Under McKinley our war with Spain.served still further to emphasize executive leadership, especially in respect to new colonial posses sions. The impetus thus given to executive power persisted in the problems connected with the Panama Canal and Latin America. Toward the latter our attitude has varied from a pro tectorate in Santo Domingo to a recognition of equality in the A. B. C. powers. In every instance this action has , followed executive initiative, occasionally in default of action by Congress or the Senate, but those bodies sub sequently, albeit grudgingly, ratified the Presi dent's action. Congress has even accepted without censure the existence of a state of war in Mexico and has tacitly followed the "gen tlemen's agreement') with Japan on the immi gration question. Other measures of Wilson, Taft and Roosevelt, touching the Far East, involved a punitive expedition in China, the °open in that country, intervention to end the Russo-Japanese War, the participa tion in and withdrawal from Chinese loans and moral support to the Chinese republic. Much of the initiative in these affairs is due to the acquisition of the Philippines and to the neces nary increase in executive authority while work ing out a colonial policy for those islands.
During the past 20 years the United States has gained greater influence in European af fairs and a consequent increase in executive authority. American representatives were twice conspicuous at The Hague — on both occasions with hearty executive support. They even participated at the Algeciras Conference, al though such action was contrary to traditional American policy. President Taft especially con cerned himself to secure the adoption of arbi tration treaties with the leading European na tions, but was unable to overcome the oppo4i tion of the Senate to any fancied abrogation of its privileges. His attitude in foreign affairs did much to assert an executive independence that he otherwise abandoned. Wilson, con fronted with a world war that recalls the pre vious contest against Napoleon, has handled the controverted issues thrust upon him with even greater freedom than his predecessors of a century ago and seems destined to open a new era in world diplomacy.
With a greater measure of executive con trol in foreign relations has gone an increasing leadership in domestic affairs. Both Roosevelt and Wilson have led their parties, although by divergent methods. Much of the popular de mand for the reform legislation of recent years is due to executive guidance. The President has resorted more and more to direct popular appeal by voice and pen, and has thereby forced an unwilling Congress to carry out a party platform. He is thus becoming a real party leader, the one official chosen by the country at large, and chosen to carry out a definite party program, for which he assumes direct responsibility. President Wilson has shown this by reviving the custom of the two first Presidents in personally addressing both Houses of Congress; President Taft, by recotm. mending a budget system for public expendi tures. It is interesting to note that four of our recent Presidents, as well as Wilson, have in published works acknowledged this new mea sure of executive responsibility, although when in office they assumed it in varying degrees of independence and by diverse methods. The
office of the President, no longer a mere nega tive influence in our government, has become a positive force for national guidance.
The Choice of President.— In the conven tion of 1787 the question of selecting the na tional executive presented numerous perplexities. The natural methods of choice — by the legis lative assembly or by the people at large — were both rejected. The former was not in keeping with the rigid separation of powers that then seemed so necessary a doctrine, nor were the °Fathers° inclined to entrust the selection of so important an official to the general electorate. After passing over propositions to elect the Presidents by the suffrages of the State gov ernors or by electors chosen by districts, the convention adopted an expedient suggested by the experience of Maryland. Each State should select Presidential electors equal in number to its senators and representatives. These electors, who supposedly would represent the intelli gent people of the States, were to vote for two persons for President. A majority of all the electors would be necessary for a choice, the one receiving the highest number of votes becoming President and the next on the list the Vice-President. By 1800 the chief defect in this plan was revealed in a tie vote for Jeffer son and Burr. Presidential elections had al ready become party affairs and this fact was registered in the speedy adoption of the 12th Amendment, under which the electors vote separately for President and Vice-President. By the original article of the Constitution the leKis latures of the various States were to determine the method of choosing the electors; in the first election five legislatures did so without any reference to the people at large. By 1832 Delaware and South Carolina alone continued the practice and the latter held to it until 1860. In the election of 1876, the first in which it participated, Colorado also selected its electors through its legislature. Election by districts was employed by Massachusetts in 1788 and by four States in 1808. Maryland with the sporadic exception of Michigan, in 1892 was the last to abandon this system. After 1836 the practice of a popular choice of electors, upon a general State ticket, was in universal use outside of South Carolina. In 1845 Con gress prescribed for the whole Union the pres ent general election day. Since 1800 Presi dential electors have been little more than re cording agents in their respective States. To the States, however, the system gives a prom inence and likewise a control in local suffrage that would be lost in an absolutely direct elec tion. Occasionally the unpopularity of an in dividual elector, or some technical objection to his qualifications, may cause a split in a State delegation. In a close election, such as that of 1916, this may cause uncertainty in regard to the general vote.