drew up the charters of the
English Colonies in America, the bicameral principle was in-
stituted in the colonial governments patterned after that
government in the mother country.

The first colonial legislature in lassachusetts was come

posed of two chambers. In 1629 a charter was granted in

England to the 'Goveghment and Company of the massachusetts

El 1,, IHE‘ECIJIIIJ .1.
1. Green, J. - History of the English People Vol. IV. p. 117,

2. Lowell .Lawrence - Greater European Governments p. 52.
3. Mass. Hist Soc. Series Iv. Vol II p. 246-278.

.uaul.‘

‘III I.
A]. .. ..

 

tr.“

 

 

1
New England with the charter. A body of freemen elected

annually a governor, a deputy governor and eighteen assis-
tants for conducting general business and affairs. The leg-
islative power was granted to the general assembly of free-
men, and they met four times a year to conduct business
which they deemed necessary. In October 1650, the power of
electing the governor and the deputy-governor was transferred
from the freemen to the assistants.2 In 1651 a law was passed
giving the Court the power to dismiss assistants of misbehavior
and allowing no one to become a freemen unless he was a member
of a church. The assistants found it necessary to levy a tax
and the people of Watertown objected. The people claimed they
were paying tax without representation. The pastor, elders,
and a few leading men of the village appeared before the gov-
ernor and insisted that the assistants did not have the power
to make laws and levy taxation without the consent of the people.
The assistants replied by saying that government was "in nature
a parliament" ---- the assistants represented the people.3
Those who represented the people were convinced and wrote their
apology and returned home. This incident led to the introduc-
tion of the representative principle in the colonies in 1652.
The General Court in Boston on May 9, 1652 agreed that the
Governor, Deputy Governor, and assistants should be chosen by
e‘ u.. — . .‘ . - .0 0r._ - ,.- ce :--'; :0 e :.d
1. Hutchinson-papers p. 20. ”‘
2. Colonial Records Vol I. 1628-1642 p. 79, 87.

5. Laws of Massachusetts - Series III Vol. VIII Mass. Hist
Society p. 201.

and freemen. The Governor was to be chosen out of the body
of assistants. In May 14, 1654, each town chose two deputies
to meet in a General Court with the Governor and the assis-
tants. Here we see the germs of the bicameral system. The
assistants were elected by the people at large while the dep-
uties were chosen by various towns. This led them both to

think themselves as two separate bodies but they voted as one.

 

1

On September 24, 1654 the follOwing tax was levied upon:

t s d t s d
Dorchester 80 00 00 Ipswitch 50 00 00
Rocksbury 70 00 00 Salem, 45 00 00
New Towne 80 00 00 Meadford 26 00 00
Waterton 50 00 00 Wesaaguscus 10 00 00
Sangus 50 00 00 Charlton 45_00 00
Boston 80 00 00 Barecove.___QA;OO.00
600 00 00

In 1654 the people in Newton desired to move to Conn-
. ecticut for more pasturage. This request met with some opposi-
tion. .A vote was taken by the assistants, deputies, and Gov-
ernor and the result was a deadlock which brought business to
a standstill.

Prayer was observed to solve the problem, and afterwards
everything went on cheerfully. Boston and'Watertown ceded
land to Newton and then everything went on cheerfully, the

cause for leaving was removed. In 1656, the General Court

.dacidad_td_paaa_unan_ths_mattar1__Itadacided_that_nn_1an__
l. Hutchinson papers. p. 68.
Colonial Records p. 167, 171.

could pass an act of Court without the majority of the assis-
tants and the deputies. The act ruled the two bodies coordi-
nate in legislative authority, and introduced one of the es-
sential features of the bicameral system. That is, a bill
could not become a law unless supported by both houses in the
same form.1 The two bodies continued to sit together until
1644. The cause for separation was over Richard Sherman's
pig who had strayed away from home to another of much more
consequence who happened to be Captain Keayne. Mr. Keayne
had not returned the pig and in order to secure his pig
again he had the case taken to court in 1642. A vote was
taken and two assistants and fifteen deputies supported the
plaintiff and seven assistants and eight deputies supported
the defendandt and seven deputies were neutral. The case

was brought for final hearing in the General Court in 1645.
The verdict of the General Court was that the two bodies should
sit apart, that bills might originate in either, bill; passed

in one house should go to the other house for assent.

The system and growth was essentially American, but the
principle originate in England. It might have been possible
that this principle would have found its way into the American
government but the familiarity with the English institutions
hastened the way. The Old Puritan stock in Massachusetts be-

lieved the English institutions were the best,but they hated

taL

1.Colonial Records p. 167 , 171,
2.Colonia1 Records II. p. 12,51,58.

A charter was granted to Providence Plantations on
March 14, 1645. The first General Assembly was held at
Portsmouth on May 19, continuing until the twenty-first.

At this meeting the charter was adapted. In 1647 the
government was organized under this charter at an assembly
of delegates from Providence, Portsmouth, “ewport, and War-
wick.l In 1665 a new charter was granted whicn provided

for a governor, deputy governor, ten assistants and eighteen

deputies. The deputies were to be elected by the respective

towns, while the assistants were to be elected by tne entire

0" .

é
body of the freemen. The mode of the election constituted

the germ oi the bicameral system, all were to sit in the
same house but the time was not far ofi when the separation
was bound to come. Steps toward this end were taken immed-
lately. In the records of 1664 are found accounts of long
agitations about a motion whether the deputies should sit by

themselves and the assistants by themselves The matter

was put over until the meeting of the next assembly. Petitions
were sent in from various communities to separate the two
bodies and this continued to arouse agitation. In flarch 1666,
further action was taken and the request was granted by the
assembly, but the details of the change of government were to

be discussed in the next meeting in May. The-gttendance was

small and as a result no action was taken. In September the
act was sugpended and the members sat in onehouse. On October

1. Colonial records Vol I. p 155, 145.
2. Ibid p. 514

\ JIIIIIII.

 

1666 a definite decision was reached and the two houses con-
tinued as one.1

The beginning of King Philip's War and the hostility be-
tween the Dutch and the French delayed the agitation for some
time for a two house legislature. The two houses sat apart
during this time which served further to differentiate the
functions of the two houses. After the end of the war the
agitation continued again.

In May 1668 the deputies requested that they be allowed
to withdraw from the assembly to consider questions. The re-
quest was granted provided that they return within a half hour
and pass no laws in their absence.

In 1672 the Treasurer was inseructed to provide at public
exPense a dinner between assistants and deputies to establish
better feelings. The dinner served its purpose for a compro-
mise was established and deputies continued to sit in the same
chamber with the assistants. Even now they considered theme
selves a distinct body and looked upon themselves as the House
of Commons?

