Under this system， a township， village or small city is no unwieldy machine， but pretty much what the people see fit to make it， and the fact that it is a phase of government is no sufficient reason why any affairs it may choose to undertake may not be as humanly and flexibly administered as those of a non-political association of equal extent. They often are so administered， and the same is true of great cities wherever a vigorous civic consciousness exists and has had time to work out its instruments. The question is only one of organization， and this confronts non-political associations as well as political； large private incorporations having notoriously about the same experience of formalism， extravagance and malfeasance as the state.
There are certain characteristics whose presence in a given function is favorable to state activity， though they cannot be said to indicate clearly where it should begin or end.
(406)
One of these， naturally， is the inadequacy or harmfulness of other agencies. The fact that a work is deemed necessary and that there is no other adequate way of doing is the real basis of most state functions；not only the primary ones of waging war and keeping order， but of issuing money， building roads， bridges and harbors， collecting statistics， instituting free schools， controlling monopolies and so on.
Another is that the work in question should be susceptible of comparatively simple and uniform methods since the more various and intricate a function is， the more difficulty will be found in getting it properly done by the powerful but usually somewhat clumsy mechanism o the state. The reasons that may justify a state post or telegraph， for instance， do not necessarily suffice for the assumption of the far more complicated business of the railways.
Again， whatever the state undertakes should be some thing likely to be watched by public opinion； not necessarily by the whole public， but at least by some powerful group steadfastly interested in efficiency and capable of judging whether it is attained. In the United States， certainly the successes or failures of government are largely explicable on this ground. Public education works well in spite of a constant leaning toward formalism， because the people take a close and jealous interest in it， while the monetary and financial functions are in like manner safeguarded by the scrutiny of the commercial world. But ii the matter of tariffs the scrutiny of the latter， inadequately balanced by that of any other interest， has produced what is practically class legislation； and some-(407)- thing similar may be said of many phases of government action. [2]
From such considerations it seems that local government， because it is on a small scale and because the people will presumably be more able and willing to watch the details of its operation， should be the sphere in which extension of functions has the most chance of success.
The more the citizen feels that government is close to him and amenable to his will， the more， other things equal， he should be inclined to trust it and to put himself into it. In spite of much disappointing experience， it seems reasonable to expect that small units， dealing with the every-day interests of the people， will， in the long run， enlist an ample share of their capacity and integrity.
And yet the nearness of the whole to the will of the member is psychical， not spatial， so that if the citizen for some reason feels closer to the central government and trusts it more， he may be more willing to aggrandize it. In the United States the people often have more interest and confidence in the federal system than in their particular states and cities； one reason being that the constant enlargement of private organization梐s in the case of railways and the so-called trusts梡uts it beyond the power of local control. Of course there is a natural sphere of development for each of the various phases of government.
