The sun., 1908-08-16

Stt~s~@~-f
ever, means more than the press. There
must be therefore absolute freedom OF
speech and Of public meeting. 1t is by the
authority OF public opinion, expressed
through these three media, that the errors
of Parliament and the errors Of voters are
In the end corrected. Faith In the ulti-
mate exhibition OF justice and equity on
the part Of the greater number OF French
men Is implied in the Constitution Of 1875,
which inaugurated sincere application
OF universal suffrage.
NJ. Hanotaux does not exaggerate the
efficiency OF public opinion, considered as
a safeguard Of equity and Justice. The
appeal to it may be made too late; the ap-
pellate tribunal may fail to respond with
sufficient promptitude and emphasis. vi
the Shortcomings Of that tribunal M. Hano-
taux adduoes two examples, He taxes
for instance, the case Of Gambetta. Here
was man who had defended the nations
honor, who had been the founder OF the
Third Republic. He bore the triple crown
OF genius, eloquence and goodness. Hav-
ing attained the power Of which he was
worthy. he preserved 1t for three months
and died shortly afterward, struck TO the
heart by tho shafts Of a hostility which
nothing but his death could appease
In Jules Ferry our author sees another
victim of temporary blunder on the part
OF public opinion. Ferry was "a man
who foresaw the future OF the world and
tried to force toward new paths the hesi-
tatng will Of his country; his robust hands
held firmly the reins; he rdled. careful
OF his duty. He did not trouble. however
to please his contemporaries, and they
cietested him. He fell on the unverified
ru1nor Of panic which had not even been
foreseen by the band Of pirates who had
caused it. The fall OF Gambetta and the
unpopularity Of Jules Ferry are pronounced
Sins against justice and against public
interest for which the Constitution Of 1875
! is perhaps responsible In his arraignment
| OF the possible weaknesses and divaga-
tions Of public opinion NJ Hanotaux might
have alluded to the transient but perilous
popularity OF Boulanger. That incident
furnished an additional proof Of his aver
ment that between the blind confidence
of party spirit and q distrust envenomed
by detraotors public opinion floats In
uncertainty. One-haf OF the nation is
systematically left out Of the account by
| the other; hatred aocumul lates and forces
are wasted. What would happen, ASKS
M. Hanotaux. IL suddenly. In peace or
in war, all the strength Of the nation were
required In one supreme effort to cover the
frontier or 70 save the soul OF the country
His conclusion In that the Constitution OF
1875 will realize all the merits dreamed OF
by It's anxious founders if-but only If
the exchange Of services ibetween rulers
and ruled is regulated by the same senti-
ments Of abnegation. conciliation and
persevering optimism which on the morrow
Of the great disasters OF 1901 brought
about the advent OF democracy.
W.
To what extent has the Constitution Of
1875, thus expouhded by M. HanotauA, been
amended since the period reviewed In
this volume Of his narrative. which brings
the story Of the Third Republic down to
the May, 10, 1877. when its first severe
trial was enoountered2 For a detailed
description OF these amendments and for
a general account OF the working OF the
present French Constitution We may refer
the reader to the first volume OF Pros. A.
Lawrence Lowell's Governments and Par
ties in Continental Europe where the
record will be found brought down to nearly
the close OF the nineteenth century. We
should bear In mind that at the time when
the Constitution Of 1875 was adopted both
Of the great parties (the Republican and
the MonarchioaD wanted to facilitate
changes In the fundamental laws In order
to be able to carry out their own plans
whenever favorable occasion might pre-
sent itself. A departure from tradition
was therefore made. and 1t was provided
that the constitutional laws could be
! amended by q National Assembly or Con.
gress composed Of the two branches oi
Parliament sitting together, which should
meet for this purpose at Versailles when.
ever both chambers. on their own motion
or on that of the President OF the Republic
should declare revision necessary. 1t ID
not stated whether the Chambers shal
declare in general terms that there Is q
need of revision or whether they shal
specify the particular revision to be made
The absence OF any declaration on thii
point has given rise to lively debate; but
on the occasions when a revision has actu.
ally been undertaken the Chambers have
passed identical resolutions. specifying tbs
article or articles to be amended.
On the first occasion (June IL, 1870 the
provision making Versailles the capital
was repealed. and thereupon statute wal
passed transferring the normal seat OF
Government to Paris. with the proviso
that whenever the National Assembly
or Congress OF both houses should be con'
voked for the purpose Of revision or ol
| choosing q President Of the Republic II
should meet at Versailles. On the second
occasion august IL, lss4) several amend
ments were made Among these one oi
the most notable changed the provision
relating to the mode Of eleoting Senator's
q second made members Of families that
had reigned over France ineligible to the
Presidency OF the Republic, and a third
declared that the republican form Of gov
ernment cannot be made the subject OF
proposals for revision, the obvious object
Of the last named prohibition being to
avert the destruction Of the Republic by
constitutional means. Prof. Lowell points
out that the device of providing that q
law shall never be repealed is old. but
he oan recall no instance in which II has
been Of any avail.
The method Of amendment authorized
by the French Constitution Of 1875 hai
virtually rendered the Parliament omnipo.