of the great central Mississippi Valley, all announcing the
fraternizing influence of the new step.

Governor Willson, of Kentucky, chairman of the committee which arranged
the gathering, in an earnest speech to its members declared that, "If
this conference of Governors had been in existence as an institution in
1860, there would never have been a war between the States. The issues
of the day would have been settled by argument, adjustment, and
compromise." It would be hard to find stronger words for measuring the
possible importance of the new institution.

WILLIAM G. JORDAN

The conference of the Governors at Washington this month marks the
beginning of a new epoch in the political history of the nation. It is
the first meeting ever held of the State Executives as a body seeking,
by their united influence, to secure uniform laws on vital subjects for
the welfare of the entire country. It should not be confused with the
Roosevelt conferences of May and December, 1908. It is in no sense a
continuation of them. It is essentially different in aim, method, and
basis, and is larger, broader, and more far-reaching in its
possibilities.

The nation to-day is facing a grave crisis in its history. Vital
problems affecting the welfare of the whole country, remaining unsolved
through the years, have at last reached an acute stage where they
_demand_ solution. This solution must come now in some form--either in
harmony with the Constitution or in defiance of it. The Federal
Government has been and still is absolutely powerless to act because of
constitutional limitation; the State governments have the sole power,
but heretofore no way has been provided for them to exercise that
power.

Senator Elihu Root points out fairly, squarely, and relentlessly the
two great dangers confronting the Republic: the danger of the National
Government breaking down in its effective machinery through the burdens
that threaten to be cast upon it; and the danger that the local
self-government of the States may, through disuse, become inefficient.
The House of Governors plan seems to have in it possibilities of
mastering both of these evils at one stroke.

There are three basic weaknesses in the American system of government
as we know it to-day. There are three insidious evils that are creeping
like a blood-poison through the body politic, threatening the very life
of the Republic. They are killing the soul of self-government, though
perhaps not its form; destroying its essence, though perhaps not its
name.

These three evils, so intertwined as to be practically one, are: the
growing centralization at Washington, the shifting, undignified,
uncertain status of State rights, and the lack of uniform laws.

It was to propose a possible cure for these three evils that the writer
sent in February, 1907, to President Roosevelt and to the Governors of
the country a pamphlet on a new idea in American politics. It was the
institution of a new House, a new representation of the people and of
the States to secure uniform legislation on those questions wherein the
Federal Governments could not act because of Constitutional limitation.
The plan proposed, so simple that it would require no Constitutional
amendment to put it into effect, was the organization of the House of
Governors.

More than thirty Governors responded in cordial approval of the plan.
Eight months later, October, 1907, President Roosevelt invited the
State Executives to a conference at Washington in May, 1908. The writer
pointed out at that time what seemed an intrinsic weakness of the
convention, that it could have little practical result, because it
would be, after all, only a conference, where the Federal Government,
by its limitations, was powerless to carry the findings of the
conference into effect, and the Governors, acting not as a co-operative
body, but as individuals, would be equally powerless in effecting
uniform legislation. It was a conference of conflicting powers.

The Governors were then urged to meet upon their own initiative, as a
body of peers, working out by united State action those problems where
United States action had for more than a century proved powerless. At
the close of the Roosevelt conference the Governors, at an adjourned
meeting, appointed a committee to arrange time and place for a session
of the Governors in a body of their own, independently of the
President. This movement differentiated the proposed meeting absolutely
from that with the President in every fundamental. It essentially
became more than a conference; it meant a deliberative body of the
Governors uniting to initiate, to inspire, and to influence uniform
laws. The committee then named, consisting of three members, later
increased to five, set the dates January 18, 19, and 20, 1910, for the
first session of the Governors as a separate body.

WILLIAM G. JORDAN[1]

[Footnote 1: Reproduced from _The Craftsman_ of October, 1910, by
permission of Gustav Stickley.]

