This objection, respecting the dangerous power of the Senate, is one
of that kind which may give rise to a great deal of gloomy prediction,
without any solid foundation: An imagination indulging itself in
chimerical fears, upon the disappointment of a favorite plan, may
point out danger arising from any system of government whatever, even
if angels were to have the administration of it; since I presume none
but the Supreme Being himself is altogether perfect, and of course
every other species of beings may abuse any delegated portion of power.
This sort of visionary scepticism therefore will lead us to this
alternative, either to have no government at all, or to form the best
system we can, making allowance for human imperfection. In my opinion
the fears as to the power of the Senate are altogether groundless, as
to any probability of their being either able or willing to do any
important mischief. My reasons are,
1. Because, though they are not immediately to represent the people,
yet they are to represent the representatives of the people who are
annually chosen, and it is therefore probable the most popular, or
confidential, persons in each State, will be elected members of the
Senate.
2. Because one-third of the Senate are to be chosen as often as the
immediate representatives of the people, and as the President can act
in no case from which any great danger can be apprehended without the
concurrence of two-thirds, let us think ever so ill of the designs
of the President, and the danger of a combination of power among a
standing body generally associated with him, unless we suppose every
one of them to be base and infamous (a supposition, thank God, bad as
human nature is, not within the verge of the slightest probability),
we have reason to believe that the one-third newly introduced every
second year, will bring with them from the immediate body of the
people, a sufficient portion of patriotism and independence to check
any exorbitant designs of the rest.
3. Because in their legislative capacity they can do nothing without
the concurrence of the House of Representatives, and we need look no
farther than England for a clear proof of the amazing consequence which
representatives of the people bear in a free government. There the
King (who is hereditary, and therefore not so immediately interested,
according to narrow views of interest which commonly govern Kings, to
consult the welfare of his people) has the appointment to almost every
office in the government, many of which are of high dignity and great
pecuniary value, has the creation of as many Peers as he pleases, is
not restricted from bestowing places on the members of both houses of
Parliament, and has a direct negative on all bills, besides the power
of dissolving the Parliament at his pleasure. In theory would not any
one say this power was enormous enough to destroy any balance in the
constitution? Yet what does the history of that country tell us?—that
so great is the natural power of the House of Commons (though a very
imperfect representation of the people, and a large proportion of them
actually purchasing their seats) that ever since the revolution the
Crown has continually aimed to corrupt them by the disposal of places
and pensions; that without their hearty concurrence it found all the
wheels of government perpetually clogged; and that notwithstanding
this, in great critical emergencies, the members have broke through the
trammels of power and interest, and by speaking the sense of the people
(though so imperfectly representing them) either forced an alteration
of measures, or made it necessary for the Crown to dissolve them.
If their power, under these circumstances, is so great, what would
it be if their representation was perfect, and their members could
hold no appointments, and at the same time had a security for their
seats? The danger of a destruction of the balance would be perhaps on
the popular side, notwithstanding the hereditary tenure and weighty
prerogatives of the Crown, and the permanent station and great wealth
and consequence of the Lords. Our representatives therefore being
an adequate and fair representation of the people, and they being
expressly excluded from the possession of any places, and not holding
their existence upon any precarious tenure, must have vast influence,
and considering that in every popular government the danger of faction
is often very serious and alarming, if such a danger could not be
checked in its instant operation by some other power more independent
of the immediate passions of the people, and capable therefore of
thinking with more coolness, the government might be destroyed by a
momentary impulse of passion, which the very members who indulged it
might for ever afterwards in vain deplore. The institution of the
Senate seems well calculated to answer this salutary purpose. Excluded
as they are from places themselves, they appear to be as much above the
danger of personal temptation as men can be. They have no permanent
interest as a body to detach them from the general welfare, since six
years is the utmost period of their existence, unless their respective
legislatures are sufficiently pleased with their conduct to re-elect
them. This power of re-election is itself a great check upon abuse,
because if they have ambition to continue members of the Senate they
can only gratify this ambition by acting agreeably to the opinion
of their constituents. The House of Representatives, as immediately
representing the people, are to _originate_ all money bills. This I
think extremely right, and it is certainly a very capital acquisition
to the popular representative. But what harm can arise from the Senate,
who are nearly a popular representative also, proposing amendments,
when those amendments must be concurred with by the original proposers?
