those governments which have adopted it. We ever find them impatient and impetuous, actuated to hasty and unwise action by strong excitement, and rendered reckless of their duties by passion and prejudice, The truth of these remarks is well established by the fate of Athens, Venice, and France. Of this latter government an eminent commentator on our Constitution, in discussing this subject, remarks, "she stands a monument of the folly and mischiefs of the scheme." Pennsylvania and Georgia, in the early stages of their governments, furnished examples of this scheme. But a short experience was with them sufficient to attest its folly. Indeed, history of such governments, both ancient and modern, is filled with sad examples, but none affords more striking ones than those of the Italian republics, which burst upon the political darkness of the middle ages as bright meteors, which flashed for a moment with resplendent brightness, then faded and passed away, leaving their communities in a lamentable state of woful wretchedness and desperation, and again enveloped in a still deeper gloom of anarchy and misrule. Our legislature is therefore divided in order to shun the bad effects which were consequent to the impetuosity, the inconsiderateness, and the fierce and furious passions, which ever characterized single legislative assemblies. After it was resolved by the convention that the legislature be divided, questions of much importance arose as to the organization of each division, which eventuated in the establishment of a senate and house of representatives. Though this resulted in a great measure from the peculiar political situation of the country, its practicability has been fully sustained by experiment, and it was no less prompted by justice than by sound policy. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE next section of the first article contains the structure of the House of Representatives, which it will appear tends more to a national than federal character. It is "composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." The term for which they are chosen is such as will enable them to acquire a knowledge of the situation and necessities of the community for which they are to legislate. It should not be so long as to make them forgetful of their constituents, or lose sight of their dependence upon them; nor should elections be too frequent; for it would have a tendency to disparage the office, and would too often intercept domestic pursuits; neither should they be seldom, because of the excitement their rareness would produce. Considering these general reasons, together with the vast extent of our territory, and the numerous interests and occupations of the community, two years may reasonably be deemed a proper term of office. That the representative should be elected directly by the people, is also proper; for if he be elected indirectly, or by particular bodies, deputed for that purpose, his responsibility to the people would be thereby lessened, because he would be induced to look to these bodies alone as his constituents, and might perhaps be governed by their opinions, and slavishly serve their interests in order to secure his reelection. As to the proper qualifications of an elector, such was the great contrariety of opinion existing among the states, that it was unlikely they could be reduced to uniformity; and moreover, it was probable the application of any general rule would present a formidable barrier to the adoption of the Constitution, it was therefore determined that "the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. To this certainly no solid objection can be made; for it leaves the citizens of each state to elect their members, subject only to such restrictions as they have thought best to impose upon themselves in regard to their own local legislatures. As to the qualifications of a representative, the requirements of the Constitution are but few, "he shall have attained the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and when elected, be an inhabitant of the state in which he shall be chosen." It is but seldom that men, before the attainment of the age specified, acquire that stability and gravity, which all will consent is much to be desired in the character of a representative. The propriety of excluding foreigners was beyond question, and whether they should be eligible after being naturalized, alone presented a question. In England formerly the affirmative maintained, but, at present, the negative. The circumstances of our country, however, the extent of its territory and its sparse population, required inducements to emigration, and the benefits which the colonies had experienced from similar provisions, led the conven tion to adopt the affirmative. But as a guard against foreign influence, and to allow a sufficient time to become acquainted with the wants and opinions of the people, the character and institutions of our government, it was required that the representative should be seven years a citizen of the United States, and when elected, an inhabitant of the state in which he shall be chosen. Under these restrictions, his interests are likely to become identified with those of his constituents. The next clause respects the apportionment of the representatives, and declares they "shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers," &c. Considering that our union was to be composed of equal and independent sovereignties, it is natural to suppose this mode of apportionment met with much opposition. The smaller states, being equal in sovereignty, claimed the right of an equal representation, while the larger insisted they should have an influence proportionate to their numbers. The dispute at length resulted in a compromise, which gave the larger states the influence of members in this branch, and to the smaller, an equality of representation in the other. In determining that numbers should be the basis of representation, a serious difficulty was presented. There were classes of persons in some of the states who were not free, among them persons bound to service, Indians taxed and untaxed, and slaves, constituting a large portion of their population. These first two classes were easily provided for, but whether slaves should be represented was a serious question, and out of it arose a very exciting controversy. It was con tended on one side, that as they were treated as property in the states tolerating slavery, they were not more entitled to representation than other property. On the other hand it was argued they partook of the qualities both of persons and property. In being compelled to labor for another, in being vendible and subject to be restrained, and chastised by the will of a master, he comes under the denomination of property; but as he is protected in life and limb, against the power even of his master, and in being punishable for violence to others, he is also regarded as a person. This latter argument having prevailed, it was decided that five slaves should be apportioned as three persons. But, it was determined, at the same time, that representation and direct taxes should be apportioned likewise, thus imposing a proportionate burden upon the slaveholding states, when that mode of taxation is used. But it was not the consideration of this which induced the free states to yield their point; for it must have been foreseen that this method would be seldom resorted to. But it was a yielding spirit of concession and good feeling, engendered by a common suffering, a common conflict, and a common cause; for they were schooled together in adversity—had ranked together on the battle field, and in a desperate struggle had won together common rights. Since in this way our liberties were attained, it was but reasonable to think that alone by the continuance of such union they were to be preserved. In those days the states, though jealous as they now are, were not too selfish to make small sacrifices, yea even great ones, for its preservation. For liberality and union being identified with each other, |