tion of our great Constitution, a Constitution born of the evolutionary forces of an old and liberty-loving civilization, formed and fashioned by the wisdom of chastened patriotism, strengthened by incomparable experience, and ennobled by immeasurable achievements. I have no fear that our judiciary will ever fail to interpret, construe, limit and preserve our institutions, or that its judgments will ever fail to dissolve in the fervent heat of construction any unconstitutional welding of governmental powers. Democracy, says Sir Henry Maine, is the "most difficult kind of government." This is, perhaps, true, for though freedom be daring she is also cautious, and inclines so to hedge about government that its operation is often cumbersome and ineffective. Indeed, democracy seems to strive not so much for a form of government as for a state of society; and, hence, some, confounding the garment for the body, have thought democracy reactionary. Human experience affirms that when the level of popular intelligence is raised the social group at once aspires for a larger share in government. This is the sacred ambition of a people; this is the evolution of an ascending civilization, moving with relentless persistence, though often upon erratic lines. But such a political or social evolution differs from the physical in that the equation of the former is personal, the chief factor being leadership. Will our institutions justify the criticism that democracy is collective mediocrity? Or will America confirm the sublime definition of Mazzini, that "democracy is the progress of all through all under the leadership of the best and wisest"? Are we not entitled to such leadership? And what instrument of government other than the Cabinet participation will so surely secure such leadership? Again, and in conclusion, such participation by the Cabinet tends to an "open door" in administration and legislation, flooding our whole political system with the light of publicity, thus allaying suspicion, evoking interest, and imparting confidence and stability. THE DELAY IN THE EXECUTION OF MURDERERS A Paper read before the Pennsylvania Bar Association, By The HON. ROBERT RALSTON, of Philadelphia* At the present day an impression more or less widespread appears to prevail, that the administration of the criminal law in this country is too slow; that there ate seemingly endless delays at all stages of the proceedings. The subject has been discussed by many able and eminent men at the meetings of learned societies, and also in the public press. If the sentiments to be gathered from these sources truly reflect the wishes of the people, there is an carnest desire that the criminal law shall be promptly administered and the punishment for crime follow conviction without delay. There are forty-six States in the United States, each having its own laws and its own method of procedure. Therefore any general and sweeping denunciation of the administration of the criminal law in this country is apt to be misleading. A criticism or even a condemnation of the methods employed and of the results achieved in a particular State may be just and proper when limited to that State, but unjust if applied generally to all the States. If reforms are required they must be brought about in the several States. A change which is needed in one place may be unnecessary in another. The present paper will be confined to a consideration of the conditions existing in Pennsylvania, in cases of murder of the first degree, which are the only ones in this State involving the life of the prisoner. It is toward then: that criticism is principally directed, and it is 4 thơm that reforms are demanded. *The tables prepared by Judge Ralston an paper are not in this volume, but accompany it, " It was found impracticable to bind them in ste d to in this - cover. |