New-York daily tribune., 1843-11-17
What is the state


more earnest, more profound, in our day, and we
rejoice to see it. This question By what right
DO one set of men exercise authority over ano-
ther . demands deeper answer than has been
popularity given. The notion that community
of ten thousand people are bound to obey any one
or fifty of their number merely because fftyone to
fiftysix hundred of them command it, is clearly
untenable. For this community, regarded only
as an aggregate of individuals, whose supreme
law is the will of the majority, is made up OF
smaller aggregations, and in its turn composes
largcr-County, State, Nation-each with ma.
jority and will of its own, which may be, and
often notoriouslv is, at variance with the others
If the Popular Will, in this sense, is my sove.
reign to 1ohat majority is my paramount ale
glance due The Nation enacts a law; the
State nulhfes; the County, alarmed and dis
gusted at the collision and the imminent peril OF
carnage, seccdes from both State and Nation
what is the duty of the Individual citizen Shall
he obey which authority he chooses ?-or some
prescribed one Or neither? What is the dc
tate in the premises, of a pure conscience, an
enlightened understanding, genuine loyalty I?
These are questions not easily answered upon the
basis for Government affirmed by Goodwin, and
Paine, and the Journal of Commerce
Prof. Lewis assumes very different ieunda-
ton. He bases the authority of Government on
the VIII Of God, affirming the Family, the
| Church and the State, as three entirely indepen-
dent but Proyidental institutions for training men
to knowledge and fulflment Of their destiny as
spiritual and immortal beings. / am bound to obey
the State, not because helped to create or have
now voice in directing it-not because it is the
most perfect possible organism for securing justice
between man and man-not because it is Mon
archv, an Anstocracy, or Democracy-but be-
cause God has ordained Civil Government as a
means of carrying forward His infinitely wise
and holy designs, of instllling the idea and the
practice Of that perfect obedience to Law which
is the end of all moral training and enllghten-
mcnt, l must obey the State, because | was
born into or under it, and owe it fealty from the
necessity of my being may seek to reform, to
modify, to change it's Constitution, in accordance
With the principles and requirements of that Con-
body politic-this is not disloyalty-very far from
it-but may not lay unhallowed hands on that
Ark Of the National well-being and seek to rend
it in pieces and consume it, hoping that some
thing better may arise from the blood d-soaked
ashes of the venerated Charter of Public and
individual rights. The Law is not my slave, my
play-thing, but my master, and obedience is
solemn duty.
Prof Lewis maintains that the essential idea of
4 true State is that of commonwealth in which
Law rules. A monarchy, an arlstocracy, Il re-
public, may be based upon abstract Law, and so
be a true State; or it may permit the ascendancy
of individual will or popular passion, and SO be
despotisrn. The essence of Freedom consists
in the supremacy of abstract law over personal
suiN, whether the WILL or wills, of the one, the
few, or the many Ifthe ruler-whether mon
arch or a majority-be above the Law, then the
Goverament is despotism but if the ruler aud
ruled are alike governed by well settled, clearly
defined Law, then that State is essentially Free
one.
We have not room to follow the profound phil
developes his theory-we must leave this to the
scholars, the inquirers, who will carefully study
his treatise. We have dealt with results only
The Discoursets thoroughly imbued with the wis
dom Of Antiquity, and is fortified by continual re-
ierences to and citations from Plato, Aristotle
and Cicero.
Able profound, and instructive, this Discourse
certainly is-it presents important truths which
should and must be- heeded-yet it is marred by
faults which are not faults of style only. |,
evinces an impatience of opposition, contempt
of all contrary teaching and doctrine, which is
sadly mistaken in discussion Of topics so grave
and momcntous-a seeming acrlmony which is
out of place on such occasions, even within the
walls of Theological Seminary. The Professor
is quite too indiscriminate-too sweeping Fol-
instance, in his opening apology for his choice o
a suhject.-(p. o.
"When call theme political, let there be ap
prehension that would insult such audience as th
with any of the mere party slang OF the day"
Sir Professor, if YOU do not consider all the Po
litical discussion of our day mere party slang
this language is i'll chosen. If you do mean this
YOU are greatly mistaken. Every where, great
and vital principles are involved in and affected
by these party controversies--witness the Rhode
Island convulsion, the Right of Petition, Nuhii
| the Ncw-York and Virginia Controversy &c
&c, to say nothing of our Currency and Tariff
discussions. These must be very specifically
regarded by one who perceives of them nothing
but party slang If you mean only that con
temptible men will treat the gravest questions
contemptlbly, you should have spoken more
guardedly.
Here is an other passage equally hasty, which