When a new idea or a new institution confronts the world it must answer
all challenges, show its credentials, specify its claims for
usefulness, and prove its promise by its performance. As an idea the
House of Governors has won the cordial approval of the American press
and public; as an institution it must now justify this confidence. To
grasp fully its powers and possibilities requires a clear, definite
understanding of its spirit, scope, plan, and purpose, and its attitude
toward the Federal Government.

The House of Governors is a union of the Governors of all the States,
meeting annually in conference as a deliberative body (with no
lawmaking power) for initiative, influence, and inspiration toward a
better, higher, and more unified Statehood. Its organization will be
simple and practical, avoiding red-tape, unnecessary formality, and
elaborate rules and regulations. It will adopt the few fundamental
expressions of its principles of action and the least number of rules
that are absolutely essential to enunciate its plan and scope, to
transmute its united wisdom into united action and to guarantee the
coherence, continuity, and permanence of the organization despite the
frequent changes in its membership due to the short terms of the
Executives in many of the States.

With the House of Governors rests the power of securing through the
cooperative action of the State legislatures uniform laws on vital
questions demanded by the whole country almost since the dawn of our
history, but heretofore impossible of enactment. The Federal Government
is powerless to pass these laws. For many decades, tight held by the
cramping bonds of Constitutional limitation, it has strained and
struggled, like Samson in the temple, to find some weak spot at which
it could free itself, and endangered the very supporting columns of the
edifice of the Republic. It was bound in its lawmaking powers to the
limitation of eighteen specific phrases, beyond which all power
remained with the States and the people. In the matter of enacting
uniform laws the States have been equally powerless, for, though their
Constitutional right to make them was absolute and unquestioned, no way
had been provided by which they could exercise that right. The States
as individuals, passing their own laws, without considering their
relation or harmony with the laws of other States, brought about a
condition of confusion and conflict. Laws that from their very nature
should be common to all of the States, in the best interests of all,
are now divergent, different, and antagonistic. We have to-day the
strange anomaly of forty-six States united in a union as integral parts
of a single nation, yet having many laws of fundamental importance as
different as though the States were forty-six distinct countries or
nationalities.

Facing the duality of incapacity--that of the Government because it was
not permitted to act and the States because they did not know how to
exercise the power they possessed--the Federal Government sought new
power for new needs through Constitutional amendments. This effort
proved fruitless and despairing, for with more than two thousand
attempts made in over a century only three amendments were secured, and
these were merely to wind up the Civil War. The whole fifteen
amendments taken together have not added the weight of a hair of
permanent new power to the Federal Government. The people and the
States often sleep serenely on their rights, but they never willingly
surrender them, yet the surrender of a right is often the brave
recognition of a higher duty, the fine assumption of a higher
privilege. In many phases the need grew urgent, something had to be
done. By ingeniously tapping the Constitution to find a weak place and
hammering it thin by decisions, by interpretations, by liberal
readings, by technical evasions and other methods, needed laws were
passed in the interests of the people and the States. Many of these
laws would not stand the rigid scrutiny of the Supreme Court; to many
of them the Government's title may now be valid by a kind of
"squatter's sovereignty" in legislation,--merely so many years of
undisputed possession.

This was not the work of one administration; it ran with intermittent
ebb and flow through many administrations. Then the slumbering States,
turning restlessly in their complacency, at last awoke and raised a
mighty cry of "Centralization." They claimed that the Government was
taking away their rights, which may be correct in essence but hardly
just in form; they had lost their rights, primarily, not through
usurpation but through abrogation; the Government had acted because of
the default of the States, it had practically been forced to exercise
powers limited to the States because the States lapsed through neglect
and inaction. Then the Government discovered the vulnerable spot in our
great charter, the Achilles heel of the Constitution. It was just six
innocent-looking words in section eight empowering Congress to
"regulate commerce between the several States." It was a rubber phrase,
capable of infinite stretching. It was drawn out so as to cover
antitrust legislation, control and taxation of corporations,
water-power, railroad rates, etc., pure-food law, white-slave traffic,
and a host of others. But even with the most generous extension of this
phrase, which, though it may be necessary, was surely not the original
intent of the Constitution, the greatest number of the big problems
affecting the welfare of the people are still outside the province of
the Government and are up to the States for solution.

