§ 558. Such is an outline of the general reasoning, by which the system of a separation of the legislative power into two branches has been maintained. Experience has shown, that if in all cases it has not been found a complete check to inconsiderate or unconstitutional legislation; yet, that it has, upon many occasions, been found sufficient for the purpose. There is not probably at this moment a single state in the Union, which would consent to unite the two branches into one assembly; though there have not been wanting at all times minds of a high order, which have been led by enthusiasm, or a love of simplicity, or a devotion to theory, to vindicate such a union with arguments, striking and plausible, if not convincing.
§ 559. In the convention, which formed the constitution, upon the resolution moved, "that the national legislature ought to consist of two branches," all the states present, except Pennsylvania, voted in the affirmative.[1] At a subsequent period, however, seven only, of eleven states present, voted in the affirmative; three in the negative, and one was divided.[2] But, although in the convention this diversity of opinion appears,[3] it seems probable, that ultimately, when a national government was decided on, which should exert great controlling authority over the states, all opposition was withdrawn, as the existence of two branches furnished a greater security to the lesser states. It does not appear, that this division of the legislative- ↑ Journal of the Convention, 85; 2 Pitk. Hist. 233.
- ↑ Journal of the Convention, 140.
- ↑ Yates's Minutes, 4 Elliot's Debates, 59, 75, 76; id. 87, 88, 89; id. 124, 125.
establishment of the right of the strongest, or a continued state of war; that of a division of the legislative power is either truth, or general tranquillity." See also Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, B. 6, ch. 6, 7.
