not for that of the president. Democracy places every thing in an equilibrium; while every kind of aristocracy necessarily leads to a preponderance of some sort or other. The universal right of suffrage offers the best security against corruption: inasmuch as the means by which individuals may be seduced, cannot be applied to millions; and the secret voting by ballot is a protec tion to the weak, although it does not always answer the purpose of concealment.* Besides, there are a plenty of other reasons why no rich or eminent persons in America can venture to try the system of intimidation so often practised in Europe.

There is in this place another point to be discussed, which in our consideration of the subject of slavery we could only allude to. The Constitution gives to five slaves as many votes as to three freemen; that is, in determining the number of representatives for each state, according to its population, as many are allotted for 50,000 slaves as for 30,000 freemen. This regulation has in later times been vehemently opposed, particularly by many of the New Englanders, who say: If the slaves are men like the whites, they should be allowed their freedom and equal privileges; if they are merely goods and chattels, no political rights should be granted on their account,-since in the United States it is the person alone that decides, and no regard whatever is had to property. Besides, this privilege was granted only under the supposition that the state taxes would be imposed according to the number of persons, including the slaves; which, however, has never been done. And thus an improper right continues, while the obligation is no longer thought of. In the slave states 5,935 free voters, and in the free states 10,278 appoint a representative. If only the free voters elected members of Congress according to their number, the slave states would have but sixty-six representatives, instead of eighty-eight. Important as these considerations are, the fundamental conditions and points of compromise on which the whole Union rests, can hardly be removed without laying the edifice in ruins. But whether the existence of slavery is to be recognised by law in the admission of new states, whether political rights are there to be granted to slaveholders in any numerical proportion on account of their slaves,-is quite another question, and one which the Constitution by no means decidedly answers in the affirmative. The conditions of the admission of new statesthat of Texas for example-may be the same as the former ones, or may vary from them. It is certainly It is certainly a departure from the principles maintained in other respects, to give to slaves alone. rather than to any other species of property an important weight in the political scale.

In Virginia alone there is no balloting.

The question as to whether the majority of voters may or ought to give instructions to their representatives, has often been raised, but has never been legally decided in the affirmative; because a strict restraint and obligation laid on delegates destroys the idea of representation, and because the voters are in general sufficiently well acquainted with the views and principles of the persons they elect.

That the senators and representatives, considering the great diversity of situation and interests among the several states, should be chosen out of these states, appears very natural; yet they are by no means instructed or obliged, as in some European confederacies, to represent their own state exclusively, and to set its local interests above the general welfare.

As the number of the members of Congress is always regulated according to the number of souls, it should not be permitted to increase excessively with the increasing population. Accordingly there were chosen,

In 1789, one representative to every 30,000 inhabitants.

Democratic as the American institutions are in comparison with the English, the British House of Commons is two and a ha times as numerous as the American House of Representatives.

The number of senators for twenty-six states now amounts to fifty-two. The political weight of each state in this upper house always remains unchanged; whereas it is unequally increased in the lower house, in proportion to the greater or less increase of population.†

* If there remain an overplus of population of more than one half this sum, a representative is chosen for it.

†The following are the number of representatives sent by each state:

Although both the House of Representatives and the Senate were necessarily founded on the principle of election, yet (as we have seen) the form and substance of these elections were not only very different, but every possible means was employed to make of the Senate a more limited, exclusive, aristocratic body. Hence its fewer members and the unvarying number for each state, their greater age, longer residence, and less frequent changes.

More recently doubts have arisen, as to whether the delegates to Congress should be appointed by the whole body of voters in a state, or according to certain districts; and whether Congress had the right to make regulations on this head. In the Constitution (Art. I. Sect. 4) it is said: "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators." In virtue of the right thus given, Congress decided that the election in each state should take place by as many districts as it sends representatives. Only four states-New Hampshire, Georgia, Missouri, and Mississippi-have still adhered to the old method.

The gross violations of decorum and order that occasionally take place in Congress, admit of no justification; but this fault of the passions of individuals directed against individuals, is to be charged to them alone.* The great contending parties never suffer themselves to be betrayed into such general improprieties as occur but too frequently in Paris. In Washington by far the greater number have always been distinguished for propriety of demeanor, moderation, and patience. This last virtue in particular has been much in requisition; and the complaints that are made of the lengthy and multitudinous speeches in Congress

Total, 65 to about 30,000 in 1789; and 223 to 70,680 persons at the present time. Florida, Wisconsin, and Iowa each send a delegate, making 3.

