control over the fortunes and the lives of their fellow-citizens, it was customary to call them Cæsar in conversation, and they were in the habit of supping without formality at their friends' houses. It is therefore necessary to look below the surface.

The sovereignty of the United States is shared between the Union and the States, while in France it is undivided and compact: hence arises the first and the most notable difference which exists between the President of the United States and the King of France. In the Unit ed States the executive power is as limited and partial as the sovereign. ty of the Union in whose name it acts; in France it is as universal as the authority of the State. The Americans have a federal, and the French a national Government.

The first cause of inferiority results from the nature of things, but it is not the only one; the second in importance is as follows: Sovereign. ty may be defined to be the right of making laws: in France, the King really exercises a portion of the sovereign power, since the laws have no weight till he has given his assent to them; he is moreover the executor of all they ordain. The President is also the executor of the laws, but he does not really co-operate in their formation, since the refusal of his assent does not annul them. He is therefore merely to be considered as the agent of the sovereign power. But not only does the King of France exercise a portion of the sovereign power, he also contributes to the nomination of the legislature, which exercises the other portion. He has the privilege of appointing the members of one chamber, and of dissolving the other at his pleasure; whereas the President of the United States has no share in the formation of the legislative body, and cannot dissolve any part of it. The King has the same right of bringing forward measures as the Chambers; a right which the President does not possess. The King is represented in each assembly by his ministers, who explain his intentions, support his opinions, and maintain the principles of the Government. The President and his ministers are alike excluded from Congress; so that his influence and his opinions can only penetrate indirectly into that great body. The King of France is therefore on an equal footing with the legislature, which can no more act without him, than he can without it. The President exercises an authority inferior to, and depending upon that of the legislature.

Even in the exercise of the executive power, properly so called,the point upon which his position seems to be almost analogous to that of the King of France,—the President labors Under several causes of inferiority. The authority of the King, in France, has, in the first

:

place, the advantage of duration over that of the President and durability is one of the chief elements of strength; nothing is either loved or feared but what is likely to endure. President of the United States is a magistrate elected for four years. The King, in France, is

a hereditary sovereign.

The

In the exercise of the executive power the President of the United States is constantly subject to a jealous scrutiny. He may make, but he cannot conclude, a treaty; he may designate, but he cannot appoint, a public officer.✻ The King of France is absolute in the sphere of the executive power.

The President of the United States is responsible for his actions; but the person of the King is declared inviolable by the French Charter.

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, while that of the King, in France, is undivided. I might have gone on to show that the power of the King's government in France exceeds its natural limits, however extensive they may be, and penetrates in a thousand different ways into the administration of private interests. Among the examples of this influence may be quoted that which re

*The Constitution had left it doubtful whether the President was obliged to consult the Senate in the removal as well as in the appointment of Federal officers. The Federalist (No. 77.) seemed to establish the affirmative; but in 1789 Congress formally decided that as the President was responsible for has actions, he right not to be forced to employ agents who had forfeited his esteem. See Kent's Commentaries, p. 289.

vol, i.

sults from the great number of public functionaries, who all derive their appointments from the Government. This number now exceeds all previous limits; it amounts to 138,000* nominations, each of which may be considered as an element of power. The President of the United States has not the exclusive right of making any public appointments, and their whole number scarcely exceeds 12,000.†

[Those who are desirous of tracing the question respecting the power of the President to remove every executive officer of the government without the sanction of the Senate, will find some light upon it by referring to 5th Marshall's Life of Washington, p. 196: 5 Sergeant and Rawle's Reports, (Pennsylvania) 451. Report of a committee of the Senate in 1822, in Niles's Register of 29th August in that year. It is certainly very extraordinary that such a vast power, and one so extensively affecting the whole administration of the government, should rest on such slight foundations, as an inference from an act of Congress, providing, that when the Secretary of the Treasury should be removed by the President, his assistant should discharge the duties of the office. How Congress could confer the power, even by a direct act, is not perceived. It must be a necessary implication from the words of the Constitution, or it does not exist. It has been repeatedly denied in and out of Congress, and must be considered, as yet, an unsettled question.American Editor.]

