OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. JULY, 1890. CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES. A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS. HAVING a contemporaneous history on this continent, lying contiguous to one another from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, Canada and the United States naturally offer many points of comparison worthy of the close contemplation of students and statesmen. Their political systems, especially, afford many materials for reflection, which, studied in a scientific and an impartial spirit, may be made profitable to them both. The Canadian Dominion and the American Commonwealths trace most of the political institutions they possess to the great English mother of all free governments, though in the course of many years diversities have naturally grown up in the working out of those institutions, so that a mere ordinary observer is apt to forget their true origin and nature. But whatever divergencies there may be in the systems of the two countries, we can see after a little thought and study that they have arisen chiefly from the fact that Canada has remained a dependency of Great Britain, and consequently followed closely the constitutional practices of the parent state, while the United States, having long ago become a national sovereignty, has raised on the foundations of a constitution, based itself on principles drawn largely from those of the English constitution, a great structure which has in the course of years undergone many modifications in the working out of the original plans, in order to adapt it to the practical needs of the people and the modern conditions of a democratic government. The architecture may now be considered of a political composite order, in which we see that, though the design of the original founders has been varied in many respects, yet after all the very pillars that support the noble dome that crowns the edifice rise from the foundations of the English common law and of that parliamentary system which have enabled England as well as the United States to attain a foremost position among the nations of the world. It has been the good/ fortune of Canada to develop slowly under the fostering care of England, and to have been able to survey at a rea sonable distance the details of the structure raised by her neighbor; and consequently when her statesmen came less than a quarter of a century ago to enlarge the political sphere of the provinces of British North America, and to give greater expansion to the energies of her people in the organization of a federal union, they were able to base it on those principles which the experience of the mother country and of the United States showed them were best adapted to give strength and harmony to all the political parts, and enable them as a whole to work out successfully their experiment of government on the northern half of this continent. It is not necessary to make any comparisons between the constitutional and political systems of Canada and the United States before 1867, when the 'provinces were isolated communities, offering many points of comparison with the old confederated colonies previous to the adoption of the present constitution. It is the Union of 1867 that now makes such comparisons possible; for then was pted a federal system resembling in certain important features that of the United States, but at the same time continuing in the government of the country all the essential features of the British constitution. The two systems of government have each a central authority and many local organizations known respectively as states and provinces. This central government possesses under the constitution control over all those objects of national import which are essential to the security and integrity of a federal state. Canada, however, being still a mere dependency, is not sovereign in the legal sense of the term, since it cannot declare war or make treaties, those being powers reserved to the imperial power of England, from which it derives its constitution and which alone can change that fundamental law. The constitution of the United States places many difficulties in the way of amending that instrument. But to-morrow the English parliament might change or revoke the constitution of Canada just as in 1838 it repealed the statute giving a legislative system to Quebec, then called Lower Canada. Such a thing would be legal, although it is not probable or even practically possible. The English government never moved in the matter of the present union until the several legislative bodies approached it formally by address and asked that it should be conceded; and now should any change be necessary it would be made only in the same formal manner through the action of the federal parliament in the first place. The people speak only through their legislative bodies, and such a thing as a plebiscite or popular convention on any proposed amendment is unknown to the constitution of the Dominion. The federation was brought about by the agency of legislatures which were elected without any reference to the great constitutional change, and it was only in one province, New Brunswick, that the question came directly before the people at the polls. Still, while Canada is in this respect subject to the imperial government and cannot adopt any legislation that is incompatible with imperial enactments or in antagonism to imperial obligations, yet it has sovereign powers within its own constitutional sphere. Its powers as enumerated in the law are large, and give it control over militia and defense, taxation of imports, foreign and British, and the jurisdiction over territories equal in area to the half of Europe. There is this important distinction, too, between the powers given to the central government of Canada and those placed by the constitution of the United States under the jurisdiction of the federal authority. The powers of the Dominion government cover all those not expressly given by the constitutional act to the provinces-the very reverse of the principle at the basis of the United States instrument, which enumerates the powers of the federal state and leaves in the states all those not given to the central authority. These enumerated powers of the government at Washington have confessedly been greatly enlarged by judicial decisions which have recognized the necessity of "implied powers" in the grant of powers expressly given by the constitution to the federal state. A somewhat similar recognition has been given by the Canadian courts, which have laid down the principle, practically, that the central authority, in the working out of a power given it by the fundamental law may trench upon powers granted to the provinces-upon property and civil rights, for instance, which are among the most important powers of those organizations. As in all written constitutions, so in Canada conflicts of authority are constantly arising between the respective legislative jurisdictions which have to be decided by the courts, and already there are several volumes containing judicial decisions interpreting the law, and now practically part of the constitutional system. There is one federal court, resembling the Supreme Court of the United States, but there are no federal courts in the provinces as in the states. The courts of the provinces decide on all constitutional cases brought before them, and there is no limitation placed on their jurisdiction over such matters, but ere is an appeal to the federal Supreme Court or to the judicial committee of the Privy Council of England. The federal and the provincial courts do not interfere in any way with the exercise of the political power of the government. The judges of our courts are men of undoubted learning and of the strictest integrity, and their decisions are treated with the greatest respect./ If we come now to compare the systems of government possessed by the two countries, we find that while both rest on the basis of the principles of the British constitution, yet there are very remarkable differences, which have grown out of the diverse circumstances under which Canada and the United States adopted their fundamental law. The United States have now as an executive a president elected by the people in all the states for a term of four years. He has the right to appoint heads of certain departments to which collectively the name of cabinet has been given in the course of time, although the constitution does not provide for a cabinet in the English constitutional sense of the word. Its position and responsibilities are not in any way equal to those of an English ministry. Its members are not responsible to Congress, although they can be called upon to report to that body at any time, and be examined before its committees on matters affecting their respective departments. In reality they are dependent only on the executive, who appoints and removes them, and responsible to him alone for the satisfactory performance of their duties. The power given to the president, generally called the "veto," was borrowed from an old prerogative of the crown which has now fallen into disuse, and the exercise of it in these days would create a revolution in England; but at the time of the formation of the constitution it was believed to be necessary as a check upon the power of Congress, and was given to the president as one of the most useful adjuncts of his executive authority. On the other hand, the governor-general of Canada, who is appointed to represent the Queen-the head of the executive in the |