The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-09-09

tons OF the State, thus defined. to the ownership
and control OF property, TO corporations, to
transportation and tn taxation.
l.
In defining the conception Of a State. Mr..
HOFFMAN begins by maintaining that neither
geography. ethnology, language. nor religion
will suffice TO determine its boundaries. He
does not deny that rivers favor intercourse, and
that mountains interrupt IL. But why. he asks,
should the Rhine separate States, and not the
Elbe and the Seinei Nothing but the course OF
history has decided that the Mississippi and the
Ohio shall not divide nations. while the st.
Croix and the Rio Grande shall do so. To a-
cept the dortrine that the territory OF States
shall always be regulated by natural bounda-
ries would occasion endless strife. A true state
cannot be laid out Oh the map once for all In this
arbitrary manner. Equally erroneous. in the
authors opinion. would 1t be TO hold that n divis-
ion into states may be adjusted solely with ref
erence TO race. No doubt, in ancient times. the
race idea played an important part in state
formation. AT Sparta and Athens all the citi-
zens were essentially OF the same blood, but
since the advent OF Christianity the case has
been strikingly different An EnglisIman OF
to-day is not u Briton, an Anglo-Saxon. u Dane.
or a Norman. A FrenchInan is neither u Gaul,
a Frank, nor a Burgundian. No one can accu-
rately distinguish how many races have inter-
mingled 10 form an American. To find a pure
blooded race we could not go even to
China or Japan. and should have TO seek IL,
IL anywhere, amid the jungles OF Africa. No
less untenable is the assumption that language
Is the proper basis upon which to difYerentiate
states. As Renan has expressed IL, Language
invites TO union; 1t does not compel it."
No country. perhaps, is more truly State than
Switzerland, although three or four languages
are spoken by its people. On the other hand.
England and the United States. although essen
TALLY OF the same tongue, are clearly not adapt
ed to form n single nation. While two people
may have the same thoughts, affections. and as
and still have no common speech,
they may, on the other hand. have far different
usages, feelings. and ambitions. and still speak
the same language. Neither. finally. docs re-
ligion furnish a standard Of State division. That
II Is a more potent factor in human history
than locality or race or language IL not denied.
Yet II II not powerful! enough to bind people to-
Bethcr into States. In order TO sec the absurdity
Df making religion the basis OF State formation,
need only 10 think Of the confusion and loss
that would result from dividing up the earth
INTO as many States as there are religious sects,
md obliging the adherents OF each 10 have their
separate territory and government. In our
lime we see IL continually demonstrated that q
Catholic may be a good Englishman. a Protes-
a good F~renchman, and an Israelite a good
What, then, Is Mr.. Hoffman's conclusion7 II ,
s this, that the true conception OF the State Is
hat OF n brotherhood, and that the ultimate
yrOund for the formation OF States Is the needs ,
II this brotherhood. There should be as many
brotherhoods in the world as the good !
the universal brotherhood requires. When
yer 1t Is clear that the good of mankind will .
be furthered by the breaking up OF old J
and the formation OF new ones. neither Z
Rhine nor the Alps nor Gibraltar nor the 7
treat Wall nor the coffin of Mohammed nor the !
hair of st. Peter should be allowed TO prevent \
We are warned, nevertheless. against the ]
rror of assuming that this doctrine implies that 2
ny people have a right to form a State when a
yer they please, or to attach themselves TO a
tate already in existence as they please. The Y
ight OF any particular community must always =
limited by the right OF mankind. The right '
form a new State or TO extend the boundaries 8
Z an old one Is perfectly justihable, provided y
he reign OF law and order over the earth will
Q fastened by 50 doing; provided, that is TO
that the civilization OF mankind will be most
ff~ectually advanced thereby. This conception 4
Z a state as an organic brotherhood makes clear I
nd vivid the true ends OF the State. The chief U
nd ultimate end TO which all other objects II
lust be subordinated Is the perfection OF the Q
motherhood, or. in other words, the bringing Of b
ian here upon the earth TO the highest degree r
Z civilization OF which he Is capable. The other 3
ads Of the State may properly DO regarded as q
he means for the attainment OF this ultimate a
Now the double aspect Of MI. Hofman's y
osition comes clearly into view. The perfec- n
on OF the brotherhood. he argues. can only be z
by bringing about the perfect 4
mon or the supremacy OF the brother "
God on the one hand and the liberty OF all G
5 individual members on the other. No state =
Q holds, can reach perfection, except as il real 4
es perfect sovereignty, and perfect liberty, 2
nd in this order. Any attempt. such ms the An n
-chists contemplate, TO reverse this order must "
with signal defeat. The first thing. then. u
the state TO do is to establish its sovereignty. 81
efore this Is accomplished there can be no D
made toward the civilization OF ia z
lbjeets- A reverence for law and a disposition 4
obey IL are the first requisites OF progress. and Il
State first issues out OF barbarlsm when The 81
,Ople begin 10 recognize this fact. The second II