it, claimed to have a paramount voice in deciding whether the nomination should be confirmed. This claim was substantially yielded, for it applied all around and gave every senator what he wanted. The senators then proceeded to put pressure on the President. They insisted that before making a nomination to an office in any State he should consult the senators from that State who belonged to his own party, and be guided by their wishes. By this system, which obtained the name of the Courtesy of the Senate, the President was practically enslaved as regards appointments, because his refusal to be guided by the senator or senators within whose State the office lay exposed him to have his nomination rejected. The senators, on the other hand, obtained a mass of patronage by means of which they could reward their partisans, control the Federal civil servants of their State, and build up a faction devoted to their interests. The right of the President to remove from office has given rise to long controversies. In the Constitution there is not a word about removals; and very soon after it had come into force the question arose whether, as regards those offices for which the confirmation of the Senate is required, the President could remove without its consent. In 1867, Congress, fearing that the President would dismiss a great number of officials who sided with it against him, passed an Act, known as the Tenure of Office Act, which made the consent of the Senate necessary to the removal of office-holders, even of the President's (so-called) cabinet ministers, permitting him only to suspend them from office during the time when Congress was not sitting. The constitutionality of this Act has been much doubted, and in 1887 it was, with general approval, repealed. In no European country is there any personage to whom the President can be said to correspond. If we look at parliamentary countries like England, Italy, Belgium, he resembles neither the sovereign nor the prime minister, for the former is not a party chief at all, and the latter is palpably and confessedly nothing else. The President enjoys more authority, if less dignity, than a European king. He has powers for the moment narrower than a European prime minister, but these powers are more secure, for they do not depend on the pleasure of parliamentary majority, but run on to the end of his term. One naturally compares him with the French President, but the latter has a prime minister and cabinet, dependent on the chamber, at once to relieve and to eclipse him: in America the President's cabinet is a part of himself and has nothing to do with Congress. The difficulty in forming a just estimate of the President's power arises from the fact that it differs so much under ordinary and under extraordinary circumstances. In ordinary times the President may be compared to the senior or managing clerk in a large business establishment, whose chief function is to select subordinates, the policy of the concern being in the hands of the board of directors. But when foreign affairs become critical, or when disorders within the Union require his intervention, when, for instance, it rests with him to put down an insurrection or to decide which of two rival State governments he will recognize and support by arms, everything may depend on his judgment, his courage, and his hearty loyalty to the principles of the Constitution. It used to be thought that hereditary monarchs were strong because they reigned by a right of their own, not derived from the people. A President is strong for the exactly opposite reason, because his rights come straight from the people. Nowhere is the rule of public opinion so complete as in America, nor so direct, that is to say, so independent of the ordinary machinery of government. Now, the President is deemed to represent the people no less than do the members of the legislature. Public opinion governs by and through him no less than by and through them, and makes him powerful even against the legislature. Although recent Presidents have shown no disposition to strain their authority, it is still the fashion in America to be jealous of the President's action, and to warn citizens against what is called "the one-man power." This is due to the fear that a President repeatedly chosen would become dangerous to republican institutions. The President has a position of immense dignity, an unrivaled platform from which to impress his ideas upon the people. But it is hard to imagine a President overthrowing the existing Constitution. He has no standing army and he cannot create one. Congress can checkmate him by stopping supplies. There is no aristocracy to rally around him. Every State furnishes an independent center of resistance. If he were to attempt a coup d'etat, it could only be by appealing to the people against Congress, and Congress could hardly, considering that it is reelected every two years attempt to oppose the people. One must suppose a condition bordering on civil war, and the President putting the resources of the Executive at the service of one of the intending belligerents, already strong and organized, in order to conceive a case in which he would be formidable to freedom. If there be any danger, it would seem to lie in another direction. The larger a community becomes the less does it seem to respect an assembly, the more it is attracted by an individual man. A bold President who knew himself to be supported by a majority in the country, might be temp ted to override the law, and deprive the minority of the protection which the law affords it. He might be a tyrant, not against the masses, but with the masses. But nothing in the present state of American politics gives weight to such apprehensions. CHAPTER VI THE CABINET Almost the only reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the President is that contained in the power given him to "require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties. of their respective offices." All these departments have been created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with four only, at the head of whom were the following four officials: Secretary of State. Secretary of the Treasury. In 1798 there was added a Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster-General, in 1849 a Secretary of the Interior, and in 1888 a Secretary of Agriculture. These now make up what is called the cabinet. All are appointed by the President, subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically never refused), and may be removed by the President alone. None of them can vote in Congress, the Constitution providing that "no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office." This restriction was intended to prevent the President not merely from winning over individual members of Congress by the allurements of office, but also from making his ministers agents in corrupting or unduly influencing the representatives of the people, as George III. and his ministers corrupted the English Parliament. The Constitution contains nothing to prevent ministers from being present in either House of Congress and addressing it. It is entirely silent on the subject of communications between officials (other than the President) and the representatives of the people. The President has the amplest range of choice for his ministers. He usually forms an entirely new cabinet when he enters office, even if he belongs to the same party as his predecessor. He may take men who not only have never sat in Congress, but have not figured in politics at all, who may never have sat in a State legislature nor held the humblest office. Usually, of course, the persons chosen have already made for themselves a position of at least local importance. Often they are those to whom the new President owes his election, or to whose influence with the party he looks for support in his policy. Sometimes they have been his most prominent competitors for the party nominations. Thus Mr. Lincoln in 1860 appointed Mr. Seward and Mr. Chase to be his Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury respectively, they being the two men who had come next after him in the selection by the Republican party of a Presidential candidate. The most dignified place in the cabinet is that of the Secretary of State. It is the great prize often bestowed on the man to whom the President is chiefly indebted for his election, or at any rate on one of the leaders of the party. In early days, it was regarded as the stepping-stone to the presidency. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and J. Q. Adams had all served as secretaries to preceding presidents. The conduct of foreign affairs is the chief duty of the State Department: its head has therefore a larger |