of the society within which it is established. No particular polity has received Divine sanction as being the only fit and appropriate form of government for all peoples, or for any people at all times and all stages of its progress. Governments are not absolutely, but only relatively, perfect. As the social and economic conditions of life change, as culture broadens and deepens, as ethical standards rise; so, political ideals and institutions must change in order that they may conserve man's highest interest. This view was reflected by Thomas Jefferson, who was an ardent admirer of local selfgovernment. He held that the earth belonged to the living and that the dead had no legal rights over it; that no society had any right to make perpetual laws; that changes of mind and culture must be accompanied by changes of government; and that a constitutional convention should be held every nineteen years for the purpose of changing the fundamental laws so that they would harmonize with the views of the living."

If we accept the maxim that all exclusively local interests shall be controlled by the local government, we are immediately brought face to face with the question: What are local interests? What yesterday was of local concern only, may to-day be of vital moment to the whole State. It is the tendency among a progressive people for the personality of the individual to expand so as to include within its view the welfare of the neighborhood and the State. State control and supervision will be assumed more and more, as it appears that the interests of the whole State are at stake and not merely those of individuals or local communities.

After all, the restrictions imposed upon local governments by such action are more apparent than real. Since the perpetuity of democratic institutions depends upon having an 'Jefferson, Thomas, Writings (Ford's Ed.), ix, 427. 'Ibid., v, 116-8, 121-2.

enlightened and self-contained population, the State must reduce to a minimum the evils of illiteracy and crime by the establishment of agencies for the education and elevation of all its citizens. This in turn will guarantee to the community and the individual a more genuine liberty and a freer opportunity for the realization of his best aspirations. If localities persist in tolerating unsanitary conditions which breed disease germs, the authority of the State must be invoked to abolish this menace to the public health of the entire commonwealth.

In the matter of charity and correction, local selfishness or short-sightedness may lead to the adoption of methods, or the tolerance of conditions, incompatible with an enlightened humanitarian sentiment and detrimental to the material interests of the whole State. The local community has no grounds for demanding the "liberty" to neglect human beings when they are gathered together in charitable or correctional institutions and subjected to revolting treatment or indecent surroundings. Whose "liberty" is infringed upon, when the State steps in to protect these helpless unfortunates? It is an interference only with the license, ignorance or indifference of incompetent or corrupt officials.

In respect to taxation-especially for the support of the Commonwealth-the State must not abdicate its responsibility by leaving wholly to the discretion or honesty of local officers the assessment of property. The disadvantages arising from such an arrangement have been examined in a former chapter.

Local self-government does not mean the right to select local officers and then to leave to their own discretion or their own honesty the enforcement of State laws. There must be behind them a power of compulsion. If this is not furnished by the locality where everybody's business is nobody's business, then the State must constitute authorities to

see that local officials do their duty or else take over entirely the administration.

Both theory and practice demonstrate that this gravitation towards centralization in administration is in harmony with our progressive political ideas, our pecuniary interests and our highest prosperity and happiness. This conclusion does not relegate the theory of local self-government to the limbo of obsolete doctrines. There will always remain a field within which the people of the respective communities will have free choice as to their policies. In general, it may be said, those public improvements which have an exclusively local interest, should be left to the wishes and the wisdom of the inhabitants of the localities concerned. They have better opportunities to ascertain the desires and the needs of the respective communities. This conclusion does not, therefore, mean an abandonment of the ideals of the Fathers. It does signify, however, that new limits must be set to the spheres of local activities and central jurisdiction as the social and economic needs may require a re-adjustment.

When conservatism becomes an irrational and unwavering devotion to particular forms or methods of government, it ceases to be commendable. The best evidences of political capacity and wise statesmanship are a willingness and a power to adapt old principles to new conditions and opportunities.

VITA

THE author of this dissertation, William A. Rawles, was born December 4, 1863, at Remington, Indiana. He attended the common schools of his native town and of Bloomington, Indiana. He was prepared for Indiana University at the Preparatory School of that institution. In 1880 he entered Indiana University and received the degree of A. B. in 1884.

During the ten years immediately following his graduation, Mr. Rawles was engaged in teaching in secondary schools, occupying the following positions: Principal of High School, Mitchell, Ind., 1884; Assistant in Preparatory Department of Indiana University, 1885-87; Principal of High School, Vincennes, Ind., 1887-89; Principal of High School, Sedalia, Mo., 1889-92 and 1893-94; Assistant in High School, St. Louis, Mo., 1892-93.

In 1894 he returned to Indiana University as a graduate student and Instructor in History. In 1895 the degree of A. M. was conferred upon him by his Alma Mater. During the year 1895-96 he held a Fellowship in Political Economy at Cornell University. He heard lectures under Professors Jeremiah W. Jenks, Charles H. Hull, Walter F. Willcox, Moses Coit Tyler and George L. Burr; and was a member of the Political Science Seminary and of the American History Seminary. From 1896 to 1898 he was Instructor in History in Indiana University. During 1898-99 he was a graduate student at Columbia University; Administration was his major subject and Constitutional Law and Finance

337

were his minors. He attended the lectures of Professors Frank J. Goodnow, John W. Burgess, Edwin R. A. Seligman, John B. Moore, C. E. Merriam, L. Farrand, William Z. Ripley and Frederic Bancroft, and was a member of Professor Goodnow's seminar in Administration and Professor Burgess' seminar in Constitutional Law. From 1899 to 1901 he was Assistant Professor of History and Economics in Indiana University and now holds the position of Assistant Professor of Political Economy in that institution. In addition to this dissertation the author has published the following: The Government of the People of the State of Indiana, Eldredge and Brother, Philadelphia, 1897; and (in collaboration with Professor Ernest L. Bogart) A Trial Bibliography and Outline of Lectures on the Financial History of the United States, 1901.