ministry supported by the House of Commons, and the former persist in rejecting a bill which the Commons send up, a dissolution is the constitutional remedy; and if the newly-elected House of Commons reasserts the view of its predecessor, the Lords, according to the now recognized constitutional practice, yield at once. Should they, however, still stand out, there remains the extreme expedient, threatened in 1832, but never yet resorted to, of a creation by the sovereign (ie. the ministry) of new peers sufficient to turn the balance of votes in the Upper House. Practically the ultimate decision always rests with the people, that is to say, with the party which for the moment commands a majority of electoral votes. This method of cutting knots applies to all differences that can arise between executive and legislature. It is a swift and effective method; in this swiftness and effectiveness lie its dangers as well as its merits.

In America a dispute between the President and Congress may arise over an executive act or over a bill. If over an executive act, an appointment or a treaty, one branch of Congress, the Senate, can check the President, that is, can prevent him from doing what he wishes, but cannot make him do what they wish. If over a bill which the President has returned to Congress unsigned, the two Houses can, by a two-thirds majority, pass it over his veto, and so end the quarrel; though the carrying out of the bill in its details must be left to him and his ministers, whose dislike of it may render them unwilling and therefore unsuitable agents. Should there not be a two-thirds majority, the bill drops; and however important the question may be, however essential to the country some prompt dealing with it, either in the sense desired by the majority of Congress or in that preferred by the President, nothing can be done till the current term of Congress expires. The matter is then remitted to the people. If the President has still two more years in office, the people may signify their approval of his policy by electing a House in political agreement with him, or disapprove it by re-electing a hostile House. If the election of a new President coincides with that of the new House, the people have a second means provided of expressing their judgment. They may choose not only a House of the same or an opposite complexion to the last, but a President of the same or an opposite complexion. Anyhow they can now establish accord between

one house of Congress and the executive.1 The Senate, however, may still remain opposed to the President, and may not be brought into harmony with him until a sufficient time has elapsed for the majority in it to be changed by the choice of new senators by the State legislatures. This is a slower method than that of Britain. It may fail in a crisis needing immediate action; but it escapes the danger of a hurried and perhaps irrevocable decision.

There exists between England and the United States a difference which is full of interest. In England the legislative branch has become supreme, and it is considered by Englishmen a merit in their system that the practical executive of the country is directly responsible to the House of Commons. In the United States, however, not only in the national government, but in every one of the States, the exactly opposite theory is proceeded upon that the executive should be wholly independent of the legislative branch. Americans understand that this scheme involves a loss of power and efficiency, but they believe that it makes greatly for safety in a popular government. They expect the executive and the legislature to work together as well as they can, and public opinion does usually compel a degree of co-operation and efficiency which perhaps could not be expected theoretically. It is an interesting commentary on the tendencies of democratic government, that in America reliance is coming to be placed more and more, in the nation, in the State, and in the city, upon the veto of the Executive as a protection to the community against the legislative branch. Weak Executives frequently do harm, but a strong Executive has rarely abused popular confidence. On the other hand, instances where the Executive, by the use of his veto power, has arrested mischiefs due to the action of the legislature are by no means rare. This circumstance leads some Americans to believe that the day is not far distant when in England some sort of veto power, or other constitutional safeguard, must be interposed to protect the people against their Parliament.2

1 It is of course possible that the people may elect at the same time a President belonging to one party and a House the majority whereof belongs to the other party. This happened in 1876, when, however, the presidential election was disputed. It is rendered possible by the fact that the President is elected on a different plan from the House, the smaller States having relatively more weight in a presidential election, and the presidential electors being now chosen, in each State by "general ticket," not in districts.

See Note to Chapter XXXV. at the end of this volume

While some bid England borrow from her daughter, other Americans conceive that the separation of the legislature from the executive has been carried too far in the United States, and suggest that it would be an improvement if the ministers of the President were permitted to appear in both Houses of Congress to answer questions, perhaps even to join in debate. I have no space to discuss the merits of this proposal, but must observe that it might lead to changes more extensive than its advocates seem to contemplate. The more the President's ministers come into contact with Congress, the more difficult will it be to maintain the independence of Congress which he and they now possess. When not long ago the Norwegian Stor Thing forced the King of Sweden and Norway to consent to his ministers appearing in that legislature, the king, perceiving the import of the concession, resolved to choose in future ministers in accord with the party holding a majority in the Stor Thing. It is hard to say, when one begins to make alterations in an old house, how far one will be led on in rebuilding, and I doubt whether this change in the present American system;possibly in itself desirable, might not be found to involve a reconstruction large enough to put a new face upon several parts of that system.

In the history of the United States there have been four serious conflicts between the legislature and the executive. The first was that between President Jackson and Congress. It ended in Jackson's favour, for he got his way; but he prevailed because during the time when both Houses were against him, his opponents had not a two-thirds majority. In the latter part of the struggle the (re-elected) House was with him; and before he had quitted office his friends obtained a majority in the alwayschanging Senate. But his success was not so much the success of the executive office as of a particular President popular with the masses. The second contest, which was between President Tyler and both Houses of Congress, was a drawn battle, because the majority in the Houses fell short of two-thirds. In the third, between President Johnson and Congress, Congress prevailed; the enemies of the President having, owing to the disfranchisement of most Southern States, an overpowering majority in both Houses, and by that majority carrying over his veto a series of Acts so peremptory that even his reluctance to obey them could not destroy, though it sometimes marred, their efficiency. It the fourth case, referred to in a previous chapter, the victory

remained with the President, because the Congressional majority against him was slender. But a presidential victory is usually a negative victory. It consists not in his getting what he wants, but in his preventing Congress from getting what it wants 1 The practical result of the American arrangements thus comes to be that when one party possesses a large majority in Congress it can overpower the President, taking from him all but a few strictly reserved functions, such as those of pardoning, of making promotions in the army and navy, and of negotiating (not of concluding treaties, for these require the assent of the Senate) with foreign states. Where parties are pretty equally divided, i.e. when the majority is one way in the Senate, the other way in the House, or when there is only a small majority against the President in both Houses, the President is in so far free that new fetters cannot be laid upon him; but he must move under those which previous legislation has imposed, and can take no step for which new legislation is needed.

It is another and a remarkable consequence of the absence of cabinet government in America, that there is also no party government in the European sense. Party government in France, Italy, and England means, that one set of men, united, or professing to be united, by holding one set of opinions, have obtained control of the whole machinery of government, and are · working it in conformity with those opinions. Their majority in the country is represented by a majority in the legislature, and to this majority the ministry of necessity belongs. The ministry is the supreme committee of the party, and controls all the foreign as well as domestic affairs of the nation, because the majority is deemed to be the nation. It is otherwise in America. Men do, no doubt, talk of one party as being "in power," meaning thereby the party to which the then President belongs. But they do so because that party enjoys the spoils of office, in which to so many politicians the value of power consists. They do so also because in the early days the party which prevailed in the legislative usually prevailed also in the executive department, and because the presidential election was, and still is, the main struggle which proclaimed the predominance of one or other party.2

In the famous case of President Jackson's removal of the government deposits of money from the United States Bank, the President did accomplish his object. But this was a very exceptional case, because one which had remained within the executive discretion of the President since no statute had happened to provide for it. 2 The history of the Republic divides itself in the mind of most Americans

But the Americans, when they speak of the administration party as the party in power, have, in borrowing an English phrase, applied it to utterly different facts. Their "party in power" need have no "power" beyond that of securing places for its adherents. It may be in a minority in one House of Congress, in which event it accomplishes nothing, but can at most merely arrest adverse legislation, or in a small minority in both Houses of Congress, in which event it must submit to see many things done which it dislikes. And if its enemies control the Senate, even its executive arm is paralysed. Though party feeling has generally been stronger in America than in England, and even now covers a larger proportion of the voters, and enforces a stricter discipline, party government is distinctly

weaker.

Those who lament the violence of European factions may fancy America an Elysium where legislation is just and reasonable, because free from bias, where pure and enlarged views of national interest override the selfish designs of politicians. It would be nearer the truth to say that the absence of party control operates chiefly to make laws less consistent, and to prevent extended schemes of policy from being framed, because the chance of giving continuous effect to them is small. The natural history of the party system belongs to a later part of this book. I will only here observe that, while this system is complete and well compacted in every other respect, the Constitution has denied to it some of the means which European methods afford of acting through both the legislature and the executive at once on the direct and daily government of the country.

We are now in a position to sum up the practical results of the system which purports to separate Congress from the executive, instead of uniting them as they are united under a cabinet government. I I say "purports to separate," because it is plain that the separation, significant as it is, is less complete than current language imports, or than the Fathers of the Constitution would seem to have intended. The necessary coherence of the two powers baffled them. These results are five :

The President and his ministers have no initiative in Congress, into a succession of Presidents and Administrations, just as old-fashioned historians divided the history of England by the reigns of kings, a tolerable way of reckon ing in the days of Edward the Third and Richard the Second, when the personal gifts of the sovereign were a chief factor in affairs, but absurd in the days of George the Fourth and William the Fourth.