The Doctrine of the Separation of Powers RECENT article by Professor Henry J. Ford of Princeton Uni versity, on "The Cause of Political Cor
The authority of Montesquieu is, of course, exploded, and the separation of the powers must rest partly on a legal
ruption,"1 is striking in that it attacks the separation of the judicial, legislative
fiction. The three powers, even under our own Constitution, do actually over
and executive powers, under our form
lap one another, though legally distinct.
of government, as inconsistent with the principles of political science. Emphasiz ing the notion that our knowledge of these principles is based on inductive
To this extent Prof. Ford's position will
study of history, the writer maintains that healthy governments have always owed their well-being to the connection
that every legal separation of powers invites constitutional decay and political corruption.
rather than the separation of the powers. Governments in which public opinion is restrained from expressing itself by an
elaborate system of “checks and bal ances" are in his opinion unhealthy. The reader obviously will have to take into consideration the fact that the
article was written from the standpoint of one for whom democracy and the untrammeled rule of the majority are
synonymous. Confident generalizations which indicate no profound mastery of so large a subject may excite some in
be sustained by modern scientific thought, but he goes much farther, and he is ven
turing on shaky ground when he claims
From the following it will be seen how he develops the theory and how he connects it with the idea of a pure democracy :— “A government of separated powers is plainly incapable of responding to de
mands for greater efficiency of adminis tration. In fact, as soon as attention is turned to business efl'iciency, separation
of powers seems out of place. Any one who should suggest that in the organiza tion of a private business corporation the president should not take part in the
credulity. “Both Montesquieu’s theory" of the
meetings of the board of directors, would
separation of powers, writes Prof. Ford,
“and Blackstone's adaptation of it are
tally. There is really no difference between public business and private busi
now discarded by political science. . . . The causes of the discredit in which the doctrine now stands are soon stated. It is found that forms of government
management, nor is any such difierence supposed to exist except where people's minds are clouded by eighteenth cen
be stared at as being out of plumb men
ness as to the principles of successful
which are constructed on that principle
tury superstitions.
always experience derangement of con stitutional function, and it is found that
quieu’s doctrine is examined, it is found
forms of government displaying consti tutional vigor and efficiency are organ ized on the directly contrary principle of the connection of the powers."
As soon as Montes
that by its terms it does not make for efiiciency. . . . In the acute phase of constitutional disease from this principle the separate powers are forced to move by violence, making the true constitu
tion a military oligarchy. ' "The Cause of Political Corruption," by Henry Jones Ford, Professor of Politics in Princeton Uni versity. Sailmer's, v. 49, p. 54 (Jan.).
In the chronic
phase they are forced to move by cor
ruption, making the true constitution a
