the natural rewards for party service, and that from the day of his election till long after his inauguration the time of a president should be almost wholly occupied by considering rival claims for office. Yet this is the almost inevitable result under the present constitution, which gives the president so much power. Says Mr. Bryce (idem, chap. vi.):

"Artemus Ward's description of Abraham Lincoln swept along from room to room in the White House by a rising tide of office-seekers is hardly an exaggeration. From the 4th of March, when Mr. Garfield came into power, till he was shot in the July following, he was engaged almost incessantly in questions of patronage. Yet the president's individual judgment has little scope. He Appointing must reckon with the Senate; he must requite Evil the supporters of the men to whom he owes his election; he must so distribute places all over the country as to keep the local wirepullers in good humor, and generally strengthen the party by doing something' for those who have worked or will work for it. Altho the minor posts are practically left to the nomination of the senators or congressmen from the state or district, conflicting claims give infinite trouble, and the more lucrative offices are numerous enough to make the task of selection laborious as well as thankless and disagreeable... No one has more to gain from a thorough scheme of civil service reform than the president. The present system makes a wire-puller of him. It throws work on him unworthy of a fine intellect, and for which a man of fine intellect may be ill-qualified. On the other hand the president's patronage is, in the hands of a skilful intriguer, an engine of far-spreading potency. By it he can oblige a vast number of persons, can bind their interests to his own, can fill important places with the men of his choice. Such authority as he has over the party in Congress, and therefore over the course of legislation; such influence as he exerts on his party in the several states, and therefore over the selection of candidates for Congress, is due to his patronage. happily, the more his patronage is used for these purposes, the more it is apt to be diverted from the aim of providing the country with the best officials."

Un

Very many also criticize the methods of electing the president in the U. S. (See ELECTORAL COLLEGE.) In France the president is elected by the two houses of the legislature sitting together as a "National Assembly." In the Swiss republic the executive power is not lodged with one man, but in a federal council (Bundesrath), elected for a term of three years by an assembly of the two houses of legislature sitting together. This assembly also elects the president and vice-president of the Bundesrath, but the president is given little more power than his colleagues, and can only serve one term. Rotation in the office is rigidly carried out. In Brazil, Peru, and Bolivia the president is elected by direct vote of the people. In Mexico, Chile, and the Argentine Republic it is by indirect vote.

As to reforms affecting the presidency, discussions in the U. S. have turned mainly upon the method of electing presidents, their length of term, and their appointing power.

Concerning the method of electing presidents it is proposed that the president be elected by direct vote of the people. This would give every man a chance to express his wish, not compelling him to vote for nominees of a party. It is claimed that it would put the president in closer touch with the people, and make him more independent of party machines; that it would lessen the opportunity for corruption. On the other hand it is argued that, as there would have to be concert of action to elect a candidate, there would be practically no more freedom of personal choice than now, while secret and corrupt concerted action would have more chance. As to the objection that the present electoral system often elects a candidate who has not received the popular majority, it is answered that a popular majority might often be a sectional majority and not represent the whole country any more truly. It is, therefore, secondly, suggested that the president be elected by the national legislature, as in France.

Presidential Elections

Very many favor lengthening the term of office from four to six years, making the elections less frequent, and then forbidding a second term.

Mr. George T. Curtis (Century, vol. vii., p. 124) proposed having the Electoral Commission meet as an electoral chamber, competent to judge of the qualifications and returns of its own members, and then allowing this body to elect the president as responsible men, not as the mere automata of parties.

Mr. Albert Stickney ("A True Republic," chap. ix.) would make changes in the power to be given the office, and make the president responsible to the legislature, who should have direct power of removing him, without a hearing, if they think public interests demand it, by a twothirds vote of both houses sitting as one body. He asks if any one ever heard of such a thing as insuring efficient work from a man who could not be removed instantly, so soon as, for any reason, he failed to do his work well. He would give the president the sole appointing and removing power for all heads of departments and no more. Each department head should be solely responsible for his department, each subordinate head being responsible for those under him; the president, finally, being responsible to the legislature. This system would take from the chief executive any voice in the appointment or removal of the great number of subordinate officials which he now has. It would free him to appoint his department heads without a two-thirds vote of the Senate. For any misconduct or failure he could himself be removed. If not removed, he could hold the office for life.

