<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0072" id="link2H_4_0072"></SPAN></p>
<h2> FEDERALIST No. 72. The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered. </h2>
<h3> From The Independent Journal. Wednesday, March 19, 1788. </h3>
<p>HAMILTON</p>
<p>To the People of the State of New York:</p>
<p>THE administration of government, in its largest sense, comprehends all
the operations of the body politic, whether legislative, executive, or
judiciary; but in its most usual, and perhaps its most precise
signification. it is limited to executive details, and falls peculiarly
within the province of the executive department. The actual conduct of
foreign negotiations, the preparatory plans of finance, the application
and disbursement of the public moneys in conformity to the general
appropriations of the legislature, the arrangement of the army and navy,
the directions of the operations of war—these, and other matters of
a like nature, constitute what seems to be most properly understood by the
administration of government. The persons, therefore, to whose immediate
management these different matters are committed, ought to be considered
as the assistants or deputies of the chief magistrate, and on this
account, they ought to derive their offices from his appointment, at least
from his nomination, and ought to be subject to his superintendence. This
view of the subject will at once suggest to us the intimate connection
between the duration of the executive magistrate in office and the
stability of the system of administration. To reverse and undo what has
been done by a predecessor, is very often considered by a successor as the
best proof he can give of his own capacity and desert; and in addition to
this propensity, where the alteration has been the result of public
choice, the person substituted is warranted in supposing that the
dismission of his predecessor has proceeded from a dislike to his
measures; and that the less he resembles him, the more he will recommend
himself to the favor of his constituents. These considerations, and the
influence of personal confidences and attachments, would be likely to
induce every new President to promote a change of men to fill the
subordinate stations; and these causes together could not fail to occasion
a disgraceful and ruinous mutability in the administration of the
government.</p>
<p>With a positive duration of considerable extent, I connect the
circumstance of re-eligibility. The first is necessary to give to the
officer himself the inclination and the resolution to act his part well,
and to the community time and leisure to observe the tendency of his
measures, and thence to form an experimental estimate of their merits. The
last is necessary to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of
his conduct, to continue him in his station, in order to prolong the
utility of his talents and virtues, and to secure to the government the
advantage of permanency in a wise system of administration.</p>
<p>Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon
close inspection, than a scheme which in relation to the present point has
had some respectable advocates—I mean that of continuing the chief
magistrate in office for a certain time, and then excluding him from it,
either for a limited period or forever after. This exclusion, whether
temporary or perpetual, would have nearly the same effects, and these
effects would be for the most part rather pernicious than salutary.</p>
<p>One ill effect of the exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements
to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in
the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantages of
the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a
determinate period, than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of
obtaining, by meriting, a continuance of them. This position will not be
disputed so long as it is admitted that the desire of reward is one of the
strongest incentives of human conduct; or that the best security for the
fidelity of mankind is to make their interests coincide with their duty.
Even the love of fame, the ruling passion of the noblest minds, which
would prompt a man to plan and undertake extensive and arduous enterprises
for the public benefit, requiring considerable time to mature and perfect
them, if he could flatter himself with the prospect of being allowed to
finish what he had begun, would, on the contrary, deter him from the
undertaking, when he foresaw that he must quit the scene before he could
accomplish the work, and must commit that, together with his own
reputation, to hands which might be unequal or unfriendly to the task. The
most to be expected from the generality of men, in such a situation, is
the negative merit of not doing harm, instead of the positive merit of
doing good.</p>
<p>Another ill effect of the exclusion would be the temptation to sordid
views, to peculation, and, in some instances, to usurpation. An avaricious
man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when
he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a
propensity, not easy to be resisted by such a man, to make the best use of
the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have
recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as
it was transitory; though the same man, probably, with a different
prospect before him, might content himself with the regular perquisites of
his situation, and might even be unwilling to risk the consequences of an
abuse of his opportunities. His avarice might be a guard upon his avarice.
