ontributes　a　much　smaller　portion　of　his　income　to　the　State　than　the　citizen　of　France。　　Nor；　indeed；　can　the　result　be　otherwise。
  A　portion　of　the　French　debt　is　the　consequence　of　two　successive　invasions；　and　the　Union　has　no　similar　calamity　to　fear。　　A　nation　placed　upon　the　continent　of　Europe　is　obliged　to　maintain　a　large　standing　army；　the　isolated　position　of　the　Union　enables　it　to　have　only　6；000　soldiers。　The　French　have　a　fleet　of　300　sail；　the　Americans　have　52　vessels。　*n　How；　then；　can　the　inhabitants　of　the　Union　be　called　upon　to　contribute　as　largely　as　the　inhabitants　of　France？　　No　parallel　can　be　drawn　between　the　finances　of　two　countries　so　differently　situated。
  ＇Footnote　n：　See　the　details　in　the　Budget　of　the　French　Minister　of　Marine；　and　for　America；　the　National　Calendar　of　1833；　p。　228。　　＇But　the　public　debt　of　the　United　States　in　1870；　caused　by　the　Civil　War；　amounted　to　2；480；672；427；　that　of　France　was　more　than　doubled　by　the　extravagance　of　the　Second　Empire　and　by　the　war　of　1870。＇＇
  It　is　by　examining　what　actually　takes　place　in　the　Union；　and　not　by　comparing　the　Union　with　France；　that　we　may　discover　whether　the　American　Government　is　really　economical。　　On　casting　my　eyes　over　the　different　republics　which　form　the　confederation；　I　perceive　that　their　Governments　lack　perseverance　in　their　undertakings；　and　that　they　exercise　no　steady　control　over　the　men　whom　they　employ。　　Whence　I　naturally　infer　that　they　must　often　spend　the　money　of　the　people　to　no　purpose；　or　consume　more　of　it　than　is　really　necessary　to　their　undertakings。　　Great　efforts　are　made；　in　accordance　with　the　democratic　origin　of　society；　to　satisfy　the　exigencies　of　the　lower　orders；　to　open　the　career　of　power　to　their　endeavors；　and　to　diffuse　knowledge　and　comfort　amongst　them。　　The　poor　are　maintained；　immense　sums　are　annually　devoted　to　public　instruction；　all　services　whatsoever　are　remunerated；　and　the　most　subordinate　agents　are　liberally　paid。　　If　this　kind　of　government　appears　to　me　to　be　useful　and　rational；　I　am　nevertheless　constrained　to　admit　that　it　is　expensive。
  Wherever　the　poor　direct　public　affairs　and　dispose　of　the　national　resources；　it　appears　certain　that；　as　they　profit　by　the　expenditure　of　the　State；　they　are　apt　to　augment　that　expenditure。
  I　conclude；　therefore；　without　having　recourse　to　inaccurate　computations；　and　without　hazarding　a　comparison　which　might　prove　incorrect；　that　the　democratic　government　of　the　Americans　is　not　a　cheap　government；　as　is　sometimes　asserted；　and　I　have　no　hesitation　in　predicting　that；　if　the　people　of　the　United　States　is　ever　involved　in　serious　difficulties；　its　taxation　will　speedily　be　increased　to　the　rate　of　that　which　prevails　in　the　greater　part　of　the　aristocracies　and　the　monarchies　of　Europe。　*o
  ＇Footnote　o：　＇That　is　precisely　what　has　since　occurred。＇＇
  Chapter　XIII：　Government　Of　The　Democracy　In　America　…　Part　III　　Corruption　And　Vices　Of　The　Rulers　In　A　Democracy；　And　Consequent　Effects　Upon　Public　Morality
  In　aristocracies　rulers　sometimes　endeavor　to　corrupt　the　people　…　In　democracies　rulers　frequently　show　themselves　to　be　corrupt　…　In　the　former　their　vices　are　directly　prejudicial　to　the　morality　of　the　people　…　In　the　latter　their　indirect　influence　is　still　more　pernicious。
  A　distinction　must　be　made；　when　the　aristocratic　and　the　democratic　principles　mutually　inveigh　against　each　other；　as　tending　to　facilitate　corruption。　　In　aristocratic　governments　the　individuals　who　are　placed　at　the　head　of　affairs　are　rich　men；　who　are　solely　desirous　of　power。　　In　democracies　statesmen　are　poor；　and　they　have　their　fortunes　to　make。　　The　consequence　is　that　in　aristocratic　States　the　rulers　are　rarely　accessible　to　corruption；　and　have　very　little　craving　for　money；　whilst　the　reverse　is　the　case　in　democratic　nations。
  But　in　aristocracies；　as　those　who　are　desirous　of　arriving　at　the　head　of　affairs　are　possessed　of　considerable　wealth；　and　as　the　number　of　persons　by　whose　assistance　they　may　rise　is　comparatively　small；　the　government　is；　if　I　may　use　the　expression；　put　up　to　a　sort　of　auction。　　In　democracies；　on　the　contrary；　those　who　are　covetous　of　power　are　very　seldom　wealthy；　and　the　number　of　citizens　who　confer　that　power　is　extremely　great。　　Perhaps　in　democracies　the　number　of　men　who　might　be　bought　is　by　no　means　smaller；　but　buyers　are　rarely　to　be　met　with；　and；　besides；　it　would　be　necessary　to　buy　so　many　persons　at　once　that　the　attempt　is　rendered　nugatory。
