Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1835-09-17

Law ana the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES WIN al
written codes and all popular representation
and render our future history a record OF
perpetual and miserable conflicts between
Anarchy and Power.
Mr.. Parsons Pm BETA KAPPA GRAFTON
On the day after the anniversary Of the Phi
Beta Kappa Society at Cambridge, We spoke
ofthe qualification with which a numerous
audience listened to the ingenious discourse
of Mr.. Parsons. 1t is now in the power of
the public to Judge oft for themselves. 1t is
handsomely printed by Messrs. Russell, obi
orne, & Co., and we are happy to be able to
lay an extract from it before our readers:
[Roston Patriot.
The character of our institutions imposes
upon all who are capable of diffusing truth, a
peculiar duty, from the fact that the actual
working of these institutions gives rise and
force to peculiar errors and falslties, which
could scarcely exist elsewhere. For two
generations, too many Of our asplrants to Of
fee and lovers Of popularity, have been adj
dressing to the people-in whose hands lies,
under Providence, not the power only, but
the destiny this country-most sweet, most
grcgate, are now told, constantly and habitu-
aGy, by almost all who speak to them, not of
their sovereignty only, but of their intelli-
gence, and purity, and worth. The common
mode of addressing them is, to suppose that
they, the people, cannot err; and every party
tells them that whatever there be of wrong in
the land, comes from the mischevous influ-
ence Of the opposite party, and that to correct
the wrong, nothing more Is needed than that
the people should cast this influence aside
and be themselves. Aud as the dnlled palate
gets cloyed with sweets, the adulatlon must
be gro-ser, and yet always grosser, or 1t falls
of its reward. 1t would seem as if the dan
gers and delusions which in all ages have be-
set sovereignty, cling to it even here. We
have here no monarch save the sovereign
people. But is it more q maxim Of the coun-
try which our fathers left than of that which
they founded, that the King can do no wrong?
We have here no monarch but the sovereign
people; nor can they be told Of this too Of
ten, if they are so told Of it, as to awaken not
a consciousness Of power only, but sense
of duty, of fearful responsibility. But are
they so told of il In the melancholy his
tories of the decline of the kingdoms and EN-
pires of old, no pages bear more saddening
record than those which describe the Ian
guage with which their sovereigns were ap
preached, and the falsehoodS which surround
ed them. We pity the unfortunate exposed
to these delusions We feel instinctively
that human nature could not withstand them
Are not the same things now addressed to
the sovereigns of this country? What diff
ference is there, excepting that then, they
were addressed to individuals or to families,
and now, to masses? Is there III this DIFF
ference enough to justify the practice I;
enough to allay our fears of its effect? Do
reason, do experience permit us to believe,
that individuals, by the mere fact of associa-
ton, are at once ripened unto perfection, and
so exempted from that need Of restraining
and correcting influences, which belongs to
humanity? Not so, not so. And the con-
stant, emphatic assertion Of this lnfallibility
of the people, as it has no foundation in fact
or in reason, 80 it cannot be without actual
and most injurious consequences; and these
as believe, are already beginning to devel-
ope themselves. Already the most fatal er-
ror which can exist in republic, prevails
throughout this land. Already it has become
the common feeling-not the declared, assert
ed, defended doctrine, but the common, the
prevailing, the practical feeling,-that in a
republic, the will Of the people makes the
right.
This is not merely an error it is the very
opposite of the truth. The true idea of re-
public is, not that the will Of the people
makes the right, not that might is right, but
that no earthly power can or should control
the people, in their inquiry as to what is right.
Do seem to make distinction without a
difference? How would it be, in the case of
an individual, who found himself liberated by
any favorable circumstances of position or OF
fortune, from the restraints and necessities to
which most Of Us submit? Would it be the
same thing to his neghbors, to the communi-
ty, to himself, whether, OIL the one hand, he
regarded whatsoever gratified his own will,
as, for that reason, right and fitting for him
to do, or, on the other, looked higher than
his wishes, and far above his passions, for a
guide, and gladly heard and obeyed the COM
Inands of justice and of truth Is there not
between these two principles, these two
modes OF conduct, difference as wide as
that which separates all that is good from all
that is evil? But what have said ofthe in.
dividual, which is not true, and true for the
aame reason, ofevery individual, of the whole
of the people? May not carry this annlo-
KY yet farthar? IIe who learns what is right
only from his own WILL aud makes his CON
science bow down before his passions, must
soon find that the law is at hand, 10 restrain.
perhaps to punish and that his abused lib.
erty has gone from him, because his abuse OF
1t made 1t Incompatible with the common
good, aud with his Own. So must IL be with
people. There should be 10 earthly mus
ter, there need be none, there will be none
so long as the people consent that the truth
may determine Tor them what is right 81
long NJ they acknowledge the Truth for their
sovereign. But we must hold that riybt is
separated from wrong only by an arbitrary