Morning journal and courier., 1893-02-07
THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.
A Comparison or the French Form
 Of Government With our own.

A Comparison or the French Form
 PARIS, Jan. IS.
 To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 We naturally look in the French repub. lie for snslogies to our own, and some such points of similarity we find. but not near ly so many as the identity in name would encourage us to expect. Instead of calling France our sister republic 1t would be more appropriate to speak of her as dis tant cousin. It is quite true that she has, as her executive head, a president, and equally true that she boasts senate and house which bears a close resemblance to ours. It is true also that both the presi- dent and the legislature are creations of the people, and that they emanste, either directly or indirectly, from the broad prin- clple of universal suffrage. The voting privilege is enjoyed in France by every male citizen who has attained his msjori- ty, the only conditions being that he shall have resided for six months before election day in the township where hs proposes to exercise this privilege, and shall not have entailed upon himself, by bankruptcy, crime or military service, any legal diss bility. The last effort of the French as sembly to restrict the franchise proved de cidedly disastrous. It was when, during the presidency ot Louis Napoleon, three millions were excluded by extending the residential requirement to three years. The annulling of this act was the winning card in the coup d'etat, the sequel show ing that the French people were deter mined to retain their voting rights even if to do so they had to change their form of government.
 Aside from the points of resemblance in dioated above, the republic or France and the republic of the United States have in practice little real affinity with each other. They belong to the same family. but show widely divergent features In crsuial con- tour these sister republics are much the same, as you also find them to be when you look at their feet, which rest in both cases upon manhood suffrage. To carry our anatomical analogy still further, we find also that they are much the same in those organs of vitality upon which the character of their legislation depends. Perhaps, too, the arms, representing the executive agencies, are very similar, for the French president does his work, inst like our own, through a cabinet of minis ters, and these are technically men of his own selection. Here, however. marked di- vergencies begin to appear, and in pursu- ing the subject we soon discover that after all the two bodies are less distinguished for their resemblance to each other than for the many things in which they differ.
 The French republic is more nearly akin to the British monarchy than to the form of government under which Americans live. The president is wholly irresponsi- ble, just as the queen Is, the real govern ors being the members of the cabinet The French cabinet, too, is entirely at the mercy of the chamber of deputies, and at any moment, by @ vote withdrawing con fidence, it can be overthrown. This is de- cidedly English, and just as the queen. when one cabinet Is overthrown, is affect ed by such sn incident only 10 the extent of having to set up another, so it Is in the ory with the president of the French re- public. Naturally, in these circumstances, French cabinet ministers, like their con freres in England, have a seat and voice in the legislative assemblies. In point Of fact, French ministers hsva privileges of this kind superior to thoae of the English. Whan Mir. Gladstone Is premier he cannot speak in the upper house bscsuse he is only & nomber of the lower house, and, similarly, Lord Salisbury, being only a member of the upper house, cannot de- fend his policy in the House of Commons. But members of the French cabinet have equal rights iu both houses, and they sIe allowed to deliberate and speak in these bodies-though not to vote-even when it happens, as it occasionally does, thet they are without bona fide membership in eith- CT the senate or the chamber of deputies.
 In the relation of French ministers to the law making body, the difference be- tween that republic and our own Is as great as it could possibly be. Thus, while the American president will change his secretaries one at @ time, as circumstances may seem to demand, and will sometimes get almost to the end of his term with the staff selected st the beginning, aud may do this even though his policy is opposed by both branches of congress, the French pretident finds cabinet making one of his chief occupations IL Is slso 6 point of peculiar peril in ths French system, for it occasionally hsppens-ss 1t did recently with President Carnot-ihst the difficulty of suiting his cabinet to the wishes and whims of 8 ickls chamber will make him desperate enough to think of resigning. And this remirds us of still another diff. ference between the two republics It Is proveTblal of our own presidents that they die, but never resign, whereas in France resignation is the common presidential destiny Both of M. Carrots immediate predecessors went out in this way, and the lesson of thts coincidence would seem to be that for a country so given to change as France is, and governed as she i-. "A pre-i- deDtial term of seven years is too long.
 We are decidedly of opinion that the French republic would gain in stability if the term of the president were reduced to four yesrs. Every resignation prod duces a crisis. It ehows clearly that the French | constitution is not sn exact ft; that it fails to work in just the way it was intend | ed to work And when one remembers how resignstions are brought about. and that they mean usually nothing more than | that the French nation is tired of the same figure head, the argument for . shorter term becomes still stronger. France, how. ever, though she might proftsbly enough follow American initiative in this matter, could hardly do SO in certain other re- | spects. To give her presidents the veto | power would be in France too much like | a continuance of one of the worst evils | of the old mouarchical regime, and un. lees all traditions were belied, 1t would be likely to land her before long in the arms of another emperor. The French are right In not trusting individuals with too much power. They have learned eau
 tion in such matters by long and bitter experience
 | &hav .1. l.