Year: 1867

Sumpiuary Laws in a Republic.


Whether it is wise to dictate by law the bill
of fare of the citizens table, the appoint
ments of his household, or the length of his
shoes, we are content to leave an open ques-
tion. But it is unquestionably true that the
objections which are most frequently urged
against sumptuary laws are not valid when
considered in relation to our modern, liberal
systems of government. They are particu-
larly obnoxious because of their supposed in
fringement upon those individual rights
which are assumed not to be included in the
delegation of power to the State which the
citizen is compelled to make when he be-
other words, they are branded as tyrannical
This line of argument is unthinkingly bOr-
rowed from reasoning formerly used, and
strictly applicable only in cases where the
power that imposes the regulation Is not
clothed with legitimate authority Under
despotism-whetber cunninsly disguised by
prefxing 'limited" or not-decrees restricting
the expenditure, or prescribing the deport-
ment Of the individual only share in the gen.
eral illegality of the governments illegali-
ty which vitiates all the constitutions and
laws created by it. Sumptuary laws occa-
sion more discomfort than others, because
man is SO constituted as to feel himself more
wrunged by an attempt to regulate the cut of
his coat or his rations of turtle soup or cham
payne than he is by statutes debating even
A. - l.
long as the Russian Autocrat made his pow
er felt only by abridging the political rights Of
his subjects, all was well but when, depart
ing from his normal functions as maker of
slaves, he undertook to say how the beard of
those slaves should be trimmed-then came
the revolt. ....u.5a-t t.s


But in a commonwealth there can be no
tyranny, no matter to what extent the law
may interfere with the domestic and personal
habits of the individual, providing always
that the seemingly oppressive enactment is
genuine expression of the will of the majori-
ty, promulgated through the legislative de-
partment of the government. A man may
subject himself to such regulations as he will,
but cannot be despot to himself The theo-
ry of our government is that the collective
will of the people is expressed through their
representatives. The democratic state acts
as one person, and to say that it is capable of
expressing itself is like contending that an in
dividual can lift himself by the straps of his
boots. The idea of tyranny implies the exist
enee of some external power that arrogates
to itself the control of affairs over which it
has no real jurisdiction.


1t is difficult 10 perceive how there can be
any bounds to the authority of the people,
acting as a unit. The only limitations must
be those embraced in the organic law-pledges
to the minority, made In order to induce
them to cast their lot with the majority in the
formation of a State-and the exercise by the
people of a sound judgment as to their own
interests. Even the constitutional bounds to
the power of the people are not by any
means insuperable, but are swept aside after
delay of sufficient length to enable them 10
nrocure an amendment in due form. In the
constitution OF Jnis ou~v--->-- of the limited
States there is nothing which may not De
modified. If it were otherwise there would
be the strange anomaly Of a people enslav-
ed by creation of their own. Such a case
actually existed under the Constitution OF
the United States until 1908, it being provid-
ed that no amendment should allow slegisla-
tion hostile to the slave trade until that year.


If it seems judicious to the legislature to
take cognizance of matters which are usually
left to the discretion of each citizen, it is GER
tainly competent for it to do SO. If the mi
norty are aggrieved, and believe that the laws
are not dictated by wisdom, let them enlight-
en- public sentiment, instead OF exclaiming
against the tyranny of the government. The
converse of despotism is not license but leglt-
innate authority. ha5 ba " '"