289.] [Footnote r: [This comparison applied to the Constitutional King of France and to the powers he held under the Charter of 1830, till the overthrow of the monarchy in 1848 .-- Translator's Note.]] Nevertheless, the supremacy of public opinion is no less above the head of the one than of the other.

This power is less definite, less evident, and less sanctioned by the laws in France than in America, but in fact it exists.

In America, it acts by elections and decrees; in France it proceeds by revolutions; but notwithstanding the different constitutions of these two countries, public opinion is the predominant authority in both of them.

The fundamental principle of legislation--a principle essentially republican--is the same in both countries, although its consequences may be different, and its results more or less extensive.
Whence I am led to conclude that France with its King is nearer akin to a republic than the Union with its President is to a monarchy.
In what I have been saying I have only touched upon the main points of distinction; and if I could have entered into details, the contrast would have been rendered still more striking.

I have remarked that the authority of the President in the United States is only exercised within the limits of a partial sovereignty, whilst that of the King in France is undivided.