* Ira procul absit; cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest. Rectum est autem, etiam in illis contentionibus quæ cum inimicissimis fiunt, etiam si nobis indigna audiamus, tamen gravitatem retinere, iracundiam repellere. Cicero de Officiis, I. 38.

appear but too well founded, when we compare the shorter time occupied on an average by the English and French speakers, and the smaller number of individuals who in London or Paris undertake to speak at all. But here again it must not be forgotten, that in Congress not only are two great parties under able leaders opposed to one another; but the very different and complicated interests of twenty-six states are to be represented and adjusted. In the House of Representatives interminable speakers are now limited to an hour's duration. Before the aid of law was invoked, a happy thought was now and then employed with good effect: as for instance, when a tedious orator said to one who impatiently interrupted him, that he was speaking not to him, but to posterity; the other replied, " The gentleman seems in a fair way, before he ends, to have his audience before him."* Tediousness and loss of time ought certainly to be avoided; but too strict a limitation of the speaker is obnoxious to the still greater disadvantage, that the majority may force a decisive vote before a topic has been thoroughly discussed.†

In any case a speaking, active congress, whose proceedings are fairly before the public, is to be preferred to a silent and inactive one; moreover, the praise or censure of hearers and readers is a far better restraint upon the speakers, than any attempt to enforce moderation by not naming them (as among the Prussian deputies); a mode of proceeding which in fact places the able man and the bungler upon a level, and deprives the voters of all grounds of judgment as to whether they should re-elect or discard them.

As regards the relations of the single states to the general government, there is not yet an entire unanimity of views and wishes; but the difference is not as great as formerly, when some would have no federal government at all, and others no states. Jefferson, with great sagacity, foresaw that the political institutions of the country would receive their full development only in case the latter were granted as much independence and power of self-government as possible. How many improvements, what great public works have been achieved by these latter; while the undertakings planned by the general government have made comparatively little or no progress. A just complacency in this spirit of local and provincial enterprise, and this astonishing advancement, has sometimes caused the necessity and utility of the federal government to be too much overlooked; or else an excessive and groundless fear has been

*North American Review, li. 111.

† Much time is lost by frequent voting; it was calculated that the last Congress consumed 146 hours in this manner.

Long's Expedition to St. Peter's River, i. 26.

entertained that the chosen presidents, senators, and representatives might easily become the absolute masters of all.

J

Although a strict interpretation of the Constitution has for a long time controlled the extent of congressional powers, and the danger of a one-sided preponderancy lies more on the side of the states than of Congress; still the latter has far more authority and power (e. g. over the army, the navy, taxation, and legislation), has produced, without over-governing, far more wholesome uniform measures for the good of all, and has preserved more unanimity both internally and externally, than all the assemblies and diets of European confederacies. Thus it guarantees to each state its free constitution; and any arbitrary attempt to undermine or subvert it, would be frustrated by the joint efforts of all. It is equally true that the twenty-six states are really twenty-six states, as that all the Americans form one great people. Even at the adoption of the Constitution, there came forward neither a formless democracy of all the inhabitants, nor a mere aristocracy of the thirteen states. The people decided in thirteen assemblies, through representatives for thirteen states. These must render obedience as long as Congress keeps within the limits of its rights. At the time of nullification, its course was imprudent, and that of South Carolina dangerous; and moderation and compromise were found to be the best remedies by far. As Congress has no right to deliberate on the concerns of the individual states, so these are debarred from interfering in the sphere of the general government. A reconciliation of the duties and positions of both, was and continues to be possible. Thus John Quincy Adams observes: "Even the most perfect constitution is no security against different interpretations and doubts as to what is the right. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right, but in the heart."

That the power of the several states must change, and that that of the Western states in particular must increase, cannot admit of doubt. But in this there lies no new or more imminent danger, than when in former times Virginia and Pennsylvania had a preponderating weight. On the contrary, the creation of new states, through the judicious and generous cessions of land already mentioned, is substantial gain. This is evident from their extraordinary advancement, and from the fact that their laws and civil institutions exhibit by no means, as many suppose, mere crude beginnings; but in judgment, perspicuity, purity of design, and zeal for liberty, surpass or at least equal any others. But (and this question has been answered in the affirmative

*Speech on the Jubilee of the Constitution, p. 69.