Is the situation then hopeless?  Are we tied up inexorably simply to a choice of evils?  I think not.  It seems to me that the nomination of candidates is another of the problems of democracy which are never seriously attacked without prolonged perception and discussion of their importance.  One of these was the formation of the federal government; another was the abolition of slavery; another was the reform of the civil service.  Every one of them looked hopeless in the beginning; but the solution came in each case, through the popular determination to find some better way.  (Pp. 92, 93.)

But the evil goes far deeper than Mr. Godkin appears to think.  To abolish corruption is to take away the present basis of organization without substituting any other.  If irresponsible leadership is to be abandoned, responsible leadership must be introduced.  Mr. Bradford’s plan, therefore, promises more, for if responsible leadership could be introduced into Congress corruption would then be abolished also.

Mr. Bradford’s whole book may be said to be a study of the relations of the executive to the legislature, and the conclusions at which he arrives are a complete vindication of cabinet government.  But he finds one fault, and that is the instability of ministries, which he confesses has not been apparent so far in the British House of Commons.  He holds, however, that it will become more apparent with the rising tide of democracy.  It is rather amusing to find that the greatest obstacle which has to be overcome in proposing a responsible executive is the veneration in which the Constitution is still held and the dislike to copying anything from England.  His plan is, therefore, an adaptation of the cabinet to the conditions imposed by the Constitution.  He holds that the ministers appointed by the President should sit in Congress and have control of the initiation of legislation.  It is to be feared that this would hardly realize the idea of responsible leadership.  Mr. Bradford establishes a chain of responsibility by the fact that the ministers are responsible to the President and the President is responsible to the people; but that is a very different thing to the continual responsibility of the cabinet to a majority of the legislature.  It is probable that the President’s ministers would have to encounter the opposition of a majority in one or both Houses, and it is difficult to see how a deadlock could be avoided.  Mr. Bradford contemplates that the people would settle any issues which arise between the two branches at the end of the Presidential term of four years; but it is just as likely that there would then be a new President in any case.  We are driven to the conclusion, therefore, that responsible leadership is incompatible with the American system of divided powers and fixed terms of office.

Mr. Bryce comments on the proposal as follows:—­