LEGISLATIVE REFORM. Growth of Popular Distrust of Legislatures.— No one can say that American State legislatures have been denied the opportunity to prove themselves worthy of the confidence and respect of the American people. At the close of the Revolu tionary War a reaction in political opinion set in which reduced the formerly powerful State governor to the position of a figurehead and enormously expanded the importance and au thority of the legislatures. The use made by the State legislature of these wide powers, especially during the ante-bellum decades when corporate charters, franchises and other spe cial privileges were being granted, forms one of the black chapters in our political history. While corruption and disregard of the public interest were not universal they were so nearly so that American public opinion came to re gard the State legislature with a distrust which recent efforts at reform have not succeeded in removing. This popular distrust of State legis latures has been evidenced in the constitu tional provisions, which began to appear about the, time of the Civil War, placing restrictions upon legislative powers. Some of these related in minute detail to legislative procedure but mostly they comprised long lists of subjects upon which the legislature might not act at all or might act only under rigorous constitu tional restraints. This distrust was also shown in the very general policy of providing that legislatures should meet only every other year and that the length of the session should be restricted, provisions reflecting clearly the point of view that a legislature is a necessary evil and its term of activity should accordingly he reduced to the minimum. The recent spread of the system of direct legislation, whereby the people acquire the power themselves to enact or veto laws, is a further indication of popular lack of confidence in our representa tive legislatures.
Present Need for Legislative Reform.— The more striking criticisms which at the present time may legitimately be urged against State legislatures may be summarized as fol lows: First, the quality of the men who com pose them is frequently exceedingly poor. Without losing sight of the fact that many, probably most, of the legislators are honest and some of them are competent, it remains true that too frequently they prove to be venal and wholly unfit by training or education to per form the functions of their office. Second,
lobbying continues to prevail at most State capitols. Corporations and organizations de sirous of securing special privileges at the hands of the legislature send paid representa tives to exert influence upon the members. While this influence may be exerted by legit imate means, such as arguments before legis lative committees, it is far more likely to take the form of open bribery or other forms of corruption. Third, the demand for special and local legislation, what may be called private legislation, leads to most serious abuses. The time of the legislature is occupied with mat ters trivial in importance while the demands of various localities and interests for legislative consideration are met by the convenient method of *log-rolling,* or apork-barrel* legislation, whereby each legislator in order to secure the granting of his own demand supports those of every one else. Local and individual inter ests are thus furthered; the interests of the State at large are ignored. Fourth, legislative procedure is complicated and' eset by technical requirements which too often result merely in confusion and delay without securing the de liberation and caution which they were de signed to provide. The result is hasty and ill considered legislation turned out in enormous quantities. Fifth, there is no centralized re sponsibility for legislation passed by a State legislature. Such responsibility is lost in a maze of committees and party caucuses as well as between the two houses of the legislature. No men or group of men can be held really accountable for objectionable legislation. Fi nally, the laws themselves, drawn by men from every walk of life, most of whom are without training or experience, are frequently poorly drawn. No effort is made to relate them to the already existing law of the State, while they frequently do not accomplish their obvious purposes because of ambiguous or conflicting provisions.