Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:52:47.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

W. Brooke Graves
W. Brooke Graves
Affiliation:
Temple University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In any consideration of the future of the states, it is desirable at the outset to recall the circumstances of their development and of their entry into the Union. When the present Constitution was framed and adopted, the states were more than a century and a half old. At that time, and for many years thereafter, it was the states to which the people gave their primary allegiance. Under the Articles of Confederation, the strength of the states was so great that the central government was unable to function; when the Constitution was framed, the people were still greatly concerned about “states' rights.” This priority of the states in the federal system continued through the nineteenth century, down to the period of the Civil War; in the closing decades of that century, state government sank into the depths in an orgy of graft and corruption and inefficiency, which resulted in a wave of state constitutional restrictions, particularly upon legislative powers.

At this time, when the prestige and efficiency of the state governments were at their lowest ebb, there began to appear ringing indictments of the whole state system. Most conspicuous of these were the well known writings of Professors John W. Burgess, of Columbia University, and Simon N. Patten, of the University of Pennsylvania.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 1936 , pp. 24 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Burgess, , “The American Commonwealth”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 9–35 (1886)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Patten, , “Decay of State and Local Governments”, Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, July, 1890, pp. 26–42 (also Vol. 1, No. 1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 “Metropolitan Regions,” an address delivered at the University of Chicago, March 20, 1928, in the University Record, April, 1928, and Syllabus and Selected Readings, Introductory General Course in the Social Sciences, pp. 427–440 (University of Chicago Bookstore, 1933)Google Scholar.

3 The Twilight of the Supreme Court (New Haven, 1934), p. 196Google Scholar.

4 The Need for Constitutional Reform (New York, 1935)Google Scholar, Chap. 9.

5 The author has discussed several of these problems more at length elsewhere: the problems of interstate cooperation, in Uniform State Action (Chapel Hill, 1934)Google Scholar; “State Constitutional Provision for Federal-State Coöperation”, in Annals of American Academy, September, 1935Google Scholar. The indictment of the states will be more fully discussed in a forthcoming volume on state government.

6 Graves, W. Brooke, on the influence of federal departments and agencies on the course of state legislation, in State Government, December, 1934, pp. 259–262Google Scholar, and in a forthcoming article in the Cornell Law Quarterly.

7 Lindahl, Martin L., “Coöperation between the Interstate Commerce Commission and the State Commissions in Railroad Regulation”, Michigan Law Review, January, 1935, pp. 338–397Google Scholar.

8 Based on remarks of Senator Seabury Mastick of New York, at meeting of the Interstate Commission on Conflicting Taxation, Washington, January 19, 1935.

9 New York Times, July 1, 1934, p. 26Google Scholar.

10 Betters, Paul V., Federal Services to Municipal Governments (Municipal Administration Service, New York, 1931)Google Scholar; Anon., Municipal Finance Problems and Proposals for Federal Legislation (American Municipal Association, Chicago, 1933)Google Scholar; Merriam, Charles E., “The Federal Government Recognizes the Cities”, National Municipal Review, February, 1934, pp. 107–109, 116Google Scholar; Joseph D. McGoldrick, “Federal Financial Aid to Cities”, a radio address in the “You and Your Government” Series, June 26, 1934.

11 “What Cities Can Expect from Washington”, Public Management, January, 1934, pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

12 For a discussion of this measure, written shortly before its enactment, see Dunstan, E. Fleetwood, “Federal Legislation to Help Defaulting Municipalities”, National Municipal Review, February, 1934, pp. 96–99Google Scholar. For a later discussion, see Shanks, Saunders Jr., “The Municipal Bankruptcy Act”, American Political Science Review, December, 1934, pp. 1072–1074Google Scholar.

13 “Cities Look to the Federal Government”, an editorial in Public Management, January, 1934Google Scholar.

14 Sterling, Philip, “To Re-create a More Perfect Union”, an address before the Pennsylvania Council of Republican Women, Harrisburg, November 14, 1934Google Scholar.

15 Patten, supra.

16 “The Displacement of States by Political Regions,” an address before the Conference on Metropolitan Government, New York City, October 19, 1932Google Scholar (mimeographed). G. D. H. Cole defines regionalism as “primarily an attempt to face the difficulty of the loss of local self-government … by making local areas real areas … to restore the influence of local spirit upon the work of social administration. It is an attempt to define areas which are at once units of social feeling and, as far as possible, also areas of economic life, and suitable to serve as units for the work of administration.” Social Theory (London, 1923), pp. 160–161Google Scholar.

17 Address before the Bankers and Manufacturers Club of Philadelphia, May 9, 1933.

18 Address before a district; conference of the Rotary International in Philadelphia, May 1, 1934. For later proposals, see the report of the National Resources Board; and cf. the efforts at cooperation already under vay in the New England region.

19 Wallace, W. K., Our Obsolete Constitution (New York, 1932), p. 185Google Scholar.

20 “The Coordination of Federal, State, and Local Fiscal Systems”, Municipal Finance, August, 1933, pp. 35–46Google Scholar.

21 The American Red Cross had thirteen zones at the time of the World War, but has operated since with six or eight divisions. The Railway Administration had six regional directorships, and eight, twelve, or nineteen consolidation zones have since been proposed for the railroads. The National Recovery Administration had nine regional compliance offices, and state compliance offices in fifty-three states and territories.

22 Opening stanza of Sussex.

23 Peel, supra.

24 Many of these groupings are presented in the text and in Appendix B of the author's Uniform State Action.

25 Philadelphia Record, December 10, 1932.

26 Merriam, , supra, p. 428Google Scholar.

27 Ibid., pp. 431–432.

28 Leland, , supra, pp. 35–36Google Scholar.

29 “The Future of Municipal Government”, National Municipal Review, December, 1934, pp. 646–649Google Scholar.

30 This thesis is advanced by George C. S. Benson, of the American Legislators' Association.

31 There was practically unanimous agreement on this point at a round table meeting on the future of the states, at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in 1934. This group was composed of the ablest state government men in the country, with representatives of the municipal group.

32 Cf. Mott, Rodney L., “Still the United States”, National Municipal Review, May, 1934, pp. 264–267Google Scholar.

33 The effectiveness of this method is open to serious question. Recent studies made by Miss Jane Perry Clark, of Barnard College, and Professor J. Q. Dealey, Jr., of Hamilton College, agree that, on the basis of its past record, the compact method offers little prospect of success. See MissClark's, article, “Interstate Compacts and Social Legislation”, Political Science Quarterly, Dec, 1935, and Mar., 1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Sterling, supra.

35 See the suggested program for the hastening of uniformity in Chapter 20, and the classified list of organizations of administrative officers in Appendix B, of Graves, Uniform State Action.

36 Martin, James W., “Conflicting Taxation at the Second Interstate Assembly”, American Bar Association Journal, April, 1935, pp. 207–210, 238–239Google Scholar, gives an excellent summary of the achievements of the Commission during this period. See also Conflicting Taxation (Chicago, 1935)Google Scholar, and Pritchett, C. H., “Regional Authorities through Interstate Compacts”, Social Forces, Dec, 1935Google Scholar.

37 All of these quotations descriptive of the organizations with headquarters at 850 East 58th Street, Chicago, are taken from the March, 1935, issue of State Government.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.