New York, March 23, 1864.
. . . If you will pardon a purely conversational letter,
I would take the liberty of asking you whether there is any truth in the
statement that the question whether our Cabinet ministers ought to have a right
to sit in either house, as the French ministers had under Louis Philippe, is
assuming a somewhat practical character? I believe that a truly representative
government requires that ministers should be on the spot, to be questioned and
to defend the cabinet. You will remember the state of things at one period
under General Jackson. Indeed, I think that in our system, in which the
President is for four years as unassailable as a hereditary monarch, the
presence of ministers in Congress is imperatively necessary. The English, who
can change the administration by a vote of the Commons, are in this respect
more republican. Mr. Clay, with whom I corresponded on the subject, was
in favor of ministers having a seat. The topic ought to be gravely considered,
and a thorough report should be made. Are you aware that Napoleon III., who has
always pronounced himself strongly and officially against the responsibility
of ministers as an impediment to good ruling (he means, of course,
centralism), pointed on one occasion to the United States, where “the ministers
are entirely amenable to the President and simply his servants, and where, nevertheless,
a republic exists.” A Bonaparte inherently hates representative liberty.
SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and
Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 344
No comments:
Post a Comment