-
1. For bibliographical information on Madison, see note 1 on p.
153.2. A term from Roman and civil law referring to an individuals
right to use and enjoyall the advantages of something that belongs
to another, so far as is compatible withthe substance not being
destroyed or impaired. 3. Exclusive ownership of lands by a single
individual.
TO JAMES MADISON1
Paris, Sept. 6, 1789
DEAR SIR I sit down to write to you without knowing by what
occasion Ishall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes
into my head which Iwould wish to develope a little more than is
practicable in the hurry of themoment of making up general
despatches.
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind
another,seems never to have been started either on this or our side
of the water. Yet itis a question of such consequences as not only
to merit decision, but placealso, among the fundamental principles
of every government. The course ofreflection in which we are
immersed here on the elementary principles of so-ciety has
presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation
canbe transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this
ground which Isuppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in
usufruct2 to the living;that the dead have neither powers nor
rights over it. The portion occupied byan individual ceases to be
his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the so-ciety. If the
society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in
sev-eralty,3 it will be taken by the first occupants. These will
generally be the wifeand children of the decedent. If they have
formed rules of appropriation,those rules may give it to the wife
and children, or to some one of them, or tothe legatee of the
deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child,the
legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a
law of the so-ciety of which they are members, and to which they
are subject. Then no mancan by natural right oblige the lands he
occupied, or the persons who succeedhim in that occupation, to the
paiment of debts contracted by him. For if hecould, he might during
his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for sev-eral
generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead,
andnot to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What
is true of everymember of the society individually, is true of them
all collectively, since therights of the whole can be no more than
the sum of the rights of individuals.To keep our ideas clear when
applying them to a multitude, let us suppose awhole generation of
men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on
176
adminText BoxJefferson's question:
-
4. George-Louis Leclerc, Count of Buffon (170788): a noted
French naturalist. Seenote 2, Query VI, p. 79.
the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding
generation inthe moment of attaining their mature age all together.
Let the ripe age be sup-posed of 21. years, and their period of
life 34. years more, that being theaverage term given by the bills
of mortality to persons who have already at-tained 21. years of
age. Each successive generation would, in this way, comeon and go
off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I
saythe earth belongs to each of these generations during its
course, fully, and intheir own right. The 2d. generation receives
it clear of the debts and incum-brances of the 1st., the 3d. of the
2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge itwith a debt, then the
earth would belong to the dead and not the livinggeneration. Then
no generation can contract debts greater than may be paidduring the
course of its own existence. At 21. years of age they may
bindthemselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at 22. for
33: at 23 for 32. andat 54 for one year only; because these are the
terms of life which remain tothem at those respective epochs. But a
material difference must be noted be-tween the succession of an
individual and that of a whole generation. Individ-uals are parts
only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole. These laws
mayappropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his
creditor ratherthan to any other, or to his child, on condition he
satisfies his creditor. Butwhen a whole generation, that is, the
whole society dies, as in the case we havesupposed, and another
generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, andthere is no
superior who can give their territory to a third society, who
mayhave lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculty of
paying.
What is true of a generation all arriving to self-government on
the sameday, and dying all on the same day, is true of those on a
constant course ofdecay and renewal, with this only difference. A
generation coming in andgoing out entire, as in the first case,
would have a right in the 1st year of theirself dominion to
contract a debt for 33. years, in the 10th. for 24. in the 20th.for
14. in the 30th. for 4. whereas generations changing daily, by
daily deathsand births, have one constant term beginning at the
date of their contract, andending when a majority of those of full
age at that date shall be dead. Thelength of that term may be
estimated from the tables of mortality, corrected bythe
circumstances of climate, occupation &c. peculiar to the
country of thecontractors. Take, for instance, the table of M. de
Buffon4 wherein he statesthat 23,994 deaths, and the ages at which
they happened. Suppose a society inwhich 23,994 persons are born
every year and live to the ages stated in thistable. The conditions
of that society will be as follows. 1st. it will consist
con-stantly of 617,703 persons of all ages. 2dly. of those living
at any one instant oftime, one half will be dead in 24. years 8.
months. 3dly. 10,675 will arrive
To James Madison 177
-
*100 at a compound interest of 6 per cent makes at the end of 19
years an ag-gregate of principal and interest of 252.14 the
interest of which is a 12. 12.7d. which is nearly 12. pr. cent on
the first capital of 100.
5. Louis XIV, King of France from 16431715 and Louis XV, King of
France from171574.6. Millions.7. In Jeffersons day, Genoa was an
independent republic in what is today northwest-ern Italy. If the
previous French kings had borrowed vast sums from Genoa, the cost
tothe present generation of French would equal the countrys net
worth. Would theythen have to cede the entire country to Genoa?8.
