this part of American financial history exemplifies the contrast
between a Parliamentary and Presidential government.

The distinguishing quality of Parliamentary government is, that in
each stage of a public transaction there is a discussion; that the
public assist at this discussion; that it can, through Parliament,
turn out an administration which is not doing as it likes, and can
put in an administration which will do as it likes. But the
characteristic of a Presidential government is, in a multitude of
cases, that there is no such discussion; that when there is a
discussion the fate of Government does not turn upon it, and,
therefore, the people do not attend to it; that upon the whole the
administration itself is pretty much doing as it likes, and
neglecting as it likes, subject always to the check that it must not
too much offend the mass of the nation. The nation commonly does not
attend, but if by gigantic blunders you make it attend, it will
remember it and turn you out when its time comes; it will show you
that your power is short, and so on the instant weaken that power;
it will make your present life in office unbearable and
uncomfortable by the hundred modes in which a free people can,
without ceasing, act upon the rulers which it elected yesterday, and
will have to reject or re-elect to-morrow. In finance the most
striking effect in America has, on the first view of it, certainly
been good. It has enabled the Government to obtain and to keep a
vast surplus of revenue over expenditure. Even before the Civil War
it did this--from 1837 to 1857. Mr. Wells tells us that, strange as
it may seem, "there was not a single year in which the unexpended
balance in the National Treasury--derived from various sources--at
the end of the year, was not in excess of the total expenditure of
the preceding year; while in not a few years the unexpended balance