with the right to participate in debate on matters relating to their departments, and that the Secretaries shall attend the sessions of the Senate, at the opening of the sittings, on Tuesday and Friday of each week, to give information asked by resolution, or in reply to questions which may be propounded to them. This is one of the wisest propositions ever made in the history of our government. It attacks the almost unlimited power of the President. But, as in the case of most reforms which have been hitherto proposed, the Constitution of the United States is quoted against it. It provides that, "no person holding any office under the United States shall be a memberof either House during his continuance in office." We do not believe that a fair construction of this section stands in the way of the proposition. How can it be claimed that a Secretary would become a member, if he merely reported to Congress orally, or was allowed to debate the affairs of his department? He would not be elected to either House. He would have no power to impeach, or even to vote. He would not have any privilege on account of the new duties. He would not be a member in any sense. Senator Morrill opposed this measure, and claimed that it was an attempt to 'assimilate our Government to monarchies." If this be a reason why the bill should not become law, then, why not abolish the Presidency, for, in its entirety, it is a copy of monarchical prerogative? And further, it embodies and perpetuates the worst features of kingship, long since abandoned in England.*

64

The obligations resting upon members of the Cabinet in England, to debate and report, is the most important and salient part of the great reform made in parliamentary govThe substitution of the Cabinet for the King, is

ernment.

The worst disgrace that probably ever fell upon our Cabinet system was the endorsement which it received froin Napoleon III.,after the sanguinary coup d'etat. He demanded a Cabinet dependent upon the chief of State, and cited the powers vested in the President of the United States.

the great landmark in the causeway of free government. How could a United States Senator be so blind as not to see that, if the proposed law was assimilating our Government to a monarchy, that the monarchy to which we would be attempting to conform ourselves is in this respect a hundredfold more republican and representative than our system? Does not that kind of argument savor of demagogism? Was not the common law, which stands as the foundation-stone to our system of law (save in the case of one State), a heritage from the Mother Country? Did not the habeas corpus, the Petition of Rights, the Magna Charta, all of English origin, have a good effect upon this country? Is not the history of parliamentary government that of human progress and freedom? Mr. Pendleton said, in support of his bill, that "it is the way of the government of every civilized nation in the world which has a Legislature and Executive, except our own. It is the reasonable, intelligent, progressive way-the way of improved legislation. No nation has ever abandoned it for the old way, more than the farmer has given up the mower and reaper for the scythe and sickle." With the absolute abolition of the Presidency, the present system of the Cabinet would necessarily fall. In the event, however, of the continuance of the Presidency, a system to which the American people seem to be so greatly attached, let the heads of the departments, at least, be placed under the direction and control of the law-making power. With the consummation of the plan of bringing the Secretaries face to face with Congress, and under its direct and absolute authority, we shall have made a great advance in the perfecting of free government in America.

*

*

*

CHAPTER XI.

EXECUTIVE POLICY.

THE first act the President performs after inauguration, is to determine upon a line of action which has become known as the policy of the administration. This is thought to be his official duty. No such duty is conferred by the terms of the Constitution, and therefore its origin is vague and questionable. There is so much in the general powers of the executive which savors of the ruler, that the custom is regarded as both legitimate and lawful. Although it is true that the President is at the head of a separate, co-ordinate department of the government, which gives him extraordinary powers, still in many ways his individual will or purpose is somewhat circumscribed. The Constitution provides how he shall exercise that will or intelligence, and it would be fair to presume that all other methods were excluded. For example, it is provided that "he shall from time to time give to the Congress informa. tion of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." There can be but one construction placed upon this clause. The President is to put in the form of a suggestion any measures he may deem expedient, and not to urge his opinion in any other way. It would seem to be intended that his will should be subordinate to the legislative branch. Further than this, that the mode suggested should be the only way of manifesting his individual thought. This course would in no

way violate the spirit and genius of representative government. Personal pique, or passion, should spend its force in mere recommendation. If it took the form of legislation, then the President would execute. It is eminently proper that he should directly and specifically suggest to the representatives of the people that which he believes to be for the welfare of the nation. At any rate, it is now made his official duty thus to express himself. Few of our Presidents have been tardy in the creation of a policy. The process of crystalization of presidential thought and will has been rapid and effective. The nation soon feels the reins drawn over it as the new driver takes his seat. It realizes that it is being not only guided but directed. Does the road always lead to peace and prosperity? Has there not been a great deal of ignorant and reckless driving? Probably the most undignified and unrepublican manner for the President to manifest his individual purpose, is to go before the people with speeches and addresses. Every private citizen has the unqualified right thus to discuss the political issues of the day. The course of the President is laid down by the law. When he is chosen he should become the servant of the people. By delivering addresses he either refuses to exercise that submission which he should do as agent, or he presses his personal will with all that undue influence which his position as first public officer affords hin. From both standpoints he is wrong. Does not the blush of shame come to the cheek of every American when he recalls the grotesque scenes which were enacted by President Johnson? Accompanied by the different members of his cabinet, by distinguished officers of the army and navy, the President arrived at one of the chief cities of this country. The civil authorities entertained him. A banquet was spread and partaken of. Meanwhile a promiscuous crowd of boys and men assembled under the windows of the apartments of the President, who, upon being informed of the fact, rushed to the balcony, and there delivered a ribald and scurrilous speech,

THE first act the President performs after inauguration, i to determine upon a line of action which has become know as the policy of the administration. This is thought to be hi official duty. No such duty is conferred by the terms of the Constitution, and therefore its origin is vague and questionable There is so much in the general powers of the executive which savors of the ruler, that the custom is regarded as both legit imate and lawful. Although it is true that the President is a the head of a separate, co-ordinate department of the govern ment, which gives him extraordinary powers, still in many ways his individual will or purpose is somewhat circum scribed. The Constitution provides how he shall exercis that will or intelligence, and it would be fair to presume tha all other methods were excluded. For example, it is provide that "he shall from time to time give to the Congress informa tion of the State of the Union, and recommend to their con sideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and ex pedient." There can be but one construction placed upon thi clause. The President is to put in the form of a suggestion an measures he may deem expedient, and not to urge his opinion in It would seem to be intended that his wil any other way. should be subordinate to the legislative branch. Further tha this, that the mode suggested should be the only way o manifesting his individual thought. This course would in n