Some radicals believe in the abolition of the presidency. Says a memorial addrest to Congress:

1. The presidency is a copy of royalty: it is an essentially unrepublican institution; for it exalts an individual into ruling power over all the rest of the population, bringing them into a relation of subjection toward him, and accustoming them to monarchical ideas.

2. It is thoroughly antidemocratic in nature; for it does not only ignore the direct authority of the popular will, but opposes an independent and autocratic front to the representative thereof-the legislature.

3. It maintains the false, illogical, disorganizing theoryborn in monarchy, and principally denying democracy-of the 'partition of powers." In the democratic polity, all powers are derived from the people, and are no more capable of partition from and against each other than are the people.

4. It is a constantly menacing, constantly growing cause of danger to the republic-whose eventual ruin it must inevitably occasion.

5. If it do not cause such ruin by direct, violent subversion, it must effect the same through corruption; for the presidential office is the source, the constantly growing source, of universal corruption.

To avoid these dangers, the undersigned suggest that Congress propose an amendment to the constitution, abolishing the presidency, and transferring the executive functions to an administrative commission or congressional ministry, to be chosen by Congress from their own body, or from among other competent citizens; and to be supervised and instructed during the adjournment of Congress by a standing committee, who are to be in permanent session during that time, and who are to be authorized to call extra sessions of Congress when needed.

REFERENCES: James Bryce. The American Commonwealth; Albert Stickney, A True Republic; E. Stanwood, History of the Presidency (1901); articles: North American, vol. cxl., P. 94; Forum, March, 1901; Arena, Nov., 1902; Harper's Weekly, June 13, 1903; Nation, July 26, 1906.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: The following tables of the results of presidential elections are from the World Almanac of 1907.

There is, properly speaking, no popular vote for president and vice-president; the people vote for electors, and those chosen in each state meet

In

therein and vote for the candidates for president and vice-president. The record of any popular vote for electors prior to 1824 is so meager and imperfect that a compilation would be useless. most of the states, for more than a quarter century following the establishment of the government, the state legislatures "appointed" the presidential electors, and the people therefore voted only indirectly for them, their choice being exprest by their votes for members of the legislature. In this tabulation only the aggregate electoral votes for candidates for president and vice-president in the first nine quadrennial elections appear.

ELECTORAL VOTES

1789. Previous to 1804. each elector voted for two candidates for president. The one who received the largest number of votes was declared president, and the one who received the next largest number of votes was declared vice-president. The electoral votes for the first President of the United States were: George Washington, 69; John Adams, of Massachusetts, 34: John Jay, of New York, 9; R. H. Harrison, of Maryland, 6; John Rutledge, of South Carolina, 6; John Hancock, of Massachusetts, 4; George Clinton, of New York, 3: Samuel Huntingdon, of Connecticut, 2; John Milton, of Georgia, 2; James Armstrong, of Georgia; Benjamin Lincoln, of Massachusetts, and Edward Telfair, of Georgia, 1 vote each. Vacancies (votes not cast), 4. George Washington was chosen president and John Adams vice-president.

1792. George Washington, Federalist, received 132 votes; John Adams, Federalist, 77; George Clinton, of New York, Republican, 50; Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, Republican, 4; Aaron Burr, of New York, Republican, I vote. Vacancies, 3. George Washington was chosen president and John Adams vice-president.

1796. John Adams, Federalist, 71: Thomas Jefferson, Republican, 68; Thomas Pinckney, of South Carolina, Federalist, 59: Aaron Burr, of New York, Republican, 30; Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts, Republican, 15: Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, Independent, 11; George Clinton, of New York, Republican, 7; John Jay, of New York, Federalist, 5; James Iredell, of North Carolina, Federalist, 3; George Washington,

of Virginia, John Henry, of Maryland, and S. Johnson, of North Carolina, all Federalists, 2 votes each; Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, Federalist, 1 vote. John Adams was chosen president and Thomas Jefferson vicepresident.

1800. Thomas Jefferson, Republican, 73: Aaron Burr, Republican, 73: John Adams, Federalist, 65: Charles C. Pinckney, Federalist, 64; John Jay, Federalist, 1 vote. There being a tie vote for Jefferson and Burr the choice devolved upon the House of Representatives. Jefferson received the votes of ten states, which, being the largest vote cast for a candidate, elected him president. Burr received the votes of four states, which, being the next largest vote, elected him vice-president. There were two blank votes.

