The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-01-27
PEOPLES FORUM
Back to Rousseau.

To the Editor of The Virginian:
Sufficiently since the horrible tragedy in
the court of Carroll county there have ap-
peared in your columns several communica-
tons pro and con upon the subject OF capital
punishment The thought of these communi-
cations, based, 1t generally is, upon senti-
ment, traditional authority, and misconception
of the purpose of penalties for social crimes
and falling to consider the right and reason
involved, exhibit much confusion.
Whatever may be the right Of society to In
hict other penalties punishments for crime
has the State any right to take the life of hu-
being for any cause, or for any purpose
Man in a state of nature, Of indiyidualtsm
came to recognize the advantage and necessity
OF increased protection to himself and MS prop
erty by combination with his fellows. To secure
this protection he imagined that Intangible
soulless body, the State, and clothed that I'M
aginary body with certain rights and powers,
thus creating a social force representing the
aggregate OF individual force. To enjoy a lar
ger measure OF liberty, greater immunity from
injury by his neighbors. stronger guarantees of
the essentials of happiness, each man made a
concession OF some part OF his natural rights
and powers to the others, that is, to the state
in other words, he gave UP part of his per
sonai liberty in order to insure the enjoyment
Of the remainder "a new rights or obligahons
were called into existence by the creation of
society: the organized body simply acquired the
rights and assumed the duties surrendered to,
and devolved upon 1t by the individuals. The
will Of the State, the aggregate of the individual
Wills expressed in the laws be justified
only when ii Is the resultant of these conces-
sons.
The fundamental principle of every free
State is that the whole authority of government
rests upon the grant of the people, of the indi-
yiduals. In our own venerated charter of lib
ery. the Declaration of Independence, is found
a clear unequlvocal enunciation of that all
pervading truth in what is sometimes charac-
terized as a farcical statement that, Ito secure
these rights" Certain inalenable rights among
which mentioned life. liberty, and the pur-
suit mentoned), governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed II je m he observed
that the denunciation of those who so charac-
terize this statement relates not to the state
ant nd fha Tfa h11ff sha Fa~ ~1ea1
tence of observance. 1t Is a sarcastic character
zation- of the social hypocrisy that breaches the
doctrine with much stress but in practice
departs so widely from the principles upon
which the very existence of society depends.
That power begets usurpation and might makes
right in use, is demonstrated in the history
OF every government. Yet, even aftes. countless
ages of usurpaton, there be found among
civilized people but few men who believing,
like the war lord of Germany and the autocrat
of the Russias. in the divine right of kings will
dispute the truth that the very foundation of
all free government Is the neGation of every
right and power to the State that the individuals
constituting the State have not given it, and
that in order to determine whether the State has
the right or power distinguished from might
to do particular act 1T must first be ascertain
ed whether the individuals have that right or
power, and then whether they have surrendered
1t to the State. The authority of the State can
come from no other source. and any contention
that the people have conceded 10 the State the
is not consonant with reason. If the people have
nor conferred the right upon the State is not
the assumption OF 1t clear violation of bo h
the letter and the spirit of the social COM
pact?
But, for the sake of argument suppose we
admit that the individuals have conceded or
attempted TO concedc, to the s at the right
to take their lives. Is not the CO 1cf ssjon void
Tor want OF right in the individual? The indi-
dual cannot convey what he has not and the
state cannot acquire that ne cannot convey
The argument and conclusion may be EXPIRE ssed
IN the form of a syllog SIN. a form of logical
deduction most convinc ng to many minds:
All powers and rights of the State are derived
from the indiv.Gfal:
ne lnoiN oNat cannot give to the State
poWefs and = e that he h.ms If las not:
therefore The state has no lowers and rights
that the ind Y dual has not:
The individual has not the riett 10 dienose
r. own life;
~efcre the State has not the right TO dis
n life OF the individual
/ III il be admitted that men mas the right OF