The wisdom of the Senate may sometimes point out amendments, the
propriety of which the other House may be very sensible of, though
they had not occurred to themselves. There is no great danger of
any body of men suffering by too eager an adoption of any amendment
proposed to any system of their own. The probability is stronger of
their being too tenacious of their original opinion, however erroneous,
than of their profiting by the wise information of any other persons
whatever. Human nature is so constituted, and therefore I think we
may safely confide in the free admission of an intercourse of opinion
on the detail of business, as well as to taxation as to other points.
Our House of Representatives surely could not have such reason to
dread the power of a Senate circumstanced as ours must be, as the
House of Commons in England the permanent authority of the Peers, and
therefore a jealousy, which may be well grounded in the one case would
be entirely ill-directed in the other. For similar reasons I dread
not any power of originating appropriations of money as mentioned in
the objection. While the concurrence of the other House must be had,
and as that must necessarily be the most weighty in the government, I
think no danger is to be apprehended. The Senate has no such authority
as to awe or influence the House of Representatives, and it will be
as necessary for the one as for the other that proper active measures
should be pursued: And in regard to appropriations of money, occasions
for such appropriations may, on account of their concurrence with the
executive power, occur to the Senate, which would not to the House
of Representatives, and therefore if the Senate were precluded from
laying any such proposals before the House of Representatives, the
government might be embarrassed; and it ought ever to be remembered,
that in our views of distant and chimerical dangers we ought not to
hazard our very existence as a people, by proposing such restrictions
as may prevent the exertion of any necessary power. The power of
the Senate in the appointment of Ambassadors, &c., is designed as a
check upon the President. They must be appointed in some manner. If
the appointment was by the President alone, or by the President and
a _Privy_ Council (Mr. Mason’s favorite plan), an objection to such
a system would have appeared much more plausible. It would have been
said that this was approaching too much towards monarchical power,
and if this new Privy Council had been like all I have ever heard of,
it would have afforded little security against an abuse of power in
the President. It ought to be shown by reason and probability (not
bold assertion) how this concurrence of power with the President can
make the Senate so dangerous. It is as good an argument to say that
it will not as that it will.(69) The power of making treaties is
so important that it would have been highly dangerous to vest it in
the Executive alone, and would have been the subject of much greater
clamor. From the nature of the thing, it could not be vested in the
popular representative. It must therefore have been provided for with
the Senate’s concurrence, or the concurrence of a Privy Council (a
thing which I believe nobody has been mad enough to propose), or the
power, the greatest monarchical power that can be exercised, must have
been vested in a manner that would have excited universal indignation
in the President alone.—As to the power of trying impeachments:—Let
Mr. Mason show where this power could more properly have been placed.
It is a necessary power in every free government, since even the Judges
of the Supreme Court of Judicature themselves may require a trial, and
other public officers might have too much influence before an ordinary
and common court. And what probability is there that such a court,
acting in so solemn a manner, should abuse its power (especially as it
is wisely provided that the sentences shall extend only to removal from
office and incapacitation) more than any other court? The argument as
to the possible abuse of power, as I have before suggested, will reach
all delegation of power, since all power may be abused when fallible
beings are to execute it; but we must take as much caution as we can,
being careful at the same time not to be too wise to do any thing
at all.—The bold assertions at the end of this objection are mere
declamation, and till some reason is assigned for them, I shall take
the liberty to rely upon the reasons I have stated above, as affording
a belief that the popular representative must for ever be the most
weighty in this government, and of course that apprehensions of danger
from such a Senate are altogether ill-founded.