On November 6, 1672, the deputies issued a statement saying
that no taxes could be levied without the consent of the Deputies.
Any act passed should be null and void. They justified themselves
on the ground that the freeman represented the people and they
'were the ones who must pay the tax. The deputies were not satis-
fied with anything less than complete separation. On May 6, 1696,

.ad_alIssnlhIinn_in.ihe.3i133ihilmdLJileknnuL_

.ths_dsnuties_intrndnc
1. Colonial records Vol II'BS, 137, 140, 141.
2. Colonial Records Vol II. p. 225, 445.

of Deputies sit alone and have the liberty to choose a
Speaker among themselves, and likewise the Clerk of the
Deputies. This was agreed to, and the Council and Governor
constituted the upper house of the Assembly.1

As soon as the region of New York came under the control
of the Duke of York, the people within this vicinity began to
move for a representative government like that in the New Eng-
land Colonies. The Duke favored a representative government if
the people were willing to provide certain funds for the nec-
essary support of the colony. Governor Dongan on January 27,
1683 was ordered to summon a representative assembly to join
with himself and Council in making laws fit and necessary to be
made and established for the good will and government of the .
colony. On October 17, 1685, the first legislative assembly
of New York was convened. It was a bicameral house --- the
Governor and the Council constituting the one house and the rep-
resentatives the other. The important act passed at this meet-
ing was called the "Charter of’Liberty' --- the government of
the colony. The administration was to be under the superior con-
trol of the Duke of York.2 Provisions were made for two dis-
tinct houses, bills had to be passed by a majority of the rep—
resentatives, then sent next to the Governor and the Council for
approval and then after their assent they became the law of the
province. The charter was sent to the Duke of York for approval.

3
After his coronation it was vetged. Governor Dongan notified

 

l. Colonial Records III. 313.
2. Short Account of General Concerns of New York - Documents
p. 254, 260
5. The Veto of the Act entit1ed, The Charter and Privileges
for the Province. p. 557,

19.

the peeple to that effect. The law making power was placed in
the hands of the Governor and Council and the representative
body was abolished. The laws which were passed by the governor
and the Council were sent to England for royal approval within
three months after their passage. Governor Dongan dissolved-
the Assembly January 20, 1687. Afterwards the government of the
colony was in the hands of the Governor and a Council of five
men. This form continued under Andros until Ieisler took over
the government in his own hands in 1689. An assembly was called
in April 1690 and September 15, 1690. Two houses comgosed the
legislature and then the nevs was sent to England. A commission
was issued making Henry Slaughter Governor on November 14,
1689. The Governor and the majority of the Assembly were to
make the laws. This remained the fundamental law of New York
until the Revolution in 1776. The Governor at first preside
over the Council. In 1736 the Assembly declared it inconsist-
ent for the Governor to sit and vote as a member of the Council,
1
he withdrew, and the Oldest member of the Council presided.

The details of the process of the separation of the Cou oil
from the House of Burgesses in vCarp-gin avis not available and for
that reason the rise of the bicameral system in Virginia has not
been discussed.

The history of Georgia is not treated here, for after 1752,
the colony surrendered to the crown and after two years had
elapsed a royal government had been established. l'he legislature

was bicameral under the royal gpvernment, but after the Declara-

iioraoimmenendenceme eihinalahous e .

 

1. Documents III. Commission passed by the Great Seal p. 556
Captain Leisler to King‘flilliam and Queen Mary p. 614
Commission for Henry Slaughter. p. 623.

 

 

The Colonies became dissatisfied with the laws inflicted
upon them by the English government and the feeling became so
intense that delegates were sent to Philadelphia (all delegates
were here except Georgia) to come to some definite plan in re-
gard to their relationship towards England. Very little in a
constructive way was accomplished at this Congress.1 The
Second Continental Congress met May 10, 1775 to see if the
states could be more securely united. On June 11, 1776} the
Continental Congress appointed a committee to prepare a plan
under which states could act together in the future. As a
result the Articles of Confederation, which provided for a

, single body assembly, were drawnup. The plan was approved
November 17, 1776 by the delegates. This served as the
kind of government for the colonies during the war period
and to the period of 1789.2 The Articles of Confederation
had proved inefficient and a new kind of government was necessary.
The existing government was becoming weaker and was in a pos-
ition where it could not enforce its laws.3 As a consequence,
delegates were sent from.the states to Philadelphia in May,
1787 to attend the Federal Convention. The Convention, how-
ever, did not convene until may 25. Fifty-five men were assem-
bled from the various states. Washington was chosen President
of the Convention, doors were closed to the public, and everyone
lmmLjummn_inin_aegzegy‘__1hg”delegates did not wish the public
1. Bassett - Short History of the United States p. 178.

2. Elliot's Debates in the State Convention Vol I, p. 67.
3. Federalist - p. 91, 94.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to know the problems which had to be solved in the con-
vention. They feared the people would become restless and
would make their influence felt to the extent that dele-
gates would be unable to support their own convictions but
instead would have to fulfill the desires and wants which
the people whom they were representing demanded. The people
did not know what had been discussed until the following
September when the final draft was published. What was said
and done was told fifty years after the plan had been used.1
They desired to put forth the system as a whole and not as
single individual ideas or theories. many people Speculated
as to the results of the convention.

'Iany delegates came to the convention with the idea that
the amendment of the Articles of Confederation would solve
the problem. Others thought the government should be comp
pletely changed and a well organized form of government dev-
eloped which would, if possible, solve the crisis which was
facing the colonies. A government was needed which could act
directly upon the people. Sometfi'these constitution makers
lost their c urage and proposed half measures, but others
had the courage and were determined to form.a well organized
government to meet the conflict which they_were facing.2 It
‘was here that‘Washington interposed "It is probable that no
plan which we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dread-
ful conflict is to_be sustained. If, to please the people,
we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards

" ' on
1. Madison Papers - p. 123, 125, 126.
Qfiglliot's Debates on Federal Constitution Vol I. p. 181

1.
2.
3.

in one sense challenged the man who was a weakling. It

served as a good tonic and gave the delegates new courage.
Washington was in favor with the people and by the aid of

his noble sentiment he was able to remain the leader of the
people? He convinced the delegates that faltering or trifling
“was unwise and dangerous.

The delegates were convinced that the Articles of Confeder-
ation did not give the Continental Congress enough power or the
ability to enforce laws. The Articles of Confederation represent-
ed the American states instead of the American people. The Con-
tinental Congress did not have the power to check a quarrel be-
tween states, surpress a rebellion in any one of them? unable to
raise money, or defend itself against the encroachments of the
states. The new government must have the republican principle
as a basis.3

Two plans were laid before the Convention. The first was
known as the Virginia plan. This plan was agreed upon in a com-
mittee of the delegates of that state, and was brought forward
by Edmund Randolph who was Governor of Virginia, although the
chief author of the bill was madison. The provisions of the
Virginia Plan were as follows: (1) favored large states and pro-
vided for a congress of two branches, the lower branch elected by
the people on the basis of population or land value and the upper
house elected by the lower branch; (2l_make all laws the existing
annifidfizaiinn_no
John Fiske -- The Critical Period. p. 232.

