liii 
 
 iiii 
 
 liiilii' 
 
 iiijf 
 
 iillrERsus 
 
Class 
 
 
 Book * r ,!r>'3 
 
 &)P)T!ghtK° 
 
 CiJFjHRIGHT DEPOSm 
 
DEMOCEACT versus AUTOCEACI 
 
 A CO:VIPARATIVE STUDY OF 
 
 GOVERNIVIENTS IN THE 
 
 WORLD WAR 
 
 BY 
 
 KARL FREDERICK GEISER, Ph.D. 
 
 PEOFE^OR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
 IN OBERTiTN COLLEGE 
 
 D. C. HEATH & CO., PUBLISHERS 
 
 BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO 
 

 Copyright, 1918 
 By D. C. Heath & Co. 
 
 I K 8 
 
 DEC 21 1918 
 ©CU511011 
 
Eternal Spirit of the chainless Mind! 
 Brightest in dungeons. Liberty! thou art. 
 For there thy habitation is the heart — 
 The heart which love of thee alone can bind; 
 And when thy sons to fetters are consign'd — 
 To fetters, and the damp vault's dayless gloom. 
 Their country conquers with their martyrdom, 
 And Freedom's fame finds wings on every wind. 
 
 — Byron, Sonnet on ChilUm 
 
 m 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This little book has been prepared primarily to meet 
 the needs of the government requirements in the War 
 Aims Com*ses now given in American colleges and mii- 
 versities. It has also been written with a view to stimu- 
 lating in the general reader a greater interest, a clearer 
 understanding, and a greater love and enthusiasm for the 
 democratic ideals of government. The World War has 
 familiarized us with such terms as "democracy," "autoc- 
 racy," "parhamentary systems," "responsible govern- 
 ment," "seK-de termination," the "small state," and 
 many other similar expressions. My own experience and 
 observation in teaching government for nearly a score of 
 years convinces me, how^ever, that such terms convey 
 very httle meaning to the average individual, including 
 the coUege graduate. The great need of the hour in the 
 "campaign of education" that is now going on is a more 
 careful examination of the terms of the problems we 
 propose to solve. I have therefore attempted to make 
 these chapters in a very real sense a study of poUtical 
 ideals, terms, and types of institutions rather than a 
 mere collection of miscellaneous and interesting facts 
 proportioned among the states according to their general 
 importance. I have assumed a knowledge of our own 
 government and have taken England, France, and Italy 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 as representatives of the parliamentary and responsible 
 systems; Germany as representing autocracy in its most 
 efficient, and therefore most dangerous, form; Austria- 
 Hungary as the great pohtical complex out of which have 
 come many of the problems — and indeed the very causes 
 — of the World War, and the discussion of which will 
 surely occupy much time at the coming peace conference. 
 Belgium stands as an example of the ideal small state 
 for which the democracies are fighting, while Brazil is 
 selected as typical of the most progressive of the South 
 American republics. 
 
 The bibliography at the end of the volume has been 
 added with a view to furnishing a minimum number of 
 references to works accessible in most libraries or procur- 
 able at a small investment. 
 
 I am indebted to Dean Guy Stanton Ford of the Com- 
 mittee on Public Information, Washington, D. C, for sug- 
 gestions concerning the plan out of which this book has 
 grown and especially to the scholarly advice and help of 
 Dr. Kenneth W. Colegrove of Syracuse University both 
 while the manuscript was being prepared and the proof- 
 sheets corrected. 
 
 KARL FREDERICK GEISER 
 
 Cambridge, Massachusetts, 
 
 November 6, 1918 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. Introduction 1 
 
 Determining Principles 3 
 
 n. Co]MPARATIVE GOVERNMENT 7 
 
 Presidential System 7 
 
 Tlie American Government 7 
 
 Parliamentary Governments 8 
 
 The English Government 8 
 
 The Government of France 15 
 
 The Government of Italy 20 
 
 in. The Government of Germany 26 
 
 IV. Austria-Hungary 36 
 
 The History of Austria 37 
 
 Titles of Austrian Rulers 40 
 
 The History of Hungary 41 
 
 The Compromise of 1867 45 
 
 V. Austria-Hungary: Government of To-day 47 
 
 The Common Government 47 
 
 The Government of Austria 50 
 
 Provmcial and Local Government ... 55 
 
 vii 
 
viii CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 The Government of Hungary 5Q 
 
 Provincial and Local Government .... 58 
 
 The Problem of Races in the Dual Monarchy 59 
 
 The Czecho-Slovaks 62 
 
 VI. The Government of Belgium 65 
 
 The History of Belgium, 1579-1914 .... 65 
 
 Government 68 
 
 Justice 72 
 
 Local Government 73 
 
 Area, Population and Language .... 73 
 
 VII. The Government of Brazil 75 
 
 The History of Brazil, 1500-1891 .... 75 
 
 The Constitution 78 
 
 The State Government 79 
 
 The General Government 81 
 
 Population and Resources 84 
 
 Bibliography . 87 
 
 Index 91 
 
DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 When President Wilson gave expression to the 
 now famous phrase, "We are fighting to make the 
 world safe for democracy," he uttered a profound 
 truth. He saw in the conflict in which America is 
 engaged in association with the Allies, a struggle 
 between two political ideals; these two ideals, when 
 expressed in form and practice of government, are 
 in their nature either monarchic or democratic. 
 The one ideal is accepted by Germany; the other 
 by the United States; the one means a government 
 imposed from above; the other a "government by 
 the consent of the governed"; the one means an 
 irresponsible autocracy; the other a government 
 responsible to the people — a democracy. 
 
 But what, it may be asked, is a democracy .^^ Are 
 not all modern governments, of whatever form, ruled 
 by public opinion.? Could any ruler in an enlight- 
 ened state carry on a government without the con- 
 sent, active or passive, of the people forming the 
 
 1 
 
2 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 state? These are searching questions, and the 
 imphcations raised by them should by no means be 
 dismissed in a perfunctory manner, for they suggest 
 ideas lying at the foundation of the World War. 
 No attempt will here be made to discuss all of the 
 issues raised by these questions. That is not the 
 purpose of this outline, and we merely call attention 
 to them in order to define, at the outset, the scope 
 and purpose of this study. It may be true that all 
 modern states are, in a general sense, governed by 
 public opinion, if by that phrase we mean a passive 
 popular approval of the existing political order of 
 society. And if the issues of the war were merely 
 to determine whether political power should hence- 
 forth emanate from above or below — from governor 
 or governed — the significance of the final outcome 
 would not be of transcendent importance; that is 
 to say, the direction in which power flows is not in 
 itself the significant fact concerning issues between 
 states. The significant fact about the source of 
 power is this: When political power comes from 
 above, it comes from a single source; there is no 
 way of restraining it; it is liable to abuse; and it 
 always implies a government imposed upon the 
 governed from without. Such a government may 
 be directed by wise counsel; it may be efficient; 
 and may, in a material way, do much for the people; 
 but it is not democratic. On the other hand, a 
 government in which power emanates from the 
 
INTRODUCTION 3 
 
 people and is imposed upon themselves by their 
 own free choice carries with it its own restrictions 
 and is not liable to abuse. Such a government 
 may make mistakes — all governments do that. 
 It may have faults, but in that case 
 
 " The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars. 
 But in ourselves, that we are underlings," 
 
 and this is an important fact to keep in mind. 
 
 There is one more question, then, that should be 
 asked and answered: Is a democracy the best kind 
 of government? Yes. After long experience, after 
 all the observations made concerning government 
 since man has kept a record of events, it is clear, 
 beyond a doubt, that the people themselves know 
 best what they want; and they should choose, 
 therefore, their own form of government and impose, 
 in whatever form and manner they please, their 
 own laws. — That is what we mean by a democracy. 
 
 Determining Principles 
 
 Adopting, therefore. President Wilson's phrase 
 quoted above as one of our chief war aims, and 
 accepting as a definition of democracy the foregoing 
 paragraph, it is pertinent to ask to what extent the 
 chief European governments associated with us in 
 this war are also democratic in form, practice, and 
 spirit. That is the question we shall attempt to 
 answer. But before doing so it will be well to 
 
4 DEMOCRACY vs, AUTOCRACY 
 
 summarize certain fundamental principles concern- 
 ing government in general : 
 
 1. The character of any government, i.e. whether 
 it is democratic or undemocratic, is determined by 
 two facts: first, its form, and second, the extent to 
 which it is subject to popular control. 
 
 2. The functions of government are twofold — 
 the formulation of policy, determined by the legisla- 
 tive branch, and the execution of the public will by 
 the executive or administrative branch, for the 
 judiciary is in the last analysis merely a branch of the 
 law-enforcing power. These two functions may be 
 united in one authority, as in the earlier despotisms 
 of the East, or in two separate and independent 
 departments, as in the United States; or they may 
 be exercised jointly by the legislative and executive 
 branch, as in England, France, and Italy. The 
 executive may be called a king, president, cabinet, 
 or council — the name is unimportant. The policy- 
 determining branch may be called a congress, an 
 assembly, a legislature, or a parliament — these are 
 mere names for the same idea. The chief fact to be 
 kept in mind is that there are two distinct functions 
 of government — law-making and law-enforcing — 
 and the manner of interaction of these two depart- 
 ments and their relation to the people determine 
 whether or not a government is really a democracy. 
 
 3. Since all governments are ordered and regu- 
 lated by law, whatever the source or nature of that 
 
DETERMINING PRINCIPLES 5 
 
 law may be, the authority and control of the law- 
 making branch will primarily determine the character 
 of the government; that is to say, if the legislative 
 body is elected by, and continually dependent upon, 
 the people, we have one of the chief essentials of a 
 democracy. 
 
 4. From the very nature of society, every self- 
 governing community forming a sovereign state, 
 extending over a wide area, and including a large 
 population, must be politically organized into a 
 national, general, or central government and into 
 local governments. The central government always 
 controls the foreign policy; it declares war, makes 
 treaties, regulates commerce, and forms all alliances 
 with other states. In the consideration of our ques- 
 tion this fact must constantly be kept in mind, for 
 in the war we have been waging against the central 
 powers all considerations of the merits and demerits 
 of local government — state or municipal — are 
 irrelevant. We have not been waging war against 
 the cities of Germany; we have had no concern with 
 the government of Hamburg, Leipzig, Stuttgart, or 
 Munich. Our sole concern and purpose has been the 
 defeat of the military rulers of the central gov- 
 ernments of the German and Austro-Hungarian 
 Empires. We shall consider, therefore, in our de- 
 scription of the English, French, Italian and Ger- 
 man systems the nature and character of the general 
 or central government and touch upon the local gov- 
 
6 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 ernments only so far as may be necessary to a 
 proper understanding of the general government. 
 
 Applying these general considerations or principles 
 to the chief governments of Europe now engaged 
 against the central powers, and assuming that each 
 government is fighting for its own existence and 
 ideals, let us see to what extent, judged from the 
 above considerations, each country is fighting for 
 democracy. For the American the problem of 
 understanding the governments of Europe may 
 best be approached through a comparative method, 
 beginning with the salient facts of our own govern- 
 ment before proceeding to the governments of 
 Europe. 
 
CHAPTER n 
 
 COMPARA.TIVE GOVERNMENT 
 
 Presidential System 
 
 The Ajmerican Goverxment 
 
 The American government differs from nearly all 
 other governments in having a written constitution 
 superior to, and binding upon, both the legislative 
 and executive departments, and in ha^dng an inde- 
 pendent federal judiciary clothed with the authority 
 of declaring null and void the acts of other depart- 
 ments. The Supreme Court is itself, however, 
 created by the Constitution, which in turn vests in 
 Congress the power of creating inferior courts, so 
 even this department is in the last analysis subject 
 to popular control. Sovereignty, or final power, 
 rests directly with the Constitution, whereas in 
 England, and indeed all governments of Europe, 
 except Switzerland, sovereignty rests directly with 
 the law-making department. "The American Con- 
 stitution," says James Bryce, "is the Mvmg voice of 
 the people, or the people at their best." With a 
 President and both branches of Congress elected by 
 the people, §Lnd a fundamental law made and changed 
 
 7 
 
8 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 by tlie people, and that law binding upon all govern- 
 ing authorities, America has, in the best sense of the 
 term, a popular or democratic government. 
 
 Parliamentary Governments 
 
 The English Government 
 
 Gladstone said that "the American Constitution 
 is the greatest piece of constructive statesmanship 
 ever conceived and struck off by the brain and 
 purpose of man at a single time." In one sense only 
 was it struck off at a single time: Fifty-five men 
 sat four months at Philadelphia and drafted our 
 written Constitution. But those men merely put 
 into form the experiences of their own colonies, 
 their observations upon the English government, 
 and the principles of English common law; and the 
 American Constitution has expanded since then in 
 several ways — by amendments, by interpretation 
 by the courts, and by usage. The American Con- 
 stitution is therefore much more than the mere 
 written document. 
 
 The English constitution is a still better example 
 of how political systems grow and cannot be made 
 at one time. No formal assembly ever sat to draft 
 a complete scheme of government for England; its 
 constitution developed gradually, and we can men- 
 tion only some of the great landmarks which put it 
 into its present form. Some of these were in the 
 
THE ENGLISH GO\'EIlX^IEXT 9 
 
 nature of treaties, such as the Union with Scotland 
 in 1707, and the Union with L'eland in 1801; others 
 were in the form of agreements between opposing 
 poKtical forces or groups — such as the Magna 
 Carta, the Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights; 
 a third source of the constitution comprised statutes, 
 such as the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, the Act of 
 Settlement of 1701, the Fox Libel Act of 1792, the 
 Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, and 1884, the Municipal 
 Corporations Act of 1835, the ParHamentary and 
 Municipal Elections Act of 1872, the Local Govern- 
 ment Acts of 1888 and 1894, the Parhament Act of 
 1911, and the numerous suffrage Acts ending with 
 the Representation of the People x\ct in 1918. 
 
 Nor are these the only sources of the EngHsh 
 constitution. There are unwritten sources, such as 
 the common law, com't decisions, and understandings 
 or conventions, as they are called, many of which 
 have never been put into written form by legislative 
 bodies. The student who wishes to form some idea 
 of the Enghsh constitution may do so by an examina- 
 tion of the above-mentioned documents and sources. 
 For our present purpose it will be sufficient to 
 remember that the chief organs of the English 
 government gradually grew into their present form. 
 We shall therefore turn to consider what they are 
 and how they operate. 
 
