g as a tyrannical sovereign or an exclusive aristocracy could ever exist。
Again； it may be objected that the poor are never invested with the sole power of making the laws； but I reply； that wherever universal suffrage has been established the majority of the community unquestionably exercises the legislative authority； and if it be proved that the poor always constitute the majority； it may be added； with perfect truth； that in the countries in which they possess the elective franchise they possess the sole power of making laws。 But it is certain that in all the nations of the world the greater number has always consisted of those persons who hold no property； or of those whose property is insufficient to exempt them from the necessity of working in order to procure an easy subsistence。 Universal suffrage does therefore； in point of fact； invest the poor with the government of society。
The disastrous influence which popular authority may sometimes exercise upon the finances of a State was very clearly seen in some of the democratic republics of antiquity； in which the public treasure was exhausted in order to relieve indigent citizens； or to supply the games and theatrical amusements of the populace。 It is true that the representative system was then very imperfectly known； and that； at the present time； the influence of popular passion is less felt in the conduct of public affairs； but it may be believed that the delegate will in the end conform to the principles of his constituents； and favor their propensities as much as their interests。
The extravagance of democracy is； however； less to be dreaded in proportion as the people acquires a share of property； because on the one hand the contributions of the rich are then less needed； and； on the other； it is more difficult to lay on taxes which do not affect the interests of the lower classes。 On this account universal suffrage would be less dangerous in France than in England； because in the latter country the property on which taxes may be levied is vested in fewer hands。 America； where the great majority of the citizens possess some fortune； is in a still more favorable position than France。
There are still further causes which may increase the sum of public expenditure in democratic countries。 When the aristocracy governs； the individuals who conduct the affairs of State are exempted by their own station in society from every kind of privation； they are contented with their position； power and renown are the objects for which they strive； and； as they are placed far above the obscurer throng of citizens； they do not always distinctly perceive how the well…being of the mass of the people ought to redound to their own honor。 They are not indeed callous to the sufferings of the poor； but they cannot feel those miseries as acutely as if they were themselves partakers of them。 Provided that the people appear to submit to its lot； the rulers are satisfied； and they demand nothing further from the Government。 An aristocracy is more intent upon the means of maintaining its influence than upon the means of improving its condition。
When； on the contrary； the people is invested with the supreme authority； the perpetual sense of their own miseries impels the rulers of society to seek for perpetual ameliorations。 A thousand different objects are subjected to improvement； the most trivial details are sought out as susceptible of amendment； and those changes which are accompanied with considerable expense are more especially advocated； since the object is to render the condition of the poor more tolerable； who cannot pay for themselves。
Moreover； all democratic communities are agitated by an ill… defined excitement and by a kind of feverish impatience； that engender a multitude of innovations； almost all of which are attended with expense。
In monarchies and aristocracies the natural taste which the rulers have for power and for renown is stimulated by the promptings of ambition； and they are frequently incited by these temptations to very costly undertakings。 In democracies； where the rulers labor under privations； they can only be courted by such means as improve their well…being； and these improvements cannot take place without a sacrifice of money。 When a people begins to reflect upon its situation； it discovers a multitude of wants to which it had not before been subject； and to satisfy these exigencies recourse must be had to the coffers of the State。 Hence it arises that the public charges increase in proportion as civilization spreads； and that imposts are augmented as knowledge pervades the community。
The last cause which frequently renders a democratic government dearer than any other is； that a democracy does not always succeed in moderating its expenditure； because it does not understand the art of being economical。 As the designs which it entertains are frequently changed； and the agents of those designs are still more frequently removed； its undertakings are often ill conducted or left unfinished： in the former case the State spends sums out of all proportion to the end which it proposes to accomplish； in the second； the expense itself is unprofitable。 *f
＇Footnote f： The gross receipts of the Treasury of the United States in 1832 were about 28；000；000； in 1870 they had risen to 411；000；000。 The gross expenditure in 1832 was 30；000；000； in 1870； 309；000；000。＇
Tendencies Of The American Democracy As Regards The Salaries Of Public Officers
In the democracies those who establish high salaries have no chance of profiting by them … Tendency of the American democracy to increase the salaries of subordinate officers and to lower those of the more important functionaries … Reason of this … Comparative statement of the salaries of public officers in the United States and in France。
There is a powerful reason which usually induces democracies to economize upon the salaries of public officers。 As the number of citizens who dispense the remuneration is extremely large in democratic countries； so the number of persons who can hope to be benefited by the receipt of it is comparatively small。 In aristocratic countries； on the contrary； the individuals who fix high salaries have almost always a vague hope of profiting by them。 These appointments may be looked upon as a capital which they create for their own use； or at least as a resource for their children。
It must； however； be allowed that a democratic State is most parsimonious towards its principal agents。 In America the secondary officers are much better paid； and the dignitaries of the administration much worse； than they are elsewhere。
These opposite effects result from the same cause； the people fixes the salaries of the public officers in both cases； and the scale of remuneration is determined by the consideration of its own wants。 It is held to be fair that the servants of the public should be placed in the same easy circumstances as the public itself； *g but when the question turns upon the salaries of the great officers of State； this rule fails； and chance alone can guide the popular decision。 The poor have no adequate conception of the wants which the higher classes of society may feel。 The sum which is scanty to the rich appears enormous to the poor man whose wants do not extend beyond the necessaries of life； and in his estimation the Governor of a State； with his twelve or fifteen hundred dollars a year； is a very fortunate and enviable being。 *h If you undertake to convince him that the representative of a great people ought to be able to maintain some show of splendor in the eyes of foreign nations； he will perhaps assent to your meaning； but when he reflects on his own humble dwelling； and on the hard… earned produce of his wearisome toil； he remembers all that he could do with a salary which you say is insufficient； and he is startled or almost frightened at the sight of such uncommon wealth。 Besides； the secondary public officer is almost on a level with the people； whilst the others are raised above it。 The former may therefore excite his interest； but the latter begins to arouse his envy。
＇Footnote g： The easy circumstances in which secondary functionaries are placed in the United States result also from another cause； which is independent of the general tendencies of democracy； every kind of private business is very lucrative； and the State would not be served at all if it did not pay its servants。 The country is in the position of a commercial undertaking； which is obliged to sustain an expensive competition； notwithstanding its tastes for economy。＇
＇Footnote h： The State of Ohio； which contains a million of inhabitants； gives its Governor a salary of only 1；200 a year。＇
This is very clearly seen in the United States； where the salaries seem to decrease as the authority of those who receive them augments *i
＇Footnote i： To render this assertion perfectly evident； it will suffice to examine the scale of salaries of the agents of the Federal Government。 I have added the salaries attached to the corresponding officers in France under the constitutional monarchy to complete the comparison。
United States Treasury Department Messenger