British by origin and aspiration, should have shown an inclination to
deviate from the precedents established by the Canadian Dominion, which,
though only partly English, resolved to carve the ancient historic names
of the parent state on the very front of its political structure.

As the several States of the Commonwealth have full control of their own
constitutions, they may choose at any moment to elect their own
governors as in the States of the American Union, instead of having them
appointed by the crown as in Canada. We see also an imitation of the
American constitution in the principle which allots to the central
government only certain enumerated powers, and leaves the residuary
power of legislation to the States. Again, while the act provides for a
high and other federal courts, the members of which are to be appointed
and removed as in Canada by the central government, the States are still
to have full jurisdiction over the State courts as in the United States.
The Canadian constitution, which gives to the Dominion exclusive control
over the appointment and removal of the judges of all the superior
courts, offers a positive guarantee against the popular election of
judges in the provinces. It is not going too far to suppose that, with
the progress of democratic ideas in Australia--a country inclined to
political experiments--we may find the experience of the United States
repeated, and see elective judges make their appearance when a wave of
democracy has suddenly swept away all dictates of prudence and given
unbridled licence to professional political managers only anxious for
the success of party. In allowing the British Parliament to amend the
Act of Union on an address of the Canadian parliament, we have yet
another illustration of the desire of Canadians to respect the supremacy
of the sovereign legislature of the empire. On the other hand, the
Australians make themselves entirely independent of the action of the
imperial parliament, which might be invaluable in some crisis affecting