second administration for food and industry was controlled by federal licenses, and all industry and finance felt the power of the government. The War Labor Board attempted, with considerable success, to prevent strikes and lockouts and to keep the essential industries operating at full capacity. In so doing organized labor was recognized as never before and was deferred to in the determination of wages and conditions of employment. In the conduct of foreign affairs and the negotiations which led to the cessation of hostilities President Wilson offended the Senate by not taking them into his confidence but by standing upon his strict constitutional prerogatives. With the end of the war, conditions were suddenly changed. Wilson's The Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, and the coming of peace put an end to the necessity of seeming una- second half nimity. Both domestic and foreign problems were pressing for settlement, and the relations between the President and Congress were strained. The Senate bitterly resented its exclusion from any share in the negotiations for the peace treaty and viewed Peace treaty with hostile eyes the proposed League of Nations, as well as many of the settlements made by the treaty. Domestic problems Domestic arising from the inevitable reconstruction-after-war conditions problems were pressing for solution. Chief among these was the question of the high cost of living and the consequent necessary wage adjustments and the question of the return of the railroads to the stockholders. Although there was little unemployment, and industry was prospering in every field, there was a feeling of discontent and uncertainty owing to the high prices and the proposal that labor should have an increasing voice in the control of industry. Purpose of party organ tain control of the government by the election of officers necessitates : (1) Nomination CHAPTER VI PARTY ORGANIZATIONS The purpose of party organization is to control the governization to ob- ment. This control is exercised by obtaining possession of the offices. The primary aim, therefore, of a party is to elect its members to office. But the election is only the third and last duty of a party, and in some regions where one party has the overwhelming majority it is the least troublesome duty. Before the election must come the selection of the candidate who shall be the choice of the party. This selection is nomination. After the nomination has been made the candidate must make his appeal to the voters; he must state for what he stands; he must be popular enough to attract votes. This is called the campaign. It is possible therefore to consider the purpose of the party organization under three divisions, nomination, campaign, and election. Another duty may precede even the nomination. This is the declaration of principles, or, as it is called, the framing of the platform. At times this becomes very important; but more often in national affairs the platforms attempt to avoid controversial subjects and to restate in well-sounding phrases the past position of the party. Furthermore, the candidates, when nominated, may ignore the platform and stress other principles or even make a new declaration of political faith on an entirely new issue. In state affairs the platforms are of less importance and generally contain little more than a fervid indorsement of the platforms of the national parties. (2) Declaration of principles Why there are no state parties Although the Constitution leaves large spheres of action to the state, there have never been any important state parties for any long duration. Local issues have sometimes caused the formation of a temporary organization, which has altered the balance of the parties within the state. In some even less frequent instances these temporary organizations have succeeded in gaining control of the state government, but this is exceptional. More often they seek to have their issues adopted by one of the regularly organized parties and to accomplish their aims through that party. In some instances when an issue has affected several states the national parties have adopted it in their platforms. Generally, however, as the study of minor parties has shown, a purely local party or one framed upon a single issue has little chance of obtaining any very wide support and still less chance for success. national between party organilocal issues zations and The party system in the United States originated over national Party system issues and developed national parties. Theoretically and logically these national parties have only a remote connection with the political issues in the states and even less with those in the smaller political divisions. Experience and efficiency as well as political expediency and practical convenience have demonstrated the mutual advantage of the closest possible union between the Connection two. Thus a city government, being almost at the mercy of national the state legislature, finds its way far more smooth if the party in power in the city is the same as that of the majority in the legislature. Formerly, when the senators were chosen by the state legislatures, the national parties saw that they must control the state legislatures in order to obtain a majority in the Senate. Since the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, by which the senators are elected by popular vote, this necessity has lessened, but one of practical political convenience has arisen. It is easier, simpler, and far more efficient to utilize an already