<p>PUBLIUS <SPAN name="link2H_4_0062" id="link2H_4_0062"></SPAN></p>
<h2> FEDERALIST No. 62. The Senate </h2>
<h3> For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 27, 1788 </h3>
<p>MADISON</p>
<p>To the People of the State of New York:</p>
<p>HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and
answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I
enter next on the examination of the Senate. The heads into which this
member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of
senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The
equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and
the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the
Senate.</p>
<p>I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those
of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of
citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a
representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a
citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The
propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the
senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and
stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should
have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and
which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations,
ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the
prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The
term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total
exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share
in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of
them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national
councils.</p>
<p>II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by
the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been
devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has
been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the
public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a
select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency
in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of
the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.</p>
<p>III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which,
being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions
of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If
indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one
nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the
government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound
together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought
to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be
without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the
national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a
mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it
is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the
Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of
theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and
concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered
indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is
called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation,
of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the
wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller
States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed
government and a government still more objectionable. Under this
alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil;
and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible
mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous
consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.</p>
<p>In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each
State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of
sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for
preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no
less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not
less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper
consolidation of the States into one simple republic.</p>
<p>Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the
Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts
of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the
concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority
of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on
legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and
that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller
States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and
distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to
peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their
power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this
prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of
law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most
liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be
more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.</p>
<p>IV. The number of senators, and the duration of their appointment, come
next to be considered. In order to form an accurate judgment on both of
these points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which are to
be answered by a senate; and in order to ascertain these, it will be
necessary to review the inconveniences which a republic must suffer from
the want of such an institution.</p>
<p>First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a
less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may
forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to
their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch
of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a
first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles
the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct
bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or
corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution
founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United
States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will
barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be
in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it
must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance
which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the
genuine principles of republican government.</p>
<p>Second. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity
of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden
and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into
intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be
cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as
well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be
contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a
body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it,
and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess
great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure
of considerable duration.</p>
<p>Third. Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due
acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not
possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of
a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no
permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study
of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their
country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of
important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust. It may be
affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present
embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our
governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the
hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing,
explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous
codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments
exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many
admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be
expected from a well-constituted senate?</p>
<p>A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of
government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of
the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are
deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the
first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little
attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this
error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a
mode which increases the security for the first.</p>
<p>Fourth. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid
succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in
the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the
government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half
of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of
opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a
continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of
prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private
life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national
transactions.</p>
<p>To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a
volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a
source of innumerable others.</p>
<p>In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other
nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An
individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to
carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all
prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His
more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect
their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of
making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one
individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that
the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are
under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the
indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs
betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which
can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors.
But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America
by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no
respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that
she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her
fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.</p>
<p>The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It
poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the
people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be
so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot
be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated,
or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is
to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule
of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less
fixed?</p>
<p>Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it
gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the
industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation
concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the
different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch
the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by
themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their
fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with
some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.</p>
<p>In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable
government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every
useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a
continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard
his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his
plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or
manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any
particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance
that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to
an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable
enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system
of national policy.</p>
<p>But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and
reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political
system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many
of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual,
will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly
respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />