صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

§ 568. It will be observed, that some parts of the foregoing reasoning apply to the fundamental importance of an actual division of the legislative power; and other parts to the true principles, upon which that division should be subsequently organized, in order to give full effect to the constitutional check. Some parts go to show the value of a senate; and others, what should be its structure, in order to ensure wisdom, experience, fidelity, and dignity in its members. All of it, however, instructs us, that, in order to give it fair play and influence, as a co-ordinate branch of government, it ought to be less numerous, more select, and more durable, than the other branch; and be chosen in a manner, which should combine, and represent different interests with a varied force.1 How far these objects are attained by the constitution will be better seen, when the details belonging to each department are successively examined.

§ 569. This discussion may be closed by the remark, that in the Roman republic the legislative authority, in the last resort, resided for ages in two distinct political bodies, not as branches of the same legislature, but as distinct and independent legislatures, in each of which an opposite interest prevailed. In one, the patrician;

one representative assembly, annually elected. They afterwards voted themselves from annual to septennial; then for life; and finally exerted the power of filling up all vacancies, without application to their constituents. The government of Holland is now a tyranny, though a republic. The result of a single assembly will be hasty and indigested; and their judgments frequently absurd and inconsistent. There must be a second body to revise with coolness, and wisdom, and to control with firmness, independent upon the first, either for their creation, or existence. Yet the first must retain a right to a similar revision and control over the second."

1 The Federalist, No. 62, 63.

45

in the other, the plebeian predominated. And yet, during the co-existence of these two legislatures, the Roman republic attained to the supposed pinnacle of human greatness.1

1 The Federalist, No. 34.

CHAPTER IX.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

§ 570. THE Second section of the first article contains the structure and organization of the house of representatives. The first clause is as follows:

** "The house of representatives shall be composed of "members chosen every second year by the people of "the several states; and the electors in each state shall "have the qualifications requisite for electors of the " most numerous branch of the state legislature."

§ 571. As soon as it was settled, that the legislative power should be divided into two separate and distinct branches, a very important consideration arose in regard to the organization of those branches respectively. It is obvious, that the organization of each is susceptible of very great diversities and modifications, in respect to the principles of representation; the qualification of the electors, and the elected; the term of service of the members; the ratio of representation; and the number, of which the body should be composed.

§ 572. First; the principle of representation. The American people had long been in the enjoyment of the privilege of electing, at least, one branch of the legislature; and, in some of the colonies, of electing all the branches composing the legislature. A house of representatives, under various denominations, such as a house of delegates, a house of commons, or, simply, a house of representatives, emanating directly from, and responsible to, the people, and possessing a distinct and independent legislative authority, was familiar to all the colonies, and was held by them in the highest rever

ence and respect. They justly thought, that as the government in general should always have a common interest with the people, and be admin stered for their good; so it was essential to their rights and liberties, that the most numerous branch should have an immediate dependence upon, and sympathy with, the people.1 There was no novelty in this view. It was not the mere result of a state of colonial dependence, in which their jealousy was awake to all the natural encroachments of power in a foreign realm. They had drawn their opinions and principles from the practice of the parent country. They knew the inestimable value of the house of commons, as a component branch of the British parliament; and they believed, that it had at all times furnished the best security against the oppressions of the crown, and the aristocracy. While the power of taxation, of revenue, and of supplies, remained in the hands of a popular branch, it was difficult for usurpation to exist for any length of time without check; and prerogative must yield to that necessity, which controlled at once the sword and the purse. No reasoning, therefore, was necessary to satisfy the American people of the advantages of a house of representatives, which should emanate directly from themselves; which should guard their interests, support their rights, express their opinions, make known their wants, redress their grievances, and introduce a pervading popular influence throughout all the operations of the government. Experience, as well as theory, had settled it in their minds, as a fundamental principle of a free government, and especially of a republican government, that no laws ought to be passed without the co-operation and consent of the representatives of the people; and that these representatives should be chosen by themselves without the intervention of any other functionaries to intercept, or vary their responsibility.1

1 The Federalist, No. 52; 1 Black. Comm. 158, 159; Paley's Moral Philosophy, B. 6, ch. 7; 1 Wilson's Law Lect. 429 to 433; 2 Wilson's Law Lect. 122 to 132.

§473. The principle, however, had been hitherto applied to the political organization of the state legislatures only; and its application to that of the federal government was not without some diversity of opinion. This diversity had not its origin in any doubt of the correctness of the principle itself, when applied to simple republics; but, the propriety of applying it to cases of confederated republics was affected by other independent considerations. Those, who might wish to retain a very large portion of state sovereignty, in its representative character, in the councils of the Union, would naturally desire to have the house of representatives elected by the state in its political character, as under the old confederation. Those, on the other hand, who wished to impart to the government a national character, would as naturally desire an independent election by the people themselves in their primary meetings. Probably these circumstances had some operation upon the votes given on the question in the convention itself. For it appears, that upon the original proposition in the convention, "That the members of the first branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several states, six states voted for it, two against it, and two were divided. And upon a subsequent motion to strike out the word "people," and insert in its place the word "legislatures,"

1 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 28.

2 Journal of Convention, May 31, 1787, p. 85, 86, 135; 4 Elliot's Debates, (Yates's Minutes,) 58.

« السابقةمتابعة »