No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The evolution of parliamentary government in Germany proceeds apace. The virtual admission of Chancellor Bülow, on the occasion of the publication of the Kaiser's interview with the retired English diplomat in October, 1908, that the government's defeat by the reichstag would necessarily involve his resignation will be at once recalled. This promise has been now actually fulfilled, and that suave and genial statesman's retirement, upon the defeat of his budget, advances Germany one step farther toward a modern system of ministerial responsibility to the people's representatives. The appointment of a successor who promises a continuation of Bülow's policy indicates that there are other important steps yet to be taken, but does not obscure the significance of this change of ministers. Within no distant period it is altogether likely we shall see a full-fledged system of political ministerial responsibility to the legislature, with its corollary of effective votes of lack of confidence,—a system in which the reichstag will control the appointment of the incoming ministers as well as force the resignation of those with whom it is no longer in accord. It may therefore not be without a timely interest to review the German doctrine of the budget as a means of control over the executive.
1 Thus Adolf Wagner (Finanzwissenschaft, 3te Aufl., 1883, p. 70) characterizes the government in the proceedings in connection with the budget as “Partei des Angebotes” and the parliament as “Partei der Nachfrage.”
2 Among the most important discussions on this subject are the following: Seidler, Budget und Budgetrecht; Flicker, Die Natur der Steuerverwilligung und des Finanzgesetzes, in Zeitschrift für Staatswissenschaft, xvii, 636–702; Fricker, Gesetz und Budget, in Zeitsch. für Staatsw., vol. 1, pp. 381–409; Conrad, Hanwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaft, articles “Budget” and “Budgetrecht;” Gneist, Gesetz und Budget; Gneist, Budget und Gesetz; Rehm, Allgemeine Staatslehre, pp. 266–306; Lasker, Beiträge zur Verfassungsgeschichte Preussens, ch. vii, sec. 5; Bluntschli, Staatsrecht, Book ii, ch. x; Jellinek, Gesetz und Verordnung, pp. 130–180, 276–312; Laband, Zur Lehre vom Budgetrecht in Archiv für offent. Recht, vol. i, pp. 172–196; Arndt, Budget, Gesetz und Verordnung, in Annalen des deutschen Reichs, 1891, pp. 225–234; Redlich, Recht und Technik der modernen Parlamentarismus, pp. 721–730; Esmein, Droit Constitutionnel, 4 ième ed., pp. 835–836, and Lebon, Staatsrecht der französischen Republik, pp. 160–161.
3 An incident occurred in Italy in 1893 which indicates that there the same distinctions are recognized as in Germany, and that the budget is considered strictly an administrative act, not a law. On May 19, 1893, the chamber of deputies rejected the budget. This would have apparently involved the most serious consequences since the constitution (article 56) forbids the reintroduction of projects of law which have been defeated during the same session. It was observed, however, that this did not apply to the budget, which was strictly an administrative act, and accordingly it was again submitted to the chamber. Cf. Esmein, Droit Constitutionnel, 4 ième ed., p. 835, note.
4 The question whether an ordinary law may be repealed by omitting to provide for it in the budget arose in France in 1885, when the chamber of deputies failed to provide in the budget for the maintenance of the Catholic Theological Faculties which had been established by the law of 1806 and the decree of 1808 founding the University. The senate objected to this omission on the grounds above discussed, but eventually accepted the budget. The discussion at this time left it generally clear that the law upon which the Faculties rested was not repealed by withholding of financial support, and that it only required a future inclusion in the budget to make it again thoroughly effective. The practical effect, however, was to annul the old law for the time being. Cf. Lebon, Staatsrecht, pp. 160–161.
5 Gesetz und Budget, pp. 106, 107.
6 Gesetz und Verordnung, p. 289.
7 Thus Gneist (Gesetz und Budget, p. 117) says: “Das Resultat unserer Untersuchung ist, dass ein selbständiges Ausgabebewilligungsrecht welches man aus der Englischen Verfassung abgeleitet und als Eckstein aller Rechte der Volksvertretung bezeichnet hat, in England überhaupt nicht besteht.”
8 May, , Constitutional History, 1891 ed., pp. 72, 442, 443.Google Scholar
9 Parliamentary Government, Walpole, ed., p. 125.Google Scholar
10 Staatsrecht, sec. 93.
11 Droit Constitutionnel, 4 ième ed., pp. 835, 836. 841. Cf. also pp. 143, 144.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.