how civil liberty was acquired, how, hitherto, it has been maintained, and what security there is for its future enjoyment. Our colonial ancestors had the idea of self-government, and they planted colonies, and organized governments for those colonies based upon that idea. Each colony governed itself and maintained substantial freedom within its limits until the revolt from Great Britain, and then each colony became an independent state, with all its own peculiar institutions. Each state was born an independent republic, with free institutions firmly established, and with a people habituated to self-government. All the different states were alike determined upon the maintenance of their separate independent governments, each for itself, and they did not consent to the adoption of the Federal Constitution until experience had demonstrated that there were certain matters which the states, acting in their individual capacity, could not properly manage. By the adoption of the Federal Constitution a government was created, to which was delegated certain powers, few in number, and particularly specified, while all other powers were reserved to the states or the people. The condition of the states was unchanged by the adoption of the Federal Constitution, except so far as it was effected by the loss of the powers delegated to the general government. In all other respects the states remained as they were left by the Declaration of Independence, free and independent states.

The coördinate operation of the state and federal governments has now carried us through the wear and tear of almost a century of time, and through the terrible strain of a tremendous Civil War, and we are still left in possession of civil liberty. The states are still left in possession of sovereignty as it respects local and domestic matters, while the supremacy of the federal government is still limited to matters pertaining to the general welfare of all the states. The division of the powers of sovereignty between the federal and state governments at the termination of the colonial period was a necessity. To provide for all the common defense, and for certain other matters pertaining to the general welfare of all the states necessitated the Union and the creation of the federal government, with powers supreme within the prescribed boundaries of its jurisdiction; while the existence of the states with diverse institutions and interests, and with pop

ulations diverse in origin and manners, but well trained in local self-government, and thoroughly resolved upon its maintenance, made it necessary to leave the state organizations untouched, and with full control over all local and domestic matters. Thus the union of sovereign states under the Federal Constitution was the necessary outcome of the situation. The expansion of the colonies, when separated from the mother country, into independent states and a federal Union was a natural and inevitable expansion; and the divided sovereignty, thereby created, is, and has been, the palladium of our civil liberties and the assurance of the brilliant future which we anticipate.

The states and federal government are mutual checks upon each other and mutual guarantors for each other. So long as either discharges its appropriate duties within its legitimate sphere, just so long will the other be sure to perform its peculiar duties, and to limit its action to such performance. The destruction of either would be the annihilation of our governmental fabric, just as completely as the destruction of either the planets or the sun would be the annihilation of the solar system. Experience has shown that the federal government is strong enough to enforce its legitimate authority, and that the attachment of the people to local self-government is strong enough to maintain the states respectively in the control of local and domestic matters. The average citizen always has a realizing sense that state authority is present to protect and to restrain him. The presence of federal authority is not so obvious to him. He ordinarily sees rights established, wrongs redressed and crimes punished in the name of and by the sovereign power of the state. Except in times of war, or some other public exigency affecting the general welfare, he rarely sees in his immediate presence an exercise of federal power. It is reasonable, therefore, to expect that the state would have a stronger hold on the people than the federal government, and therein lies the safety of the states.

When the great southern rebellion collapsed, and the hand of the conqueror had blotted out not only the confederacy but the rebellious states themselves, order was restored to the political chaos thus created through the subjugated people themselves. Their habits of local self-government, and their traditions instinctively impelled them to seek protection from anarchy and

misrule by restoring their old state organizations. And this they did, meeting and overcoming congressional legislation and federal bayonets with passive endurance. They reorganized their states under such regulations as their conquerors would permit, and were then ready to resume their places in the Union.

The exhortation of patriots and the teachings of political philosophers as to the importance of preserving the reserved rights of the local organizations will not materially lengthen their existence. States must depend for their perpetuity on the devotion to their maintenance which habit, discipline, tradition and education have planted in the hearts of the people. It is the province of statesmanship to study and to know what it is that assures perpetuity to our existing institutions; to do everything to strengthen and nothing to weaken the power that gives such assurance. The ruler in this country who would weaken the hold which the home governments have upon the people is no states

man.

