stitutions of all nations, of whatever kind they may be, a certain point exists at which the legislator is obliged to have recourse to the good sense and the virtue of his fellow-citizens. This point is more prominent and more discoverable in republics, whilst it is more remote and more carefully concealed in monarchies, but it always exists somewhere. There is no country in the world in which everything can be provided for by the laws, or in which political institutions can prove a substitute for common sense and public morality.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL KING OF FRANCE.
Executive power in the Northern States as limited and as partial as the supremacy which it represents.—Executive power in France as universal as the supremacy it represents.—The King a branch of the legislature.—The President the mere executor of the law.—Other differences resulting from the duration of the two powers.—The President checked in the exercise of the executive authority.—The King independent in its exercise.—Notwithstanding these discrepancies France is more akin to a republic than the Union to a monarchy.—Comparison of the number of public officers depending upon the executive power in the two countries.
The executive power has so important an influence on the destinies of nations, that I am inclined to pause for an instant at this portion of my subject,