power lodged in an individual) after the thirteen years of Cromwell's rule which followed the execution of Charles the First, or in France after the fall of Louis the Sixteenth. Their throne was not restored to the Bourbons until 1814, when Louis XVIII. was crowned King, and later when Louis Philippe took his place, being the last of the race who reigned in France. Since 1871 France has been a constitutional republic. Many things have changed and history has been rapidly created since our civil war. I have endeavored in this book to trace these changes, to show their world-interactions, and their steady trend in the direction of liberal representative constitutional government with equal universal suffrage. It is evident that the effect of our American initiative in this has been especially and beneficially felt by France, Germany, Japan, the South and Central American countries, Belgium, Portugal, Russia and China, as well as the self-governing states comprising the British Empire. It has been necessary in order to complete the work. satisfactorily to draw largely from well-known and accredited writers. and to study thoroughly current literature treating upon this complicated subject. In order to acquire a knowledge of the different forms of government so as to compare them, I have read the books treating upon this subject that were in the University Library at Ann Arbor. These were the works of Montesquieu, de Tocqueville, Bacon and de Lorme, The Federalist, Story on the Constitution, Anser on Government, also the messages and speeches of George Washington, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, William H. Seward, Charles Sumner and other statesmen to whom special authority in this field is accredited. Conspicuous among the many other authors subsequently consulted are John Fiske, (American Political Ideas); A. Lawrence Lowell of Harvard University, (Governments and Parties in Continental Europe); Walter Fairleigh Dodd (Modern Constitutions, Press of the University of Chicago, 1908), Prof. Frederick Austin Ogg (Governments of Europe), James Bryce (American Commonwealth), William Stubbs, M. A., Oxford, 1870 (Select Charters); Emlin McClain, LL.D. (Constitutional Law in the United States); T. W. Cooley of Michigan University (Comparative Merits of Written Constitutions); B. E. Howard (The German Empire). The bibliography is not comprehensive, but I desire to acknowledge special obligation to the authorities above mentioned. For events of to-day bearing on new Constitutions and governmental changes I wish to acknowledge help received from news gathered from the Christian Science Monitor and the Literary Digest. January, 1914. BARTOW A. ULRICH. The following letter from Governor Yates will explain itself: STATE OF ILLINOIS, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT BARTOW A. ULRICH, ESQ.: SPRINGFIELD, June 30, 1864. DEAR SIR: I have just finished the reading of your manuscript, entitled, "A Short and Practical Treatise on Government, Showing the Superiority of the United States Government Over All Others." I have found it a very interesting, impartial and able exposition of the different forms of government, clearly defining and contrasting the structure and powers of each, and triumphantly vindicating the superiority of representative democracy over all others. The analysis of the powers of the Constitution and the distinction between NATIONAL and STATE sovereignty, are concise, lucid and well defined. No one can read your work without interest and profit; and at no time since the formation of the Government has there been such necessity for some plain treatise on its nature, workings, and adaption to the wants of the people as now. I can look to a wide circulation of your work among the people as potent for good, and I could wish to see it a hand-book in all the homesteads of the land. It will be a new stimulus to loyalty, a reminder of the good we are fighting for-nerving the popular mind and heart to hold on with unyielding purpose to a Government founded by the best men, in so much wisdom, and so full of benefactions to the people now, and of promise for posterity. Truly yours, RICHARD YATES. This letter and the thesis were circulated by the Union League as a campaign document in Mr. Lincoln's second candidacy for the Presidential office. In 1880, this thesis, revised, was put to similar use in the campaign that resulted in the election of James A. Garfield. General Garfield himself sent me this acknowledgment: MENTOR, O., July 26, 1880. MR. B. A. ULRICH, I10 Dearborn St., Chicago, Ill.: DEAR SIR-Yours of the 24th inst. inclosing proof slips of your Treatise on Representative Democracy, is received. I regret that I have not time to read it carefully and critically, but I have glanced over its leading points enough to see that it is of importance. If I had the time should be glad to comply with your request and make suggestions on the subject. When it is published please send me a copy. I return the slips. Very truly yours, J. A. GARFIELD. During the Garfield campaign Governor (afterward Senator) Cullom wrote as follows: STATE OF ILLINOIS, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 3, 1880. B. A. ULRICH, Esq., Chicago, Ill.: DEAR SIR: I have read with much interest your pamphlet entitled "A Comparison Between the Forms of Government of the Representative Democracy or Republic of the United States, and Those of Other Nationalities," etc. It is an able contribution upon a subject now deservedly occupying public attention. Its historical allusions are very valuable and instructive. Its logic in favor of our own form of Government is as convincing as the conclusion is satisfactory. This is a Nation with a big N, and all the people ought to understand their relations to it as such. I would be glad to see your work in the hands of every intelligent voter. Very truly yours, S. M. CULLOM. CHAPTER I COMPARISONS OF THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. There must be in all governments a supreme and controlling power which can be enforced, placed in some particular person or assemblage of persons, chosen by the people as in a republic, or hereditary as in a monarchy, from which central point can flow the commands to do or not to do certain things for or against the good of all under that government. Monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are the three great divisions of government. Any two of these, or all, may be limited and combined in the formation of one government, which is called a mixed government, as that of Great Britain. A Monarchical form of government exists where the supreme and controlling power is placed in the hands of one person, as in Russia; an Aristocratic form, where this power is given to a certain class of people, generally for no other reason than that of their birth and their inheritance, as in Athens under the control of the Four Hundred; and a Democratic form of government, where this supreme and controlling power is given to the people who compose the nation under that government, either directly or by representation, as in Switzerland and in the United States. Modern systems of government comprise: A confederation of states: this is created by a league or compact between states for mutual protection, as the old Confederation of Germany before the German Empire was established, and the early confederation of Switzerland. A Federation is a union of states under one central government, as the United States at present, being a compact between the states, which by the terms of the contract surrender their general sovereignty and form a Federal Union. A Constitutional Monarchy can be formed by having a written constitution providing for a parliament or congress, and a ministry accountable to the same, as in Belgium, or accountable to the Monarch, as in Russia; a dual government, where two nations, each having a constitution, with a congress or parliament, have one king who acts for both. These forms of monarchies can be elective or hereditary. A Constitutional Monarchy can exist without a definite written constitution, as in England, where old charters, acts of parliament and statutes form precedents, |