THE MODEL REPUBLIC.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 785, 22 October 1853, Page 3

THE MODEL REPUBLIC.

(From the “ Sydney Englishman” Sept. 3.)

The United Stales of America having been constantly held up during these present discussions, as the only safe model of good government for English colonists, it may be useful to inquire into the form and working of this muchtalked of and immaculate constitution. It can hardly be supposed that the intelligent and respectable public are to rest content with the guarantee of Yankee citizens themselves, or of renegade Britons Mho lust for the reign of Yankee “institutions.” We have a sincere admiration of the many good qualities in the American character, and a profound respect for the talents and virtues of the framers of their constitution, but it is right that the truth should be known of that vaunted republic that sets itself up as the climax and essence of political perfection. Certainly, there can be no spectacle so capti vating to (he eyes of mankind, as that mighty republic that, with gigantic strides, has advanced from the condition of a few scattered and petty dependencies, into the rank of a nation extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and already rivalling the greatest and most powerful empires of the old world. The imagination is so strongly excited in observing (his astonishing political phenomenon, that the mind cannot slop to look below the surface, and, in admiring the result, is apt to neglect or overlook the accounting causes. If the present condition of the United Stales, however, is justly an object of wonder, the circumstances that have led to it are favourable beyond example in the history of nations. Inheriting at their birth, the AngloSazon character and genius—the noblest heirlooms that a people can have—and deriving from their mother country, that sturdy love of liberty and respect for order which are peculiarly the characteristics of (he British race, the Americans, by their very origin, had an advantage that no other nation ever possessed. The stern and puritanical character of the Pilgrim Fathers, while it led them into many cruel and absuid excesses, yet preserved a sobriety and stability in the early settlements that are particularly needed in an infant colony. The spirit of Hampden, Cromwell, and Sydney, inspired (hose wise and brave men who, in their New England, moulded those admirable institutions M'hose principles they had learnt in the old country. Added to the inestimable privilege of their birth, the Americans had the further advantage of occupying a vast and splendid extent of fertile territory, within the bounds of which there was no limit to their development and expansion. So magnificent a possession has never fatten to the lot of any nation. This territory, so rich and bounteous Mas, moreover, so placed by nature, as to be beyond the reach of foreign aggression, and jet admirably situated for the purposes of c nnmerce.

in considering, therefore, the present condition of the American Republic, we mast not attribute its rise and prosperity to the effect of its democratic institutions. No democracy has been, or can he, ever so favourably circumstanced. The United Stales have bad no precedent, and can give no example. If they are what they now are it is more in spite of their institutions than in consequence of them. Moreover, there are many features in this pure democracy, that have been overlooked by casual observers, but which have a powerful tendency to conservatism, that is, to tne preservation of order and the prevention of anarchy. "What these features are we shall proceed to show—first giving a brief outline of the American Constitution, as laid down by the best authorities, The federal government of America, which was definitely settled in 4787, may he divided into two parts —the executive and the legislative. The executive is but feebly represented in the President, a creature and slave of the dominant parly, whose sole care during his brief tenure of power, is to fill the public offices with his friends and relations, and to provide for his re-election. Even this shadow of a central power was not created without a struggle on the part of Washington and the moderate republicans against the democrats who would have had no executive! The President cannot oppose the will of the legislature or refuse to carry out any measure that has obtained the consent of the two houses. The utmost he can do is to suspend its execution a short time, and cause it to be re-considered. (This power of veto he dare not exercise in the present day.) The chief prerogative of puppet ruler —this sham king—is to command his magnificent army of 12,000 men, and to dispense its patronage—also to be nominal Lord High Admiral of the Yankee fleet.

The Legislature consists of two bodies; the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is composed of two Representatives from each state, who have reached the years of discretion, which, in America, is believed to be the age of 33. The duties of the Senate are analogous to those of the British House of Lords, though in some respects, they exceed the powers of our hereditary legislature. The Senate alone is to decide on questions of war or peace, and to sign all treaties with foreign powers. It is the highest Court of judicature in the States, though it may only adjudge those cases that are submitted to it by the Congress or House of Representatives. The constitution of the Senate is a point of particular importance just now, and deserves the attention of those who clamor for an elective Upper House. The Senate was originally devised by the framers of the American Constitution, to meet the difficulty arising from the contending claims of the thirteen Stales to be considered as independent sovereign powers. The discord that sprung from this source threatened, at one time, to dissever the lately formed Union into its component parts. Fortunately, however, for the Republic, the present scheme was adopted, by which, in consideration of the surrender of its independence, each stale was to send two delegates to the Federal Senate. The argument adduced by the Attorney-General, therefore,

