particular states "requested," to make or support certain propositions. But surely the opinion is erroneous. A senator is no more bound to obey the instructions of the state legislature, in opposition to his own judgment, than a representative of the people in the other house, is bound by the occasional instructions of his constituents. They are both elected for the purpose of freely and honestly exercising their own judgments according to the best of their capacities.

The moment they take their seats, they commence the task of legislating for the Union, including the state from which they are delegated, whose peculiar interests and desires, it may often be necessary to postpone to the general benefit. On the contrary, the state contemplates and urges its own interests; its inhabitants or the electoral sections of its inhabitants, in like manner, consider and pursue theirs, and it is perfectly proper that they should be represented to and directly pressed upon, the persons so delegated. But the powers and the duties of those delegates are essentially altered if such requests are converted into binding instructions. In respect to senators, the impropriety of the measure seems peculiarly striking. If one state possesses a right to direct the votes of its senators, every other state must have the same right, and if every state were to exercise such right, no portion of the legislative power would really reside in the senate, but would be held by the states; thus relapsing into the principles of the old confederation, or falling into something worse.

The appointment of a senator is for six consecutive years, but if a vacancy happens, an appointment is made by the executive of the state, for the proportion of the term of service which remains. Under the direction of the Constitution, the senators were at their first meeting divided into three classes: the seats of those of the first class to be vacated at the end of two years, of the second class at the end of four, and of the third at the end of six years; the reason of which was, that the

senate should always continue a permanent body. The house of representatives, at the expiration of two years is at an end: a new house, though it may consist of the same members, then succeeds; but the public service requires, for many purposes, that there should always be a senate. In executing the directions of the Constitution, it was so arranged, that two senators from the same state, should not go out at the same time.

The senate at first sat with closed doors, but it was afterwards conceived to be more conformable to the genius of a free country, that the deliberations of both the legislative bodies should be openly conducted, with the exception, however, of its consideration of treaties and appointments to offices on the President's nomination.

On these points, their deliberations would be very improperly exposed to public notice; the national interest is better promoted by waiting for the result.

A majority of the senate constitutes a quorum; that is, a majority of the members of the senate, not a majority of the states. The power of legislation might therefore be suspended by the wilful absence of a majority; but what effect this would have on the government, in other respects, will hereafter be considered.

In respect to the single function of legislation, a deep and serious discussion might be had on a point which has not yet occured, and it is fervently hoped may never arise in this country. If the legislatures of a majority of the states were to omit or refuse to appoint senators, the question would be, whether the majority of those who were actually in office, excluding from the computation the number to which the non-appointing states were entitled, would be sufficient, within the spirit of the constitution, to uphold the legislative power. It is sufficient to state, without presuming to decide the question.

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE house of representatives was founded on the principle of the representation of the people; yet not purely and abstractedly, but with as much conformity to it as was practicable.

It is composed of representatives of the people of the several states, not of the people at large; and in this respect there is still something of a federative quality. If the whole had been thrown into one mass, it would certainly have been more consistent with a full representation of the entire people, but many would have been the objections to it. It would have been desirable that the qualifications of the electors should be uniform, but considerable variety of opinion and practice in this respect exists. In some states, the system of universal suffrage prevails; in others a freehold or other estate is required of more or less value. Residence for a longer or shorter time is requisite in different states, and when the constitution was framed, different qualifications were required in two of the states for electors of the different branches of the legislative body. The people of each state were naturally attached to their own institutions, and would unwillingly have surrendered them in favour of others. Indeed, if the qualification of property had been required, the people of those states wherein

universal suffrage was established, would probably have refused altogether to accede to the Union.

Again. If the representatives were to be all chosen by a general ticket, the consequences would be that thousands of voters must give their suffrages in favour of persons of whom they had no knowledge. If it was required that the candidate should reside in a particular district, the inhabitants of Georgia would either have to select a resident of Massachusetts on their own judgment, or implicitly follow the suggestions of the voters in Massachusetts.

Under these difficulties the principle of exact representation was necessarily abandoned, and in lieu of it, representation was apportioned among the several states. The medium of not more than one representative for 30,000 inhabitants, was first agreed on, and is a fundamental part of the system by which the inhabitants of every state, although it might possess a fractional part however large of 30,000, consented to relinquish the benefit of the ultra number. But every state is to be represented; and if any one should by casualties be reduced below that number, she is still to have one representative, as she will still retain two members of the senate.*.

At one time it was conceived by congress, that without invading the constitution, the principle of apportionment might be reformed to advantage. The object was to prevent the loss in the number of representatives arising from the fractional parts.

With a sound political view to retain the just relation of representation to numbers, it is provided in the Constitution, that within three years an actual enumeration should be made of the inhabitants of the United States, which should be repeated

* In the articles of confederation it was also a fundamental provision that each state should have one vote, (art. iv,) and this was made an express condition in the instructions given by the state of Delaware to its delegates in the convention of 1787.

every ten years. In fixing the number of the first house of representatives, the population was estimated, not ascertained. When the census, (as it is now commonly termed,) was taken in 1790, it appeared that, in many states, there would be considerable fractional parts, which, whether the quotient was fixed at 30,000, or a greater number, would be unrepresented. To increase the number of the house of representatives as far as the constitution would permit, was deemed most conducive to the public security, against the preponderancy of executive influence, which however was denied and resisted by a considerable minority. A bill, after great struggles, passed both houses, which it seems difficult to reconcile to the Constitution.

The whole number of inhabitants according to the recent census being ascertained, it was divided by 30,000, and produced the number of one hundred and twenty representatives, which were, in the first place, apportioned among the several states, until as many representatives as it would give were allotted to each. The residuary numbers were distributed among the states having the highest fractions. But the correct and independent mind of the illustrious man who then held the office of president, rejected the bill. It was returned to the house of representatives, with the observation, that the Constitution had provided that the number of representatives should not exceed one for 30,000, which is to be applied to the respective numbers of the states, and the bill allotted to eight of the states more than one for 30,000.

As there was not a constitutional majority to pass it again, the effort failed, and probably will never be renewed. Another law was immediately passed, allotting one member to 33,000 inhabitants, which still left some fractional parts unrepresented.

The same objection also exists in the representative bodies