American Annals p. 478.
The Federalist p. 241.

constitution; (40 a national executive was to be chosen by
Congress, but its composition was not defined; (5) provided for
a national judiciary; (6) officers of the state should be required
to take oath to support the constitution.1

many of the delegates disapproved of this plan. By the
tact of Hadison and Gouverneur Mbrris a vote on the question
'was postponed for a few days? After the debates, the issues had
become so narrowed and defined that they could be considered as
a unit. It was first decided that the national legislature should;
consist of two branches. Next came the question of how the lower
house should know the sympathies of the people in the various com-
munities, know something of their local conditions, something
about the problems they were facing, and that this house ought to
be fully interested in every interest of the people. The best way
to successfully and completely attain this as nearly as possible
'was through popular election. Mason was supported by such men as
Hamilton, Dickerson, and Wilson. The final decision was in favor
of popular election. 3

0n the fourth of June, the great question came up which nearly
wrecked the Convention. This question related to the representa-
tion of states in the new Congress. New states would be under
the influence of large states if they.could net'have equal votes

without regard to wealth and population. Virginia, Massachus-

.etts, Pennsylvania,and North Carolina favored the Virginia plan

 

 

l. Elliot’s Debates in the State Conventions Vol I. 143-145.
2. Madison Papers. p. 481.
3. Hadison papers (Dupplement of Elliot's Debates ) p. 137.

and succeeded in carrying South Carolina and Georgia.

States like Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and mary-
land, who were not only small in area, but unable to ex-
pand were not in favor of giving up their equal votes in
both houses of the legislature. The New Hampshire delegates
had not yet arrived? Luther martin of Deleware succeeded
in dividing the votes in the Deleware delegation; two mem.
bers of the NewYork delegation were political enemies of
Hamilton and attempted to thwart him by voting with the
smaller states.2 The members of Connecticut were conciliatory,
but New Jersey was obstinate. She knew what it meant to be
under the influence of a powerful neighbor like New York.

‘In behalf of the smaller states, William Patterson laid
before the Convention the "New Qersey” plan. This plan pro-
posed a federal legislature consisting of a single house, a
council for an executive head to be chosen by Congress. This
plan gave Congress the power to regulate foreign trade and
domestic commerce, levy duties on imports, and to raise inter-
nal revenue by means of a Stamp Act? Apparently, it looked
liberal on the surface, but at the bottom it was vicious.

It did not give Congress the power to act immediately upon
individuals. The federal legislature was to represent states

instead of people, states were allowed equal votes, without

regard to population or wealth. No powers were securely

 

l. The Federalist p. 245
2. Nadison Papers p. 175
3. Elliot's Debates - Vol I. p. 175.

granted to Congress and under such a condition it would be al-
most impossible for a legislative body to put laws into oper-
ation. This plan did not offer any real solution to the prob-
lem which afflicted the country.
many debates followed and Benjamin Franklin, with Tur-
got and other French critics, supported the single chambered
plan. Franklin was opposed by John Adams who undertook to
show that a government by single assemblies had1 "generally
been visionary if not corrupt and violent and had usually
ended in despotism. Of all possible forms of government,
a sovereignty in a single assembly successively chosen by
the people, is,” he said, "perhaps the best way to facili-
tate the gratification of self-love and the pursuit of the
private interests of a few individuals and the only remedy
to be employed would be through the element of force."
Hamilton, Madison, and Washington were in favor of the
bicameral system and laid particular stress upon Montes-
quieu'e doctrine of separation of powers. "When the legis-
lative and the executive powers are united in the same-per-
son or in the same body of magistrates,” said Montesquieu,
"there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise
lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws,

to execute them in a tyrannical manner.” This opinion of the

philosOpher was also held by the great English commentator,

L

l. madison Papers - p. 135.

Blackstone, who said, "In all tryannical governments, the su-
preme magistry or the right, both of making and enforcing
the laws, is vested in one and the same man or one of the same
body of men; and whereever these two powers are united together,
there can be no public liberty.“l

The political liberty of the citizen is that state of
mind arising from the opinion that each person is safe from
the political demands of another individual.

In order to have this liberty, it is necessary that the
government be so constituted that one man need not be afraid
of another.

Where the legislative and executive powers are united

‘

in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there
can be no liberty?

Again there is no liberty if the judicial power is not
separated from the executive and legislative. If the execu-
tive department was joined to the legislative, the life and
liberty of the subject would be eXposed to arbitrary control,
for the judge would then be the legislator. ‘Were it joined
to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence
and oppression. There would be an end of everything, were
the same man, or the same body to exercie all three powers.3

The John Locke theory was discussed under the separation
of powers in government. Locke tells us that the legislative
..__ . " up. ‘ "_ ‘_ ... . . _ .OT .; . _ .
1. Blackstone, Commentaries, Book I. Chapter II. p. 146.

2. Federalist ..p. 50-51
3. Ibid p. 52-53.

the commonwealth shall be employed for preserving the commun-
ity and the members of it. It is too great a temptation for
men who have the making of law to have the execution of law.
When in such a position, they may make and execute to their
own private advantage and come to have a distinct interest
from the rest of the community, contrary to the end of society
and government. There is always a power in existence to pro-
mote the execution of the laws that are made, and remain in
force. Thus the executive and legislative power come often
to be separated.1

EXperience, more cysm;accustomed the colonists to the
practical advantages of this theory. Every colony had an
executive head appointed or elected and not responsible to
the legislative department. Some colonies had such wide leg-
islative powers, that the law making department encroached
upon the other departments of government. In the Artcles
of Confederation, the doctrine of separation of powers was
entirely abandoned. Congress possessed all legislative, ex-
ecutive, and judicial power.2 This illustration shows us
that inefficiency developed from such mingling.

The separation of powers as expressed in the constitution
is as follows: “All legislative powers herein granted shall

be vested in a Congress of the United States ...................

and the executive powers shall be vested in a President of the

4
MIME-WOWOOOOO
1. Coker - The John Locke Theory p. 411.
2. Articles of Confederation.
3. The Constitution of the U. S. article I, Section 1.
4. The Constitution of the U. 8. Article II, Secion l.

and the Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the

Congress may from time to time ordain and establishl, imply
adherence to the principle.

Interpretations given by the courts to these provisions
thas given legal force to the political theory. There are
eXceptions to be made in the doctrine of the separation of
powers. Appointments are made by the executive to ful-
fill official positions by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. There are certain exceptions where the legis-
lature may have some control over the executive and the
judicial departments. 2 Impeachments are made on the exe-
cutive and the judges of the federal courts by the legisla-
tive body. Gourts may declare a law passed by the legisla-
ture unconstitutional. The real principle of the doctrine of
separation of powers has been stated as follows: a depart-
ment may constitutionally exercise any power whatever of its
essential nature which has, by the Constitution, been delega~
ted to it, but that it may not exercise powers not so constitu-
tionally granted, which from their essential nature do not
fall within its division of governmental functions unless
such powe s are properly incidental to the performanceby its
own appropriate functions... Generally speaking it may be said

that Where a power is not peculiarly and distinctively legisla-

. .- ;;- v‘ . o ; ‘z .0 l‘ .: I. . O 0’
1, e Constitution of the .8. article III, clause 1
2. Kimball, Everett - The Nat'l Government of the U. 8. p. 68

legislature to determine where its existence shall be vested.l

In the past when one department has encroached upon an-
other, emphatic statements have been made of the theory of
separation of powers by the courts.