  Many　of　the　men　who　have　been　in　the　administration　in　France　during　the　last　forty　years　have　been　accused　of　making　their　fortunes　at　the　expense　of　the　State　or　of　its　allies；　a　reproach　which　was　rarely　addressed　to　the　public　characters　of　the　ancient　monarchy。　　But　in　France　the　practice　of　bribing　electors　is　almost　unknown；　whilst　it　is　notoriously　and　publicly　carried　on　in　England。　　In　the　United　States　I　never　heard　a　man　accused　of　spending　his　wealth　in　corrupting　the　populace；　but　I　have　often　heard　the　probity　of　public　officers　questioned；　still　more　frequently　have　I　heard　their　success　attributed　to　low　intrigues　and　immoral　practices。
  If；　then；　the　men　who　conduct　the　government　of　an　aristocracy　sometimes　endeavor　to　corrupt　the　people；　the　heads　of　a　democracy　are　themselves　corrupt。　　In　the　former　case　the　morality　of　the　people　is　directly　assailed；　in　the　latter　an　indirect　influence　is　exercised　upon　the　people　which　is　still　more　to　be　dreaded。
  As　the　rulers　of　democratic　nations　are　almost　always　exposed　to　the　suspicion　of　dishonorable　conduct；　they　in　some　measure　lend　the　authority　of　the　Government　to　the　base　practices　of　which　they　are　accused。　　They　thus　afford　an　example　which　must　prove　discouraging　to　the　struggles　of　virtuous　independence；　and　must　foster　the　secret　calculations　of　a　vicious　ambition。　If　it　be　asserted　that　evil　passions　are　displayed　in　all　ranks　of　society；　that　they　ascend　the　throne　by　hereditary　right；　and　that　despicable　characters　are　to　be　met　with　at　the　head　of　aristocratic　nations　as　well　as　in　the　sphere　of　a　democracy；　this　objection　has　but　little　weight　in　my　estimation。　　The　corruption　of　men　who　have　casually　risen　to　power　has　a　coarse　and　vulgar　infection　in　it　which　renders　it　contagious　to　the　multitude。　　On　the　contrary；　there　is　a　kind　of　aristocratic　refinement　and　an　air　of　grandeur　in　the　depravity　of　the　great；　which　frequently　prevent　it　from　spreading　abroad。
  The　people　can　never　penetrate　into　the　perplexing　labyrinth　of　court　intrigue；　and　it　will　always　have　difficulty　in　detecting　the　turpitude　which　lurks　under　elegant　manners；　refined　tastes；　and　graceful　language。　　But　to　pillage　the　public　purse；　and　to　vend　the　favors　of　the　State；　are　arts　which　the　meanest　villain　may　comprehend；　and　hope　to　practice　in　his　turn。
  In　reality　it　is　far　less　prejudicial　to　witness　the　immorality　of　the　great　than　to　witness　that　immorality　which　leads　to　greatness。　　In　a　democracy　private　citizens　see　a　man　of　their　own　rank　in　life；　who　rises　from　that　obscure　position；　and　who　becomes　possessed　of　riches　and　of　power　in　a　few　years；　the　spectacle　excites　their　surprise　and　their　envy；　and　they　are　led　to　inquire　how　the　person　who　was　yesterday　their　equal　is　to…day　their　ruler。　　To　attribute　his　rise　to　his　talents　or　his　virtues　is　unpleasant；　for　it　is　tacitly　to　acknowledge　that　they　are　themselves　less　virtuous　and　less　talented　than　he　was。　　They　are　therefore　led　（and　not　unfrequently　their　conjecture　is　a　correct　one）　to　impute　his　success　mainly　to　some　one　of　his　defects；　and　an　odious　mixture　is　thus　formed　of　the　ideas　of　turpitude　and　power；　unworthiness　and　success；　utility　and　dishonor。
  Efforts　Of　Which　A　Democracy　Is　Capable
  The　Union　has　only　had　one　struggle　hitherto　for　its　existence　…　Enthusiasm　at　the　commencement　of　the　war　…　Indifference　towards　its　close　…　Difficulty　of　establishing　military　conscription　or　impressment　of　seamen　in　America　…　Why　a　democratic　people　is　less　capable　of　sustained　effort　than　another。
  I　here　warn　the　reader　that　I　speak　of　a　government　which　implicitly　follows　the　real　desires　of　a　people；　and　not　of　a　government　which　simply　commands　in　its　name。　　Nothing　is　so　irresistible　as　a　tyrannical　power　commanding　in　the　name　of　the　people；　because；　whilst　it　exercises　that　moral　influence　which　belongs　to　the　decision　of　the　majority；　it　acts　at　the　same　time　with　the　promptitude　and　the　tenacity　of　a　single　man。
  It　is　difficult　to　say　what　degree　of　exertion　a　democratic　government　may　be　capable　of　making　a　crisis　in　the　history　of　the　nation。　　But　no　great　democratic　republic　has　hitherto　existed　in　the　world。　　To　style　the　oligarchy　which　ruled　over　France　in　1793　by　that　name　would　be　to　offer　an　insult　to　the　republican　form　of　government。　　The　United　States　afford　the　first　example　of　the　kind。
  The　American　Union　has　now　subsisted　for　half　a　century；　in　the　course　of　which　time　its　existence　has　only　once　been　attacked；　namely；　during　the　War　of　Independence。　　At　the　commencement　of　that　long　war；　various　occurrences　took　place　which　betokened　an　extraordinary　zeal　for　th