Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

gal consequences of disobedience. The presump tion, moreover, is always in favour of a law passed according to the forms of the Constitution; and where the chief executive magistrate has a negative upon the acts of the Legislature, that presumption is, of course, the stronger against him, especially as to laws passed under his own administration, and which must, therefore, have received his official approval. For in such a case, the existence alone of the law is evidence of his admission of its constitutionality, if the negative he possesses be absolute; and, if qualified, it shows that his objections were overruled, and the law subsequently passed on a reconsideration, as required on such occasions by the Constitution. If the law to which he objects were passed under a former administration, his official, if not his personal obligation, is not less absolute and peremptory. For the negative vested in him is a legislative, and not a judicial power, and to allow a contrary doctrine would be to admit the existence of a right in the executive department to repeal laws without the intervention of the Legislature. As, therefore, the executive power is not only bound to obey, but to carry into effect the law, the essential qualities required in that department are promptness, vigour, and responsibility.

In

A prompt submission to the law, and an immediate preparation to enforce it, are absolutely necessary in respect to the authority from which it emanates. regard also to its effect-whenever the time of acting on a law has arrived, its operation should be immediate and decisive, otherwise the sense of its protection and control will be weakened, and its power unfelt and forgotten. On general principles, therefore, as delay is reprehensible, promptness is a duty, the non-performance of which, in certain cases, ena

bles the transgressor to escape punishment: For this reason, it is both wise and humane that the execution of the law should be speedy, and that no unnecessary interval should be allowed between its violation and the adoption of measures to enforce it.

For this purpose, the executive magistrate should be endowed with sufficient energy. A feeble executive department implies a feeble execution of the government, which is but another name for a bad execution; and a government in which the laws are not faithfully executed, whatever it may be in theory, must in practice be a bad one. A vigour of action duly proportioned to the exigencies which arise must be imparted to the executive power. But for this purpose, the proportion of power vested to the occasions that may be expected to require its exercise should be as exact as possible; for if the power fall short, the evils already adverted to will ensue; and if it exceed its true proportion, the liberties of the people would be endangered. It is difficult, however, in a written Constitution, to adopt general expressions precisely descriptive of the proper extent and limitation of this power. To guard, therefore, against its abuse, as well as to ensure a faithful execution of the general trust reposed in this department, it is requisite that it should be held responsible to the people for official delinquencies.

These three qualities of promptness, vigour, and responsibility are certainly most likely to exist where the executive authority is limited to a single person, moving at the discretion of a single will. In some republics, the fear of danger from such a head has led to the introduction of councils, and other subdivisions of the executive power, and the consequent imbecility and distractions of those governments have probably contributed to the preference given in

Europe to monarchies. It was falsely conceived that to vest the executive power in a single person was inconsistent with the nature and genius of a republic, or that a republic thus constituted could long maintain its freedom against the ambitious views of a single chief. But during the American Revolution, neither the fervour of Republican principles, nor resentment towards the monarchy then arrayed against us, overpowered the deliberate judgments of our statesmen, and, upon the establishment of independent governments, almost all the states adopted the principle of unity in the executive power. The experience of more than half a century has evinced that, under proper limitations, no abuse of the power is to be apprehended merely from its unity, while every government, ancient and modern, constituted upon the scheme of a compound executive authority, has suffered from the evils of division, indecision, and delay, while the public interests have been sacrificed, or have languished under a feeble and irregular management. In those states of our Union where executive councils have been tried, this weakness and inefficiency have been strikingly exemplified. In most instances in which they were at first adopted, they were speedily abandoned, and a single person substituted, in accordance with the lights afforded to the states in question by their own experience, or the institutions of their neighbours.

Unity not only increases that efficiency which is necessary to preserve tranquillity at home and command respect abroad, but it is requisite to secure the responsibility of the executive power. Where there is but one agent, every act can be traced and brought home to him; nor can there be any concealment of the real author, and generally none of the true motives of public measures, where there are no associ

[ocr errors]

ates to divide or mask responsibility. The eyes of the people will be constantly directed to a single conspicuous object, and for these reasons, De Lolme considers it a sound maxim of policy, that the executive power is more easily confined where it is one and indivisible. "If the execution of the laws," he observes, "be intrusted to a number of hands, the true cause of public evils is hidden. Tyranny in such states does not always beat down the fences that are set around them, but it leaps over them. It mocks the efforts of the people, not because it is invincible, but because it is unknown.”

In accordance with these principles, the Federal Constitution vests the executive power in a single person, who is styled "THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;" the qualifications and election, the powers and duties of which high officer will now be the subject of consideration.

I. The Constitution requires that the President should be a natural-born citizen of the United States at the time of its adoption; have attained the age of thirty-five years, and have been fourteen years a resident within them. Considering the magnitude of the trust, and that the executive department is the ultimately efficient power in the government, these restrictions will not appear useless nor unimportant. The qualification required of citizenship was intended to prevent ambitious foreigners from intriguing for the office, and to cut off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, intervention, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Europe. The age required in the President is sufficient to have formed his public and private character, and the previous term of domestic residence is intended to afford his fellow-citi zens the opportunity of gaining a correct knowledge

of his principles and capacity, and to enable him to acquire habits of attachment and obedience to the laws, and of practical devotion to the public welfare.

The mode of his appointment presented one of the most difficult questions that occupied the Convention; and if ever the tranquillity of this nation is to be disturbed, and its peace jeoparded, by a struggle for power among ourselves, it is the opinion of some of our wisest statesmen that it will be on this very subject of the choice of President. It is therefore the more remarkable, that this was almost the only part of the federal system, of any importance, which escaped without the severest censure, or received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. By the authors of "The Federalist," the manner of choosing the President was affirmed to be, "if not perfect, at least excellent," and to unite, in an eminent degree, all the advantages of which the selection and association were to be desired. It is, nevertheless, considered by Mr. Chancellor Kent as "the question which is to try the strength of the Constitution ;" and that, "if we are able, for half a century hereafter, to continue to elect the chief magistrate of the Union, with discretion, moderation, and integrity, we shall undoubtedly stamp the highest value on our national character, and.recommend our Republican institutions, if not to the imitation, yet certainly to the esteem and admiration of the more enlightened part of mankind."

The experience of ancient and modern Europe has certainly, as this eminent jurist observes, been unfavourable to the practicability of the fair and peaceable election of the executive of a great nation. It was found impossible to guard such elections from the mischiefs of foreign intrigue and domestic turbulence, from violence or corruption; and men have

« AnteriorContinua »