Year: 1871




At Sandusky, July 4th, 1877,
he


re 1t affords me the sincerest pleasure
meet my fellOw-citiZens on an OccasiC
IL of this kind. 1t is refreshing for us o.


casionally to escape from party contes
he and party feeling, and meet upon Il


platform of common patriotism.


The great historical fact to which OF
ir attention isinyited to-day is the separ;


ton of our own country from Gre:
Of Britain. 1t is the fixed opinion of I'll


American people, an opinion in which
.e fully share, that certain great advaI


fages were secured to us by that separs
.e ton. Let US consider anew to-day whs


those advantages were. Such reviel


will have a tendency to renew our al
Is tachment to the great principles upo


which our Government is based, and [
r revive our gratitude to Almighty Go


for His Providential goodness. Man
= of our political blessings we receive a


We do light and air. They are so com
v mon and we have enjoyed them so lon


that it seems as if we must have ha


them as matter of course. 1t is diff
e cult TO conceive that we could have bee


placed in a state of society in which W
g shorld have been deprived of them.


The great merit of our fathers in tn
o solemn act which they performed nine


ty-tive years ago to-day, was that the,
r disconnected us from a certain politica


system, and left us free to choose an,


form all our institutions anew. Th
t system from which they severed lbs ma,


be described i'm general terms as one il
e which government exists and is carriet


on for the benefit of few privileged
, orders. The system which they estab.


lished in its place may be described a
one in which government exists for tn,


benefit of the great mass of the people


When we turn to the literature of tn,
! middle ages, whether practical or his


torical, we are surprised to find how
full it is of the praises of kings, prince;


and mobiles. You would almost suppose


that nobody else was then living upor


the face of the earth. The people seem


to be valued only as they could contrib


ute to the.power and the pleasure of the


titled orders. But when we pass from


this to our own Declaration of Inde-


pendence, and to the literature which
grew ont of it, and to the discussions


which it awakened, it is like passing


from sultry artificial gardens into the


fresh, grand woods of nature. 1t stirs
us like a blast from trumpet, or rather
it falls upon us like an inspiration from
heaven, to hear the words sounded in
our ears that all men are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, among which are life, liberty
and the pursuits of happiness, and that
governments were instituted for the
very purpose of protecting the people in
the enjoyment of these rights.


1t may be said that the aristocratic
system of England would in time have
been much modified had we remained
British cOlonists. That this. is true to
some extent subsequent history has
shown. But how slowly this progress
| has taken place. Our fathers were not
content with so slow growth. They
felt that they could not afford to go by
a Pennsylvania wagon when the light
ming express-,stood ready to take them
on board. They preferred to sponge off
the slate and begin their political record
afresh. They would not engraft the
thrifty shoot of freedom upon the de-
caying stock of monarchy. They chose
rather to set out anew the vigorous
young tree OF. liberty. even should they
find it necessary to water it with their
blood. -.7-'1-- ..-.-
1t has heen said that taxation without
representation and other grievances
were the cause of the war of our revO-
luton. This is true in sense, but these
evils were only incidents of a difficulty
which lay deeper. The truth is, the
American mind had outgrown the in
stitutions of Europe. You cannot put
the chicken back into the shell, nor
could the expanding spirit of American
liberty have been kept longer cramped
and crippled by the forms OF European
absolutism.


Let us now examine more particular
ly and in detail the nature Of this sys-
TEN of which our fathers relieved us,
for the purpose of contrasting it with
our own. To make the comparison as
far as possible we will contemplate that
system, not as it existed on the Fourth
of July, 177G, but as it exists at the
present day. Too much honor can not be
given to those British philanthropists
who have exerted themselves during the
last century to improve the condition of
the people. But their efforts, as we
shall see, have been attended with par
tial success. They are beginning to
discover that the difficulty is with the
system under which they live; that what
is wanted for the general elevation of
the people is peaceful reconstruction
of government and society. They are
becoming tired of putting new wine in
to old bottles. They find that they must
not look for grapes upon thorns nor for
figs upon thistles. Mr.. Disraeli was
right when he declared in the debate
upon the disendowment of the Irish
church, that the changes which the re-
formers of England are now demanding
are not in harmony with the central idea
of British institutions; that should their
plans be fully carried out they would be
a subversion rather than an expansion
of the principles upon which those in
stitutiOns are based. As we notice sew
eral characteristics of this aristOcratic
system, we shall discover that they all
illustrate and fortify the proposition
which have laid downfall the object
of that system is the good of the few
and not the good of the whole.


First-The first point which natural
ly attracts our attention as it did the at
eention of our fathers, is that OF an
hereditary monarchy. Among an in
telligent people the elective method of
obtaining chief magistrate would GER
tainly seem to be the natural one. On |
the whole no better reason can be given |
for the people having a ruler, than that |
they want him. 1t has been urged in |
defense of the English system that the |
government is really popular; that |
England is not governed by the Queen,
but by the ministry who are members |
of the House of Commons, who only |
execute the will of that body which is
itself elected by the people. But at best
this is a very clumsy system. Its clum-
siness might perhaps be forgiven if it
were not so expensive. but the support
of the Royal family costs the English
people $2,500O00 per annum, which is
the amount of what is called the Queens
civil list. This is exclusive of the
Queens revenue of $I46,0OO as Duchess
of Lancaster, and of the income of the
Prince of Wales of $276,0OO as Duke OF
Cornwall. But after all the great OBJ
lection to an hereditary monarchy, is
that it is the keystone in the arch of the
priviledged orders. Its maintenance
implies the support and perpetuation of
the whole aristocratic system. lows /


Seeond-Another feature of that sys-
TEN to which our fathers objected was
that of an hereditary nobility with laws
of primogeniture and entail. BY the
law of England. If rich landowner
dies intestate, his estates become the
property of the eldest male relative in
the nearest degree of kinship, and pro-
vision is made by the same law for en-