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES WHICH MAY INCREASE THE INFLUENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE.

External security of the Union.—Army of six thousand men.—Few ships.—The President has no opportunity of exercising his great prerogatives.— In the prerogatives he exercises he is weak.

If the executive power is feebler in America than in France, the cause is more attributable to the circumstances than to the laws of the country.

*The sums annually paid by the State to these officers amount to 200,000,000 francs (eight millions sterling.)

This number is extracted from the 'National Calendar' for 1833. The National Calendar is an American Almanac which contains the names of all the Federal officers.

It results from this comparison that the King of France has eleven times as many places at his disposal as the President, although the population of France is not much more than double that of the Union.

It is chiefly in its foreign relations that the executive power of a nation is called upon to exert its skill and vigor. If the exist. ence of the Union were perpetually threatened, and its chief interest were in daily connexion with those of other powerful nations, the executive government would assume an increased importance in proportion to the measures expected of it, and those which it would carry into effect. The President of the United States is the commander-inchief of the army, but of an army composed of only six thousand men ; he commands the fleet, but the fleet reckons but few sail; he conducts the foreign relations of the Union, but the United States are a nation without neighbors. Separated from the rest of the world by the ocean, and too weak as yet to aim at the dominion of the seas, they have no enemies, and their interests rarely come into Contact with those of any other nation of the globe.

The practical part of a Government must not be judged by the theory of its constitution. The President of the United States is in the possession of almost royal prerogatives, which he has no opportu. nity of exercising; and those privileges which he can at present use are very circumscribed: the laws allow him to possess a degree of influ. ence which circumstances do not permit him to employ.

On the other hand, the great strength of the royal prerogative in France arises from circumstances far more than from the laws. There the executive government is constantly struggling against prodigious obstacles, and exerting all its energies to repress them; so that it in. creases by the extent of its achievements, and by the importance of the events it controls, without for that reason modifying its constitution. If the laws had made it as feeble and as circumscribed as it is in the Union, its influence would very soon become much greater.

WHY THE PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES DOES NOT

REQUIRE THE MAJORITY OF THE TWO HOUSES IN ORDER TO CARRY ON THE GOVERNMENT.

It is an established axiom in Europe that a constitutional King cannot persevere in a system of government which is opposed by the two other branches of the legislature. But several Presidents of the United States have been known to lose the majority in the legislative body, without being obliged to abandon the supreme power, and without in.

flicting a serious evil upon society. I have heard this fact quoted as an instance of the independence and power of the executive govern. ment in America: a moment's reflection will convince us, on the contrary, that it is a proof of its extreme weakness.

A king in Europe requires the support of the legislature to enable him to perform the duties imposed upon him by the Constitution, because those duties are enormous. A constitutional King in Europe

is not merely the executor of the law, but the execution of its provisions devolves so completely upon him, that he has the power of paralyzing its influence if it opposes his designs. He requires the assistance of the legislative assemblies to make the law, but those assemblies stand in need of his aid to execute it: these two authorities cannot subsist without each other, and the mechanism of government is stopped as soon as they are at variance.

In America the President cannot prevent any law from being passed, nor can he evade the obligation of enforcing it. His sincere and zealous co-operation is no doubt useful, but it is not indispensable in the carrying on of public affairs. All his important acts are directly or indi rectly submitted to the legislature; and where he is independent of it he can do but little. It is therefore his weakness, and not his power, which enables him to remain in opposition to Congress. In Europe, harmony must reign between the Crown and the other branches of the legislature, because a collision between them may prove serious; in America, this harmony is not indispensable, because such a collision is impossible.

ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

Dangers of the elective system increase in proportion to the extent of the prerogative. This system possible in America because no powerful executive authority is required. What circumstances are favorable to the elective system.—Why the election of the President does not cause a deviation from the principles of the Government.—Influence of the election of the President on secondary functionaries.

The dangers of the system of election applied to the head of the executive government of a great people have been sufficiently exemplified by experience and by history; and the remarks I am about to make refer to America alone. These dangers may be more or less formida