THE ORIGIN OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS, AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE HISTORY OF

THE WRITTEN BALLOT.

By DOUGLAS CAMPBELL, of New York City.

James Russell Lowell once remarked that Englishmen, when in good humor, or afraid that we will do them some mischief, call us their kin across the sea, American cousins, or children of the Mother Country.' But until a recent date these expressions of cordiality have been far from common. We were, in early days, regarded somewhat as the black sheep of the Anglo-Saxon family; or, at least, as poor relations, and our English cousins were rather disinclined to recognize their republican connections, who seemed to reflect more or less discredit on their wealthy and aristocratic kinsmen.

With the conclusion of our great civil war, however, this feeling underwent a change. The Republic then revealed the inherent strength of its institutions, and it entered upon a career of material prosperity which has made it not only the first agricultural and manufacturing, but the wealthiest, country on the globe. Being now powerful and rich, it is but natural that our neighbors should manifest a peculiar interest in our pedigree. In this field the lead has been taken by the enterprising Englishmen who, during the past few years, have written a multitude of books relating to America and her institutions. Some of these books are very good, some insufferably bad; but good, bad, or indifferent, most of their authors are united upon one pointwe are a pure English race, and our institutions are derived Among My Books," p. 235. 165

165]

from the Mother Country. How else, they seem to ask, could we have accomplished such results?

This, of course, is intended as the highest compliment which an Englishman can pay, and we should be very deficient in courtesy if we received it in an ungracious spirit. We should also be very ungrateful if we failed to recognize our debt of gratitude to some of these friendly critics for pointing out our various shortcomings, and, more particularly, for stimulating among us the spirit of historical research to which this Association is devoted. But, in the latter direction, the influence of these writers may be more harmful than beneficial, if we blindly accept their theory that we are an English race with English institutions. This conclusion, or assumption rather, is natural enough for them, but it is not so pardonable among Americans who know something about the facts.

In the first place as to the question of race. No one can understand the history of the United States who fails to take into account the remarkable intermixture of nationalities, which has prevailed among us from the earliest days. In the middle colonies, for example, which contributed at least their full share to American institutions, the population, even at the time of the Revolution, was probably not half English by descent.' In addition, there were scattered through all the other colonies large numbers of French Huguenots, Germans, Scotch, Irish, and Swedes, counted as English, but essentially modifying the mass of the population and the national type.'

When now we turn to the question of our institutions, we reach a field in which the facts are even more striking. These institutions are, to be sure, largely Puritan, using the word in its broadest sense, but they are not English. Any one who studies with care the history of the English Com

'See Burnaby's "Travels in North America, 1759"; "Life of Gouverneur Morris," by Theodore Roosevelt, p. 11; Lecky's "England in the 18th Century," chap. xii.

2 See as to the Huguenots, Baird's "Huguenot Emigration to America,” a work which, through the death of the author, unfortunately remains uncompleted.

monwealth will see that the political, legal, and religious reforms then introduced or advocated were few of them taken from English precedents. They were mostly novel in that country, and the soil being unfruitful and the climate ungenial, they soon withered and died away, while they took root and flourished on this side of the Atlantic. Since the Commonwealth expired, however, England has been doing little in the way of progress except to follow out the novel schemes then proposed.' It is this movement, now going on more rapidly than ever, which is bringing about the resemblance between England and America that misleads so many casual observers.

Now let us glance at some of our American institutions, and see whether they are English. At the base of them all lies the principle propounded in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal." This has been called a "glittering generality," and so it is; but it is to the life of the Republic just what the atmosphere and the ocean, both glittering generalities, are to the life of man. We.do not need the testimony of Sir Henry Maine,' for the information that this principle is derived from Roman jurispru dence, and that it is now, and always has been, absolutely unknown to English law. Next, look at the state church in England which, after the nobility, is in that country the most important institution. This Church is supported by a tax levied on every one whether he is an Episcopalian or a Dissenter. Its ministers are not chosen by their congregations, as in the United States, but are appointed by the government, or by private individuals, who have inherited or bought the privilege, and these patrons may be infidels or pagans.

Then come our whole land system, with its absence of primogeniture, and our laws in regard to the registration of deeds and mortgages, all of which laws are unknown in England, except in very limited districts where they have been recently introduced. Daniel Webster, in his great speech at Plymouth, said that our laws relating to land made the

American Republic. After these laws comes our system of local self-government, beginning with the town-meeting and ending with the distribution of powers between the general government and those of the separate States. None of these things are even to-day found in the Mother Country, nor does such a thing exist there as a written constitution which confines each department of the government to its own functions, with a Supreme Court to supervise the whole and see that no department infringes upon another, or upon the guaranteed rights of the individual.

In our general government we have, as in England, an executive and two legislative bodies, but the likeness goes little further. Our President in nothing resembles the English Queen, who has no power except in matters of official etiquette. Our Senate is sometimes called an upper house, but in no particular does it resemble the House of Lords. It represents sovereign States, takes part in legislation, confirms appointments, shares with the President the treatymaking power, and its voice is necessary for declaring war or peace. No such authority is given to the House of Lords, which now simply represents caste in state and church, with no power in legislation except that of obstruction, faintly and fitfully exercised under the terror of annihilation.

Nor is it only in these features of our political system that we differ from our so-called mother. With the settlement of the American colonies, common schools were founded, supported by the public and educating all classes. In 1870 England established her first common schools, but these are only for the very poor and very young. In the matter of free high schools, normal colleges, and free universities, she has done nothing, while in this department the United States leads the world.

As to freedom of religion and freedom of the press we have the same story. Every one knows something of the history of religious liberty in America. In England permission to hold office was not extended to Unitarians until 1812, to Roman Catholics until 1829, and to Jews until

1858, and even to-day a Roman Catholic cannot hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or Lord Chancellor of England.

In establishing the freedom of the press, Pennsylvania led off in her second constitution, that of 1790. By this instrument it was provided that in all prosecutions for libel of public officers, "or where the matter published is proper for public information," the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury may decide the law as well as the facts. It was not until 1845, under Lord Campbell's act, that this principle, then firmly settled in the United States, became the law of England.

As freedom of religion protects the conscience, and freedom of the press the mind, so does the secret ballot protect the suffrage. When votes are given viva voce, or in any other manner which enables one person to know how another has voted, there can be no freedom of election. This seems to us an axiom in politics, but it was not until the year 1872 that voting by written or printed ballots was introduced into England. Until that date all elections there were, after the fashion of rude nations, conducted by oral declaration or by show of hands. Turning now to America, we find the written ballot used by the early settlers two centuries and a half ago.

These are great institutions, without which, and without the broad suffrage, only lately introduced into England, the American Republic seems impossible. But when we turn to other important matters of a legal character we still see the United States as an instructor, and not a pupil.

In 1819 England had more than two hundred and twenty offences punishable by death. Of her criminal laws Sir Samuel Romilly said: "I have examined the codes of all other nations, and ours is the worst, worthy of the anthropophagi." The first reform in this direction came also from Pennsylvania, being ordered in her constitution of 1776, and here New York took the second place. So, too, Pennsylvania led off, with a close second in New York, in the reform of our prisons, which, in England, until after