Year: 1871

incur the hazard of losing that whic


We possess in the struggle for greaI


er good.


The rule Of the majority is n recoa


nized rule of our governmental polio,
from the township to the Rcpubi,


II is TO be changed aud subverted b


The new system. All of our institr
lions have been framed on the basi
of the law of the greater part, and tn


wisdom of a change in so vital mat
ter, without perfect knowledge of it
value' may well be doubted. Thi
rule is found written in no Constitu
tion or frame Of government. 1t is


component part OF every society, AM
is coeval with the first forms of rep
rescntativo government When W
seek to trace lie history we end i
hoary with antiquity, and recognize,
and obeyed in all ages. Paley ground
government on the doctrine that Tia,
resolution Of the society is made III,
act of the Individual 10y setting ou
with the proposition that the uncon
strained consent Of all is given to b,
bound by the decision of The majority
Most other writers upon tho theory
of government base the rule upon the
consent of the minority deduced il
one form or another from the action
of the majority as the act of the State
Let it come from where it will, or de
duce it by coercion, consent or reason
from whatever premises we may as
sumo, no one doubts its existence, and
all submit to its authority. Mr.. JEFF
ferson, in his letter to Baron Hum
boldl, under date of June l3, 1917
most aptly states the rule thus:


"The first principle of Republican
ism is that the ler mgoriS parts is
the fundamental law of every society
OF individuals of equal rights; to con
slider the will of the society enounced
by the majority Of a single vote as
sacred as if unanimous, is the first Of
all lessons in importance, yet tho last
which is thoroughly learned"


"The American Revolution was
brought about by triumphant majo.
rity against the wishes and resistance
ofa formidable minority, and although
the Declaration ofIndependence bases
government upon the consent of the
governed, il is as well established as
any other historical fact that it had
not the universal assent Of the inhabi-
tants of the colonies The dissent of
the minority was deemed crime, and
in many cases carried with it confs
cation and personal punishment, and
to this day that dissent is held to have
been disregard of the duty Of patri-
otism, and a stigma upon those dis.
senting."


Judge Story succinctly declurcs the
law of this subject thus:


"Tho truth ~ that tho nnjarify nf
every organized society has always
claimed and exercised the right to
govern the whole ofthat society in the
manner pointed out by the fnndamcn-
tai laws which have from time to time
existed in such society. Every revo
luton, at least when not produced by
positive force, has been founded upon
the authority of such majority. And
the right results from the very neces
sities OF our nature, for universal con.
sent can never be practically required
or obtained. The minority are bound
whether they have assented or not ;
for the plain reason that opposite
wills, in the same society, on the same
subjects, cannot prevail at the same
time, and as society is instituted Tor
the general safety and happiness, in n
conflict of opinion the majority must
have right to accomplish that object
by the means which they deem ade.
quate for the end.


This rule Of our political society
has been of the very essence OF our
developmentand progress. The great
results we have attained have been
worked out by the will and power Of
the majority assuming to itself the
name ard the consequent responsible
ty of the State. The robust vigor Of
the erepublic, its energy and its vitality,
are the legitimate fruits Of power, ex-
crcised by majority, in the name of
tho whole, and by the consent and ac-
quicseence of the minority. The au-
thority of the people must have deci-
ded aud distinct expression. 1t can
only be through the representative
body, and there must be strength and
energy of purpose there. The very
nature of the thing, and our expert
ence teaches us that this can only
come through the political majority,
welding the power of the State. Any
other form may bring danger, and
possibly paralysis, at the decisive
moment. Under the present rule,
when well defined issues are presented
in a canvass, .he people at the polls
by their own action definitely settle
them, and their representatives have
but to meet and register their will,
whilst under the proposed system
those questions are still unsettled ;
men are elected who represent both
sides of the issue from the same locality
and the subject matter is RENTED 10
the representative body, where it must
still be settled by the majority rule
Is il not wiser TO accept the result the
people give, aud continue to recognize
their capacity to govern themselves
That concentration Of force which re
suits from the recognition of the pow
er Of the majority will be lost sight Of
and the magnificent spectacle Of an
entire nation wrought to the highest
point of political agitation, acquies
cling simultaneously and with dignity
in the decision Of the majority, will b,
merged in the reports Of represon
tative body, in Gaucing attcndanc,
upon their sessions, or in tho listlcsi
attention consequent upon the lack o
Individual interest in the contest


Under a government possessed o


written Constitutions, the questions il


regard to It's administration, vitalll


affecting the people, are necessarily


few, and at our periodical change


they become sharply defined, and tn