It was to meet this situation, wherein the Government and the States as
individuals could not act, that the simple, self-evident plan of the
House of Governors was proposed. It required no Constitutional
amendment or a single new law passed in any State to create it or to
continue it. It can not make laws; it would be unwise for it to make
them even were it possible. Its sole power is as a mighty moral
influence, as a focusing point for public opinion and as a body equal
to its opportunity of transforming public opinion into public sentiment
and inspiring legislatures to crystallize this sentiment into needed
laws. It will live only as it represents the people, as it has their
sympathy, support, and cooperation, as it seeks to make the will of the
people prevail. But this means a longer, stronger, finer life than any
mere legal authority could give it.

The House of Governors has the dignity of simplicity. It means merely
the conference of the State Executives, the highest officers and truest
representatives of the States, on problems that are State and
Interstate, and concerted action in recommendations to their
legislatures. The fullest freedom would prevail at all meetings; no
majority vote would control the minority; there would have to be a
quorum decided upon as the number requisite for an initial impulse
toward uniform legislation. If the number approving fell below the
quorum the subject would be shown as not yet ripe for action and be
shelved. Members would be absolutely free to accept or reject, to do
exactly as they please, so no unwilling legislation could be forced on
any State. But if a sufficient number agreed these Governors would
recommend the passage of the desired law to their legislatures in their
next messages. The united effort would give it a greater importance, a
larger dynamic force, and a stronger moral influence with each. It
would be backed by the influence of the Governors, the power of public
sentiment, the leverage of the press, so that the passage of the law
should come easily and naturally. With a few States passing it, others
would fall in line; it would be kept a live issue and followed up and
in a few years we would have legislation national in scope, but not in
genesis.

The House of Governors, in its attitude toward the Federal Government,
is one of right and dignified non-interference. It will not use its
influence with the Government, memorialize Congress, or pass
resolutions on national matters. What the Governors do or say
individually is, of course, their right and privilege, but as a body it
took its stand squarely and positively at its first conference which
met in Washington in January of this year as one of "securing greater
uniformity of State action and better State Government." Governor
Hughes expressed it in these words: "We are here in our own right as
State Executives; we are not here to accelerate or to develop opinion
with regard to matters which have been committed to Federal power." The
States in their relation to the Federal Government have all needed
representation in their Senators and Congressmen.

The attitude of the Governors in their conferences is one of
concentration on State and Interstate problems which are outside of the
domain and Constitutional rights of the Federal Government to solve.
There can be no interference when each confines itself to its own
duties. In keeping the time of the nation the Federal Government
represents the hour-hand, the States, united, the minute-hand. There
will be correct time only as each hand confines itself strictly to its
own business, neither attempting to jog the other, but working in
accord with the natural harmony wrapped up in the mechanism.

We need to-day to draw the sharpest clear-cut line of demarcation
between Federal and State powers. This is in no spirit of antagonism,
but in the truest harmony for the best interests of both. It means an
illumination which will show that the "twilight zone," so called, does
not exist. This dark continent of legislation belongs absolutely to the
States and to the people in the unmistakable terms of the Tenth
Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution or prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the
States, respectively, and to the people." This buffer territory of
legislation, the domain of needed uniform laws, belongs to the States
and through the House of Governors they may enter in and possess their
own. The Federal Government and the States are parts of one great
organization, each having its specific duties, powers, and
responsibilities, and between them should be no conflict, no inharmony.

Let the Federal Government, through Congress, make laws up to the very
maximum of its rights and duties under the Constitution; let the
States, taking up their neglected duties and privileges, relieve the
Government of those cares and responsibilities forced upon it by the
inactivity of the States and which it should never have had to assume.
With the burden thus equitably readjusted, with the dignity of the two
powers of Government working out their individual problems in the
harmony of a fuller understanding, let us face the results. If it then
seem, in the light of changed conditions from those of the time of the
writing of the Constitution, that certain control now held by the
States can not properly be exercised by them, that in final decision of
the best wisdom of the people this power should be vested in the
Federal Government, let the States not churlishly hold on to the casket
of a dead right, but surrender the living body of a responsibility and
a duty to the power best able to be its guardian. There are few, if
any, of their neglected powers of legislation that the States and the
people acting in cooperation, through the House of Governors, will not
be able to handle.

Some of the subjects upon which free discussion tending toward uniform
laws seems desirable are: marriage and divorce, rights of married
women, corporations and trusts, insurance, child labor, capital
punishment, direct primaries, convict labor and labor in general,
prison reforms, automobile regulations, contracts, banking,
conveyancing, inheritance tax, income tax, mortgages, initiative,
referendum and recall, election reforms, tax adjustment, and similar
topics. In great questions, like Conservation, the Federal Government
has distinct problems it must carry out alone; there are some problems
that must be solved by the States alone, some that may require to be
worked out in cooperation. But the greatest part of the needed
conservation is that which belongs to the States, and which they can
manage better, more thoroughly, more judiciously, with stronger appeal
to State pride, upbuilding, and prosperity, with less conflict and
clearer recognition of local needs and conditions and harmony with them
than can the Federal Government. Four-fifths of the timber standing in
the country to-day is owned, not by the States or the Government, but
by private interests.

The House of Governors will not seek uniformity merely for the sake of
uniformity. There are many questions whereon uniform laws would be
unnecessary, and others where it would be not only unwise, but
inconceivably foolish. Many States have purely individual problems that
do not concern the other States and do not come in conflict with them,
but even in these the Governors may gain an occasional incidental
sidelight of illumination from the informal discussion in a conference
that may make thinking clearer and action wiser. The spirit that should
inspire the States is the fullest freedom in purely State problems and
the largest unity in laws that affect important questions in Interstate
relations.

While uniform law is an important element in the thought of the
Conference it is far from being the only one. The frank, easy
interchange of view, opinion, and experience brings the Governors
closely together in the fine fellowship of a common purpose and a
common ideal. They are broadened, stimulated, and inspired to a keener,
clearer vision on a wider outlook. The most significant, vital, and
inspiring phases of these conferences, those which really count for
most, and are the strongest guaranties of the permanence and power of
this movement, must, however, remain intangible. This fact was manifest
in every moment of that first Conference last January.

The fading of sectional prejudice in the glow of sympathetic
understanding was clearly evident. Some of the Western Governors in
their speeches said that their people of the West had felt that they
were isolated, misrepresented, misunderstood, and misjudged; but now
these Governors could go back to their States and their people with
messages of good will and tell them of the identity of interest, the
communion of purpose, the kinship of common citizenship, and the closer
knowledge that bound them more firmly to the East, to the South, and to
the North. Other Governors spoke of the facilitating of official
business between the States because of these meetings. They would no
longer, in correspondence, write to a State Executive as a mere name
without personality, but their letters would carry with them the
memories of close contact and cordial association with those whom they
had learned to know. There was no faintest tinge of State jealousies or
rivalry. The Governors talked frankly, freely, earnestly of their
States and for them, but it was ever with the honest pride of
trusteeship, never the petty vanity of proprietorship.

Patriotism seemed to throw down the walls of political party and
partizanship and in the three days' session the words Republican or
Democrat were never once spoken. The Governors showed themselves an
able body of men keenly alive to the importance of their work and with
a firm grasp on the essential issues. The meeting added a new dignity
to Statehood and furnished a new revelation of the power, prestige, and
possibilities of the Governor's office. The atmosphere of the session
was that of States' rights, but it was a new States' rights, a
purified, finer, higher recognition by the States of their individual
right and duty of self-government within their Constitutional
limitations. It meant no lessening of interest in the Federal
Government or of respect and honor of it. It was as a family of sons
growing closer together, strengthened as individuals and working to
solve those problems they have in common, and to make their own way
rather than to depend in weakness on the father of the household to
manage all their affairs and do their thinking for them. To him should
be left the watchfulness of the family as a whole, not the dictation of
their individual living.

President Taft had no part in the Conference, but in an address of
welcome to the Governors at the White House showed his realization of
the vital possibility of the meeting in these words:

"I regard this movement as of the utmost importance. The Federal
Constitution has stood the test of more than one hundred years in
supplying the powers that have been needed to make the central
Government as strong as it ought to be, and with this movement toward
uniform legislation and agreement between the States I do not see why
the Constitution may not serve our purpose always."

AUGUSTUS E. WILLSON[1]

Governor of Kentucky

[Footnote 1: The following letters are reprinted by permission from a
collection of such commentaries from _Cottier's Weekly_.]

President Roosevelt held two conferences of Governors, and as a member
of a committee chosen to do so, I have invited the Governors of all of
the States and Territories to meet at the White House in Washington,
January 18th, 19th, and 20th.

The conference has no legal authority of any kind. At the previous
conferences, the conservation subject was the one chiefly thought of,
and it will be brought up in the next conference. The question of what
the Governors will recommend on the income-tax constitutional amendment
may come up. The matter of handling extradition papers is important.
Uniform State laws on matters of universal interest, school laws, road
laws, tax laws, commercial paper, warehouse receipts, bills of lading,
etc.; the control of corporations, of which taxation is one branch, the
action of the States in regard to water-powers within the States;
marriage, divorce, wills, schools, roads, are all within the range of
this conference, and the agreement of all of the Governors on some of
these subjects, and by many of them on any, would be of useful
influence.

The meeting has further interest and importance in being for two days
in touch with the National Civic Federation, which will afford all of
the Governors a chance to learn what that association of many of the
most prominent men of this country is doing, and get the benefit of its
discussions and the pleasure of being acquainted with many leaders of
thought and action in the country, who will attend its sessions.

I am sure that I speak the sentiment of all of the Governors that they
do not wish any legal power or any authority except that of the weight
of their opinion as chosen State officers. They only wish the benefit
of discussion of important subjects interesting to all of the States,
and to establish kindly and mutually helpful relations between the
Governors and the Governments of the States.

EBEN S. DRAPER

Governor of Massachusetts

I believe that a meeting of Governors may accomplish much good for
every section of the country. They naturally can not legislate, nor
should they attempt to. They can discuss and can learn many things
which are now controlled by law in different States and which would be
improvements to the laws of their own States; and they can recommend to
the legislatures of their own States the enactment of laws which will
bring about these improvements.

These Governors will be the forty-six [now forty-eight] representative
units of the States of this great nation. By coming together they will
be more than ever convinced that they are integral parts of one nation,
and I believe their meeting will tend to remove all notions of
sectionalism and will help the patriotism and solidarity of the
country.

CHARLES S. DENEEN

Governor of Illinois

The conservation of natural resources often necessitates the
cooperation of neighboring States. In such cases, the discussion of
proposed conservation work by the representatives of the States
concerned is of great importance. It brings to the consideration of
these subjects the views and opinions of those most interested and best
informed in regard to the questions involved.

The same is true in relation to many subjects of State legislation in
which uniformity is desirable. This is especially the case with regard
to industrial legislation. The great volume of domestic business is
interstate, and the industrial legislation of one State frequently
affects, and sometimes fixes, industrial conditions elsewhere. An
example of the advantage of cooperation of States in the amendment and
revision of laws affecting industry is seen in the agreement by the
commissions recently appointed by New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to
investigate the subjects of employers' liability and workmen's
compensation to meet for the joint discussion of these matters. The
General Assembly of Illinois is now convened in extraordinary session,
and has under consideration the appointment of a similar commission in
order that it may meet and cooperate with the commissions of the States
named.

Along these and other similar lines it seems to me that the House of
Governors will be of practical advantage in the beneficial influence it
will exert in the promotion of joint action where that is necessary to
secure desired ends.

FRANK W. BENSON Governor of Oregon

President Roosevelt rendered the American people a great service when
he invited the Governors of the various States to a conference at the
White House in 1908. The subject of conservation of our natural
resources received such attention from the assembled Governors that the
conservation movement has spread to all parts of the country, and has
gained such headway that it will be of lasting benefit to our people.
This one circumstance alone proves the wisdom of the conference of
Governors, and it is my earnest hope that the organization be made
permanent, with annual meetings at our national capital.

Such meetings can not help but have a broadening effect upon our State
Executives, for, by interchanging ideas and by learning how the
governments of other States are conducted, our Governors will gain
experience which ought to prove of great benefit, not only to
themselves, but to the commonwealths which they represent. Matters
pertaining to interstate relations, taxation, education, conservation,
irrigation, waterways, uniform legislation, and the management of State
institutions are among the subjects that the conference of Governors
will do well to discuss; and such discussions will prove of inestimable
value, not only to the people of our different States, but to our
country as a whole.

The West is in the front rank of all progressive movements and welcomes
the conference of Governors as a step in the right direction.

ALBERT W. GILCHRIST

Governor of Florida

I can only estimate the significance and importance of this conference
of Governors by my experience from such a conference in the past. It
was my good fortune to be for a week last October on the steamer
excursion down the Mississippi River. The Governors held daily
conferences. Several elucidated the manner in which some particular
governmental problems were solved in their respective States, all of
which was more or less interesting. Of the several Federal matters
discussed, it was specially interesting to me to hear the various
Republican Governors discussing State rights, disputing the right of
interference of the General Government on such lines. It "kinder" made
me smile. In formal discussions of such matters in public, in
Washington, it is probable that such expressions would not be made.

The result of this conference made me feel as if I knew the Governors
and the people of the various States therein represented far better
than I had before. Such discussions, with the attending personal
intercourse, naturally tend to give those participating in them a
broader nationality.

The House of Governors will convene; there will be many pleasant social
functions and many pleasant associations will be formed. Some of the
Governors will speak; all of them will resolute. They will behold
evidences of the greatness of our common country and the evidence of
the greatness of our public men, as displayed in the rollicking debates
in the House, and the "knot on the log" discussions of the Senate.
Everything will be as lovely as a Christmas tree. The House will then
adjourn.

HERBERT S. HADLEY

Governor of Missouri

During recent years, the development of the National idea has carried
with it a marked tendency on the part of the people to look to the
National Government for the correction of all evils and abuses existing
in commercial, industrial, and political affairs. The importance of the
State Governments in the solution of such questions has been minimized,
and, in some cases, entirely overlooked, although Congress has been
behind, rather than in advance of, public sentiment upon many questions
of national importance. The Congressmen are elected by the people of
the different Congressional Districts, and regard their most important
duty as looking after the interests of their respective districts. The
United States Senators are elected by the legislatures of the several
States, and do not feel that sense of responsibility to the people that
is incident to an election by the people. The Governors of the various
States are elected by all of the people of the State, and they are more
directly "tribunes of the people" than any other officials, either in
our National or State Governments. These officers will thus give a
correct expression of the sentiment of the people of the States upon
public questions.

While these expressions of opinion will naturally vary according to the
sentiments and opinions of the people of the various States
represented, yet, on the whole, they will represent more of progress
and more of actual contact with present-day problems than could be
secured from any similar number of public officials. And the addresses
and discussions will also tend to mold the opinions of the people and
have a marked influence not only upon State, but also upon National
legislation.




UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA A.D. 1910

PROF. STEPHEN LEACOCK

Few historical events have been so impressive as the sudden and
complete union of the South-African States. Seldom have men's minds
progressed so rapidly, their life purposes changed so completely. In
1902 England, with the aid of her African colonists in Cape Colony and
Natal, was ending a bitter war, almost of extermination, against the
Dutch "Boers" of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. In that year
the ablest and most dreaded of England's enemies in Africa was the
Dutch General, Louis Botha, leader of the fiercest and most
irreconcilable Boers, who still waged a hopeless guerrilla warfare
against all the might of the British Empire. As one English paper
dramatically phrases it: "One used to see pictures of Botha in the
illustrated papers in those days, a gaunt, bearded, formidable figure,
with rifle and bandoliers--the most dangerous of our foes. To-day he is
the chief servant of the King in the Federation, the loyal head of the
Administration under the Crown, one of the half-dozen Prime Ministers
of the Empire, the responsible representative and virtual ruler of all
races, classes, and sects in South Africa, acclaimed by the men he led
in the battle and the rout no less than by the men who faced him across
the muzzles of the Mausers ten years ago. Was ever so strange a
transformation, so swift an oblivion of old enmities and rancors, so
rapid a growth of union and concord out of hatred and strife!"

Necessity has in a way compelled this harmony. The old issue of Boer
independence being dead, new and equally vital issues confronted the
South-Africans. The whites there are scarcely more than a million in
number, and they dwell amid many times their number of savage blacks.
They must unite or perish. Moreover, the folly and expense of
maintaining four separate governments for so small a population were
obvious. So was the need of uniform tariffs in a land where all
sea-coast towns found their prosperity in forwarding supplies to the
rich central mining regions of Kimberley and Johannesburg. Hence all
earnest men of whatever previous opinion came to see the need of union.
And when this union had been accomplished, Lord Gladstone, the British
viceroy over South Africa, wisely selected as the fittest man for the
land's first Prime Minister, General Botha. Botha has sought to unite
all interests in the cabinet which he gathered around him.

The clear analysis of the new nation and its situation which follows is
reproduced by permission from the _American Political Science Review_,
and is from the pen of Professor Stephen Leacock, head of the
department of Political Economy of McGill University in Montreal,
Canada. A distinguished citizen of one great British federation may
well be accepted as the ablest commentator on the foundation of
another.

On May 31, 1910, the Union of South Africa became an accomplished fact.
The four provinces of Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange Free State (which
bears again its old-time name), and the Transvaal are henceforth
joined, one might almost say amalgamated, under a single government.
They will bear to the central government of the British Empire the same
relation as the other self-governing colonies--Canada, Newfoundland,
Australia, and New Zealand. The Empire will thus assume the appearance
of a central nucleus with four outlying parts corresponding to
geographical and racial divisions, and forming in all a ground-plan
that seems to invite a renewal of the efforts of the Imperial
Federationist. To the scientific student of government the Union of
South Africa is chiefly of interest for the sharp contrast it offers to
the federal structure of the American, Canadian, and other systems of
similar historical ground. It represents a reversion from the idea of
State rights, and balanced indestructible powers and an attempt at
organic union by which the constituent parts are to be more and more
merged in the consolidated political unit which they combine to form.

But the Union and its making are of great interest also for the general
student of politics and history, concerned rather with the development
of a nationality than with the niceties of constitutional law. From
this point of view the Union comes as the close of a century of strife,
as the aftermath of a great war, and indicates the consummation, for
the first time in history, of what appears as a solid basis of harmony
between the two races in South Africa. In one shape or other union has
always been the goal of South-African aspiration. It was "Union" which
the "prancing proconsuls" of an earlier time--the Freres, the
Shepstones, and the Lanyons--tried to force upon the Dutch. A united
Africa was at once the dream of a Rhodes and (perhaps) the ambition of
a Kruger. It is necessary to appreciate the strength of this desire for
union on the part of both races and the intense South-African
patriotism in which it rests in order to understand how the different
sections and races of a country so recently locked in the
death-struggle of a three years' war could be brought so rapidly into
harmonious concert.

The point is well illustrated by looking at the composition of the
convention, which, in its sessions at Durban, Cape Town, and
Bloemfontein, put together the present constitution. South Africa, from
its troubled history, has proved itself a land of strong men. But it
was reserved for the recent convention to bring together within the
compass of a single council-room the surviving leaders of the period of
conflict to work together for the making of a united state. In looking
over the list of them and reflecting on the part that they played
toward one another in the past, one realizes that we have here a grim
irony of history. Among them is General Louis Botha, Prime Minister at
the moment of the Transvaal, and now the first prime minister of South
Africa. Botha, in the days of Generals Buller and the Dugela, was the
hardest fighter of the Boer Republic. Beside him in the convention was
Dr. Jameson, whom Botha wanted to hang after the raid in 1896. Another
member is Sir George Farrar, who was sentenced to death for complicity
in the raid, and still another, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, once the
secretary of the Reform League at Johannesburg and well known as the
author of the "Transvaal from Within." One may mention in contrast
General Jan Smuts, an ex-leader of the Boer forces, and since the war
the organizing brain of the Het Volk party. There is also Mr. Merriman,
a leader of the British party of opposition to the war in 1899 and
since then a bitter enemy of Lord Milner and the new regime.

Yet strangely enough after some four months of session the convention
accomplished the impossible by framing a constitution that met the
approval of the united delegates. Of its proceedings no official
journal was kept. The convention met first at Durban, October 12, 1908,
where it remained throughout that month; after a fortnight's interval
it met again at Capetown, and with a three weeks' interruption at
Christmas continued and completed its work at the end of the first week
of February. The constitution was then laid before the different
colonial parliaments. In the Transvaal its acceptance was a matter of
course, as the delegates of both parties had reached an agreement on
its terms. The Cape Parliament passed amendments which involved giving
up the scheme of proportional representation as adopted by the
convention. Similar amendments were offered by the Orange River Colony
in which the Dutch leader sympathized with the leader of the
Afrikanderbond at the Cape in desiring to swamp out, rather than
represent, minorities. In Natal, which as an ultra-British and
ultra-loyal colony, was generally supposed to be in fear of union, many
amendments were offered. The convention then met again at Bloemfontein,
made certain changes in the draft of the constitution, and again
submitted the document to the colonies. This time it was accepted. Only
in Natal was it thought necessary to take a popular vote, and here,
contrary to expectation, the people voted heavily in favor of union.
The logic of the situation compelled it. In the history of the movement
Natal was cast for the same role as Rhode Island in the making of the
Federal Union of the United States of America. The other colonies, once
brought together into a single system, with power to adopt arrangements
in their own interests in regard to customs duties and transportation
rates, sheer economic pressure would have compelled the adhesion of
Natal. In the constitution now put in force in South Africa the central
point of importance is that it established what is practically a
unitary and not a federal government. The underlying reason for this is
found in the economic circumstances of the country and in the situation
in which the provinces found themselves during the years after the war.
Till that event the discord of South Africa was generally thought of
rather as a matter of racial rivalry and conflicting sovereignties than
of simple questions of economic and material interests.

But after the conclusion of the compact of Vereiniging in 1902 it was
found that many of the jealousies and difficulties of the respective
communities had survived the war, and rested rather upon economic
considerations than racial rivalries.

To begin with, there was the question of customs relations. The
colonies were separate units, each jealous of its own industrial
prosperity. Each had the right to make its own tariff, and yet the
division of the country, with four different tariff areas, was
obviously to its general disadvantage. Since 1903 the provinces had
been held together under the Customs Union of South Africa--made by the
governments of the Cape and Natal and the Crown Colony governments of
the conquered provinces. This was but a makeshift arrangement, with a
common tariff made by treaty, and hence rigidly unalterable, and with a
pro-rata division of the proceeds.

Worse still was the railroad problem, which has been in South Africa a
bone of contention ever since the opening of the mines of the Rand
offered a rich prize to any port and railway that could capture the
transit trade.

The essence of the situation is simple. The center of the wealth of
South Africa is the Johannesburg mines. This may not be forever the
case, but in the present undeveloped state of agriculture and
industrial life, Johannesburg is the dominating factor of the country.

Now, Johannesburg can not feed and supply itself. It is too busy. Its
one export is gold. Its quarter of a million people must be supplied
from the outside. But the Transvaal is an inland country dependent on