 In England the chief organs of the central govern- 
 ment are King, iSIinistry, and Parhament consisting 
 
10 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 of two houses. The King, though a hereditary 
 monarch, has practically no political power, and the 
 executive authority is exercised entirely by the 
 Cabinet, an inner circle of the ministry, which con- 
 sists of the heads of departments. Their number is 
 about twenty, while the number included in the 
 term ministry ranges ordinarily from seventy-five 
 to one hundred. The Cabinet is the soul and center 
 of the English government, and while in some 
 respects its position is not unlike that of the American 
 Cabinet, its functions are both legislative and 
 executive, and its relation to the legislative branch is 
 entirely different. The American Cabinet is inde- 
 pendent of Congress; the British Cabinet consists 
 of members and leaders of Parliament selected by 
 the Prime Minister largely because of that leader- 
 ship. If the members of the President's Cabinet 
 were also at the same time members of the dominant 
 party in the Senate or House of Representatives, 
 and if the President's term of office were dependent 
 upon his ability to lead Congress, we should have 
 essentially the English system of cabinet government. 
 The House of Lords consists of about 680 members 
 who hold seats — (1) by hereditary right, (2) by 
 creation of the sovereign, (3) by virtue of office — 
 Law Lords, English archbishops and bishops, (4) by 
 election for life — Irish peers, and (5) by election 
 for duration of Parliament — Scottish peers. While 
 none of the members of the British upper house is 
 
THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT 11 
 
 elected by popular suffrage, in 1911 their power was 
 finally so restricted by the famous Parliament Act 
 that we may now say in truth that the legislative 
 power of England resides in the popularly elected 
 House of Commons. By that Act all money bills 
 passed by the House of Commons and sent to the 
 House of Lords become a law one month after they 
 have been sent to that house. All other public 
 bills, except a bill extending the duration of Parlia- 
 ment, if passed by the House of Commons in three 
 successive sessions, whether of the same Parliament 
 or not, and presented in each case to the House of 
 Lords, become law without the assent of the upper 
 house providing two years have elapsed between 
 the second reading in the first session and the 
 third reading in the third session. The Parliament 
 Act also limited the duration of Parliament to five 
 years instead of seven. Until about 1832 the House 
 of Lords was the dominant chamber, but the Re- 
 form Act of that year brought the lower house into 
 greater prominence, and since then the House of 
 Lords has gradually decHned in power and influence 
 until the Act of 1911 virtually removed the last ves- 
 tige of privilege from the government of England. 
 
 The House of Commons is therefore the real 
 legislative body. It consists of 707 members elected 
 by universal popular suffrage for a term of five 
 years unless a prorogation of Parliament and a new 
 election ends their term before that period has 
 
12 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 expired. Until the Representation of the People 
 Act in 1918 the number of members in the House of 
 Commons was 670, but that Act redistributed the 
 seats in Great Britain on the basis of one member 
 for every 70,000 of the population, and a separate 
 bill gave Ireland one member for every 43,000 of 
 the population. The principal act also greatly 
 extended the right of suffrage to men, and it also 
 included women over thirty years of age, so that one 
 third of the population now has the voting privilege. 
 Its total effect was to double the voting population. 
 
 With these facts before us we may now consider 
 how and why England is, with the possible exception 
 of Switzerland, politically the most democratic 
 government in the world. The first fact to be noted 
 is, that England has had, since 1689, two great 
 political parties, and that the party in power has 
 complete control of the government. That is what 
 is meant by "party government." There are of 
 course always minor parties which sometimes hold 
 the balance of power between the two great parties. 
 The last general election in 1910 gave the Liberals 
 272, the Laborites 42, the Irish Nationalists 76, the 
 Independent Nationalists 8, and the Conservatives 
 and Unionists 272. The Liberals had the support 
 of the Laborites, Irish Nationalists and Independent 
 Nationalists, thus giving the Government a majority 
 of 126. 
 
 But in order to understand the Parliamentary 
 
THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT 13 
 
 system of government let us assume, what is normally 
 the case, that the two great groups, called for the 
 sake .of convenience Conservatives and Liberals, 
 are facing an election. If the Conservatives win 
 and the majority of that party controls the House of 
 Commons, then the leader of the Conservatives 
 becomes Prime Minister, and every member of his 
 Cabinet will be selected from the Conservative 
 party in accordance with the expressed will of the 
 majority of the voters. Now let us assume that the 
 Conservative party after being in power for a time 
 commits the country to a policy which the people 
 disapprove, let us say a new tax on incomes. If 
 popular opinion, as expressed in newspapers and 
 various other organs of public expression, opposes 
 the tax, there will be such a vigorous protest against 
 the party in power that the King, acting solely upon 
 the advice of the Prime Minister, who is head of the 
 party, will be compelled to dissolve Parliament and 
 issue writs for a new election. The question upon 
 which that election will turn will be the income tax, 
 and the people will decide it by voting for candidates 
 who favor or oppose the tax. If the ministry which 
 precipitated the election is sustained by the return 
 of a Conservative party majority, the old Cabinet 
 remains in power and their policy is continued. If, 
 on the other hand, the Liberal party returns a 
 majority, the old Cabinet resigns and the leader of 
 the Liberals is formally appointed by the Crown as 
 
14 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 Prime Minister. The latter then chooses all the 
 members of his Cabinet from the Liberal party; 
 and a Liberal government pursues a policy in 
 accordance with the expressed wishes of the 
 electorate. 
 
 It sometimes happens that in a crisis, such as the 
 present war, when one or two minor parties, such as 
 the Labor and Irish Nationalist parties, vigorously 
 oppose the Cabinet or Government, leaders from 
 these parties are called into the Cabinet and a 
 "coalition ministry" is formed. In fact, the present 
 war has furnished not only an illustration of coali- 
 tion, but also an example of the elasticity of the 
 English system to meet a crisis. The Cabinet 
 prior to December, 1916, consisted of the political 
 chiefs of the principal departments of government 
 and exceeded twenty in number. In February, 
 1918, the Cabinet was reduced to six members, 
 three of whom were "without portfolio." The pres- 
 ent "War Cabinet" consists of D. Lloyd George, who 
 is Prime Minister and first Lord of the Treasury; 
 Lord Curzon, leader of the House of Lords and 
 Lord President of the Council; A. Bonar Law, Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House 
 of Commons; those without portfolio are Austen 
 Chamberlain, G. N. Barnes, and Lieutenant-General 
 J. C. Smutz. (See Statesman's Year-Book, 1918.) 
 It is indeed a high tribute to the English people 
 and to English statesmen thus to lay aside political 
 
THE GO^^RN^IENT OF FRANCE 15 
 
 differences and to cooperate in ttie nation's day of 
 need. The ability of a government to adapt itseK 
 to such a crisis, to unite in action, yet allow the 
 greatest freedom of speech and press, to extend 
 suffrage beyond that of any other government on 
 earth, at the same time calling to leadership the 
 aristocracy of intellect, clearly shows democracy in 
 its most enlightened form. 
 
 Let us now examine from the same point of view 
 the government of France. 
 
 The Government of France 
 
 The defeat of the French armies at the hands of 
 the Germans in 1870 destroyed the tottering Empire 
 of Napoleon III and gave to France its present 
 RepubHc. The constitution of the thu-d Repubhc 
 was framed by a provisional government set up from 
 1870 to 1875, when five constitutional laws were 
 passed providing for a government essentially as it 
 is to-day. Like the American Constitution, the 
 French Constitution is a wTitten document, or rather 
 a collection of written documents, but unlike the 
 American Constitution it may be re\ased and 
 amended by the two legislative chambers sitting 
 together in joint session and called the National 
 Assembly. 
 
 The chief organs of government are a President, 
 a Ministry or Cabinet, and a ParKament consisting 
 
16 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 of a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The 
 President is chosen for seven years by the National 
 Assembly or joint session of the two chambers. 
 Legally the French President has numerous and 
 important powers including the initiation of laws 
 concurrently with the members of the two chambers, 
 or, in other words, the right to introduce bills in the 
 chambers. Custom has given him still greater 
 powers in the right of issuing ordinances having the 
 force of supplementary legislation. On the other 
 hand, his veto power is merely suspensive, i.e, he 
 may demand a reconsideration by Parliament of 
 any bill which it has passed; but if reenacted by a 
 simple majority, it is incumbent upon him to pro- 
 mulgate the bill as a law. The weakness of his 
 position lies in the fact that the constitutional law 
 of 1875 provides that "every act of the President of 
 the Republic shall be countersigned by a minister," 
 and "the ministers shall be collectively responsible 
 to the chambers for the general policy of the govern- 
 ment, and individually for their personal acts." 
 
 Like the King of England, the French President 
 has much superficial authority but little real power, 
 because the powers vested in him are performed by 
 the ministers — ministers who are responsible for 
 their acts to Parliament. The President has power 
 to select these ministers, but the exigencies of party 
 strife practically dictate the choice to be made, and 
 after the President has signified the party leader 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE 17 
 
 who shall be Prime Minister, he has customarily 
 little or nothing fm-ther to say in the selection of the 
 Cabinet. He presides over the Council of State, 
 an administrative body and administrative court 
 of last resort, but is not usually present at Cabinet 
 meetings in which the real policy of government is 
 determined. But when a cabinet falls, since there 
 is no victorious opposition leader as in England, 
 his duty in the formation of a new cabinet becomes 
 more important than that of the King of England. 
 Yet in general the President's power is but nominal, 
 the real executive is the ministry. 
 
 Acting in a collective capacity the French ministry 
 has two functions — one, as a council of state, and 
 the other, as a cabinet. In the former capacity the 
 ministers have general supervision of the administra- 
 tion of laws; in the latter, they formulate the policies 
 of government and defend these policies in the 
 chambers. Collectively, the ministers are responsi- 
 ble in general matters, and individually in particular 
 ones, nominally to the two chambers, but in reality 
 to the Chamber of Deputies alone. The importance 
 of responsibility to the lower chamber will become 
 apparent after we have considered the composition 
 of the two chambers forming the legislative branch. 
 In the first place let us examine the upper chamber. 
 
 By the law of 1875 it was provided that the 
 Senate should consist of 300 members, of whom 225 
 should be elected for a term of nine years from the 
 
18 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 Departments (85 subdivisions into which France is 
 divided) and from the colonies by indirect methods 
 of election, while 75 members were to be elected by 
 the National Assembly itself, for life. This system 
 in the main continues in effect to-day, except that 
 in 1884 provision was made whereby the method of 
 electing for life should be abolished, and all vacancies 
 occurring among the life members should thereafter 
 be filled in the regular manner. There are at 
 present few surviving life members, and when they 
 shall have disappeared the Senate will comprise a 
 body of 300 members apportioned among the depart- 
 ments in approximate proportion to population and 
 chosen in all cases by bodies of electors who have 
 themselves been elected directly by the people. 
 
 The Chamber of Deputies, to whom the Cabinet 
 is responsible, consists of 597 members and rests 
 upon a thoroughly democratic basis. The franchise 
 is extended to all male inhabitants twenty-one 
 years of age who are not bankrupts, convicts, persons 
 under guardianship, or in active military or naval 
 service. The full membership of the lower chamber 
 is elected simultaneously for a term of four years 
 unless the chamber is dissolved before that term 
 expires. They are elected by secret ballot from 
 districts similar to those of the American House of 
 Representatives and of the English House of Com- 
 mons. As in America, the French chambers have 
 in general equal powers in the matter of initiation, 
 
THE GOVERNIMENT OF FRANCE 19 
 
 enactment, and amendment of laws; as to the 
 origin of money bills, impeachment, and the trial 
 in cases of impeachment, the powers of the French 
 chambers also correspond respectively with the 
 powers of the two chambers of the American 
 Congress. 
 
 While France has the parliamentary system of 
 government patterned after the English model, the 
 political parties of the French Republic are more 
 unstable, more numerous, and the lines by which 
 they are marked off from each other less distinct 
 than in England; hence party government in the 
 strict sense is less successful, and in the last two 
 decades a union of several parties, or the bloc, as it 
 is called, has largely shaped the policies of govern- 
 ment. While France has therefore a parliamentary 
 system of government similar to that of England, 
 the French Ministry is clothed with much more 
 authority than the Enghsh Cabinet; it has many 
 powers which in England are lodged with the 
 legislators or the courts of law. We need not here 
 dwell upon the reasons for this greater emphasis 
 upon the executive control, for our purpose is merely 
 to show that France, as England, has a democratic 
 and responsible government, and that in the heroic 
 struggle she has been making in defense of her coun- 
 try, her people, and her civilization, she has been 
 fighting for democracy. 
 
20 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 The Government of Italy 
 
 Before the French Revolution the peninsula of 
 Italy was divided into numerous petty kingdoms, 
 principalities, and independent republics. It had 
 for a long time been disrupted and misgoverned. 
 Before Napoleon's invasion in 1796, the greater 
 portion was under the dominion of two foreign 
 dynasties — the Austrian Hapsburgs and the Spanish 
 Bourbons. But with the French invasion came an 
 overturning of the old political arrangements in 
 Italy and also an awakening of the Italian people to 
 a consciousness of unity and strength and to national 
 aspirations. The French influence under Napoleon, 
 which lasted from 1796 to 1815, left a permanent 
 impress upon the political institutions of Italy, 
 kindled the fires of self-determination, and directed 
 the discordant states toward the highway to national 
 unity. It was a long road, however, and we cannot 
 here trace the vicissitudes of fortune and misfortune 
 until the goal was reached. It was a dramatic and 
 heroic struggle against internal disorder and foreign 
 intrigue — a struggle in which the names of Victor 
 Emanuel, Cavour, Garibaldi, and Mazzini became 
 illustrious in Italian history. But unity came at 
 last. The first definite step toward that end was 
 taken when, during a great popular upheaval in 
 1848, Charles Albert, a prince of the House of 
 Savoy, with the title of King of Sardinia, granted to 
 
THE GO^'ERNMEXT OF ITALY 21 
 
 his subjects in Piedmont a royal charter called the 
 Statuto, 
 
 Italy had now found a leader and a model demo- 
 cratic constitution, and one state after another 
 adopted this charter as its fundamental law imtil, 
 in 1871, Italian unity was complete. The Kingdom 
 of Sardinia had expanded into the Kingdom of 
 Italy without any alteration of the original Statuto, 
 which still remains as the written constitution of 
 the nation. Xo pro^dsion for amendment was made 
 when the document was framed, and no change has 
 been made in it since. But as in England, custom 
 has changed practice, and the government of Italy 
 as it is to-day must be considered from its actual 
 practice rather than from any fundamental law. 
 For our purpose we need only to consider the three 
 most important organs of government — the King, 
 the IMinistry, and Parliament. 
 
