The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1873-05-18
The Democratic Principle.


ticle under the above caption, in which the
writer takes despondent view Of Demo
cratic experience. His great objections
seems to be directed to what he assumes to
be tho " Dem ocratic principls a. asserted
by the Congress of '76, when it declares
that Governments DERIVE TRElR JUST
POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE Gov
ERNED."
The writer accepted THE in his younger
days rs the orthodox political gospel, and
Gays:
that, In order to secure wise and just govern
ment, all We had to do was to remove all re-
ssrictions on the free and full expression OF the
popular will. and to leave tho people free to
Tho defects Of bad legislation to which could
not shat my eyes, attributed not to democ-
racy, but to the fact that the democratic prin-
cipis was obstructed, and tho will of the peo-
pie could not have its free and full expression.
His present view of the Congressional
dictum above quoted, is however, very
different. He says:
They thus declared that governments origi
nate in convention, and that law derives It's
force as law from the will of those it is to
bind. This asserts the purely human origin
of government, and rejects all law epjoined by
any authority above the people. 1t denies the
right or authority of any government to COM
mapd, for no such right or authority can be
created by any convention or agreement; 1t
denies, also, all law that restraints the will of
the governed. That the law binds only by
virtue of the assent of those on whom it is to
operate Gallicans asserted in principle, in as
sorting that papal constitutions do not bind
the con science unless assepted to, at least tao
lilly, by the Church. This principle, which
reverses all ones natural ideas of government
aud law, the recent Council OF the Vatican has
condemned, when applied in the spiritual or
ecclesiastical order; and we see no reason
why Catholic should not condemn it, when
applied in the political and civil order. No
government that has real authority to govern,
can originate in convention alone
Here we remark that the whole opposi
ton of the writer is to the idea or princi-
pie that the authority of government can
originate in convention alone, that is in the
will Of the people, and is not controlled by
any fixed principles OF justice, nor amena-
BILE to any tribunal whatever. He says:
The grand objection to democracy then, is,
that it vejects the law of nations the jas gen .
tium, denies the rule Of eternal and immutable
right, and resolves eternal justice into more
! conventiopalism, and, if government at all,
| it is simply government of force, under
which, as we have seen in the foregoing arti-
Gle, might makes right.
This jus geatiam is defined by him in a
/ previous article, as follows:
! The jas genGmm was not simply the portion
| of Roman law common to all nations, but was
coincident with the law of nature, natural
right superior to all municipal laws, eternal
| and immutable, sacred and inviolable, and
held to bind the nation, not only in its inter
course and relations with others, but in it's
tire national action, whether relating to for
| eigners or TO its own citizens or subjects. Any
municipal legislative act in coutraventiou of
h.af uSO finn he n
be null and void from the beginning. UNJUST
laws" says st. Augustine, speaking as Roman
jurist as we'll as Christian theologian. are
violences rather than laws" The Romans
held the jus centrum to be imposed, not by
men or by the nations themselves by mutual
agreement, but by divine authority, aud there
fore binding on the conscience of the nation
| itself, and on the consciences of all nations.
| 1t was of divine, not human origin, and there
fore under the protection of the avengiug
gods.
We think that with these extracts, our
readers can sufficiently understand the po-
sitiou Of the learned reviewer. He pro-
tests afterwards against the superstition
that his objections are applicable merely to
Republics. The Democratic principle :"
of which he speaks may infect just as
strongly other forms of government, roy
al, imperial, aristocratioor any other. He
| says:
But we have singularly failed to make our
selves understood, if the reader infers that We
are defending monarchy or aristOcracy.
| 1t is easy to see that what we object to is
not popular government, but the doctrine that
| the people as the state or nation the orr
gin and source of all authority and all law.
that they arc absolutely supreme and bound
by no law or authority that does not emanate
from themselves. We call this the democratic
principle; but as the people are here taken in
the sense of state or nation, it may be applied
equally to any political order which asserts
the national will as supreme, and free from
all authority or law which does not emauate
from the nation itself. The principle is APP
piled in Russia where the Car, as represent
ing the nation, claims absolute autocratic
power ; it is applied in Germany in a more ab-
solute sense than in the United States, and is
the principle on which Prince Won Bismarck
suppresses the Jesuits and kindred religious
orders.
1t is the principle which inspires aud uEder-
lies the whole revolutionary party in Europe
1t is the liberty of the people, not from aris-
tocraOies, kings, kaisers, or arbitrary power,
bnt from all authority or law, that does not
enanate from the people, or from the nation,
aud therefore from q purely human source
TIL at the party is struggling for.