The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1895-12-05

GTON A y VA NOE.
fa sy::l .'.-! v: ls sssiisl;on
righ;li ,.,.:;i \; II titIe,i< the Iiah of self
govtrElasGt d If..tIl.i I. 5Slt which cam
not be ,,t.a.gaiL.d away and except for
Just cause cannot be abridged or de-
stYoyed. Il is but fair that Ishould say
that these views, which IRE SO plain
and elementary and in my opinion 90
vital to every free citizen and free gov
eminent, are BY no means conceded.
but are vigorously antagonized IN some
very respectable quarters
Professor Hoffman Of Union college,
in volume recently published, entitled
The Sphere Of the State, takes Issue
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 ex-
pressly conferred upon him by his gov
eminent. Governments are divided into
monarchies, aristocracies aud democ-
racies II 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 its form
of government with changing circum-
stances. Because state has had a GER
tain form of government which is re-
publican, for example, for a series OF
years, is not sufficient reason why ID
should continue that form. 1t may
easily happen that when the circum-
stances and relations Of men grow more
complex and the people Of the state
come to vary greatly in nationality, ed
ucation and religion, departure
from the original form will far more
effectually promote the general we'll 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
pable of deciding what measures are
best for the state or what form Of gov
eminent is best to carry them into exc
oution.
"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. The doctrine that all persons
have an inalienable right to participa-
ton in government is one Of those ease-,
less eighteenth century doctrines that
cannot. be otherwise justly character
strenuously advocated by the leaders of
the American and French revolutions.
And this from professor in an Amer
lean college. He then goes Oh as follows:
The fact is that universal suffrage is as
great crime as the so called doctrine
of inalienable rights. With these re-
markable views Of government it is no
wonder that few pages on in his book
he denies that the best government is
that which governs the least. ..
Mr.. Hill said the 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.
Mr.. Hill, in relation to the professors
intimation that this country would soon
have to adopt different system of gov,
eminent, said: II repudiate such init
nations, predictions and arguments. y
In a monarchy or aristocracy liberty
is fettered, and the peoples participa-
ton in rule is either restricted, limited
or wholly forbidden. Theodore Parker
we'll expressed the thought am endeav-
oring to convey when he said:
I" THAT is what call the American
Sidea-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
the people, while Professor Hoffman
contends that they have no place and
are entitled to no consideration in the
forming of governments, but may be
accepted or rejected at pleasure.
H 'sThe fact is realized, and is deeply to
be regretted, that there is certain class
of people in our country, not large, but
eminently respectable, professedly
Americans, whose instincts, tendencies
and sympathies, however, are not with
our plain and simple free institutions,
but with monarchical forms of govern
ment. They do not love liberty for lib
erty s sake alone. They usually affect to
conceal their preferences. but they ire
sistibly crop out here and there. They
scarcely disguise their antipathy to the
plain people, sometimes called the com
mon people, but their admiration is re-
served for the peers, lords, tho earls. the
dukes and the counts Of no account who
dwell in foreign lands Applause. ]
They are primarily admirers of advo-
Gates of the British government, which
they seem toregard as perfect system.
They are constantly endeavoriEg to
shape American politics according to
the English pattern, exalting the social
political clubs where rank and social