In the case of the general government, the comparative safety of the system of checks and balances was of paramount importance, because the despotic exercise of its vast powers would have wrecked the whole American political system.

On the other hand, the disadvantages of such a system--its division of responsibility and the possible lack of cooeperation among the several departments--were mitigated to a considerable, if not to a sufficient, extent.

National parties came into existence with the function of assuming a responsibility which no single group of Federal officials possessed; and in their management of national affairs, the partisan leaders were prompted by a certain amount of patriotism and interest in the public welfare.

Even at Washington the system works badly enough in certain respects; but in general the dominant party can be held to a measure of responsibility; and effective cooeperation is frequently obtained in matters of foreign policy and the like through the action of patriotic and disinterested motives.
In the state governments the advantages of a system of checks and balances were of small importance, while its disadvantages were magnified.

The state governments had no reason to sacrifice concentrated efficiency to safety, because in a Federal organization the temporary exercise of arbitrary executive or legislative power in one locality would not have entailed any irretrievable consequences, and could not impair the fundamental integrity of the American system.