not relate to the rights of individuals or of minorities. It was not intended to assert that "a man's property is absolutely his own, and that what he has acquired cannot be taken from him without his consent"; although such language was used by the advocates of the colonial cause both in England and America.' All men wish not to be taxed, and very few men give their consent to all their taxes. If no tax could be collected except what every man willingly consented to, society would be reduced to anarchy. Nor was it intended to assert by the phrase, "No taxation without representation," that all persons who paid taxes should be represented in the legislature that imposes the tax. The doctrine was formulated to vindicate the right of one class or estate in the realm against another, or to vindicate the right of one body politic against another claiming superior authority. However, it may be fairly claimed that the logical inference is that equal rights in taxation of individuals within a state should prevail. For, when we say that taxation and representation should go together, we clearly assert that all who pay taxes to the state should have a voice in determining their assessment and distribution. The controversy over these issues led to the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. In this great document, which Buckle calls "that noble Declaration which ought to be hung up in the nursery of every king and blazoned on the porch of every royal palace," our Fathers announced their theory of government to the world. The memorable words in which they then announced their principles of government should be stored in the memory of every citizen of America: "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that connect them 1 Pitt on American Taxation. Samuel Adams: Massachusetts Circular Letter, 1768. with another and to assume among the nations of the world that just and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent regard to the opinion of mankind requires that they should make known the causes leading to the separation. 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, among which 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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations in such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." This Declaration teaches: 1. That men have rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 2. That governments are instituted for the benefit of the governed, to secure and protect these rights of men. 3. That these governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." 4. That whenever any government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to overthrow it; and when the people have overthrown a perverted government, it is their right and duty to establish a new government on whatever principles and in whatever form will ensure the public safety and happiness. 5. That, under law and government, and in the protection of these rights, "all men are created equal. These principles were announced as self-evident,—as if they had only to be stated in order to be accepted. Yet, perhaps, no political platform of equal length in all human history has been the subject of greater controversy and dispute; and no statements have been more 1 Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. persistently misunderstood and misconstrued. Some, false to these principles, have sought to bring them into disrepute by a false and literal interpretation. Others, lacking an intelligent conception of their meaning, have been too easily disposed to reject them as untenable. It is important that the children should know what the Fathers believed, and they should be ready, if need be, to defend those beliefs. In order to do this and to repel the constant attacks upon the famous Declaration of the Fathers and to expose the frequent perversions and repudiations of their principles, it is necessary to know what our Fathers really believed. In approaching this subject it is important to bear in mind that in politics, in the practical business of governing, there are no political policies and programs suitable for universal application. A proposition in politics depends for its truth upon the sense in which it is intended, or, often, on the circumstance or relation to which it applies. We may assert that a republic is the best form of government, or that manhood suffrage should prevail, that the majority should rule, and that self-government should be established among men. These things may be true for us and for many other peoples. Our fathers believed that some of these things were true for them and for their children; but no one has ever maintained, and the Fathers of this Republic should never be accused of maintaining, that these statements were universally true for all peoples, in all times, and under all circumstances. This is not to say that there are no political principles that are fixed and abiding, or that a nation's principles should depend upon its circumstances. Politics is a part of man's life and in man's life there are principles that are divine, that proceed from the very nature of God and man, and that are, therefore, absolute, eternal, and unchangeable. Times may change, and men may change with them, but principles do not change. In spirit the principles of our fathers abide, and they are the same to-day as when they were announced in 1776. "The letter killeth, the spirit maketh alive." It is not the form but the spirit of truth that is eternal. It is the political spirit that controlled the political lives of the Fathers that we must seek. Political Doctrines are Relative. of Government is an Historical Science. This is quite consistent with the recognition of the fact that political doctrines are to be studied in relation to their times; that political doctrines are relative; that in order to see whether they are true or false it is necessary to see them in relation to the doctrines that they oppose; that the science of government, if it be not "the science of circumstances," as Burke has defined it, is at least an historical science- The Science that is, its premises have their foundations in experience. The political principles that our fathers announced were not spun out of their heads; they were not evolved from the inner consciousness of some philosopher shut up in a closet: but their principles came out of their lives, were evolved from their experience and from the circumstances in which they were placed. They must, therefore, be studied and fairly interpreted in relation to this experience and history. History teaches us how these principles came to be, and if we wish to know their meaning we must know them in their development and in their cause. It is only in this way that we can come to know the sense and spirit of a body of principles. To attempt to express one's principles in a maxim and to offer this maxim as of universal application, is not a scientific or sensible process in government. To affirm a political proposition absolutely; to assert positively, once for all, for illustration, that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," would be as unwise as to deny this absolutely. Not absolute maxims, but the principle underlying the maxim is what we should seek. Bearing these things in mind, we may come to the arti cles of political faith which our fathers announced and not hesitate to accept them when truly and fairly interpreted. I. Men have rights.—It would be unprofitable here to go into a discussion of the theory of natural rights. Our fathers thought very little of pure theory in Men have politics and we should theorize as little as they. It is sufficient to ask,- What were the two opposing practices on this subject which confronted our fathers as the outcome of their historical experience? On what opposing policies did they base their doctrine? (1) One view insisted upon the absolute authority of the sovereign, declaring that no rights can exist in opposition to the sovereign's will. Absolutism vs. Rights of Man. (2) The other insisted upon certain natural rights of individuals which the sovereign can never legally infringe. Divine Rights of For more than a century men had been in contention over these theories. The defenders and apologists of the royal power in England had taught that all men were born under the necessity of submitting to an absolute kingly government; that he that had the power had the right; whether he came to his place by election, inheritance, usurpation, or any other way, the persons and estates of his people were subject to his will, and none should oppose that will. To fight against that will was to fight against God, for all powers that be were ordained of God Obedience. and the king was God's anointed. James I. voiced the idea of kingly absolutism: "As it is atheism and blasphemy in a creature to dispute what the Deity may do, so it is presumption and sedition in a subject to dispute what a king may do." After the Revolution of 1688 the Church and all the royal party continued to teach that the king's right was divine, different not only in degree but in kind from every other power in the state; that resistance to him was in all cases a sin. On |