result of the conditions. His sway may not be always undisputed, and he may sometimes be overthrown and succeeded by a new "boss;" but the important point is that nominations and practically elections are in the hands of professional politicians, and that this is the natural and constant tendency of the present method of conducting elections.

This fact appears nowhere more clearly than in the attempts that have been made by the citizens to elect independent and unpledged officials. To inaugurate and carry to a successful conclusion a so-called citizens' movement requires that a large number of business men shall suspend their regular business and go from house to house personally to solicit those likely to be interested, hold public meetings, organize, appoint committees and sub-committees, print tickets, and see that the tickets get into the hands of voters and that the voters get to the polls. In short, the organization must be as complete as that of the professional politicians in order to afford even a reasonable hope of success.

After the desired result is accomplished, and the two flagrant politicians are turned out and an honest man seated, but two courses are open to the reformers. One is to disband and leave the field clear to the professional politicians at the next election; the other is to make their organization permanent, go into the political business professionally on their own account, and degenerate into "bosses" themselves, under the inevitable working of the law above referred to. These facts are too obvious to dwell upon; the question is, How can they be remedied?

The remedy oftenest advocated is the somewhat indefinite one of banishing national politics from municipal elections and choosing our city officials solely from business considerations. So long, however, as the national parties can see any advantage in the control of city governments, they will probably seek to control them; and voters in general will vote for candidates of their own political faith rather than risk putting a weapon in the hands of the enemy. These are axioms.

Perhaps what is really needed is not so much that voters

shall ignore politics in voting as that city officials, when elected, shall ignore politics in the faithful administration of municipal affairs. In short, is it not a business administration rather than a business election that is needed? It may be true that a business administration can be secured only by the election of able and honest men, but it will hardly be disputed that the large majority of voters of all political faiths desire such men elected, although doubtless each believes that honest men can be found in his own party as well as in any other. The national parties are facts that must be met and reckoned with, not theories to be reasoned away.

If some system could be devised by which the real desire of every voter could be ascertained, without reference to any nomination, so that the initiative function of the "boss" could be eliminated-a system that would get at the free choice of the citizens and at the same time not interfere with their partizanship-perhaps an improvement might be looked for. The system of multiple nominations and preferential voting appears to present a strong claim to accomplish in some practical degree these objects. It may be briefly described as follows:

Suppose it were provided by law, for illustration, that at any party convention, one-tenth, say, of the delegates should have the right to make a party nomination, it thus being possible for a convention to nominate ten different candidates for one office. It is not at all likely that so many would be nominated, but that number would be possible under the supposition. Suppose, further, that any one thousand citizens could make an independent nomination.

After these multiple nominations, the names of all candidates are printed in succession on one ticket. The voter, when voting, marks a "r" opposite his first choice, a "2" opposite his second choice, or the name of the candidate he would rather have elected supposing his first choice cannot succeed; then a "3" opposite his third choice, and so on-voting for as many candidates in succession as he pleases.

In counting the votes the ballots shall first be arranged in accordance with the first choice marked on them; then the

ballots of the candidate having the smallest number shall be redistributed among the other candidates in accordance with the second choice marked on them; then again the ballots of the candidate having now the smallest number shall be redistributed among the others according to the highest unused choice marked on them, and so on, dropping always the candidate having the fewest votes, until but two candidates remain, when the one of these having the greater number of votes shall be declared elected.

On examining this system, perhaps the first thing that strikes one is that no votes are wasted, but every one counts in the final division; consequently, no matter how many candidates any party may have, the party vote is in no danger of being scattered and weakened but must all be finally concentrated upon one candidate-and that one, it may be presumed upon the average, will be the one most acceptable to the majority of the voters of the party. This practically merges the nomination and election in one; and, to a large degree at least, removes the function of the "boss," or renders it unimportant.

It next appears that the energy of any reform movement need be wasted in practical politics only far enough to control one-tenth of the convention or secure the support of one thousand citizens. This is of immense importance; for the greatest hindrance to reform is the perfectly justifiable disinclination of business men to neglect their business and enter politics for the good of their fellow-citizens.

No valid reasons appear why such independent nominations, if the candidate is of recognized party fealty, should not appeal to the individual voter as strongly as the most regular of nominations. Each voter may, therefore, exercise his individual preference without fear of weakening his party's strength or laying himself open to the charge of disloyalty. If the party voters are dissatisfied with the work of their convention, they may repudiate it at the polls without danger of playing into the hands of the enemy.

This is but an outline of a system that would require careful elaboration in detail. There may be some practical difficulties

in the way, especially in the matter of the counting of the votes; but I shall not attempt to discuss them now, leaving the subject with the suggestion that perhaps the advantages are great enough to make it worth while attempting to surmount the difficulties.

Philadelphia, Pa.

JOHN DOLMAN.

A CONVERSATION

WITH

PROFESSOR FRANK PARSONS, B.C.E., PH.D.

ON

THE CONSTITUTIONAL, ETHICAL, AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENTAL OWNERSHIP OF THE TELEGRAPH

AND TELEPHONE.

Q. Do you believe that the telegraph and telephone properly belong to the post-office system?

A. Yes. From the standpoint of economic adaptation and the general fitness of things, the telegraph, and the telephone trunks in coördination with the local exchanges (which may well be left to coöperative enterprise or municipal ownership under general provisions securing reasonable uniformity of equipment and harmony of management), belong to the postoffice system as essential parts of the national machinery for carrying intelligence. And from a legal standpoint the answer must be to the same effect with still greater emphasis, for by the law of the land it is the duty of the government to use the best known methods in performing the business of transmitting intelligence intrusted to it by the Federal Constitution.

Q. You believe, then, that the incorporation of the telegraph and telephone into the post-office system would be constitutional?

A. Yes. It is not only constitutional: it is required by the Constitution. It is not the incorporation of the telegraph and telephone in the postal system, but the failure so to incorporate them, that is unconstitutional. It is the positive duty of the government to use the telegraph as a factor in the postal service. This duty is imposed by the Constitution. The Constitution makes the Federal Government the agent of the people