The plan evidently met with determined opposition from the executive, for in the House it was amended so as to provide four members from the Senate and House instead of five, and these were to be _appointed by the governor_. The power of investigation by the commission was restricted to such as it was called upon to make by the governor, the General Assembly, or either house, and the power to investigate the administration of any department of the state government was entirely omitted. In this form the bill became one which would vastly increase the governor’s power by delivering into his hands the authority of the commission and giving him recognized administration members of the legislature. A deadlock ensued between the House and the Senate, and the bill as finally passed contained a provision only for establishing a legislative reference bureau. In the contest over the original plan and the house modifications we have a clear-cut recognition of the necessity of bringing the governor and the legislature nearer together. We also have presented a sharp dispute as to whether the governor shall have added to his power further authority over the promotion of legislation or whether the legislature shall increase its power by organization, and at the same time secure some control, if not an actual domination, over the executive power. It is rather startling that in all the above proposals which look toward the closer relation of the executive and legislative powers we should find a strong tendency toward the increasing of the power of the single executive by giving him greater control over the legislative power. Historically the effort has constantly been to break down the power of the single executive. True, the executive in such cases was not subject to the electorate at frequent intervals. But frequent elections may not protect the governed from a vast number of errors of judgment and smaller tyrannies, executive oppression and bad appointments, which do not become a matter of general knowledge or make a considerable issue before the electorate. Good executive government in the sense of one which is just and fair, well balanced, seeking improvements, and acting conscientiously in lesser affairs, comes more certainly from a small committee of experienced leaders than from a single man. The exchange of views by such a body and the reaction of one member upon another has a value which cannot be estimated. The single executive on the other hand is likely to have no fixed set of responsible advisers. He is too frequently swayed by the advice of the last man who reaches his ear.