232 



THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE 



that this view of the Constitution of the 

 United States was a mistaken one. The 

 adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th 

 amendments strengthened somewhat the 

 restraint upon State legislatures enforce- 

 able in the Supreme Court of the United 

 States, but generally the division of power 

 between the States and the general gov- 

 ernment remained the same. 



And yet, as our Congress has exercised 

 powers which she always had, but which 

 she had not before exercised, the strength 

 of the central government is seen to be 

 quite all that it ought to be. There is 

 danger that a great widening of the field 

 of Federal activity and a substantial dim- 

 inution of State rights would in the end 

 threaten the integrity of our Union in- 

 stead of promoting it. 



However, the Quebec Conference, fear- 

 ing secession, took the other view, fol- 

 lowed MacDonald's recommendation, and 

 agreed that in the division of powers be- 

 tween the Dominion government and the 

 provincial governments the residuum 

 should be in the Dominion government, 

 and not be reserved either to the prov- 

 inces or to the people, as with us. 



The Dominion Parliament is made up 

 of a Senate composed of Senators ap- 

 pointed by the government for life and 

 of a popular House of Commons. 



Another very great difference between 

 our Constitution and that of Canada is 

 that, while the guaranties of civil liberty 

 in our own Constitution are all express, 

 as insisted on by Jefferson and Madison, 

 though not thought necessary by Hamil- 

 ton, they find such sanction as they have 

 in the unwritten British Constitution, 

 and are left not to the courts, but to the 

 protection of an executive veto of pro- 

 vincial or dominion legislation. This 

 really gives an opportunity for much 

 more radical legislation in Canada with 

 reference to vested rights than we have 

 in this country. This may not be so im- 

 portant now as it will be later, when a 

 revulsion against the danger of cor- 

 porate political control and a plutocracy, 

 which is likely to threaten Canada in the 

 future, shall give rise to not only needed 

 regulation and restriction, but also to 

 such excessive and indiscriminate attack 

 upon capital investment such as we have 

 seen in some parts of this country. 



AUSTRALIA LIKED OUR CONSTITUTION 

 BETTER THAN THE CANADIAN 



It is a noteworthy significance that 

 when the Australian Commonwealth was 

 formed by the union of the various Aus- 

 tralian States or provinces, about 1900, 

 the Constitutional Convention followed 

 more closely in the division of powers be- 

 tween the government of the Common- 

 wealth and its associated and constituent 

 States the principle of our Federal Con- 

 stitution. 



In other ways that Commonwealth fol- 

 lowed our fundamental law more closely 

 than Canada. Its Senate is made up by 

 the equal representation of all the con- 

 stituent States, and in the reserving to 

 the States and to the people the residuum 

 of power ; so that the grants of power to 

 the Federal government in Australia are 

 to be construed as they are construed in 

 our Constitution. 



The framework of the fundamental 

 law of Australia is based more on popu- 

 lar control than is that of Canada, and it 

 is more independent of the mother coun- 

 try, in that the construction of its Consti- 

 tution in the matter of the distribution of 

 powers between the States and the Com- 

 monwealth is left to the Supreme Court 

 of the Commonwealth, without a right of 

 appeal to the British Privy Council ex- 

 cept upon allowance of the Supreme 

 Court, while in Canada a right of appeal 

 in such cases is absolute. 



SOME DIFFERENCES IN THE GOVERNMENT 

 OF CANADA AND AUSTRALIA 



A reason for the difference in the 

 constitutions of Australia and Canada 

 is doubtless found in the fact that the 

 Canadian Constitution was adopted dur- 

 ing the Civil War, when our Constitu- 

 tion seemed to have failed in securing 

 power enough to the central govern- 

 ment ; and the Australian Constitution 

 was adopted at the beginning of the 20th 

 century, when our Constitution had 

 shown itself able to weather the storms of 

 secession and to authorize a central 

 government continually increasing in 

 strength with the growth and settlement 

 of the country. 



The difference in the manner of select- 

 ing the Senate, which in Canada, as 