existing and well-working organization than to extemporize one every six years. federal in The organization of the party system in the United States is Party system federal like the government. At the top are the permanent organization national-party organizations for the purpose of electing the president. In each state there are the state organizations which coöperate in the election of the president, but which are constantly concerned in the carrying of the state for the party. In each congressional district there may be a district organization which works with the national and state organizations to elect representatives, while in the counties, cities, towns, and wards there are still smaller organizations, all of which seek primarily to elect officers belonging to their national party and Nomination The caucus which, at state, congressional, senatorial, and national elections, are found working for the candidates of their party. The whole party organization may be compared to a series of wheels all geared together, the national organization revolving in a fouryear cycle and each of the others in its own cycle, as determined by the frequency of elections. The selection of the party candidate is the most important step in the political cycle, and the development of the nominating procedure has had an interesting history. In colonial days, and to a less extent after the formation of the national government, the candidates were sometimes self-nominated. In a letter printed in the newspapers the would-be candidate announced himself and, over his own signature, asked for the support of his fellows. More often, however, a group of the candidate's friends put his name forward. This informal gathering of party leaders is the germ from which the whole complex party organization developed, and, indeed, in spite of the law and the legally established methods is still utilized and is often able to override or control the more formal procedure. From these small conferences the caucus developed. In Boston, in 1763, the caucus met secretly "at certain times in the garret of Tom Dawes,' "2 and its members were admitted only after close scrutiny. At these meetings it was decided for what candidates the influence of the caucus should be exerted, and committees were appointed to solicit votes.3 Other clubs for similar purposes were held in different parts of Boston, and this method of nomination with slight variations spread through New England. Outside of New England similar meetings were held, not always secret, which were called primaries. As the Revolution approached, the self-constituted 1 For a full treatment of this subject see F. W. Dallinger, Nominations for Elective Office. 2 John Adams, Works (ed. 1850), Vol. II, p. 144. 3 The following votes of the Boston caucus given in Wells, Life of Samue! Adams, Vol. I, p. 471, illustrate the procedure: "Voted, That this body will use their influence that Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and William Phillips be Representatives for the year ensuing. .. "Voted - That Gibbons Sharp, Nathaniel Barber &C. be a committee to distribute votes for these gentlemen." - Quoted by Dallinger, p. 10 committees of correspondence used their influence to nominate "honest men" to the colonial assemblies, but after the war these committees were disbanded. Nominations for local offices in towns and cities were made by the caucus, but this method proved increasingly unsatisfactory as the population increased, and became impossible in larger territorial districts. To meet this need county or district conventions were held composed The convenof delegates chosen by voters in the wards or towns. This convention system for county officers and representatives to Congress developed almost contemporaneously in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts about 1800. tion sional caucus The organization of the federal government made the election The Congresof national officers necessary. The methods of the colonial caucus were insufficient for the nomination of a candidate to be elected by thirteen states. For the first two elections Washington was by common consent the sole candidate for the presidency, but the scattering votes of the electors showed that there was no unanimity for the vice presidency. Not until 1800 was there any formal method adopted, and then meetings of the party members in Congress were held. This was known as the legislative caucus, and was followed until 1824; from Congress it spread to the states. In neither national nor state politics did it meet with unchallenged satisfaction. As early as 1800 one writer denounced the caucus as follows: If anything will arouse the freemen of America, it must be the arrogance of a number of members of Congress to assemble as an electioneering caucus to control the citizens in their rights.... Under what authority did these men pretend to dictate their nomination. . . . Do we send members to Congress to cabal once in four years for President? . . . After Congress have accomplished their legislative business have they a right to dictate in the choice of the executive? If so, what an imposition upon the "people" to talk about the freedom of election, or what consequence is it that the state legislature should concern themselves in the mode of choosing electors. . . .1 1 Nevertheless the caucus was continued from 1800 until 1824. 1 Benjamin Austin, Constitutional Republicanism as opposed to Fallacious Federalism, pp. 87, 88, quoted by Dallinger, p. 16. Criticism of the Congres sional caucus |