After the debates of the above theories, a vote was taken
anditt~was decided that Congress should consist of two houses.
The principle of equal state representation, however,
remained a stumbling block. Many said that to part from the

principle would be to exceed the powers of the convention,

. 2
which was not intended to remodel the government, from be-

ginning to end. Randolph pleaded with the small states on
the gound that the republic was at stake, and it would be
the same as treason not to purpose what they found necessary.
Hamilton reminded the delegates that the plans which were
recommended by them.had to be approved by the states. Dis-
cussions were given, some in favor of equal state representa-
tion and some against and when things were looking as though
the efforts of these young statesmen would be futile, Oliver
Ellsworth and Roger Sherman suggested a compromise. The
Connecticut principle provided that the national principle
should prevail in the House of Representatives and the Federal
principle in the Senate. At first, few were willing to support
the compromise. When the question was pr0posed applying the
Federal principle to the Senate, and the vote taken the result
was a tie:_ '
l. —Tfi; Constitutional Law of the U:‘§., Vol. Iftp. 1253-54
w. W. Uilloughby .

2. Elliot's Debates Vol I. p. 184-185.
3. Madison papers p. 260

Abraham Baldwin is a man who deserves mention. for with-
out yielding his own belief it is possible that the conven-
tion would never have held together. His state was the last
to vote.» With his vote he was able to divide the vote of
Georgia and prevent the decision in favor of the large states.1

A committee was chosen, consisting of one from each
state, with Elbridge Gerry as chairman to arrive at a compro-
mise. Objections were now raised by the larger states.

Again the convention was in the dark. Debates followed,
and after eleven days had elapsed, the compromise was adopted
on the sixteenth of July. Barely a majority was secured in
the adoption of the compromise when the vote was taken. It
was a compromise between that party in the nation which wanted
a government strong enough to pay the national debt, regul-
ate commerce, protect creditors and sustain property rights
in general, and the other party which was concerned about a
democratic and confederate form of government, known as a
check and balance system. The provisions of the compromise
were as follows: (1) the lower house was to be elected by
the people, one representative to every thirty thousand
inhabitants; (2) the upper house should be nominated and
elected by the state legislature (senators were to vote
as individuals and thus the practice of voting by states -——

except in peculiar cases --- was done away with; (3) the pres-

 

WWW composed
1. Fiske, John — The Critical Period p. 251

of delegates or representatives sent from each state. His
term of office was to be a period of four years.1

The Connecticut compromise was really a decisive vic-
tory for Madison and his party, although it modified the
Virginia plan considerably.

Our Federal legislature is bicameral because of English
and Colonial precedents. he have seen in the foregoing dis-
cussion that the bicameral plan as adopted in England and
the United States was not a natural one. The English Parliament
happened to develop into two houses and at the time of its
formation proved to be congruous for the situation at the
time of its adoption. All civilized governments are pat-
terned after the English government either directly or
indirectly. We have seen that our forms came from England
through a colonial environment and by 1776 most cf the
colonies had bicameral legislatures. In making up the
federal system, it was deemed wise to represent both the
confederate and the national principle. The formation of
the bicameral system upon these principles, sustaining both
groups of people, glorified and sanctified the system, em-
bedding it within the very thoughts of the people.

The primary purpose of the legislature is to ascertain
what the law ought to be; to determine, not What the will of
the people at the moment commands, but what the reason of the

people, the common consciousness, demands. The legislature

Wasp. sanstruatsii as to best fulfllLLhiuhmaei Inter-

 

 

l; Madison papers p. 558.

preting the common consciousness of the people, is a far.more
difficult task than merely determing the public Opinion of the
people. It requires reasoning, balancing of opinions and int-
erests, the classification of facts, the generalization of prin-
ciples, and research? During the period of constitution making,
the framers were convinced that a single body would be too hasty
in determing the above factors and would present one-sided
views. A two-house legislature will not always escape. crude
results, but they are far less likely to happen. A rivalry may
exist between the two houses and in such a process, principles
which are introduced in one house will be severely criticised

in the other. In a disagreement like the foregoing, a deeper
generalization of the principle will be brought out, than where
the struggle is between a majority and a minority in a single
house. The neciggity of a double, independent deliberation

is thus the fundamental principle of the bicameral system in

the construction of a legislature.

Men like Hamilton, washington, Adams and Madison at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution feared radicalism with
a one house legislature. A chamber of three houses would be too
conservative. That is, the true interpretation of the common
consciousness, could best be determined by the true mean between
radicalism.and conservatism.which is best secured in a two champ

3
urea. @~_. _ *M_w
1. Burgess J- Political Science and Comparative Consti-
tutional Law V01. II. PP. 106-107
2. Ibid p. 107-108 ‘
3. Ibid p. 109

 

The more conservative framers feared that a single body
legislature would encroach upon the rights of the executive
department. They presented again the theories of‘Locke and
Montesquieu when debating the relationship of the executive
to the legislative. They thought it necessary to have two
chambers to preserve the balance of power between the legis-
lative and the executive department. The single chamber
would have a tendency to force the executive to execute
its will. If this occurred, it would introduce into the
administration a confusion which might lead to anarchy.

The two chambers are, in the first place, a support
to the executive power and therefore in the second place
to the legislature. By preventing legislative encroach-
ments in the beginning, the bicameral legislature would
avoid executive arrogance.l

New States modeled their legislatures upon Congress,
except Vermont. The force of example was then too strong
and even Vermont changed her system in 1836.

The adOption of this system in the states was for the _
purpose of securing representation of diverse and possibly
conflicting interests. The contrast of confederation and
nationalism gave the occasion for the establishing of the
bicameral principle in the different states. some of the
citizens of the individual states were bound to be national-

. O
:::oooa‘;po_o :'0 Q‘::,‘ sazqo 0’ a

1. The University of 0k ahoma Quartley Bulletin p. 23. No. n.

conditions may change, but the cause remains and can be re-
moved only through the process of education, which allows
members to interpret common consciousness without the help
of Opposition.l When the common consciousness of people
becomes so highly develOped, it will matter little whether
we have one house or two.

After the Revolutionary'fiar, state legislatures granted
charters to the cities. A radical change took place in the
relationship existing between the city and the state. Under
colonial charters, the cities enjoyed almost entire freedom.
Before the war charters were granted on the desire of the
people. After the adoption of the Constitution, city char-
ters were granted by the state legislatures. After a short
time, the charters began to show a change which was due to
the influence of ideas found in the Federal Constitution.

The first clear indication was in the Baltimore charter gf
1794 which provided for a mayor and a bicameral council.
Even where the bicameral principle was established, the mayor
did not become the head of an executive brancn of govern-
ment. He was moved to the upper chamber of the council; but
the administrative activities of the city continued to be man-
aged by one or both branches of the council through separate
or joint cemmittees. The introduction of the two-chambered
'council was a disasterous step in the way of cumbersom organ-
‘e

l. Burgess, J. — Pol. Sci. & Com. Consti. Law p. 109
2. munro, Wm. B. - The Govt. of the American City 25-26.

councilmanic domination and control. Individual respon-
sibility became more difficult to locate; but group responsi-
bility and concentration of authority remained. But as a
matter of fact, a really new organic type was not established
until a few years later.1 This new type will be discussed later.
No provisions were made in the constitution for political
parties such as we have today. A political party took a def-
inite stand on certain issues and aligned itself against
another faction whose issues were directly opposite. Such
parties developed in the U. 5. during the Jacksonian area.
It was during this period that the following assertion was
embodied in the party principle: "to the victor belongs the
spoils“. The principle of short tenure of office and the rapid
succession of officers determined that ”we must have no
permanent office-holding class in America"? But, as
the country advanced, and life became more intensed and
specialized, we learned that the spoils system and the rota-
tion system were actually creating a political and official
class of an inferior and dangerous political type. 'With
two houses already in existence, the spoils system was able to
become fixed within the houses before anyone could be held dir-
ectly reSponsible for such corruptibn. More offices existed to
be filled and as a result there existed more room for corrup-

tion. If one party did not have the majority in both houses

he attempted to kill those bills, if possible, which were ini-

 

1. Nat‘l mun. Review (Evolution of types of city Government)
by Prof. Howard L. -thain I). 19
2. Shaw, Albert Pol. Problems of American Government p. 141.

56

tiated by the Opposing party in the other house. Spoils con-
tinued to be a great evil until the time of President Grant,

and the legislatures were at a loss to check the corruption.
Then came the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War.

By 1875, the country had eXpanded in wealth and in complexity of
economic life, the opportunities which were afforded in private
life became more alluring and men who had real ability along
governmental lines were recompensed in other lines of business.
With the existence of two houses and an extensive number in the
lower house, it was impossible to pay large salaries and re-
ceive the better type of men. The result has been, that the
political type has degenerated to the point that men who now
attend the legislature are those who have some private inter-
est to fulfill or some personal gain to make. They are men who
are not actuated by public Spirit or feel it an honor to per-
form.public service for their country. As a result order and
system.disappeared from the administrative work with many harm.
ful results. The deeper remedy for all such evils must, of cou-
rse lie in the develOpment of the individual citizen.

The country's economic activities had grown to such an
extent that money and other forms of wealth were concentrating
in the city? This brought a new poblem in city government.

During the second quarter of the nineteenth century, dem-
ocracy was at its heighth in America. This Spirit was finding
expression in the laws and constitutions. Its most striking

1. Mhnro, Wm..B. op. cit. p. 32
2. Anderson, Wm. - The American City Government p. 298.

is obvious that this kind of gOVernmcnt should make itself felt
in the city. The charters or cities were amended from time to
time creating more elective officials until administrative in-
dependence was secured by the election. A few officers were
appointed% Great floods of immigrants were coming from
EurOpe and the ctities were growing rapidly. The develOpment
of the spoils system and the extension of manhood suffrage
gave the city new problems to be met. Councils grew in size
‘even in small cities the council was composed of thirty members.
The argument which supported the large growth of councils was
to the effect that it put the government closer to the peOple.
By 1870 one would have found the city councils large, elected
by wards and in many cases divided into two bodies.2

In the beginning of the seventies large companies were
formed and were making their influence felt in governmental
circles. Many of these corporations were present at council
meetings to obtain an ordinance they desired or to prevent a
measure which would injure them. Boss rule develOped in cer-
tain cities, and through the political system certain groups
were able to dominate a city. The boss could sign contracts on
which he would expect a.rebate given to him for letting a par-
ticular company have the contracts. The government in the city

.had.become so decentralized that reSponsibility could not be

WeMSW
l. Nat'l mun. Review op. cit p. 22-23
2. 'Munro, Wm - op. cit. p. 32.

l
ernment to whom under officials were responsible. Ballots

were long and there remained many officers to be elected.
Only the minor men were appointed and the judgment of a
community was not applied to any of the minor offices on the
ballot. The average American citizen never casted a completely
intelligent vote. And a person who votes blindly is being
bossed.. With large councils constituted into two houses, a
land "of paradise" was made for the "boss". Soon after the
seventies a reaction began to take place in the cities. ,The
bicameral principle and ward elections began to fall into dis-
repute. By 1890 at the latest, a movement had begun to return
to the single chambered council and to introduce an election
at large. With the initiation of these changes, it was nec-
essary for councils to be reduced in size. Along with these
changes in organization the council underwent various modifications
in its powers. And as the nineteenth century drew to a close,
there was a general reaction against the decentralization of
government. The people in cities desired to get rid of their
bosses. They wanted some one responsible for city ordinances
which were passed.2

Then began a new movement for consolidation and concen-
tration of power. However, the legislators were not ready to
restore council control. They tended to confer more power
on the mayor and make him.responsible to the peOple. After
.cantain_hnardskware.eliminaied+.the.pawers_nf_the_cnnncil_____

1. Anderson, Wm.' - op. cit. p 210-11.
2. Mhnro, Wm. The Government of the American Cities p. 32.

C
(

broadened and the re esult mas a single chambered council

which exercised only legislative and financial powers and had

no direct ontrol over the administrative officers. The

elective mayor appointed and removed all important department

heads and through them controlled the administration of the

city. This reform found general favor in the American cities

after 1890 and continued to be accepted in many great American
1

cities.

Along wi‘t- the tendency toward smaller councils the move-
ment has gone to eliminate two body councils. The demand for
simple and res sponsiole municipal org a;cizaticn became to in-
sistent to be ignored. Few cities in the south and east part
of the United States adopted the single chanbered council.

1
P

L)

\

They remain today because of habit. In other Carts of t
country, second-house ls gis atures arc fast disacpearing.
The comn.ssion plane u nd the city manager plan are the latest
reform governments for cities. Beeponsibility is fixed in
these forms of government and the result has been that a nore
efficient government has evolved. The new reform governments
bring more capable men in the office v.ho are better citizens
and are interested in contributing to pup blic welfare. Failure,
ectravagance, and inefficiency are eliminated. Decisions
are thoroughly analyzed by men who are interested and under-
stand governmental affairs and as a result constructive legis-
lation is accomplished in a relatively short time

The following table gives a list of cities with the size,
term, and methads of election of city councils in the United

States ----_1924-

 

1. Anderson, Wm. op. cit p. 303.

Size, Tdnfl, Ade

 

MEIdUUS OJ ELECTION

or CLIY COUNCILS
IN THE Heiren STATuS

 

Number of

 

 

Popula- members of Term
Name of city tion council or in Method of election
1920 of lower years
chamber
New York..........5,620,048 73 2 67 by wards; 5 by
boroughs; l at large
Chicago...........2.701,705 5O 4 By wards; regular and
supplementary elec-
- tion system
Philadelphia..... 1,823,779 20 4 By senatorial districts
Detroit.......... 993,678 9 2 At large
Cleveland........ 796,841 25 2 Hare system of vot-
' ing; 4 districts
St. Louis........ 772,897 29 4 At large, one from
each district
Boston............ 748.050 9 3 At large
Baltimore......... 733,826 19 3 3 from each of 5 wards
' l at large
Pittsburg........v 588,343 9 4 At large
Los Angeles....... 576.675 11 2 At large
Buffalo........... 506,775 5 4 At large; commission
plan
San Francisco..... 506,676 18 4 At large
Mi1waukee......... 457,147 31 t and 425 by yards; 6 at
large
Washington.......¢ 437,571
Newark............. 414.524 5 4 At large; commission
plan -
CinCinnatiooooooot a 401,247 32 2 26 by ‘.'.'ards; 6 at
large
New Orleans........ 387,219 5 4 At large; commission
. plan
Minneapolis......o 380,582 25 4 2 from each of 15
. wards
Kansas City, Mo.. 324,410 16 2 By wards
Seattle 315,312 9 3 At large
IndianapoliS..... 314,194 9 4 Lor 2 from each of 6
‘ wards
Jersey City...... 298,103 5 4 At large; commission
plan
Rochester, N. Y... 295,750 24 2 By wards
Portland, Ore..... 258,288 5 4 At large; preferential

 

 

 

 

ballot;commis’n plan

Slam,

Tuna, Amy nmrnous OE ELLCTION 0E ClTi CUUHUILfi

In} 'i‘xifii UNITED STATES .- "1924 - Continued.

 

 

 

umber of
Pepula- embers of
Name of city tion council or Term inMethod of election
1920 of lower in
chamber years
Denver..........., 256,491 9 2 By wards
Toledo... ........ 243,164 20 2 By wards
Providence......... 237,595 40 2 4 from each of 10
wards
Columbus 0....... 237,031 7 4. At large
Louisville 234,891 24- 2 2 from each of 12
wards
St. Paul........., 234,698 7 2 ,At large; commission
plan
0ak1and..........b 216,261 5 4 gAt large; commission
éwlan
Akron............, 208,435 9 4 EAt large'
Atlanta.......... 200,616 20 2 2 from each of 10

 

 

 

ards '

 

Anderson - p. 352-353

When political parties mere first developed and stands
were taken on definite issues, people allied themselves definite-
ly and voted for that particular party in every election. The
children of families were brought up to become wither Republicans
‘or Democrats, not knowing what the principles of the party stood.
for.

At the present time, economic forces are at work which
makes some of the issues, which were supported by men and indi-
viduals who were allied with a certain party in the past, unsuit-
able to their particular interest. As an illustration, industrial
concerns in the past have wanted high tariffs and they allied
themselves with the Republican party for they stood for high
tariff while the Democratic party in the past stood for revenue
only. Now, industrial concerns desire low tariffs, and as a
result they do not support any particular party. The strong
states of the South which are democratic now desire a high
tariff. We are in a period, today, where political parties are
going through a transition. Under such conditions parties do not
come forth with any definite issue. The strenght of parties
ciepends upon public opinion and they desire the support of the
'voting class and make their platforms accordingly.

In such a situation you may have one political party in
(zontrol in one house and th; other party in control in the other
liouse. Under such an arrangement, it would be impossible for
zany constructive legislation to be accomplished. If a bill
is initiated in one house it will be killed in the other, un-
Iless local interest can have such an influence upon the situa-

tion that a legislator is under obligations to favor a partic-

bill if his particular constituencie demands it. Under such
a situation, a country may suffer immensely before such pol-
itical squabbling can be exterminated.

At the time of the adoption of the constitution, the
agrarian group was the only social group at that time. Farm-
ing was the only field of activity engaged in. The country was
new and every man lived on the soil and made his living by
growing grains, food, raising stock, or growing other products
which were sent to Europe and in return received some of the
things which they desired. Everyone was engaged in the same
kind of work and the satisfaction of one group met the satis-
faction of all as far as the economic situation was concerned.
The bicameral principle worked well in this simple form of
society. But what happened? After industry was introduced we
found one group, which was called the industrial, located at
first in the New England states against the agrarian group in
the Wes: and South. Their interests were not in common and
the interests demanded by the industrial group were harmful
to the agrarian group. As a result, you have that group which
was supporting the nationalist principle-of government against
that group which was supporting the confederate principle. In
such a conflict, the entire check and balance system.was upset
‘which was supposed to be one of the greatest advantages of the
bicameral plan. We know the result. The feeling became so
intense that a Civil Tar developed.

Business developed so rapidly that other social groups

‘were formed. There developed the group who was called the

millionaires, a.other group who represented the business
men but did not class themselves as capitalists, another
group called themselves the professional type, another
the industrial labor, and still another was called the
farmer. '

We find all these groups working in particular sections
of the legislative houses attempting to further their own
interest. The group which is able to make his influence felt
the most is the one who is able to further his interests the
most. Groups of society which are dissatisfied are unable
to point out any particular house and hold them reaponsible
for not passing legislative bills which they desired. This
causes dealy and contention between the two houses and in
the end causes a general unrest and a feeling of dissat-
isfaction among social groups.

' The old adage, in the council of many is wisdom supports
the bicameral principle. That is the aggregate knowledge of
three hundred legislators should be greater than one third of
that number. ‘Within this group of men, some members should
have some knowledge about the complex interests of the govern-
ment while others will have a workable knowledge about more
simple interests of the government. ‘With more members, rep-
resentatives are scattered over a wider area and are acquainted
with the ideas and needs of different constituencies. The
principle of democracy favors increasing the power of the
people.

The large legislature serves as a training school for many

representatives. Many of our outstanding statesmen have rec-

eived their eduCation in politics in this practical school.
Many must serve their years in learning the ideas and princi—
ples of government bef-re they are able to appear before a
large two body chamber and fight for the rights of the common
1 ayman .

In order to preserve our princiele of representation
the unit must be small. The problems found in one unit may
not exist in another. The representative must be in touch
with the people in the communities to understand their prob-
lems. One region may be interested in mining, another in
farming, another in oil. In order to qualify as an efficient
legislator, he should be well informed along these linGS.

Men who did not have large incomes would be unable to
serve in the legislature if a Single body was adopted. They
would not have the means to pay neWSpaper men for publicity,
live the plane of social life that is required, and to secure
the support of influential men. such men avainooln and Jack-
son would be unable to receive such recognition as they did.

