FEDERALIST No. 76

The Appointing Power of the Executive

From the New York Packet.

Tuesday, April 1, 1788.

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE President is ``to NOMINATE, and, by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public

ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other

officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise

provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest

the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in

the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of

departments. The President shall have power to fill up ALL

VACANCIES which may happen DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, by

granting commissions which shall EXPIRE at the end of their next

session.''

It has been observed in a former paper, that ``the true test of

a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good

administration.'' If the justness of this observation be admitted,

the mode of appointing the officers of the United States contained

in the foregoing clauses, must, when examined, be allowed to be

entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to conceive a

plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of

men for filling the offices of the Union; and it will not need

proof, that on this point must essentially depend the character of

its administration.

It will be agreed on all hands, that the power of appointment,

in ordinary cases, ought to be modified in one of three ways. It

ought either to be vested in a single man, or in a SELECT assembly

of a moderate number; or in a single man, with the concurrence of

such an assembly. The exercise of it by the people at large will be

readily admitted to be impracticable; as waiving every other

consideration, it would leave them little time to do anything else.

When, therefore, mention is made in the subsequent reasonings of an

assembly or body of men, what is said must be understood to relate

to a select body or assembly, of the description already given. The

people collectively, from their number and from their dispersed

situation, cannot be regulated in their movements by that systematic

spirit of cabal and intrigue, which will be urged as the chief

objections to reposing the power in question in a body of men.

Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who

have attended to the observations made in other parts of these

papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I

presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great

probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at

least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a

rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and

estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than

a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.

The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally

beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation.

He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations,

and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite

to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the

persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have

FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may

each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the

less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of

affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding,

cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views,

feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the

resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to

agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether

they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of

our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of

appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see

a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes,

partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are

felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any

time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be

the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other,

or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the

intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In

the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages

of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the

person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly

turn upon some interested equivalent: ``Give us the man we wish for

this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.'' This

will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely

happen that the advancement of the public service will be the

primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

The truth of the principles here advanced seems to have been

felt by the most intelligent of those who have found fault with the

provision made, in this respect, by the convention. They contend

that the President ought solely to have been authorized to make the

appointments under the federal government. But it is easy to show,

that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would,

in substance, be derived from the power of NOMINATION, which is

proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages

which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of

that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his

judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty

to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should

fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he

were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no

difference others, who are to be the objects of our choice or

preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to

offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display

of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and

antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those

who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen

to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result

either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a

compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit

of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the

qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party,

will be more considered than those which fit the person for the

station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some

interested equivalent: ``Give us the man we wish for this office,

and you shall have the one you wish for that.'' This will be the

usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the

advancement of the public service will be the primary object either

of party victories or of party negotiations.

The truth of the principles here advanced seems to have been

felt by the most intelligent of those who have found fault with the

provision made, in this respect, by the convention. They contend

that the President ought solely to have been authorized to make the

appointments under the federal government. But it is easy to show,

that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would,

in substance, be derived from the power of NOMINATION, which is

proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages

which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of

that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his

judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty

to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should

fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he

were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no

difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives

which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case,

would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on

his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be,

in fact, his choice.

But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it might,

yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by

himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his

preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not

very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The

Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to

another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure

themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward

by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They could not even be

certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any

degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a

kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the

appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief

magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be

refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the

refusal.

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I

answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a

powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an

excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and

would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters

from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal

attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it

would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the

sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his

private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit

the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a

different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of

the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong

motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and,

in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence,

from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of

popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have

great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to

operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both

ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or

lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of

coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of

being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of

possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them

the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by

the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the

complaisance of the Senate to his views. This supposition of

universal venalty in human nature is little less an error in

political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude.

The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion

of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable

foundation of confidence; and experience justifies the theory. It

has been found to exist in the most corrupt periods of the most

corrupt governments. The venalty of the British House of Commons

has been long a topic of accusation against that body, in the

country to which they belong as well as in this; and it cannot be

doubted that the charge is, to a considerable extent, well founded.

But it is as little to be doubted, that there is always a large

proportion of the body, which consists of independent and

public-spirited men, who have an influential weight in the councils

of the nation. Hence it is (the present reign not excepted) that

the sense of that body is often seen to control the inclinations of

the monarch, both with regard to men and to measures. Though it

might therefore be allowable to suppose that the Executive might

occasionally influence some individuals in the Senate, yet the

supposition, that he could in general purchase the integrity of the

whole body, would be forced and improbable. A man disposed to view

human nature as it is, without either flattering its virtues or

exaggerating its vices, will see sufficient ground of confidence in

the probity of the Senate, to rest satisfied, not only that it will

be impracticable to the Executive to corrupt or seduce a majority of

its members, but that the necessity of its co-operation, in the

business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary

restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate. Nor is the integrity

of the Senate the only reliance. The Constitution has provided some

important guards against the danger of executive influence upon the

legislative body: it declares that ``No senator or representative

shall during the time FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED, be appointed to any

civil office under the United States, which shall have been created,

or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such

time; and no person, holding any office under the United States,

shall be a member of either house during his continuance in

office.''

PUBLIUS.