thereby greatly lessened his influence. Be- sides, while he heartily favored a new form of govern- ment, his own views respecting it were not adopted, and that detracted from his interest in the framing of the details. He was by instinct and association an aristo- crat, and doubted the wisdom of conferring upon the people so great and direct a participation in the federal government; but he was an ardent patriot. Although absent during a considerable part of the sessions, he returned towards the close, and entered with zeal into the final deliberations, throwing his influence in favor of the Constitution as agreed upon.
Before the final adjournment, the venerable Franklin made an appeal for unanimous action, saying : " I con- sent to this Constitution, because I expect no better," and he asked each member to " doubt a little of his own infallibility." It was in this spirit Hamilton gave it his support. His contributions to the "Federalist" constitute much the greater portion of the work. Madi- son's part in the convention, in controlling and fram- ing its conclusions, justly confers upon him the title of " Father of the Constitution;" but his task in bringing i Lodge's Federalist, 404.
ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Ill
Virginia to its acceptance prevented him from using so freely his pen in its defense. To Hamilton was given the preeminence as the ablest and most effective advo- cate before the country, and in no part of his career was his matchless intellect more conspicuous. The fol- lowing is his discussion of the diplomatic functions of the President, and his executive powers under the Con- stitution, in contrast with the king of Great Britain : " The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can, of his own accord, make treaties of peace, commerce, alli- ance, and of every other description. It has been insinuated that his authority, in this respect, is not conclusive, and that his conventions with foreign pow- ers are subject to the revision, and stand in need of the ratification, of Parliament. But I believe this doc- trine was never heard of until it was broached upon the present occasion. Every jurist of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitution, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown in its utmost pleni- tude; and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other sanction. The Parliament, it is true, is sometimes seen employing itself in altering the existing laws to conform them to the stipulations of a new treaty; and this may have possibly given birth to the imagination, that its co-
112 .
operation was necessary to the obligatory efficacy of the treaty. But this parliamentary interposition proceeds from a different cause; from the necessity of adjust- ing a most artificial and intricate system of revenue and commercial laws to the changes made in them by the operation of the treaty; and of adapting new pro- visions and precautions to the new state of things, to keep the machine from running into disorder. In this respect, therefore, there is no comparison between the intended power of the President and the actual power of the British sovereign. The one can perform alone what the other can do only with the concurrence of a branch of the legislature.
" The President is also to be authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. This, though it has been a rich theme of declamation, is more a matter of dignity than of authority. It is a circum- stance which will be without consequence in the ad- ministration of the government; and it was far more convenient that it should be arranged in this manner than that there should be a necessity of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, upon every arrival of a foreign minister, though it were merely to take the place of a departed predecessor.
"The President is to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise pro- vided for by the Constitution. The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of
ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 113
honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices. He can confer titles of nobility at pleasure; and has the disposal of an immense number of church preferments. There is evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this par- ticular, to that of the British king; nor is it equal to that of the governor of New York, if we are to inter- pret the meaning of the constitution of the State by the practice which has obtained under it."
One of the objections most strongly urged against the Constitution was the creation of a President and the powers conferred upon him; the opponents likening him to the king of Great Britain. In the same article, Mr. Hamilton continues :
" It appears yet more unequivocally that there is no pretense for the parallel which has been attempted between him and the king of Great Britain. But to render the contrast in this respect still more striking, it may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of dissimilitude into a closer group.
" The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince; the one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and invio- lable. The one would have a qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an abso- lute negative. The one would have a right to com- mand the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of de- claring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and
114 .
armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the sole pos- sessor of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appoint- ments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church ! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other ? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and peri- odical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a mon- archy, and a despotism." 1
Notwithstanding the efforts of the framers of the Constitution to that end, the division of powers as to foreign relations between the legislative and executive departments has not been so sharply defined as to pre- vent seeming conflict at times. Congress was given
1 Lodge's Federalist, 432.
ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 115
the power " to regulate commerce with foreign nations," and yet the President and the Senate have often modi- fied our laws as to foreign commerce by treaty. Again, it is provided that Congress shall " declare war; " but the President, intrusted with the management of our foreign relations, or as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, can, without any action of Congress, so far commit the nation as to make war inevitable. For instance, we shall see in a later chapter that upon the annexation of Texas the President ordered the army of the United States into disputed territory, which brought on a war with Mexico, without any direct action of Congress.
On the other hand, it is within the power of Con- gress to nullify the action of the treaty-making power, the President and the Senate, by the passage
