FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 485 



matters relating to the internal concerns of the federating States. 

 Since that time we have the examples of the Swiss Confederation, 

 which replaced an earlier and loose form of union in 1848, and 

 assumed its present form in 1874 : and the Canadian Constitution, 

 which was adopted in 1867. The Swiss system diverges in at least 

 one essential point from what we are coming to regard as the 

 federal type, and for that reason, I doubt whether we can draw 

 many practical illustrations of the working of the Federal system 

 from the experience of that country. The German Confederation 

 diverges still more widely, so that, for practical purposes, it is true 

 to say that before the adoption of the Australian Constitution the 

 world's experience of the developed form of Federal government 

 was limited to that afforded by the United States and Canada. 

 Certainly, precedents drawn from an\'of the other sources mentioned 

 must be applied with a great deal of caution. Our experience, 

 therefore, when it comes to be adequately written, must prove of 

 great value to the political student, for, as Mr. Bryce has pointed 

 out in his exceedingly interesting criticism of the Australian Con- 

 stitution, every creation of a new scheme of government is a precious 

 addition to the political resources of mankind, if only because it 

 embodies an experiment full of instruction for the future. We are 

 contributing to the materials which will be available for all who 

 come hereafter to the work of building up a State. 



It may be useful if I begin by explaining what are the essentials 

 of the federal system, as we know it. These are familiar, of course, 

 to all students of constitutional law and history, but it may conduce 

 to clearness if at the outset I explain, as precisely as may be, the 

 sense in which I propose to use the phrase in this essay. 



Before a Federal State can come into existence there must 

 exist, as Professor Dicey has pointed out, a body of countries so 

 closely connected by locality, by history, by race, or, one may add, 

 by recognition of common interests or dangers, that their inhabi- 

 tants are carable of bearing, and desire to bear, the impress of 

 common nationality. This desire, however, must stop short of a 

 desire to attain complete unity. Otherwise, of course, there is no 

 place for the Federal system. In Mr. Dicey 's useful phrase, they 

 must desire union, and must not desire unity. Along with the desire 

 and capacity for union in matters which are deemed to be of 

 common interest, there must be a determination to retain inde- 

 pendence of action in matters which are deemed to be local. 



Given these conditions, we have the soil in which the Federal 

 tree may be planted. These are the historical or poHtical circum- 

 stances which make the adoption of the Federal system possible. 

 Let us now examine the legal aspect of the system, and determine 

 what are the marks which may properly be regarded as essential 

 to it. 



First of all, there must be a classitication of the different powers 

 of government, according to their nature. Those which the authors 

 of the Constitution deem to be of a national or general character 



