HKB
the popular branch of the legislature would either become the predominant power in the state, or sink into insignificance. This is conceded by the severest writers on the English government.
But when we pass from a civil polity which it has taken centuries to produce, and which has had its departments adjusted much less by reference to exact principles than by the results of their successive struggles for supremacy over each other, and when we come to an original distribution of powers, in the arrangements of a constitution made entire and at once by a single act of the national will, we must not give too much effect to analogies which after all are far from being complete. In preparing the Constitution of the United States, its framers had no prerogative, in any way resembling that of the crown of England, to consider and provide for. The separate powers to be conferred on the chief magistracy--aside from its concurrence in legislation--were simply executive and administrative; the office was to be elective, and not hereditary; and its functions, like those of the legislature, were to be prescribed with all the exactness of which a written instrument is capable. There was, therefore, little of such danger that the one department would silently or openly encroach on the rights or usurp the powers of the other, as there is where there exists hereditary right on the one side and customary right on the other, and where the boundaries between the two departments are to be traced by the aid of ancient traditions, or collected from numerous and perhaps conflicting precedents. There was no such necessity, therefore, as there is in England, for placing members of the administration in the legislature, in order to preserve the balance of the Constitution. The sole question with us was, whether the public convenience required that the administration should be able to act directly upon the course of legislation. The prevailing opinion was that this was not required. This opinion was undoubtedly formed under the fear of corruption and the jealousy of executive power, chiefly produced--and justly produced--by the example of what had long existed in England. That the error, if any was committed, lay on the safer side, none can doubt. It is possible that the chances of a corrupt influence would not have been increased, and that the opportunities for a salutary influence might have been enlarged,--as it is highly probable that the convenience of communication would have been promoted,--if some of the higher officers of state could have been allowed to hold seats in either house of Congress. But it is difficult to see how this could have been successfully practised, under the system of representation and election which the framers of the Constitution were obliged to establish: and perhaps this is a decisive answer to the objection.[179]