held to be the Cabinet's action, and it alone is responsible. A member of the President's Cabinet has two conspicuous classes of duties: he is expected to know and direct the affairs of his department, and to advise the President, first, respecting all matters that lie within his administrative jurisdiction, and, second, respecting all matters of a general nature in which the executive branch of the Government is interested.

Topics.-Members of the Cabinet.—In what respects like the English Cabinet.-Relation of the President to his Cabinet.-Duties of members of the Cabinet.

References.—Bryce, American Commonwealth, i, 86; ii, 157; Dawes, How We Are Governed, 205, 243-246; Fiske, Civil Government, 244; Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law, i, 134; Hinsdale, American Government, 289.

110. Independence of the Executive.-Under the English system the practical executive is directly responsible to the Parliament. If the Parliament persistently opposes a measure urged by the Cabinet under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet must resign; and another Prime Minister will be named and asked to form a new Cabinet, which must conform to the opinions of the majority of the Parliament. In the United States, if the majority of the Congress opposes the President, it does not in any way affect his tenure of office or that of his Cabinet. There may be a difference of opinion between the President and Congress concerning the desirability of a proposed law. If the President is opposed to the bill, he may veto it. By this the opposition becomes open and declared. If it is not possible for the Congress to rally at least two-thirds of each house in support of the bill, this incident is closed by the veto, and the President wins in the contest. If two-thirds of each house come to the support of the vetoed bill and vote for it, the incident is

closed; and in this case the Congress wins in the contest. But whichever way the contest is closed, neither party is affected in his position. Neither resigns, and both enter upon the consideration of the next measure with the same independence as before. This independence of the Executive constitutes a check on complete party government. In England, where a Cabinet must be in complete harmony with the majority of the Commons, this check does not exist. Party government, as it is understood in Europe, does not prevail in the United States. The aim of the United States has been, through the use of various checks and limitations, to make the Government express the permanent will of the nation rather than its occasional will.

Topics.—Effect of opposition in England between Cabinet and Parliament. Opposition of Congress to the President.-Executive independence in the United States.-Check to complete party gov

ernment.

References.-Hinsdale, American Government, 289–291; Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law, i, 10.

FOR ADVANCED STUDY

The Presidency.-Burgess, Political Science, ii, 216-263, 307319; Bryce, American Commonwealth, i, Chaps. V-IX; Ford, American Politics, Chap. XXII; Lockwood, Abolition of the Presidency; Cooley, Constitutional Law, Chap. V; Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law, i, 59–82, 102-106, 127–138, 146–161; ii, 29– 46; H. von Holst, Constitutional Law, §§ 25, 26, 55, 59, 60; Jennings, Eighty Years of Republican Government, Chaps. III, IV; Lalor, Cyclopædia, articles on Confirmation, Electoral College, Electoral Commission, Executive Impeachment, Removals, Resignations, Veto; Mason, Veto Power; Tucker, Constitution, Chap. XII.

The National Convention.-Dallinger, Nominations for Elective Office, 1-50, 74-94; Official Proceedings of the National Conventions.

The Election of the President.-Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections; Hart, Practical Essays, No. III; Bryce, American Commonwealth, i, Chap. VIII:

The Powers of the President.-Conkling, Powers of the Executive Department; Harrison, This Country of Ours, Chap. IV– XIX; Hart, Practical Essays, No. IV; Lockwood, Abolition of the Presidency; Mason, Veto Power; Salmon, Appointing Power; Whiting, War Powers, 66-83, 159-325; Richardson, Messages of the Presidents.

President Johnson's Conflict with Congress and His Impeachment.-Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, ii, 1-15, 56-154; Lathrop, Seward, 404-418; Storey, Charles Sumner, 290-301, 346351; Burgess, Reconstruction, 31-61, 142, 143, 157-194; Hart, Contemporaries, iv, 468-475, 479–481, 489-492; Hart, Chase, 357-361; McCulloch, Men and Measures of Half a Century, Chap. XXVI; Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, ii, Chap. XIV.

