The Kusko times., 1926-06-12

government. It was a tremendous benture, undertaken by ,broad-minded, able men familiar with the tribula- tions of democracies in past ages. They were seeking basic law for the government of a democracy, and when they got down to that task they saw that they must concern themselves chiefly with fundamentals. First, the framework-howt the country should be governed; the character and duties of it's executive. Second, its parha- mentary system, whether 1t should be a single chamber OF bicamerai,, and you will observe that they were care full in circumscri1ing and limiting the powers tffat should be given to the Congress, taking care ttiat the re- served rights of the people and of the States were not encroached upons Third, the Judiciary-and that was the least elaborated of them all, because they felt that the dangers of free gov ernment were to be found chiefly in the possible encroachments of the legislative and executive branches. They stuck rigidly to the fundamental idea that the Constitution should con- tain only framework of government, prescribing and limiting wit meticu- lous care the powers that were en- Ro sHe, ,rA, .n1.-r,chnc
 They studiously avoided the intro ductiom into the instrument of any thing in the nature of Substantive law, with the result that when the Consti- tuition was finally framed and submit ted to the Colonies great agitation ensued throughout the country be- cause they had failed to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
 . Great men of the day opposed 1t, among them Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton's opposition was finally quelled by a more careful study of the document, which, indeed, he under took to defend in the Federalist, along with Madison.
 The sentiment throughout the thir- teen olonies was that the organic law of the country should have stipulated specifically within it's confines re- affirmation of the Bill of Rights. A bill of rights has been characterized as contract between the king and his people containing the reservation of rights not surrendered to- the crown. Such was the Magma Charta which was wrested from King Jotln; an agreement that the subjects should be secure in their rights, in their Gb- Eerty, and in their property, enumer- ating certain safeguards. So likewise was the petition of right drawn from Charles F ln' the beginning of his reign, only to be later repudiated. But, mark you, the repudiation did not de- stroy the right. That survived all en- l croachments. Then there was the declaration of rights, which was as- scented to by the Prince of Orange in 1888, before the people would intrust him with the crown. For double se- curity it was afterwards put in statute form as an act of Parliament, con- monly called the Bill of Rights. But that, in my opinion, did not add one iota to its value.
 The basic covenants securing indi- vidual life, liberty, and property, the trial by jury, and the other safeguards | of the Bill of Rights were always con- !. sidered as the fundamental, unwritter law of England. King John anG Charles I did not violate written laws They violated the unwritten, basic law of the land. Tn England the un
 written law is the constitution, ant that constitution is the Bill of Rights Parliament can pass no law in viola tion of the Bill of Rights
 However, the sentiment for tine, in jectien of the Bill of Rights into oui Constitution grew apace.. They haC the experience of King John. anC Charles I before them and they want; ed the contract to be in writing" as it were. En many of the Colonies when the question was submitted, the assent of the legislatures of fthe Col