ence. In a time of war, or other pressing calamity, the very confidence of a nation in the tried integrity and ability of a single man may of itself ensure a triumph. Is it wise to substitute in such cases inexperience for experience, and to set afloat public opinion, and change the settled course of administration?[1] One should suppose, that it would be sufficient to possess the right to change a bad magistrate, without making the singular merit of a good one the very ground of excluding him from office.
§ 1440. Another ground against the exclusion was founded upon our own experience under the state governments of the utility and safety of the re-eligibility of the executive. In some of the states the executive is re-eligible; in others he is not. But no person has been able to point out any circumstance in the administration of the state governments unfavourable to a re-election of the chief magistrate, where the right has constitutionally existed. If there had been any practical evil, it must have been seen and felt. And the common practice of continuing the executive in office in some of these states, and of displacing in others, demonstrates, that the people are not sensible of any abuse, and use their power with a firm and unembarrassed freedom at the elections.
§ 1441. It was added, that the advantages proposed by the exclusion, (1.) greater independence in the executive, (2.) greater security to the people, were not well founded. The former could not be attained in any moderate degree, unless the exclusion was made perpetual. And, if it were, there might be many motives to induce the executive to sacrifice his indepen-- ↑ The Federalist, No. 72; 2 Elliot's Debates, 99, 100.
vol. iii.39
