BOOKS.

EIGHTY YEARS OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.* THE want of a leading idea in this book, or rather the presence of two mutually destructive ideas, has to some extent impaired its merit. Mr. Jennings says in his preface that his object has been "to explain the original plan and design of the American Con- stitution, to review the changes which have been made in it in subsequent times, and to describe its present condition and mode of working." That object he has undoubtedly fulfilled. A more forcible or more lucid account of the ideas of American Con- stitutionalists, and especially of Constitutionalists of the pre- sent day, it would be hard to find, or one expressed with such an entire freedom from verbal surplusage. There are not five sentences in the book which could be excised without per- ceptible loss to the reader. In this, as in his subject, Mr. Jennings resembles De Tocqueville, to whom, we think, he renders insufficient justice, but who is nevertheless his modeL Mr. Jennings describes a delicate and complicated constitu-

Eighty rears of Republican Gore:mown:. By Louis Jennings. London: Murray.

tion in words as finely chosen, in phrases as clearly definite as its own provisions, and for any reader familiar with politics, but ignorant of the American Constitution, we could desire no safer guide. Whether any English readers so familiar are also so igno- rant is a point we must leave to Mr. Jennings' greater experience, merely remarking that it has not been our lot to encounter such a man. But we are greatly mistaken if Mr. Jennings, besides the object in which he has so perfectly succeeded, had not another in which his success is not so completely beyond dispute. Unless we mistake altogether the drift of very careful workmanship, he wishes to show that the framers of the American Constitution had' ideas from which the governing party of the Union has very widely departed. As to the wisdom or otherwise of this departure, he is impartial almost to excess. It is to him as a student of American institutions merely a fact to which he cannot blind either himself or his readers, but in which he has no party interest whatever.. Still the fact remains in his judgment, and it is by his clear con- viction of the fact, as accompanying clear recognition of a second fact, the sovereignty of the American people, that the great merit of his book is impaired. Nothing can be more just or more lucid than the manner in which the central idea, the governing principle of the Constitution, is expressed in these pages. The vary first sentences contain the whole truth :—

" The political system of the United States is based upon the theory that the people have an indefeasible right to choose their own form of government, and to modify or change it whenever a sufficiently large- proportion agree that change is necessary. They endured all the hard- ships and losses incidental to a revolution in order to rid themselves of monarchical government and a hereditary ruler ; any rule claiming to- bear prescriptive rights they were determined never to have again. They resolved to govern for themselves. A qualified share of political power is committed to the people in constitutional Europe avowedly as a trust in the American Republic the supremo power is exercised by the people

as a right."

Mr. Jennings quotes with approval Webster's sentence that " the aggregate community, the collected will of the whole people, is: sovereign ;" and Everett's, that it was a great merit of the Constitu- tion that under it "no measure of policy, public or private, domestic- or foreign, could long be pursued against the will of a majority of the people." We should ourselves have doubted whether the- framers of the Constitution did not intend to set Law above the- will of the people ; but still this is, subject to that possible reserve,, an accurate account of their intention. Yet the second object of this book, unless we mistake it, is to prove that modern Americans in making the will of the people supreme have departed from the design of the Constitution. Clearly neither thirty mil- lions of persons nor three millions can express their will except. through their representatives. They cannot assemble on a big plain and shout, or even submit every question to a plebiscitum ;, they must act through their representatives, who in America are assembled in Congress. Mr. Jennings is very happy, often quite felicitous, in his efforts to prove that this representation in America is duplex, one of States as well as of individuals ; but still, when the Representatives and the Senate are in accord, their will, he does not question, is the will of the people. And having admitted that, he still submits that the sovereignty of Congress, that is, of the people, is opposed to Constitutional law. He says the great framers of the Constitution regarded democracy as a doubtful ex- periment. " They would have been affrighted at the bare vision of universal suffrage and the supremacy of a democracy, stripped of all the cheeks and balances' which they vainly imagined would be everlasting, levelling all distinctions of intellect or station' throughout the land." But if the will of the people was to be sovereign, democracy in its essential point was intentionally secured. Mr. Jennings objects, for example, to the invasions recently made upon the power of the President. " It was un- questionably," he says, " the intention of those who originally framed the Government that the Executive should exercise a con- siderable and to some degree an independent control over public affairs." Quite true ; but were the people to be sovereign in the last resort or not? Apparently, he believes that as matter of fact they were. He shows very ably, indeed, that Mr. Johnson's fundamental mistake was not seeing " that he might be practically deposed ;" but still he does not clearly reconcile himself to the deposition, although he admits, with the extraordinary fairness which will give his book wide popularity and justify it, that such a result was contemplated by the founders. At page 79 he says, "To argue that under such circumstances Congress is a despot- ism' is the same as to argue that the will of the people is a despot- ism ; and that would be contrary to the principles of Republican governments, whatever the abstract truth may be. The citizens of other countries may see good reasons why they should not desire a rule based upon the will of varying and capricious majori- ties, but such a rule was voluntarily chosen, and is tenaciously clung to, by the people of America. They must abide by it, or Change their form of government altogether." It is the same with the chapter on the Judiciary. Mr. Jennings sees clearly that the people being -Sovereign, no judiciary could bar their political action, and admits that they were intended to be sovereign, yet he clearly regrets that they should exercise their sovereignty :-

