Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/629

 Index to Periodicals "Is Republican and Representative Govern ment synonymous?" By Ed. C. Gottry. 73 Cen 1101 Law Journal 222 (Sept. 29). "In so far as the states formerly a part of the Northwest Territory are concerned, they are forever precluded by the Ordinance of 1787 from making an change in their form of government which would make it a democracy. Article 5 of the Ordinance says, lProvided, the constitutions and governments to be formed’ (in this terri tory) ‘shall be Republican and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles.’ . . . Are there any ‘principles’ contained in the Ordi nance which throw any light on the meaning of this word ‘Re ublican' as here used in the con nection found There certainly are, and they are most emphatically representative." See Government.

Government. "Representative as Against Direct Government." By Congressman Samuel V. McCall. Atlantic, v. 108, p. 456 (Oct.). "The framers of our Constitution were en deavoring to establish a government ‘which should have swa over a great territory and a population alrea y large and which they knew would rapidly increase. They were about to consummate the most democratic movement that had ever occurred on a grand scale in the his tory of the world. They well knew from the experiments of the past the inevitable limitations upon direct democratic government, and, being statesmen as well as Democrats, they sought to make their government enduring by guarding against the excesses which had so often brought popular governments to destruction. They es tablished a government which Lincoln called lof the people, by the people, for the people,’ and in order effectively to create it they adopted limitations which would make its continued existence possible. They knew that, if the gov ernmental energy became too much diluted and dissolved, the evils of anarchy would result, and that there would follow a reaction to the other extreme, with the resulting overthrow of popular rights.

They saw clearly the line over which

they might not pass in retended devotion to the democratic idea wit out establishing gov ernment of the demagogue, by the demagogue, and for the demagogue, with the recoil in favor of autocracy sure speedily to follow." Great Britain. “Before and After the Veto." By Edward Porritt. North American Review, v,

194, p. 505 (0a.). Reviewing the signiﬁcant events of the past few months, the writer incidentally makes an

observation likely to introduce readers to a novel aspect of the case. "There is no ground," he says, "for the apprehension that the House of Lords will sink into a chamber like the House of Lords in the old Parliament of Ireland, or like

the Senate at Ottawa. Power of delay for two sessions in a country where the people are so politically well educated, so politically alert, and on whom party ties are so little binding, is an enormous power. It is a power that will give a new importance to the House of Lords, and

589

furnish an inﬁnitely larger ﬁeld of political ser vice for its men of ability and distinction." "The Referendum in Great Britain." By Her bert W. I-Iorwill. Political Science Quarterly, v. 26, p. 415 (Sept.).

A summary of the arguments advanced in the recent discussion of this issue by English party leaders. “The referendum, if not yet acclima tized in England as a method of government, has

at any rate been acclimatized as a political issue." d See Direct Government, Legislative Proce ure. Hindu Law. “Indian Law and English Legis lation, II." By Justice Sankaran Nair. Contem porary Review, v. 100, p. 349 (Sept.). "Are the Hindus to be told that so long as they remain Hindus by religion they must fol low the Hindu Law? There is no Hindu Church authorized to declare what Hinduism is. The differences in doctrine and ritual between some of the sects are wider than those which separate them from Christianity or Mohammedanism. Among the sects are some, not small in numbers,

who deny the authority of the Vedas, do not recognize the caste system, and accord to women

a position very diﬂerent from that allowed by Hindu Law as interpreted by the Courts. Yet all these are Hindus governed by Hindu Law. Is the British Government justiﬁed in coercing the modern Hindu into the profession of a phase of Hindu religion which he believes he has out grown? . . . For the government the simplest course is to say to the reformers: ‘If you are not willing to follow your Hindu Law, give it up. You are at liberty to follow the Indian Succession Act, or a Marriage Act like III of 1872. In our opinion that is a law ﬁt to be ado ted by any modern society, but we do not wisli to force it

on you. You are at liberty to follow it if you choose.’ ' History. "Polk and the Oregon Compromise of 1846." By R. L. Schuyler. Political Science Quarterly, v. 26, p. 443 (Sept.). Reviewing the controversy with England re garding the Oregon boundary, the writer seeks to give Polk credit for his share in promoting a ceable adjustment. He complains that Polk fig: wrongly been condemned by historians with out a fair hearing. "Cleveland's Administrations." By James Ford Rhodes. Scribncr’s, v. 50, p. 496 (Oct.). "It may be safely affirmed that Cleveland did more for the cause of civil service reform than any President except Roosevelt, whose work

both as commissioner and as President mark him as the chief promoter of this phase of good government; but Cleveland's task in his ﬁrst administration was the more difficult. . . . “Had Cleveland understood Congress and pos sessed the art of facile negotiation that belonged to his successor, McKinley, he could undoubtedly have brought the contest between himself and Gorman to a drawn battle and so secured a