The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-08-06

His colleague (Mr. Briggs thought that me- MI
c. had also used the expression legislative iunc-
ton as applied TO the participation of the Presi-
dent ia the passage OF law II MIR. Briggs thought
So il very probably so; at any rate, II MIR. u
did not use the expression them he did now for he
affirmed that ii legislative Junction. as the anai
ysis he had just given of the Constitution proved
HIS colleague (Mr. Adlms) had commented paru
eulary upon this point and treated i "a heresy On
the assumption Of the political maxim, that the Legl'
alive, Executive and Judicial Department. OF Gov
eminent ought t. be- and were, separate AMI usuh''
nd in support Of this idea, M. Adams referred l"
the Constitution of Massachusetts, wh'ch declar >
that "rhe Legislative Department shall never exercise
the Executive and Judicial powers, or either oil theh
the Executive shall never exercise the LegislatFc e"u
Judicial po eIs, either OF theni the Juue'a su"i
never exercise tie Legislative and Executive powers
or eli her of them" Ii would be a sufficient answer
To this 10 saw that no such declaration as tins is con-
tanned in the Constitution of the United states, when
Constluto stands upon iis own peculiar provision
But Mr. G.. had more complete and colnlfdhehS''e
answer 10 make .,
IA is a singular fact that gentlemen should 20"
treat as paradox and novel heresy the ulierance o
an idea which was maintained, and fuliy understood.
defended md explained by the trainers oi Tue Cons'l
tuition themselves. When the Constitution was pr
sen ed to the People Of the States Tor adoplon th's
very point was largely discussed, and the departure
from the maxim OF perfect separation OF the several
Departments of Gov rnmeDt was, says Mr.. Madl-
SON. zone OF the principal objections inculcaied 10y
the more respectable adversares To tie Constitution
There are five papers ofthe Federallr from No AZ 10
No ST. inclusive all written by Mr.. Madison, wholly
devote 10 the eucidaton of this question Mi Ma
olson conclu,iveiy shows that the max has, To use
his own words, "been totally mlsconcelved and IN SAT
piled"
Mr. C.. entreated gentlemen, before they undertook
to condemn him. for the opn ons he had advanced the
other day to read those five numbers OF the Federal
1t would he found that they supported IN all res
poets the view he had taken of the tenor OF the COt-
"A. IL IL flatn
whstanJng the empha,ical, and, in some inst ,nces,
the unqualified terms, IN which the axiom OF the alb
soute paraiion OF the several departments OF pow
er, has been laid down in the Constitutions OF
several of the > ates, there is not single IN
stance in which that axiom has been OBJ
served that such axiom is contained in
the Constitution of the United States that in of
the State Constitutions the maxim is SO far dsre-
garded that there is IN them excessive mixture of
powers, amounting to actual consolidation that all
such consolidation OF powers ought to be avoided
but that the complete separation OF them is totally
impossible that the very existence of free govern
men requires that the departments of power should
be blended together, and in some sort into each
other; and that accordingly they are so connected
and blended IN the Constitution OF the United States.
And what is further remarkable, said Mr. c., as if
to anticipate and to meet the very point made by his
colleague, MIR. Adams) there is long paragraph in
the 41th number of the Federalst which, after quo
ting the general maxim contained in the Constitution
OF that Constitution had, in many particulars viola
ted their own rule as by giving the Executive Ma
gistr ate legislative functions in qualified negative
OH the legislative body, by giving to part of the Lee
gislature Judicial functions court of impeach-
men and by giving to the Legislature executive tunc-
tons, in the appointment OF sundry of the officers OF
| the Government.
In fact, as explained by later commentator on
the Constitution the true and only practical meaning
of the maxim Is that the lohoe po,oer of of these
| departments should not be exercised by the same
| hands, which possess the whole power Of either of
the other departments and that such exercise of the
whole would subvert the principles OF free consti-
| tuition"
Mr.. {. said he did not propose to go into the par
ticuar reasons assigned by the President for aft King
his signature to this bill. That was not the point in
issue The question was, whether the President had
the right to do the thing. Mr.. c. contended that he
mad and that 1t was an act injurious to man. and
perfectly innocent in itself
MIR. G. had chiefly desired that the Con-
stitutlon might be understood. That Constitu-
tlon did not contemplate mathematical sep
arauon OF the several departments of the Gov
ernment instead of which, those departments were
lnerlocked and ntertwined with each other; they
were dovetaed together, to make a complete
instrument, constituting one harmonious machinery
oil government Thus he under TODD the Const,-
ton, not only upon its letter. but upon the unanimous
fseetios u.d a.; all SIM more upon the
cotemporaneous construction of the men of the Rev
olution by whom it was framed