have built up for her a procedure largely indigenous. It has not been a ready-made system adopted to fit needs that might develop, but a growth, not always logical nor free from survivals of worn-out forms, but one which arose to fit the peculiar needs of the state. In spite of the two hundred and forty members who compose the lower house, the characteristics of the town meeting are largely preserved. A joint committee sysItem divides the business between the two houses so that time and effort may not be wasted through the passage by both houses of bills on the same subjectmatter. Monitors appointed by the speakers aid in keeping order and in returning the number of votes of the members. The efforts of the members are not dispersed among a multitude of large committees. There are in the House of Representatives only seven standing committees, and in the Senate only five. These are for formal duties such as third reading and engrossment. Most of the work is done by joint committees, of which there are thirty, of eleven to fifteen members. A member of the lower house may serve on only two committees at the same time, a senator rarely serves on more. Bills are considered in the order of introduction except where otherwise ordered by a four-fifths vote. The finance committee is given comprehensive powers, arming them with numerous opportunities for testing the form of the bill. The time for discussion is equitably divided between the parties. Provision is made for bringing proposed legislation to the notice of those to be affected. A large number of similar regulations, which in too many states have found their way into the constitutions, are enforced by the legislature on its own initiative.1

1 Manual for the General Court, 1911.

At the other extreme stands Illinois, which represents the states admitted before the Civil War. Unlike some of her sister commonwealths, she did not adopt the practice of one of the older states nor experiment for herself. Congressional procedure was taken over, often almost verbatim for paragraphs. Unfortunately congressional procedure in 1818 was not a good model. In addition, Illinois grew so rapidly that the evil results which came from the use of inefficient machinery were accentuated to a greater degree than anywhere else in the Union. The growth of resources and population rapidly transformed the life of the state, but there was no corresponding revolution in procedure.

The Senate increased from fourteen members in 1818 to fifty-one, the House from twenty-seven to one hundred fifty-three. But the legislative tools remained unchanged though the legislative harvest increased in importance and the legislators increased in number. An example of the difficulties put in the way of normal legislation is given by the cumbersome committee organization still in use. There are in the House sixty-eight committees, the largest, the committee on finance, having forty-four members. The committees with less than fifteen members can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Members of the House each serve, on the average, on more than twelve committees. The Senate has forty-one committees, of an average size of twenty. Some men serve on as many as twenty-two committees and comparatively few on less than sixteen.1 Needless to say, such organization is not worthy of the name and reduces the committee system to an absurdity. Taken with the other defects in the rules, the committee system

1 Figures taken from List of Members, Forty-Seventh General Assembly of Illinois, 1911, J. A. Rose, Sec. of State.

of Illinois makes normal legislative action all but impossible. The natural result is that political ringsters find a fertile field for their work. To push legislation through, power must be concentrated in the hands of a few, who are governed by no rules and cannot be held responsible by the honest but unorganized majority. Business cannot be carried on under the rules, so it is rushed through under "suspension of the rules," and the actual procedure even at other times often bears only a faint resemblance to that pictured by the regulations.

Other states of this group are not so unfortunate. Some were admitted at a time when congressional procedure had grown to meet our modern needs, others drew from state experience to a greater extent, and still others introduced, by their own initiative, important modifications to suit their individual needs.

The far West is the land of experiment in matters of legislative procedure as well as in legislation proper. Washington, Oregon, and the states of the Rocky Mountain region, to a greater extent than the older commonwealths, have borrowed from various other states procedure which has proven successful there; they have also experimented on their own account. Too much reliance is not to be placed upon their experience, however, for in no case have the methods employed been put to the tests which those of the more thickly populated eastern states must endure.

The rules of the legislature of Oregon, for example, cover only thirteen octavo pages and are almost as simple as those of a debating society. They show a simple committee system, only one committee of the lower house having as many as seven members. There is provision for full discussion of all bills, especially financial measures. Opportunity for debate and vote.

on the bills by clauses, at three different times, reduces the danger of extravagance and the abuse of “riders.”

Procedure is not a solution for all legislative ills, indeed it is at best a neutral element. A bad system of procedure may prove almost as great a hindrance to good legislation as weak legislators. The importance of making our party machinery such that it will run easily to express the people's will, we are beginning to appreciate. How important it is that our legislative machinery should be made to run easily, so that it may not block the people's will after election, we do not yet comprehend.

The Use of Experts in Legislation

The determination of policies in democratic governments must always be in the hands of amateurs. The actual carrying out of policies may be in the hands of permanent public servants who by training and experience become experts. But government by party, with popular control of party policies, means that the executive and the legislature are left in the hands of men whose interest as a rule lies in private rather than in public affairs. Were this not true there would be no basis for true party organization.

The English government furnishes the best example of the adjustment of the relations of expert service and democratic control. Those who settle what shall be done draw their authority from popular election and act through a committee, a cabinet, which is at all times responsible to the legislature. If "the government" changes, little over thirty administrative positions become automatically vacant. Those who carry out the policy determined upon are in permanent government employ. The people at the elections approve or disapprove the policy of their temporary servants.

These servants exercise control over the policy of administration but do not interfere with the rank and file of the permanent public service. A similar division is found in the formal making of the laws. Control over the content of bills is left in the hands of the legislature, control over the form is delegated to a separate set of officers who by long training have become expert in setting forth in clear language the legislative purpose proposed for adoption.

The advantage of these arrangements is evident. By removing questions of patronage and relieving the legislator of the necessity of making the language of statutes correspond with the intent, the efforts of the legislature can be devoted to decisions on policy. Ministerial duties are reduced to a minor position and discretionary powers are given their proper importance. Debate on public policy takes the place of debate on the formal details of phraseology in the law.

America has been slow to adopt similar expedients. The power of patronage in our Federal government was long a corrupting influence in our party politics and a disturbing factor in legislation. The Federal civil service law of 1883, with its subsequent modifications, has removed the greater number of the public servants from active participation in politics, but Federal offices are still an influence in politics and it often seems that the cutting down of the places for distribution has only sharpened the controversy in the legislature over the control of those remaining. In many of the states a non-partisan civil service is still a distant ideal and in no case has a standard satisfactory to those anxious for efficient government been attained. Nevertheless we may regard the use of the expert permanent servant in administration as an accepted American policy. A movement is in process also to free the