ADAMS: THE CONTROL OF THE PURSE. 229 



today. The real head of affairs would be some member of the party 

 in power who so far possessed its confidence as to retain a majority 

 in the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House would 

 become a presiding officer simply, for no one could at the same time 

 discharge the duties of Speaker and Premier, Elections would not 

 take place at regular intervals but on occasion of an appeal to the 

 country. The Senate could be left as it is now and would in some 

 measure serve as a check upon too hasty legislation, but even then 

 the introduction of the system would necessitate both radical and 

 minute changes in the present government. 



This suggestion involves much more than the mere reform of 

 budgetary rules, yet it is of importance for laying stress upon effective 

 responsibility to the voters of the country, and it is djfiicult to see 

 how the real control of the purse can be secured to the people, with- 

 out at the same time securing to them control of all questions of 

 legislation. The most effective argument against the cabinet system 

 is the doubt whether it is adapted to conditions in the United States. 



Still another suggestion, likewise meant to remedy the lack of 

 responsibility, is that of the Socialists. They demand that the offices 

 of President and Vice-President, and the Senate, be abolished and 

 that the government be carried on by an Executive Board elected by 

 the House of Representatives. They propose also that all laws of 

 importance shall be presented to the people for their direct vote. It 

 is evident that a Board so elected would correspond nearly to a min- 

 istry holding office while supported by a majority in the House of 

 Representatives, as under the cabinet system. The Socialist plan 

 preserves elections at regular periods and includes an executive body 

 elected directly by the Representatives, while the cabinet system does 

 away with elections at regular periods and makes the executive body 

 dependent upon a majority in the House though not directly elected 

 by them. The essential idea of the two suggestions is, nevertheless, 

 the same, that this body is made responsible to representatives, and 

 representatives to people. The same objection holds against both, 

 though in a greater degree against the Socialist plan; namely, that 

 they involve a radical change in the present form of government. If 

 there is a way by which ^the desired results may be obtained without 

 change of institutions, or with less change, that way merits more 

 favorable consideration. 



The serious objection to the third plan of reform stated above was 

 the possible conflict between a President and House of different 

 parties. It remains to determine whether there is any method by 

 which the necessary political harmony between President and House 

 may be guaranteed. Stated briefly the changes which would be 



