We are now in the midst of the third period of radical party readjustment to new governmental conditions, and I am requested to forecast the probable effects upon party organization. The readjustment which we are now experiencing is clearly in response to a popular demand. In the two earlier instances there were likewise elements which were adapted to popular needs.

Even the legislative caucus, in State and nation, which was the first form of organization for the two great national parties, met an obvious need. The voters were already divided into two main groups of opposing opinions and party names had been assumed. Some means were required to give effect to party opinion. The voters were widely distributed. Communication was slow and difficult. At each State capital, and at the national capital, there were already gathered law makers chosen by the people of each locality. It was in entire harmony with the needs of the period that these representatives should assume and exercise the added function of making party nominations. It was, however, only for federal, State, and district offices that the legislative caucus made nominations. For the smaller areas—towns, cities, and counties—other methods were employed.

The legislative caucus was always subject to criticism. Its action was viewed by many as an unauthorized assumption of power. Only in the absence of other more direct organs for giving effect to party opinion was it acceptable. Out of the experience of towns, cities and counties a more direct nominating process was gradually developed for the wider areas. It was customary to choose delegates in local party caucus to meet in party convention, to formulate party policy, and to nominate candidates. In time, and in accordance with the popular wish, the delegate convention system was so extended as to wholly displace the legislative caucus. With the advent of the convention there has come into existence a vast array of party machinery, in the form of permanent party committees.