¹ The importance of the legislature to effective popular government seems for the most part to be assumed rather than argued in the literature of government and public affairs. For discussions more or less instructive, see Luce, R., Legislative Problems (Boston, 1935), Chap. 8Google Scholar; Smith, T. V., The Promise of American Politics (Chicago, 1936)Google Scholar; J. S. Mill, Considerations on Representative Government; Willoughby, W. F., Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration (Washington, 1934), Chap. 3Google Scholar; Bonn, M. J., The Crisis of European Democracy (New Haven, 1925)Google Scholar, Chaps. 1–2; Shepard, W. J., “Legislative Assemblies; History and Theory,” in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 9, p. 355 (New York, 1933)Google Scholar; and Fairlie, J. A., “The Legislature and the Administration,” in this Review , Vol. 30, pp. 241–256, 494–506 (1936)Google Scholar.

² Sterling, Philip, “Some Practical Aspects of Legislation,” 38th Report Pennsylvania Bar Assoc., p. 393 (1932)Google Scholar.

³ Luce, R., Legislative Assemblies (Boston, 1924), pp. 358–359Google Scholar. One of the writers of this article has said in another place: “It is experience in the state capitol that acquaints the legislator with the intricacies of the governmental machine and permits sound judgment in respect to the improvement of public administration; it is experience that helps him to distinguish public interest from selfish demand; it is experience that develops the facility for compromise and bargain which is necessary in the making of a decision applicable to groups antagonistic in their wants … Mr. Charles S. Kettleborough, director of the Indiana Legislative Bureau, recently stated to one of the writers that one hears no more constant complaint on the part of members of the legislature than that their lack of experience makes it impossible for them to act intelligently on legislation presented to them. Mr. DeWitt Billman, secretary of the Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau, confirmed this statement without hesitation.” Hyneman, C. S., “Legislative Experience of Illinois Lawmakers,” Univ. of Chicago Law Rev., Vol. 3, p. 104, 105 (1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. quotations and references by Luce, op. cit., Chap. 16; address of Clark, Champ, Congressional Record, 64th Cong., 1st. Sess., part 14, pp. 559–560 (March 17, 1916)Google Scholar; Smith, A. E., Up to Now: An Autobiography (New York, 1929), 71–75Google Scholar; Lapp, J. A., “Making Legislators Lawmakers,” Annals of Amer. Acad. of Polit. and Soc. Science, Vol. 64, p. 177 (1916)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Willoughby, op. cit., pp. 239–240, 351–354; [Illinois] Constitutional Convention Bulletin No. 8, “The Legislative Department” (Springfield, Ill., 1920), pp. 595–596.

⁴ Special elections to fill vacancies may add to the number elected in any year.

⁵ Three districts send two members each, four send three each, one sends five, and one district, Marion county, sends 11.

⁶ Acts, 1881, ch. 54, p. 517; Acts, 1925, ch. 109, p. 284.

⁷ Number of committees per session is shown in the following table:

⁸ Party content of the Indiana legislature from 1925 to 1935, was:

⁹ Facts as to occupations were obtained from a table included in the “Calendar and Index” which appears in each issue of the Journal of the Indiana State Senate, and Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Indiana (Indianapolis). Where two occupations are listed, the first-named only was recorded in the course of collecting data for this study. Thus, one whose occupation is listed in the Journal as “farmer and teacher” was recorded as a farmer, but one whose occupation appears in the Journal as “teacher and farmer” was recorded as a teacher. The decision to record the data in this fashion was made on the following considerations: It seemed not desirable to multiply occupational classes by making the various combinations of occupation additional separate classes; the limitations of the punch-card, tabulating-machine process made it impracticable to record two different occupational classes for any individual; and it was assumed that where two occupations were listed, the more accurately descriptive one was probably listed first.

¹⁰ Estimates as to relation of occupation to population, including the columns in Table 1 which are headed “Population of State,” are based on the male population of the age of 20 years or more which is gainfully employed. Thus, there are 3,747 males of age 20 or more who were, according to the 1930 census, gainfully employed as lawyers. Data from Fifteenth Census of the U. S.: 19S0; Population; Vol. IV: Occupations by States, Table 11 (for Indiana). The occupational class “business men” used in this study seems not to be adjustable to the census figures. “Business men” includes merchants, manufacturers, laundrymen, mill-owners, contractors, etc. The occupational class “newspapermen and publishers” may be a bit more or a bit less inclusive than the census designation “authors, editors, and reporters.”

¹¹ The Indiana legislature has been subjected to scrutiny from other angles in Berry, B. Y., “The Influence of Political Platforms on Legislation in Indiana, 1901–21,” in this Review, Vol. 17, at p. 51 (1923)Google Scholar; and in Legislative Procedure in the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, compiled by the Legislative Bureau of the Indiana Library and Historical Department (Indianapolis, 1928). Cf. Orth, S. P., “Our State Legislatures,” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 94, p. 728 (1904)Google Scholar.

¹² The 1917 senate is here counted as under Republican domination. There were 25 Democrats, 24 Republicans, and one Progressive. The Republican lieutenant-governor appointed only Republicans to committee chairmanships.

¹³ Cf. Hyneman, , “Legislative Experience of Illinois Lawmakers,” Univ. of Chicago Law Rev., Vol. 3, pp. 104, 106–107 (1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ This article was written prior to the 1936 elections. Sixty-five members of the 1925 House of Representatives did not appear in the house in 1927. Only five, or 7.7 per cent of the 65, had appeared for service in that chamber in any session up to and including 1935. Only 8.9 per cent of the 1927 representatives who were missing in 1929 were present in any later house up to 1935. Only 41 of the 414 individuals who served in the house from 1925 to 1935 had broken or non-continuous service in the two houses. Nineteen of the 1925 senate were not members of the 1927 session. Only one, or 5.3 per cent of the 19 had appeared in that chamber for service up to and including 1935. Not a one of the 18 members of the 1927 senate who were missing in 1929 ever subsequently appeared, to 1935. Twenty-four, or 15.8 per cent, of the 152 senators who saw service from 1925 to 1935 had broken or non-continuous service in the two chambers.

¹⁵ Legislative service was compiled by examination of lists of members in each Journal from 1933 back to a point earlier than 1890. The Journals for 1935 not being available at the time, the lists of members in the Standing Rules and Orders for the Government of the House of Representatives for the Regular Session, 1935, were accepted as authentic for that session. Service in regular sessions in either house of the Indiana legislature was counted in computing length of service, but service in other legislative bodies was not inquired into and not counted. All figures showing length of service include the current session. Special sessions were not taken into consideration because they vary in duration. The picture offered here suffers as a consequence of this arbitrary decision. On the other hand, service in special sessions could not readily have been equated to service in regular sessions.

¹⁶ Winslow, C. I., State Legislative Committees; A Study in Procedure, pp. 100–104, 112 ff.Google Scholar (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series 49, No. 2, Baltimore, 1931). Cf. Green, H. J., A Study of the Legislature of the State of Maryland, pp. 81 ff.Google Scholar (Ibid., Series 38, No. 3, Baltimore, 1930). For general discussion of the organization, functions, and procedures of committees, see Luce, R., Legislative Procedure (Boston, 1922), Chaps. 4–8Google Scholar; Fairlie, J. A., “Legislative Committees and Commissions in the United States,” Michigan Law Rev., Vol. 31, at p. 25 (1932)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Willoughby, op. cit., Chaps. 22–26; Smith, C. L., “The Committee System in State Legislatures,” in this Review, Vol. 12, at p. 607 (1918)Google Scholar; Sterling, op. cit., pp. 404–414.

¹⁷ One hundred house and one hundred senate bills of the 1931 legislature (not subsequently withdrawn by the sponsor) were selected at random. The following table, showing the fate of these bills in the chamber of their origin, reveals that the ultimate disposition of 74 per cent of the house bills and 77 per cent of the senate bills was in accordance with committee wishes, as evidenced by recommendations of the report or by failure to report:

¹⁸ Luce, , Legislative Procedure, 122Google Scholar. Cf. ibid., 156.

¹⁹ The senate might also have avoided its record of perfect turnover in 1933. One Democrat had headed an unimportant committee in 1931. He was not continued on that committee in 1933, but instead was given the chairmanship of two much more important committees.

²⁰ A superficial comparison of Tables IllandVIImay suggest error in compilation. Thus while Table V11 shows that 18 of the 1929 chairmen failed to return to the senate in 1931, Table III, (supra, p. 60) shows that there were only 12 first-session senators in the 1931 session (12 is 24 per-cent of the senate). The explanation is: Seven of the senators who did not return in 1931 held fourteen of the chairmanships, the elimination of 11 senators thus accounting for the failure of 18 chairmen to return. But the presence of only 12 first-session men in 1931 does not mean that only 12 members of the 1929 senate failed to return. Actually, 18 failed to return; but six were succeeded by men who had at some previous time had service in one or the other house.