a voter goes to deposit his vote, the officer in charge looks at the registration book to see if he is on the official list; and if so, the officer initials the back of the ballot paper and on the counterfoil of the same places a number corresponding to that placed opposite the voter's name in the poll book. The voter then retires into a compartment to which only one person at a time has access, and there places a cross opposite the name of the person or persons for whom he wishes to vote. There he folds up the ballot paper, so as to conceal his vote, and when he hands it to the officer the latter notes his initials placed on the back to identify the paper, and then detaches and destroys the counterfoil, which prevents the vote of the elector being ever made public. The officer then immediately, and in the presence of the elector, places the ballot paper in a box made under the orders of the government for such a purpose. These boxes are opened and the votes duly counted as provided by law, and the ballot papers are returned, except in case of a recount, by the county judge within a certain number of days, to the clerk of the crown in chancery, at the seat of government. A similar procedure is pursued in the case of the provincial and municipal elections as a rule throughout the Dominion. If an election has been duly announced in the official Gazette by the crown officer, it is still open to the defeated candidate or any other person to contest the election in the courts on the ground of bribery or corruption. Since 1873 the legislative bodies have divested themselves of the privilege of trying controverted elections, and consequently subserved the cause of justice and purity. The advantages of the whole system over the American practice are so obvious that several states have already adopted the Australian or what is practically the Canadian law, and it is now being earnestly urged in other sections of the Union.

When we come now to sum up the results of the comparisons that I have been briefly making between the political systems of the two countries, I think Canadians may

fairly claim that they possess institutions worthy of the study and imitation of their neighbors. We acknowledge that in the constitution of the upper houses, in the existence of the political veto, in the financial dependence of the provinces to a large extent on the Dominion exchequer, there is room for doubt whether the constitution of Canada does not exhibit elements of weakness. The senate of the United States is a body of great power and varied ability to which the people may refer with pride and gratulation. The reference to the courts of all cases involving points of constitutional interpretation has also worked to the advantage of the commonwealth. On the other hand, Canadians call attention to the following features of their system as worthy of the serious consideration of their co-workers in the cause of good and efficient government:

An executive, working in unison with and dependent on parliament; its members being present in both branches, ready to inform the house and country on all matters of administration; holding office by the will of the people's representatives; initiating and controlling all measures of public policy and directing generally private legislation.

An effective and methodical system of procedure, regulating and controlling all legislation of a private or special nature, so as to protect vested rights and the public interests.

A judiciary not dependent on popular caprice, but holding office during good behavior, and only removable by the joint action of the two houses and the executive of the federal state.

A large and efficient body of public servants whose members hold office not on an uncertain political tenure, but as long as they are able to perform their duties satisfactorily, and who have always before them the prospect of a competency for old age at the close of a career of public usefulness.

A system of voting at elections which effectually secures the secrecy and purity of the ballot, effectually guards the

voter

against the ticket peddler, election workers and spies," and practically "takes the monopoly of nomination out of the hands of the professional politicians, and removes the main pretext of assessments upon candidates which now prevent honest poor men from running for office."

The jurisdiction possessed by the courts of trying all cases of bribery and corruption at elections, and giving judgment on the facts before them, in this way relieving the legislature of a duty which could not, as experience had shown, be satisfactorily performed by a political body influenced too often by impulses of party ambition.

The placing by the constitution of the jurisdiction over divorce in the parliament of the Dominion and not in the legislatures of the provinces-the upper house being now by usage the court for the trial of cases of this kind except in the small maritime provinces, which had courts of this character previous to the federal union. The effect of the careful regard entertained for the marriage tie may be estimated from the fact that from 1867 to 1886 there were only 116 divorces granted in Canada against 328,613 in the various states of the Union.

The differences that I have shown to exist between the political systems of the two countries are of so important a character as to exercise a very decided influence on the political and social conditions of each. Allied with a great respect for law, which is a distinguishing feature of all com munities of the Anglo-Saxon race, they form the basis of the present happiness and prosperity of the people of the Dominion and of their future national greatness. It was to be expected that two peoples lying alongside each other since the commencement of their history, and developing governmental institutions drawn from the same tap-root of English law and constitutional usages, should exhibit many points of similarity in their respective systems and in their capacity for self-government. But it is noteworthy that their close neighborhood, their means of rapid communication with one another, the constant social and commercial

intercourse that has been going on for years, especially for the past forty years, have not made a deeper impress upon the political institutions and manners of the Canadian people, who being very much smaller in numbers, wealth, and national importance, might be expected to gravitate in many respects toward a nation whose industrial, social and political development is one of the marvels of the age. Canada, however, has shown a spirit of self-reliance, independence of thought and action in all matters affecting her public welfare, which is certainly one of the best evidences of the political steadiness of the people. At the same time she is always ready to copy, whenever necessary, or practicable, such institutions of her neighbors as com mend themselves to the sound judgment of her statesmen. Twenty-five years ago at Quebec they studied the features of the federal system of the states, and in the nature of things they must continue to refer to the working of their constitution for guidance and instruction.

The comparisons I have made between the two systems of government, if carefully reviewed, ought, I submit, to show that Canada has been steadily working out her own destiny on sound principles, and has in no wise shown an inclination to make the United States her model of imitation in any vital particular. It is quite clear that Cana-' dians who have achieved a decided success so far in working out their plan of federal union on well-defined lines of action, in consolidating the union of the old provinces, in founding new provinces and opening up a vast territory to settlement, in covering every section of their own domain with a network of railways, in showing their ability to put down dissension and rebellion in their midst, are not, I think, ready, in view of such achievements, to confess failure, an absence of a spirit of self-dependence, a want of courage and national ambition, an incapacity for selfgovernment, and to look forward to annexation to the United States as their "manifest destiny."

But whatever may be the destiny of this youthful and

energetic community, it is the earnest wish of every Canadian that, while the political fortunes of Canada and the United States may never be united, yet each will endeavor to maintain that free, friendly, social and commercial intercourse which should naturally exist between peoples allied to each other by ties of a common neighborhood and a common interest, and that the only rivalry between them will be that which should prevail among countries equally interested in peopling this continent from north to south, from east to west, in extending the blessings of free institutions, and in securing respect for law, public morality, electoral purity, free thought, the sanctity of the home, and intellectual culture.

Ottawa, Canada.

J. G. BOURINOT.