The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1917-02-01
jurisprudence
Paper Read at the Quarterly Meeting of the
Prison Chautauqua Circle
BY Mr.. w. A. S.
Continued from a st week)
Continued from last week.

Continued from last week.
In the United States the immediate cause
of the revolution against the government OF
this country as colony of Great Britain,
was the objection of the colonies to the
payment of taxes without consequent rep
resentation in the British Parliament. Con-
ditions in this country were not nearly so
serious, so far as actual physical welfare of
the colonies was concerned, as they were in
France in personal---very. days. The
germ idea of popular government however,
was identical with the French idea-that
class privilege should be abolished and that
each member of the state should have an
equal opportunity with his fellow citizen.
of rising to the dignity on any position in
the gift of the state.
Thus in France aud in the United States
today we have democratic form of govern
ment, in which the supreme or sovereign
law making power is inherent in the peo-
pie themselves and is exercised by their
elective representatives, sitting in general as
sembly.
We have seen that in every sovereign,
independent state there is a supreme law
giving authority, which body must have
priori power to enforce its laws. In an
unlimited monarchy the king makes new
laws by proclamation and these proclama-
tons always have behind them the armed
force of the kings army.
In countries however, where democratic
form of government has been established
new laws are made in two ways:-hrst by
statutes passed by the national represent
alive law-maklng body, in England called
the House of Commons; in the United
States ~ Congress-: and secondly by the
decisions of the Courts of law. Theoretic-
ally judges do not make new laws but
simply interpret existing laws and apply
them to particular cases. Inasmuch how
ever, as the determination of particular
subject of dispute by properly constituted
court of law, particularly where such de-
cision has been affirmed by the supreme
court of particular state, forever puts an
end to that dispute, it establishes a prece-
dent or rule which must be applied in all
similar cases in the future. And as it will
readily be understood that there are an in
finite number of cases decided by the courts
to which no act or statute passed by the
supreme law-making power is applicable,
| IL fol hot in IND Io 10
new laws, which have all the force and
binding character of statute law.
But it is not enough that we should have,
in an independent community a sovereign
law-making body, which shall prescribe
rules of action or conduct for its compon-
ent parts. Such body must be capable of
enforcing its mandates, otherwise its powers
are ineffective. The force behind these
law-making bodies in modern countries is
the army, organized under police powers of
the state. In Mexico at the present time
we have an example of the existence of a
constitutional, law-making body, which
under the direction of its president, Car
rama, is poweress to enforce the laws of
the country, by reason of the inadequacy
of its army. The result is that the entire
country is devastated and torn asunder by
revolution and the constitutional army is
not strong enough to restore order.
That the real effectiveness and vigor of
all law depends ultimately on the effective
ness of the armed force behind the law
making body, is we'll evidenced by what
happens in this country in case of riot or
serious strike disturbances. If the people
take the law into their own hands and their
combined action assumes such magnitude
that it cannot be controlled by the duly
constituted police power of the state, then
the governor calls out the local militia,
who have power, even to the destruction
of human life, to quell such disturbances.
And thus we see that within every indie
pendent sovereign state there must not only
be supreme law-making body but that
body must be in position to enforce its
mandates.
Law in general as outlined above can be
divided first into two great branches:-In-
ternational and what we might call Nation
al law. International law is that body of
rules and customs which regulates the in
ter-relations of sovereign states. Thus it is
a rule of international law that belligerent
state may stop the vessel of neutral state
and search them for contraband of war.
This is what is known as the Fright of
search, and the application of this princi
pie by the North during the Civil War,
when it stopped British ship and removed
several Confederate ENJOYS who were on
their way to England, almost precipitated
the United States in war with England.
These and similar rules are what con-
stitute public International law. There is
also a set of rules called Private Interna-
tional Law, which deal with the relations
of private citizens of one state with the pri-
vate citizens of another sovereign state. In
both these cases however, these rules lack
one of the most important essentials of true