The Washington times., 1901-09-29
~. -y||SxA -
1.[|'::1|!.:1I'j2IZt|.:t!|j..|(1|-:li DIR > .:!|j..( 1

reverence; but only as the expounder
of the written Word-the Word and
the Church were before him and would
be after him. and only to them was
allegiance given. In the New England
colonies this influence was dominant
Christ individualiZed men and endow-
ed them. He introduced a new stand
ard of valuation. That every man is
possessed of an immortal spirit of
equal value in the sight of God is a
leveling doctrine as well as an eleyat-
ing one. Caesar was to have the things
that We're Caesars; but the limitations
were very strict-there were things
that could not be rendered to Caesar.
The humblest of the kings subjects
was a brother to be loved as himself.
A king was a servant. The State bore
the sword for the defence OF inno-
conce. The ruler must answer to the
great King. So the divine right of
kings became the divine obligation of
kings"
Mr. Harrison, in the succeeding lectures
sketches the history of the colonies an
their relations with the King, and tn
,learness and precision of the narativ
situation which came to exist betwee
King and colonies as follows:
"Our forefathers Were wise, but very
practical men; not mere causists or
philosophers. They saw that an ad-
mission of the power of the Parlla-
ment to tax them involved the de-
struction of their liberties and the con-
fiscation of their property, and with
an alertness and courage that were ad-
mirable they resisted. They would
not admit the tip of the camels nose
inside the tent They maintained,
with much learning and with con-
vincing force. that the Parliament
1t. l.s u hiG- nr
that included pretty much every act
that affected them injuriously; but
they made no schedule of the things
Parliament might do They at once
boldly Joined issue with the parliament
tary declaration that it was author
lied to bind the colonies and people
of America in all cases whatsoever.
Possibly there were cases in which
Parliament might legislate for them
in an indirect way. but they would
not attempt general definitions; they
would deal only with particulars
with the concrete and not with the
abstract; they would see the proposed
statute and admit or exclude il. Just
what the powers of Parliament over
the colonies were was hard question,
and is still hard question for the
student of constitutional history.
There seems to have been no safe mid
die ground found between the admis-
sion OF full powers on the one hand
and a total denial of any on the other.
Satisfactory English precedents were
wanting. That taxes were grants to
be freely voted by those who were to
pay them, through their representa- o.
tives, was an established principle.
But how far general laws, such as
laws regulating navigation and other
general interests of the whole King
dom. might be made for the colonies
by the Parliament in which they were
not represented was not clear 1t
turned upon the question. how far the
principle that all laws derive their
sanction from the consent of the gov
erned was a part of the English con-
stitution, and upon the further ques-
tion, whether the right of English
men to have a voice in the making of
the laws that were to govern them
was possessed by the colonists.
Perhaps the following is a fair
summary of the colonial view, just
prior to the Revolution, as to the force
of English statute law in the colonies:
First, the general statutes enacted
before the institution of any Govern
ment in the respe ectiTe colonies were of
continued obligation there, so far as
they were applicable. This upon the
principle that such laws We're enact
ed by Pariaments in which the colo
nists. being then residents of ENGLAND,
were represented.
Second, that no later act of i5-rlia-
ment had any inherent validity Ia the
colonies; but that the supreme legisia-
tive power was vested in the colonial
legislature.
"Certainly this is the view of the
Declaration of independence. The
debate that preceded the formulation
and general adoption of this view was
long and heated. Particular acts of
Parliament were impeached on narrow
grounds; but there was no holding
ground short of the full denial of the
power Of Parliament to legislate for
the colonies. The Parliament was not
a representative body as TO the colo
nies; and system which recognized
the right of Parliament to legislate
for the colonies was not a represen-
tative system of government. A just
colonial system that should preserve
by suitable limitations the imperial
and general powers of Parliament and
reconcile them with free institutions in
the colonies was not possible to that
generation of Englishmen; and sys-
TEN of parliamentary government
without representation and without
agreed limitations was impossible to
that generation of Americans
1T will be noticed that very many of
the grievances, catalogued in the Dec
laration of Independence do not in
volve questions affecting the consti-
tutional or charter rights of the colo
MES. but rather bad and vindictive ad-
ministration, and so violation of ma
tural rights. The English government
verted the true purposes of govern
ment, namely, to secure to the people
the enjoyment of life. liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. 1t was not un-
lawful for the King to refuse his as
sent to laws. or to prorogue an assem-
b.v. But when these things were done,
moi In the exercise Of a Just discretion,
but vexatiously to deprive the people
of their rights or TO coerce them into
a surrender of them-to punish them
N Il
tive power was abused. This power
was not to be directed by whim or
malice; but, like all other forms Of
government, for the public welfare.
Protection was the condition of ale
glance; when the existing Government
did not protect. the natural right be-
came the supreme law The resistance
made by the colonies TO the stamp
tax, to the tea tax. and other asser-
lions OF the powers of Parliament. ma
turally brought on conflict with the
King and his Governors, and this con-
fict marched In the familiar and in
evitable lines-edict and proclamation
numbered against the town-meeting
and the assembly. The solitary and
powerless civil governor was re-en-
forced by ships anu soldiers, and the
town-meeting became "A training band;
1T only remained that these should
meet ana war was fragrant"
After this series of six lectures com
lectures and papers on various tonics
some delivered as addresses at Stanfor
and other universities some reprinte
from periodicals. The lecture delivered a
The University Of Michigan entitled 9TH
Status Of Annexed Territory and of II
Free Civilized Inhabitants is interestin
both in itself and in connection with tn
lectures on constitutional hiss Dry. TIL
stand which Mr.. Harrison TOOK on tn
subject of the government of the PhiIiI
pines and of Porto Rico is well known
and there are some forcible expressions {
his opinion in this lecture. He says:
Are the civil rights of the dwellers
on the mainland well secured against
the insidiousness of greed and ambi-
ton while We deny to the island dwell
ers, who are held to a strict allegiance,
the only sure defence that civil rights
can have-the guarantees OF constitu-
tional law? Burke saw In the absolute
powers claimed for Parliament, I'm the
American colonies danger TO the libcr-
ties Of Parliament itself. AS so often
quoted, he says: