dealers in farm products, could be used in this state to prevent farmers from organizing into coöperative societies to market their products.81

There have been two amendments proposed with the view of enlarging the governor's power to control the finances of the state through his veto power. The first of these, which was adopted in 1876 and became part of section II, gave the governor the power to veto items in appropriation bills.82 In 1915 a proposal was made by the legislature to extend the governor's power and responsibility still farther by permitting him to veto items "in whole or in part," that is, to cut down items of appropriation if he so chose.83 This proposal was a companion-piece to the budget law passed the same year.8 It failed to receive the constitutional majority.

84

No amendments adopted before 1920 have added more to the length of the constitution than those which relate to the subjects of special legislation and home rule for cities. On the other hand, few are of greater importance, for these amendments constitute the charter of local self government for the cities of the state. In the original constitution, unlike that which Iowa adopted in the same year, there was no clause to prohibit special legislation for cities. Indeed, section 2 of article 10 expressly stated that special laws for the incorporation of municipalities were not prohibited. "No corporation shall be formed under special acts except for municipal purposes." In the early years of the state there were passed many laws regulating the local affairs of cities, counties, towns, and villages. The special laws, printed separately but originally bound with the general laws, were usually more bulky and numerous than the general statutes. The special laws passed at the regular session in 1881 occupied nearly a thousand pages, and at a special session that fall there were enacted 252 pages more. The governments of the various municipalities of the state were changed from year to year by these special enactments without the express consent of the people concerned. The legislature itself became disgusted with this system, and in 1881 it proposed to amend the constitution to restrict its powers of local and special legislation.85 The amendments proposed were adopted by the voters at the election that year, and went into effect at once as sections 33 and 34 of article 4. While the new sections appeared to be very sweeping, prohibiting as they did eleven classes of special laws, they did not prohibit special legislation for cities, and neither did they forbid the amendment, modification, or extension of any of the previous special laws. One of the few important results was to require the legislature to pass a general law for the incorporation of villages.s Otherwise special legislation continued almost unabated. The special laws

Ibid., 1919, ch. 389, dealing with cooperative associations.

82 Ibid., 1876, ch. 1.

83 Ibid., 1915, ch. 383.

84 Ibid., 1915, ch. 356.

Ibid., 1881, ch. 3.

Ibid., 1883, ch. 73; 1885, ch. 145.

were so numerous as to require publication in separate volumes beginning in 1883. The volume of special laws enacted in 1891 contains 507 chapters and 1,138 pages, as contrasted with 173 chapters and 462 pages in the general laws enacted the same year.

Again both the legislature and the people demanded relief. In 1891 was proposed a new section to take the place of section 33 as adopted in 1881.87 Section 34 was left untouched. The new provision makes: first, a sweeping prohibition of special laws "when a general law can be made applicable," and delegates to the courts the sole power to decide whether a general law could have been made applicable; second, it increases the number of subjects upon which special laws may not be passed, and is particularly inclusive where it provides that "the legislature shall pass no local or special law; regulating the affairs of, or incorporating, erecting or changing the lines of any county, city, village, township, ward, or school district," and so forth; third, it provides that "the legislature may repeal any existing special or local law but shall not amend, extend or modify any of the same." In these three respects the amendment adopted in 1892 makes great advances over the section adopted in 1881. It is not true to say that special legislation has been entirely eliminated, for by means of restricted classifications it is still possible to meet the peculiar needs of particular localities. Thus every recent session of the legislature has regulated the affairs of Minneapolis and of that city alone by passing laws applicable to all cities of the first class not operating under home-rule charters. On the whole, however, the situation today is much better than it was before the adoption of the amendment just described.

Limitations on legislative power nearly always work in two ways. While they may be designed solely for the prevention of bad legislation, they cannot help in many cases to prohibit good laws as well. No sooner had the 1892 amendment checked the output of special legislation than the cities began to find themselves in difficulties. The legislature could no longer help them out of their troubles. There followed then the movement to help the cities to help themselves. The legislative session of 1895 resulted in the passage of a general law under which cities might incorporate, and also in the proposal of a new amendment to the constitution designed to authorize cities to adopt and change their own charters.88

The home-rule amendment was adopted in 1896, becoming section 36 of article 4. Legislation was immediately adopted to carry it into effect. In studying the amendment for the enactment of this law, the legislature found several details in it which it wished to have changed. A new home-rule

8 Sess. Laws 1891, ch. 1.

s8 Ibid., 1895, ch. 8, pp. 16-131; ch. 4.

80 Ibid., 1897, ch. 255.

amendment was therefore proposed in 1897 and adopted in 1898.00 It differed from the amendment of 1896 in that it prescribed a maximum term of office for charter commissioners, authorized the voters to submit amendments to home-rule charters by petition, and reclassified the cities into four instead of three population groups. In 1899 new legislation was passed to give effect to the home-rule scheme." This legislation has been modified frequently since that time.92 Under its provisions sixty-two cities and villages have adopted their own charters as cities; the list includes the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth, but not Winona.93

In 1911, due to some doubts as to the validity of the commission plan of government for home-rule cities, an amendment was proposed to section 36 to permit cities to adopt the commission plan, the mayor and council plan, or "any other plan or system of municipal government" not in violation of the state constitution." The proposal also carried provisions decreasing the vote required for the adoption of home-rule charters from four sevenths to a majority of those voting at the election, increasing the required number of signers to an amendment petition from five to ten per cent of the voters, and preventing the application of any law passed for a class of cities to any homerule city in that class unless such city were especially named in the act. The last provision here described would have legalized special legislation for home-rule cities. The entire proposal failed to receive the constitutional majority. It was unnecessary, however, to bring about the desired result in the matter of legalizing the commission form of government. Before the electorate had an opportunity to pass upon the proposal in the fall of 1912, the supreme court of the state had already decided in a case affecting the home-rule charter of Mankato that the constitutional requirement of a "mayor or chief magistrate, and a legislative body of either one or two houses" in every home-rule charter did not absolutely require the separation of powers in municipal government, and that the commission plan of city. government was not unconstitutional.95 Since that time both St. Paul and Duluth, not to mention smaller cities, have adopted the commission plan, and several cities have gone so far as to provide for a sort of city manager.

This ends the discussion of the amendments to article 4 which have been adopted. A word must be said in passing about the two attempts to adopt the initiative and referendum upon statutory and constitutional issues. The 1913 proposal was not a grant of authority to the legislature to adopt measures to

1920.

20 Ibid., 1897, ch. 280.

Ibid., 1899, ch. 351.

92 See Gen. Stat. 1913, secs. 1339-74.

28 Minnesota Municipalities, April 1920, p. 53. Minneapolis adopted home rule on November 2,

Sess. Laws 1911, ch. 393.

96 State ex rel. Simpson v. City of Mankato, 117 Minn. 458; 136 N. W. 264, (1912).

put the initiative and referendum into effect; the amendment proposed embodied the law itself.96 This may have been confusing to the voters, although the ballots were clearly headed "A provision for direct legislation by the people, through the initiative and referendum." In his message to the legislature in 1915, Governor Hammond made this criticism of the 1913 proposal:

The details of the plan were incorporated in the amendment. It was proposed that the law itself be a part of the constitution. This, in my judgment, was ill-advised. Experience teaches us that laws after they are written and passed and put into practice need to be amended frequently to meet conditions and to remedy administrative defects overlooked in their preparation. If the entire law is a part of the constitution then there can be no amendment without the cumbersome and difficult process of amending the constitution itself. While I think this particular amendment should not be submitted at the next election to the people, I do recommend that a proposed constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to enact legislation establishing the initiative and referendum be submitted. Such an amendment should be short, easily understood. Then there would be no doubt after the vote was canvassed as to the opinion of the people of the state concerning direct legislation.

Instead of following this advice, the 1915 legislature submitted the 1913 proposal again with more details added." Again the proposal failed to receive the constitutional majority. In 1914 the total vote had been 356,906; the vote for the amendment 168,004, against it 41,557, not voting 147,325. In 1916 the total vote was 416,215; the vote for the amendment 187,711, against it 51,544, not voting on the amendment 176,960.

5. ARTICLE 5-THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. One of the most interesting developments of recent years in the government of the states is the movement for the reorganization of the administrative branch in the interests of economy and efficiency. During the nineteenth century and especially following the Civil War, there was a great increase in the functions of the state governments and an increasing multiplicity in the number of boards and departments to handle the new activities. On the other hand, nothing was done to coördinate the various activities or to create any central responsibility for the work of the different departments. At the beginning of the twentieth century some of the states found that they were supporting from seventy-five to one hundred or even more separate administrative departments, boards, commissions, and bureaus. The result was a very expensive government and to some extent an irresponsible one.98

Governor Eberhart was one of the first state executives to point out the need of reorganization. This he did in his message to the legislature in

De Sess. Laws 1913, ch. 584.

Ibid., 1915, ch. 385.

8 Holcombe, State Gov. in the U. S., pp. 280-87; Mathews, Princ. of Amer. St. Admin., pp. 156-59.

January, 1911, and again in 1913.99 The outcome of his proposal was the creation of the Efficiency and Economy Commission which entered upon its activities in the fall of 1913. In May, 1914, the commission made a preliminary report of its findings and in November of the same year it presented to the governor a bill for the reorganization of the entire state administration.100 In the preliminary report the commission made the hopeful assertion that "the reorganization of the state administration can be accomplished fairly well without amending the constitution. One or two amendments are desirable, but the great bulk of the commission's plan can be put into effect by acts of the legislature." However, when the final report was presented, several needed modifications of the constitution were pointed out and it is doubtful whether the commission went far enough even on this occasion in indicating the constitutional obstacles in the path of reorganization. The recommendations of the commission were not carried out by the legislature except in one or two minor matters and though Minnesota had lighted the path for other states to follow, it has itself failed to this day to bring about the desired simplifications and coördination of the administrative machinery.

The result is that the executive and administrative branch of the government of Minnesota is really little better off than it has been. The number of boards and commissions is still very large. Many of them are practically independent and not responsive to the control either of the governor or of the people, and there is still some overlapping of functions. The governor is not the real head of the administration, since there are several other executive officers elected by the people who have powers of their own in no way subject to the dictation of the governor.

The constitutional provisions relating to the executive have been very little changed since 1858. In all, four amendments to article 5 have been proposed and adopted, though one of them had to be proposed twice before it was ratified. None of these amendments has made any important change in the constitution, and there has been no change whatever since 1896.

The first amendment to article 5 was adopted before the admission of the state. Section 7 originally provided that "the term of each of the executive officers named in this article, shall commence upon taking the oath of office, after the state shall be admitted by congress into the union." This meant that while the legislature of the state government was authorized to meet in December, 1857, no executive officers of the state government could take office until after the admission of the state. For reasons which have been explained above it appeared desirable to bring about an early organization of the entire state administration.101 An amendment to this section was, Inaugural message, 1911, espec. pp. 4-9; ibid., 1913, pp. 3-6; see also Minn. Acad. of Soc. Sci. Proc., 5:21-27, (1911).

100 Prelim. Report of Effic. and Econ. Comm'n., May, 1914; Final Report of Effic. and Econ Comm'n., Nov. 1914.

101 See pp. 135-36.