Add to this that the same man might be vain or ambitious, as well as
avaricious. And if he could expect to prolong his honors by his good
conduct, he might hesitate to sacrifice his appetite for them to his
appetite for gain. But with the prospect before him of approaching an
inevitable annihilation, his avarice would be likely to get the victory
over his caution, his vanity, or his ambition.</p>
<p>An ambitious man, too, when he found himself seated on the summit of his
country's honors, when he looked forward to the time at which he must
descend from the exalted eminence for ever, and reflected that no exertion
of merit on his part could save him from the unwelcome reverse; such a
man, in such a situation, would be much more violently tempted to embrace
a favorable conjuncture for attempting the prolongation of his power, at
every personal hazard, than if he had the probability of answering the
same end by doing his duty.</p>
<p>Would it promote the peace of the community, or the stability of the
government to have half a dozen men who had had credit enough to be raised
to the seat of the supreme magistracy, wandering among the people like
discontented ghosts, and sighing for a place which they were destined
never more to possess?</p>
<p>A third ill effect of the exclusion would be, the depriving the community
of the advantage of the experience gained by the chief magistrate in the
exercise of his office. That experience is the parent of wisdom, is an
adage the truth of which is recognized by the wisest as well as the
simplest of mankind. What more desirable or more essential than this
quality in the governors of nations? Where more desirable or more
essential than in the first magistrate of a nation? Can it be wise to put
this desirable and essential quality under the ban of the Constitution,
and to declare that the moment it is acquired, its possessor shall be
compelled to abandon the station in which it was acquired, and to which it
is adapted? This, nevertheless, is the precise import of all those
regulations which exclude men from serving their country, by the choice of
their fellowcitizens, after they have by a course of service fitted
themselves for doing it with a greater degree of utility.</p>
<p>A fourth ill effect of the exclusion would be the banishing men from
stations in which, in certain emergencies of the state, their presence
might be of the greatest moment to the public interest or safety. There is
no nation which has not, at one period or another, experienced an absolute
necessity of the services of particular men in particular situations;
perhaps it would not be too strong to say, to the preservation of its
political existence. How unwise, therefore, must be every such
self-denying ordinance as serves to prohibit a nation from making use of
its own citizens in the manner best suited to its exigencies and
circumstances! Without supposing the personal essentiality of the man, it
is evident that a change of the chief magistrate, at the breaking out of a
war, or at any similar crisis, for another, even of equal merit, would at
all times be detrimental to the community, inasmuch as it would substitute
inexperience to experience, and would tend to unhinge and set afloat the
already settled train of the administration.</p>
<p>A fifth ill effect of the exclusion would be, that it would operate as a
constitutional interdiction of stability in the administration. By
necessitating a change of men, in the first office of the nation, it would
necessitate a mutability of measures. It is not generally to be expected,
that men will vary and measures remain uniform. The contrary is the usual
course of things. And we need not be apprehensive that there will be too
much stability, while there is even the option of changing; nor need we
desire to prohibit the people from continuing their confidence where they
think it may be safely placed, and where, by constancy on their part, they
may obviate the fatal inconveniences of fluctuating councils and a
variable policy.</p>
<p>These are some of the disadvantages which would flow from the principle of
exclusion. They apply most forcibly to the scheme of a perpetual
exclusion; but when we consider that even a partial exclusion would always
render the readmission of the person a remote and precarious object, the
observations which have been made will apply nearly as fully to one case
as to the other.</p>
<p>What are the advantages promised to counterbalance these disadvantages?
They are represented to be: 1st, greater independence in the magistrate;
2d, greater security to the people. Unless the exclusion be perpetual,
there will be no pretense to infer the first advantage. But even in that
case, may he have no object beyond his present station, to which he may
sacrifice his independence? May he have no connections, no friends, for
whom he may sacrifice it? May he not be less willing by a firm conduct, to
make personal enemies, when he acts under the impression that a time is
fast approaching, on the arrival of which he not only MAY, but MUST, be
exposed to their resentments, upon an equal, perhaps upon an inferior,
footing? It is not an easy point to determine whether his independence
would be most promoted or impaired by such an arrangement.</p>
<p>As to the second supposed advantage, there is still greater reason to
entertain doubts concerning it. If the exclusion were to be perpetual, a
man of irregular ambition, of whom alone there could be reason in any case
to entertain apprehension, would, with infinite reluctance, yield to the
necessity of taking his leave forever of a post in which his passion for
power and pre-eminence had acquired the force of habit. And if he had been
fortunate or adroit enough to conciliate the good-will of the people, he
might induce them to consider as a very odious and unjustifiable restraint
upon themselves, a provision which was calculated to debar them of the
right of giving a fresh proof of their attachment to a favorite. There may
be conceived circumstances in which this disgust of the people, seconding
the thwarted ambition of such a favorite, might occasion greater danger to
liberty, than could ever reasonably be dreaded from the possibility of a
perpetuation in office, by the voluntary suffrages of the community,
exercising a constitutional privilege.</p>
<p>There is an excess of refinement in the idea of disabling the people to
continue in office men who had entitled themselves, in their opinion, to
approbation and confidence; the advantages of which are at best
speculative and equivocal, and are overbalanced by disadvantages far more
certain and decisive.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />