passage of the resolution the necessary majority shall be the absolute majority, i.e. the majority of all the seats in the chamber.

The constitution furthermore leaves it to the two chambers to determine the exact time of meeting in joint assembly: There is, therefore, no power in any body outside of the chambers to hasten, delay or frustrate the meeting of the National Assembly.

Lastly, the constitution leaves everything to the National Assembly in regard to the making of the revision, except the official organization of the Assembly and the principle of the majority necessary to vote the revision. It makes the bureau of the National Assembly to consist of the President, VicePresidents and Secretaries of the Senate; and fixes the majority for voting the revision at the absolute majority, i.e. the majority of all the seats in the Assembly.

3. The first element of uncertainty in these provisions attaches to the question whether the National Assembly may proceed to a revision of the constitution in regard to subjects which the two chambers have not, in separate preliminary session, resolved to consider. If the separate resolutions shall have been general and unlimited, then, of course, any subject whatsoever may be considered and decided in the National Assembly. If, on the other hand, the chambers shall have specified the subjects in regard to which they deem revision necessary, and in regard to which alone therefore they agree to go into joint, i.e. National, Assembly, then the question becomes pertinent and important. Lebon contends that the importance of this question is chiefly theoretic.1 His argument is, that since the personnel of the two chambers and of the National Assembly is the same, therefore the majorities in the two chambers form the majority in the joint assembly, and that, therefore, if the National Assembly

1 Das Staatsrecht der französischen Republik, S. 74.

resolves to consider subjects not specified in the acts of the separate chambers, it must be presumed that each chamber then and thereby consents to the same.

This seems to me to be superficial. In the first place, it ignores the fact that the number of members of the separate chambers is not the same. There are but three hundred senators to five hundred and seventy-three deputies.1 This difference alone would enable the deputies to overpower the senators in National Assembly and force upon them constitutional revision in regard to subjects which they, in separate assembly, would never have consented to bring before the joint assembly. The fact is, that when the Constituent Convention ordained the constitution of 1875-76, the Legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists made up together the majority in that body. They constructed the Senate so as to make it the representative of royalty as against republicanism, and they meant to furnish the Senate with the power to prevent the deputies from revising the constitution at their will. It is true that the republicans are now in majority in the Senate, but the Senate is still far more conservative in its republicanism than the Chamber of Deputies, and, therefore, a conflict may still arise between the two bodies concerning the fundamental principles of the organic law. In the second place, it is conceivable that if the two chambers were composed of the same number of members, still the majority in the National Assembly might not represent the majorities in the two chambers taken separately. Yea, it is even conceivable that a practically solid Senate, if supported by a respectable minority of the deputies, might overcome the majority of the deputies in National Assembly and force revision of the constitution in regard to subjects which the deputies, in separate session, would never have agreed to bring before the joint assembly. It seems to me manifest,

1 Almanach de Gotha, 1890, p. 696.

therefore, that this question is not merely or chiefly theoretic, but may at any moment become intensely practical.

We shall do well, therefore, to examine the constitution narrowly to see if, perchance, we may find any means for its solution. I am not able to discover any, unless they be in the power of the President, with the consent of the Senate, to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies. Lebon considers that the ordinary legislative session of the two chambers is to be regarded as continuing during National Assembly. The two chambers may therefore continue to act separately, as well as jointly, during such a period. If the deputies should undertake to overpower the senators in National Assembly (and this would be the event most likely to occur), the Senate might meet in separate session and call upon the President to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies; and if the President should respond affirmatively, the session of the National Assembly might thus be closed by the legal termination of the mandates of a majority of its members.1

I doubt very much if the President has any such power over the National Assembly. I think the National Assembly is entirely exempt from the powers of the President, whether exercised directly or indirectly. The National Assembly is the organization of the state. The President is only a part of the government. Unless, therefore, we mean to make a branch of the government sovereign over the state, we must dismiss this idea as untenable. Moreover, there are means provided by the constitution and developed through practice whereby any move of the kind above indicated might be practically frustrated by the deputies. For example, the constitution provides that every act of the President shall be signed by a minister, and that the ministers are responsible collectively and individually to the chambers for their political acts.3

1 Das Staatsrecht der französischen Republik, S. 75.

2 Loi relative a l'organisation des pouvoirs publics, 25-28 fevrier, 1875, Art. 3, $ 6.

3 Ibid., Art. 6, § 1.

By the exercise of its power over the budget the Chamber of Deputies has now made the ministry practically responsible to itself alone. No minister therefore would now sign a decree of the President dissolving the Chamber of Deputies, unless it were practically certain that the new election would return a different political majority to that chamber from the existing one. Practically no minister would now take any such desperate chances. We must conclude, therefore, that the constitution provides no method whereby limitations sought to be placed upon the powers of the National Assembly by either of the chambers in separate session can be realized against the will of the majority in the National Assembly, and that practice has not yet worked out any. This result accords with sound theory. The National Assembly is the organization of the state. No branch of the government could, therefore, exercise compulsion over it without committing coup d'état; i.e. without dethroning the sovereign.

Curiously enough, the National Assembly has undertaken to tie its own hands upon a single subject. It enacted a constitutional amendment in August of the year 1884 which declares that the republican form of government shall never be subject to revision. There is no power, however, outside of the Assembly to hold it to this pledge. It is, therefore, only a self-limitation, which the Assembly may, at any moment, remove through the exercise of the same power by which it was imposed. It is simply a bit of useless verbiage.

It must be conceded, finally, that when compared with the three preceding systems which I have treated, the French constitution has gone farther in the development of an independent organization of the state, distinct from the organization of the government and possessing more completely all the elements of sovereignty, both in theory and practice,

1 Loi Constitutionnelle du 13-14 Août, 1884, Art. 2, § 2.

than any of the others. The identity of personnel in the National Assembly and in the legislative chambers is the one point in which the constitution fails in logical perfection. There are indeed practical advantages in this, viz; it does away with the cost and exertion attendant upon a special election, and it creates a National Assembly in quasi-permanence; but on the other hand it is the source of some difficulties, as I have already demonstrated.

The political scientists and the statesmen have yet to solve, in logical and practical completeness, this question of the permanent organization of the state distinct from the organization of the government and in possession of complete sovereignty over both the individual and the government. This is the most important question of political science and constitutional law. The failure to deal with it clearly and intelligently has produced inexpressible confusion in the conceptions both of liberty and of government. Its correct elucidation can alone light our way along the labyrinths of liberty, law and government.