The Heads of the Executive Departments.-Jameson, Essays in Constitutional History, 116-185; Harrison, This Country of Ours, Chaps. VI, XI-XVIII; Bryce, American Commonwealth, i, Chaps. IX, XXV; Lowell, Essays on Government, No. 1; F. Snow, Defense of Congressional Government (American Historical Association, Papers), iv, 309-328; American Academy of Political Science, Annals, iii, 1–13; American Law Review, XXIII; Ford, American Politics, 383-396; Yale Law Journal, vii, 1-19; Burgess, Political Science, ii, 262, 263, 311-316.

Officers of the Civil Service and their Appointinent.— Fiske, Civil Government, 275-279; Salmon, Appointing Power; American Historical Association, Report for 1899, i, 67-86; Lodge, Historical and Political Essays, 114-137; Senate Reports, 50th Congress, 1 Session, No. 507; House Reports, 53d Congress, 1 Session, No. 11; Messages of the Presidents; American Historical Review, i, 270-283; ii, 241-261; iii, 270-291.

Cal

Treaty with Texas for Annexation.—H. von Holst, houn, 222-245; H. von Holst, United States, ii, 602-657, 673–677; Schouler, United States, iv, 440-451, 457-459, 470; Burgess, Middle Period, 302-308; Wilson, Division, 144, 145; Schurz, Clay, ii, 235–

241; Benton, Thirty Years' View, ii, Chaps. CXXXV, CXXXVIIICXLII.

Political Aspect of the Texas Question.-Wilson, Division, 145, 146; Schouler, United States, iv, 460, 461, 465-469, 471-474; H. von Holst, United States, ii, 657-673; Shepard, Martin Van Buren, 344-354; Johnston, American Politics, 145, 146; Hart, Contemporaries, iii, 649-652; MacDonald, Select Documents, 343-346; H. von Holst, United States, ii, 677-712; H. von Holst, Calhoun, 251-256; Burgess, Middle Period, 308-310, 318-323; Schouler, United States, iv, 482-488; Benton, Thirty Years' View, ii, Chaps. CXLVII, CXLVIII.

The Introduction of the Merit System into the Civil Service.-Political Science Quarterly, iii, 247-281; XIV, 240-250; Mason, Veto Power, §§ 25-28; American Historical Association, Papers, ii, 47-52; Bryce, American Commonwealth, ii, Chap. LXV; Municipal Affairs, iv, 708-720; Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law, ii, 34-46; Eaton, Government of Municipalities, Chaps. VII, VIII; Lodge, Historical and Political Essays, 114–137; Curtis, Orations and Addresses, ii, 477-508; Hart, Practical Essays, No. IV; National Civil Service Reform League, Proceedings; United States Civil Service Commission, Annual Report; New York Civil Service Commission, Annual Report; Atlantic Monthly, LXVIL, 252-257; LXXV, 239-246; Hart, Contemporaries, iii, § 158; iv, §§ 197, 199, 202,

III. Need of Federal Courts.-Under the Articles of Confederation the central power could not deal directly with the individual citizen; it could deal with him only. through the government of the State to which he belonged. Under the Constitution the Federal Government holds immediate relations with the individual citizen; its laws apply to him, and the authority of its administrative officers reaches him directly. In the new position assumed by the Federal Government under the Constitution there were the following needs for Federal courts:

1. The laws passed by Congress bind directly the individual citizen in whatever State or Territory he may live, and Federal courts are needed to interpret and apply these laws.

2. The Constitution having been established as the supreme law of the land, Federal courts are needed as an authority to which appeal may be made to determine the harmony or conflict between the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress or by the several States, and thus to provide for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.

3. Federal courts are needed to decide such questions as in their nature may not properly be brought under the authority of State courts.

The system of United States courts covers the same territory as the whole body of State courts; and as every

205