 Italy, Uke England and France, has the parlia- 
 mentary system of government. At the head of 
 the nation is the King, a hereditary monarch, 
 vested by law with much power, but in practice he 
 has Httle more than the King of England or the 
 President of France. By law his sanction is neces- 
 sary to the validity of statutes passed by Parhament, 
 but in practice he never vetoes a measure. Accord- 
 ing to the Constitution he has the treaty-making 
 power; but in practice all treaties, except military 
 conventions and alliances, are submitted to Parlia- 
 
22 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 ment for approval. In fact, all the powers of the 
 King are exercised in his name by the ministers who 
 are responsible to the popular chamber. He is 
 seldom present at Cabinet meetings and has almost 
 no influence over domestic politics. Perhaps his 
 greatest influence is in his appointment of a suc- 
 cessor to a Cabinet leader when in a crisis the 
 Ministry resigns, for Italy is split up into a number 
 of small parties, none of which has a majority in 
 the lower chamber. The Xing may therefore select, 
 though from a limited number of party leaders, any 
 one he pleases to form a new Cabinet, whereas in 
 England the King has no choice — he must select 
 the leader of the dominant party. 
 
 Political parties in England are, however, so 
 much older than parties in Italy, that there is danger 
 of inferring, through comparisons, that Italy has 
 not attained to the full stature of parliamentary 
 government. It must be remembered that in Italy 
 the party system did not begin until after the death 
 of Cavour in 1861, and since then the industrial, 
 social, and religious changes have been too rapid to 
 permit of political development along traditional or 
 historical lines. During the first decade after 
 Cavour's death, the continual fear of war with 
 France prevented the completion of Italian unity 
 and consequently a centering of interest upon 
 internal affairs. Soon after that danger had passed, 
 the question of Church and State came to deflect 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY 23 
 
 political development from the course it would 
 normally have taken and has taken in other countries 
 where the Church is a factor in politics. As a 
 protest against the alleged usurpation of secular 
 power, Pope Pius IX issued a decree (1883) declaring 
 it "inexpedient" that Catholics should vote at 
 parliamentary elections. This prevented the forma- 
 tion of a clerical party, which would naturally have 
 formed the backbone of a Conservative party. 
 Then the rise of Socialism (1872-1891) developed 
 groups distinguishable from the positions occupied 
 in the Chamber — Center, Left, Extreme Left — • 
 rather than the position taken on public questions. 
 With no conservative check, parties came to diiffer 
 only in degree of radicalism, and such was virtually 
 the situation at the outbreak of the Great War. 
 In 1913 the lower house elected the following: 
 ConstitutionaHsts, 318; Radicals, 70; Republicans, 
 16; Socialists, 77; Syndicalists, 3; Catholics, 24. 
 
 The Ministry usually consists of heads of depart- 
 ments, although occasionally a member is appointed 
 without a portfoho solely to help in shaping the 
 policy of government and in defending it in the cham- 
 bers. After the Premier, or President of the Council, 
 as he is called, has been appointed, he nominates 
 the other members, who are then formally appointed 
 by the crown. If a minister is appointed who is not 
 a member of either house, he is obliged by custom 
 to become a candidate for the next vacant seat 
 
24 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 in the Chamber of Deputies unless he is created a 
 Senator. 
 
 The Itahan Parliament is composed of a Senate 
 and a Chamber of Deputies. The Senate consists 
 of 383 members, including the members of the 
 royal family and members appointed for life by the 
 crown; but the choice is limited to twenty-one 
 classes of citizens and to those who have attained 
 the age of at least forty years. Among the more 
 important classes are: bishops, high officials, deputies 
 who have served six years, members of the Royal 
 Academy of Science for seven years, citizens who 
 pay over $600 in taxes, and others who have dis- 
 tinguished themselves in the service of the state. 
 A further limitation is placed upon the King in the 
 appointment to this chamber by the fact that 
 the Senators themselves determine to which of the 
 twenty-one categories an appointee belongs, and 
 also by the fact that in practice appointment by 
 the King actually means appointment by the 
 Ministry commanding a majority in the lower 
 chamber. In theory the two chambers have equal 
 power in the matter of legislation, except in money 
 bills, which must originate in the lower house; but 
 in practice the Senate is little more than a revising 
 body, distinctly inferior to the elected Senate of 
 France. 
 
 The Chamber of Deputies is composed of 508 
 members elected from single districts by popular 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY 25 
 
 vote. Suffrage is granted to nearly all male citizens 
 twenty-one years of age, it being denied only to 
 those less than thirty years of age who cannot read 
 or write. As in England, a Deputy need not reside 
 in the district from which he is elected; he must, 
 however, be a citizen, at least thirty years of age, in 
 possession of full civil and political rights, and not 
 belonging to certain classes or professions whose 
 members are debarred by law. Deputies are elected 
 for a term of five years unless a dissolution of 
 Parliament intervenes to end the term before that 
 period expires. As a matter of fact, the average 
 interval between elections is about three years. 
 The organization, rules, and procedure of both 
 Italian chambers are in general those common to 
 all democratic assemblies of the Continent. 
 
 Such, briefly stated, are the position, composition, 
 and relation of the chief organs of the Italian govern- 
 ment. With its parliamentary system providing 
 for an executive responsible to the lower chamber, 
 and that chamber elected by popular vote, excluding 
 only a small number of the illiterate, Italy has 
 carried democracy to its greatest possible length 
 compatible with her social and economic develop- 
 ment. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY 
 
 Let us now apply to the government of Germany 
 the same standards by which we have tested the 
 character of the governments of the United States, 
 England, France, and Italy. We shall then see to 
 what extent the "masters of Germany" represent 
 the people of Germany, and we shall also see to 
 what extent Germany approaches a democracy. 
 It will enable us to understand more clearly what 
 President Wilson meant when he said, "When the 
 German people have spokesmen whose words we 
 can believe, and when those spokesmen are ready in 
 the name of the people to accept the common judg- 
 ment of the nations as to what shall henceforth be 
 the bases of law and covenant for the life of the 
 world — we shall be willing and glad to pay the 
 full price for peace, and pay it ungrudgingly. We 
 know what that price will be. It will be full, im- 
 partial justice — justice done at every point and to 
 every nation that the final settlement must affect, 
 our enemies as well as our friends." 
 
 The statement here quoted has frequently been 
 criticised on the ground that it proposes to interfere 
 with the internal affairs of a foreign state, and is 
 
 26 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY 27 
 
 therefore contrary to the spirit of international law 
 and the comity of nations. In reply it may be said 
 that the President is merely declaring the policy of 
 the United States in future dealings with Germany. 
 The President is, moreover, proposing no organic 
 change in the German government. When, during 
 the conflict between the American colonies and 
 Great Britain the ministry of Lord North fell in 
 1782, and the Whigs, who were our friends, came 
 into power, there was, in the best sense of the term, 
 a change of government. But that change did not 
 involve a constitutional or organic change in the 
 English government. It simply meant a change of 
 rulers; it meant the coming into power of a govern- 
 ment that could be trusted, a government repre- 
 senting a people in sympathy with ourselves and 
 with our democratic aims; and the result was the 
 peace of 1783 which gave us our independence. 
 Nor have the refusals of President Wilson to deal 
 with Germany except upon the basis of a responsible 
 government been without effect, for on October 21, 
 1918, in reply to questions concerning an armistice, 
 the German Foreign Minister admitted that, 
 "Hitherto the representation of the people of the 
 German Empire has not been endowed with an 
 influence on the formation of the government," 
 but adds that, "These conditions have just now 
 undergone a fundamental change, a new government 
 has been formed in complete accordance with the 
 
28 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 wishes of the representation of the people, based on 
 equal, universal, secret, direct franchise," and that 
 "the first act of the new government has been to 
 lay before the Reichstag a bill to alter the constitu- 
 tion of the empire so that the consent of the repre- 
 sentation of the people is required for decisions on 
 war and peace." This is both a remarkable ad- 
 mission and an unusual proposal on the part of 
 the German government; and at the present writing 
 (October 22, 1918) it is impossible to predict to what 
 extent, if any, vital and fundamental reforms will 
 actually be carried out. Nevertheless, the quota- 
 tion is such an excellent statement both of the 
 defects and the needs of the present German govern- 
 ment that I have felt justified in citing it. Moreover, 
 it completely vindicates the position of President 
 Wilson in insisting upon dealing, in this case at 
 least, only with a popular or responsible Germany. 
 
 Let us now see to what extent our quarrel is with 
 the "masters" or rulers of the German Empire 
 rather than with the liberal spirits who in Germany 
 to-day are supporting — so far as support is possible 
 — President Wilson's liberal program. But to un- 
 derstand the problem it will be necessary to con- 
 sider the chief organs of the German government 
 and their relation to the people. 
 
 After the fall of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna, 
 in 1815, erected into a loose confederation thirty- 
 nine German states under the presidency of Austria. 
 
THE G0\T:IIXMENT of GER^L\XY 29 
 
 This arrangement lasted until the crushing defeat of 
 Austria by Prussia in 1866. Thereafter Austria 
 was excluded from all participation in German 
 poHtics. In the following year Bismarck succeeded 
 in uniting twenty-two German states north of the 
 river Main into the Xorth German Confederation 
 under the leadership of Prussia. A written Con- 
 stitution was adopted by the Confederation which 
 forms the legal basis of the government even at the 
 present time. Four South German states were 
 added in 1870 by treaties, and in 1871, at the con- 
 clusion of the Franco-Prussian War, the name of 
 the North German Confederation was changed to 
 German Empire. The addition of the four states 
 by treaties, however, made a modification of the 
 original constitution of the Xorth German Con- 
 federation necessary, and at the suggestion of the 
 Emperor it was re\'ised and approved by the Reichs- 
 tag, April 14, 1871, and this re\4sion constitutes the 
 Imperial Constitution of to-day. 
 
 Under this Constitution the Empire is composed 
 of twenty-five states, each ha\TQg a measure of 
 local self-government, and the imperial domain of 
 Alsace-Lorraine, which in 1911 was elevated into a 
 condition of quasi-statehood. We shall not attempt 
 to describe the government of the twenty-six states, 
 for our concern is solely with the Empire, but it 
 should be remembered that they are unequal in 
 population, in area, and, contrary to the relationship 
 
30 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 of the forty-eiglit American states, they are unequal 
 in their relation to the Empire. That is to say, 
 whereas the American federal government is based 
 upon the equality of states and the equality of 
 individuals in relation to that government, the 
 German Empire is based upon the inequality of both 
 states and individuals in their relations to the 
 central government. And we may add at once, 
 that Prussia, containing three-fifths of the total 
 population of the Empire, is the dominant state. 
 
 Now it might appear that in view of the large 
 population of Prussia a preponderating influence in 
 the affairs of government by that state would be 
 justified and entirely consistent with democratic 
 ideals; and indeed, it would be if the Imperial 
 Constitution or sovereign power rested on the basis 
 of popular representation expressed by a popular 
 vote. But this is not the case; sovereignty rests 
 not in a national Parliament elected by the people, 
 but in the Bundesrat or upper chamber, which, as 
 we shall presently see, is not a popular body. Nor 
 is the written Constitution a popular instrument in 
 any sense of the term. While the procedure in 
 amending it is in general identical with that of 
 ordinary legislative enactments, there is an im- 
 portant exception: an amendment is defeated if 
 fourteen votes are cast against it; and Prussia 
 controls twenty votes in the Bundesrat. Thus the 
 Kaiser, who controls the Prussian votes, may block 
 
THE G0\^RX:MENT of GEIi:VL\NY 31 
 
 any amendment to the Constitution, no matter 
 how greatly desired by the people. 
 • With these general observations concerning the 
 origin and nature of the German Empire, let us 
 consider briefly the position and powers of the chief 
 organs of government. They are: Emperor, Chan- 
 cellor, Bundesrat, and Reichstag. The Imperial 
 Constitution pro^-ides that "to the King of Prussia 
 shall belong the presidency of the Confederation 
 and he shall bear the title of German Emperor." 
 In other words, there is lodged in the hands of a 
 single indi^-idual the two highest offices in Germany; 
 the one places hi m at the head of the largest state 
 in Germany, and the other at the head of the Empire 
 itself. As King of Prussia his powers are very 
 comprehensive, exceeding those of any other Euro- 
 pean sovereign; as Emperor his powers are less 
 numerous but, so far as they go, of fimdamental 
 importance. He is commander-in-chief of the army 
 and navy and controls the entire military organiza- 
 tion of both the states and the Empire. The entire 
 foreign policy, including war and peace, is ratually 
 in his hands, for the limitations imposed by requiring 
 the consent of the Bundesrat and Reichstag in 
 certain matters are in law, by ^Trtue of his relation 
 to Prussia and the Bundesrat, of such a nature as to 
 make restraint next to impossible; and in practice 
 such restrictions are seldom applied. In legislation, 
 in appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, and 
 
32 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 finally in the execution of laws, his powers are so 
 extensive that he may virtually control the three 
 branches of government which in America are 
 limited by the Constitution and by our elaborate 
 system of checks and balances. 
 
 The Emperor appoints the imperial Chancellor, 
 who "shall preside in the Bundesrat and supervise 
 the control of business." While the Constitution 
 provides that all decrees and ordinances shall be 
 countersigned by the Chancellor, "who thereby 
 assumes the responsibility for them," that responsi- 
 bility is not, as in England and France, to the lower 
 or popular branch of the legislature, but to the 
 Emperor. Moreover, the place filled by the minis- 
 try in the other governmental systems, described 
 above, is occupied by the Chancellor alone. This 
 fact in itself would not, however, be of great signifi- 
 cance if the Chancellor were responsible for his acts 
 to the legislative branch of government, and if that 
 branch were responsible to the people. Such practice 
 would soon develop a parliamentary system of gov- 
 ernment, and the legal power of the Emperor would 
 become a mere adornment of an empty title. But 
 as long as the Emperor's word, spoken either by 
 himself or spoken through his mouthpiece, the Chan- 
 cellor, remains unchallenged by a popular or repre- 
 sentative body, Germany can in no sense lay claim 
 to a responsible government. In our consideration 
 of the German government thus far, then, we find 
 
THE GO\TERNIVIENT OF GERMANY 33 
 
 nothing in the powers and functions of the Emperor 
 approaching a democracy. Let us therefore see to 
 what extent the two chief organs yet to be considered 
 approach the democratic idea. 
 
 We will begin with the Bundesrat — "that ex- 
 traordinary mixture of legislative chamber, executive 
 council, court of appeal, and permanent assembly of 
 diplomats." It is the most German of all German 
 institutions. It is composed of delegates appointed 
 by the princes of the states and the senates of the 
 free cities of Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck. Of 
 the total number of votes allotted to each state, 
 Prussia has seventeen (but controls three more), 
 Bavaria six, Saxony four, Wurttemberg four, Baden 
 three, Hesse three, Mecklenberg-Schwerin two, 
 Brunswick two, Alsace-Lorraine, which in 1911 
 nominally became a state, three, and the seventeen 
 other states one each, making in all a total of sixty- 
 one votes. It is important to note at the outset 
 that the Bundesrat is not a senate, but a body of 
 diplomats acting under instructions from the govern- 
 ing authorities who appointed them. The members 
 vote not as individuals, but by states as a unit. 
 Thus Prussia casts twenty votes in a block according 
 to instructions from the King of Prussia. It is also 
 important to note that the Bundesrat may be called 
 into session by the Emperor without calling the 
 Reichstag, but the Reichstag may not meet without 
 the Bundesrat, and that the Bundesrat always holds 
 
84 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 its sessions in secret; and in case of a tie, the Prussian 
 delegation casts the deciding vote; or in case of a 
 bill changing the status quo of the army or navy or 
 tariff, Prussia may veto any reform. Passing by 
 the executive and judicial functions, which are im- 
 portant, it is sufficient to note here that in matters 
 of legislation the Bundesrat, or rather the Chancellor, 
 in practice initiates and makes all laws with merely 
 the consent of the Reichstag. In this respect it is 
 the reverse of the English system, where the upper 
 chamber is merely a revising and an assenting body. 
 The Reichstag need not detain us long, for it has 
 little power, and in fact was not created primarily 
 as a legislative chamber, but rather to stimulate 
 national sentiment and enlist popular support 
 against the local and dynastic influences which have 
 free play in the Bundesrat. It is composed of 397 
 members elected for a term of five years by a direct 
 and secret ballot, each member being elected from 
 a single district. But the districts, which have not 
 been changed since 1871, have become so unequal 
 in population that this fact alone would make the 
 lower house undemocratic. If the seats were re- 
 distributed upon the basis of equal population, the 
 liberal element of Germany would now control the 
 Reichstag. But that control alone, be it remem- 
 bered, would not make Germany a democratic state, 
 because a democratic government is one in which 
 political power, by whatever agencies it may be 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY 35 
 
 exercised, is based upon the popular will and not 
 upon the authority of an Emperor, a Chancellor, 
 or a Bundesrat, none of whom is responsible to a 
 popular majority. Thus the German state is one 
 in which the poHcy of government and the execution 
 and admmistration of that poHcy proceed from 
 above, and is accountable and responsible, not to 
 the masses for whom the democracies of the world 
 have been fashioned, but to the favored few who 
 now seem to hold in the hollow of their hands the 
 destiny of seventy million subjects and who threaten 
 the peace of the world. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 
 
 The Great War has created an unusual interest in 
 the government of Austria-Hungary. As the chief 
 ally of Germany and the bridge of Prussian ambition 
 to the East, her defeat and recent detachment from 
 Germany mean the speedy conclusion of the war; 
 and her fortunes at the peace conference will un- 
 doubtedly become the subject of extensive discussion 
 and negotiation. A brief sketch of her history 
 and political institutions seems, therefore, not only 
 justified but also necessary to a proper understanding 
 of American war aims. 
 
 The Dual Monarchy is composed of two sovereign 
 states, the Austrian Empire and the Hungarian 
 Kingdom. Each state has its own Constitution, 
 its own executive and legislative departments, its 
 own courts, its own system of local governments; 
 and to a large extent each has had its own history. 
 The two governments have, however, been united 
 under a common ruler since 1526; when, after the 
 defeat of the Hungarians by the Turks at the battle 
 of Mohacs, a Hapsburg prince was elected to the 
 throne of Hungary. 
 
 The Ottoman Turks, it will be remembered, were, 
 
 36 
 
AUSTRL\.HUNGARY S7 
 
 under a great ruler, Suleiman II (1520-1566), rapidly 
 extending their sway westward. They estabhshed 
 themselves in Asia, Asia ]\Iinor, Armenia, SjTia, 
 Caucasia, the Euphrates Valley, and the shores 
 of the Red Sea. They conquered the entire Bal- 
 kan peninsula, including present Greece, Bulgaria, 
 Hungary, Bosnia, and Herzego^^a. The last two 
 pro\TQces mentioned they held until the Congress of 
 Berlin in 1878, when Austria was given administra- 
 tive control over them; and indeed Turkey main- 
 tained nominal suzerainty over them until they 
 were formally annexed to the Austrian Empire in 
 1908. It was to save herseh, therefore, from the 
 ferocious Tm-k that Hungary ;^delded her inde- 
 pendence by choosing a foreign ruler. But the 
 union had little effect upon the development of 
 Hungarian institutions or the style of her own 
 government. We shall, therefore, briefly sketch the 
 history of each state separately and then consider 
 the government. 
 
 The History of Austria 
 
 Austria was originally a mark or border county 
 formed by Charlemagne as a bulwark of the Frankish 
 Kingdom against the Slavs. During the ninth 
 century it was overrun by the Mora\aans (Slavs) 
 and Magyars (Turanians) and all traces of Frankish 
 institutions were swept away. Not until Otto the 
 Great conquered the Hungarians in 955 and re- 
 
38 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 organized the mark did a continuous development 
 begin; a development, that is, that can be traced to 
 modern times. Leopold of Babenberg was the first 
 of a distinguished family to govern the mark, and 
 from the beginning of his rule in 966 to the extinction 
 of his line in 1246 the boundaries were extended, 
 the administration consolidated, and an orderly 
 government established. In 1156 the mark was 
 raised to the dignity of a duchy, and it became 
 practically an independent state. But the event 
 most important to the student of present politics 
 was the advent into history of the reigning family 
 of to-day — the House of Hapsburg. Rudolph of 
 Hapsburg became German King and Emperor in 
 1273, and three years later he compelled Duke 
 Ottokar, who then ruled over Austria, Styria, and 
 Carinthia, to give up the three dominions, and 
 Austria then became the center of Hapsburg 
 interests. In 1453 the duchy was raised to an 
 archduchy, and in 1512 Austrian lands became one 
 of the Imperial Circles. Six years later repre- 
 sentatives of the Austrian diets met for the first 
 time at Innsbruck. 
 
 In 1519 Maximilian I was succeeded in the arch- 
 duchy and in the imperial crown by his grandson, 
 known in history as Emperor Charles V, who was a 
 strong supporter of the Catholic Church and a 
 vigorous opponent of Martin Luther and the Refor- 
 mation. Too much occupied with measures to pre- 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 39 
 
 vent tJie Reformation, the Emperor gave his brother 
 Ferdinand all his Austrian possessions, and the 
 latter devoted most of his time to fighting the Tm-ks 
 and to securing the independence of Hungary. 
 These efforts in behalf of Hungary led to the union 
 of the two states in 1526; and when in 1556 Ferdi- 
 nand also succeeded to the imperial throne the 
 affairs of Austria became involved with those of the 
 Empire, to the detriment of the former. Xot until 
 after the Thirty Years' War did Austria receive due 
 attention from the imperial rulers. 
 
 The next haff century of Austrian history was one 
 of many wars; and at the Peace of Karlowitz in 
 1699 she gained Slavonia, Transylvania, and nearly 
 all of Hungary, thus completing the territorial 
 structure of the Austrian monarchy. Then followed 
 a period of internal consohdation, laying the founda- 
 tion for autocratic power which was carried forward 
 under Maria Theresa and continued almost unin- 
 terruptedly till 1848. A strong standing army 
 was the instrument by which autocracy was main- 
 tained and the spirit of Hberty and democracy, 
 released by the French Revolution, beaten down. 
 Indeed the Kberahzing forces of the French Revolu- 
 tion affected Austria least of all the states of Europe. 
 She was little molested by the ravages of war during 
 the Napoleonic period; she had, moreover, from 
 1809 to 1848, as Prime IMinister, one of the most 
 influential and commanding personalities of Europe. 
 
40 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 A thorougli-going reactionary, opposed to revolu- 
 tion from below and reform from above. Prince 
 Metternicb was tbe actual government of Austria. 
 But tbe Revolution of 1848 which drove Metternich 
 from power, the Crimean War (1854-1856), which 
 cost Austria allies and friends, and her signal defeat 
 in a seven weeks' campaign at the hands of the 
 Germans which excluded her from Germany and 
 Italy, taught the Hapsbm-gs to pursue a more 
 conciliatory policy toward Hungary. The Con- 
 stitution or March Laws, as they were called, which 
 the liberal Hungarians had drafted and put into 
 operation for a few months, were restored in Febru- 
 ary, 1867, and to the Hungarian Diet was left the 
 final adoption of measures of compromise with 
 Austria. The general result of the Ausgleich or 
 Compromise was the recognition of Hungary as a 
 coordinate part of the Empire. 
 
 Titles of Austrian Rulers 
 
 A word should also be said concerning the title of 
 the Austrian rulers. We have seen that the territory 
 which developed into the present empire was at 
 first a buffer county called a mark. Later it was 
 elevated into a duchy, and in 1453 into an arch- 
 duchy, a dignity which it maintained until 1804, 
 when the Archduke Francis II assumed the title of 
 Francis I, Emperor of Austria, a title held at the 
 present day. But to avoid confusion it should be 
 
AUSTRLl-HTXGAIlY 41 
 
 remembered that since the coronation of Charle- 
 magne, in 800, as Emperor of the Holy Roman 
 Empire, this title was a thing apart from the title 
 which gave immediate control of a particular terri- 
 tory or state. Thus a King of Saxony or a ruler of 
 Luxemburg might also, in addition to the title 
 conferred by his own state, bear the title and perform 
 the functions of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. 
 The latter title had been, since 1273, generally held 
 by the rulers of Austria. 
 
 "VMien, therefore, Francis U in 1804 changed the 
 title of Archduke to that of Emperor, he carried 
 two imperial titles. But "coming events cast their 
 shadows before." He feared that he might lose the 
 more ancient title held by Charlemagne; and his 
 fears were well founded. In 1805 the South German 
 states detached themselves from the emphe, formed 
 the Confederation of the Rhine, and accepted the 
 protection of Xapoleon; and on August 6, 1806, 
 Francis I voluntarily rehnquished the crown of the 
 Holy Roman Emphe which, during its sur^dval of a 
 thousand years, was with few exceptions little more 
 than an empty title. 
 
 The History of Hungary 
 
 The Mag^^ars or Hungarians, supposed to have 
 come from Asia, made their first appearance in what 
 is now called Hungary in the latter part of the ninth 
 century. They occupied the valleys of the Danube 
 
4^ DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 and the Theiss between the Slavs of the north and 
 the Balkans of the south, terrorizing the German 
 and French population until in a great battle at 
 Lechfeld, in 955, they were defeated by the Germans 
 and took on a settled mode of life. The reign of 
 St. Stephen (977-1038) is generally regarded as the 
 formative period of their history, and his administra- 
 tion promised the development of a great state; 
 but Hungary had throughout her early history few 
 rulers equal to the task of laying the foundation of 
 an orderly and stable government. The weakness 
 of the sovereigns in the thirteenth century, feudalism, 
 and civil discord brought to the front a powerful 
 class of nobles who overshadowed the throne and 
 made internal consolidation impossible. 
 
 The difficulties from without were no less trying. 
 On the north were the Germans and the forces of 
 the Holy Roman Empire; on the east, the natives 
 of modern Roumania; on the south, Greeks and 
 Slavs, Serbs and Bulgars, and later, the Ottoman 
 Turks. On all sides these races were hostile, so 
 that the Magyars were continually fighting, some- 
 times an offensive warfare in one quarter, or beating 
 back an invasion from another, until they were 
 driven by the ferocious Turks to seek the protection 
 of the Hapsburg monarchy in 1526. 
 
 The chief landmark in the constitutional develop- 
 ment of Hungary is the Golden Bull of 1222, a 
 charter granting a measure of liberty which has 
 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 43 
 
 generally been regarded as the foundation of Hun- 
 garian liberty; and it is interesting to note that it 
 was granted only seven years after the famous 
 EngHsh Magna Carta. The proximity in time of 
 these two charters suggests comparisons that would 
 be both interesting and profitable if we traced the 
 history of the two documents in detail. But we 
 can here observe only one characteristic difference 
 between the Anglo-Saxon and the Magyar. 
 
 In England liberties once won were never again 
 lost. In Hungary, on the other hand, dm-ing the 
 next three centuries the national spirit was almost 
 completely annihilated. After the union with the 
 Hapsburg monarchy the government gradually came 
 under Austrian control, and the Hungarian Diet 
 was seldom called into session; and after 1764, not 
 at all. Thus the era of the French Revolution 
 found Hungarian liberty and self-government all 
 but extinct. 
 
 For Austria, it must be admitted, the problem of 
 satisfying and at the same time governing the various 
 races in her dominions was not an easy one. The 
 principle of nationality — the erection of a state on 
 the basis of race — in the nineteenth century meant 
 a united Germany, a united Italy, and even a united 
 Russia; but that principle, carried to its logical 
 conclusion in Austria, meant disintegration. She 
 had many races, whose national aspirations consti- 
 tuted, then as now, the great obstacle to unity. 
 
44 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 At tlie same time a more enlightened policy on 
 the part of Metternich in the first half of the nine- 
 teenth century, when the forces of freedom were 
 asserting themselves throughout western Europe 
 and in many of the British possessions, might have 
 spared him the exile which awaited him, and at the 
 same time won for him the confidence and coopera- 
 tion of the Liberals. England learned her lesson in 
 the American Revolution and gave^ her colonies 
 self-government. This is all Hungary really asked 
 for; but when the liberal movement crept into the 
 Austrian dominions and the liberal spirits took 
 heart and under the leadership of Louis Kossuth 
 and Francis Deak organized a liberal party having 
 for its aim the reestablishment of autonomy for 
 Hungary, the movement was crushed. The Revolu- 
 tion of 1848 was followed by the reaction of 1849. 
 The Liberals in Hungary lost everything they had 
 been fighting for. The Austrian autocracy was 
 again in control, and in the words of Professor Ogg, 
 "Vienna became once more the seat of a government 
 whose fundamental objects may be summarized as 
 (1) to Germanize the Magyars and Slavs, (2) to 
 restrain all agitation in behalf of constitutionalism; 
 and (3) to prevent freedom of thought and the 
 establishment of a free press." Hungary was 
 governed by German officials from Vienna more 
 despotically than ever. It took Austria two more 
 decades to learn imperfectly what France had 
 
AUSTRLl-HUXGARY 45 
 
 thoroughly learned a half century earlier and what 
 England had imderstood a century before. The 
 agreement finally reached between Austria and 
 Hungary was, as we have already seen, expressed 
 in the Compromise of 1867, which we will now 
 consider. 
 
 The Compromise of 1867 
 
 The joint government of the Dual Monarchy is 
 no exception to the principle adopted by all states 
 formed by a union of separate and independent 
 communities — the principle of compromise. All 
 constitutions rest upon the basis of mutual con- 
 cessions of varied interests. We have alreadv seen 
 what these conflicting interests between Austria 
 and Hungary were, and they need not be repeated 
 here. The plan agreed upon determined the general 
 character of the government from that day to this. 
 The whole country was divided into two parts: 
 (1) the Empire of Austria, including the archduchies 
 of Upper and Lower Austria, the kingdoms of 
 Bohemia, GaHcia, and Dalmatia, the margravates of 
 Mora^da and Istria, the duchies of Salzburg, St;}Tia, 
 Carinthia, Carniolia, and Bukowina, the county of 
 Tyrol, and the city of Triest; and (2) the Kingdom 
 of Hungary, including Hungary proper, the King- 
 dom of Croatia-Slavonia, and the principahty of 
 Transylvania. Francis Joseph assumed the joint 
 title of Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. 
 
46 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 Each of the two states was to manage its internal 
 affairs, and provision was made for a joint govern- 
 ment for certain affairs in which the states had a 
 common concern; other affairs of common interest 
 such as trade, tariffs, pubHc debt, and railways were 
 to be regulated by treaties between the two states, 
 renewable at intervals of ten years. The Com- 
 promise also provided machinery for carrying these 
 plans into execution. That machinery constitutes 
 the government of the Dual Monarchy essentially 
 as it is to-day, and will be considered in the next 
 chapter under the following heads: The Common 
 Government, the Government of Austria, and the 
 Government of Hungary. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: GOVERNMENT OF TO-DAY 
 
 The Common Government 
 
 In the preceding pages attention has been called 
 to the fact that the Dual Monarchy consists of two 
 practically independent states, each equipped with 
 its own constitution, ministry, legislature, judiciary, 
 and system of local governments. If this relation 
 be kept in mind it may serve to prevent confusing 
 different institutions and organs of government to 
 which the same term is appKed. Thus, for example, 
 reference to a ministry in the Dual Monarchy might 
 mean any one of three ministries, namely, the 
 Austrian ministry, the Hungarian ministry, or the 
 joint ministry. 
 
 The machinery of the joint government is very 
 simple, and the scope of its independent action is 
 very limited. That is to say, the joint government 
 does not have power to deal with all matters in 
 which the two states have a common interest. 
 The Austro-Hungarian government is pecuHar in 
 this respect, and the limitations thus placed upon it 
 give rise to many embarrassing situations which 
 
 47 
 
48 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 would not occur in a government like the American 
 where all powers in which the states have a common 
 interest are exercised exclusively by the central 
 government. 
 
 The Austro-Hungarian arrangement provides that 
 the joint government shall have exclusive control of 
 only a few of the many interests that are common 
 to both states. 
 
 The special machinery of the joint government 
 consists of (1) a single ruler who bears the title of 
 Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary; (2) a 
 common ministry consisting of three departments: 
 foreign affairs, military and naval affairs, and 
 finance relating to common affairs; and (3) a unique 
 political invention called the "Delegations." 
 
 The legislative power of the joint government is 
 exercised by the parliaments of both states acting 
 independently of each other, but the determination 
 of what constitutes common affairs and the recom- 
 mendations of the money to be voted for common 
 services are determined by the Delegations. Of 
 these there are two, each composed of sixty members 
 representing the legislative bodies of the two states, 
 twenty being chosen from each of the upper houses 
 and forty from each of the lower houses. All mem- 
 bers of both Delegations are elected annually and 
 may be reelected. The Delegations are called into 
 session by the Emperor-King every year alternately 
 at Vienna and Budapest. They sit in separate 
 
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HIJNGARY 49 
 
 chambers and deliberate independently of each 
 other; their decisions are communicated in writing; 
 and if after three interchanges of opinion they do not 
 agree, both Delegations meet together and, without 
 discussion, settle the matter by vote. 
 
 The Delegations are virtually committees repre- 
 senting the legislatures of the two states; but they 
 are clothed with some powers and certain responsi- 
 bilities not usually vested in legislative committees. 
 The joint ministers are responsible to them; they 
 submit all projects in which common action is 
 necessary to the legislatures of the two states; they 
 prefer charges of impeachment for violations of the 
 constitutional law pertaining to common affairs, 
 and they select judges to try cases of impeachment. 
 
 The chief executive power of the joint government 
 reiides in the monarch, but his powers as Emperor- 
 "King are very limited, the most important being 
 the appointment of the joint ministry and the 
 command of the common army and navy. But 
 while the supreme command is vested in the joint 
 monarch, each country maintains its independent 
 arrangements for raising and equipping troops. 
 
 Besides the permanent political connection be- 
 tween Austria and Hungary, the main features of 
 which are here described, there is also a commercial 
 union which is not permanent, but renewable at 
 intervals of ten years. This part of the union is 
 put in the form of treaties and covers customs 
 
50 DEMOCRA.CY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 legislation, indirect taxes, regulations concerning 
 interstate railways, and the establishment of a 
 system of defense. The proportion which each state 
 contributes to meet the joint expenditures is also 
 fixed by treaties. In 1907 Austria's share was 
 fixed at 63.6 per cent and Hungary's at 36.4 per cent. 
 The joint government also exercises control over 
 the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the 
 Congress of Berlin in 1878 the military occupation 
 of these two Turkish provinces was intrusted to 
 Austria-Hungary, and in 1908 they were annexed to 
 the Dual Monarchy. This annexation was brought 
 about through the desire of Austro-Hungarian capi- 
 talists to exploit the economic resources not only 
 of the two provinces but also of Albania, western 
 Macedonia and Salonica and was one of the chief 
 causes of the Great War. In 1910 they were given 
 a constitution providing for civil government with 
 a local diet; but all laws passed by the local legis- 
 lature must have the assent of both the Austrian 
 and Hungarian ministries. 
 
 Government of Austria 
 
 The constitution of the Austrian Empire consists 
 of a series of diplomas, patents, statutes, and amend- 
 ments, the enactment of which covered a period of 
 about two hundred years; the first of the more 
 important being the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, 
 and the last a series of five fundamental laws bearing 
 
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 51 
 
 the date December 21, 1867, when the government 
 was put essentially into the form which it has to-day. 
 Since the Compromise of 1867 a nmnber of amend- 
 ments have been made, the most important of the 
 more recent ones being that of 1907 which redis- 
 tributed the seats in the lower chamber and extended 
 the suffrage. 
 
 The fundamental laws as finally revised provide 
 for a limited monarchy with a responsible ministry, 
 a legislative body consisting of two chambers, and a 
 system of local self-government within each of the 
 seventeen states that make up the Empire. The 
 form of government may be changed by the same 
 method employed in ordinary legislation, except 
 that an amendment requires a two-thirds vote of 
 both houses instead of a simple majority. 
 
 The Emperor is the supreme authority of the 
 state, and all powers not expressly vested elsewhere 
 remain with him. An unusual provision in the 
 fundamental law gives the Emperor the power of 
 issuing ordinances having the force of law if an 
 urgent situation demands it and the legislature is 
 not at the time in session. The only limitation 
 placed upon the Emperor's absolute authority in 
 legislative matters in such emergencies is the proviso 
 that such ordinances shall be signed by all the 
 ministers and that they shall cease to be binding 
 if not presented to, and approved by, the legislature 
 at the next succeeding session. The ministers are. 
 
B^ DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 however, appointed by the Emperor, and in practice 
 this power has frequently been exercised and the 
 government made to run year after year upon the 
 sole authority of the executive department. Aside 
 from the powers conferred by this provision of the 
 Constitution, the Emperor has those powers common 
 to rulers of continental Europe. 
 
 The organization, powers, and duties of the 
 ministers are in general also similar to those in the 
 other countries of the Continent which have already 
 been described. Ministers are nominally responsible 
 to the Reichsrat, but are appointed and dismissed 
 by the Emperor; and, under the leadership of the 
 premier, they serve as the Emperor's councillors, 
 execute his will, and administer the affairs of their 
 respective departments. Though nominally re- 
 sponsible to the Reichsrat, in practice they are more 
 dependent upon the Emperor than upon Parliament. 
 
 In theory Austria has a parliamentary system of 
 government similar to that of England, but on 
 account of the numerous and sharp racial divisions 
 in both branches of the legislature, the Emperor has 
 little difficulty in playing off parties against one 
 another so as to defeat representative and responsible 
 government. In justice to the government, how- 
 ever, it should be said that the problem of governing 
 by the consent of a majority is at best a difficult 
 one, as we shall see when we come later to consider 
 the racial question at the end of this chapter. 
 
GO\^RNiMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 53 
 
 The Reichsrat or Parliament consists of an upper 
 and a lower house. The upper house or House of 
 Lords is entirely non-elective. The total number 
 varies from time to time, but it is composed of 
 princes of the imperial family, landed nobles nomi- 
 nated by the Emperor, archbishops, bishops, and 
 members appointed by the Emperor for life from 
 men who have distinguished themselves in art or 
 science or have rendered important services to the 
 state. The number of the last-mentioned class was 
 fixed by law in 1907 at not less than 150 nor more 
 than 170. 
 
 The House of Representatives has a total member- 
 ship of 516, elected for a term of six years by uni- 
 versal, equal, and direct suffrage. All male citizens 
 over twenty-four years of age who have resided at 
 least one year in the voting precinct are allowed to 
 vote. The electoral districts are, so far as possible, 
 each composed of a uniform nationality, and as a 
 rule one member is elected from each district, but 
 in thirty-six districts of Galicia two members are 
 elected from each district. In these districts, how- 
 ever, each elector is allowed but one vote, and the 
 candidate having the largest number of votes 
 recorded is first deputy, while the one receiving the 
 next largest number is regarded as second deputy. 
 In Mora^'ia the voting population is di\aded accord- 
 ing to nationaHty so that German and Bohemian 
 electors, for example, choose their representatives 
 
54 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 separately. In eight of the Austrian provinces 
 voting is compulsory. The Emperor nominates the 
 president and vice-president of the House of Lords, 
 while the House of Representatives elects its own 
 officials. 
 
 In the earlier pages of this volume the parlia- 
 mentary system of government is described, and 
 England is cited as the most conspicuous example 
 not only of the responsible parliamentary system, 
 but also as the best example of a party government 
 or a government by a majority of the governed. 
 
 Such a government obviously can be successfully 
 operated only when a single party controls a ma- 
 jority in parliament or where a number of parties 
 unite and work together harmoniously to attain a 
 common purpose or end. Unless such a union can 
 be effected, neither a responsible nor a democratic 
 government is possible. In Austria the important 
 question of responsibility at once suggests the still 
 more important question — Responsible to which 
 party .f^ The answer to this question may best be 
 given in concrete form by calling attention to the 
 number of parties and the membership of each in 
 the lower chamber in 1911. There were in the 
 House of Representatives at that time 100 German 
 Nationalists, 73 (German) Christian Socialists, 49 
 German Social Democrats, 84 United Bohemian 
 Club, 25 Bohemian Social Democrats, 28 Ukraine 
 Union, 70 Poles, 9 Polish Social Democrats, 27 
 
GO\TERN^IENT OF AUSTRLl-HTNGARY 55 
 
 Croatio-Slavonian Club, 7 Dalmatians, 27 Unio- 
 latina, and 23 Independents. Under such conditions 
 a more enlightened statesmanstdp than Austrian 
 premiers have hitherto shown will be necessary to 
 form a government "where the common sense of 
 most shall keep a fretful realm in awe." 
 
 Provincial and Local Government 
 
 Since the outbreak of the Great War the question 
 of the break-up or dismemberment of the Dual 
 Monarchy has received much attention from news- 
 papers; and even the chancelleries of the warring 
 powers have seriously discussed it, and in some 
 instances have practically committed their states to 
 the policy of dismemberment as a condition of 
 peace. The wisdom of such a poKcy does not come 
 within the scope of these pages, but since the question 
 is much talked about it seems advisable to call 
 attention to the agencies aheady at hand whereby 
 the Austrian peoples might, so far as mechanism is 
 concerned, now be governed entirely by seventeen 
 independent states without the interference of the 
 imperial government. 
 
 Each of the seventeen provinces has all of the 
 machinery necessary for carrying on all the func- 
 tions of government; each has a Diet with a single 
 chamber made up of representatives from six 
 different classes; namely, the church, the uni- 
 versities, the great estates, towns, boards of com- 
 
56 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 merce and industries, and rural communes. The 
 sujffrage qualifications vary in different provinces 
 as do also the number of representatives in the 
 different diets. The latter range from 242 in Bo- 
 hemia to 26 in Vorarlberg. 
 
 The Diet controls all local bodies, has charge of 
 local taxation, educational, ecclesiastical, and chari- 
 table institutions, and public works. In general the 
 Diet has all powers not expressly reserved to the 
 imperial government. The executive powers are 
 exercised by a provincial council consisting of the 
 president of the Diet, who is nominated by the 
 Emperor and ex-officio chairman, and from four to 
 eight members variously elected within the province. 
 The provinces are also subdivided into districts and 
 communes, each with elective bodies for legislative 
 purposes and committees selected from these bodies 
 to administer local affairs. 
 
 The Government of Hungary 
 
 The Constitution of Hungary proper and Croatia- 
 Slavonia is of very ancient origin, dating from the 
 occupation of the Magyars about 891. The first 
 king, St. Stephen, was crowned in the year 1000, 
 and the first constitutional code is the Bulla Aurea 
 of King Andrew II, granted in 1222. But since the 
 union with Austria in 1526, the suppression of the 
 Magyars had been a cardinal point in Hapsburg 
 policy, and consequently there is little evidence of 
 
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 57 
 
 constitutional development in Hungary imtil the 
 Revolution of 1848. The Constitution drafted at 
 that time, and suspended the following year, was 
 restored in its essentials in 1867 and forms the 
 general plan of the central government of Hungary 
 to-day. 
 
 The Austrian Emperor is Xing of Hungary, and 
 the fundamental law provides that "His Majesty 
 shall exercise the executive power in conformity 
 with law, through the independent Hungarian 
 ministry, and no ordinance, order, or appointment 
 shall have force unless it is coimtersigned by one 
 of the ministers residing at Budapest." The iMin- 
 istry which is responsible to ParKament now consists 
 of ten heads of departments and two members with- 
 out portfolios. The powers and functions of the 
 Hungarian ministers are in general so similar to 
 those of other governments of the responsible type 
 that they need not be described here. 
 
 The legislative power is vested in the Hungarian 
 Parliament which consists of two houses — the 
 Table of Magnates and the Chamber of Deputies. 
 The Magnates is composed of Hungarian princes and 
 a limited number of archdukes, landed proprietors, 
 archbishops, bishops, and other deputies of the 
 Roman CathoKc and Greek chm-ches, lay repre- 
 sentatives of the Protestant confessions, and life 
 peers appointed by the Crown. The Chamber of 
 Deputies is composed of 453 members elected by 
 
58 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 male suffrage restricted by the condition of a small 
 direct tax on land, home, or income, varying with 
 occupation. But certain classes belonging to scien- 
 tific, learned, and other professions are entitled to 
 vote without other qualifications. 
 
 Provincial and Local Government 
 
 While the Magyar element in Hungary has con- 
 sistently fought against the interference of Austria 
 in the eastern part of the Dual Monarchy, it has 
 been less generous than Austria in the matter of 
 granting local self-government to the political sub- 
 divisions within the state. Dalmatia was united 
 to Hungary proper in the twelfth century, and 
 Transylvania, which had a considerable measure of 
 local autonomy, was united to the Kingdom in 
 1848. The provinces of Croatia and Slavonia are, 
 in matters pertaining to war, trade, and finance, on 
 an equal footing with the other parts of the state; 
 but in religion, education, justice, and local affairs 
 generally, they have local autonomy. These two 
 provinces together constitute a unit and have a 
 Diet with 90 members elected for five years; 
 they have 40 members in the Chamber of Deputies 
 and 3 in the House of Magnates. They also have 
 their own ministry consisting of three departments, 
 but at the head of the whole ministry is the Ban, 
 a chief executive, who is appointed by the Crown. 
 In Hungary proper the principal unit for local 
 
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 59 
 
 government is the county, with a council, presided 
 over by an official appointed by the Crown, and a 
 committee forming the local executive. Munici- 
 palities are organized and governed upon the same 
 general principles as those of the counties. 
 
 The Problem of Races in the Dual Monarchy 
 
 Having briefly described the relations of the com- 
 plex mechanism of the government of the Dual 
 Monarchy — the division into two parts, the sub- 
 division of these parts into provinces and local units, 
 the governmental relation of these units to each 
 state or province, the relation of these in turn to 
 Empire or Kingdom, and the final union of the latter 
 through a common government — we are prepared 
 to appreciate some of the problems of the Austro- 
 Hungarian government to which the World War 
 has called special attention and in which our own 
 government has frequently expressed an interest. 
 "Dismemberment of the Empire," " seK-determina- 
 tion," "Bohemian independence," the "Hungarian 
 revolt," the "Magyars," the " Czecho-Slovaks " — 
 all are current phrases, all are problems — world 
 problems — and the Dual Monarchy must face 
 them all. 
 
 But no attempt to understand the problems of 
 Austria-Hungary can meet with success that does 
 not take account of two hnportant facts — its 
 geography and its races. These are the constant 
 
60 DEMOCRACY vs, AUTOCRACY 
 
 factors which must always be kept In mind. Situ- 
 ated in the center of Europe, with an irregular 
 boundary line, with a thin arm extending west to 
 Lake Constance and the Rhine, a projection as far 
 north as Saxony, an elbow thrust into the interior of 
 Russia beyond the Vistula and the Dniester, and a 
 long strip extending far south along the eastern shore 
 of the Adriatic, the problem of defense is a serious 
 one. There are eight foreign states on the land 
 frontier and four hundred miles of coastline furnish- 
 ing avenues of attack from without. 
 
 Her internal racial diversities are still more 
 threatening. The ruling family is German, and 
 much of her civilization and many of her institu- 
 tions bear the Teutonic impress. But out of a 
 total population of 51,000,000 in 1910, there were 
 only 12,000,000 Germans, while the non-Teutons 
 numbered 39,000,000, of whom 10,000,000 were 
 Magyars, 4,000,000 Latins, and 24,250,000 Slavs. 
 But the Slavs were separated geographically and 
 divided by language, customs and religion.^ These 
 divisions have enabled the German minority to 
 govern the country and to check the reform move- 
 ments of the last hundred years; they have enabled 
 the Hapsburgs to play off one party against another 
 and to hold the balance of power, which has in- 
 
 ^ Distribution of population by states in 1910 was as follows: Austria, 
 28,571,934; Hungary, 20,744,744; Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1,898,044; a, 
 total of 51,215,727. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 61 
 
 variably been placed in the scale of reaction. It 
 was this division of races which enabled the Haps- 
 burgs to defeat the Hberal Austrian and Hungarian 
 constitutions in 1848; it defeated the Slavic move- 
 ment in Bohemia in the same year; and the Magyars 
 applied the same principle to defeat the Croatio- 
 Slavonic demands in Hungary; the Czechs came 
 into conflict with the Pan-Germans of Austria and 
 the Slovaks into conflict with the Hungarian revolu- 
 tionists under Kossuth. It would therefore be a 
 mistake to suppose that playing ofl one party against 
 another was a prerogative of any single nationality; 
 all have adopted the same methods, but of course 
 not always to the attainment of the same ends. 
 The Liberals, in so far as they have represented 
 national poHcies, have generally stood for a greater 
 degree of local seK-government and for equal oppor- 
 tunities for all, while the Conservatives have 
 generally favored privileges, and the status quo ante, 
 in a word — reaction. 
 
 But poKtical differences, such as those just men- 
 tioned, need not and would not give the government 
 serious concern. The real basic problem is, and has 
 always been, the problem of races — a social rather 
 than a political problem; and the racial and social 
 aspirations have been reflected in the form of 
 government and in nearly all of the pohtical and 
 social institutions. The Compromise of 1867 was 
 simply an agreement on the part of different nation- 
 
62 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 alities to live together and tolerate each other for 
 the time being. It was merely a political truce 
 which satisfied none of the races or parties and 
 which was sure to be broken at the first moment 
 in which any one of the parties to the agreement 
 could gain an advantage, recover a lost right, or win 
 a new privilege. The Great War furnished the 
 moment, and the Czecho-Slovaks were the parties 
 which struck for the recovery of lost rights and the 
 attainment of new privileges in a wider liberty. 
 Their movement is so important that it demands a 
 word of explanation. 
 
 The Czecho-Slovaks 
 
 Immediately after the declaration of War, the 
 Czecho-Slovaks arraigned themselves on the side of 
 the Allies and against Austria-Hungary. Czecho- 
 slovak soldiers in the Austrian army refused to 
 fight, surrendered to the enemy in large numbers, 
 and even formed legions in the Allied armies. Re- 
 pressive measures on the part of Austria seemed only 
 to intensify opposition and to organize it. A 
 Czecho-Slovak National Council was formed, which 
 elected Professor Thomas G. Masaryk as president. 
 Under his able leadership this council, which was 
 really a provisional government, organized Czech 
 and Slovak colonies in the allied and neutral coun- 
 tries; and on November 14, 1915, it declared the 
 Hapsburgs deposed from the throne of Bohemia. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 63 
 
 The leaders of the movement take the position that 
 the formation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy 
 of which they became a part was created by their 
 express agreement, that the agreement has been 
 violated, that the union was formed primarily to 
 meet the danger of Turkish invasion, and since that 
 danger no longer exists, there is no longer reason 
 for its continuance. 
 
 The government of the United States took an 
 important, though not unprecedented, step when 
 on September 2, 1918, it declared "that a state of 
 belligerency exists between the Czecho-Slovaks thus 
 organized and the German and Austro-Hungarian 
 Empires." It also recognized the Czecho-Slovak 
 National Council, with headquarters at Washington, 
 "as a de facto belligerent Government, clothed with 
 proper authority to direct the military and poHtical 
 affairs of the Czecho-Slovaks," and expressed its 
 willingness "to enter formally into relations with the 
 de facto government thus recognized, for the purpose 
 of prosecuting the war against the common enemy." 
 France, Great Britain, and Italy had already 
 recognized the Czecho-Slovak National Council and 
 the Czecho-Slovak army. 
 
 The Czechs inhabit Bohemia, Moravia, and 
 Austrian Silesia, which under the present constitu- 
 tion are parts of the Austrian Empire. The Slovaks 
 live in the northern part of Hungary adjoining the 
 Czechs on the east and southeast. On the basis of 
 
64 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 the present movement the boundaries of the new 
 state will embrace Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, with 
 their historic boundaries, and the northern part of 
 Hungary — an area four times as large as that of 
 Belgium and including a population of about 
 12,000,000. Dr. Masaryk, the President of the 
 National Council, has expressed the opinion that a 
 constitution would be adopted that would "provide 
 for a President and two legislative chambers, a 
 Senate and a House of Representatives," similar to 
 that of the United States, and also an "elaborate 
 system of local self-government, as a means of 
 insuring a democracy that is not one in form alone." 
 Several important Pan-Slavic Congresses have 
 recently been held to further the movement for 
 absolute independence from Austria; and at the 
 present writing (November, 1918), there are many 
 reasons for believing that the Czecho-Slovak move- 
 ment will express itself in an independent state. 
 Meantime the Slavs of other provinces and states 
 both north and south of the Czecho-Slavs are or- 
 ganizing for independence and the Hungarians are 
 threatening to bring about a complete separation 
 from Austria. To what extent the present race 
 movements in favor of self-determination and in- 
 dependence will be realized is known only to the 
 gods; but that the Austro-Hungarian Empire of 
 the present will not be the Empire of the future, is 
 a foregone conclusion. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 
 
 The History of Belgium, 1579-191^ 
 
 The territory now called Belgium was once the 
 southern portion of the Netherlands. Its history 
 as a separate state may be said to begin in 1579, 
 when the southern Netherlands broke away from 
 the northern provinces and declared their loyalty 
 to the Spanish King. From that time till the fall 
 of Napoleon, Belgium was governed successively 
 by Spain, Austria, and France. In 1815 the Powers 
 at the Congress of Vienna united it with Holland, 
 and both states were governed by the Prince of 
 Orange, who then took the title of King William I. 
 
 The government under the union, however, was 
 more favorable to the Dutch than to the Belgian 
 pro^dnces. Dutch, the language of Holland, was 
 made the official language, though French was 
 quite generally spoken in all of the Belgian provinces. 
 The Dutch were generally Protestants; the Belgians, 
 Catholics. In fact, the two sections had for 130 
 years passed through totally different experiences 
 and had drifted apart from each other in character, 
 
 65 
 
66 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 habits, and ideas; and the Belgians, opposed to the 
 union from the start, were each year becoming more 
 dissatisfied. 
 
 When the news of the success of the July revolu- 
 tion at Paris reached Brussels, riots broke out and 
 the Belgians felt that the opportune moment was 
 at hand. They rose in revolt and declared their 
 independence. 
 
 A Constitution was adopted February 7, 1831, 
 which remained practically unchanged for over 
 sixty years. It is the oldest written constitution 
 still in force on the Continent of Europe except the 
 Constitution of the Dutch; and it has generally 
 commanded the admiration of students of govern- 
 ment. The success of its framers was due to the 
 fact that the structure they reared had as its basis 
 very little abstract theory and very much sound 
 common sense and long-continued usage. It rested 
 upon the charters and privileges of the different 
 provinces and cities, which dated from the Middle 
 Ages and which had never been forgotten or revoked, 
 even by Spanish and Austrian oppression. There 
 was but one feature in the document which gave 
 the liberals concern; suffrage rested on a narrow 
 basis. But a movement gradually set in to bring 
 about a reform. In 1886 socialism had become an 
 important factor in politics, and a reform movement 
 was begun which resulted in 1893 in a revision of 
 the constitution, granting universal male suffrage. 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 67 
 
 At the outbreak of the Great War in July, 1914, 
 Germany, contrary to a promise to guarantee the 
 neutrahty of Belgium, and contrary to international 
 law, invaded Belgium, and on August 20 occupied 
 Brussels; October 9th the Germans were in posses- 
 sion of Antwerp, and on the 15th of the same month 
 they occupied Ostend. The Belgian government 
 withdrew to La Havre, France, where it was assured 
 protection and the right to exercise all sovereign 
 powers. Later Germany took over the civil govern- 
 ment of the occupied territory, but the democracies 
 of the world assured Belgium that they would 
 consider no peace that did not unconditionally 
 restore to the Belgians their territory, sovereignty, 
 freedom, and independence, and indemnity for the 
 great wrong inflicted upon an innocent government.*""'^ 
 The events of August, 1914, and their sequel have 
 attracted the attention of the world to Belgium; 
 and the heroic behavior of its people has won 
 universal admiration. Yet history shows that the 
 Belgians were a people possessing remarkable 
 qualities long before the Great War came to remind 
 us of them. Their nobility headed the crusades 
 and their common people established the first free 
 city life north of the Alps. In the present ordeal 
 they have acted greatly because they have greatness 
 in them; and their government is worthy of study 
 not merely because the first assault upon liberty 
 was checked on Belgian soil, but because the Belgian 
 
68 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 government is one of the best types of the small 
 state. 
 
 Government 
 
 Belgium has a constitutional, responsible, and 
 parliamentary system of government. In no coun- 
 try is the liberty of the citizen better guaranteed, 
 and the Constitution throughout breathes the spirit 
 of a free people. Not satisfied with the usual 
 provisions concerning freedom of speech, press, 
 worship, petition, and assembly, the framers of the 
 Constitution seemed determined that public opinion 
 should under no circumstances be hampered in its 
 free development by providing that "no censorship 
 shall ever be established." The Constitution was 
 drafted by a National Assembly chosen for that 
 purpose, but it may be amended by a method rather 
 simple; when the legislature decides that an amend- 
 ment is advisable, both houses are dissolved and a 
 new election is called. If each house of the newly 
 elected Congress by a two-thirds vote favors the 
 amendment, and it has the approval of the King, it 
 becomes a part of the Constitution. 
 
 While Belgium has a King and may properly be 
 called a constitutional monarchy, it has in the best 
 sense a government of laws and not of men. The 
 legislative power is vested in a King, a House of 
 Representatives, and a Senate. The members of 
 the House are chosen directly by the people and are 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 69 
 
 apportioned among the provinces according to 
 population. They are elected, moreover, by a 
 system of proportional representation through which 
 the minority parties are represented in the lower 
 House in proportion to the popular vote cast at the 
 election. The term of office is four years, and one 
 half of the members are elected every two years. 
 
 The suffrage qualifications are interesting. Every 
 male citizen twenty five years of age, who has been 
 a resident of the commune for one year, has one 
 vote. If he is a married man or widower and thirty 
 five years of age and pays five francs in taxes, he 
 has two votes. If he is twenty five years of age 
 and owns real estate worth 2000 francs, or has an 
 income representing a corresponding value, or owns 
 government securities paying an interest of 100 
 francs, or holds a certificate from an educational 
 institution of the higher grade, or is a public office 
 holder, he has three votes. But no one has more 
 than three votes. Moreover, voting is obligatory. 
 
 The Senate is composed of 120 members elected 
 for eight years, partly directly and partly indirectly. 
 Twenty-seven of the members are now elected by 
 the provincial councils; the remaining number, 
 which is equal to one half the number of representa- 
 tives, is elected by a direct popular vote by the 
 same method employed in the election of members 
 to the lower house. 
 
