The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-10-03
The House Of Lords and the American
Senate.

| Senate.
| MIR. w. w. AsToR's London paper. the
! Pail Mall Gazette, which. since he bought it,
has become more Tory than the Tories. I'M
dertook the other day to justify the rejection
OF the Home Rule bill by the Lords on the
ground that the Senate OF the United States
had thus far refused to concur with the
| House Of Representatives in repeating the
| SHERMAN act. According to the Pail Mall
Gazette much stronger case could be made
| for the English upper House than for the
Senate. because the Home Rule bill had OBJ
tanned majority Of only SO in the Com
mons. whereas the repeal Of the SHERMAN
act was demanded by a majority Of over a
hundred In the House Of Representatives.
An obvious answer would be that there Is
a wide difference between prolonged dis
cussion and summary rejection. and that
while the Senate has given many weeks to
the consideration Of the bill repeating the
SHERMAN act, the Lords gave just four
days to debate upon the measure which
had occupied eighty-two days in the popu-
lar branch Of the British legislature. But
that Is a matter OF detail. The superiority
Of the authority possessed by the Ameri-
can Senate over that vested In the House
Of Lords rests upon the fact that the former
body is the outcome OF election, and the
latter Of the principle Of hereditary privi-
lege. Not only Is the Senate the out
come Of election. but. as the safeguard
Of State rights. 1t Is more firmly en-
| bedded In the Federal Constitution than
the House Of Representatives itself. For
there is no conceivable alteration Of the
latter assembly which could not be effect
cd by a constitutional amendment. There
is one thing. on the other hand. which even
a constitutional amendment is powerless
to accomplish. and that is to change the
fundamental feature OF the Senate by depriv-
ing even the smallest State in the Union of
equal representation with the largest State.
No matter how the population OF Nevada.
for example. may dwindle. 1t cannot be de-
prived Of the same number OF Senators as
is awarded to New York. except with its
own consent. which. Of course. would never
be given. This provision. which puts the
composition Of the Senate outside the range
even OF constitutional amendments, makes
1t the most firmly rooted assembly devised
by man.
1t may be said that the House OF Lords
occupies like impregnable position; that
1t cannot be abolished or altered but by an
act OF Parliament: and that to such an act
the assent OF the Lords is as essential as
are those OF the Commons and the Crown.
There Ia this difference, that the Senate is
fastened with peculiar precautions In the
core OF q written Constitution, whereas the
existence Of the Lords depends on prece-
dent, which was violated in the days OF the
English Commonwealth. and may be vlo-
lated again. But without any rupture OF
precedents the British upper House might
be transformed out of all resemblance to
its present composition. or even abolished.
1t Is. at least. conceivable that. IL the Crown
were compliant, the House of Commons,
acting through the head OF its executive
committee. the Prime Minister. might
swamp the upper House by wholesale
creation Of new Peers. pledged to a radical
transformation. or even to the abolition OF
the latter body. Technically. the Lords
would still, after such an infusion OF new
blood. be acting voluntarily. ALPHABETICALLY
their will would have been overridden by
agents Of the Commons.
In another respect our Senate differs
materially from the House OF Lords.
namely. that the former assembly pos
sesses considerable share OF executive
power whereas the latter has none. 1t Is
true that the Commons sometimes select
member Of the upper House for Prime
Minister. as In the case OF Lord SALISBURY,
but they do this voluntarily. and it is to
them. not to the Lords. that the Minister
is responsible. The Lords cannot turn out
a Minister; the Commons can. at any mo-
ment. by vote Of lack OF confidence. or by
rejecting Cabinet measure. Under our
Constitution. on the other hand. the House
of Representatives has no executive powers
at all, except as 1t has usurped them
through the admission OF Texas by resolu-
tions instead OF by treaty. and by insisting
that an act OF Congress is needed to carry
out the provisions OF treaties. Indirectly.
OF course. 1t exercises some control over the
conduct Of the Executive through its power
over appropriations. But the Senates |
executive functions are explicitly defined !
and directly exercised. It's consent Is |
necessary for all treaties, and for the APP |
pointment OF all Federal functionaries |
above certain grade. From this point |
Of view tho Senate Is clothed with an |
authority which the House OF Lords even in |
its palmiest days never possessed.
But the point OF difference which lies at |
the root OF the vast moral superiority OF |
the position occupied by American Senators.
as compared with that OF British Peers.
consists In the fact that the latter represent
nobody but themselves. whereas tho for
mer are the delegates. and. so to speak.
aInbus suuurS Of Rami-indanandant SLataS