CH. II.]
OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
269
others of equal eminence foretold, that it would commence in a moderate aristocracy, and end either in a monarchy, or a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy.[1] It was not denied, that, in form, the constitution was strictly republican; for all its powers were derived directly or indirectly from the people, and were administered by functionaries holding their offices during pleasure, or for a limited period, or during good behaviour; and in these respects it bore an exact similitude to the state governments, whose republican character had never been doubted.[2]
§ 294. But the friends of the constitution met the objection by asserting the indispensable necessity of a form of government, like that proposed, and demonstrating the utter imbecility of a mere confederation, without powers acting directly upon individuals. They considered, that the constitution was partly federal, and partly national in its character, and distribution of powers. In its origin and establishment it was federal.[3] In some of its relations it was federal; in others, national. In the senate it was federal; in the house of representatives it was national; in the executive it was of a compound character; in the operation of its powers it was national; in the extent of its powers, federal. It acted on individuals, and not on states merely. But its powers were limited, and left a large mass of sovereignty in the states. In making amendments, it was also of a compound character, requiring the concurrence of more than a majority, and less than the whole of the states. So, that on the whole their conclusion was, that "the constitution is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal constitution,
