north america-2-第74章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


hich　especially　recommends　itself　to　the　minds　of　free　men。　　So　much　of　responsibility　they　take　as　a　matter　of　course；　as　they　do　the　air　which　they　breathe。　　It　would　be　nothing　to　us　to　know　that　Lord　Palmerston　could　be　impeached　for　robbing　the　treasury；　or　Lord　Russell　punished　for　selling　us　to　Austria。　It　is　well　that　such　laws　should　exist；　but　we　do　not　in　the　least　suspect　those　noble　lords　of　such　treachery。　　We　are　anxious　to　know；　not　in　what　way　they　may　be　impeached　and　beheaded　for　great　crimes；　but　by　what　method　they　may　be　kept　constantly　straight　in　small　matters。　　That　they　are　true　and　honest　is　a　matter　of　course。　But　they　must　be　obedient　also；　discreet；　capable；　and；　above　all　things；　of　one　mind　with　the　public。　　Let　them　be　that；　or　if　not　they；　then　with　as　little　delay　as　may　be；　some　others　in　their　place。　　That　with　us　is　the　meaning　of　ministerial　responsibility。　To　that　responsibility　all　the　cabinet　is　subject。　　But　in　the　government　of　the　United　States　there　is　no　such　responsibility。　The　President　is　placed　at　the　head　of　the　executive　for　four　years；　and　while　he　there　remains　no　man　can　question　him。　　It　is　not　that　the　scope　of　his　power　is　great。　　Our　own　Prime　Minister　is　doubtless　more　powerfulhas　a　wider　authority。　　But　it　is　that　within　the　scope　of　his　power　the　President　is　free　from　all　check。　There　are　no　reins；　constitutional　or　unconstitutional；　by　which　he　can　be　restrained。　　He　can　absolutely　repudiate　a　majority　of　both　Houses；　and　refuse　the　passage　of　any　act　of　Congress　even　though　supported　by　those　majorities。　　He　can　retain　the　services　of　ministers　distasteful　to　the　whole　country。　　He　can　place　his　own　myrmidons　at　the　head　of　the　army　and　navy；　or　can　himself　take　the　command　immediately　on　his　own　shoulders。　　All　this　he　can　do；　and　there　is　no　one　that　can　question　him。　It　is　hardly　necessary　that　I　should　point　out　the　fundamental　difference　between　our　king　or　queen；　and　the　President　of　the　United　States。　　Our　sovereign；　we　all　know；　is　not　responsible。　Such　is　the　nature　of　our　constitution。　　But　there　is　not　on　that　account　any　analogy　between　the　irresponsibility　of　the　Queen　and　that　of　the　President。　　The　Queen　can　do　no　wrong；　but　therefore；　in　all　matters　of　policy　and　governance；　she　must　be　ruled　by　advice。　For　that　advice　her　ministers　are　responsible；　and　no　act　of　policy　or　governance　can　be　done　in　England　as　to　which　responsibility　does　not　immediately　settle　on　the　shoulders　appointed　to　bear　it。　　But　this　is　not　so　in　the　States。　　The　President　is　nominally　responsible。　　But　from　that　every…day　working　responsibility；　which　is　to　us　so　invaluable；　the　President　is　in　fact　free。　I　will　give　an　instance　of　this。　　Now；　at　this　very　moment　of　my　writing；　news　has　reached　us　that　President　Lincoln　has　relieved　General　McClellan　from　the　command　of　the　whole　army；　that　he　has　given　separate　commands　to　two　other　generalsto　General　Halleck；　namely；　and；　alas！　to　General　Fremont；　and　that　he　has　altogether　altered　the　whole　organization　of　the　military　command　as　it　previously　existed。　　This　he　did　not　only　during　war；　but　with　reference　to　a　special　battle；　for　the　special　fighting　of　which　he；　as　ex…officio　commander…in…chief　of　the　forces；　had　given　orders。　　I　do　not　hereby　intend　to　criticise　this　act　of　the　President's；　or　to　point　out　that　that　has　been　done　which　had　better　have　been　left　undone。　　The　President；　in　a　strategetical　point　of　view；　may　have　been；　very　probably　has　been；　quite　right。　　I；　at　any　rate；　cannot　say　that　he　has　been　wrong。　　