the greatest part of that government, still under the dominion of a foreign sovereignty, which we have abjured and denounced.

In speaking of the in adequacy of the trial by jury to protect individual rights, it must be understood that reference is made to the jury of practice, and not the jury of theory. Were there indeed a real trial by jury, in which twelve unbiased men should decide any case according to their sense of natural justice, in disregard of all law, precedent or authority, such a tribnnal would be more conformed to the principles of our Revolution, than any judicial regulation ever yet made by nations. The perplexing and delusive study of law might be, in a great measure, forborne, and simplicity, uniformity and justice be the result. As no decision would be a guide for another, any error of judgment would affect but one case only, and would not be perpetuated. As the practice is, we have been hardly benefited by the change from being a king-ridden to being a judgeridden people.

If the principles of the Revolution have thus failed of practical results, in those parts of the Union where their operation is least restricted, and where they are most in unison with the spirit and habits of the people, how much more complete is their failure in those States, where, by the prevalence of slavery, they are utterly obliterated! In the domination of a comparatively few slaveholders over ten times as many slaves, and in their imperative influence over as great a number of nominally freemen, who, by their poverty and ignorance, are brought into entire sympathy with the slavemasters, we behold an aristocracy of the most oppressive and debasing nature, in which no trace. is discernible of the equal rights of men, which their progenitors, as well as ours, proclaimed to the world; and when we reflect that this aristocratic state of society has not only thus overwhelmed every principle of revolutionary freedom within its own pale, but, by political corruptions, has been enabled to extend its awful pall over other States yet exempt from that tyrannical institution, we perceive at once that our vaunting declaration of the equal rights of man to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," has as yet found no practical establishment in this Western empire.

But there is another circumstance which appears to close this question. The framers of our government, in their solicitude

for legislative independence, not only overlooked the tyrannical tendency of judicial powers, but the still greater imcompatibility with liberty, of military establishments. Having gained their independence by the supposed necessity of martial operations; having before them the example, not only of the States of antiquity, but of every modern community revolutionized into some semblance of republicanism by force of arms; and alarmed at the disorganizing developments of a new-formed, unsettled nation, it was natural that they should seek to provide for national defence and order by a vast military organization. It is true, that, in recollection of cases in which nominal Commonwealths have been overthrown by military dictators, they feared the establishment of a large standing army, and considered the liberties of the country more safe under the protection of a general militia force a feeling which yet prevails in the country; but the danger is directly the reverse. In an intelligent, vigorous, and widely-dispersed nation, sensitively jealous of their imagined freedom, there need be little fear that any commander or any army, however powerful, would be able to overthrow their political institutions by open force. The only opportunity conceivable for this purpose was in the case of Washington, after the Revolution, who was too patriotic to avail himself of it; and it is not likely any other man will ever arise in this land of conflicting parties so generally popular as to attempt it with success. The government of Great Britain maintains a large standing army, which in time of peace is principally employed as a police force; yet no Englishman has the least anxiety lest the organization of his government should be changed by military power: the late popular Duke of Wellington would have attempted it in vain.

The true nature of a military despotism does not consist in the mere presence. of a military force, however powerful, but in the principles on which that force is employed: these are two the supposed necessity of preserving order and protecting rights by force, and the supposed moral obligation of obedience to commanders, without any regard to the righteousness of the command. Any citizen cherishing these principles as truths, is already a willing slave to military tyranny, and may be made an instrument of it whenever called on by his

rulers for that service. When therefore these principles are confined to the officers and soldiers of a standing army, there is little danger from them to the rest of the people, as these forces are restrained from injury to them by the strictness of military discipline; but when as by a general militia system these principles are diffused through the whole community, every citizen becomes a tyrant over his brother citizen, when so enjoined by the caprices of his government; and the greatest evil of military despotism mental slavery is universally established. The proposition that free citizens may be relied on never to submit to political subjection, or to impose it upon others, is overborne by the imagined obligation of obedience in military service.

These views are not merely hypothetical. In many instances, where portions of the militia have been called out to suppress tumults of the people, they have come with reluctance, and under a delusive sense of duty: in the most of such cases, the people have been right, and the government wrong; and in almost all, the injury inflicted by the military on the rights of citizens even sometimes to the destruction of life has been much greater than could reasonably have been expected from the unrestrained violence of the gatherings they quelled. It may be safely laid down as a maxim, that whenever a mob is too strong to be suppressed by a numerous and well-organized civil police, the object of that mob is such as ought not to be put down it is the natural and never-yielded right of opposing governmental crime.

