NOTWITHSTANDING all that is averred by | those who express an extreme veneration for antiquity, we are constrained by many evidences to believe that society has made advances―very great advances, if not in the practice, yet in the theory of morals and civilization during many ages past, from the dawn of Christianity even to the present moment. What system of government, for example, was ever known more perfect in its theory than our own? What system of morals more complete than that of a Christian, republican philosopher of the present day, believing as he does that the "innate freedom of the human breast is the first argument for political liberty,* as it is equally the first argument for religious dependence? Toward a perfect practice, the first requisite is a perfect theory; without a divinely perfect theory of morals, there can be no perfect practice of morals; without a perfect theory of laws and constitutions, governments are necessarily imperfect in their practice; and we do firmly believe that if the minds of the majority were thoroughly imbued with those principles which gave origin to our system of government, the errors of our policy and practice would be comparatively few and trifling. The duty of the conservative politician is therefore evident. "An innate spirit of freedom first told me that the measures which the administration have for some time been, and now are most violently pursuing, are opposed to every principle of natural justice."-Letters of Washington, Sparks, vol. 2, p. 397. VOL. III. NO. V. NEW SERIES. Having established in his mind the perfect theory of the government, as it stands in the written laws and their great commentaries-in the Constitution, and the writings of those who founded it—he is to put that theory in practice to the extent of his power, not only in the simple acts of authority, where the path of duty is plain, but in that freer and more responsible field of party conduct; wherein, far more than in the exercise of a legitimate authority, the knowledge, the power, and the virtue of the statesman make themselves conspicuous. To be a man of principle, and at the same time an active politician, is so rare a union of qualities, that the ambition of attaining it is perhaps the most generous ambition that can call any man into public life. It is, therefore, not without a sentiment of the deepest regret that we hear many of our friends appealing to the worse passions of the party, and of those that have come newly into power, to urge them into a line of conduct that must inevitably weaken their hold upon the affections of the people, and debase them in the estimation of the best men; urging upon them, and promising for them, a proscriptive and partisan employment of their new authority. The authority of a great master in politics is quoted for their instruction; the example of the Jackson administration is held up to them as a model, for its good success; and the appeal to their gratitude is urged with an air of threatening, as if to say, "Do as we desire, or you will suffer by your friends." 29 It must not be forgotten, say they, "that during the late administration, those who were not of a particular sect of politics were excluded from all office; that nearly all the offices of the United States were monopolized by this sect." "Is it, "Is it, then," they continue, "to be imagined that when the public sentiment at length declares itself, and bursts open the doors of power and confidence to those whose opinion they more approve; is it to be imagined that this monopoly of office is still to be continued in the hands of the majority?" "Does it violate their equal rights to assert some rights in the majority also ?" zens? What, then, is this new doctrine? Is it true that the offices of this government are subject to the claims of individual citiIs it to be believed that what is here implied-that there is in this and that citizen a right to this or that office-iş a true doctrine? Who gave them this right? In what part of law or equity do we find this right-right to office? "Ours is an agency government,' says a most liberal and learned authority, "and of the kind denominated free;' but if the office-holder is the agent of those who elect or appoint him, does his right begin with his appointment or election, or does it lie in him while he is a private citizen? In governments of the kind denominated free,' the right to office surely lies in those only who are in office-not in those who are out of office. And that right is given by the laws, and not by any natural claim in the person chosen or elected. It is necessary to dismiss this new opinion of a right to office in any person not chosen by the people or appointed under the law, into the general chaos of demagogical opinion, as unworthy of any serious discussion. "Is it political intolerance," they continue, "to claim a proportionate share in the direction of public affairs?" A valid inquiry! Is any person so simple as to imagine that the Whig party, since they are well in power, intend to give their adversaries, as such, "a proportionate share" in the administration of "public affairs?" That were indeed to commit a folly. They do not, we think, intend in that way, at least, to become contemptible. Such power as they have, they no doubt mean to use to its full extent, to carry out the doctrine of the majorities who put them in. But that is not all that is implied by the question of our friends which we have just quoted, as they quote it. When "shares" are talked of, rights are supposed. In whom, then, lie these rights? In whom does the "right" lie of conducting the affairs of this nation, if not in those men who have been elected by the people? And are they thinking of sharing? What a simplicity of understanding do our friends attribute to those whom they have assisted to elect, when they quote such ill-digested sentences for their instruction! Shares" and "rights!" Shares in the administration of the empire; shares in the fishmongers' company; shares in this and that. But, indeed, our dear fellowcitizens know more than they seem to know. They know that there is a difference, a profound difference, between property and power; that power is a sacred trust, for which men are responsible to God and the nation; and that they can no more think of sharing it with the minority than of putting it to sale. The election, by a majority of the people, of particular men to fill the great offices of government, is in order to an exact execution of the measures of that majority; and the men thus elected and for that purpose, under the Constitution, are responsible, by the spirit of the Constitution which has put them in power for that purpose, for the full execution of those measures. They cannot, in honor, pursue any others. They therefore have no "right," (in honor,) indeed, to endanger the failure of that intent by "sharing" their power, or by conferring the least particle of it upon such persons as may endanger its fulfillment. We repeat it with a perfect confidence, that as the whole system. of the government looks towards a rule of majorities, everything must be done by those elected to fulfill the wishes of the legally ascertained majority who elected them. That majority exists, and is in full force until it is annihilated by a succeeding election. As it is evident, that the fundamental law permits the opinion of the legally ascertained majority to rule, it provides also, by consequence, that those elected shall be free to carry out that opinion. Majorities are ascertained by law 6 once in four years; they exist, in full force, | political information against him in the But is the jealousy of the majority to There is a certain clerk in the custom- The person aimed at in the above para- As the calamity of Messrs. Smith and Brown is the calamity of thousands, it were perhaps injudicious to expend much sympathy upon them as individuals. Let their wives and children, their mothers and sisters bewail their unhappy fate or folly; for ourselves, it seems more appropriate to inquire into the merits of the system itself, the system of political proscription which inflicts all this mischief, and, if possible, to ascertain by what good, if by any good, it is compensated. It seems to be the duty of those citizens whose political successes have given efficacy to their opinions, to weigh very carefully the merits of this system, which the Mr. John Browns are so assiduously urging upon them, and to consider whether, taken in the whole, and viewed in its origin and consequences, it is not at once a vicious and an injurious system, injurious not only to the people at large, but to the party that relies upon it. First, however, it seems proper, in deference to some great names, and to the practice of many wise politicians, to set forth in fair colors the good aims and honest purposes of the system, if it can be thought to have any, and to offer all the excuses and defenses that reason and imagination can bring together, lest we lay ourselves open to the charge of ignorance, or of using partisan logic, when our design is purely to effect a good; and though we confess that we are actuated by the strongest party enthusiasm, we wish to have it so tempered with reason, that it shall appear that our enthusiasm is itself created by a conviction of reason, and not by any factious heat or prejudice. The apologist of the system relies for its defense upon three arguments; the first of which, being the doctrine of rotation, is purely theoretic; the second, drawn from political expediency, is founded on an imperfect experience; and the third, from convenience, for the filling of offices with younger and more assiduous functionaries, an over-refinement upon policy; and it has a face too specious and proper not to move a doubt. Let us consider each of these, and if they carry any force with them, let us allow them to affect us without prejudice; until it be shown that the injury inflicted by the system in practice, bears down all argument, and defies all theory, expediency and policy, to defend it. party into power should be followed by an ejectment of all from office who were the originators, supporters and executors, in a moral sense, of the measures of the displaced party. The important offices in the gift of the people have been changed by the people, and their old incumbents ejected; and it is equally necessary that all important offices which carry with them a representative influence, bearing upon opinion, and the character of whose incumbents confirms or impairs, by official influence, the prevailing party, should be also ejected. Independently, therefore, of all theories of a rotation in office; independently of that political expediency which stimulates the canvasser with the hopes of office; independently, also, of all arguments that look to the effect of officeholding upon the characters of men, we hold it to be a necessity created by the nature of our government, that the change of rulers accomplished by the votes of the We shall assume it to be a rule es- citizens should be followed by a change in tablished and certain, that offices of politi- the character of the government itself, sufcal responsibility, or that carry with them ficiently, but not more than sufficiently a weight of political opinion, for the im- extended, for the complete establishment of peding or accomplishing the measures of the party, and the accomplishment of all the party in power, should be filled by its measures, during the four years of its men of that party. For the same reason probation. What these offices may be, that the majority of a State legislature will can be known only by experience. send only such a senator as will truly rep- might not seem, at first view, to be a matresent their opinion, it is necessary for a ter of the least importance, whether the President to choose such persons to be cabinet should be of one mind on the leadmembers of his cabinet as will representing questions of policy; and yet experithe opinion of the party. It were clearly an absurdity to do otherwise; it would be a defeating of the design of the Constitution, which intends that the majority of opinion shall have its way. That offices of responsibility, or, in other words, such offices as enable their incumbents to operate exofficio upon the opinion of the people, or to thwart or execute the laws, according to their pleasure or displeasure that such offices should be filled by the appointment of members of the ruling party is, we think, most necessary; for if it is provided by the Constitution that the majority should shape the conduct of the government, it is also provided, by necessity, that those only should be appointed to execute them, by whom we are most sure they will be freely and willingly executed. From this point of view it appears just, and even constitutional, that the entrance of a new It ence has shown that their unanimity ou all important measures is necessary for the efficient conduct of the government. In a word, every office of political importance, or that confers a power to impede or favor the execution of the laws, or that has any executive responsibility to be exercised for or against the measures of the majority, must necessarily be filled by members of the prevailing party. The filling of the elective offices with that party by the people, gives them a liberty of carrying out the popular will by filling appointments with the same. pose of the popular election was to give the supporters of a certain system of policy and economy, a fair opportunity of trying it. The majority judged that it should be tried. But if the opinion of the majority prevails at all, it should prevail entire, else it is of no force. Half measures, or The pur |