Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/98

 The Doctrine of the Separation of Powers RECENT article by Professor Henry J. Ford of Princeton Uni versity, on "The Cause of Political Cor

The authority of Montesquieu is, of course, exploded, and the separation of the powers must rest partly on a legal

ruption,"1 is striking in that it attacks the separation of the judicial, legislative

ﬁction. The three powers, even under our own Constitution, do actually over

and executive powers, under our form

lap one another, though legally distinct.

of government, as inconsistent with the principles of political science. Emphasiz ing the notion that our knowledge of these principles is based on inductive

To this extent Prof. Ford's position will

study of history, the writer maintains that healthy governments have always owed their well-being to the connection

that every legal separation of powers invites constitutional decay and political corruption.

rather than the separation of the powers. Governments in which public opinion is restrained from expressing itself by an

elaborate system of “checks and bal ances" are in his opinion unhealthy. The reader obviously will have to take into consideration the fact that the

article was written from the standpoint of one for whom democracy and the untrammeled rule of the majority are

synonymous. Conﬁdent generalizations which indicate no profound mastery of so large a subject may excite some in

be sustained by modern scientiﬁc thought, but he goes much farther, and he is ven

turing on shaky ground when he claims

From the following it will be seen how he develops the theory and how he connects it with the idea of a pure democracy :— “A government of separated powers is plainly incapable of responding to de

mands for greater efficiency of adminis tration. In fact, as soon as attention is turned to business eﬂ'iciency, separation

of powers seems out of place. Any one who should suggest that in the organiza tion of a private business corporation the president should not take part in the

credulity. “Both Montesquieu’s theory" of the

meetings of the board of directors, would

separation of powers, writes Prof. Ford,

“and Blackstone's adaptation of it are

tally. There is really no difference between public business and private busi

now discarded by political science. . . . The causes of the discredit in which the doctrine now stands are soon stated. It is found that forms of government

management, nor is any such diﬁerence supposed to exist except where people's minds are clouded by eighteenth cen

be stared at as being out of plumb men

ness as to the principles of successful

which are constructed on that principle

tury superstitions.

always experience derangement of con stitutional function, and it is found that

quieu’s doctrine is examined, it is found

forms of government displaying consti tutional vigor and efﬁciency are organ ized on the directly contrary principle of the connection of the powers."

As soon as Montes

that by its terms it does not make for eﬁiciency. . . . In the acute phase of constitutional disease from this principle the separate powers are forced to move by violence, making the true constitu

tion a military oligarchy. ' "The Cause of Political Corruption," by Henry Jones Ford, Professor of Politics in Princeton Uni versity. Sailmer's, v. 49, p. 54 (Jan.).

In the chronic

phase they are forced to move by cor

ruption, making the true constitution a