1804. The Constitution of the U. S. having been amended. the electors at this election voted for a president and a vicepresident, instead of for two candidates for president. The result was as follows: For president, Thomas Jefferson, Republican, 162; Charles C. Pinckney, Federalist, 14. For vice-president, George Clinton, Republican, 162; Rufus King. of New York, Federalist, 14. Jefferson was chosen president and Clinton vice-president.

1808. For president, James Madison, of Virginia, Republican, 122; Charles C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, Federalist, 47: George Clinton, of New York, Republican, 6. For vicepresident, George Clinton, Republican, 113: Rufus King, of New York, Federalist, 47: John Langdon, of New Hampshire, 9: James Madison, 3: James Monroe, 3. Vacancy, 1. Madison was chosen president and Clinton vice-president.

1812. For president, James Madison, Republican, 128; De Witt Clinton, of New York, Federalist, 89. For vicepresident, Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, 131; Jared Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, Federalist, 86. Vacancy, I. Madison was chosen president and Gerry vice-president.

1816. For president, James Monroe, of Virginia, Republican, 183; Rufus King, of New York, Federalist, 34. For vicepresident, Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York, Republican, 183; John Eager Howard, of Maryland, Federalist, 22: James Ross, of Pennsylvania, 5: John Marshall, of Virginia, 4; Robert G. Harper, of Maryland, 3. Vacancies, 4. Monroe was chosen president and Tompkins vice-president.

1820. For president, James Monroe, of Virginia, Republican, 231; John Q. Adams, of Massachusetts, Republican, 1. For vice-president, Daniel D. Tompkins, Republican, 218; Richard Stockton, of New Jersey, 8; Daniel Rodney, of Delaware, 4; Robert G. Harper, of Maryland, and Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, 1 vote each. Vacancies, 3. James Monroe was chosen president and Daniel D. Tompkins vice-president.

POPULAR AND ELECTORAL VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, 1880-1900

21

214

The total vote of the U. R. party for 1900 was 5,698, and of the U. C. party 1,059.

948

Price, Hon. Thomas

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN, THE NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE: Established in London in May, 1884, and became incorporated by royal charter as a national society. Patrons, the king and queen, and a long list of notables. President, the Duke of Abercorn. Object: that no child in the United Kingdom shall live an unendurable life. This object is sought by (1) warnings; (2) enforcement of laws; (3) promotion of any new law that may be necessary. We quote from an earlier report of the director:

If the reader will conceive of a procession of 1,179.916 children passing before him, child after child, he may gain some adequate sense of the wrong and the suffering the society has been working among since it began in 1889. First come 943,910 sufferers from neglect and starvation, miserable with living irritations and filth, ragged, well-nigh naked. Following these come 128,252 children who suffered violence from all sorts of weapons in the hands of the reckless, vengeful ones who owned them. . . . Then come 69,621 little things who were exposed to suffering to draw the lazy and cruel charity of the street for the benefit of their elders.

After these 24.527 pitiable girl victims of immorality.. And then 18,167 little slaves of improper, hurtful, and dangerous employments. . . toilers with burdens too heavy, and

sufferers by various other cruel wrongs.

13,508,568 13.523.510

And last of all

come 4.561 funerals of little ones, where the society obtained its information of their childish wrongs too late to save them, and had therefore nothing that it could do save to bring the cruel parents to their appropriate punishment at the hands of justice. The procession is 558 miles long and takes nine days to accomplish its painful "march past.'

There is one third of the kingdom where its agencies are not yet established. Organ, The Child's Guardian. The League of Pity is the children's section of the society. Its object is to interest happy children in the welfare of the unhappy, and to do as much for the latter as possible. Director, R. J. Parr, Leicester Square, London.

PRICE, HON. THOMAS: Premier, Commissioner of Public Works, and Minister of Education of South Australia since July, 1905; previously leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party from 1901; born 1852. Clerk of works in the government employ at Islington locomotive shops; worked at his trade as stone-cutter on Parliament buildings. He has sat in House of Assembly since