Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1900-02-02
SENATOR R. F. PETT|GREW
Arouses the Republicans With a
Patriotic Speech HE Holds
the Declaration Good.

TdlIIUtIG SpbtIII' '-'-n6 nuIuS -:
the Declaration Good.
The old doctrine of the divine right of
kings, of the heriditary right to rule, is
doctrine that we disputed and con-
troverted when we established our gov
ernment, and when we announced the
doctrine of the Declaration of Indepen-
dence. So proud have we been of that
discovery that each year we have cele-
brated the birth into the world of new
theory, new doctrine with regard to
governments; and four hundred con-
stitutions have been framed after ours.
So powerful has our example been
throughout the world that nations after
struggling to be free have adopted our
form of government. .,..
No nation, no people, in all time and
in all history ever impressed such q
powerful influence upon the human
race as this republic, and for this reason
alone, Empires have been established,
a trail of blood has been drawn across
the world, and vast aggregations Of
people have been brought under the
rule of an emperor or monarch since
history began but no people, no nation,
in the history of the world, has ever
produced such a powerful effect for
good upon the human race as this great
republic, and simply because Of the
doctrine laid down by our forefathers in
the Declaration of Independence,
Is it an old doctrine that all govern.
ments derive their just powers from the
governed? Some have said it was !
nursery rhyme, sung around the cradle
of the republic. The doctrine is new.
It was announced but a century ago, 8
day in the birth and life of nations, and
yet this great republic, boasting as we
have on each recurring celebration Of
the event, proposes now to abandon it
for the old doc,rine and the old theory
and the old idea of selishness. =.
The senator from Indiana (Mr. Rev-
eridge) says that the declaration of in.
dependence does not contemplate that
all government must have the consent
Of the governed; that only those must
have the consent Of the governed that
we think capable Of self-governmenf.
Under that theory no people In the
world are capable of self-governmsnt,
unless they first get onr consent that
they are fit to give their consent to
form of government which they wish to
set up The senator from Connecticut
(Mr Platt) says that governments derive
their just powers from the. consent Of
some of the governed. Thus the SEN
ator from Indiana would extend the
doctrine of Imperialism to whole nat
ions of people while the senator from
Connecticut would extend the doctrine
of every nation and every people for he
declares that the consent of some of the
governed only be requird.
Thus we drift back to the divine right
of kings, to the doctrine that those who
govern shall determine who Of the gov
erned shall give their consent. Thus
construed, our glorious declaration be-
comes mockery and fraud. There
fore, when we meet each year to cele-
brate the Instruments birth into the
world, the orators of the republican
party will have 10 explain It's meaning,
and tell the multitude that our notions,
our opinions of the declaration have
been wrong for hundred years.
Lincoln in his speech at Springfield,
on June 20. 1857, thus defined his no.
tions of the Declaration of Independ
ence
In those days our Declarat ton Of Inde
pendence was held sacred by all, and
thought to include all: hut now, to aid
in making the bondage of the negro
universal and eternal, it is assailed and
sneered al, and construed. and hawked
at, and torn, till, if its trainers could
rise from their graves they could not
at all recognize it. All the powers of
the earth seem rapidly combining
against him, Mammon is after him,
ambition follows, philosophy follows,
and the theory of the day is fast follow
ing the c,y. I think the auth
ors Of that notable instrument intended
to include all men; but they did not
intend to declare all men equal in all
respects They did not mean to say all
men were equal in color, size, intellect.
moral developments, or social capacity.
They defined with tolerable dis'inctness
in what respect they did consider all
men created equal-equal with certain
inalienable rights, among which are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happi-
ness. This they said, and this they
meant. They did not mean to as
sert the obvious untruth that all
men then actually enjoying that equal
ity, nor yet that they were about to