discussion some important questions relating to the powers, duties, and responsibilities of government, among which are three that I propose to consider briefly, namely: First. Whence comes the right to govern? What are its sphere and object? Second. Are we, the people of the United States, a self-governing people?

portation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

These two provisions were intended to apply and did apply to negro slaves, of whom there were in the country at that time about 500,000, nearly one-sixth of the entire population; and they, as a class, together with our Indian neighbors

I.

As to the right to govern-the right to exercise authority over communities, states, and nations, the right to enact, construe, and execute laws-whence it is derived? For what purposes and to what extent may it be properly assumed?

In the Declaration of Independence it is asserted that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

But is it true that government, even in a republic like ours, derives its just pow. ers only from the consent of the governed? Is it not a fact that at no time in our

history have we either had or asked the consent of all the people within our jurisdiction, to the powers of government which we have been exercising over them? Is it not true, on the contrary, that we have been governing many of them, not only without their consent, but in direct opposition to it?

The Constitution, framed to provide such a form of government as the signers of the Declaration had in mind, contains the following provision:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

And this:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year

one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a duty or tax may be imposed on such im

cluded from the ranks of those who participated in the institution of our new government. Their consent to anything done or contemplated in the administration of our public affairs was neither asked nor desired. Their consent or dissent did not enter into the problems of government. It made no difference what their wishes were, or to what they were opposed. A majority of such persons as enjoyed political privileges-they and they only-formed the new government and or ganized its powers, without regard to the disfranchised classes, as much so as if these classes had not been in existence.

And, in addition to the non-voting people, there were many white men in the States who, by reason of their poverty, were not permitted to vote, and hence It is, probably, safe to say that, of the could not take part in popular elections. whole population of the country, when the ber that had no part in the work of estab Constitution was put into effect, the numlishing the national government, either for or against it, although they were subject to its rule, constituted at least 25

per cent.

Still more. In every one of the States, and among those persons, too, qualified to vote, there was opposition, more or less, to the inauguration of the new régime. North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution till more than two years after the convention that framed it had adjourned sine die; and Rhode Island did not come into the Union till May of President Washington's second year.

There is no way of ascertaining exactly the number of voters who were opposed to the new plan, who did not consent to it, and who would have defeated it if they could; but, if these be added to the disfranchised classes, we have a total of at least one-third of the inhabitants of the country not consenting to the exercise of these governmental powers over them. Yet

Thomas Jefferson held the vital principle of republics" to be "absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority." But whence comes the right of a majority to rule? And may the majority of to-day determine the course of the majority of to-morrow? Had two-thirds of a population of less than 4,000,000 in 1789 the rightful authority to lay down rules of government for a population of 75,000,000 in 1900-rules which we cannot change, save by revolution, unless we do it in accordance with forms prescribed by our ancestors more than 100 years ago?

We all believe with Jefferson that the right of a majority to rule in a republic is not to be challenged; and that the answer to these troublesome questions concerning the source of this undisputed right to govern can be found only in the theory that government is one of the essential agencies provided in the beginning by the Father above for the work of subduing the earth and bringing all men to Himself. The thought is tersely expressed by St. Paul in his letter to the Romans: "There is no power but of God." "The powers that be are ordained of God." The ruler is a "minister of God." Man's right to life, liberty, and room to work in is inherent, and government follows as naturally as the seasons follow each other. As long as the individual man lives separated from his fellows, he needs no protection other than he is able himself to command; but when population increases and men gather in communities, governments are instituted among them in order to make these individual rights secure; and then new rights appear, communal rights; for communities, as well as individual persons, have rights.

The necessity for government increases with the density of population, and the scope of its powers is enlarged with the extension of its territorial jurisdiction, the diversity of employments in which the citizenship are engaged, and the degree of refinement to which they have attained. The trapper, with his axe, knife, gun

forest disappears, farms are opened up, towns laid out, neighborhoods formed, laws become necessary, and government begins.

