larger ones. Besides, there is so irresistible an authority in the legal expression of the will of a people, that the Senate could offer but a feeble opposition to the vote of the majority expressed by the House of Representatives.

It must not be forgotten, moreover, that it was not in the power of the American legislators to reduce to a single nation the people for whom they were making laws. The object of the Federal Constitution was not to destroy the independence of the States, but to restrain it. By acknowledging the real power of these secondary communities, (and it was impossible to deprive them of it,) they disavowed beforehand the habitual use of constraint in enforcing the decisions of the majority. This being laid down, the introduction of the influence of the States into the mechanism of the Federal government was by no means to be wondered at ; since it only attested the existence of an acknowledged power, which was to be humored, and not forcibly checked.

A FURTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The Senate named by the State Legislatures; the Representatives by the People.- Double Election of the former; single Election of the latter. - Term of the different Offices. - Peculiar Functions of each House.

THE Senate differs from the other House, not only in the very principle of representation, but also in the mode of its election, in the term for which it is chosen, and in the nature of its functions. The House of Representatives is chosen by the people, the Senate by the legislatures of each State; the former is directly elected, the latter is elected by an elected body; the term for which the Representatives are chosen is only two years, that of the Senators is six. The functions of the House of Representatives are purely legislative, and the only share it takes in the

judicial power is in the impeachment of public officers. The Senate co-operates in the work of legislation, and tries those political offences which the House of Representatives submits to its decision. It also acts as the great executive council of the nation; the treaties which are concluded by the President must be ratified by the Senate; and the appointments he may make, in order to be definitive, must be approved by the same body.

THE EXECUTIVE POWER.

Dependence of the President. — He is Elective and Responsible. - Free in his own Sphere, under the Inspection, but not under the Direction, of the Senate. His Salary fixed at his Entry into Office. — Suspensive Veto.

THE American legislators undertook a difficult task in attempting to create an executive power dependent on the majority of the people, and nevertheless sufficiently strong to act without restraint in its own sphere. It was indispensable to the maintenance of the republican form of government, that the representative of the executive power should be subject to the will of the nation.

The President is an elective magistrate. His honor, his property, his liberty, and his life are the securities which the people have for the temperate use of his power. But in the exercise of his authority, he is not perfectly independent; the Senate takes cognizance of his relations with foreign powers, and of his distribution of public appointments, so that he can neither corrupt nor be corrupted. The legislators of the Union acknowledge that the executive power could not fulfil its task with dignity and advantage, unless it enjoyed more stability and strength than had been granted it in the separate States.

The President is chosen for four years, and he may be re-elected; so that the chances of a future administration

may inspire him with hopeful undertakings for the public good, and give him the means of carrying them into execu tion. The President was made the sole representative of the executive power of the Union; and care was taken not to render his decisions subordinate to the vote of a council, a dangerous measure, which tends at the same time to clog the action of the government and to diminish its responsibility. The Senate has the right of annulling certain acts of the President; but it cannot compel him to take any steps, nor does it participate in the exercise of the executive power.

The action of the legislature on the executive power may be direct, and we have just shown that the Americans carefully obviated this influence; but it may, on the other hand, be indirect. Legislative assemblies which have the power of depriving an officer of state of his salary encroach upon his independence; and as they are free to make the laws, it is to be feared lest they should gradually appropriate to themselves a portion of that authority which the Constitution had vested in his hands. This dependence of the executive power is one of the defects inherent in republican constitutions. The Americans have not been able to counteract the tendency which legislative assemblies have to get possession of the government, but they have rendered this propensity less irresistible. The salary of the President is fixed, at the time of his entering upon office, for the whole period of his magistracy. The President is, moreover, armed with a suspensive veto, which allows him to oppose the passing of such laws as might destroy the portion of independence which the Constitution awards him. Yet the struggle between the President and the legislature must always be an unequal one, since the latter is certain of bearing down all resistance by persevering in its plans; but the suspensive veto forces it, at least, to reconsider the matter, and, if the motion be

persisted in, it must then be backed by a majority of two thirds of the whole house. The veto is, moreover, a sort of appeal to the people. The executive power, which, without this security, might have been secretly oppressed, adopts this means of pleading its cause and stating its motives. But if the legislature perseveres in its design, can it not always overpower all resistance? I reply that in the constitutions of all nations, of whatever kind they may be, a certain point exists at which the legislator must have recourse to the good sense and the virtue of his fellow-citizens. This point is nearer and more prominent in republics, whilst it is more remote and more carefully concealed in monarchies; but it always exists somewhere. There is no country in which everything can be provided for by the laws, or in which political institutions can prove a substitute for common sense and public morality.

IN WHAT THE POSITION OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIFFERS FROM THAT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL KING OF FRANCE.

Executive Power in the United States as limited and exceptional as the Sovereignty which it represents. - Executive Power in France, like the State Sovereignty, extends to everything. The King a Branch of the Legislature. - The President the mere Executor of the Law. Other Differences resulting from the Duration of the two Powers. The President checked in the Exercise of the Executive Authority. The King Independent in its Exercise. In spite of these Differences, France is more akin to a Republic than the Union to a Monarchy. - Comparison of the Number of Public Officers depending upon the Executive Power in the two Countries.

THE executive power has so important an influence on the destinies of nations, that I wish to dwell for an instant on this portion of my subject, in order more clearly to explain the part it sustains in America. In order to form a clear and precise idea of the position of the President of

the United States, it may be well to compare it with that of one of the constitutional kings of Europe. In this comparison, I shall pay but little attention to the external signs of power, which are more apt to deceive the eye of the observer than to guide his researches. When a monarchy is being gradually transformed into a republic, the executive power retains the titles, the honors, the etiquette, and even the funds of royalty, long after its real authority has disappeared. The English, after having cut off the head of one king, and expelled another from his throne, were still wont to address the successors of those princes only upon their knees. On the other hand, when a republic falls under the sway of a single man, the demeanor of the sovereign remains as simple and unpretending as if his authority was not yet paramount. When the Emperors exercised an unlimited 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, whilst, in France, it is undivided and compact: hence arises the first and most notable difference which exists between the President of the United States and the King of France. In the United States, the executive power is as limited and exceptional as the sovereignty 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.

This cause of inferiority results from the nature of things, but it is not the only one; the second in importance is as follows. Sovereignty 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 if he refuses to sanction them; he is, moreover, the