ive into elective offices. The powers of the gov
ernor were reduced by converting local agencies
of government into elective offices. Heads of
state departments, that had been appointed by the
governor or by the legislature, were also cut loose
to be filled under the form of popular election.
Even the judiciary did not escape, and in most of
the states the office of judge was abandoned to
party politics by making it elective. The practi-
cal effect of the change was to convert a system of
responsible appointment into a system of irrespon-
sible appointment. It is obviously impossible for
the people to select officers for innumerable places
except by some means of agreement and coöpera-
tion, which means is ordinarily supplied by the
activity of the political class. It may be laid down
as a political maxim, that whatever assigns to the
people a power which they are naturally incapable
of wielding takes it away from them. It may be
argued that this principle carried to its logical
conclusion implies that the people are unable to
select their own rulers in any case.
This is per-
fectly true. The actual selection will be always
made by the few, no matter how many may seem
to participate. The only value of popular elections
is to establish accountability to the people, but this
rightly used is quite enough to constitute a free
government.

The multiplication of elective offices and the istribution of the responsibilities of government