
The Federalist No. 56
The Total Number of the House of Representatives (continued)
Independent Journal
Saturday, February 16, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:
THE
second charge against the House of Representatives is, that it
will be too small to possess a due knowledge of the interests of its
constituents.
As this objection evidently proceeds from a
comparison of the proposed number of representatives with the great
extent of the United States, the number of their inhabitants, and
the diversity of their interests, without taking into view at the
same time the circumstances which will distinguish the Congress from
other legislative bodies, the best answer that can be given to it
will be a brief explanation of these peculiarities.
It is a sound and important principle that the
representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and
circumstances of his constituents. But this principle can extend no
further than to those circumstances and interests to which the
authority and care of the representative relate. An ignorance of a
variety of minute and particular objects, which do not lie within
the compass of legislation, is consistent with every attribute
necessary to a due performance of the legislative trust. In
determining the extent of information required in the exercise of a
particular authority, recourse then must be had to the objects
within the purview of that authority.
What are to be the objects of federal legislation?
Those which are of most importance, and which seem most to require
local knowledge, are commerce, taxation, and the militia.
A proper regulation of commerce requires much
information, as has been elsewhere remarked; but as far as this
information relates to the laws and local situation of each
individual State, a very few representatives would be very
sufficient vehicles of it to the federal councils.
Taxation will consist, in a great measure, of duties
which will be involved in the regulation of commerce. So far the
preceding remark is applicable to this object. As far as it may
consist of internal collections, a more diffusive knowledge of the
circumstances of the State may be necessary. But will not this also
be possessed in sufficient degree by a very few intelligent men,
diffusively elected within the State? Divide the largest State into
ten or twelve districts, and it will be found that there will be no
peculiar local interests in either, which will not be within the
knowledge of the representative of the district. Besides this source
of information, the laws of the State, framed by representatives
from every part of it, will be almost of themselves a sufficient
guide. In every State there have been made, and must continue to be
made, regulations on this subject which will, in many cases, leave
little more to be done by the federal legislature, than to review
the different laws, and reduce them in one general act. A skillful
individual in his closet with all the local codes before him, might
compile a law on some subjects of taxation for the whole union,
without any aid from oral information, and it may be expected that
whenever internal taxes may be necessary, and particularly in cases
requiring uniformity throughout the States, the more simple objects
will be preferred. To be fully sensible of the facility which will
be given to this branch of federal legislation by the assistance of
the State codes, we need only suppose for a moment that this or any
other State were divided into a number of parts, each having and
exercising within itself a power of local legislation. Is it not
evident that a degree of local information and preparatory labor
would be found in the several volumes of their proceedings, which
would very much shorten the labors of the general legislature, and
render a much smaller number of members sufficient for it? The
federal councils will derive great advantage from another
circumstance. The representatives of each State will not only bring
with them a considerable knowledge of its laws, and a local
knowledge of their respective districts, but will probably in all
cases have been members, and may even at the very time be members,
of the State legislature, where all the local information and
interests of the State are assembled, and from whence they may
easily be conveyed by a very few hands into the legislature of the
United States.
[The observations made on the subject of taxation
apply with greater force to the case of the militia. For however
different the rules of discipline may be in different States, they
are the same throughout each particular State; and depend on
circumstances which can differ but little in different parts of the
same State.]E1
[With regard to the regulation of the militia, there
are scarcely any circumstances in reference to which local knowledge
can be said to be necessary. The general face of the country,
whether mountainous or level, most fit for the operations of
infantry or cavalry, is almost the only consideration of this nature
that can occur. The art of war teaches general principles of
organization, movement, and discipline, which apply universally.]E1
The attentive reader will discern that the reasoning
here used, to prove the sufficiency of a moderate number of
representatives, does not in any respect contradict what was urged
on another occasion with regard to the extensive information which
the representatives ought to possess, and the time that might be
necessary for acquiring it. This information, so far as it may
relate to local objects, is rendered necessary and difficult, not by
a difference of laws and local circumstances within a single State,
but of those among different States. Taking each State by itself,
its laws are the same, and its interests but little diversified. A
few men, therefore, will possess all the knowledge requisite for a
proper representation of them. Were the interests and affairs of
each individual State perfectly simple and uniform, a knowledge of
them in one part would involve a knowledge of them in every other,
and the whole State might be competently represented by a single
member taken from any part of it. On a comparison of the different
States together, we find a great dissimilarity in their laws, and in
many other circumstances connected with the objects of federal
legislation, with all of which the federal representatives ought to
have some acquaintance. Whilst a few representatives, therefore,
from each State, may bring with them a due knowledge of their own
State, every representative will have much information to acquire
concerning all the other States. The changes of time, as was
formerly remarked, on the comparative situation of the different
States, will have an assimilating effect. The effect of time on the
internal affairs of the States, taken singly, will be just the
contrary. At present some of the States are little more than a
society of husbandmen. Few of them have made much progress in those
branches of industry which give a variety and complexity to the
affairs of a nation. These, however, will in all of them be the
fruits of a more advanced population, and will require, on the part
of each State, a fuller representation. The foresight of the
convention has accordingly taken care that the progress of
population may be accompanied with a proper increase of the
representative branch of the government.
The experience of Great Britain, which presents to
mankind so many political lessons, both of the monitory and
exemplary kind, and which has been frequently consulted in the
course of these inquiries, corroborates the result of the
reflections which we have just made. The number of inhabitants in
the two kingdoms of England and Scotland cannot be stated at less
than eight millions. The representatives of these eight millions in
the House of Commons amount to five hundred and fifty-eight. Of this
number, one ninth are elected by three hundred and sixty-four
persons, and one half, by five thousand seven hundred and
twenty-three persons.1
It cannot be supposed that the half thus elected, and who do not
even reside among the people at large, can add any thing either to
the security of the people against the government, or to the
knowledge of their circumstances and interests in the legislative
councils. On the contrary, it is notorious, that they are more
frequently the representatives and instruments of the executive
magistrate, than the guardians and advocates of the popular rights.
They might therefore, with great propriety, be considered as
something more than a mere deduction from the real representatives
of the nation. We will, however, consider them in this light alone,
and will not extend the deduction to a considerable number of
others, who do not reside among their constitutents, are very
faintly connected with them, and have very little particular
knowledge of their affairs. With all these concessions, two hundred
and seventy-nine persons only will be the depository of the safety,
interest, and happiness of eight millions that is to say, there will
be one representative only to maintain the rights and explain the
situation of twenty-eight thousand six hundred and seventy
constitutents, in an assembly exposed to the whole force of
executive influence, and extending its authority to every object of
legislation within a nation whose affairs are in the highest degree
diversified and complicated. Yet it is very certain, not only that a
valuable portion of freedom has been preserved under all these
circumstances, but that the defects in the British code are
chargeable, in a very small proportion, on the ignorance of the
legislature concerning the circumstances of the people. Allowing to
this case the weight which is due to it, and comparing it with that
of the House of Representatives as above explained it seems to give
the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty
thousand inhabitants will render the latter both a safe and
competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.
PUBLIUS
1. Burgh's Political
Disquisitions.
E1. Two versions of this paragraph
appear in different editions.
|