It is not necessary, however, that we should agree on the origin of government, for we know that, as a matter of fact, governments in one form or another have existed ever since the beginning of recorded history; and we know, further, that under the operation of these governments 90 per cent. of the habitable surface of the globe has been reclaimed from barbarism. The whole world is to-day virtually within the jurisdiction of regularly organized powers of government, international law is recognized and enforced as part of the general code of the nations, and the trend of the world's civilization is towards free institutions and popular forms of government.

II.

As to whether we are a self-governing people, the answer to this question depends upon whether all classes of the population within our jurisdiction share in the work of governing, or whether, as in the ancient republics, only a portion of the people are to be taken for the whole for purposes of government.

In any age of the world, the character of government fairly represents the state of the world's inhabitants at that particular period. That a people are not far enough advanced to form a government for themselves, and conduct its affairs in their own way, is not a reason why they should not have any government at all. On its lower level, government may extend no further than the will of an ignorant despot, who holds the tenure of life and property in his hands; but as men advance, they rise to higher levels and the sphere of government is enlarged. In the end it will, of necessity, embrace all human interests which are common.

The members of the Continental Congress, in declaring the cause which impelled the separation of the colonies from the mother-country, began the concluding paragraph of the Declaration in these words:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.

The words "good people of these colonies" included only such of the people as at that time participated in the work of local government, excluding those who were opposed to separation. The Tories -and there were a good many of themdid not approve anything that the Congress did. They were regarded by the patriots as public enemies, and were kept under constant watch by committees of inspection and observation in every county. They were subject to arrest and imprisonment-even to banishment; and in many instances their property was confiscated. The Congress surely did not speak in the name of the Tories, nor by their authority.

The Articles of Confederation, under

the provisions of which the Congress acted after March 2, 1781, recognized as its constituency only "the free inhabitants of each of these States." Slaves, though constituting nearly, if not quite, 16 per cent. of the population, were not reckoned among the political forces to be respected. Indians, likewise, were excluded. The Constitution of the United States opens thus:

"We, the people of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitu

tion for the United States of America."

But not more than two-thirds of the population were represented in "We, the people," and a majority of the two-thirds assumed the responsibilities of government-rightfully, as all loyal Americans believe. The machinery of the republic was set in motion in 1789, and the census taken the next year showed the total population to be 3,929,214, of which total number 757,208 were colored-mostly persons of African descent, who were nearly all slaves, and these, with the other disfranchised classes, as before stated, made up about 33 per cent. of the population that were not permitted to take part in establishing the new government.

Furthermore, when the Constitution was

submitted to the legislatures of the several States for their action, it was strenuously opposed in some of them, and received unanimous support in only three-Delaware, New Jersey, and Georgia. The majority in its favor was large in Connecticut and South Carolina, while in and in New York only three. The vote in Virginia the majority was only ten votes, five of the States stood thus: PennsylVania, 46 to 23; Massachusetts, 187 to 57 to 46; New York, 30 to 27. 168; Maryland, 63 to 11; New Hampshire, North Carolina and Rhode Island were two years in making up their minds to accept places in the Union.

So we

two-thirds (and that may have been in see that a majority of about fact less than a majority of the whole people) assumed to speak and act for all. The people of the United States have all along acted on that plan. We have gone even further than that. We have in some cases expressly authorized minorities to stitution provides that "a majority of determine the gravest matters. The Coneach (House of Congress) shall constiHouse may determine the rules of its protute a quorum to do business "; and "each ceedings." The Senate now consists of ninety members; forty-six is a majority, constituting a quorum. Of this forty-six, twenty-four form a majority, and although it is less than one-third of the whole body, may pass any measure that is not required by the Constitution to receive a majority or a two-thirds votea treaty, for example. And it is the same in the House of Representatives.

And, although a majority of the electoral vote is required to choose a President of the United States, it has frequently happened that the successful candidate was opposed by a majority of the voters of the country.

In the matter of amending the Constitution, a majority of the voters may favor any particular amendment proposed, but it must be ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures of the several States before it becomes law.

We not only have adopted the majority principle as a rule of government, but we have uniformly insisted upon acquiescence in minority rule in any and all cases where it has been so provided in advance.