The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-03-28
should Cabinet Ministers be Subject to
the LeRisIaturel

THR speech OF the Duke dc ferSlBny In the
French Senate has turned the attention of
the French journals and people to the pro-
priety of making the Ministers OF State respOn-
sible to the legislative department of Govern
ment. The debate caused a comparison to be
instituted between the British and American
systems, and discussion of their relative
merits. Our readers all know that in Great
Britain the Ministers of the Crown sit in both
Houses of the Parliament, and are liable to be
displaced from Office by vote of the lower
Houses. In the United States, on the
contrary, the Cabinet is entirely free from all
legislative coercion, and can only be removed
by that complex system of impeachment, the
very completely of which is the best safeguard
against its abuse. In France, however, the
Ministers, while they sit in the Chambers, are
not directly responsible to them. In fact, it
seems as though the real condition of affairs
were allowed to remain vague for fear of the
result of any definite settlement. The ques-
tion however, was brought directly before
the Upper House by the speech of the Duke,
who, after contrasting the two systems of
America and England, emphatically favored
that of America. 1t is evident that the public
men of Europe have watched with eager eye
the effect of the war on the various peculiari-
ties of our governmental structure, and have
drawn their own deductions. The Duke de
Persigny declares that, had American Minis
ters been subject tothe Legislature, like those
of England, the war would not have been
brought to a successful conclusion, and he
made strong case out of this argument -
"Take the case of America during the late
war. The Chambers OF the North were
dent as the Government for the conquest of
the South; but suppose that responsible minis
ters had been sitting in them, do you suppose
the issue would have been the same? Certainly
not, At every battle lost there would have
been change of ministry, an upset of the
State, and the rout of the armies would have
extended to all mems minds"
There is, indeed, great deal of force in this
idea, and we of America looking only at the
great result, lose sight of the many seem
ingly slight variations of our national system,
which have really been the salvation of the
republic. Having thus given an instance of
the safety of the American plan, the orator
gives Characteristic and novel reason why
the British Government did not actually en-
deavor to destroy the Union:-
LOOK at the attitude OF England during that
struggle. The sentiments OF neighbors
were not doubtful. Assuredly their wishes
were not for the re. establishment OF the Union.
Never was a liner occasion presented to free
England for some centuries from her American
nightmare. But her responsible ministers
| were there! They counted the ranks of their
| adversaries-so many Radicals will vote for the
| Union from political passion, so many Tories,
who, though they wish for the same things as
| the Wings, will vote against them to turn them
out. Before this calculation they stopped short,
| inert and discouraged and the Goddess Oppor'
| nfAit ai
The Duke then declared emphatically in
favor of the American plan, and urged the
Senate to adopt law similar to that of the
United States.
| ave have before us two courses-one, to
| choose the English liberty, in which it would
| tion and hand the Administration to a class of
| rich, independent men; or, on the other hand,
| if we wish to maintain, as in America, our de-
mocratic society with our organization of de.
| mocraiic functionaries, then we must renounce,
as in America, subordinatinG our Ministers to
| the Chambers, leaving the palm Of eloquence to
the speakers in the Assemblies, and freeing the
Ministers from the preoccupation of debate,
| and placing them under the sole authority oi
the Executive fower"
Some time since it was moved in Congress
to allow the Cabinet officers seats in the two
Houses. We think that General Banks was
the father of the idea. The proposition met
with some favor, and has not yet been def
nitely acted upon. 1t is well for US to look
well at the advantages of the various systems
of government which have come down to us
from our forefathers. They had good cause
for any peculiarities, and in the present cast
we cannot but think our plan of rendering
Cabinet officers irresponsible to Congress {
good one. That it is attracting the attention
of all the Old World is we'll attested. Only
few days since John Bright referred to thi
peculiarity, and was accused of desire tt
"Americanize Parliament" There must b,
some great merit in it, otherwise it would no
be favored by so many of the Liberals o
Europe. If it has the disadvantage of retain
ing in power Secretary of State in whom tn,
people have lost all confidence, and who coulC
not command a halfdozen votes in eithe
branch of Congress, yet it undoubtedl,
tends to promote the freedom of the Legisla
ture, and also of the Cabinet ITSELF and has il
the past, as the Duke well observes, ''serve
the American nation" We hope that we viii
hear no more of the proposed alteration in on
system of responsibilities.
;, There is one other matter on which tn
Duke spoke, and which we would commend
general attention. He declares that the goo
u secured to a nation by eloquence is far inferiC
"a to the injury done to it by too much talking
II Is one of the failings of our public mel
lhelr "endless tongues" as Whittier cal
al Iheln, have done far mora damage than Ill