out freeing any slave, I would do it if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Other notable instances are to be found in the coöperation of Whigs and Democrats in the compromise tariff act of 1832, in the more general compromise measures of 1850, and in the patriotic course of the Democrats in the crisis that followed the disputed election of 1876. But it is precisely at such junctures as these, during which parties do work together to promote the national interest, that they are least like parties. Indeed, at such times strictly party ends are held in abeyance, and parties lose temporarily their most distinctive traits. As soon, however, as the crisis has passed they resume their natural character, and devote themselves to the ends for the sake of which they came into being. On the other hand, the readiness to sacrifice the national interest to that of the limited group which a given party represents always increases with the growth of party spirit; that is, when a party is most a party it is most ready to disregard and even to attack the interest of the people as a whole.

To sum up: the true end of party- the end, I would repeat, of which it is itself conscious — is, in ordinary times, to promote not the general interest, but the interest of a class, a section or some one of the many groups of citizens which are to be found in every state in which there is political life, an interest which is always something other and generally, though not always, something less than the national interest.

-

But why should the state be divided into groups with separate and sometimes conflicting interests? Why cannot there be throughout the nation one interest, one mind, one aspiration and one public policy, for whose establishment all shall work together harmoniously? Some dream of this, but not wisely; for the Creator has so made man that his progress

depends on diversity. A society in which all should feel, think and act alike would soon almost cease to feel, think and act. Such a society could not be composed of individuals; it would itself be the only individual. Instead of a rich, varied, continuous, ever-advancing development, it would be capable of energetic activity only when first created, and this would be followed by an exhaustion and lethargy from which there could be no recovery, because in its members the principle of life and growth would have perished. The health and progress of the state as a whole depends on the health and development of the groups of citizens which are its elements. To promote the health, to aid the development, to secure from the state for each group that degree of recognition and fostering care which are its need and due, - this is the not ignoble end for which parties exist.

In many ways the relationship of a party to the group of citizens of which it is the political representative, is like that of the state to the people of whom this group forms a part. In a general sense what the state undertakes to do for the people, a party undertakes to do for a group. To promote the national interest, that is, the interest that is common to all, is the immediate end of the state; to promote the group interest is the immediate end of party. In working toward its proper end the state organizes and protects the people and fosters their development; the party does precisely the same for the group. Each state in dealing with other peoples secures for its own as much influence, reputation and material gain as it can; each party in dealing with other parties does the same for the group under its charge. In early times no state recognized the rights of other states; the same is equally true of early parties. After many ages of sanguinary struggle states are rising to the consciousness of a world-unity and the obligations which this unity imposes on each towards all; the same has happened to parties. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the humanization of man- the noblest of all the fruits of progress - is more evident in the changed and changing interrelationship of states or in that of parties.

To give in briefest compass the substance of the views above set forth, I would say that, just as a state is the political selfrealization of a people, so a party is the political self-realization of a group of citizens within the state.1

1 The limits necessarily assigned to this article have made it impossible to treat with fulness any one of its several topics. Two of the most important, namely, the growth of parties through the substitution of a common policy for common principles, and the relationship of party to the state, have been introduced rather than discussed. Others, such as the analysis of party policy, the relation of party to government and the claims of party upon the citizen, each of which stands in a vital relationship to the theory, are omitted altogether.

I

III

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF PARTY1

N the life-history of a great political party there are five natural division or chapters: the first deals with its

origin; the second, with the period between organization and advent to power; the third, with its experiences while in power; the fourth, with its experiences while in opposition; the fifth, with the causes and circumstances of its dissolution.

The study of a considerable number of parties, conducted according to this plan, will show that they, not less than plants or animals, follow a certain course of development; in this development that the different stages of growth and activity are under the control of definite laws, and succeed one to another in a fixed order; that there is, in fact, a typical party life to which every party tends to conform, just as there is a typical life for each of the countless organisms of the natural world.

I. THE ORIGIN OF PARTIES

In the history of the United States there are four periods, each of which is marked by the rise of new parties. The 1 The Yale Review, Vol. II, May, 1893.

2 A pioneer in this line of investigation is Friedrich Rohmer, a Swiss. His writings on party appeared in their first form in 1842. They were afterwards edited and published by his brother, Theodore Rohmer, under the title Lehre von den politischen Parteien. Rohmer found a disciple and expositor in the eminent jurist and political philosopher, J. C. Bluntschli. The latter has embodied in his book on the Charakter und Geist der politischen Parteien a full statement of Rohmer's views. The substance of this book may be found in an English form in the article on "Political Parties," in the Cyclopædia of

first began near the close of the Revolution and terminated early in the second administration of Washington. It gave birth to two parties, the Federalist and the Republican or, as it was called later, Democratic-Republican party. The second period covers the years from 1820 to the beginning of Jackson's second administration in 1833. Within this space the Anti-Masonic and the National Republican or Whig parties were organized. The third period began in 1840 with the first appearance of the Liberty party in a presidential campaign, and closed with the formal disruption of the Democratic party in 1860. In addition to the Liberty party, these years witnessed the rise of the Know-Nothings and the modern Republicans. The fourth period began in 1876 and has not yet closed; thus far its progeny consists of the Greenback, the Labor, and the Prohibition parties, and the People's party.1

A study of these periods will show that the progress by which a new party is formed is the following: in the first place a considerable body of citizens becomes dissatisfied with the policy of the government and the policies advocated by existing parties. The cause of this dissatisfaction is that they have become converts to a new policy which promises to do more for the welfare of the state, or the welfare of the class or section to which they belong, or and this is always the case when a great party is about to be formed — for both the welfare of the state and that of the particular interests with which they are most closely associated. They then seek recognition and support for their views from existing parties; when, however, it becomes clear that these cannot be obtained, they organize and enter the political arena as a new party.

Political Science, Political Economy and United States History. The services of Rohmer and Bluntschli in extending, if not introducing, the study of party from a psychological standpoint are of great value.

1 The facts cited are taken almost wholly from American political history. The reasons for this are two: first, the home field is more familiar; second, the writer believes that party has attained a fuller development and has revealed its nature and tendencies more clearly here than in any other country.