# The American Democrat/On Republicks

ON REPUBLICKS.
Republics have been as liable to frauds, and to departures from their professions, as any other polities, though no government can properly be termed a republick at all, in which the predominant authority of a single hereditary ruler is acknowledged. In all republicks there must be more or less of direct representation, however much its influence is lessened by the duration and by the magnitude of the trusts.
Poland was formerly termed a republick, because the kingly office was elective, and on account of the power of the Diet. At that time any member of this body could defeat a law by exclaiming in Latin, Veto, (I forbid it,) from which usage the word veto has been ​adopted as a substantive, in most of the languages of christendom, to express the same power in the different executive rulers; which it is now common to term the "veto-power." The exercise of this right was found so inconvenient in practice, that, at length, in cases of gravity, the nobles of the Diet would draw their swords, and menace the dissenting member with death, unless he withdrew his "veto." As a negative authority often has the efficiency of that which is affirmative, it is scarcely possible to conceive of a system in which the will of a majority was less consulted than in this.
The republick of Venice was an hereditary aristocracy, as, in a great measure, was that of ancient Rome. The term, in its true signification, perhaps, infers a free government, for it means a representation of the general interests of the state, but, as in practice, this representation became confined purely to the interests of the state, and the state itself was under the control of a few who did not fail to turn their authority to their private advantage, the system has oftener resulted in abuses than even that of monarchies. The profession of a free government, in which the facts do not frankly concur, usually tends to gross wrongs, in order to conceal and protect the frauds. In Venice, such was the jealousy and tyranny of the state, that a secret council existed, with an authority that was almost despotick, while it was inquisitorial, and which was removed from the usual responsibility of opinion, by an expedient that was devised to protect its members from the ordinary liabilities of common censure. This council consisted of three nobles, who held their office for a limited period, and were appointed by drawing lots, each person concealing the fact of the lot's having fallen on himself, until he met his associates at an appointed place. It is an ​extraordinary fact, that the same expedient was devised to conceal the murderers, in the well known case of Morgan, who fell a victim to the exaggeration and weakness of some of the members of the Masonic Fraternity.
By examining the different republicks of ancient and modern times, it would be found that most of them had little more than the profession of liberty, though all substituted in thorn the right of the community for that of a monarch, as a primary principle. This feature, then, must be taken as the distinction between this form of government and that of kingdoms, or of the sovereignties in which one rules, or is supposed to rule.
Republicks may be aristocratical, or democratical; and they may so nearly approach both, as to render it matter of doubt to which class they properly belong; for the political combinations of communities, in a practical sense, are so numerous as almost to defeat accurate general definitions.