against the elective character uf the American Upper House, was unquestionably well founded. The American Senate, by its very form of composition, outrages every principle of elective representation. The senators arc actually appointed or named by the respective slates without any regard to there relative size or importance. Thus, the Stale of IScw Tork sends no more representatives to the Senate than the Stale of Rhode Island, though the latter is onetenth the size of the former, and of vastly less importance. How then can it he argued that the Senate is elective in the sense in which it is proposed to form an elective Upper House in this colony? The American Lower House or Congress, which is the predominant power in the state, is composed of members elected by the people of the Union generally, irrespective pf slate divisions. The qualifications of electors is not fixed by any universal lav/, but varies in every state. While in some states universal suffrage prevails, in Maryland and South Carolina an elector must possess fifty acres of land. Independent of the three ostensible powers above described, there is a formidable authority in the American Republic, quite unknown in England or in any constitutional monarchy, and which is too often overlooked by those who argue for the all sufficiency of democratic institutions. This authority which tends so materially to maintain orderly government and to check the license of mob-depotism, is the Supreme Court of the United Slates, in which is vested the power of interpreting the constitution, and of deciding what is contrary to its provisions, as a simple matter of law. As the American Constitution is a written one, and consists of certain definite axioms and rules, it will be seen at once how powerful they must he in whom is vested the last appeal in constitutional questions. Several times in the course of American History, has this extraordinary political jurisdiction of the Supreme Court been exercised, and always with good effect—the members of the court having been generally wise and upright men, interested in the maintenance of order and in the stability of the Union. But a period may arrive when the advancing tide of democracy may sweep over even this last security of good government, and ar.ned ruffians invade the sanctity of the judgment scat. Who shall then say how long democracy shall flourish?

We again repeat our profound respect for those virtuous and wise men who were entrusted with the task of drawing up a constitution tor their country. America has had no worthier citizens than Washington —paler palrice —the elder Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the two Morrises whose names arc found among those who framed this constitution. But little did these great men foresee, much as they dreaded, the consequences that have resulted from their /work, or how (hat work has been abused and perverted. Washington himself was as little of a democrat as can well he imagined, Ail his instincts, habits, and ideas were essentially aristocratic, and brought him into disfavour with his own countrymen, even during his lifc-lime. What was his advice to those who w : ere levying troops for the national war, regarding the choice of officers? —“Take none but gentlemen; they are the most trustworthy, as well as (he ablest.” His associates were equally impressed with (he duty of curbing the licenses of the vulgar majority, in their scheme of future government. Due allowance having been made for the unprecedented advantages enjoyed by the American Republic, what is there alter all, in their past career or their present position, to excite the envy of other nations, or to merit the imitation Ox Englishmen? Why need we go beyond England to look for a constitution? Can it be said that (he American from of government is, in any respect, better than that of our mother country ? Surely, (he most impudent of demagogues Cannot dare utter so gross a blasphemy. It is true we have a Queen (whom God preserve l ) and the House of Lords; but in real, practical liberty, or in any of the requisites of a good government, who shall say we are inferior to any republic upon earth? The much abused word republic , indeed, is far more applicable to England that to Hie American democracy. The results of such a democracy, has shown in the works of the most able and impartial writers who have written on America, are certainly not calculated to impress us with a very favourable notion of the blessings of the American constitution. The most remarkable peculiarity in the American people is that entire prostration of all genius and intelligence to the dominion of the tyrant majority. Not only have conditions been made equal in America, but intellects have been levelled. Superiority of mind is as much an object of popular jealousy and odium as superiority of w'ealth. Those distinguished above their fellows by any gifts of nature, have no chance whatever of rising into popular notice, unless by truckling to fhe humours of (lie mol). We have (his remarkably exemplified in the career of the late Daniel Webster—perhaps (he greatest genius that America has yet produced. That celebrated man could never reach the prcsidental chair, though all his life a candidate for it, and though often stooping to win popularity by the sacrifice of principle; while obscure, mediocre adventurers, such as Polk, Filmore, and Pearce, have gained the prize over his head. America, indeed, is a paradise for brazen mediocrity, while independent talent may go hang. As regards freedom of opinion, there can he no comparison between England and America. Under the British Laws every one may act, speak, and write as he pleases, consistently with the liberty of his neighbours. But in America the tyianl mob will not suffer any opinions unpalatable to itself. In this respect the people are as arbilrary as Ihe Austrian censorship. It would be tedious to give examples of the summary mode in which the sovereign people punish any offence against their own sweet pleasure. Those who claim the right of making fhe laws, also insist on (he option of breaking them when inconveniently stringent. The cssense Of democracy being the absolute sovereignty of the majority, the safety of the minority is necessarily very precarious and dependent. And as the minority invariably comprises the greater part of the wisdom and virtue of a country, it will he seen how favourable democracies arc likely to he, to the development of the moral and intellectual qualities. The gross and hare-faced corruption of the public men, and (he disgraceful scramble for public places, so notorious in the Stales, are but the necessary consequences of the rule of Ihe many. Where officers hold their situations on such a slender and precarious tenure as the popular good-will, they will naturally try to make the most of their offices as long as they enjoy them. The elected legislators, also, being equally dependent, become (he mire tools of faction, and have not (lie slightest freedom of judgment. The consequence is, that under the universal blighting and levelling influence of democracy, all honesty, liberty, sobriety, and independence are entirely destroyed, and nothing remains but that pernicious and ill-omened monster of evil— -Ihe. voice of the people. Is this a condition to which we should be desirous of reducing a fine country such as New South Wales? If we are to look to America, let it be as an example to avoid , not to follow—a warning not a precedent. So far from slavishly imitating any portion of her constitution, let us shun it, as dangerou and corrupt, and seek a better and a worthier model in a constitution which has produced nought hut liberty, political prosperity, and social happiness—the Constitution of England.