The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-08-06

! His colleague (Mr. Briggs thought that he, Mr..
c., had also used the expression legislative func-
ton" as applied to the participation of the Presi-
DEBT, IN the passage OF law II Mr. Briggs thought
SO, ii very probably so at any rate, if MIR. c.
did not use the expression then, he did now Tor he
affirmed that 1t legislative function, the anal
ysis he had just given of the Constitution proved
His colleague Mr. Adams) had CONNER ted parti-
cularly upon this point and treated ii heresy on
the assumption of the political maxim that the Legis-
lative, Executive and Judicial Departments of Gov
eminent ought t. be and were separate and distinct.
And, in support of this idea Mr.. Adams referred to
the Constitution of Massachusetts, which declares
that 1.-The Legislative Departmen shall never
the Executive and Judicial powers or either of them
the Executive shall never exercise the Legislative and
Judicial powers, or either of them the Judicial shall
never exercise the Legislative and Executive powers
or either of them" IL would be a sufficient answer
TO this 10 say, that no such declaration this is
tanned in the Constitution of the United States which
Constitution stands upon its peculiar provisions
But Mr.. G. had more complete and comprehensive
answer TO make.
Ii is singular fact, that gentlemen should nov
treat as paradox and novel heresy the uiterance o
an idea, which maintained and fully understood
defended and explained by the frames of the Consti-
tuition themselves. When the Constitution was pre-
sen ed to the People of the States for adoption, this
very point was largely discussed and the departure
from the maxim of perfect separation of the several
departments of Government, was, says Mr.. Madl-
son, zone of the principal objections inculcated by
the respectable adversaries to the Constitution %
There five papers ofthe Federalst from No AZ to
No ST. inclusive all written by Mr. Madison, wholly
devoted 10 the elucidaton of this question. Nh Ma
olson conclusvey shows that the ma kin has to use
his own words, sheen totally msconceived and msa!-
Piled"
MIR. c. entreated gentlemen, before they undertook
to condemn him. for the opinions he had advanced the
other day. to read those five numbers of the Federal
ist would be found that they supported, in all res
poets the view he had taken of the the Con-
suon that they established the principle that not
withsanding The emphatcal and, in some instances,
the unqualified terms, In which the axiom of the abb
solute separation of the several departments Of pow
er. has been laid down in the Constitutions OF
| several of the States, there is not single in
| served; that no such axiom is contained in
the Constitution of the United States; that in of
the State Constitutions the maxim is far disre-
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
ment requires that the departments of power should
be blended together, and in sort run into each
other; and that accordingly they 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, Mr.. Adams there is long paragraph in
the 47th number of the Federalis which, after quo
tIIS the Beneral maxim contained In the Constitution
of Massachusetts, proceeds to show that the trainers
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
the legislative body by giving to part of the Lee
gislature Judicial functions as court of impeach-
ment land by giving to the Legislature executive fnc-
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 aohole pocer 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 const-
tution''
MIR. c. said he did not propose go into the par
hcuar reasons assigned by the President for aiXing
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
had; and that it was act nurious to no man. and
| perfectly innocent in itself.
MIR. G. had chiefly desired that the Con-
| stltutlon might be understood. That Constitll-
| ton did not contemplate mathematical sep
aration of the several departments of the Gov
eminent instead of which, those departments were
were dovetailed together, as to make complete
| instrument, constituting harmonious machinery
| of government. Thus he understood the Constitu-
ton, not only upon its letter. but upon the unanimous
practice under 1t in all times and still upon the
cotemporaneous construction of the men of the Rev
| olution by whom it was framed.