REMARKS.-Legislature. The powers of the legislature, being well known, and nearly similar in all the states, are not enumerated in the preceding table. It may be proper to mention here, however, that the senate have no power to originate money bills, excepting in the states of Connecticut, New York, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois and Missouri; and that, in New Jersey and Maryland, the senate can neither originate nor alter such bills. In Virginia, all laws originate in the house of representatives. The power of impeachment before the senate is vested in the house of representatives by all the state constitutions, except those of Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina. Maryland appears to have no court of impeachment, judicial officers being removable by conviction of misbehavior in a court of law. In Virginia, the house of delegates impeach before the court of appeals. In North Carolina, state officers may be impeached before any state court of supreme jurisdiction, either by the general assembly, or by presentment of the grand jury of the court. No pardoning power any where exists in cases of impeachment. In Alabama, a revision and new digest of civil and criminal law is to be made decennially. In Alabama, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri, the legislature are restricted in their power of erecting

banks.

Executive. The duties of the executives, in addition to those enumerated in the table, are, to superintend the execution of the laws, and to act as commandersin-chief of the militia. In Louisiana, the governor must visit the different counties at least once in two years, to inform himself of the state of the militia, and the general condition of the country.-Massachusetts is the only state whose constitution gives titles to the officers of government. The governor is entitled his excellency, the lieutenant-governor his honor. Religion. In the United States, every denomination of religion is equally under the protection of the law. In a few of the states, however, certain modes of belief are required as qualifications for office. In Massachusetts and Maryland, the declaration of a belief in the Christian religion is required to qualify for office. In New Jersey, no Protestant can be denied any civil right on account of his religious principles. In Pennsylvania, Mississippi and Tennessee, the belief in a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, is required as a qualification for office. In N. Carolina, no one denying the truth of

the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testament, or whose religious principles are incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state, can hold a civil office. In the other states, no religious test is required.— Persons conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, are every where permitted to substitute a solemn affirmation; and this is recognised by all the constitutions, except those of Virginia and North Carolina, and the charter of Rhode Island, a hiatus which is supplied in those states by law. Those who are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are every where allowed to pay an equivalent for personal service. In Tennessee, the legislature are enjoined to "pass laws exempting citizens belonging to any sect or denomination of religion, the tenets of which are known to be opposed to the bearing of arms, from attending private and general musters." In Maine, "persons of the denominations of Shakers or Quakers" may be exempted from military duty.Ministers of the gospel are not eligible as legislators in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. In South Carolina, Kentucky and Mississippi, they are eligible neither as governors nor legislators. In Missouri, the only civil office they can hold is that of justice of the peace; while in New York, Delaware and Louisiana, they are not eligible to any office whatever.-New Hampshire and Massachusetts are the only states whose constitutions make provision for religious establishments. In New Hampshire, the legislature is empowered to authorize, and in Massachusetts the legislature is enjoined to require, the several towns, parishes, &c., in the state, to make adequate provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of Protestant ministers of the gospel.

In Central and South America, a number of constitutions have been established within this century. All, with the exception of the monarchical constitution of the Brazils, and the transient imperial system of the Mexican empire under Iturbide, who was elected emperor May 18, 1822, are republican, modelled, in most respects, after the constitution of the U. States, in regard to the division of powers among the legislative, judiciary and executive bodies, &c. In Mexico, Central America, and the United Provinces of La Plata, there exist federal governments, í. e. unions of different states, like that of the U. States: the other republics have central

governments. The government of Spain, in her South American colonies, was so defective, the territory of these so immense, and the population so scattered, that, when the Spanish yoke was thrown off, the elements of an independent and free government, in the new states, were necessarily so few, that, ever since their respective declarations of independence, they have been in a state of agitation; and many of them are likely to remain so for a long time to come, because the people are wofully deficient in education and industry-two of the main grounds of real liberty and of a settled order of things; and it is one of the most difficult tasks for a nation, from which tyranny has withheld the means of education, to acquire the habits which fit men for independence, after shaking off the yoke of their oppressors, which is generally the easiest part of a revolution. History shows that far more internal convulsions are caused by ignorance, and the violence which springs from it, than by the ambition of aspiring individuals. Since the condition of South America is, at present, so unsettled, it would be of little use to enumerate the different constitutions existing there, which will probably undergo many changes; and we must refer the reader to the articles on the respective countries, in which he will find their history brought down to the time of the preparation of the articles. Brazil received its present constitution in 1824. It was sworn to by the emperor March 25 of that year. It has several new features. The four branches of civil authority—the legislative, the mediative, the executive and the judicialoriginate from the transfer of power by the people. The government is monarchical, hereditary and representative. The representation of the Brazilian nation consists of the emperor and the general assembly-a body composed of two chambers, that of the deputies, chosen for four years, and that of the senators, chosen by emperor from the election-lists. With the former rests the power of originating bills for the imposition of taxes and the levying of soldiers, as well as of proposing a change of dynasty. The latter retain their dignity for life. The emperor has the executive and mediatorial authority, but his veto is not absolute. He cannot refuse his sanction to a bill equally approved by two legislative assemblies. The press is free. The treaty with Portugal, Nov. 15, 1825, has somewhat of the character of a fundamental law. Paraguay is governed by doctor Francia, without a con

the

stitution, and the former kingdom of Hayti received a constitution in 1811. The democratic constitution of the republic of Hayti, dated Jan. 27, 1807, was renewed in 1816; and when the kingdom was abolished in 1820, and the Spanish part of the island was united with the republic, in 182, the constitution of 1816 was established for the whole island. It is fashioned after the constitution of the U. States; has a house of representatives, a senate and president. Indians, Negroes, Mulattoes and Mestizoes only are allowed to become citizens.* (See the articles Corporation and Estates.)

CONSTITUTIONISTS. (See Unigenitus.) CONSTITUTIONNEL, LE (French; The Constitutional); a daily paper in Paris. In England and the U. States, no party, however much it may be opposed to others, thinks of abolishing the constitution or constitutional liberty: the word constitutional, therefore, cannot be used in these two countries as designating a party. Very different is the case in France a difference which must be constantly kept in mind, if we wish to understand the present political proceedings in that country, or to compare them with American and British politics. In France, there really exists a powerful party, which aims at restoring the good old times, and destroying the Charte. (q.v.) The word constitutional, therefore, designates, in France, the party opposed to the one just mentioned, embracing, however, many varieties of opinion. The paper called Le Constitutionnel is one of the ablest journals of the age. It is liberal, but moderate and cautious. Messrs. Etienne, Jay and Tissot are the chief editors. Six or eight proprietors contribute. Over the whole is a directeur en chef, and for the different branches there are from 10 to 12 editors. Many of the first savants are often engaged to furnish a certain number of original articles

The most novel phenomenon in constitutional history is the constitution, or rather constituent law, which the active pacha of Egypt has recently given to his subjects. An assembly has met, accordingly, at Cairo, consisting of the ministers of the pacha, the ulemas, or the learned in the law, the superintendents of manufactures conducted on government account (the pacha is the most active merchant and manufacturer of his realm), the cachefs, or prefects of districts, to the number of 28; and the cheyks-el-belad, or heads of villages, who form the representatives of the people, and are 93 in number, chiefly from Lower Egypt. The session was opened by a long speech from Ibrahim Pacha, the son of the pacha of Egypt. The above is an extract from the Courier de Smyrne. We have, it is true, no other information; but, if there is any truth in the statement, it is certainly of great

interest.

in the course of the year. In like manner, the famous M. Malte-Brun was employed to write, every month, a geographical article for the Journal des Debats, for a very high sum. The Constitutionnel occupies from 8 to 10 presses, working day and night. The monthly expense of the paper amounts to 50,000 francs. The remuneration which is paid for single contributions is very high. For an article of one column, or one and a half, generally 100 to 120, sometimes 150, francs are paid. It was established, in 1815, by 15 shareholders, and has from 18 to 20,000 subscribers—a greater number than any other French paper, the Journal des Debats, which comes next to it, having only from 13,000 to 14,000. In the beginning, a share of the Constitutionnel cost 30,000 francs; now it costs 100,000. A great variety of topics is treated of in this paper, embracing not only politics, but the sciences and arts, and, as interesting to general readers, it may be recommended in preference to any other French newspaper.

CONSTRUCTION, in politics, is the interpretation of the fundamental law of the state. Wherever there is such a fundamental law, a difference of opinion must exist respecting the meaning of certain passages, as no phraseology but the mathematical is capable of perfect precision. Such construction is therefore a copious source of party strife. In several states, there have been parties, which declared war against all construction of the fundamental law, and insisted upon the execution of its obvious meaning, forgetting that this obvious meaning, as they called it, was nothing but their own construction of its provisions. Such difference of opinion must exist in regard to every written code, political or religious. Thus the Protestants declared, at the diet of Augsburg, that they would not allow any construction of the Bible, since its obvious meaning expressed God's will. The construction of the fundamental law, then, wherever persons are united in one society, is of vital importance, and particularly so in politics. If the construction of the constitution, that is, the declaration of its meaning in doubtful points, is unprovided for, and left, as has been the case in several of the modern monarchies, to the executive, liberty may be considered as destitute of any bulwark. The U. States of America are the first state, at least of any magnitude, which has intrusted the construction of the constitution, in cases of dispute between the government and people, to a tribunal provided by the

instrument itself. This tribunal is the supreme court of the U. States.

CONSUL; a name given, 1. to the two highest magistrates in the republic of Rome, from whom it passed to certain high officers under the emperors; 2. the designation of the three highest magistrates of the French republic, during a certain period; 3. the title, at present, of certain officers of a diplomatico-commercial character.

I. In Rome, after the kings had been expelled, two consuls were placed at the head of the senate, the body in whose hands was the administration of the republic; consul signifying adviser, counsellor. These officers were to be annually elected. In Greek, they were called barot (the highest). Consuls were, at first, chosen only from among the patricians; at a later period, also from the plebeians. In some cases, both the consuls were plebeians, but this was an exception to the general rule. In order to be eligible to the consulship, the candidate was to be 45 years of age (atas consularis). But this law was frequently violated. Pompey was made consul in his 36th, Valerius Corvus in his 23d, Scipio Africanus, the elder, in his 28th, and the younger Scipio in his 38th year. Nobody was to be reelected consul till after an interval of 10 years. But this law was also disregarded; Marius was reelected immediately. The candidate was required, by law, to be in Rome at the time of the election; but this law was not better regarded than the others. The election of the consuls took place in the comitia centuriata, in the campus Martius. One of the existing consuls presided. He who had most votes was called consul prior. His name was the first in the fasti. He also first received the fasces (q. v.), and usually presided at the election of the magistrates for the next year. The time of election varied at different periods. The consuls elect were called consules designati. They entered on their office, on the first of January, by sacrificing and praying in the capitol, after receiving the congratulations of the senate and people. Within five days afterwards, they were obliged to repeat the oath which they had taken when elected, that they would not injure the republic, and that they would govern according to the laws. A similar oath that they had so done, was required of them when they left their office. The exterior marks of honor of the consuls (insignia) were the same with those of the former kings, excepting the crown; and, instead of a sceptre, they had a

staff of ivory (scipio eburneus). Their toga was lined with purple (toga prætexta); under the emperors, it was embroidered. They sat upon an ornamented chair (sella curulis). Twelve lictors, with the fasces and axes, preceded them. In the beginning, the lictors, with fasces, marched before each; but Valerius Publicola made a law, that, in the city, they should precede only one. After that time, the consuls enjoyed this honor, respectively, in alternate months. The one who was not preceded by the fasces had a public slave going before him (accensus), and the lictors following him. The consul who was first elected, or who had most children, or, if the number was equal, whose wife was living, or who had most votes, first received the fasces cum securibus. Whoever met the consul gave way to him, uncovered his head, descended from his horse, or rose, if he happened to be seated. If the consul saw any one neglect this form of respect, he ordered the lictor to punish him (animadvertere). The annals of state were called fasti consulares, and particular years were designated by the names of the consuls then in office. Instead of saying, for instance, A. U. C. 690, it was said M. Tullio Cicerone et L. Antonio consulibus; hence numerare multos consules, instead of multos annos. In order to understand the authority of the consuls, it must be kept in mind, that, in the time of the Roman republic, the powers of the different branches of government were by no means kept so distinct as with us, and therefore much greater opportunity was then afforded for the assumption of undue authority. The division of powers is one of the most important inventions in the art of governing, and affords one of the greatest protections of liberty; much greater than is afforded by republicanism, or any form of government, without it. We find united in the consuls, to a great degree, the executive, judiciary and legislative functions. In the beginning of the republic, the authority of the consuls was almost as great as that of the preceding kings. They could declare war, conclude peace, make alliances, and even order a citizen to be put to death; hence Cicero ascribes to them regiam potestatem (Legg. iii. 3). But Valerius Publicola took the axe out of their fasces, that is, deprived them of their right over the lives of the citizens, and left them, at least while in the city, only the right to decree the punishment of scourging. Without the city, when they had the command over the army, they had the axe in the fasces, that

is, the power to condemn to death. Publicola had a law enacted allowing appeals from the consuls to the people. The greatest check was put upon the consular power by the establishment of the tribunes of the people, who had the right to oppose every measure of the consuls. Yet their power remained very great. They stood, in reality, at the head of the whole republic: all other officers were under them, the tribunes of the people only excepted: they convoked the senate, proposed what they thought fit, and executed the laws. Laws proposed by them were generally called by their name. They received all despatches from the provinces and foreign kings, and gave audience to foreign ambassadors. In times of emergency, the consular power was still further increased by the well known decree, viderent, vel darent operam, ne quid detrimenti respublica caperet, by which they received unlimited power, and could even sentence to death without trial, levy troops, and make war without the resolve of the people first obtained. If a sudden riot took place, the consuls called the citizens to arms by the words qui rempublicam salvam esse velit, me sequatur-equivalent to the reading of the riot act with us. At the beginning of their term of office, the consuls divided the provinces among them by agreement or lot. Province, at first, signified a certain business committed to the consul, as the command of an army. By and by, it came to denote conquered countries. To these consuls were sent by the senate as governors, after laying down their office. They were then called proconsules. A citizen who had been consul was called consularis, and had a higher rank than other senators. Pompey enacted a law that a consul should not be sent to a province until five years after he had laid down his office, and Cæsar decreed that he should remain there only for two years. Under the emperors, the consular dignity sunk to a mere shadow, until Caligula wished to make his horse consul. Many consuls, at this period, were appointed in one year, until Constantine again appointed two annually,after which the office was abolished by Justinian. The pomp of the consuls, under the emperors, was still greater than during the republic. Consul honorarius was a titular officer, with the rank, but without the power, of a consul. This dignity was first conferred under Cæsar.

II. In France, the directorial government (third constitution) was abolished by the revolution of the 18th Brumaire, of the year 8 of the republic (Nov. 9, 1799), and