chapter. They are, of course, not so extensive as under earlier constitutions; and the trend of constitutional development brings them within steadily narrowing limits. One farther aspect only of the canton's position needs to be mentioned here, namely, the large share which the cantonal government takes in the execution of federal law. In the United States the federal government enforces its laws almost entirely through its own officials; it could continue to function almost normally if the governments of the states were to be suddenly blotted out. In Switzerland, as was also true in Imperial Germany, the situation is far otherwise. The Swiss federal government has indeed its own machinery for several important branches of administration, e.g., customs, posts, telegraphs, telephones, the gunpowder monopoly. But in other branches it depends very largely upon the coöperation of the cantonal authorities, working under a certain amount. of federal supervision. This is true of the administration of railways, water-power, weights and measures, education, military exemption, and even the federal bank. One reason for following this plan is that it is economical; the costs entailed by a dual mechanism of administration is one of the main objections to the federal form of government. An even weightier reason is, however, that in many fields of governmental action the reluctant cantons have been induced to yield legislative control to the central government only by being permitted to exercise immediate control over the enforcement of the resulting laws. Citizenship and the Protection of Individual Rights. - A question that is likely to lead to some confusion under a federal form of government is the basis and nature of citizenship. The constitution of the United States as put into operation in 1789 made use of the term "citizen," but nowhere defined it. It spoke of "citizens of the United States " and also of "citizens of the several states," from which might readily be inferred that citizenship was dual, i.e., both national and state. Down to the Civil War, the states' rights school held that there were thus two kinds of citizenship; and in the Dred Scott decision (1856) the Supreme Court ruled that it did not follow that because a person had all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, he must be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868), however, reversed this doctrine. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," it says, " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside." Technically, it may be 1 See p. 575. regarded that there is still a national citizenship and a state citizenship. But the two are inseparable, and the distinction is of no practical importance. Fundamentally, citizenship is national any citizen of the United States who takes up his residence in a given state becomes a citizen of that state; no state can either bestow citizenship or withhold it. The Imperial German constitution of 1871 provided that there should be " a common citizenship for all Germany," and that the citizens of every state should be treated "in every other state as natives." It was reasonably plain that there were two citizenships, Imperial and state, and also that citizenship in the Empire was determined exclusively by citizenship in one of the individual states. A law of 1879 cleared up all doubt on the point. The situation in Imperial Germany was therefore the reverse of that in the United States: in the one country a person became a national citizen by virtue of being a state citizen; in the other, he becomes a state citizen by virtue of being a national citizen. On this subject the Swiss constitution, too, is somewhat ambiguous. "Every citizen of a canton," it says, "is a Swiss citizen. As such he may participate, in the place where he is domiciled, in all federal elections and popular votes, after having duly proved his qualification as a voter."2 This clearly means that citizenship is fundamentally cantonal that, as in Germany, a person gains national citizenship through state citizenship. In the United States, as has just been noted, the process is the opposite. It is true that the Swiss constitution also provides that "federal legislation shall fix the conditions upon which foreigners may be naturalized." But in point of fact this has not been done. Rather, what happens is that the cantonal constitutions simply pass the matter one step farther on by providing that every citizen of a commune is a citizen of a canton.3 The individual commune thus becomes a law unto itself in the matter, with the result of an enormous variation of practice from locality to locality. Some communes charge high fees and in other ways put naturalization beyond the reach of all but very few of their alien residents; others set up practically no restrictions. Undoubtedly it would be better for the federal government to avail itself of its power to establish uniform regulations.1 The Swiss constitution contains no formal bill of rights. None 1 Art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I, 326. 2 Art. 43. Ibid., II, 269-270. Brooks, Government and Politics of Switzerland, 344. 