This has been very familiar doctrine even down to modern times in the case of state legislatures, and in some states there has been almost a standing rule that a man should not serve more than one, or at most two, terms. The resulting incompetence of state legislatures hardly needs to be commented upon. The only result was that in some small districts nearly everybody could have the distinction of having once in his life been a representative at the state capitol. But this principle no longer has such a hold as formerly and nobody would advance it as a general rule in national affairs.

On the contrary, if what I have said regarding the insignificance of the average representative in Congress and the great power of the few leaders is true, it would seem to be a duty of the constituent to give a hard working, intelligent representative every chance to rise to a position of greater influence. This is something which I think the voter should carefully consider. I mean that in case of doubt he should always lean toward the incumbent for the time being. Both efficiency and power increase with the

length of tenure, and this fact is a fact which the voter must carefully keep in mind in making his choice, not only in the election but in the preliminary nominations. A man may have served in Congress, let us say, three terms. A rival candidate appears for the nomination in that party and you feel that, on the whole, the new candidate is superior. What is your duty in the matter? Should you vote for the better man? In some cases you may decide that you conscientiously must do so. In other cases you may conscientiously decide that if you keep the other man in office he will ultimately become better than his rival candidate could within a given period of time. In other words, he has so much time to his credit. His efficiency has been increased by so much. The other man must begin at the beginning. In so far as you wish a man from your section to have a position of prominence, to be one of the men who really frame national policies, really control national affairs, you must be ready to stand by him as loyally as you conscientiously can.

CHAPTER IV

THE REPRESENTATIVE AND

HIS CONSTITUENCY

The subject to which I wish to call your attention in this fourth lecture is the relation of the representative to his constituents. Once having been elected by their votes and dependent upon their support, what is his duty to them? This involves at the outset the whole question of whether a representative in a legislative body should be independent in thought and action, working and voting for what he considers the best interests of the nation at large, or whether, on the contrary, he is merely the agent for his particular constituency, pledged to work and vote for what may be to the particular interest of his district. This is a question as old as representative government and one which was discussed long before the United States became a nation at all. I wish, however, to point out one thing in the beginning which you should keep clearly in mind. I can do

so best perhaps by quoting a sentence or two from a lecture by President Hadley entitled "Workings of our Political Machinery" (published in his "Standards of Public Morality"), a lecture to which I shall have occasion to refer several times in the remaining lectures of this course.

Mr. Hadley says: "A number of congressmen go to Washington pledged to act in the interests of those who sent them. This pledge is not an explicit one. There will always be men who disregard it in certain emergencies, and who prefer the high claims of the country to the lower claims of the party or district. But these cases will be relatively few."

What I especially call your attention to in this passage for the moment is that he groups together the "lower claims" of "party" and "district" as contrasted with the higher claims of the country at large. I think that it is important to keep the question of the claims of party and the claims of district quite distinct. In fact, I shall try to prove to you later that one of the most effective causes leading in the last few years

to a relative lessening of the demands of particular districts is the increased necessity of strict party loyalty. They may both be "lower claims," but one, I think, tends partly to eliminate the other. This, however, is a matter for later discussion. I speak of it here so that you may keep your minds clearly on the fact that it is the question of service to the district rather than of service to the country at large which I am now discussing.

I do not know that I can say anything new upon this subject. I should like to give you the views of many different thinkers of different types, but our time will not permit. You young men, probably with scarcely an exception, take it for granted that the higher ethical duty is service to the country as a whole, and I certainly agree with you. On the other hand, you are probably deeply shocked at the very suggestion that it is the duty of a Congressman to act simply as the agent of his own constituents and fight solely for their interests, while I, though disagreeing with this theory, am not shocked by it at all. I know very able men who defend it