on of the Senate and the Election of Senators; and (3) laws
of June 16, 1885, and February 13 and July 17, 1889, respecting the
Election of Deputies.[459]

[Footnote 459: The original texts of these
documents are printed in Duguit et Monnier, Les
Constitutions, 319-350, and Helie, Les
Constitutions, 1348-1456. For English versions see
Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 286-319; C. F. A.
Currier, Constitutional and Organic Laws of France,
in _Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science_, March, 1893, supplement; and
Anderson, Constitutions, 633-640. Albert Duc de
Broglie, Histoire et Politique: Etude sur la
constitution de 1875 (Paris, 1897); R. Saleilles,
The Development of the Present Constitution of
France, in _Annals of Amer. Academy_, July, 1895.]

Springing from the peculiar conditions which have been described, (p. 306)
the handiwork of a body in which only a minority felt the slightest
degree of enthusiasm for it, the constitution of the French Republic
is essentially unlike any instrument of government with which the
English-speaking world is familiar. It differs from the British in
having been put almost wholly into written form. It differs from the
American in that it consists, not of a single document, but of many,
and in that it emanated, not from a great constituent assembly,
charged with the specific task of formulating a governmental system,
but from a law-making body which in truth had never been formally
intrusted by the nation with even the powers of legislation proper,
and had merely arrogated to itself those functions of constitution-framing
which it chose to exercise.[460] It consists simply of organic laws,
enacted chiefly by the provisional Assembly of 1871-1875, but amended
and amplified to some extent by the national parliament in subsequent
years. Unlike the majority of constitutions that went before it in
France, it is not orderly in its arrangement or comprehensive in its
contents. It is devoid of anything in the nature of a bill of
rights,[461] and concerning the sovereignty of the people it has
nothing to say. Even in respect to many essential aspects of
governmental organization and practice it is mute. It contains no
provision