Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1897-02-11
II this enlargement Of the Geld Of con.

partment OF government, that Of ad.
mnistration, such q change, as affect.
ing the frame OF government, ia within
the proner scope OF Il constitution; yet
ii may be well to consider how far such
department, placed by organic law be-
yond the control of tho people, is in
harmony with our institutions. 1t
seems to bear some resemblance to the
droit adnninistratif of France. which
has never taken deep root in Anglo
Saxon soil. While that law places the
officers of administration largely be-
You'd the jurisdiction of the courts,
this fourth department would place
administration itself beyond tho juris.
diction OF the people. Dicsy says OF the
droit administratif that sit resis Upon
political principles ut variance with
the ideas which are embodied in our OK
listing constitution, "and that. for each
feature OF 1t one may find some curious
analogy either in tho claims nut
forward or in the institutions favored
by tho crown lawyers of the seventeenth
century," Then commenting ON the
failure of the Tudors and Stuarts TO
establish this .'strong administrative
SYSTEM" he declares it Was ''chiehy
because the whole scheme Of admis-
trative law was opposed to thoss habits
of equality before the law which had
long beon essential characteristics of
English institutions. " May not we rs
truthfully say that scheme OF auto.
matte administration, created by limi-
tation of the powers of othor depart
ments. 10 be substitute for and above
legislation, ia opposed TO the long
settled principles OF Republican insti-
tt,tianup Is ~ mr. FL nd ttar "a,
make administration responsible 10 the
people by leaving its system within
their control? Then givu it stability and
efficiency by lifting its Offices out Of
the spoils of politics, and making their
tenure dependent only on merit and
fitness.
Serious, too. are the objections ON the
ground of eXpediency to this tendency
10 put into organic law statuts regula-
tions which it may be wise frequently
TO change. Ono of two results must
follow: either law, if Interchangeable and
discredited, loses its authority and the
people become demoralized. or their
constitution, often changing, loses its
stability and Fundamental law becomes
the subject of constant agitation and
controversy. Against this evil every
constitution, until recent days, has
sought TO protect itself; first, by con-
filming its scope within the limits Of
wall defined Fundamental principles,
and next by making difficult its own
amendment. 1t was intended, as OK
pressed by Chancellor Kent, that "timo
shall be gwen for mature deliberation
unon questions arising upon tine COO
Rtitution, which are always nlomentous
in their nature, and calculated to
affect not the present generation alone,
but their distant posterity.''
An illustration of the evil to which
refer may be found in the experience
OF some of our States with constitu-
tional prohibition. However wise and
necessary prohibition may be, tho
proper place for this much controverted
restriction il in statute, not constitu-
tional law. Dependent for its enforce.
ment upon statute law and sustain
ing public sentiment. it gains little by
constitutional recognition, while the
constitution itself may suffer by the
ovasions and opposition of discon
tented people unable, lawfully, to
assert their will. Referring to this
!. danger distinguished iurist haB
:, forcibly said, "a constitution is not u
feode, civil or penal; and whatever
tends to turn it into one, endangers
its ultimate stability by exposing it to
every gust of popular excitement or
caprice. y To put into con-
stitutioa rule which statute would
sufficiently prescribe, and which must
he supplemented by u statute to mako
it effective, would be simply to take
advantage of the greater permanency of
the organic law in the interest of n
maj0rity--for a purpose quito foreign
to the purpose of that instrument; and
might we'll argue IA distrust, on tho
part of that majority, OF their ability
to maintain their ground in the con-
victions of the people. IL this be its
Significance it would eyem-
pity that tyranny of the majority
which the friends, as we'll az the foes,
OF democratic institutions conceds to
be their greatest inherent danger.
Ii l am right in my criticism. it
must be that certain fundamental
principles determine the true scone
and Office of constitutional law. l be-
lieve such principles have been evolved
out OF the experience and struggles of
the past; and. speaking broadly may
be defined as the principle of control
which establishes tho frame of govern
ment, and the principle of compact
NhiSh doioi 40
Important rights ana leaves to the
people, through power over legislation,
full power of selF-goyernment. Upon
these principles wore based the typical
constitutions of Massachusetts and
Virginia, and upon them alone still
thoy rest.
II it be argued that the modern OK
pansion of constitutional duties is due
10 mistrust of representative govern
nent, and severe constitutional limita
tions are necessary for tho public well
fare, l can only answer that the argu.
nisnt'is confession of tho failure of our
institutions and an indictment of the
integrity of our national character.
against which protest, and which will
not DO remodied by constitutional pro
visions. For let us remember in the
words OF the wise philosopher have SO
often quoted, that institutions are
made of men; that men are the struts
ties and bolts, out of which they are
framed; and that, dovetal and brace
them as we may, it is their nature
which must finally determine whether
the institutions can stand. Always
there will be some line of least resist
ance. along which, if the humanity
they are wrought out OF DO not strong
enough, they will give way, and, hav.
ing given way, will sink down into a
less trying attitude. Il II No phil
osopher's stone Of constitution can
OrOiuna the uollnn ron6unt fro,,, Ino1a,,