self, although practically of course it makes a great difference, because he, like the English Crown, chooses ministers supported by a majority in the chambers.

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.

It

So much for the ministers taken separately. 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

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."

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 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.

1

The ministers are jointly as well as severally liable for their 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

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

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 befell 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 apart from the President. An American administration resembles not so much the cabinets of England and France as the group of ministers who surround the Czar or the Sultan, or who executed the bidding of a Roman emperor like Constantine or Justinian. Such ministers are severally responsible to their master, and are severally called in to counsel him, but they have not necessarily any relations with one another, nor any duty of collective action. So while the President commits each department to the minister whom the law provides, and may if he chooses leave it altogether to that minister, the executive acts done are his own acts, by which the country will judge him; and still more is his policy as a whole his own policy, and not the policy of his ministers taken together. The ministers seldom meet in council, and have comparatively little to settle when they do meet, since they have no parliamentary tactics to contrive, no bills to prepare, few questions of foreign policy to discuss. They are not a government, as Europeans understand the term; they are a group of heads of departments, whose chief, though he usually consults them separately, is sometimes glad to bring them together in one room for a talk about politics. A significant illustration of the contrast between the English and American systems may be found in the fact that whereas an English king never now sits in