The two-body plan continues to equalize the power of the
rural community with that of the city. Large numbers of people
live more closely together and would be able to defeat the
measures proposed by the rural communities.

When there is a large group of men sitting as one body,
there is bound to be some who will be conservative. It
would be much_more difficult to secure the.support of a large

number of men than a small body.

A two-chambered body tends to make a government far more
stable? Laws which pass both houses have to be carefully
considered, and as a result hasty and rash legislation is pre-
vented. Such legislation passed under such conditions would tend
to permit constructive legislation. The period of delay inter-
posed by the required concurrence of the second chamber facil-
itates the exposure of defects in proposed legislation.

A second chamber insures a jealous examination and a
critical revision of the bills of the other chamber.

No restraint is imposed on the influence of public Opinion.
The House of Representatives is closely connected with the
people, and if their representatives wish to remain in office,
they must carry out their widies. If not, their political
life will be at an end..

We will discuss in some detail the second chamber as a
revising agency in the New Mexico legislature of 1925. A total
of 177, or 71% of the bills originating in the house, were
;passed by that chamber; and a total of 90, or 65% of the bills
«originating in the senate, passed that body. Of the 177 house
'bills sent to the senate, 98 or 55% passed the second chamber.
Of the ninety senate bills sent to the house, 65, or 72 per cent
passed the house; twelve or 18 per cent were amended before
final passage in the lower house, and fifty-three passed
*without amendment. The above figures show that the senate did

far more revising than the house. Amendments made in the sen-
‘ 2

ajLusualll wmrmwmmmm

1. Contemporary Review Vol. 97 p. 554.
2. Nat'l mun. Review - March 1927 p. 189.

We will now see the value of the house as a check
upon the legislation of the senate. Ninety bills passed the
senate and went to the house. Sixteen of the ninety, or 18%,
were pigeonholed in the committees; two were defected on
roll call in the house; two were killed by unfavorable reports
of house committees; and five died on the clerk's desk due to
non-action on the part of the house. Twenty-seven per cent
of the senate bills were discarded and sixty-five were passed,
by the house. Te must not be too hasty in drawing our conclusions
from-the above figures for we must determine those bills which
are of more importance. The test must be qualitative as well as
quantitative. Not a single senate bill of major importance was
killed by the house. ,
The lmrer chamber succeeded in passing, enrolling, engross-

ing, and signing three bills within the period of five hours.

If little disregard for constitutional requirements exists
between houses where the two chambers are under control of pol-
itical parties where hatred exists, what kind of a check is the
second chamber to offer when both chambers are under the con-

trol of one political party?1 This should lead one to think
that a second chamber cannot always be depended upon to exer-
cise that careful consideration of bills which defenders of a
two body system have laid so mush stress.

Two houses diminish responsibility, and make it impossi-

Wmamwmmble pass the
1. Eat'l mun. Review - op. cit. p. 258.

 

house for political reasons, and are left on the door-step of
the senate. The senate either has to take the blame for killing
them.or shift them back to the house. Recently in the New'Mex-
ico legislature a writer proposed a bill for an experiment farm
in Union County. The members of the committee on agriculture
opposed the bill but supported it to please the representatives
of the writer's constituency., It passed the house and the
senate killed it. This sort of thing is by no means peculiar

to legislatures. A two-chambered legislature encourages a
shifting of responsibility of the bad bills passed and the good
bills defeated. The senate was condemned for the killing of the
above bill while the representative drew up such a defective
bill that he knew it would be impossible for the senate to
support it.1 Under such conditions, senators and representa-
tives cannot be held to strict accountability, for under the
above conditions, responsibility cannot be placed to hold one
individual reaponsible.

With such a large number of representatives in two houses,
it is impossible to pay men salaries which are needed for such
a position. Many times, men who are not interested in govern-
mental affairs for only their own personal gains are found in
legislative bodies. Unfortunately, they are not acquainted
with governmental ideas and practices. with no foundation to
build on, such men merely search around in the dark and hope
that by mere chance they will guess correctly on their decision.

When there are so many men in a large legislature it is

A

l. Nat'l nun. Review op. cit. p. 258.

A two-body house must sit for only a short period.
If otherwise, it would cost too much money. many of these men

d

are engaged in other activities and wish to stay only for the
minimum days. .

On the other hand, personal friendship plays an equally
important part in legislation. It is only natural
when an individual introduces a bill, he expects his friends
to support it. If not, friendship would not last long in
politics. Every day, money bills are vetoed regardless of its
merits.

Society has become complex, and a group of individuals
are found every meeting in legislatures lobbying for their
own particular interests.

Corrupt practices existed among the industrial groups
'in the early eighties, injured individuals were asking for
compensation, and it took outstanding men of the period to solve
the situation. Do we have them in our legislatures today}
Seldom, if any are singled out and regarded as great statesmen.
many are popular, but are not classed as real statesmen.

New problems are facing the government of today.- One of the
outstanding forces which is at work at thepresent time is the
force of internationalism. '“ue to scientific improvements,
countries come into relatively close touch with each other.

It is necessary for our governments to understand each other ---
they.are regarded as our neighbors now. It is a new problem,
but it must be met; and a far more difficult one than appears
at first sight. Real men are needed when a government attempts

to solve international questions. Do we have them? If net.

then it is up to us to train them.

The country has passed from an agricultural to an indus-
trial nation. With it came the economic principle of Special-
ization. Man's attention was centered on one particular line
of work. As a result, they lost interest in politics. Too
nmny things were calling for their attention. The country was
prosperous and people were busy fulfilling their desire and
wants. Politics were forgotten.

At the present time, the system has become too complex
for them. The ballot is long and in many elections people are
voting such ballots, not knowing only a small per cent of the
names on the entire ballot. The voter is over-burdened with
more quesions than he will answer carefully, for it is cer-
tain that the average voter cannot afford the time to fulfill
such unreasonable requirements. By voting long ballots blindly,
we are giving power to the political specialist. If we trust
our_government to the political specialist, we must take the
government that they give us. The politician hoped to complex
the situation so :he people would become indifferent about voting?

The Census of 1920 showed the total population of the United
States 105,710,620. ‘01“ this great body of people, somewhat more
than fifty-four millions were citizens twenty-one years of age
or*over. In the presidential election of that year, 26,646,273
'votes were cast out of 54,165,907 eligible voters, making a per-
czentage of 49.1% vote. In the following presidential election
sfliich was held in 1924, out of 56,941,584 eligible voters 29,158-

. 2
955 votes were cast making a percentage ‘of 51.2%

 

17 Schort Ballot op. cit p. 13-14
:3. Ogg and Ray - Introduction to P01. Sci. p. 564,565.

In countries such as England and France seventy to eighty
per cent of the eligible voters go to the polls every election.
In France there are multi-parties and at election time every
year, there is a bitter szruggle between the two parties to
win. In England, the subject is taught to vote at every election
which is called. Only a few names appear on the ballot, and it
is supposed that every subject knows the man for whom he is votingi

There may be many reasons why the pe0ple fail to vote.

