under the lead of some popular demagogue, their own faults and vacillations.—Thus, a council often becomes the means, either of shifting off all effective responsibility from the chief magistrate, or of intrigues and oppositions, which destroy his power, and supplant his influence. The constant excuse, for want of decision and public spirit on his part, will be, that he has been overruled by his council; and on theirs, that he would not listen to sound advice, or resisted a cordial cooperation. In regard to the ordinary operations of government, the general result is to introduce a system of bargaining and management into the executive councils; and an equally mischievous system of corruption and intrigue in the choice and appointment of counsellors. Offices are bestowed on unworthy persons to gratify a leading member, or mutual concessions are made to cool opposition, and disarm enmity. It is but too true, that in those states, where executive councils exist, the chief magistrate either sinks into comparative insignificance, or sustains his power by arrangements, neither honourable to himself, nor salutary to the people. He is sometimes compelled to follow, when he ought to lead; and he is sometimes censured for acts, over which he has no control, and for appointments to office, which have been wrung from him by a sort of political necessity.[1]
§ 1420. The proper conclusion to be drawn from these considerations is, that plurality in the executive deprives the people of the two greatest securities for the faithful exercise of delegated power. First, it removes the just restraints of public opinion; and, secondly, it diminishes the means, as well as the power, of fixing responsibility for bad measures upon the real authors.[2]