 The executive power is nominally exercised by 
 
70 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 the King, but he is bound by the Constitution, 
 which provides that "he shall have no other powers 
 than those which the Constitution and the special 
 laws under the Constitution confer upon him." 
 The executive powers are actually exercised by a 
 council of ministers who together with a number of 
 ministers without portfolios, form the Council of 
 State, an advisory body convened by the Crown as 
 occasion requires. All ministers are appointed, and 
 may be dismissed, by the King. They are nearly 
 always members of the Senate or House, with the 
 right to vote only if they are members. The minis- 
 ters are always party leaders, and Belgium has there- 
 fore a party government. There have always been 
 since 1830 at least two political parties, the Catho- 
 lics and Liberals, and all ministries before the out- 
 break of the Great War have represented one of 
 these parties or a coalition of both. 
 
 For the first fifteen years under the present Con- 
 stitution the country was governed by a coalition 
 ministry. But in 1846 the parties separated and 
 the government has alternated between Liberals 
 and Catholics. At the outbreak of the War in 
 1914, the Catholic ministry, then in power, made 
 itself into a coalition ministry by admitting the 
 leaders of the Liberals and Socialists. The division 
 between the Catholic and Liberal parties has always 
 been and still is primarily religious. The election 
 of 1894 — the first after the extension of the franchise 
 
THE GO^-ERXIMEXT OF BELGIOI 71 
 
 — gave the Socialists for the first time a place in 
 Pariiament. They occupied twenty-nine seats, and 
 though their number in ParKament is comparatively 
 small, they have a remarkable band of intellectual 
 leaders, and through the force of their ideas they 
 have accomplished much for social reform. 
 
 The Belgian government is extremely sensitive to 
 popular reaction; there is nothing whatever either 
 in its fundamental law or in its practice and spirit 
 that tolerates autocracy. TMiatever may be the 
 motives which underHe parties and impel party 
 leaders, there is no concession or appeal to royalty. 
 The present King is beloved because he is popular, 
 not because he belongs to a privileged class. In 
 fact, in no other government is executive responsi- 
 bility to the popular will so safeguarded as in 
 Belgium. The King may not even pardon a minister 
 who is sentenced by a court except upon request of 
 the two houses of Parliament, and "no decree of the 
 King shall take effect unless it is countersigned by a 
 minister who, by that act alone, renders himself 
 responsible for it." Nor shall any "verbal or 
 written order of the King reheve a minister of 
 responsibility." Subject to these restrictions, the 
 King calls and dismisses Parliament, and appoints 
 numerous officials in the administrative and foreign 
 services. He is commander-in-chief of the army 
 and na\^, declares war, concludes peace, and makes 
 treaties, but certain treaties must be approved by 
 
72 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 both houses. He promulgates all laws and issues 
 all regulations necessary for the execution of the 
 will of Parliament. In law he has the veto power; 
 in practice he does not exercise it, and for obvious 
 reasons, for if he did, the executive would not be 
 responsible to the people nor to the popular branch 
 of government. 
 
 Justice 
 
 The Belgians claim to possess an almost perfect 
 code, and indeed their judicial system has received 
 so much praise from foreign critics that a word 
 concerning the administration of justice may not 
 be out of place even in a brief outline of government. 
 The courts of law, beginning with the lowest, are: 
 justice of the peace, one for each of the 342 cantons; 
 next above them are courts of first instance, one in 
 each of the 26 arrondissements, each having three 
 judges; above these are three courts of appeal, 
 sitting in Brussels, Ghent, and Liege; and crowning 
 all, is the Court of Cassation or Supreme Court 
 which sits at Brussels. This court has a peculiar 
 function, since it never tries cases except when a 
 minister is accused. It decides in case of doubt in 
 what lower court a case shall be tried, and it reviews 
 all decisions of the lower courts, whether appealed 
 or not, to see if they are in strict accord with the 
 code; and if they are not, the verdict is annulled. 
 There is only one judge in this court, but he has the 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 73 
 
 assistance of a large staff of reviewers. The presi- 
 dent of this court is the highest legal functionary in 
 Belgium. Criminal cases are tried in police courts, 
 correctional courts, and courts of assize. There 
 also are various special courts, but a description of 
 their organization, powers, and methods of procedure 
 would carry us beyond the scope set for this outline. 
 
 Local Government 
 
 Belgiimi is made up of nine provinces, which are 
 subdivided into 26 arrondissements or districts, 342 
 cantons, and 2623 communes. The provinces and 
 the communes are the chief units for local govern- 
 mental purposes; the arrondissements are primarily 
 for electoral and judicial districts, and the cantons 
 form the areas of the jurisdiction of the justices 
 of the peace. The provinces are governed by a 
 popularly elected council, which in turn elects a 
 board of six members, and by a governor nominated 
 by the King. The council represents the local 
 interests and the governor forms the connecting 
 link between the central and local governments. 
 
 Area, Population, and Language 
 
 Belgium has an area of 11,373 square miles, and 
 in 1910 had a population of 7,423,784, or an average 
 density of 652 per square mile. The great qualities 
 of her people might incline one to forget the small 
 area in which her history has been made. The 
 
74 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 significance of tlie above figures may be appreciated 
 by comparison with an American state of average 
 area: Ohio has an area of 41,040 square miles, and 
 in 1910 had a population of 4,767,121, or an average 
 density of 117 per square mile. Brazil in 1900 had 
 an average density of population of 5.4 per square 
 mile. 
 
 The principal languages spoken by the people of 
 Belgium are French, Flemish, and to a much less 
 extent, German. In 1900 the extent to which these 
 languages were used was as follows: 
 
 French only 2,574,805 
 
 Flemish only 2,822,005 
 
 German only 28,413 
 
 French and Flemish 801,587 
 
 French and German 7,238 
 
 The three languages 42,889 
 
 The racial and linguistic distinctions in Belgium 
 at once suggest comparisons with two other states 
 where similar conditions prevail — Austrio-Hungary 
 and Switzerland. The government and some of 
 the problems of the Dual Monarchy have already 
 been described. The rule of the Hapsburgs has 
 threatened the state with disruption, while in both 
 of the small states the people are united. The chief 
 reason for this is obvious: in the large state we find 
 autocracy; in the two smaller states, liberty. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 
 
 The History of Brazil, 1500-1891 
 
 To the average person Brazil is still a country 
 without a past and noted chiefly because it contains 
 the Amazon, dense tropical forests, boa constrictors, 
 and anacondas. Yet it has an ancient and exceed- 
 ingly interesting history. For the purpose of this 
 sketch, however, the history of Brazil begins in 
 1500, when a Portuguese navigator, Pedro Alvares 
 Cabral, landed not far from the present city of 
 Bahia and took possession of the country in the 
 name of the King of Portugal. For a time the 
 Crown paid little attention to the new possession, 
 but about the year 1530 the country was divided 
 into hereditary districts called "captaincies" which 
 were granted to nobles willing to undertake their 
 settlement. The heads of these captaincies were 
 given unlimited power of government. Each district 
 extended along fifty leagues of coast, the interior 
 boundary being undefined. 
 
 Settlements began under this system in the year 
 1531; and by 1548 the captaincies had been exploited 
 
 75 
 
76 DEMOCRA.CY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 to such an extent as to call the attention of the 
 mother country to the need of a change in govern- 
 ment. Each captaincy was independent of the 
 others, and the difficulties resulting from this fact, 
 together with Spanish rivalry, internal disorder, and 
 Indian attacks from without, led to the appointment 
 of a Governor-General in 1549. With him came 
 the Jesuits, who soon gained control over the 
 natives; and to prevent the Indians from being 
 enslaved by the colonists, the Jesuits encouraged 
 the importation of African slaves who were brought 
 into the country in considerable numbers during 
 the next two centuries. 
 
 Thus with the advent of a foreign government, 
 foreign colonists, and foreign slaves, and the division 
 of the country among foreign nobles, there was laid 
 the foundation of a new Empire — and of the 
 present Republic — so vast in area and fertile in 
 resources that it was destined in time to become 
 one of the leading powers of the world. It is there- 
 fore not strange that this "Land of the Holy Cross," 
 as it was first called, should attract the attention 
 and stimulate the rivalry of the leading powers of 
 Europe, for from 1555 to 1640 the country suffered 
 numerous invasions from the French, Dutch, and 
 British, who sought to gain a foothold on Brazilian 
 soil. But it remained a colony of Portugal until 
 1815, when it became an integral part of the King- 
 dom of Portugal, Brazil, and Algarves. 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 77 
 
 '^Tien in 1807 Napoleon invaded Spain and 
 Portugal, the Prince Regent of Portugal, afterwards 
 Dom John VI, with his family and court, retired to 
 his American colony and made it the center of his 
 government. He arrived at Bahia, January 21, 
 1808, and opened the ports of the country to the 
 commerce of the world. But on the 8th of March 
 folloTsdng he changed the seat of government to 
 Rio de Janeiro, where he remained until 1821, when 
 he returned to Portugal and appointed his eldest 
 son, Dom Pedro, regent of Brazil. The change in 
 government was not, however, due to the voluntary 
 abdication of Dom John. That monarch ruled 
 Brazil from the standpoint of Portuguese rather 
 than Brazilian interests, and he was not in sympathy 
 with the repubHcan principles Hberated by the 
 French Revolution. The result was the formation 
 of a Brazilian party favorable to independence. 
 Dom Pedro was in sympathy with this movement, 
 placed himseK at the head of it, and on September 7, 
 1822, he formally proclaimed Brazil independent 
 of Portugal and was crowned as Emperor of Brazil 
 on October 12, 1822. He was a wise ruler, and 
 under him Brazil prospered, but in 1831 he abdicated 
 in favor of his infant son, Dom Pedro H, who was 
 then but five years of age. A regency was appointed 
 to govern during his minority; although nine years 
 later the legislature disregarded the age of the 
 Emperor and declared his majority. 
 
78 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 On the £3d of July, 1840, at fourteen years of age, 
 Dom Pedro II began his long reign, which continued 
 until 1889, when the people of Brazil, feeling that 
 they had advanced far enough in civilization and 
 self-government to dispense with monarchy, pro- 
 claimed the present Republic. This revolution was 
 one of the most remarkable events in the history of 
 the world, for without bloodshed and with little 
 disturbance, monarchy was overthrown and a repub- 
 lican form of government established. Yet the 
 change was more apparent than real, for Brazil 
 is no exception to the rule pointed out by Lord 
 Bryce in his American Commonwealth, that "great 
 institutions which command the obedience and 
 respect of mankind are deeply rooted in the past." 
 After the establishment of a provisional government, 
 a new Constitution was drafted by a commission, 
 revised and amended by an elected constituent 
 assembly, and adopted February 24, 1891, providing 
 for "the Republic of the United States of Brazil." 
 
 The Constitution 
 
 The government of Brazil is closely modelled 
 after that of the United States. The Constitution 
 provides for a "federal republican representative 
 form of government." The wTitten Constitution 
 itself, however, while resembling the Constitution of 
 the United States in many respects, both in content 
 and arrangement, is much longer than the American 
 
THE GO\'ERXMENT OF BRAZIL 79 
 
 Constitution, and deals with many matters of 
 detail which in the United States are left to Con- 
 gress. Another important difference is in the 
 methods of amendment. The American Constitu- 
 tion, it will be remembered, is unique in this respect, 
 since it cannot be amended by the legislature as 
 most written constitutions of Europe are, but by 
 an authority outside of the sphere of the national 
 government, that is, by the people acting through 
 the states; and it requires for ratification the assent 
 of three fourths of the states.^ An amendment to 
 the Brazilian Constitution, on the other hand, may 
 be ratified, one year after its proposal, by the simple 
 act of two-thirds of both houses of Congress. In 
 this very important respect the Brazilian Constitu- 
 tion resembles more nearly the written constitutions 
 of Europe than that of the United States. 
 
 The State Government 
 
 But a written Constitution, whatever its aim or 
 purpose may be, is merely an outline of government 
 and should not be confused with the actual govern- 
 ment itself, which may or may not conform in 
 practice to the letter of the Constitution. An 
 examination of the Brazilian system itself, however, 
 reveals many parallels between the government of 
 Brazil and that of the United States. Like the 
 United States, Brazil has a general government and 
 
 * See Constitution of United States, Art. V. 
 
80 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 state governments. There are twenty states, and 
 there is one federal district. 
 
 Each state has its own Constitution, its own 
 officials, and a very large measure of independent 
 authority. It has exclusive control of its public 
 lands, mines, industries, and all local affairs. Indeed 
 the doctrine of state rights has a legal sanction in 
 the Brazilian Constitution carrying with it unusual 
 powers. The states may levy export duties on 
 goods manufactured within the state; they may 
 also levy import duties on goods shipped into the 
 state if such goods are intended for consumption 
 within the state, but the revenue collected from 
 imports must be turned into the federal treasury. 
 In this respect the powers of the Brazilian states 
 are much more extensive than those of our own 
 states; but in the authority of a state over local 
 governments, the Brazilian Constitution has an 
 important restriction placed upon the states. 
 Whereas each of our own states has complete control 
 over municipalities, the Brazilian Constitution pro- 
 vides that "the states shall organize themselves in 
 such a manner as to assure the autonomy of the 
 municipalities in all that relates to their particular 
 interests." Generally speaking, however, the states 
 have all powers not denied them by the federal 
 Constitution or granted to the federal government 
 in that Constitution. As in our own government 
 the tendency in Brazil is toward centralization. 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 81 
 
 The General Government 
 
 As in the United States, the general government 
 is divided into three departments, the chief organs 
 of these departments being a National Congress, a 
 President, and a federal Supreme Court. The 
 National Congress consists of two houses, the House 
 of Deputies and the Senate. The House of Deputies 
 is composed of 212 representatives of the people 
 elected by a direct popular vote from the states and 
 federal district, according to population. The num- 
 ber of deputies is fixed by law, but it shall not 
 exceed one for every seventy thousand inhabitants, 
 but each state shall have at least four deputies. 
 They are elected for a term of three years, the only 
 qualification being citizenship for more than four 
 years and the right to be registered as an elector. 
 
 The Senate is composed of 63 members, three 
 senators being elected from each state and three 
 from the federal district in the same manner as the 
 deputies. In both cases minority representation is 
 required by the federal Constitution. Senators 
 must be over thirty-five years of age, and citizens 
 of Brazil for more than six years. They are elected 
 for a term of nine years, one third being renewed 
 every three years. 
 
 Congress meets every year on May 3 and must 
 continue in session four months; but extra sessions 
 may be called by the President. Its general powers 
 
82 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 in the matter of legislation, and the powers of each 
 house separately, are in general similar to those 
 of the American Congress, the chief difference be- 
 tween the two bodies being that in the Brazilian 
 Congress the lower house is elected for three years 
 and the upper for nine years, whereas in America 
 they are elected for two and six years respectively. 
 In addition to the special right of impeachment and 
 of originating money bills, exercised by the Ameri- 
 can House of Representatives, the Brazilian House 
 of Deputies has the exclusive right to initiate pro- 
 posals for the adjournment of Congress, for laws 
 fixing the strength of land and naval forces, and of 
 proposals for discussing recommendations made by 
 the executive. 
 
