The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-01-28
The Kansas Bar Association in
Annual Convention.
Walter ID. Hines of New York
Makes Principal Address.
GOVERNMENT SHORTCOMINGS
He Mentions Lack of Definite
Individual Responsibility.
Discusses Evils of Which the
People Complain.

At the meeting of the Kansas Bar
| association which convened yesterday
the recall of judicial decisions, the
uniformity of laws and the ethics of
| the profession were subjects which at
| tracted the attention of the members
present.
The opening address was delivered
| by Judge ]. D. Mcfarland of Topeka,
president of the association. Judge
Mcfarland spoke on the proposed
amendment to provide recall of judi
| cial decisions. He dwelt at length on
the history of judiciary recalls and
upon the national discussion which
more recent years. He drew the line
| of difference between recall of deci-
sion and recall of the judges.
The principal address was made
last night by Walter d. Hines. The
address was delivered in the supreme
court chamber at the state house.
Mr.. Hines is acting chairman of the
| executive committee and general
counsel for the Santa Fe Railway com
pany of New York city. His subject
was "rhe Lack in Our Form of Gov
| sponsibility Is a Fundamental Cause
o fthe Evils of Which the People
Complain" He spoke as follows:
MFR. Hines's Address.
The demands for the initiative and
referendum and for direct primaries
and the recall of public officers signify
that the people believe ur govern.
mental methods are inefficient and
the results are unsatisfactory, ana IL
is important to consider the causes
| which have produced such Conditions.
we rlnd that great private business
! enterprises owe their efficiency and
success very largely 10 the fact that
| they are so organized as to create def
| mite individual responsibility for the
| accomplishment of their purposes and
yet we find that this definite individual
responsibility is a feature almost en-
| tfrely lacking in the Government which
is expected to be efficient and sue
cessful in regulating these great pri-
vate enterprises.
| Considering first the legislative func-
ton. We find that in the legislative de-
pa artment responsibility is scattered in
discriminately among a vast num-
Der of numbers, so that legis-
| lation has become a striking in
| stance of a thing that is everybody's
business and therefore nobody's bust
ness. The responsibility is so ccattered
| that it is almost impossible to put on
| any legislator the blame for the pas
| sage of improper legislation ana for the
| failure to pass desirable legislation,
and this condition is intensified
by the fact that each menn-
ber is answerable only to his
own small constituency. The result is
that the general public interest has no
definite responsible legislative repre-
sentative to originate legislation needed
| by the people and to put that legisla-
tion in workable and effective shape
and to oppose all legislation and all
| provisions injurious to the general pub
| lie.
| This absence of definite individual
responsibility for the general welfare
and the consequent inability to locate
| blame for wrong action is one of the
| principal reasons why political bosses
| have flourished, for they are most sue
cessful in accomplishing their designs
when responsibility for the Legislative
action or non-action which they desire
can be most conceded
| Another important reason for legis-
lative inefficiency is the thorough sep
aration of the legislative department
! from the executive department, with
| the result that the executive depart
| ment, which has the most interest and
the most experience in the actuai en-
! forcement of laws, has little, II any
| thing, to do with framing those laws
| SO as to make them workable. This
/ condition contrasts strikingly with the
organization of important private
| business enterprises where the chieL
/ executive takes a leading part in in1-
tiating and framing the regulations OF
| the business. Such participation or
! the chief executive of private busi-
ness in the adoption of the regulations
| of the business is essential to the sue
! cessful working of the regulations and
| a departure from the present contrary
! policy IN our BONSTHAiShtS WOoaN
| greatly promote governmental eff
/ cheney, This is evidenced by the nu-
merous examples afforded by the
commission form of government in
/ cities.
Law Enforcement
| Considering next the function OF
| law enforcement, we are struck with
the widespread complaints that the
! laws are not enforced, but are disre-
garded to an extraordinary extent
| believe this is very largely due to the
| remarkable division of responsibility
J in the executive department of our
state governments. Generally speak
ing, the governor has little, II any,
1 control over the officers who enforce
/ the law, and the same is true of the
heads of the state departments. Law
l enforcement is left largely to the
separate action of the officers of each
, county, and, moreover, in each county
there is rarely, if ever, any definite
| responsibility placed upon any par
/ ticular public officer to put forth the
1 necessary initiative and continuous
| effort to discover violations of law
| and to institute prosecutions therefor.
! Our methods may not be unsuccessful
! with regard to the detection and
punishment of obvious crimes of vio-
to dealing with those more tangible
| offenses which grow out of our mod
| ern laws regulating or affecting the
! relations between production, con-
sumption and labor and which cannot
be enforced effectively except through
some plan of definite. individual re-
sponsibi1ity which will provide the
necessary initiative and continuous
vigilance and aggressiveness on be-