Special legislation by its very bulk vastly increases the uncertainties of the law by making it more difficult for each individual to ascertain his rights. It seriously interferes in many instances with the policies of administrative boards and commissions. This is well illustrated by what was said by the Massachusetts Joint Special Committee on Legislative Procedure in 1915. It referred to ten special acts of the previous year which affected the system of State highways, and said:

These were placed on our statute books without careful consideration as to the desirability or merits, and recommended by a committee less fitted to pass judgment than the commission created for the purpose and handling such questions continually. They are often contradictory to, interfere with, and generally upset, some part of the general systematic plan of the commission relative thereto, as, for example, the building of certain through trunk lines between our sister States in the first instance, and, next in order, the building of secondary trunk lines and certain connecting links between thickly settled places on the main thoroughfares. Remembering this general scheme, and taking into consideration the welfare of the whole State, simply shows the absurdity of some of these special acts. For example, chapters 78, 502, 733 and 779 of the Acts of the year 1914 are secondary routes which would doubtless have been constructed by the commission at some time, but which should wait for the completion of at least one through route first. It would seem as though, with an expenditure of over $2,000,000, that the State Legislature might be spared the necessity of considering nearly forty separate propositions and imposing an additional hundred thousand dollars upon the State tax by the adoption of ten or a dozen of them.1

The most demoralizing result of special legislation is that depicted by Grover Cleveland in 1891. Little can be added to his weighty words.

The importance of a successful championship of these private bills, measured by a standard which ought not for a moment to be recognized, seems so vital to those having them in charge that they are easily led to barter their votes for measures as bad as theirs or worse, in order to secure the support of similarly situated colleagues. Thus is inaugurated a system called log-rolling, which comes frightfully near actual legislative corruption; and thus the people at large lose not only the attention to their affairs which is due to them, but are often no better than robbed of the money in the public treasury.2

1 House Document No. 280 (1915).

2 Parker, Ed., Writings and Speeches of Grover Cleveland, 175.

Against the undoubted evils of special legislation must be set off one powerful consideration in its favor. Great legislative policies can seldom be conceived and put into operation without a considerable period of experiment. It is only after many efforts attended by many failures that the well-matured and successful plan, which is a sort of generalization of all that has gone before, is finally evolved. Legislation is more often the product of imperative conditions than most law-makers realize, and they will best serve the public interest by responding to local demands as rapidly as they make themselves felt. To this end special legislation is necessary.

III. PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION IN ENGLAND.

The enactment of a private bill in the British Parliament partakes of the nature of a judicial proceeding. It is assumed throughout that the bill is being sought for the promotion of some private advantage and it is therefore incumbent on the petitioner to show that the advantage can be accorded him without detriment to the public, and without undue harm to any opposing private interest. In order that all concerned may have due notice, the bill must be deposited about two months before the opening of Parliament. Here it is considered first by the Lord Chairman and by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons, who are assisted by legal advisers. Any changes upon which they insist must be made, and it is then placed in the order of business of the Lords or the Commons as convenience may dictate. It is usually unopposed on its first and second reading and is referred to a select committee which is virtually a trial court. The members of this committee must have no interest in the bill. Its promotors appear as suitors while those who apprehend injury may appear in opposition. Both parties may be represented by counsel and witnesses may be examined. The preamble to the bill states the reasons for having recourse to legislation and the first business of the committee is to pass upon the sufficiency of these reasons. The bill is then examined and perhaps amended and the committee's conclusion is reported to the House. Here the bill takes its third reading, if favorably reported, and the committee's recommendation is seldom opposed.

An important feature of private bill legislation and one which increases the likeness of the proceedings to a suit at law is the expense involved. At every stage fees must be paid. The cost of putting the simplest unopposed private bill through Parliament is not much less than a thousand dollars, while if there is any opposition the fees will amount to at least five thousand dollars. In the contest between the cities of Manchester and Liverpool over the petition for the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal the legal expenses amounted to a million dollars.

In view of the obvious defects of the system, it is interesting to note that in the opinion of so competent a critic as President Lowell they are outweighed by its merits. He says:

The curse of most representative bodies at the present day is the tendency of the members to urge the interests of their localities or their constituents. It is this more than anything else that has brought legislatures into discredit, and has made them appear to be concerned with a tangled skein of private interests rather than with the public welfare. It is this that makes possible the American boss, who draws his resources from his profession of private bill broker. Now the very essence of the English system lies in the fact that it tends to remove private and local bills from the general field of political discussion, and thus helps to rivet the attention of Parliament upon public matters. A ministry stands or falls upon its general legislative and administrative record, and not because it has offended one member by opposing the demands of a powerful company, and another by ignoring the desires of a borough council. Such a condition would not be possible unless Parliament was willing to leave private legislation in the main to small impartial committees, and abide by their judgment.1

IV. SPECIAL LEGISLATION IN MASSACHUSETTS.

A careful analysis and classification of the measures considered by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1916 has been made which affords a criterion of the extent of special legislation in this Commonwealth. In that year 2,026 bills and resolves were referred to committees, of which 861 finally received the approval of both branches of the Legislature. In the accompanying table all the bills and resolves referred to

1 Lowell, The Government of England, I, 391. See also Freund, Standards of American Legislation, 295.

• Wilder H. Haines, "Legislative Activity in Massachusetts," in The American Political Science Review, XI, 528 (August, 1917).

committees and all bills and resolves passed by both branches are classified in two groups. In the first group, marked “General," are included all bills of State-wide application. In the second group, marked "Special," are included all bills relating to specific agencies of the State, or to specific localities, or to specific individuals or corporations. In acting upon the measures included in group I, the General Court was legislating for the whole State, while in acting upon the measures in group II it was legislating for localities, individuals or corporations. If the number of bills in each group assigned to the various committees be examined, it will be noted that the measures in group II are centered in the hands of comparatively few committees. To those committees having to do with local government, namely, the Committees on Cities, Metropolitan Affairs, Municipal Finance, Towns, and Water Supply, were referred 346 measures, or ninety-three per cent of all the measures included in group II. Of the measures so referred, 192 were passed, being ninety-four per cent of all the measures in group II which became law. From this statement it appears that if some provision were made either for local home rule or for the devolution of legislative power over local questions to some other body, such as the Governor and Council, the General Court would have been relieved of the consideration of most of the special legislation which came before it in 1916.

An examination of the character of the bills referred to the five committees named above shows that many of them relate to mere administrative details. Fifty-six per cent of the bills referred to the Committee on Metropolitan Affairs were devoted to instructions to commissions or other officers as to the construction, improvement or control of specific streets, parks, rivers, harbors or public utilities. Many of the bills referred to other committees than those named are also concerned primarily with details of administration. Thus sixty-two per cent of all the bills referred to the Committee on Harbors and Public Lands related to specific instructions as to surveys and improvements of public lands and harbors, and forty per cent of the bills referred to the Committee on Roads and Bridges related to the construction or improvement of specific highways by the Highway Commission. Forty-seven per cent of the bills