are not vigilant one department will encroach upon another and gather to itself power that does not rightly belong to it." The spirit of encroachment," said Washington, "tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism." As long as human nature remains what it is this "spirit of encroachment" will be present; it grows out of man's inborn love of power. Grant to a man a certain portion of power, and immediately he craves a larger portion. This disposition of one department to encroach upon another can never be smothered, but it can be effectually resisted. When one branch encroaches upon another and usurps its power, it does so simply by the natural operation of a superior force, and there is only one power that can check the usurpation, and that power is the people themselves: the voters can restore the balance by refusing to elect usurpers. If the people will always demand that there shall be no overreaching among the departments there is nothing to fear; but if they are remiss in this duty, sooner or later we shall witness the consolidation which Washington hoped might be averted.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

1. Name the three departments of government and state the functions of each.

2. What division of governmental power was made in ancient times? 3. Give an account of the growth of the three-department system in England.

4. Give an account of the three-department system in the United States.

5. What are the powers of the legislature?

6. Trace the development of the bicameral legislature in England. 7. Why is the bicameral system better than other systems?

8. What powers are vested in the judiciary? How are these powers exercised?

9. What are the powers of the executive department?

10. Explain how one department may maintain its independence with respect to the other two.

11. Why is one department likely to attempt encroachment upon another? Can such encroachment be prevented?

SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES

1. State to which of the three departments of government the following functions should be assigned: (a) The bombardment of a city by a fleet; (b) the sale of property for debt; (c) the execution of a murderer; (d) the sentencing of a thief; (e) the ordering of taxes to be collected; (f) the collection of taxes; (g) the dispersal of a mob; (h) the muzzling of dogs; (i) the declaration of a war; (j) the arrest of a man for disorderly conduct; (k) the construction of a bridge; (1) the regulation of the descent of property; (m) the settling of a dispute between the heirs of an estate; (n) the regulation of the speed of automobiles; (o) the determination of damages for injuries received in an automobile accident.

2. If power must consolidate, in which branch do you prefer that it will centre? Give your reasons.

3. Show that it would not be wise to have only two branches of government.

4. Write a description of an ideal judge.

5. Contrast the qualities which are desirable in a law-maker with those which are desirable in an executive officer.

6. Name the great law-givers of history.

7. Name several of the great executive geniuses of history.

8. Would it be wise to entrust the law-making power of a high school to the pupils the judicial power? Give reasons for each answer.

9. Give reasons for the bicameral system in addition to those given in the text.

10. What would be the probable result if one of the departments of government should refuse to act in harmony with the others?

11. In the government of yourself you are actuated by conscience, judgment, and will-which of these is legislative, which executive, and which judicial?

12. Name the officers of government with whom you are acquainted, and state in which department each serves.

A Hint on Reading.-For a discussion of the subject of this lesson, see Woolsey's "Political Science," Vol. II, 258-347.

V

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

Introductory. A government may have all the characteristics thus far described, it may be democratic in form and spirit, it may be thoroughly representative, it may have the three branches clearly separated, and still there may be no guarantee that civil liberty will be permanently enjoyed. For representatives are liable to abuse power, and majorities, like individuals, in moments of excitement and passion are liable to choose a wrong or unjust course of action. Can there be ordained a power that will lay hold of our lawmakers and judges and governors and say to them, "Thus far you may go, and no farther." Can the people place before themselves an obstruction to hasty and unwise action? Is there a political contrivance that will protect citizens from both the tyranny of rulers and from the injustice of majorities? We may let our own experience answer these questions.

Charters. At the time when the English people were battling for their liberties in the seventeenth century, colonies of Englishmen were forming in America, and all the rights and privileges won in the mother country were claimed by those who came to the new world. Indeed many left England that they might enjoy a larger freedom in America. The new comers were careful from the beginning to throw every safeguard around their rights as Englishmen. Each colony had a written document called a charter, which described the kind of government it was to have, and the privileges it

was to enjoy. The charter of Connecticut is especially interesting to students of government. In 1639, three little towns along the Connecticut River joined to form the colony of Connecticut. The people of the colony framed an outline of the kind of government they wanted, and the plan,' having been accepted by the king, remained the fundamental law of Connecticut until 1818. This is the first example in the history of the world of a government being successfully conducted according to the words of a written document.

The colonial charters, whether granted directly by the king-as most of them were-or prepared by the people, were pledges of the good faith of the home government, and as such they were held in the highest esteem by the colonies. A colony looked upon its charter as the written guarantee of its liberties, just as an owner of property looks upon his deed as giving him a title to his house or farm. When the king or his officers became oppressive or unjust the people pointed to their charter as their defense. Upon one occasion the king, wishing to deprive Connecticut of its rights, sent an officer after its charter, but the people frustrated the plan by hiding the precious document in the hollow of a tree. They felt that as long as they could keep their charter they were safe.

Under their charters the colonies grew and prospered, each colony developing in its own way and making its own laws. Each colony was independent of all the others, but all were dependent upon Great Britain. Since the charters were not all alike, the several governments of the colonies differed from each other, but since the charters all issued from the same source, and since the laws of England applied to all the colonies alike, the government of one colony could not differ very widely from that of another.

Constitutions. When the colonies separated from Great Britain and became independent States the old charters of course lost their validity, for there was no king to stamp 'See Appendix B.

them with authority. The people saw at once that they must be their own king and make their own charters. As rapidly as possible each of the new States drew up for itself a charter which recognized the people as the source of authority in government. A new name was given to this new instrument. Instead of its being called a charter it was called a constitution. This constitution was to be the foundation plan and framework upon which the governmental structure was to be built. Of course each new constitution was quite similar to the charter which it supplanted. For a State to have planned for a government quite unlike the one to which the people were accustomed would have been to commit a grave political error. A government that is new and strange is not likely to receive the confidence and respect of the people, no matter how wise and beneficent may be its provisions. The statesmen of 1776, therefore, made the new State constitutions conform as closely as possible to the colonial charters. Connecticut and Rhode Island experienced no change at all in passing from colony to State. They simply substituted the word "people" for the word "king" in their charters, and these became their constitutions.

After they had established their independence the States found that it was necessary to unite and form a central government. The powers of this central government were expressed in the Constitution of the United States. The history and nature of this great document will be given hereafter. It is sufficient here to say that the Constitution1 of the United States is our fundamental law. We have had occasion to refer to it heretofore, and throughout our work we shall refer to it constantly, and as we advance we shall learn more and more of its authority and influence in our political life.

Each of the States that have been admitted into the Union under the Constitution (118) has followed the example of the original States, and has framed a constitution for 'In this book when the word "constitution" begins with a capital letter the Constitution of the United States is meant.