A
Politician Should Be A Man Worthy Of All Honor, In That He Loves His
Country; And Not One Worthy Of All Contempt, In That He Robs His
Country.
I must not be understood as saying that every Senator and
Representative who takes his pay is wrong in taking it.
Indeed, I
have already expressed an opinion that such payments were at first
necessary, and I by no means now say that the necessity has as yet
disappeared. In the minds of thorough democrats it will be
considered much that the poorest man of the people should be enabled
to go into the legislature, if such poorest man be worthy of that
honor. I am not a thorough democrat, and consider that more would
be gained by obtaining in the legislature that education, demeanor,
and freedom from political temptation which easy circumstances
produce. I am not, however, on this account inclined to quarrel
with the democrats - not on that account if they can so manage their
affairs that their poor and popular politicians shall be fairly
honest men. But I am a thorough republican, regarding our own
English form of government as the most purely republican that I
know, and as such I have a close and warm sympathy with those
Transatlantic anti-monarchical republicans who are endeavoring to
prove to the world that they have at length founded a political
Utopia. I for one do not grudge them all the good they can do, all
the honor they can win. But I grieve over the evil name which now
taints them, and which has accompanied that wider spread of
democracy which the last twenty years has produced. This longing
for universal suffrage in all things - in voting for the President,
in voting for judges, in voting for the Representatives, in
dictating to Senators - has come up since the days of President
Jackson, and with it has come corruption and unclean hands.
Democracy must look to it, or the world at large will declare her to
have failed.
One would say that at any rate the Senate might be filled with
unpaid servants of the public. Each State might surely find two men
who could afford to attend to the public weal of their country
without claiming a compensation for their time. In England we find
no difficulty in being so served. Those cities among us in which
the democratic element most strongly abounds, can procure
representatives to their minds, even though the honor of filling the
position is not only not remunerative, but is very costly. I cannot
but think that the Senate of the United States would stand higher in
the public estimation of its own country if it were an unpaid body
of men.
It is enjoined that no person holding any office under the United
States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in
office. At first sight such a rule as this appears to be good in
its nature; but a comparison of the practice of the United States
government with that of our own makes me think that this embargo on
members of the legislative bodies is a mistake. It prohibits the
President's ministers from a seat in either house, and thereby
relieves them from the weight of that responsibility to which our
ministers are subjected. It is quite true that the United States
ministers cannot be responsible as are our ministers, seeing that
the President himself is responsible, and that the Queen is not so.
Indeed, according to the theory of the American Constitution, the
President has no ministers. The Constitution speaks only of the
principal officers of the executive departments. "He" (the
President) "may require the opinion in writing of the principal
officer in each of the executive departments." But in practice he
has his cabinet, and the irresponsibility of that cabinet would
practically cease if the members of it were subjected to the
questionings of the two Houses. With us the rule which prohibits
servants of the State from going into Parliament is, like many of
our constitutional rules, hard to be defined, and yet perfectly
understood. It may perhaps be said, with the nearest approach to a
correct definition, that permanent servants of the State may not go
into Parliament, and that those may do so whose services are
political, depending for the duration of their term on the duration
of the existing ministry. But even this would not be exact, seeing
that the Master of the Rolls and the officers of the army and navy
can sit in Parliament. The absence of the President's ministers
from Congress certainly occasions much confusion, or rather
prohibits a more thorough political understanding between the
executive and the legislature than now exists. In speaking of the
government of the United States in the next chapter, I shall be
constrained to allude again to this subject.*
* It will be alleged by Americans that the introduction into
Congress of the President's ministers would alter all the existing
relations of the President and of Congress, and would at once
produce that parliamentary form of government which England
possesses, and which the States have chosen to avoid. Such a change
would elevate Congress and depress the President. No doubt this is
true. Such elevation, however, and such depression seemed to me to
be the two things needed.
The duties of the House of Representatives are solely legislative.
Those of the Senate are legislative and executive, as with us those
of the Upper House are legislative and judicial. The House of
Representatives is always open to the public. The Senate is so open
when it is engaged on legislative work; but it is closed to the
public when engaged in executive session. No treaties can be made
by the President, and no appointments to high offices confirmed,
without the consent of the Senate; and this consent must be given -
as regards the confirmation of treaties - by two-thirds of the
members present. This law gives to the Senate the power of debating
with closed doors upon the nature of all treaties, and upon the
conduct of the government as evinced in the nomination of the
officers of State.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 81 of 140
Words from 81525 to 82557
of 142339
