§ 95. Fifthly. Another ground, illustrating the utility of a Senate, was suggested to be the keeping alive of a due sense of national character. In respect to foreign nations, this was of vital importance; for in our intercourse with them, if a scrupulous and uniform adherence to just principles was not observed, it must subject us to many embarrassments and collisions. It is difficult to impress upon a single body, which is numerous and changeable, a deep sense of the value of national character. A small portion of the praise, or blame, of any particular measure, can fall to the lot of any particular person; and the period of office is so short, that little responsibility is felt, and little pride is indulged, as to the course of the govern

ment.

§ 96. Sixthly. It was urged, that, paradoxical as it might seem, the want, in some important cases, of a due responsibility in the government arises from that very frequency of elections, which, in other cases, produces such responsibility. In order to be reasonable, responsibility must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party; and in order to be effectual, it must relate to operations of that power, of which a ready and proper judgement can be formed by the constituents. Some measures have singly an immediate and sensible operation; others again depend on a succession of well-connected schemes, and have a gradual, and perhaps unobserved operation. If, therefore, there be but one Assembly, chosen for a short period, it will be difficult to keep up the train of proper measures, or to preserve the proper connexion between the past and the future. And the more numerous the body, and the more changeable its component parts, the more difficult it will be to preserve the personal responsibility, as well as the uniform action, of the successive members, to the great objects of the public welfare.

§ 97. Lastly. A Senate, duly constituted, would not only operate as a salutary check upon the Representatives, but occasionally upon the people themselves, against their own temporary delusions and errors. The cool, deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and

actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of their rulers. But there are particular moments in public affairs, when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures, which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of a body of respectable citizens, chosen without reference. to the exciting cause, to check the misguided career of public opinion, and to suspend the blow, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind. It was thought to add great weight to all these considerations, that history has informed us of no longlived republic, which had not a senate. Sparta, Rome, Carthage were, in fact, the only states, to whom that character can be applied.

§ 98. It will be observed, that some parts of the foregoing reasoning apply to the fundamental importance of an actual division of the legislative power; and other parts to the true principles, upon which that division should be subsequently organized, in order to give full effect to the constitutional check. Some parts go to show the value of a Senate; and others, what should be its structure, in order to insure wisdom, experience, fidelity, and dignity in its members. All of it, however, instructs us, that, in order to give it fair play and influence, as a co-ordinate branch of government, it ought to be less numerous, more select, and more durable, than the other branch; and be chosen in a manner, which should combine, and represent, different interests, with a varied force. How far these objects are attained by the Constitution, will be better seen, when the details belonging to each department are successively examined.

$99. The first clause of the third section is-" The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

§ 100. First, the nature of the representation and vote

in the Senate. Each State is entitled to two Senators; and each Senator is entitled to one vote. Of course, there is a perfect equality of representation and vote of the States in the Senate. In this respect it forms a marked contrast to the House of Representatives. In the latter, the representation is in proportion to the population of each State, upon a given basis; in the former, each State, whether it be great or be small, is, in its political capacity, represented upon the footing of equality with every other, as it would be in a Congress of Ambassadors, or in an Assembly of Peers. The only important difference between the vote in the Senate, and that in the old Continental Congress under the Confederation, is, that in the latter, the vote was by States, each having but one vote, whereas, in the Senate, each Senator has one vote. So that, although the Senators represent States, they vote as individuals; thus combining the two elements of individual opinion, and of State representation. jority of the Senators must concur in every vote; but the vote need not be that of a majority of the States, since the Senators from the same State, may vote on different sides of the same question. The Senators from fifteen States may divide in their votes; and those from eleven, may concur in their votes, and thus give a decisive majority.

A ma

§ 101. It is obvious, that this arrangement could only arise from a compromise between the great and the small States, founded upon a spirit of amity, and mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of situation of the United States rendered indispensable. There was, for a long time, a very animated struggle in the Convention, between the great and the small States, on this subject; the latter contending for an equality of representation in each branch of the Legislature; the former for a representation in each, proportionate to its population and importance. In the discussions, the States were so nearly balanced, that their union in any plan of government, which should provide for a perfect equality, or an inequality, of representation in both Houses, became utterly hopeless. A compromise became indispensable. The small

States yielded up an equality of representation in the House of Representatives, and the great States, in like manner, conceded an equality in the Senate. This arrangement, so vital to the peace of the Union, and to the preservation of the separate existence of the States, is, at the same time, full of wisdom, and sound political policy. It introduces, and perpetuates, in the different branches of the Legislature, different elements, which will make the theoretical check, contemplated by the division of the legislative power, more efficient and constant in its operation. The interests, passions, and prejudices of a particular representative district may thus be controlled by the influence of a whole State; the like interests, passions, and prejudices of a State, or of a majority of the States, may thus be controlled by the voice of a majority of the people of the Union.

§ 102. Secondly, the mode of choosing Senators. They are to be chosen by the Legislature of each State. This mode has a natural tendency to increase the just operation of the check, to which we have already alluded. The people of the States directly choose the Representatives; the Legislature, whose votes are variously compounded, and whose mode of election is different in different States, directly choose the Senators. So that it is impossible, that exactly the same influences, interests, and feelings, should prevail in the same proportions in each branch. Three schemes were presented in the Convention; one was, a choice directly by the people of the States; another was, a choice by the national House of Representatives; and the third was, that which now exists. Upon mature deliberation, the last was thought to possess a decided preference over either of the other two. It was recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the national government, as might secure a due authority to the former, and may well serve as a connecting link between the two systems. Our past experience has fully justified the wisdom of the choice.

§ 103. The Constitution has not provided for the man

ner, in which the choice shall be made by the State Legislatures, whether by a joint vote, or by a concurrent vote; the former is, where both branches form one assembly, and give a united vote numerically; the latter is, where each branch gives a separate and independent vote. As each of the State Legislatures now consists of two branches, this is a very important practical question. Generally, but not universally, the choice of Senators is made by a concurrent vote. Another question might be suggested, whether the Executive constitutes a part of the Legislature for such a purpose, in cases where the State constitution gives him a qualified negative upon the laws. But this has been silently and universally settled against the executive participation in the appointment.

§ 104. Thirdly, the number of Senators. Each State is entitled to two Senators. To insure competent knowledge and ability to discharge all the functions intrusted to the Senate, and, at the same time, to give promptitude and efficiency to their acts, the number should not be unreasonably large or small. The number should be sufficiently large to insure a sufficient variety of talents and experience and practical skill for the just discharge of all the duties of that important branch of the Legislature. A very small body also is more easily overawed and intimidated by external influences, than one of a reasonable size, embracing weight of character, and dignity of talents. Numbers, alone, in many cases, confer power, and encourage firmness. If the number of the Senate were confined to one for each State, there would be danger, that it might be too small for a comprehensive knowledge and diligence in all the business devolved upon the body. And besides; in such a case, the illness, or accidental absence of a Senator might deprive a State of its vote upon an important question, or of its influence in an interesting debate. If, on the other hand, the number were very large, the Senate might become unwieldy, and want despatch, and due responsibility. It could hardly exercise due deliberation in some functions connected with executive duties, which might, at the same time, require prompt action. If any number beyond one be proper,