" Mr. Justice Story was strongly of opinion that the Supremo Court was not bound to observe the rescripts of the majority, and that the common sense of the people would always load them to prevent the Legislature from tampering with tho Constitution. Would not a con- trary course, he asked, 'make the Constitution an instrument of flexible and changeable interpretation, and not a settled form of government with fixed limitations ? Would it not become, instead of a supreme law for ourselves and our posterity, a mere oracle of the powers of the rulers of the day, to which implicit homage is to be paid, and speaking at dif- ferent times the most opposite commands, and in the most ambiguous voices.' It would not be possible to borrow language which described with greater accuracy and fidelity the Constitution and the Judiciary as they am. Story thought ho was picturing a state of things which could never be witnessed in his country, whereas he but anticipated the inevit- able changes which were impending over the method of government he was so anxious to defend."

This double sentiment, this belief that the people is supreme, yet has no right to exercise its political supremacy to the full, runs through the book, and makes its teaching, or rather we should say its tone, consistently uncertain. If the people are to be Sovereign, that is, as Everett puts it, the majority of the people, why may they not constitutionally abolish the privileges of a recalcitrant minority, or invade the Executive, or suppress the justiciary ? Those acts may be unwise, or harsh, or productive of future mischief, but still they are not inconsistent with the leading theory of the Constitution. Mr. Jennings does not say they are ; he repeatedly affirms they are not ; but he does not like them,

nevertheless, and his dislike is based on a careful resume of constitutional principles. He occupies, in fact, the position not of an outsider, like De Tocqueville, reasoning ab extra on the pro- bable result of particular systems and laws, but of an American COnstitutionalist, a "moderate Democrat," quite willing to admit

that the nation is master, but still possessed by the notion that it is not master of its own adopted formula, the Constitution. It will be observed that Mr. Jennings does not press State rights or any of the ordinary objections to the sovereignty of the people, objections which would only be valid if the Senate resisted the Representatives, and admits tacitly that the expulsion of the South is an act of the majority ; but he still holds that even in bringing the national will to bear on the will of States the intention of the founders was set aside. The result of this conflict of ideas is that we do not clearly see whether Mr. Jen- nings holds the present condition of affairs to be a clear departure from the Constitution, or a natural development of one over- powering principle within the Constitution. We hold it to be the latter. He holds it, as we judge from his tone, to be the former; but he writes as if he were either not quite clear whether it was just or unjust, or held that it was at the same time both just and unjust.

In some of his further chapters where Mr. Jennings is not

troubled by the written document he shows very clear insight. His account, for instance, of the Cabinet, a body which always troubles the average British politician, who thinks that a Foreign Secretary must be something more than an agent, is remarkably clear, and full, besides, of political shrewdness. The following,

for example, describes in wonderfully few words a change passing over the Government of the Union, and, while describing, states its very best result :—

" There is no such thing, then, as Cabinet government in tho United States, although of late there has been a tendency to make each indi- vidual Minister responsible for the actions of the Executive. If this were carried to its complete result it would prevent the necessity of a President expelling froward members from his Cabinet, by leading them to withdraw when they discovered the impossibility of agreeing with him. If they were to be held responsible for his acts, they would hasten to set themselves right with the people by resigning their offices. This would be in accordance with the theories of Federal government which sup- port the claim of the rulers to all the prizes of office—tie contest for the Presidency determining all minor struggles for four -years. The party which is in possession of tho majority is never likely to reconcile itself to the loss of all the chief positions in the country. Through the heads of departments the patronage is distributed, and the minority Will therefore very seldom be allowed to retain a hold upon them. But still it is possible for the Ministers of State to hold office for many years together, and in this there is often a great advantage to the public. The head of a department has time and opportunity to acquaint himself thoroughly with his duties, to become familiar with all the ramifications to which his office extends, to introduce and persevere in a definite policy, without the fear hanging over his head of a sudden removal on account of an adverse vote in the Legislature. Congress as a body has

no jurisdiction over him, and by the Tenure of Office Bill the President and the Senate combined could not displace him. He must remain in office during the term of the Executive who appointed him. No doubt a total change of party majority would be almost certain to le:A to a change in the Cabinet, but Ministers do not necessarily go out upon the election of a new President. The American Navy, for instance, was con- trolled throughout the war by the same man, and it was under his direc- tion that the fleet was entirely remodelled. His plans were not upset by the return of an adverse party to power, and the successor of Mr. Lincoln did not think it necessary to interfere with him. Mr. Lincoln's Foreign Sucretary still remains in office, and his Financial Secretary might have done so likewise if he had not resigned on a question of patronage. Under any circumstances which may arise the Ministers are free from the direct criticism of the Legislature. They are not under the terror of being cross-questioned upon delicate subjects its troubled times by impatient members. They are not called upon to undergo the fatigue and exertion of attendance in Congress. They have their whole time to devote to the every-day duties of their respective offices, and there is not one of them who does not work as hard as any of his clerks."

