Features of the American Political Structure

[During the nest few weeks the American Notes, which have previously appeared on this page, will be replaced by a series of articles by our American Correspondent, designed to form a back- ground against which future notes may be read. They will deal with various broad aspects of American life, and outline the general situation in each.—En. Spectator.]

To British observers it sometimes appears difficult to appre- ciate why Presidents of the United States cannot always control Congress, while to Americans there is often equal difficulty in understanding why British Premiers cannot always control individual Cabinet Ministers.

The point illustrates one of the differences between the British and American political systems. They are rather of method than spirit, and arise, in the main, first from the absence in the American system of the hereditary principle, but, more markedly, by reason of the sharp constitutional separation in America of the legislative and executive func- tions. To this separation of functions is due, among other things, the difference in the relations of Presidents and Premiers with their Cabinets and Legislatures.

While Governments can be overthrown and Cabinets dis- solved by an adverse vote in Parliament, no number of adverse votes in Congress can dismiss a President or any member of his Cabinet. A President, Vice-president, or any Federal officer, however, may be removed from office "on im- peachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours," and the power to try such impeachments is vested in the Senate, presided over, in the case of trial of a President, by the Chief Justice.

The President is responsible directly to the people. Cabinet officers appointed by him and holding office solely at his pleasure—at least in theory—are simply assistants to the President in the discharge of the executive functions of government. Like the President, Cabinet officers have no seat in Congress and do not participate directly in the daily Parlia- mentary debates on the floor of either House.

Consequently, Cabinet officers—there are ten of them at the present time—tend in the United States to be administrators rather than Parliamentarians or party leaders skilled in the arts of direct personal appeal to the electorate. In practice they are, of course, mindful of public opinion, addressing them- selves to its good graces by public utterances on the platform or through the medium of the Press. As with Cabinet Ministers in Great Britain, their personal reputations and those of their Departments are important, and they have some common interest in the successful conduct of the Administration they serve. At the same time, Cabinet officers in the United States have not that degree of common responsibility which follows in Great Britain from the common interest of a Cabinet in the effect of a favourable or adverse Parliamentary vote.

Again, by reason of the division of functions, the House of Representatives is very far from being the dominant power in the American political structure that the House of Commons is in the British. Its distinctive power lies in its control of money Bills, in which it resembles the House of Commons most nearly. While the House of Representatives alone has power to originate Bills for raising revenue, the Senate may propose amendments—a qualification which has provided the two bodies with a fruitful source of controversy in the past and, indeed, as recently as during the disagreement this year on the Farm Debenture scheme.

Elected for a term of two years, representatives are appor- tioned" among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." Reapportionment is called for by the Constitution, and is made on the basis of population, determined by census every ten years.

• The Senate differs even more materially from the House of Lords than the House of Representatives does from the House of Commons. Senators are not appointed but are elected. They are, therefore, directly responsible to their constituents and their views are to that extent sectional, partly governed by the States which they represent. While the influence of Senators in respect of money Bills is strictly limited, they enjoy Powers, particularly in foreign policy, which exceed those of the House of Representatives and correspond to those of the House of Commons. Originally there were twenty-six Senators ; to-day there are ninety-six, their apportionment being not on the basis of population but two to each State, and their term of service six years, one third of their number being chosen each two years.

The difference in the times and periods of election of Repre- sentatives, the President—who is elected for four years—and Senators, respectively, accounts for many of the political differences which arise between the two branches of Congress or between one or both of them and the President. Since a new House of Representatives is elected at the same time as he is, a President usually is assured of a House with a majority of his own party, at least during the first two years of his term. He is not, however, assured of the same happy state on the re-election of the House two years later when he is in the middle of his term. Taft, a Republican, for instance, was faced with a Democratic House for the latter half of his term. while Woodrow Wilson's last two years saw a Republican majority in the House.

Although one third of the Senators are chosen in the Pre- sidential year, there is always a possibility that the remaining two thirds or a majority in the Senate will not be of the same political faith as the President at any time during his tenure of office. President Hoover enjoys at present a thoroughly well-disciplined Republican majority in the House and a not so markedly disciplined Republican majority in the Senate.

While the framers of the Constitution did not provide for party organization—George Washington expressly disapprov- ing of it—it developed inevitably and has now come to be a dominant factor in American, as in other Governments.

For, sharply defined as the functions of the Legislative and Executive arms are, in practice they have of course to work together if government is not to fall into chaos. The President not strictly an executive ; he has also to influence legislation, and his main power to do that to-day, apart from his capacity to distribute Federal patronage, lies in his capacity as a party leader. Unless he can work in harmony—or comparative har- mony—with Congress, his legislative influence is largely negative. He may exercise his important power of veto, since every Bill has to be submitted for his signature, and in practice recent Presidents have refused to sign Bills to a degree to which the Crown in England has not. But his veto must be accompanied by a statement of his reasons, and it can be set aside by a two thirds majority of both Houses, each voting separately.

The President's constitutional power in respect of legisla- tion is to " recommend " it, but it remains for Congress to decide whether the recommendation shall take effective form in acts. The President, similarly, alone has power to nominate ambassadors and initiate treaties—a function usually exercised through the Secretary of State—but the" advice and consent" of the Senate must be had before the nominations may be confirmed or the treaties ratified.

Similarly with patronage generally. At one time the Pre- sident's power in making appointments was, in practice, much more decisive than it is to-day. Now Senators and other party leaders expect to exercise much greater influence than for- merly, even in nominations.

Consequently, if the Parliamentary arts of debate or popular address are not so eminently necessary for the success of a President and his assistants (the Cabinet officers) as they are for a Prime Minister and his Government, considerable skill in political management is. Similarly, if the executive powers of a President are much more extensive and absolute than those of a Prime Minister, they have, nevertheless, to be wielded with tact and a due regard to the wishes of both Congress and the people. Finally, it may be noted that the office of President, inde- pendently of the individual holder at any time, has come in recent years to take on more and more significance for its own sake in the eyes of the American people. By growing tradition the Presidency stands to-day as the symbol and embodiment of a unified nation. Quite apart from its political significance, the Presidency has come to have a tremendous moral influence in American life—an influence comparable indeed only to that, in the British Empire, of the Crown itself.