upon to curb the power of the democracy. This 'court' is to consist of three members appointed by the executive, and holding office for life. It is to have a variety of powers and functions, of which the following are the chief: "Summary and absolute power of removal over both elective and appointive officers … and no power of appointment.… Power to dissolve the legislative assemblies and to order new elections. The election of one of its own members as president of the court, and in whom shall be vested the absolute control of the military, except in the conduct of international affairs and foreign war, though even in these its use by the executive must be subject to the consent of this Court" (p. 187). This 'court' is to be wholly irresponsible, except in case of crime, and this irresponsibility is, in Mr. Hyslop's eyes, its chief merit. Its power, he tells us, would be wholly negative, a remark which shows his contempt for his readers' intelligence. A 'court,' or, rather, cabal, which had the power of summarily dismissing every officer in the government, except the judges, would have absolute control of affairs, since both legislature and executive would be compelled, under penalty of dismissal, to obey its orders. The executive would be a mere puppet in its hands, and would have to make appointments and manage foreign affairs as the cabal dictated. Its control of the civil service would assist it to manipulate the elections in its own interest, while its power over the army would enable it to put down all opposition by military force. Moreover, the cabal would be self-perpetuative; because, when one of its members died, the survivors would compel the executive, by threat of removal, to appoint a new member satisfactory to them. Such a 'court' would be the culmination of 'machine politics'; and it would be the organ of the strongest and most unscrupulous combinations of capital; and would establish a despotism which for selfishness and sordid meanness would be unsurpassed.
The truth is, the critics of democracy are barking up the wrong tree. The evils they complain of in contemporary politics, and which are undoubtedly great, are not due to democracy, but to mammonism and materialism. They are chargeable primarily, not to the many but to the few; not to the poor but to the rich, and to those who are striving by every means to get rich. They are to be remedied, not by changes in political machinery, nor by restricting the suffrage, but by the spread of better ideas and sentiments among the people. The spread of such ideas and sentiments depends mainly on the various educative agencies, especially on literature, on the univer-
