Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1895-12-11

with these conclusions and seemingly denies the existence of any right to lib- erty on the part of the citizen and sub stantially contends that no man has any rights except those which are e1 pressly conferred upon him by dis gov ernment. Governments are divided into monarchies, aristecraeies and democ- racies. It by no means follows that the form of government that is best under one form of circumstances is best under another. A given state may be acting with the highest zeal to change it's form of government with changing circum stances. Because state has had cer- tain form of government which is re- publican, for example, for series of years, is not q sufficient reason why it should continue that form. It may easily happen that when the cirenm stances and relations of men grow more como to vary greatly in nationality, ed ucation and religion, departure from the original form will far more effectually promote the general well be- ing. It is reasonable to expect that where the state becomes more densely populated the conditions of life more severe, the relations of the people to one another and to other states more intri- cate and complex, the less will become the number proportionately who are ca pablo of deciding what measures are best for the state or what form of gov ernment is best to carry them into exe- cution.
 After the announcement of this ex- traordinary theory he then further says: 'The right of every member of the state to have voice in the selection of the form of government is not an inherent right. Tho doctrine that all persons have an inalienable right to participa- tion in government is one of those base- less eighteenth century doctrines that cannot be otherwise justly character ized than as pure fctions, although strenuously advocated by the leaders of the American and French revolutions. And this from a professor i'll an Amer ican college. He then goes on as follows: : 'The fact is that universal suffrage is as great a crime as the so called doctrine of inalienable rights. With these re- markable ylews of government it IS no wonder that few pages on ill his book he denies that the best government is that which governs the least. l."
 MT. Hill said tho professor erred be- cause he ignored American doctrines of political equality of all men and denied the existence of the natural right of American men to govern themselves. MT. Hill, in relation to the professor B intimation that this country would soon have to adopt different system of gov ernment said: ssI repudiate such lntl- nations, predictions and arguments. z In monarchy or aristocracy liberty l is fettered, and the peoples participa- tion in rule is either restricted, limited or wholly forbidden. Theodore Parker we'll expressed the thought am endeav- bring to convey when he said:
 !" That is what I call the American idea--a government by all the people, of all the people and for all the people.
 This principle of freedom in this or
 ganization of government, in the first
 instance, of alienable rights, which is only another name for natural or inner ent rights, assumes their possession by l the people, while Professor Hoffman contends that they have no place and | are entitled to no conside deration III the l For,,f,.i7 6f 0nx6x1i1 i1aeistG. but may Dc