But　then　neither　can　anybody　else　say　so　with　any　power　of　making　himself　heard。　　Of　this　action　of　the　President's；　so　terribly　great　in　its　importance　to　the　nation；　no　one　has　the　power　of　expressing　any　opinion　to　which　the　President　is　bound　to　listen。　　For　four　years　he　has　this　sway；　and　at　the　end　of　four　years　he　becomes　so　powerless　that　it　is　not　then　worth　the　while　of　any　demagogue　in　a　fourth…rate　town　to　occupy　his　voice　with　that　President's　name。　　The　anger　of　the　country　as　to　the　things　done　both　by　Pierce　and　Buchanan　is　very　bitter。　　But　who　wastes　a　thought　upon　either　of　these　men？　　A　past　President　in　the　United　States　is　of　less　consideration　than　a　past　mayor　in　an　English　borough。　　Whatever　evil　he　may　have　done　during　his　office；　when　out　of　office　he　is　not　worth　the　powder　which　would　be　expended　in　an　attack。　But　the　President　has　his　ministers　as　our　Queen　has　hers。　　In　one　sense　he　has　such　ministers。　　He　has　high　State　servants　who　under　him　take　the　control　of　the　various　departments；　and　exercise　among　them　a　certain　degree　of　patronage　and　executive　power。　　But　they　are　the　President's　ministers；　and　not　the　ministers　of　the　people。　Till　lately　there　has　been　no　chief　minister　among　them；　nor　am　I　prepared　to　say　that　there　is　any　such　chief　at　present。　　According　to　the　existing　theory　of　the　government　these　gentlemen　have　simply　been　the　confidential　servants　of　the　commonwealth　under　the　President；　and　have　been　attached　each　to　his　own　department　without　concerted　political　alliance　among　themselves；　without　any　acknowledged　chief　below　the　President；　and　without　any　combined　responsibility　even　to　the　President。　　If　one　minister　was　in　fault　let　us　say　the　Postmaster…Generalhe　alone　was　in　fault；　and　it　did　not　fall　to　the　lot　of　any　other　minister　either　to　defend　him；　or　to　declare　that　his　conduct　was　indefensible。　　Each　owed　his　duty　and　his　defense　to　the　President　alone　and　each　might　be　removed　alone；　without　explanation　given　by　the　President　to　the　others。　　I　imagine　that　the　late　practice　of　the　President's　cabinet　has　in　some　degree　departed　from　this　theory；　but　if　so；　the　departure　has　sprung　from　individual　ambition　rather　than　from　any　pre…concerted　plan。　　Some　one　place　in　the　cabinet　has　seemed　to　give　to　some　one　man　an　opportunity　of　making　himself　pre…eminent；　and　of　this　opportunity　advantage　has　been　taken。　　I　am　not　now　intending　to　allude　to　any　individual；　but　am　endeavoring　to　indicate　the　way　in　which　a　ministerial　cabinet；　after　the　fashion　of　our　British　cabinet；　is　struggling　to　get　itself　righted。　　No　doubt　the　position　of　Foreign　Secretary　has　for　some　time　past　been　considered　as　the　most　influential　under　the　President。　　This　has　been　so　much　the　case　that　many　have　not　hesitated　to　call　the　Secretary　of　State　the　chief　minister。　　At　the　present　moment；　May；　l862；　the　gentleman　who　is　at　the　head　of　the　War　Department　has；　I　think；　in　his　own　hands　greater　power　than　any　of　his　colleagues。　It　will　probably　come　to　pass　before　long　that　one　special　minister　will　be　the　avowed　leader　of　the　cabinet；　and　that　he　will　be　recognized　as　the　chief　servant　of　the　States　under　the　President。　Our　own　cabinet；　which　now…a…days　seems　with　us　to　be　an　institution　as　fixed　as　Parliament　and　as　necessary　as　the　throne；　has　grown　by　degrees　into　its　present　shape；　and　is　not　in　truth　nearly　so　old　as　many　of　us　suppose　it　to　be。　　It　shaped　itself；　I　imagine；　into　its　present　form；　and　even　into　its　present　joint　responsibility；　during　the　reign　of　George　III。　　It　must　be　remembered　that　even　with　us　there　is　no　such　thing　as　a　constitutional　Pr