to the United States, and will apparently continue so till the Indians themselves disappear or become civilized. Patents and pensions, the latter a source of great expense and abuse, also belong to his province.

The duties of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Postmaster-General may be gathered from their names. But the Attorney-General is sufficiently different from his English prototype to need a word of explanation. He is not only public prosecutor and standing counsel for the United States, but also to some extent what is called on the European continent a minister of justice. He has a general oversight-it can hardly be described as a control of the Federal judicial departments, and especially of the prosecuting officers called district attorneys, and executive court officers, called United States marshals. He is the legal adviser of the President in those delicate questions, necessarily frequent under the Constitution of the United States, which arise as to the limits of the executive power and the relations of Federal to State authority, and generally in all legal matters. His opinions are frequently published officially, as a justification of the President's conduct, and an indication of the view which the executive takes of its legal position and duties in a pending matter. The attorney-general is always a lawyer of some position, but not necessarily in the front rank of the profession, for political considerations have much to do with determining the President's choice.2

It will be observed that from this list of ministerial offices several are wanting which exist in Europe. Thus there is no colonial minister, because no colonies; no minister of education, because that department of business belongs to the several States; 3 no minister of public worship, because the United States Government has nothing to do with any particular form of religion; no minister of commerce, because the activity of the Federal Government in that direction, although increasing, still limited; no minister of public works, because grants made for this purpose come direct from Congress without the inter

1 Another variance from the practice of England, where the opinions of the law officers of the Crown are always treated as confidential.

The solicitor-general is a sort of assistant to the attorney, and not (as in England) a colleague.

3 There was established twenty years ago a Bureau of Education, attached to the department of the Interior, but its function is only to collect and diffuse information on educational subjects. This it does with assiduity and success.

vention of the executive, and are applied as Congress directs.1 Much of the work which in Europe would devolve on members of the administration falls in America to committees of Congress, especially to committees of the House of Representatives. This happens particularly as regards taxation, public works, and the management of the Territories, for each of which matters there exists a committee in both Houses. The well-meant attempt of the founders of the Constitution to keep the legislative and executive departments distinct has resulted in leading the legislature to interfere with ordinary administration more directly and frequently than European legislatures are wont to do. It interferes by legislation because it is debarred from interfering by interpellation.

The respective positions of the President and his ministers are, as has been already explained, the reverse of those which exist in the constitutional monarchies of Europe. There the sovereign is irresponsible and the minister responsible for the acts which he does in the sovereign's name. In America the President is responsible because the minister is nothing more than his servant, bound to obey him, and independent of Congress. The minister's acts are therefore legally the acts of the President. Nevertheless the minister is also responsible and liable to impeachment for offences committed in the discharge of his duties.2 The question whether he is, as in England, impeachable for giving bad advice to the head of the State has never arisen, but upon the general theory of the Constitution it would rather seem that he is not, unless of course his bad counsel should amount to a conspiracy with the President to commit an impeachable offence. In France the responsibility of the President's ministers does not in theory exclude the responsibility of the President himself, although practically of course it makes a great difference, because he, like the English Crown, chooses ministers supported by a majority in the chambers.

1 Money voted for river and harbour improvements is voted in sums appropriated to each particular piece of work. The work is supervised by officers of the Engineer corps of the United States army, under the general direction of the war department. Public buildings are erected under the direction of an official called the supervising architect, who is attached to the treasury department. The signal service weather bureau is a branch of the war department, the coast survey of the navy department.

2 Only once has a minister been impeached. He resigned just before the resolution of the House to impeach him was passed, and so was acquitted on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

The position of a cabinet minister appears to carry with it rather less distinction than in England. Formerly he took precedence of the senators, but now they have established their claim to walk before him on public occasions. The point is naturally of more importance as regards the wives of the claimants than as regards the claimants themselves.

So much for the ministers taken separately. It remains to consider how an American Administration works as a whole, this being in Europe, and particularly in England, the most peculiar and significant feature of the parliamentary or so-called "cabinet" system.

