of legislation; and if they are to be present, they should be members; otherwise they will fail to receive the rights and privileges necessary to the preservation of their dignity and independence.

I do not see that the membership of the ministers in the legislature necessarily leads to parliamentary government. If the constitution should provide that the ministers shall be politically responsible only to the executive head of the government, and should make the executive head independent of the legislature, and should vest in the executive head the means to prevent legislative encroachment upon the executive prerogatives, it seems to me that the membership of the ministers in the legislature would add to their independence rather than subtract from it. I do not feel sure that, while the systems of England, Germany and France show a tendency to approach that of the United States upon the subject of incompatibility between office and mandate in all respects except in the case of the ministers, the constitutional law of the United States may not be improved by adopting their principle in this case, so guarded, however, as to prevent the legislature from making such use of its powers over its own members as to encroach upon the domain of executive independence.

5. Rights and Privileges of Members.

There is direct and evenly balanced contradiction between these four systems upon the subject of the pay of members. Two, those of the United States and France, provide, the first by constitutional law and the second by statute, that the legislative members shall be salaried. The other two provide no pay for the members. The German constitution forbids it for the members of the Diet. Where the constitution permits or commands compensation, it is left to the legislature to fix the amount, time of payment, etc., by statute. We must conclude from this variety in the practice, that the question of compensation for legislative service is

as yet practically unsolved. There are strong considerations both for and against compensation. It is claimed that the system of gratuitous service in the legislature secures a better and more independent class of legislators, since only men of independent means can take such positions, and since men of independent means are most likely to be men of superior intelligence and integrity.

There is much to be said in criticism of this proposition. In the first place, there are many other ways for a legislator to make money out of his position than by a regularly fixed salary, paid out of the governmental treasury; and some of these ways are very crooked. In the second place, it is not at all sure that rich men will not pursue gain in these ways. The spirit engendered by money-getting is not infrequently one of insatiable avarice. Lastly, it is not at all certain that wealthy men are men of superior intelligence. There is no doubt that the successful management of private business is good evidence of superior intelligence. The inheritance of wealth, however, furnishes no necessary evidence of superior intelligence. It gives the fortunate young man great opportunities, if he will but use it correctly. It must not be forgotten, however, that it furnishes him with the means of indulgence and dissipation, inducing habits of life far more hostile to mental and moral improvement than are the disabilities of poverty.

On the other hand, it is claimed that moderate salaries for legislative service will secure a better and more independent class of legislators; since men of intelligence and integrity, whether possessing independent means or not, will be enabled to take these positions, and since all temptation to employ questionable means for gaining a livelihood while in the service of the state will be removed.

This seems to me the stronger consideration. But it cannot be gainsaid that the attachment of any salary to legislative service is calculated to excite the cupidity of per

sons who have no qualifications as legislators, and to make legislative seats pecuniary prizes to be grasped at, rather than posts of responsibility to be conferred only upon those best fitted to fill them; nor is it certain that a fair compensation will always deter men from pursuing additional gain through tortuous paths. If the illicit means of legislative compensation should be cut off, by restraining the legislature from entering the domain of private business, a moderate salary for legislative service would not only be fair, but, it seems to me, would be calculated to secure better talent and to preserve a higher integrity among legislators. It would enable the constituencies to select from a wider range and it would remove, at the same time, the remaining causes of temptation. It would enable the state to escape the necessity of identifying its governmental aristocracy with its wealthy class; ie. it would enable the state to avoid becoming a plutocracy. Finally, it would do justice to the principles of democracy, as against the reign of class.

It will

The four systems agree in providing, by constitutional law and custom, the privilege of freedom from arrest for the members of the legislature during the session and for a reasonable period before and subsequent to the same. be observed that this privilege is in no case absolute. In the systems of England and the United States, the member may be arrested upon charge of the commission of an indictable offence. In those of Germany and France, he may be arrested, if taken in the commission of the crime or misdemeanor or immediately afterwards; and, by consent of the chamber to which he may belong, he may be arrested at any time. It seems to me that, in these divergences of detail, the better reason is with the practice of England and the United States. The individual member is possibly not so widely privileged from arrest as in the other two systems, but he is certain of his privilege so far as it extends, and the extent

of the same is also certain and fixed. The principle of the other two systems is doubly liable to abuse. The public may be made to suffer if the chambers see fit to shelter dangerous characters; and, on the other hand, the minority in a chamber, finding itself accidentally in majority, might procure and permit the arrest of members of the majority for party reasons.

Lastly, the four constitutions agree in providing that the legislative members shall have perfect liberty of speech and debate in the chambers and in the committee rooms of the legislative bodies; i.e. that they shall not be held responsible for their words in these places when discharging their legislative duties, except by the house to which they may belong. The fullest and most complete ventilation of every plan, object and purpose is necessary to wise and beneficial legislation. This could never be secured if the members should be held under the restraints imposed by the law of slander and libel upon private character. There is no doubt that this privilege may be grossly abused, since every word used in debate, and frequently something more, is now reported to the public; but the danger to the general welfare from its curtailment is far greater than that to individuals from its exercise. The German constitution seeks to privilege the legislative member in his public character against insult; and the French Deputy Chamber has just passed a bill to the like effect. This is carrying the privilege of members too far. If representatives may say anything they will against private character in the chambers, without fear of prosecution under the law of libel and slander, it seems to me only fair that other persons should be allowed to say anything they will about the representatives under the restrictions imposed by that law. Respectfulness both in word and attitude toward those holding governmental powers is very desirable; but there is only one way in which these persons can really command respect, viz; by blameless conduct.

6. The Powers of the Legislature over its own Assembling, Opening, Adjournment, Prorogation, and Dissolution.

In regard to this subject, the law and practice of the United States government differ quite radically from those of the other three governments. The constitution of the United States requires the annual assembly of the legislature upon a day fixed by the constitution, but subject to change by statute. The constitution also empowers the executive to call extra sessions and to adjourn the legislature when the two chambers of that body cannot themselves agree upon the time of adjournment. The constitution fixes, finally, the time of dissolution of the legislature at the expiration of the mandates of the members of the lower house. Everything further is left to the legislature as a whole, or to the separate houses. That is to say, the legislature of the United States has, under the constitution, the powers of self-assembly, self-opening, self-adjournment, and self-prorogation or close of session. The executive cannot as a rule interfere in any of these matters.

ad

In the English system, on the other hand, the legislature cannot accomplish any of these things independently, except mere temporary adjournment. The Crown calls, opens, journs, prorogues, and dissolves the legislative bodies. The Crown does so, indeed, under the influence of the ministers, and the ministers are supposed to represent the will of the majority in the Commons; but the Crown may legally act in respect to these things under the advice of a ministry which has lost the leadership in the House of Commons. Legally, therefore, it is the Crown which does all these things. Actually, it is the House of Commons which prompts the Crown to act.

The German and French systems strike, legally, the mean between those of England and the United States. They accord to the legislature more control over its own sessions than does the English custom, but less than does the con