CHAPTER IX.

United States government well suited to the American people.Testamentary disposition not interfered with by the laws.Division of property.-Conservative principle of American government resides in numerical majority--Public lands.

BUT the reviewer will find many to agree with him in his former position, viz. "the Americans may well be content with their form of government, in conjunction with the three happy circumstances" which he enumerates, it would indeed not have been possible to devise one better adapted to their country; although even this is thought by him to be on the eve of dissolution. The objections which neutralize this fair assertion require some examination.

First, the law imposes* no restrictions on the power of devising property by testament. A man may leave all to his eldest son, or divide it as he pleases, reserving, however, the widow's dowry.

The law does not interfere with the possession or employment of property in any way: the late Stephen Girard,† a merchant and banker at Phila

* The reviewer possibly thought that the French law on testaments was modelled upon that of the United States.

† See an art. in the New Monthly for April 1832, on M. Girard.

delphia, is a striking example of this. He died worth at least one million and a half or two millions sterling*. A great deal of property in houses and land, in the very heart of Philadelphia, belonged to him; and I recollect an immense square, in a fine situation for building, in that city, which remained inclosed within high paling, unoccupied and unbuilt upon, and applied to no useful purpose for years, and so remaining, I believe, until his death, a few months ago, from some whim of its proprietor, although "there chanced to be a great many neighbours around him to whom the possession of the land would have been convenient.' I do not instance this as a solitary case, and might adducef others without end to prove the complete power of accumulation and disposal of property in the hands of any individual; but the example of Girard is the more apposite, as he was neither a popular man in manners or habits‡,

* Report says near fifteen millions of dollars, or upwards of three millions sterling.

† At New York there is a gentleman supposed to be of equal wealth with the late Girard (also acquired solely by his own exertions), although not of the same singular habits. It would be a violation of the consideration due to private life to say more than that I allude to Mr J. Astor, known as the founder of a colony on the Colombia river.

Without being miserly, he was very simple and economical in his habits. I have heard, that when he arrived in Philadelphia from France, he was in such humble circumstances that he obtained a living by selling sand and sawing wood in the streets;

nor politically of the slightest weight or importance, notwithstanding his immense wealth.

It is certain, however, that the principles and habits of the people generally are opposed to leaving the bulk of their fortune to the eldest, or to any one of their children to the exclusion of the others; and although there are exceptions, yet the rule in practice in the United States is to divide equally or nearly so, the property among all the sons and daughters; this is from choice and feeling the usage and not by law, excepting when a man dies intestate. But it must be remembered, that in a republic, without hereditary titles or honours to support, and with a wide and fair field for the exertion of talent and enterprise, this usage has not the inconvenience to individuals that Europeans generally may suppose, nor is it liable to many of the practical objections which exist to its adoption in countries like ours.

Secondly, that an agrarian law, or any thing approaching to it, is likely to become practicable or popular in the United States, or that it should even be proposed, is so extremely improbable, that one is inclined to suspect that the allusion to it is not

at the time he was between thirty and forty years of age. He used to affirm that the great difficulty in life is to amass the first forty dollars; that afterwards, a man, who is not a fool, can always grow rich. Some very munificent acts of his are on record.

made seriously. Those alone who are totally unacquainted with the state of the American community could for a moment entertain an idea of its possibility, and they have only to reflect upon a few circumstances to convince themselves of its utter want of foundation. The sub-division of old, and appropriation of new property,* going on (with few exceptions) almost pari passu with the increase of population, i. e. in the same relative proportion, extends its effects throughout the union. Also it should be remembered (and this applies to the third objection, viz. "that the "vitality' of the actual government of the United States can scarcely be preserved by the federal or conservative' party, now all but extinct,' against the prevailing system, or democracy"), the interests of the numerical majority are on the side of the prevailing system, and not opposed to its 'vitality.' The name or watchword of a party may be conservative,' 'federal,' or tory, it matters little as a distinctive appellation; but if we look to the meaning of words, it may not be difficult to show that in a republic, at least in

6

He was, although uneducated, a man of strong natural good sense and ability, like most of those men who have amassed great wealth from low beginnings.

* By this is meant, the property or moneyed associations in the older states in contra-distinction to that in the recently settled country.

N

such a government as that of the United States, the 'conservative' principle is to be found on the popular side; it resides with the 'numerical majority,' opposed alike to aristocratic, despotic, or military governments, as to anarchy or disorder; and that country owes its strength, the vigour and the efficiency of its administration, its vitality,' precisely to this popular principle.

It might, on the other hand, not be difficult to maintain in arguing on the affairs of England, that this "conservative" principle may be found to reside in a very different party: in a monarchy, and where political power is vested exclusively in the aristocratic or moneyed interests, the arguments on this subject are founded on a totally different basis. But the reasoning of the "Quarterly" is on the system of the United States, to which its applicability appears more than doubtful.

It has been asserted in parliament, and elsewhere, as well as in the "Quarterly," that a "conservative" principle, analogous to that which is the supposed safeguard of our constitution, has been found in that provision* of the American constitution, in virtue

it

* ARTICLE V. OF CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES.

1

"The congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution; or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several