New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-04-18

ject. They affirmed the right OF cluzen
to govern himself according to such rules
and by selection of such agents as the cltl'
zens should appoint. This doctrine was
by no means new. in Engllsh con-
stitutional history. 1t was 'ha'
for which Sydney had suffered
that all political power was in the people
We had always supposed that the consent
Of the governed" was signifed IN their
choice of q form of government. 1t had
seemed that in the right reserved and ex-
dressed in the same instrument that the
neople NAV reform, alter or abolish any
Government which may not meet their ap-
prevail; that majesty Of the people IN
voked by that great republican tribune OF
the people, Patrick Henry, was amply de-
fined, as it was securely guarded.
The meaning of the 'consent OF the gov
erned" was expounded by ten articles OF
confederacy and by the constitution OF
1889. 4 government, republican IN
form. was established. Is it supposed
with the consent of the whole people then
governed? Why, there was an immense
number of loyalists brought under the
new government. In South Carolina
there was a most numerous, respectable
and influential body called at that day
tories. The gallant patriot Marion, was at
war with his own fellow subjects, and
some Of his most brilliant exploits
were those in which he captured their
fine riding horses. rice scows and
other property, and forced them to
run under British guns for protection.
Now we must assume that these men were
oil reconciled to the republican, which
succeeded the regal form of government.
Provincial history shows even the contlSca-
ton or forfeiture of tory property. 1t
would not seem that there was universal
enthusiasm among all these citizens OF all
the colonial States, nor Of all Of their
descendants, in favor Of republican
government in the Union. We often hear
expressions of preferences for other forms
of government The consent Of these dis
affected tories was not asked to the adop-
ton Of the federal constitution. They
had the right to change the form OF gov
eminent if numerous enough to do so. or
to expatriate themselves if they preferred
another country to this, as great many
did. Another example Of American inter-
pretation was afforded by the Kansas
troubles. Al admitted that the people
of the Territory had right TO choose
for themselves the form Of State govern
ment under which they would live. The
question was whether these people had q
right to prohibit a mode of property es-
tablished under the code of some other
States, and guaranteed within the whole
jurisdiction of the United States as con-
tended for by one party to the contest?
The constitution of Kansas excluded this
sort of title, and was held to be govern
ment by "consent of the governed. No
doubt there was g. minority under that
government who still believed the ex-
cluded title valid, but no one ever con-
tended that because this minority so be-
lieved their obligation TO obey the law
was less binding. Nor was there known
instance where a citizen of the State Of
Kansas held on TO his slaves or the
ground that he had never consented to
the act of emancipation. Indeed itwould
have been somewhat a contradiction if
one who held person in bondage
should have contended that the
"consent of the governed was
essential to the validity Of either legal
Or constitutional contract. The meaning
then of the consent OF the governed is
this: y sovereign people in whom dwells
all political power assemblies to determine
under what rules they will delegate to
| agents the power TO govern them. They
ordain q government which thus derives
| its .'just powers from the consent Of the
governed" That is. the consent OF those
who made the government. With this
explanation the majority Of the people OF
State are governed last as the minority
are governed. The government Is not
limited TO an authority OYER the minority
It's authority extends over all the citizens.
The consent Of the governed to any law
enacted must be the consent OF the major
ity of the governed. Otherwise the law
would be repealed, or the government
altered according to the right reserved In
the American Magma Charta.
There may be mistake in a1pposing
this majority fixed despotisln. tor the
citizen who is in the majority OF one pub
lie question may be il the minority on
another. The citizen might be in ma
iority of tax resisters, and yet when called
on 70 carry that resistance TO Loodshed
he might prefer TO rat over 70 the miuog-
itv. The citizen might belong to the
Republican majority Of the State. and yet
if the acts of that majority were carried
to an injurious excess he might join the
Euinjfity in arrosting this excess. II is
This personal iutermixture OF the majority
and minority if Is this perpetual personal
passing .'tQm one to the other on al the