nominations; but its functions can be usefully exercised only on condition of remaining within the limits assigned to it by the Constitution. It is in fact indispensable that the administrative patronage should no longer be controlled by the legislative bodies, and in particular by the Senate.

In this matter there can be but little doubt; these changes will be made; the most distinguished minds demand them, and sooner or later the popular voice will insist on them. We may then look forward to legislation forbidding, under severe penalties, any member of either house presenting to the President candidates for public offices. As may be seen, this reform would not necessarily imply the creation of an administrative hierarchy; but it would have the double effect of confining Congress to the exercise of its appropriate functions, and of assuring its independence of the executive. At the same time the Senate would freely exercise the control over executive nominations, confided to it by the Constitution.

CHAPTER IX.

RELATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE STATES.

T has been shown, in the preceding chapters,

IT

that the framers of the Constitution were in

favor of creating a vigorous Executive Power, and making it, as far as possible, independent of the legislative branch of the government. There is no longer any doubt that their conception was just, and that they understood the true nature of republican institutions.

However, the Executive Power, such as they conceived it, would ere long have exceeded its prescribed limits if the independence of the States had been wholly destroyed. It is owing to the constitutional recognition of their existence and authority that a free republic has been upheld in the United States. After an experience of nearly a century; and an expression of concurring opinions by the most distinguished statesmen in favor of maintaining these local governments, it would seem superfluous to an American to insist on this point, or to prove their necessity. Nevertheless, as these ideas are not so fully accepted elsewhere, it may

be useful to explain why in the United States the existence of the States is an indispensable safeguard of republican liberty.

"The federal government," says the Supreme Court in a leading case, "proceeds directly from the people; is ordained and established in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity. The assent of the States, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their act was final. It required not the affirmance and could not be negotiated by the State governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was a complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.

"The government of the Union, then, is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit. This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can only exercise the powers granted to it is apparent. The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere

.....

of action..........It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all..........But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, this Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,.........shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”1

Thus the people of the United States constitute a nation placed under one government, but "......... on the other hand the people of each State compose a State, having its own government and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence. The States disunited might continue to exist. Without the States in union there could be no such political body as the United States........."

"......... But in many articles of the Constitution the necessary existence of the States, and within their proper spheres the independent authority of the States, is distinctly recognized. To them nearly the whole charge of interior regulation is committed or left; to them and to the people all powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved. The general condition was well stated

1 McCullough vs State of Maryland, 4 Wheaton, p. 316 et seq.. Decision of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall.

by Mr. Madison, in the "Federalist," thus: 'The Federal and State governments are, in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers and designated for different purposes.'.....................”1

The State, on her admission into the Union, surrenders a portion of her sovereignty to the federal government, and in this regard there is no distinction between the original States and those subsequently formed. However, it is important to notice, that this surrender or delegation of power is not made by the State, but really and in fact by the people thereof. It is they who actually decide to enter the Union. They then ratify the division of powers between the federal and the State governments, reserving to themselves all the prerogatives of sovereignty not conferred on either.

It happens in this way that, in their respective spheres, these two organizations have scarcely anything in common. The one is invested with various prerogatives, the exercise of which has been confided to it by the Constitution; each State, considered as an autonomy, exerts, on the contrary, those powers bestowed upon her by her people. This doctrine suggested to President Jackson the following reflections: "The destruction of our State governments, or the annihilation of their control

1 See the decision of the Supreme Court, given by Mr. Chief Justice Chase, in the case of Lane County vs. Oregon. See 7 Wallace: and McPherson's Manual for 1869, p. 440 et seq.