representatives in all other countries was submitted to a referendum for determination by the Swiss voters.

PROBLEMS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Notwithstanding the success with which the federal system of government has met in such countries as the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and certain South American countries it is still a problem whether federalism is a permanent or a temporary form of government. The tendency in all federal systems for the central authorities to gain powers and to extend their jurisdiction at the expense of the states appears to bear out the contention that federal government tends toward unitary government. In this respect the states become more in the nature of administrative districts and less of independent and autonomous government units. It has been well said that

... the phase of sentiment, in short, which forms a necessary condition for the formation of a federal state is that the people of the proposed state should wish to form for many purposes a single nation, yet should not wish to surrender the individual existence of each man's state or canton.1

But the political and economic conditions which formerly tended to separatism and states' rights have been profoundly modified by modern industrial developments. The interests of separate states are becoming so intertwined with the welfare of other states that the sentiment of nationalism practically everywhere gains a dominant interest. This does not mean, however, that federalism need disappear. In fact, the extraordinary growth of government functions makes it necessary to maintain and foster the active participation of local units in political affairs.

According to Professor Dicey the three leading characteristics of federalism are:

A. V. Dicey, "Federal Government," Law Quarterly Review, vol. i, p. 81.

1. The supremacy of the constitution.

2. The distribution among bodies with limited and co-ordinate authority of the different powers of government.

3. The authority of the law courts to act as interpreters of the constitution.1

In amplification of these characteristics it is contended. that federal government requires something in the nature of a formal written constitution which stands above ordinary law and serves to delimit the relative spheres of the nation and the states. The more clear and explicit this delimitation is made, the less likely that serious controversies will arise which may interfere with the stability of the federal regime. Other federal governments have profited by the defect of the American system in this respect and more care has been exercised in the definite distribution of governmental functions.

The third characteristic, the authority of the courts to act as interpreters of the constitution, is not an invariable requirement of federal government. American courts have greater authority in this respect than those of other federal systems, although the courts of Australia and Canada are charged with the duty of keeping watch that the limits prescribed by the Constitution are preserved. The Swiss people after a careful review of American experience discarded the judicial prerogative to expound the Constitution in favor of interpretation by the legislature.2

No such power to act as interpreters was lodged in the courts in the Federal government of the German Empire. And only a very limited authority of this kind is vested in the courts of the Argentine Federation. Though federalism requires something in the nature of a written instrument in which the spheres of governmental functions are carefully delimited, the upholding of the Constitution and the preser1A. V. Dicey, "Federal Government," Law Quarterly Review, vol. i, pp. 82 ff.

2 See Constitution, Article 113.

Defend or criticize the American plan of judicial determination of the sphere of powers of nation and states.

vation of these limits may be placed in the hands either of the judiciary or of the legislature.

The chief problems of federal government are, then: How can the balance between federal and state powers be maintained?

Will the central governments gradually extend their powers and functions and consequently curtail the powers of the states composing the federation until such states are little more than administrative districts?

Where should the final authority to interpret constitutions and laws under the federal form of government rest? Can the federal form of government be applied to the organization for the settlement of international disputes and the determination of matters relative thereto?

Are the principles of democracy and federalism compatible with a strongly centralized government?

Prepare an answer to the above questions in the light of American experience.

SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS

See references to preceding chapter and the following authors: EDWARD PORRITT, Evolution of the Dominion of Canada, especially Chaps. VIII-XIII (World Book Company, 1918).

ROBERT C. BROOKS, Government and Politics of Switzerland, especially Chaps. III-VII (World Book Company, 1918).

ARTHUR P. POLEY, The Federal Systems of the United States and the British Empire (Little, Brown & Co., 1913).

A condensed description of the salient features of the federal systems of the United States, Canada, and Australia, with some interesting comparisons and observations on the working of federal government.

THE relation of the executive, with its divisions and departments, to the representative assembly constitutes one of the greatest problems of modern democratic governments. In order to appreciate and understand the difficulties involved in the organization of the legislative and executive departments in their relation to one another, it is necessary to describe in detail the essential features of the two leading forms of representative and democratic government. The one form, the parliamentary system, is exemplified in England, Canada, Australia, and South Africa; the other form, the presidential system, is found in the United States and in a number of the South American countries. Each of these forms has certain principles which can be clearly understood only by means of comparison. As the tendency in democratic countries has been in the direction of parliamentary government, it seems desirable to present first the features and principles of this form. By so doing, not only the presidential system of the United States is rendered more intelligible, but also certain recent changes and modifications are explained. Parliamentary government is the forerunner and prototype from which other forms of democratic government have developed.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND

Parliamentary government had its origin in the long contest in England between the king and the representatives of the nobility and of the landed estates. These representa

tives, with the higher nobility in the House of Lords and the lesser nobles in the Commons, as defenders of the rights of the people, set an effective check upon the exercise of the royal prerogatives by the king. Under the leadership of a few strong Ministers who had the support of the nation, the rights of the monarch were gradually reduced, the participation of the people in the government was extended, and the cabinet or parliamentary system was evolved. Parliamentary government in England is condiditioned by the customs, conventions, and understandings which are commonly referred to as the English Constitution, and which, as has been stated, are not embodied in a single written document. The English Constitution is nothing more than a convenient name for those acts, customs, and conventions by which, for the time being, the various departments of government are guided. In theory the government of England is the rule of King, Lords, and Commons, and acts are not regarded as binding unless all three of the powers combine in sanctioning them. Exceptions to this are money bills, which no longer require the assent of the House of Lords, and other bills which may become laws without the Lords' consent, provided they are passed by the House of Commons in three successive sessions. Moreover, the king has ceased to exercise the veto power, and participates only indirectly in legislation by advice and counsel before laws are enacted by Lords and Commons. The practices and conventions which have come to be known as the parliamentary system may be thus briefly summarized.

Legislative and Executive Departments Are Combined.The Cabinet is at the head of the government and is the director of the affairs of the King, Lords, and Commons. The Prime Minister is the real executive. All acts of the king must be countersigned by a Minister, the Minister becoming responsible for the act. The ultimate responsibility rests with the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet. Cabinet members as department heads have extensive