 The executive power is vested in the President, 
 who, together with the Vice-President, is elected by 
 a direct popular vote for four years; but he cannot 
 be reelected for the succeeding term. He must be 
 a native of Brazil, thirty-five years of age, and in 
 the enjoyment of political rights. If a vacancy in 
 the presidency or vice-presidency occurs before two 
 years of the term have expired, a new election is 
 held. Otherwise the succession to the presidency 
 passes from the President to Vice President, the 
 Vice President of the Senate, the President of the 
 House of Deputies, and the President of the federal 
 Supreme Court, in the order named. 
 
 The powers of the President are similar to those 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 83 
 
 of the President of the United States. He appoints 
 the members of his Cabinet, seven in number, the 
 diplomatic corps, consular agents, judges of the 
 Supreme Court, and other civil and military officials, 
 with the approval of the Senate. 
 
 The relations of the Cabinet to the President and 
 to Congress are also similar to those of the United 
 States. The theory of separation of powers is 
 prescribed by the Constitution and carried into 
 practice. Like the United States, Brazil does not 
 have a cabinet or party government like that of 
 England, France, and Italy. In fact, parties in 
 Brazil do not center around political issues as in 
 the other states which we have described, but 
 rather around leaders. At present, the nearest 
 approach to the party system found in the states 
 having party government is in the contest between 
 those who favor greater central control and the 
 champions of state rights. 
 
 The judicial power is vested in the federal Supreme 
 Court, which sits at the capital of the republic, 
 and in as many inferior courts as Congress may 
 create. The Supreme Court is composed of fifteen 
 justices appointed by the President, with the con- 
 sent of the Senate; and there is at present one 
 federal judge in each state. The latter are also 
 appointed by the President, but upon recommenda- 
 tion of the Supreme Court. All federal judges hold 
 office for life; but members of the Supreme Court 
 
84 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 
 
 may be removed on impeachment tried by the 
 Senate; the inferior federal judges may be removed 
 only by a judicial sentence of the Supreme Court. 
 An important provision in the Constitution en- 
 courages arbitration by providing that Congress 
 may "authorize the government to declare war, 
 when arbitration has failed or cannot take place." 
 
 Population and Resources 
 
 Brazil is the largest of the South American coun- 
 tries, and the second largest of the American re- 
 publics. It has an area of 3,290,000 square miles 
 and a population of 27,000,000, largely of Portuguese 
 descent, and Portuguese is the official and popular 
 language. The native aboriginal people have left 
 little impress upon the country and are now found 
 only in the immense interior. Their number is 
 estimated at about 500,000. In the northern areas 
 there is an intermixture of blood with the Africans, 
 imported in the early history of Brazil to form the 
 working population. In the southern states there 
 are about 400,000 Germans, and in the central 
 states 1,500,000 Italians. The number of Spanish 
 descent is estimated at 400,000. These different 
 races make up the population of to-day. The 
 capital, Rio de Janeiro, has a population of 
 1,500,000. 
 
 Brazil has a coast line of over 5000 miles with 
 many fine harbors, and an extensive commerce 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 85 
 
 wdth all the principal countries of the world. The 
 exports in 1916 were $257,000,000, and the unports, 
 $195,000,000. The chief exports are coffee, rubber, 
 herva matte, hides, cacao, tobacco, cotton, and 
 sugar; the chief imports are food products, machin- 
 ery, steel and iron, textiles, woods, pelts, and skins. 
 Brazil was the first American colony to make 
 agriculture the chief aim of colonization, and that 
 industry still holds first place in the industries of 
 the republic. The first raihoad was built in 1854; 
 and in 1914 there were over 14,000 miles in operation. 
 About one-fourth of the railways are owned by the 
 states, one-seventh by the federal government, and 
 one-third are owned by the federal government and 
 leased. The rest are concessions to private concerns 
 granted by the federal government. Steamship 
 lines connect the principal ports of Brazil with those 
 of the United States and Europe. Fifty trans- 
 Atlantic lines are registered as touching Brazilian 
 ports. 
 
 The peace strength of the regular army is about 
 32,000 men. The war strength exceeds 300,000 
 men. The navy consists of 57 vessels with a 
 complement of 13,000 men. 
 
 Public education is secular, but there are many 
 private schools. Education is supported by the 
 federal and state governments and there are also 
 municipal schools. Some states have compulsory 
 education. The church is entirely divorced from 
 
86 DEMOCRACY vs, AUTOCRACY 
 
 the state. With its splendid history, its democratic 
 government, its wealth of resources, its free system 
 of public schools, and its liberty-loving and progres- 
 sive people, Brazil, already a great world power, 
 will indeed be a potent factor in making and keeping 
 the world safe for democracy. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Information concerning modern foreign governments may be gained 
 from various som-ces: (1) modern histories, (2) collections of funda- 
 mental laws and constitutions, (3) standard textbooks on government, 
 (4) general and special cyclopedias, (5) year-books or annuals giving 
 the latest information and (6) periodicals. The following list covers 
 these six sources and is designed to meet the ordinary reference require- 
 ments of the student unacquainted with foreign languages. 
 
 Histories 
 
 Cambridge Modern History, vol. xi. The Growth of Nationahties. 
 
 N. Y. Macmillan Co. 1909. 
 Hayes, C. J. H. A PoHtical and Social History of Modem Europe. 
 
 2 vols. N. Y. Macmillan Co. 1916. 
 Hazen, C. D. Europe Since 1815. N. Y. Holt. 1910. 
 Robinson and Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, 2 vols. 
 
 Boston. Ginn & Co. 1907-8. 
 Cooper, C. S. The BraziHans and Their Country. N. Y. F. A. 
 
 Stokes. 1917. 
 Essen, L. Van der. A Short History of Belgium. Chicago. University 
 
 of Chicago Press. 1916. 
 Ogg, F. A. Social Progress in Contemporary Europe. N. Y. Mac- 
 
 miUan Co. 1917. 
 
 Documents 
 
 Dodd, W. F. Modern Constitutions. 2 vols. Chicago. Chicago 
 University Press. 1909. 
 
 "A collection of fundamental laws of twenty-two of the most important countries of 
 the world, with historical and bibliographical notes." 
 
 Textbooks and Descriptions of Governments 
 
 Burgess, J. W. Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law. 
 2 vols. Boston. Ginn & Co. 1890-91. 
 
 87 
 
88 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Lowell, A. L. Governments and Parties in Continental Europe. 2 vols. 
 Boston. Houghton Mifflin Co. 1900. 
 
 Lowell, A. L. The Government of England. New edition, 2 vols. 
 N. Y. Macmillan Co. 1912. 
 
 Macy and Gannaway. Comparative Free Government. N. Y. Mac- 
 millan Co. 1915. 
 
 Ogg, F. A. Governments of Europe. N. Y. Macmillan Co. 1913. 
 
 WUson, Woodrow. The State. N. Y. D. C. Heath & Co. 1898. 
 
 Beard, C. A. American Government and Politics. N. Y. Macmillan 
 Co. 1916. 
 
 Bryce, James. South America — Observations and Impressions. N. Y. 
 Macmillan Co. 1912. 
 
 Bryce, James. American Commonwealth. 2 vols. N. Y. Mac- 
 miUan Co. 1910. 
 
 Encyclopedias 
 
 Encyclopedia Britannica, The New International, Cyclopedia of Ameri- 
 can Government (primarily for American government). 
 
 Annuals 
 
 The (English) Statesman's Year-Book, Whitaker's Almanack, The New 
 Hazell Annual and Almanack, Almanack de Gotha: annuaire genea- 
 logique, diplomatique, et statistique and the Brazilian Year-Book are 
 typical examples of this source of information. Similar annuals are 
 published for nearly all foreign countries and are invaluable for the 
 latest information upon government, parties, elections, ministries, 
 population, industries, and social statistics. The two leading Ameri- 
 can annuals are The New International Year-Book, and The American 
 Year-Book. 
 
 Periodicals 
 
 Among the periodicals the following combination is suggested as 
 covering an adequate range of current political information and at the 
 same time stimulating independent and critical thought. American: 
 The Nation, a weekly accompanied with a valuable bi-weekly section 
 on International Relations; The New Republic; The New York Times 
 Current History, a monthly magazine; The American Review of Reviews; 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 89 
 
 The American Journal of International Law; and the American Political 
 Smence B^triew. English: The Nation, The Spectntor, The New Statesman 
 and the Saturday Review are among the leading weekhes, whHe among 
 the monthHes and quarterhes the Contemporary Review, Nineteenth 
 Century, Edinburgh Review, Quarterly Review, and FoHnightly Review 
 are_ aU very exceUent. Xo list of periodicals, however brief, should 
 omit the famous French Revue des Deux Mondes. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Act of Settlement 1701, 9. 
 Alsace-Lorraine, 33. 
 
 American Constitution, 7, 8. 
 
 American government, 7. 
 
 Ausgleich, Austro-Hungarian, 45. 
 
 Austria, government of, 50-56; history of, 37-41. 
 
 Austrian Empire, constitution of, 50; Emperor, power of, 51; House of 
 
 Representatives, 53; local government, 55-5Q; ministers, 51-52; 
 
 parliamentary system, 52; parties in, 54; Reichsrat, 52-53; 
 
 states in, 45. 
 Austria-Hungary, 36-64; boundary, 60; common government, 47-49; 
 
 delegations, 48; population, 60. 
 Autocracy, dangers of, 2. 
 
 Babenberg, Leopold of, 38. 
 
 Baden, 33. 
 
 Bavaria, 33. 
 
 Belgium, area, 73; constitution of, 68; executive power, 69-70; Ger- 
 man occupation of, 67; government of, 65-74; history of, 65-67; 
 House of Representatives, 68, 69; justice, 72-73; language, 74; 
 local government, 73; parties in, 71; population, 73; Senate, com- 
 position of 69; suffrage, 69. 
 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 37, 50. 
 
 Brazil, army, 85; Cabinet, 83; Congress, 81; Constitution, 78-79; 
 education, 85; executive power, 82; exports, 85; general govern- 
 ment of, 81-83; history of, 75-78; imports, 85; judicial power, 
 83; navy, 85; population, 84; resources, 84; Senate, 81; state 
 governments, 79-80. 
 
 Cabinet, American, 10; Austrian, 52; Austro-Hungarian, 48; Eng- 
 lish, 10; French, 17; German, 32; Italian, 22, 23. 
 Captaincies in Brazil, 75. 
 
 91 
 
92 INDEX 
 
 Cavour, Count, 20. 
 
 Charles V, Emperor, 38. 
 
 Compromise, Austro-Hungarian, 45. 
 
 Confederation, North German, 29; Rhine, 41. 
 
 Congress of Vienna, 28. 
 
 Croatia, 58. 
 
 Czecho-Slovaks, national council, 62; recognition of, 63. 
 
 Czechs, location of, 63. 
 
 Dalmatia, 58. 
 Deak, Francis, 44. 
 Democracy, defined, 1-3. 
 
 Emanuel, Victor, 20. 
 
 English government, 8-14; Cabinet, 10; chief organs of government, 
 9-10; constitution compared with American, 7, 8; growth of 
 constitution 8-9; sources of, 8-9; King, powers of, 10; House of 
 Commons, 11, 12; House of Lords, 10; Parliament Act of 1911, 11; 
 political parties, 12, 13; Prime Minister, 13; Representation of 
 People Act 1918, 12; suffrage, 11, 12; War Cabinet, 14. 
 
 Flemish, 74. 
 
 French government, 15-18; Cabinet, 17; Chamber of Deputies, 18; 
 Constitution of, 15; departments, 18; ministry, 17; National 
 Assembly, 15; organs of government, 15; parties, 19; President of 
 the Republic, 16, 17; Senate, 17-18. 
 
 Franco-Prussian War, 29. 
 
 Functions of government, 4. 
 
 German empire, 26-35; based on inequality, 29-30; Bundesrat, 30, 
 33; Chancellor, 32; chief organs of government, 31; defects of 
 government, 28; emperor, powers of, 32; Foreign minister quoted, 
 27, 28; imperial constitution of, 29; King of Prussia, 31; Reichs- 
 tag, 34; name of, 29; North German Confederation, 29; Presi- 
 dent Wilson quoted on, 26; Prussian delegation, 34; responsibility 
 in, 35. 
 
 Golden Bull of 1222, 42. 
 
INDEX 93 
 
 Govemment, source of power in, 2; principles determining character of, 
 4-6; relation of central to local, 5. 
 
 Habeas Corpus Act 1679, 9. 
 Hamburg, 33. 
 Hapsburg, House of, 38. 
 Hesse, 33. 
 
 Holy Roman Empire, 41. 
 
 Hungary, Constitution of, 57; government of, 56-58; history of, 41-45; 
 legislative power, 57; local government of, 58; provincial govem- 
 ment of, 58; states in, 45; Table of Magnates, 57. 
 
 Ireland, union with England, 9. 
 
 Italy, 20-25; Chamber of Deputies, 24, 25; chief organs of govem- 
 ment, 21; history of, 20-21; King, powers of, 21-22, 24; ministry, 
 21, 22, 23; parliamentary system, 25; Parliament, composition of, 
 24; parties, 22-23; Senate, 24; Statuto, 21; suffrage, 25. 
 
 Karlowitz, peace of, 39. 
 Kossuth, Louis, 44. 
 
 Leopold of Babenberg, 38. 
 Liibeck, 33. 
 
 Magna Carta, 9. 
 
 Magyars, 37, 41. 
 
 Maria Theresa, 39, 
 
 Masaryk, Thomas G., 62, 64. 
 
 Masimihan I, 38. 
 
 Mecklenberg-Schwerin, 33. 
 
 Metternich, Prince, 39-40, 44. 
 
 Moravians, 37. 
 
 Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, 9. 
 
 Napoleon, 20. 
 
 NationaHty, principle of, 43. 
 
 North Ministry, fall of, 27. 
 
94 INDEX 
 
 Ottokar, Duke, 38. 
 Ottoman Turks, 36-37. 
 
 Parliament Act of 1911, 11. 
 Petition of Right, English, 9. 
 Pragmatic Sanction, 50. 
 Prussia, position of in Empire, 30. 
 
 Races in Austria-Hungary, 59. 
 Reform Acts, English, 9. 
 Representation of the People Act 1918, 9. 
 Reichstag, German, 34. 
 
 Sardinia, Kingdom of, 21. 
 
 Savoy, House of, 20. 
 
 Saxony, 33. 
 
 Scotland, union with England, 9. 
 
 Self-determination, 59, 64. 
 
 Slavonia, 58. 
 
 Statesman's Year-Book, 14. 
 
 Suleiman II, 37. 
 
 Titles of Austrian rulers, 40-41. 
 
 "Wilson, President, on war aims, 1. 
 Wiirttemberg, 33. 
 
pm 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 795 336 1