EDITOR'S TABLE. 



699 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



LAW AGAIXST RIGIIT. 



"YTTHATEVER truth there may be 

 VV in the declaration that "paper 

 constitutions will not work as they are 

 intended to work," it is very certain that 

 written and unwritten constitutions do 

 not work in the same way, and do affect 

 the habits of mind of the people very 

 differently. In England " the Constitu- 

 tion " is a body of precedents and prac- 

 tices, which are interpreted and applied 

 to new cases in accordance with the 

 historic spirit of the Government ; while 

 in this country " the Constitution" is a 

 printed document that may be bought 

 for a nickel, and learned by heart in a 

 week. To find out the meaning and 

 obligations of the English Constitution, 

 we are referred to the principles of the 

 national policy ; to find out the require- 

 ments of our own Constitution, we are 

 referred to its explicit clauses. These 

 Constitutions do not work alike ; and 

 in one important respect they do not 

 work as we should anticipate. We 

 should naturally expect that the Eng- 

 lish Constitution would be so complex 

 a thing as to be far removed from the 

 people, and create a multitude of law 

 interpreters, who would practically have 

 the whole subject in their own hands. 

 And at first sight it would seem that 

 with a written constitution so much is 

 gained in the way of simplicity, where 

 everything is made as plain, definite, and 

 positive as language can make it, that 

 the people should perfectly understand 

 the instrument, and there would be 

 little need of professional commenta- 

 tors. But, in point of fact, the English 

 Constitution is by no means withdrawn 

 from the consideration of the English 

 people, nor does the simplicity of our 

 own written charter save us from the 

 need of a host of lawyers. Yet there 

 is a divergence in the function of the 



lawyers in the two cases, which corre- 

 sponds to an equal diversity in the men- 

 tal habits of the people in the respective 

 countries. Where the supreme law is 

 unwritten, and has to be sought in the 

 usages and principles of the govern- 

 ment, the process of its interpretation 

 is far more open than in the other case, 

 more a matter of adaptation and read- 

 justment. Tendencies and progress and 

 new circumstances are taken into ac- 

 count, and each step of the elucidation 

 becomes a part of the continuous na- 

 tional process of establishing the Con- 

 stitution. The people know the funda- 

 mental principles, the great landmarks 

 of guidance, which are to control the 

 course of lawyers and judges, and they 

 can understand whether the supreme 

 objects of the Constitution are fulfilled 

 or defeated. Appeal will naturally be 

 made to the more rational and liberal 

 elements of the national policy, and the 

 task of amending and improving the 

 Constitution itself will be felt as a per- 

 manent responsibility. The men of to- 

 day are, therefore, as much "founders 

 of the Constitution " as those of former 

 generations. 



But it is very different where the 

 Constitution is a written document 

 which was made the supreme law in a 

 former age. Only the glorified "fa- 

 thers " are here ranked as founders of 

 the Constitution. It embodied the ideas 

 and the wisdom of its time; but all 

 questions are closed by it, save those of 

 the verbal significance of its clauses. 

 It is amendable only through political 

 spasms, and by an implied impeachment 

 of the patriots who formed it, and whom 

 there is an increasing tendency to regard 

 as infallible. Questions of interpreta- 

 tion necessarily arising, tend to become 

 narrow and technical, a matter of rules 

 and definitions, while the lawyers will 



