and in want, they can be courted only by such means as will improve their well-being, and these improvements cannot take place without money. When a people begin to reflect on their situation, they discover a multitude of wants which they had not before been conscious of, and to satisfy these exigencies recourse must be had to the coffers of the state. Hence it happens that the public charges increase in proportion to the civilization of the country, and imposts are augmented as knowledge becomes more diffused.

The last cause which renders a democratic government dearer than any other is, that a democracy does not always lessen its expenditures even when it wishes to do so, because it does not understand the art of being economical. As it frequently changes its purposes, and still more frequently its agents, its undertakings are often ill conducted or left unfinished: in the former case, the state spends sums out of all proportion to the end which it proposes to accomplish; in the latter, the expense brings no return.

TENDENCIES OF .THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AS REGARDS THE SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.

In Democracies, those who establish high Salaries have no chance of profiting by them. Tendency of the American Democracy to increase the Salaries of subordinate Officers, and to lower those of the more important Functionaries. Reason of this. Comparative Statement of the Salaries of Public Officers in the United States and in France.

THERE is a powerful reason which usually induces democracies to economize upon the salaries of public officers. Those who fix the amount of the salaries, being very numerous, have but little chance of obtaining office so as to be in receipt of those salaries. In aristocratic countries, on the contrary, the individuals who appoint high salaries have almost always a vague hope of profiting by them.

These appointments may be looked upon as a capital which they create for their own use, or at least as a resource for their children.

It must be allowed, moreover, that a democratic state is most parsimonious towards its principal agents. In America, the secondary officers are much better, and the higher functionaries much worse paid, than elsewhere.

*

These opposite effects result from the same cause: the people fix the salaries of the public officers in both cases; and the scale of remuneration is determined by the comparison of their own wants. It is held to be fair, that the servants of the public should be placed in the same easy circumstances as the public themselves; but when the question turns upon the salaries of the great officers of state, this rule fails, and chance alone guides the popular decision. The poor have no adequate conception of the wants which the higher classes of society feel. The sum which is scanty to the rich appears enormous to him whose wants do not extend beyond the necessaries of life; and in his estimation, the Governor of a State, with his twelve hundred or two thousand dollars a year, is a fortunate and enviable being.† If you try to convince him that the representative of a great people ought to appear with some splendor in the eyes of foreign nations, he will at first assent to your assertion; but when he reflects on

* The easy circumstances in which secondary functionaries are placed in* the United States result, also, from another cause, which is independent of the general tendencies of democracy: every kind of private business is very lucrative, and the state would not be served at all if it did not pay its servants well. The country is in the position of a commercial house, which is obliged to sustain a costly competition, notwithstanding its tastes are economical.

†The State of Ohio, which contains a million of inhabitants, gives its Governor a salary of only 1,200 dollars a year. [Now that its population exceeds two millions, the Governor's salary has been raised to 1,800 dollars. - AM. ED.]

his own humble dwelling, and the small earnings of his hard toil, he remembers all that he could do with a salary which you judge to be insufficient, and he is startled and almost frightened at the view of so much wealth. Besides, the secondary public officer is almost on a level with the people, whilst the others are raised above them. The former may therefore excite his sympathy, but the latter begin to arouse his envy.

This is clearly seen in the United States, where the salaries seem, if I may so speak, to decrease as the authority of those who receive them is augmented.*

Under the rule of an aristocracy, on the contrary, the high officers receive munificent salaries, while the inferior

* To render this assertion perfectly evident, it will suffice to examine the scale of salaries of the agents of the Federal government. I have added the salaries of the corresponding officers in France, to complete the comparison.

Secretary of State,
The President,

6,000

. 25,000

ry, 3,200 to 3,600 fr. ($640-720). Secrétaire-général, 20,000 fr. ($ 4,000) The Minister, 80,000 fr. ($16,000) The King, 12,000,000 fr. ($2,400,000)

[Since M. de Tocqueville wrote, all these salaries of American officers, except that of the President, have been somewhat enlarged; but the addition made to them is not more than enough to make up for the increased expenses of living. - AM. ED.]

I have perhaps done wrong in selecting France as my standard of comparison. In France, as the democratic tendencies of the nation exercise an ever-increasing influence upon the government, the Chambers show a disposition to raise the low salarics, and to lower the principal ones. Thus, the Minister of Finance, who received 160,000 fr. under the Empire, receives 80,000 fr. in 1835; the Directeurs-Généraux of Finance, who then received 50,000 fr., now receive only 20,000 fr.

ones often have not more than enough to procure the necessaries of life. The reason of this fact is easily discoverable from causes very analogous to those which I have just pointed out. As a democracy is unable to conceive the pleasures of the rich, or to witness them without envy, so an aristocracy is slow to understand the privations of the poor, or rather is unacquainted with them. The poor man is not, properly speaking, of the same kind as the rich one; but he is a being of another species. An aristocracy therefore cares but little for the condition of its subordinate agents; and their salaries are raised only when they refuse to serve for too scanty a remuneration.

It is the parsimonious conduct of democracy towards its principal officers, which has caused more economical propensities to be attributed to it than it really possesses. It is true that it scarcely allows the means of decent main-. tenance to those who conduct its affairs; but it lavishes enormous sums to succor the wants or facilitate the enjoyments of the people.* The money raised by taxation may be better employed; but it is not economically used. In general, democracy gives largely to the people, and very sparingly to those who govern them. The reverse is the case in aristocratic countries, where the money of the state. profits the persons who are at the head of affairs.

* See the American budgets for the support of paupers, and for gratui tous instruction. In 1831, over $250,000 were spent in the State of New York for the maintenance of the poor; and at least $1,000,000 were devoted to public instruction. [In 1858, the total expenditure for the relief of the poor in the State of New York was $1,491,391; and for common schools, $3,653,995.-AM. ED.] The State of New York contained only 1,900,000 inhabitants in the year 1830, which is not more than double the amount of population in the Département du Nord in France. [In 1855, the population of New York was 3,466,212.]

DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING THE CAUSES WHICH INCLINE THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TO ECONOMY.

WE are liable to frequent errors in seeking among facts for the real influence which laws exercise upon the fate of mankind, since nothing is more difficult to appreciate than a fact. One nation is naturally fickle and enthusiastic; another is sober and calculating; and these characteristics originate in their physical constitution, or in remote causes with which we are unacquainted.

There are nations which are fond of parade, bustle, and festivity, and which do not regret millions spent upon the gayeties of an hour. Others, on the contrary, are attached to more quiet enjoyments, and seem almost ashamed of appearing to be pleased. In some countries, high value is set upon the beauty of public edifices; in others, the productions of art are treated with indifference, and everything which is unproductive is regarded with contempt. In some, renown, in others, money, is the ruling passion.

Independently of the laws, all these causes exercise a powerful influence upon the conduct of the finances of the state. If the Americans never spend the money of the people in public festivities, it is not merely because the taxes are under the control of the people, but because the people take no delight in festivities. If they repudiate all ornament from their architecture, and set no store on any but practical and homely advantages, it is not because they live under democratic institutions, but because they are a commercial nation. The habits of private life are continued in public; and we ought carefully to distinguish that economy which depends upon their institutions from that which is the natural result of their habitudes and

manners.