One of the reasons is the failure to register. It is impossible
even to estimate the cost, time and bother to the mass of people
to keep registered under the existing inconvenient registration
systems. In a number of states, they must register every year,
and are permitted to register only on two orzthree Specified
days when sessions are held in the precinct.

In some states a new registration is held every two years
or every four years, which is a distinct improvement in con-
'venience to the citizen. If he does not keep track of the par-
ticular days of registration he may find himself unregistered after
the last day has passed.

Under the best system of registration the voter, once regis-
tered, remains registered for life, or as long as he continues
to reside within the city or county in which he is registered.
If he changes, he is permitted to transfer his registration to-

1118 new address by merely asking for such a transfer at the

:regfistration office. 'Many have not resided long enough in a

' e gather mobile and move
1. 088 8c Ray - op. cit. p. 565 ‘
2. A.Model Registration System op. cit. P. 45.46.
3. Ibid p. 47.

about from pl ce 0 place. State laws are passe» demanding of
a citiz3n a certain number of days of residence before he is
allowed to qualify as a voter.

Some states and cities have only one party represented.
In the west, the Eon-partizan League has Sprung up, which
takes a stand on definite issues. In places in this region no
other party is found. Within such an atmOSphere, people find no
reason why they should go and vote for the one party which is
represented. The same may hold true of the Republican Party or
the Democratic for in many places in the South and North reapec- pi
tively only one party may be found in certain local communities.-

In various cities, Leagues and clubs are formed, for the
purpose of increasing the number of responsible citizens. They
tare also making a creative attack upon indifference and ignor-
ance through training for citizensllip and by supporting needed

1
legislation.

(is

It has been stated in the foregoing the the long ballot
ilas a tendency to confuse the voter. In order to relieve the
voter of this confusion, we must put on the elective list only
lists of officers that are conspicious. The petty off‘ic e

must either (0 off tr e ballot and be placed under the appointive
head or his place become of real public importance that it will
"Devisisle to :11 of the people.

The recent tendency seens to be a demand for a more popular

 

" "mmilmlhidina>‘ v annihilau,innent,xtuz_,
l. Ibrgolet of ational League of‘Women' s Voters 1 26-27p .4,..

 

which is not conplex. They wish to have some particular group
reSponsible and N'sh to have the authority of the government
apexed. That is, if legislation is not passed which they desire,
they can say definitely to a group that they are reSponsible.

As a result of this tendency, mall legislative bodies are
now becoming adopted in our cities and states. The bicameral
system has failed to meet the demands for a popular government,
and for that reason a.nne it must dscay.

We cannot expect to see tie old bicameral system disappear
in our Federal Government. An amendment would be necessary, and
the Senate would have to approve of the measure. Senators once
having eXperience in politics, like tne position they hold
far too well to eliminate that house in our political organiza-

tion.

Bibliography
English History
A Shorter History of England and Great Britain.

by Gross

England Under the Normans and Angevins
by W. H. C. Davis.

The Norman Conquest.
' by Edward Freeman

History of England Vol. I.
by S. R. Gardiner.

The History of the English People.
by John Green.

The Making of England.
by John Green.

History of England.
by David Hume.

History of the British People.
by Edward Hume.

England Under the Tudors.
by Arthur Innes.

History of England.
by Charles Knight.

Greater EurOpean Governments.
by Lawrence Lowell.

The Governments of EurOpe.
by Frederick Austin Ogg.

England Before the Norman Conquest.
by Charles Orman.

A History of England.
by Benjamin Terry.

Constituional History of England.
by Albert White
Periodical Literature on English History.

Edinburgh Review - Vol. 177, 1895.
(The English Parliament)

National Municipal Review VI. 1917.
(The Evolution of Types of City Government)

 

lo

Colonial History of New York.

Documents of Colonial History of New York, Vol. III;
Answer of Governor Andros to the peOple of New York.
Captain Leisler to King William and Queen wary.
Commission of Colonel Thomas Dongan to be

Governor of New York.
Commission for Henry Slaughter, Esquire of
New York Order in Council thereupon.
Instructions for Governor Dongan.

Minutes of Certain Commissions passed by the Great Seal.

Observations upon Charter of Providence of
New York.

Petition of'Mayor and Common Council of New York for
New Charter.

Privileges for the Province.
Proposals Submitted by Henry Slaughter.

Short Account of the General Concerns of New York
from October 1674 to November 1677.

Veto of the Act entitled, the Charter of'Liberties
and Privileges for the Province.

Colonial History of Hassachusetts.

Hutchinson Papers.
Pincheon Papers.

Sewell, Samuel (Diary).
Winthrop Papers.

Massachusetts Historical Society Collection.
Series four, volume 2, p. 246,278
Series three, volume 9, p. 101-116.
Series three, Volume 8, p. 191-237.

 

Colonial History of Rhode Island.

Colonial Records.

Volume I, II, III.

 

_ ._ .__’____‘—'.;_'.__ ._____L;.A_..L.. _

 

Constitutional Period.

American Annals

Articles of Confederation.

Short History of the United States - J. Bassett.
Commentaries - Blackstone.

Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law. Vol. II.
John Burgess.

The Constitutional Law of the U. S. Vol. II.
W. W. Willoughby.

The Constitution of the United States Article I. Section 1.
The Constitution of the United States Article II Section 1.
The Constitution of the United States Article III clause 1.

Readings in Political philosophy.
Coker.

Elliot's Debates in the State Convention Vol. I.

The FederaliSt.
by Alexander Hamilton.

The Critical Period.
by John Fiske.

The National Government.
By Everett Kimball.

The Madison Papers.

The American City.
By William Anderson.

The Government of the American City.
By William Hunro.

Introduction to Political Science.
By Frederick Ogg, and Orman 3. Ray.

Periodical Literature.

The Contemporary Review Vol. 97 (No. title)

The National Municipal Review March 1927.
(Bicameral Legislation in the New Mexico Legislatures)

The National League of Women's Voters.
The Model Registration System.
The Short Ballot.

University of Oklahoma Bulletin (no. number)
Unicameral Legislatures.

 

Note:

 

Only that material is found in the foregoing
bibldLography that direct reference has been made
to in the thesis. Sevural articles have bee
read in various periodicals that relate to the sub-
ject indirectly, but only those refe ences have bee.

quoted in the bibliography that have been studied

thoroughly and intensely.

b
n ~ .. ..?..:.IJ.JuH.,.. C.

 

Himnmil~.L-«c4¢ylwru.u. . ,. 1

 

 

xi. loot:
.. V I .c! K:
t. we. .

o.. .. .ml 4 .

 

20413.31 .EP L.-

“Willi

STATE UNIV RSITY LIBRARIES

Lm IIIIIIIIIII l

293 03015 2747