The fourth period may be said to date from the last decade of the 19th century. It is marked by a conspicuous tendency to enlarge the functions of the State and to extend the ac tivities of State governments over vast ranges of human activity which were formerly left en tirely to the individual or to the individual re strained only by the courts from encroachment upon the rights of other individuals and by a wide extension of the use of ultra-democratic machinery of political control, such as initiative, referendum and, to a lesser decree, recall.
Socialization and democracy have gone hand in hand; the former adding new and en larging old State activities and the latter pro viding a more direct and intimate control of government by the people themselves. The magnitude of the vast business and social in terests committed to State departments and to State administrative boards and commissions has made a trained personnel a necessity. Commendable progress has been made in the direction of a permanent civil service in many States, although the old idea that to the victor belongs all the spoils dies hard. A better ap preciation of the value and necessity of the expert in administrative positions is manifest ing itself, although the average American still greatly underestimates experience and training as assets in the art of government. Many stu dents of politics believe that betterment m ad ministration is accomplishing more for good government than are legislative and constitu tional reforms.
Direct popular control of legislation may be divided into three classes: First, measures re ferred by a representative body, either a con stitutional convention or a legislature; second, measures passed by a representative body and then upon popular petition submitted to the people at the polls for final action; and third, measures referred to the electorate for adop tion after initiation by a certain proportion of the voters. The first class, commonly called compulsory referendum, deals largely with constitutional amendments. In a few cases, the submission of certain classes of statutory en actments, such as State bond issues, is compul sory. The first class has greatly exceeded the others, thus far, in number, but in the last decade the practice of popular initiative has rapidly increased. The popular vote in a com pulsory referendum averages less than 50 per cent of the total vote cast at the same election, while measures submitted as the result of popu lar petition or initiative attract a considerably larger vote. Apprehension that initiative and referendum would result in increased radical ism has not been justified. The people have, on the whole, voted intelligently and more con servatively than their legislatures. Every State in the Union, except Delaware, has compulsory referendum of constitutional amendments. About a quarter permit initiation of amend ments by petition and nearly one-half allow popular statutory initiative in some form. Massachusetts and Michigan grant to their leg islatures the privilege of submitting statutory measures to popular referenda for final adop tion. Initiative and referendum have been
tried long enough to prove both their value and their limitations. Restricted to few and funda mental enactments dealing with general princi ples their use is decidedly effective in securing a real popular control of government. Inch rectly they have tended to make legislative ac tion more responsive to public opinion and more carefully considered. Applied to numer ous and detailed measures, the system breaks down under its own weight. It can only sup plement and not supplant the work of the State legislature.
The third of these measures of democratic control of State government, the recall of elected officers, has been adopted in slightly less than one-fourth of the States and has been very rarely used for State officers and somewhat more frequently for local. The very general lengthening of the terms of elective officers made recall a logical feature of the program of real control of government by the electorate. Its adoption was in response to the demand of a democracy for the same effective control over men which the initiative and referendum gave over measures. Its value lies rather in its potential than in its actual use.
The recall of judicial decisions, demanded by the more radical advocates of popular con trol has not met with general favor.
The lack of confidence in the legislature which characterized the third period continued throughout the fourth, another evidence of which is the limitation of the time during which the legislature can sit. This has been ac complished by decreasing the frequency and by limiting the duration of the sessions. Public opinion has traveled far from that of the Revo lutionary period, which was expressed in the so-called axiom of political science: ((Where annual sessions end tyranny begins.° Six States only, and all of them of the original 13, retain annual sessions. Alabama, in her recent constitution, has prescribed a quadrennial ses sion. Nearly half of the States limit the duration of the session to from 40 to 90 days, and others accomplish the same end by cutting off the pay of the legislature at the end of a similar period. This attitude of the people is further shown by numerous constitutional pro visions adopted for the purpose of preventing the railroading and fraudulent passage of bills, especially during the closing days of the ses sion. For example, in New York, no bill may be passed or become a law unless it is printed and lies, in its final form, for at least three cal endar legislative days upon the desks of the members, unless the governor certifies to the need of its immediate passage; and no amend ment is allowed on the last reading of a bill. Other provisions attempt to prevent or punish bribery and make impossible the appointment of a legislator to any civil office during the term for which he is elected.