Person who makes a will.
every year at the age of 21. years complete. 4thly. it will
constantly have348,417 persons of all ages above 21. years. 5ly.
and the half of those of 21.years and upwards living at any one
instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8.months, or say 19.
years as the nearest integral number. Then 19. years is theterm
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even
thewhole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt.
To render this conclusion palpable by example, suppose that
Louis XIV.and XV.5 had contracted debts in the name of the French
nation to the amountof 10.000 milliards6 of livres and that the
whole had been contracted inGenoa.7 The interest of this sum would
be 500 milliards, which is said to bethe whole rent-roll, or nett
proceeds of the territory of France. Must the presentgeneration of
men have retired from the territory in which nature producedthem,
and ceded it to the Genoese creditors? No. They have the same
rightsover the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding
generations had.They derive these rights not from their
predecessors, but from nature. Theythen and their soil are by
nature clear of the debts of their predecessors. Againsuppose Louis
XV. and his contemporary generation had said to the moneylenders of
Genoa, give us money that we may eat, drink, and be merry in
ourday; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end
of 19. years, youshall then forever after receive an annual
interest of 12.5 per cent.* The moneyis lent on these conditions,
is divided among the living, eaten, drank, andsquandered. Would the
present generation be obliged to apply the produce ofthe earth and
of their labour to replace their dissipations? Not at all.
I suppose that the received opinion, that the public debts of
one generationdevolve on the next, has been suggested by our seeing
habitually in private lifethat he who succeeds to lands is required
to pay the debts of his ancestor ortestator,8 without considering
that this requisition is municipal only, notmoral, flowing from the
will of the society which has found it convenient toappropriate the
lands become vacant by the death of their occupant on the
Correspondence178
-
condition of a paiment of his debts; but that between society
and society, orgeneration and generation there is no municipal
obligation, no umpire butthe law of nature. We seem not to have
perceived that, by the law of nature,one generation is to another
as one independant nation to another.
The interest of the national debt of France being in fact but a
two thou-sandth part of its rent-roll, the paiment of it is
practicable enough; and so be-comes a question merely of honor or
expediency. But with respect to futuredebts; would it not be wise
and just for that nation to declare in the constitutionthey are
forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can
validlycontract more debt, than they may pay within their own age,
or within the termof 19. years? And that all future contracts shall
be deemed void as to what shallremain unpaid at the end of 19.
years from their date? This would put thelenders, and the borrowers
also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty ofborrowing
within its natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to
which toofree a course has been procured by the inattention of
money lenders to this lawof nature, that succeeding generations are
not responsible for the preceding.
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a
perpetualconstitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs
always to the livinggeneration. They may manage it then, and what
proceeds from it, as theyplease, during their usufruct. They are
masters too of their own persons, andconsequently may govern them
as they please. But persons and property makethe sum of the objects
of government. The constitution and the laws of theirpredecessors
extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose
willgave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased
to be itself, andno longer. Every constitution, then, and every
law, naturally expires at the endof 19. years. If it be enforced
longer, it is an act of force and not of right.
It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact
the powerof repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution
or law had been ex-pressly limited to 19. years only. In the first
place, this objection admits theright, in proposing an equivalent.
But the power of repeal is not an equivalent.It might be indeed if
every form of government were so perfectly contrivedthat the will
of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without
im-pediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot
assemble them-selves; their representation is unequal and vicious.
Various checks areopposed to every legislative proposition.
Factions get possession of the publiccouncils. Bribery corrupts
them. Personal interests lead them astray from thegeneral interests
of their constituents; and other impediments arise so as toprove to
every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more
man-ageable than one which needs a repeal.
This principle that the earth belongs to the living and not to
the dead is ofvery extensive application and consequences in every
country, and most espe-cially in France. It enters into the
resolution of the questions Whether the
To James Madison 179
-
9. The inheritance of entailable property was, by law, limited
to a specific successionof heirs. (See notes 8 and 9, Query XIV, p.
111.)10. In short, Jefferson is asking whether the present
generation has the right to abolishprivileges and land grants to
churches and nobles that date back to the feudal era.11. A line has
faded here.
nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail?9 Whether
they maychange the appropriation of lands given antiently to the
church, to hospitals,colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in
perpetuity? whether they mayabolish the charges and privileges
attached on lands, including the wholecatalogue ecclesiastical and
feudal?10 it goes to hereditary offices, authoritiesand
jurisdictions; to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations;
to perpet-ual monopolies in commerce, the arts or sciences; with a
long train of etceteras: and it renders the question of
reimbursement a question of generosityand not of right. In all
these cases the legislature of the day could authorizesuch
appropriations and establishments for their own time, but no
longer; andthe present holders, even where they or their ancestors
have purchased, are inthe case of bona fide purchasers of what the
seller had no right to convey.
Turn this subject in your mind, my Dear Sir, and particularly as
to thepower of contracting debts, and develope it with that
perspicuity and cogentlogic which is so peculiarly yours. Your
station in the councils of our countrygives you an opportunity of
producing it to public consideration, of forcing itinto discussion.
At first blush it may be rallied as a theoretical speculation;
butexamination will prove it to be solid and salutary. It would
furnish matter for afine preamble to our first law for
appropriating the public revenue; and it willexclude, at the
threshold of our new government the contagious and ruinouserrors of
this quarter of the globe, which have armed despots with means
notsanctioned by nature for binding in chains their fellow-men. We
have alreadygiven, in example one effectual check to the Dog of
war, by transferring thepower of letting him loose from the
executive to the Legislative body, fromthose who are to spend to
those who are to pay. I should be pleased to see thissecond
obstacle held out by us also in the first instance. No nation can
makea declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts so
disinterestedly aswe, since we do not owe a shilling which may not
be paid with ease principaland interest, within the time of our own
lives. Establish the principle also inthe new law to be passed for
protecting copy rights and new inventions, by se-curing the
exclusive right for 19. instead of 14. years [ ]11 an instance
themore of our taking reason for our guide instead of English
precedents, thehabit of which fetters us, with all the political
herecies of a nation, equally re-markable for its encitement from
some errors, as long slumbering underothers. I write you no news,
because when an occasion occurs I shall write aseparate letter for
that.
Correspondence180
-
Does the Earth Belong to the Living Generation?
To Thomas Jefferson, February 4, 1790 (PJM, XIII, 1826)
While considering Hamiltons financial plans (especially
provision for thepublic debts) in the second session of Congress,
Madison received a letterJefferson had written before he left Paris
(September 6, 1789), during theearly stages of the French
Revolution. Jefferson asked Madison to turn thesubject [of his
letter] in your mind . . . and develop it with that perspicuityand
cogent logic so peculiarly yours. Having written himself in a
philo-sophic frame of mind after witnessing tumultuous events in
France,Jefferson hoped Madisons station in the councils of our
country wouldfurnish him a practical perspective on the proposals,
and perhaps evenan opportunity for producing it to public
consideration. After summariz-ing Jeffersons argument, Madison
proceeded to sketch the grounds ofmy skepticism.
Your favor of the 9th. of Jany. inclosing one of Sepr. last did
not get tohand till a few days ago. The idea which the latter
evolves is a great one,
Does the Earth Belong to the Living Generation? 189
hac-ketcham-05.qxd 7/17/06 8:48 AM Page 189
-
and suggests many interesting reflections to legislators;
particularly whencontracting and providing for public debts.
Whether it can be received inthe extent your reasonings give it, is
a question which I ought to turn morein my thoughts than I have yet
been able to do, before I should be justified inmaking up a full
opinion on it. My first thoughts though coinciding withmany of
yours, lead me to view the doctrine as not in all respects
compat-ible with the course of human affairs. I will endeavor to
sketch the groundsof my skepticism.
As the earth belongs to the living, not to the dead, a living
generation canbind itself only: In every society the will of the
majority binds the whole:According to the laws of mortality, a
majority of those ripe at any momentfor the exercise of their will
do not live beyond nineteen years: To that termthen is limited the
validity of every act of the Society: Nor within that limi-tation,
can any declaration of the public will be valid which is not
express.
This I understand to be the outline of the argument.The Acts of
a political Society may be divided into three classes.
1. The fundamental Constitution of the Government.2. Laws
involving stipulations which render them irrevocable at the
will of the Legislature.3. Laws involving no such irrevocable
quality.
However applicable in Theory the doctrine may be to a
Constitution,it seems liable in practice to some very powerful
objections. Would not aGovernment so often revised become too
mutable to retain those preju-dices in its favor which antiquity
inspires, and which are perhaps a salu-tary aid to the most
rational Government in the most enlightened age?Would not such a
periodical revision engender pernicious factions thatmight not
otherwise come into existence? Would not, in fine, a Govern-ment
depending for its existence beyond a fixed date, on some
positiveand authentic intervention of the Society itself, be too
subject to the casu-alty and consequences of an actual
interregnum?
In the 2d. class, exceptions at least to the doctrine seem to be
requisiteboth in Theory and practice.
If the earth be the gift of nature to the living their title can
extend tothe earth in its natural State only. The improvements made
by the deadform a charge against the living who take the benefit of
them. This chargecan no otherwise be satisfyed than by executing
the will of the deadaccompanying the improvements.
Debts may be incurred for purposes which interest the unborn, as
wellas the living: such are debts for repelling a conquest, the
evils of which
190 Selected Writings of James Madison
hac-ketcham-05.qxd 7/17/06 8:48 AM Page 190
-
descend through many generations. Debts may even be incurred
princi-pally for the benefit of posterity: such perhaps is the
present debt of theU. States, which far exceeds any burdens which
the present generationcould well apprehend for itself. The term of
19 years might not be suffi-cient for discharging the debts in
either of these cases.
There seems then to be a foundation in the nature of things, in
the rela-tion which one generation bears to another, for the
descent of obligationsfrom one to another. Equity requires it.
Mutual good is promoted by it. Allthat is indispensable in
adjusting the account between the dead & the liv-ing is to see
that the debits against the latter do not exceed the advancesmade
by the former. Few of the incumbrances entailed on Nations
wouldbear a liquidation even on this principle.
The objections to the doctrine as applied to the 3d. class of
acts may per-haps be merely practical. But in that view they appear
to be of great force.
Unless such laws should be kept in force by new acts regularly
antici-pating the end of the term, all the rights depending on
positive laws, thatis, most of the rights of property would become
absolutely defunct; andthe most violent struggles be generated
between those interested in reviv-ing and those interested in
new-modelling the former State of property.Nor would events of this
kind be improbable. The obstacles to the passageof laws which
render a power to repeal inferior to an opportunity of reject-ing,
as a security agst. oppression, would here render an opportunity
ofrejecting, an insecure provision agst. anarchy. Add, that the
possibilityof an event so hazardous to the rights of property could
not fail to depre-ciate its value; that the approach of the crisis
would increase this effect;that the frequent return of periods
superseding all the obligations depend-ing on antecedent laws &
usages, must by weakening the reverence forthose obligations,
co-operate with motives to licentiousness already toopowerful; and
that the uncertainty incident to such a state of things wouldon one
side discourage the steady exertions of industry produced by
per-manent laws, and on the other, give a disproportionate
advantage to themore, over the less, sagacious and interprizing
part of the Society.
I find no relief from these consequences, but in the received
doctrinethat a tacit assent may be given to established
Constitutions and laws,and that this assent may be inferred, where
no positive dissent appears. Itseems less impracticable to remedy,
by wise plans of Government, thedangerous operation of this
doctrine, than to find a remedy for the diffi-culties inseparable
from the other.
May it not be questioned whether it be possible to exclude
wholly theidea of tacit assent, without subverting the foundation
of civil Society? Onwhat principle does the voice of the majority
bind the minority? It does not
Does the Earth Belong to the Living Generation? 191
hac-ketcham-05.qxd 7/17/06 8:48 AM Page 191
-
result I conceive from the law of nature, but from compact
founded onconveniency. A greater proportion might be required by
the fundamentalconstitution of a Society, if it were judged
eligible. Prior then to the estab-lishment of this principle,
unanimity was necessary; and strict Theory atall times presupposes
the assent of every member to the establishment ofthe rule itself.
If this assent can not be given tacitly, or be not impliedwhere no
positive evidence forbids, persons born in Society would not
onattaining ripe age be bound by acts of the Majority; and either a
unani-mous repetition of every law would be necessary on the
accession of newmembers, or an express assent must be obtained from
these to the rule bywhich the voice of the Majority is made the
voice of the whole.
If the observations I have hazarded be not misapplied, it
follows that alimitation of the validity of national acts to the
computed life of a nation,is in some instances not required by
Theory, and in others cannot be acco-modated to practice. The
observations are not meant however to impeacheither the utility of
the principle in some particular cases; or the generalimportance of
it in the eye of the philosophical Legislator. On the con-trary it
would give me singular pleasure to see it first announced in
theproceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as
a salutarycurb on the living generation from imposing unjust or
unnecessary bur-dens on their successors. But this is a pleasure
which I have little hope ofenjoying. The spirit of philosophical
legislation has never reached someparts of the Union, and is by no
means the fashion here, either within orwithout Congress. The evils
suffered & feared from weakness in Govern-ment, and
licentiousness in the people, have turned the attention moretowards
the means of strengthening the former, than of narrowing itsextent
in the minds of the latter. Besides this, it is so much easier to
espythe little difficulties immediately incident to every great
plan, than to com-prehend its general and remote benefits, that our
hemisphere must be stillmore enlightened before many of the sublime
truths which are seen throthe medium of Philosophy, become visible
to the naked eye of the ordi-nary Politician.
I have nothing to add at present but that I remain always and
mostaffectly. Yours
192 Selected Writings of James Madison
hac-ketcham-05.qxd 7/17/06 8:48 AM Page 192