In America the administration does not work as a whole. It is not a whole. It is a group of persons, each individually dependent on and answerable to the President, but with no joint policy, no collective responsibility.1

When the Constitution was established, and George Washington chosen first President under it, it was intended that the President should be outside and above party, and the method of choosing him by electors was contrived with this very view. Washington belonged to no party, nor indeed, though diverging tendencies were already manifest, had parties yet begun to exist. There was therefore no reason why he should not select his ministers from all sections of opinion. He was the executive magistrate, who had to conduct the administration of the country. As he was responsible to the nation and not to a majority in Congress, he was not bound to choose persons who agreed with the majority in Congress. As he, and not as in England, the ministry, was responsible for executive acts done, he had to consider, not the opinions or associations of his servants, but their capacity and integrity only. Washington chose as secretary of state Thomas Jefferson, already famous as the chief draftsman of the Declaration of Independence, and as attorney-general another Virginian, Edmund Randolph, both men of extreme democratic leanings, disposed to restrict the action of the Federal Government within narrow limits. For secretary of the treasury he selected Alexander Hamilton of New York, and for secretary of war Henry Knox of Massachusetts. Hamilton was by far the

1 In America people usually speak of the President and his ministers as the "administration," not as the "government," apparently because he and they are not deemed to govern in the European sense. The latter expression does not seem to be very old in England. Thirty years ago people usually said "the ministry" when they now say "the government."

ablest man among those who soon came to form the Federalist party, the party which called for a strong executive, and desired to subordinate the States to the central authority. He soon became recognized as its leader. Knox was of the same way of thinking. Dissensions presently arose between Jefferson and Hamilton, ending in open hostility, but Washington retained them both as ministers till Jefferson retired in 1794 and Hamilton in 1795. The second President, John Adams, kept on the ministers of his predecessor, being in accord with their opinions, for they and he belonged to the now full-grown Federalist party. But before he quitted office he had quarrelled with most of them, having taken important steps without their knowledge and against their wishes, Jefferson, the third President, was a thorough-going party leader, who naturally chose his ministers. from his own political adherents. As all subsequent Presidents have been seated by one or other party, all have felt bound to appoint a party cabinet. Their party expects it from them; and they naturally prefer to be surrounded and advised by their own friends.

So far, an American cabinet resembles an English one. It is composed exclusively of members of one party. But now mark the differences. The parliamentary system of England and of those countries which like Belgium, Italy, and the self-governing British colonies, have more or less modelled themselves upon England, rests on four principles.

The head of the executive (be he king or governor) is irresponsible. Responsibility attaches to the cabinet, i.e. to the body of ministers who advise him, so that if he errs, it is through their fault; they suffer and he escapes. The ministers cannot allege, as a defence for any act of theirs, the command of the Crown. If the Crown gives them an order of which they disapprove, they ought to resign.

The ministers sit in the legislature, practically forming in England, as has been observed by the most acute of English constitutional writers, a committee of the legislature, chosen by the majority for the time being.

The ministers are accountable to the legislature, and must resign office as soon as they lose its confidence.

The ministers are jointly as well as severally liable for their

1 In England and some other countries (e.g. the self-governing British colonies) they have the alternative of dissolving Parliament.

acts: i.e. the blame of an act done by any of them falls on the whole cabinet, unless one of them chooses to take it entirely on himself and retire from office. Their responsibility is collective.

None of these principles holds true in America. The President is personally responsible for his acts, not indeed to Congress, but to the people, by whom he is chosen. No means exist of enforcing this responsibility, except by impeachment, but as his power lasts for four years only, and is much restricted, this is no serious evil. He cannot avoid responsibility by alleging the advice of his ministers, for he is not bound to follow it, and they are bound to obey him or retire. The ministers do not sit in Congress. They are not accountable to it; but to the President, their master. It may request their attendance before a committee, as it may require the attendance of any other witness, but they have no opportunity of expounding and justifying to Congress as a whole their own, or rather their master's, policy. Hence an adverse vote of Congress does not affect their or his position. If they propose to take a step which requires money, and Congress refuses the requisite appropriation, the step cannot be taken. But a dozen votes of censure will neither compel them to resign nor oblige the President to pause in any line of conduct which is within his constitutional rights. This, however strange it may seem to a European, is a necessary consequence of the fact that the President, and by consequence his cabinet, do not derive their authority from Congress. Suppose (as befel in 1878-9) a Republican President, with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress. The President, unless of course he is convinced that the nation has changed its mind since it elected him, is morally bound to follow out the policy which he professed as a candidate, and which the majority of the nation must be held in electing him to have approved. That policy is, however, opposed to the views of the present majority of Congress. They are quite right to check him as far as they can. He is quite right to follow out his own views and principles in spite of them so far as the Constitution and the funds at his disposal permit. A deadlock may follow. But deadlocks may happen under any system, except that of an omnipotent sovereign, be he a man or an assembly, the risk of deadlocks being indeed the price which a nation pays for the safeguard of constitutional checks.

In this state of things one cannot properly talk of the cabinet