But it is said that the prevalence of these views would disorganize society; would destroy all government; lead to universal anarchy; expose all rights to violation, or protect them only by Lynch law. Such language is common in the mouths of our statesmen and judges, and given forth as self-evident propositions. They are not, however, self-evident; and, as far as we know, no shadow of proof of them has ever been attempted. They must go upon the assumption that the greatest part of the community are rogues and robbers, and are only restrained by the strong arm of law from general rapine. But if this were the case, no government could exist here but an absolute monarchy, supported by a standing force. The criminals

of a community should undoubtedly be restrained; but they are, in every country, and we certainly hope in ours, but a small portion of the people, and may easily be checked, as far as is now done, by the ordinary civil police of the government. No instance can be produced of any great combination, having in view the abrogation of the government itself by force, or the destruction of the rights professed to be protected by it. Whatever forbearance may be shown to illegal combinations, the laws against single criminals the only rightful object of gov ernment would remain as strong as ever.

Although the mass of our citizens are blind to this condition. of their country, intelligent men see and confess it; yet even with these, the language of justification is, "How can it be avoided? Where is the use of pointing out evils that are irremediable? All human institutions are necessarily imperfect; and the most that can be done, is to bring them as near to perfection as possible: this has been done in the formation of our government: it is the best that wisdom has ever yet devised; and certainly secures to us a greater measure of freedom and justice than any yet known in the world. Whatever may be the rigor of the laws on overt acts, we have still left to us the freedom of religious worship, of speech, writing, the press, popular assemblies, and social intercourse, untouched by the hand of government, and enjoyed to a greater extent than in any other land. Any change would probably be for the worse. Why not be contented with it as it is?" These representations, often made, are but partially true. Although our government usually refrains from violation of the rights enumerated, yet in many cases it fails to protect them; and in many instances, gives power to tyrannical individuals, who make these violations. The argument partly confesses, and partly denies, the proposition we maintain, that the principles of the Revolution have not been realized. It is remarkable that the rights here spoken of as unassailed, are enjoyed as fully (and even more so,) in the kingdom from which we separated, as with us; and therefore, did not spring from the Revolution, nor do they come up to its principles: they are held sacred by governments which openly deny the equal rights of man, and practically restrain the physical freedom and pursuit of happiness in their subjects.

The usual assertion that all governments-ours includedare imperfect, is an admission of a partial failure of the attempt to establish our revolutionary rights. The difference here maintained is, that this failure is complete but when it is inferred, that because of this necessary imperfection, and because our government is in advance of all others yet constructed, no attempt should be made to bring it nearer to conformity with its theoretic principles, an argument is employed, which the intelligent men who use it would be ashamed to offer on any other subject than politics. If a merchant should enter a new business, on a new scheme, which promised more profit than others; and should find after some years of trial that he failed to make these profits; and should perceive that this failure was owing to mismanagement in departing from his original plan, we think he would hardly conclude to continue the business in the same faulty manner, for fear of a loss in reforming it.

The necessary imperfection of human government is readily acknowledged, and no expectation is entertained that the principles of the Revolution can ever be entirely and effectually carried out; but that they may be so to every desirable extent, and may promote the liberty, justice and prosperity of the people to a degree never yet attained, is not disproved by the failure of our government to fulfil that purpose. The truth is, that the experiment has never yet been tried. The "self-evident" truths announced in the Declaration of Independence, and Bills of Rights of several States, that all men are created equal, endowed with the "inalienable" rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," were ignored in the very original construction of our several governments, which, with some improvements, were wholly founded on the basis of the principles of power maintained by the corrupt governments of other nations. In the Declaration, indeed, these rights are subjected to power in the very sentence in which they are declared; for while in the first part, they are asserted to be the endowment of the Creator, and pronounced “inalienable," in the immediate sequel it is said that governments derive their power to secure (of course to control,) them from the consent of the governed." Now as this consent is impossible, and never was, nor ever can be given, the power assumed to regulate these rights is consequently a usurpation,