The Constitution of the United States | Page 3

other better, and, what is more, pull together.
As I was revising the proofs of these lectures in beautiful Chamonix,
the prospectus of the Scottish-American Association reached me, in
which its Honorary Secretary and my good friend, Dr. Charles Sarolea,
took occasion to make the following suggestion to his British
compatriots:
"To remove those causes of estrangement, to avoid a fateful catastrophe,
in other words, to bring about a cordial understanding with America,
the first condition must be an understanding of America. Such an
understanding, or even the atmosphere in which such an understanding
may grow, has still to be created. It is indeed passing strange that in

these days of cheap books and free education, America should be
almost a 'terra incognita,' that we should know next to nothing of
American history, of the American Constitution, of American practical
politics, of the American mentality. We scarcely read American
newspapers or American books. Even such masters of classical prose as
Francis Parkman, perhaps the greatest historian who has used the
English language as his vehicle, are almost unknown to the average
reader. Our students do not visit American universities as they used
before the War to visit German universities. The consequence is that
again and again we are running the risk of perpetrating the most
grotesque errors of judgment, of committing the most serious political
blunders, in defiance of American public opinion."
The success of my Gray's Inn lectures convinces me that Dr. Sarolea
underestimates the interest in America and its history in England.
However, the episode, which is treated in these lectures, is, as he says,
"terra incognita" not only in England, but even in the United States. It
is amazing how little is known in America of the facts given in my
second lecture. The American student, after rejoicing in the victory at
Yorktown and the end of the War of Independence, generally skips
about eight years to 1789, mid his interest in the history of his own
country recommences with the inauguration of President Washington.
Students of history in both countries thus miss one of the most
interesting and instructive chapters of American history, and indeed of
any history.
I have ventured to add to my Gray's Inn lectures another address, which
I delivered as the "annual address" at the session of the American Bar
Association in Cincinnati, Ohio, on August 31, 1921. I do so, because it
has a direct bearing on the decay of the spirit of constitutionalism both
in America and elsewhere. It discusses a great malaise of our age, for
which, I fear, no written Constitution, however wise, is an adequate
remedy. It was published in condensed form in the issue of the
Fortnightly for October, 1921, and an acknowledgment is due to its
courteous editor for permission to republish it.
I have forborne in these lectures to make more than a passing reference

to the League of Nations and the great Conference which framed it,
tempting as the obvious analogy was. The reader who studies the
appendices will see that the Covenant of the League more nearly
resembles the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution of 1787.
I only mention the subject to suggest that the reader of these lectures
will better understand why the American people take the written
obligations of the League so seriously and literally. We have been
trained for nearly a century and a half to measure the validity and
obligations of laws and executive acts in Courts of Justice and to apply
the plain import of the Constitution. Our constant inquiry is, "Is it so
nominated" in that compact? In Europe, and especially England,
constitutionalism is largely a spirit of great objectives and ideals.
Therefore, while in these nations the literal obligations of Articles X,
XI, XV, and XVI of the Covenant of the League are not taken rigidly,
we in America, pursuant to our life-long habit of constitutionalism,
interpret these clauses as we do those of our Constitution, and we ask
ourselves, Are we ready to promise to do, that which these Articles
literally import, join, for example, in a commercial, social and even
military war against any nation that is deemed an aggressor, however
remote the cause of the war may be to us? Are we prepared to say that
in the event of a war or threatened danger of war, the Supreme Council
of the League may take any action it deems wise and effectual to
maintain peace? This is a very serious committal. Other nations may
not take it so literally, but with our life-long adherence to a written
Constitution as a solemn contractual obligation, we do.
This is said in no spirit of hostility to the League, but only to explain
the American point of view. Since I delivered these lectures, I took a