Mr. Jennings' judgmeut upon the effect of unchecked democracy in America is not, upon the whole, favourable, is on points even severe. He evidently believes it to be the cause of the master evil of the United States, the pecuniary corruption which, according to him, is almost universal. He says :-

"The result of government by numbers is written in those public. records which few men in America have the time or the inclination to search, namely, the annals of Congress. There may be found revela- tions of legislative corruption without a parallel in recent times, while the statute-books bear evidence of the careless and irresponsible manner iu which the hired representatives of the people fulfil their appointed tasks. The history of the United States' Government proves nothing so- clearly as that the uncontrolled supremacy of the masses leads to the introduction into political life of a class of men who would certainly be- rejected by an educated and intelligent constituency.. • "The majority know that to keep their seats it is only necessary to flatter the poorer classes, and pander to their worst prejudices. It is a general and unscrupulous sycophancy of the lowest orders of the community. Nos other class is worth soliciting, for there is no other which possesses political power. Integrity is regarded as a weakness. Official station is only valued because ' it confers the opportunity to make money, and to enrich relatives and friends. The consequence has been a degree of corruption disgraceful to the country and the age. Bribery is almost' acknowledged as a part of legislation, whilst dishonest jobs and con- tracts so abound that they are regarded as things of course.' These are not the words of a hater of democracy or of America. It is a descrip- tion by an American writer of good repute of his own country."

Is Mr. Jennings aware that the men whom Walpole bought were mainly nominees? that pecuniary corruption never rose to such a height in France as under Louis Philippe, when almost every elector was an official, and the entire body barely reached 300,000' men ? that in Germany, with universal suffrage, vote-buying is the rarest of offences? All that the American example proves is that democracy does not eradicate the greed of money-loving races, a great fact, but still by no means a final proof that democracy is necessarily a corrupt form of government. That form of govern- ment may clean itself, just as the English form has done, till in 1900 a bribe to a Member of Congress may be as impossible as a bribe to an English Member of Parliament. Still it is well to learn that democracy is not a panacea for all social vices; that, as Mr. Jennings points out, it does not prevent bribery, or strikes, or exces- sive and increasing class bitterness, the latter two being p ants upon which he gives information of a most interesting kind. lint for the great number of small proprietors and the field opened for all by the West, there might even yet, he thinks, be a formal attack on property as dangerous as any which has ever threatened the Old World. Americans themselves regard education as indispensable to avert this danger, and in Massachusetts, par excellence the American State, they have carried the compulsory principle to its' logicalextreme, arresting and imprisoning every child who plays truant from the school. Their beat chance, however, lies in the existence throughout America among all classes of a high and dominant ideal. The American has what we so sadly lack, an imaginative future towards which all can strive, and Mr. Jennings' description of that future is by many degrees the most original and moat noteworthy chapter iu his careful volume :— " The intentions and aims of the American people are, doubtless, of n very noble and exalted character. Regarded in their highest form, they do not contemplate the future supremacy of their country over other nations, but they pursue a contest for principles which they believe to be essential to the happiness and welfare of mankind. Their imagina- tions are touched by those majestic visions of the coming days which their ablest public men have constantly conjured up before their eyes. They believe, with the devout faith with which men are accustomed to cling to their religion, that in America, as Emerson has told them, is the seat and centre c-f the British race. There the individual always. improves ; the Government exists only for his welfare, watching to ward off evil, but intermcddliug with him no further. The strife of antago- nistic classes is one day to bo unknown, the sting of poverty will not be felt ; there is plenty for all within easy reach, reckless prodigality or cor- rupt-ion can never entail burdens upon the people, or deprive them of the just fruits of their industry. As all men have an equal right to govern, so, if they are left to govern for themselves, they will be pros- porous and contented. There are to be no wrongs inflicted by the powerful upon the defenceless ; the voice of the oppressor is to be heard no more, the servant will be free from his master. 'Under this system,' in the words of an American writer, 'the way is open for the realization of the most inspiring and most promising idea of modern Christian civi- lization,—the true brotherhood of man, in which man shall feel himself no longer an isolated individual, but shall find his completeness and per- fection, his worth and his happiness, in the recognized relations of mutual dependence existing between himself and the community of which ho forms an in tegral and essential part.'"

The race which can permanently keep an ideal like that before it can no more rot, than a race which permanently strives to make of Christianity a daily law.