However specious the pretence under which the federal government may interfere with the local affairs of the state, it is a step in the wrong direction. It is a step towards the abolition of home government and the establishment of a consolidated empire. When once these United States are transformed into a consolidated empire, the strong arm of a despot will be the only power that can maintain territorial unity. Superficial reformers, one-idea philanthropists, are apt to be constantly seeking to carry out some specious reform in a sweeping manner by forcing the federal government to encroach on the reserved powers of the states, and to exercise authority outside of its appropriate jurisdiction. The spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution ought always to be observed. The people ought always to see matters pertaining to the general welfare of all the states regulated by the federal government, and matters of a local and domestic character regulated by the states.

At the present time there are reformers who propose to wipe out ignorance from among the masses of people throughout the whole country by donations to be made by the federal government to the different states, according to the degree of illiteracy in each. This proposition is a proposition pernicious in principle, inasmuch as by its terms it offers the largest reward to the great

est ignorance. It is a proposition in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the constitution, inasmuch as it proposes to have the federal government interfere with the masses in the different states. There can be no good objection to the establishment of a grand university by federal authority, upon federal territory, where all learning and science may be taught to the ingenuous youth of all the states, as was contemplated by the fathers of the republic. The creation of such an institution might well be regarded as within the scope of the powers granted to the federal government and as a judicious exercise thereof. But for the federal government to interfere with the education of the masses of the people in the different states by irregular and unequal donations cannot be otherwise than mischievous in every aspect of the matter. Better, far better, it must be to leave each state to do its own work of education, stimulated by that spirit of emulation which it is reasonable to suppose will always animate coequal states. It is certainly to be hoped that the peculiar structure of our government will be remembered whenever this measure and kindred measures are considered.

No good can come from a violation of the Constitution in any particular. Any apparent advantage thereby gained is much more than counterbalanced by the bad precedent established and the consequent relaxation of the restraint imposed by all constitutional limitations. Civil liberty will remain with us while the Constitution is obeyed, while the federal government is restrained to the use of its delegated powers and the states are maintained in the independent exercise of their reserved powers.

At the present time the tendency is to an undue expansion of the power delegated to the federal government, and an undue contraction of the reserved powers of the states. The thoughtful patriot will anxiously seek to check this tendency, and to hold the federal government and the states in their respective positions as fixed by the constitution. He will remember that the United States are what their motto, E Pluribus Unum, implies-one, so far as the federal government can act, but many and independent of each other so far as the individual states can act.

493114

THE ISSUES AT STAKE IN THE STATE CAMPAIGN.

(From the Riverside Monthly, October, 1890.*)

I have been invited to make a statement of the ground on which the Democratic party will act in the coming election, and was informed that Mr. Chandler would make a similar statement for the Republican party. In responding to this invitation I can only give the political theories and principles of the Democracy as expounded by the early leaders, Jefferson, Madison and Jackson, and ever since acted upon by the party, and discuss their application to the measures now before the people for consideration.

The Democracy believe, first, that all governmental power ought to be limited by the most narrow bounds consistent with the safety of the public; that the individual ought to be free to be a law unto himself, and that the scope of his action and judgment ought always everywhere to be enlarged, saving and excepting that he must not trespass on his neighbor; that the people are sovereign; that they retain in their own hands all the power that they have not delegated either to the state or federal governments; and that those governments were ordained by the people for the people, and may be altered or abolished by the people in their own good pleasure.

The Democracy believe, secondly, that the fundamental laws by which the people have delegated certain power to the federal government, and certain other powers to the state governments, while retaining all powers not so delegated, must be scrupulously observed; that in administering both the state and federal governments the original plan by which those governments were framed should be remembered.

These ideas have guided the Democracy in their action upon public measures. The party opposed to the Democracy since the foundation of the government, under all the different names

*The publication of the Riverside Monthly was commenced in October, 1890, by Alpheus Sherwin Cody, a native of Michigan, then proof-reader for the Republican Press Association, the first issue containing, aside from other matter, this article by Mr. Bingham, and the one by Mr. Chandler to which Mr. Bingham alludes in the opening. Only three numbers appeared, publication being suspended after the December issue. Mr. Cody is now a Chicago author and publisher.