4 W. Martin, "Les étrangers en suisse," Rev. Polit. et Parl., Nov. 10, 1915. the less, the liberties of the individual are fully protected. Not fewer than twenty articles scattered throughout the document deal with the subject. First of all, there is the general provision that no canton shall expel from its territory one of its own citizens, or deprive him of his rights, whether acquired by birth or by settlement. In the second place, the cantons are required to treat Swiss citizens of other states precisely as they treat their own citizens in all matters of law and judicial procedure. Furthermore, many guarantees are expressly laid down, in terms equally binding upon the federal and state governments. Chief among these are: (1) equality before the law, (2) right to settle anywhere in Swiss territory, (3) right of petition, (4) liberty to form associations, provided they are not illegal or dangerous to the state, (5) freedom of the press, (6) inviolable secrecy of letters and telegrams, and (7) exemption from liability to imprisonment for debt. Finally, the prevalence of ecclesiastical dissensions and wars in times past, as well as the religious divergences of the present day, led the makers of the constitution to deal in an exceptionally explicit manner with rights and privileges pertaining to religion. Complete freedom of conscience and belief is guaranteed. No person may be compelled to become a member of a religious society, to receive religious instruction, to perform any religious act, or to incur penalty of any sort by reason of his religious opinions. No person may be required to pay taxes. whose proceeds are specifically appropriated to the expenses of a religious body to which he does not belong. CHAPTER XXXII GOVERNMENT IN THE CANTONS General Features. In the main, the national government of Switzerland has been evolved from political principles, methods, and organs prevailing in the individual cantons. From this it follows that an understanding of the mechanism and workings of the federation is conditioned upon an acquaintance with the form and character of cantonal political organization.1 Anything, however, in the nature of a detailed description which will apply to the governmental systems of all of the cantons is quite impossible. There are twenty-two cantons, of which three (Unterwalden, Basel, and Appenzell) are split into half-cantons; so that there are, in all, twenty-five distinct political units. Although included within a country which is less than half as large as Ireland, these political divisions are remarkably dissimilar far more so than the decidedly larger states spread over a vastly broader area in the United States. In size they range from Graubünden, with 2773 square miles, to the halfcanton of Urban Basel, with 14 square miles. The most populous at the census of 1910 was Bern, with 642,744 people, and the least populous was Lower Unterwalden, with 13,796. Some, as Glarus and the Grisons, are almost entirely rural; others, as Zürich and Thurgau, include both urban centers and extensive rural districts; still others, as Geneva and Urban Basel, are hardly more than city states. As has been pointed out, German was, in 1910, the preponderating language in fifteen cantons, French in five, and Italian in one; Protestants were in a majority in twelve cantons, Catholics in ten. To these differences must be added others of a political nature. Every canton has its own constitution; and the federal government is bound to guarantee these several instruments regardless of their contents, provided 1 The principal works on the governments of the cantons are J. Schollenberger, Grundriss der Staats und Verwaltungsrechts der schweizerischen Kantone, 3 vols. (Zürich, 1898-1000), and J. Dubs, Das öffentliche Recht der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (Zürich, 1877-78), I. Brief accounts will be found in Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chaps. i–xii, and Brooks, Government and Politics of Switzerland, Chaps. xiv-xvii. only that they do not contravene the federal constitution, that they establish a republican form of government, and that they have been ratified by the people and can be amended upon request of a majority. The cantonal constitutions are modified easily and frequently, and, on the whole, they tend to become more rather than less alike. They still show, however, a high degree of diversity. It has been pointed out that by the terms of the federal constitution the cantons "exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the national government." Notwithstanding the centralizing tendencies of the past two decades, this still means an extensive range of power. Under a certain amount of federal supervision, the cantons provide, maintain, and administer a common-school system. They regulate the relations of church and state. They control the conditions under which business and trade are carried on. They amplify and extend the federal legislation on child labor, workmen's compensation, and related subjects. They construct highways, subsidize and build railroads, and charter banks. They erect and maintain hospitals, insane asylums, sanitariums, and penitentaries. They control the liquor traffic and legislate on poor relief and public health. They advance the interests of agriculture by general legislation and by subsidizing special projects for rural betterment. They exercise broad powers of taxation. They maintain police systems, and administer justice through courts which they establish and judges whom they appoint. They control the naturalization of aliens, make "concordats" among themselves upon legislative, administrative, and judicial subjects, and frame agreements with neighboring states on border and police intercourse. Finally, they bear a large share in the administration. of national, as distinguished from cantonal, law. Much of their regulative power is now merely supplementary to the powers of the federal government. It is only fair to recognize, however, that in most branches of social and economic legislation the cantons blazed the way, and that the present power of the federal government has only later been acquired, with a view, usually, to greater uniformity of practice throughout the country. The Landsgemeinde Cantons. Even the most casual survey of the diverse governmental systems of the twenty-five cantons 1 Art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II, 257. 2 * See p. 571. For a more detailed account of cantonal functions see Brooks, Government and Politics of Switzerland, Chap. xv. |