Page:The Wisconsin idea (IA cu31924032449252).pdf/247

 upon the best experience of mankind? If our administration is to be good administration, does it not seem ridiculous that the supreme courts—the highest legal talent in our states and our nation—should go on day after day, year after year turning out decision after decision upon laws which are often made by men who have never seen a law book, and who have not had the slightest legal help extended to them? Does it seem right that our fundamental law should be left to these haphazard conditions? Does it seem reasonable that all the talent should be used in interpreting laws, in curing their defects and that absolutely nothing should be one in a scientific way to assist the man who makes them? The construction of the law is a far harder task than the criticism or even the interpretation of it. It involves the interpretation of it; it involves a knowledge of the theory of government and because of the enlarged sphere of government to-day, a sound knowledge of economic conditions. Our legislators can furnish the brains and the will; all that they need is the technical assistance.

We have heard a great deal of condemnation of the legislature. It is easy and popular too, to sneer, censure, and criticisecriticize [sic]—but we have heard very few suggestions to remedy.

If private forces maintain bureaus of information for representatives, let us have public information bureaus