appears.

Yet the good seed was not destined to be lost. Like pure gold, invaluable and indestructible, this democratic principle has never failed to have intelligent, zealous and conscientious appreciators; and the patriotic fire which had animated a Hampden and a William Tell finally appeared on our western shores to incite John Adams's firm determination, and Patrick Henry's fervent speech, Lafayette's offering of youth and fortune, and Warren's ready sacrifice of life. Never before in the world's history had such a body of sober, steadfast, patriotic men been assembled in the interests of freedom, and at the risk of life and fortune and reputation, as was collected around John Hancock at Philadelphia in the Continental Congress of 1776.

And of all the acts of this distinguished body of men which history has preserved, that page is brightest which unfolded to mankind the immortal Declaration cf Independence, claiming for all the right of self-government, the right to be a Democrat.

As the exposition of the first principle of democracy by the chief apostle of that political faith, it commends itself to the intelligence of all reasoning men as eminently just and proper, and worthy of the great reputation it has achieved. And the Democrat must search far and wide to find a clearer enunciation of the fundamental idea of democracy-the people to govern-than this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The successful conclusion of the war was followed by the adoption of our Constitution in 1787. This was done in an eminently proper manner. It was the act of a majority of the people through their representatives who were careful to avow that they only performed this duty through delegated powers; and it was afterwards submitted to the people represented in the State governments, each of whom through their regularly constituted majorities approved and accepted it. The Constitution was thus formed and ratified by regular democratic proceedings, and must be accepted as a legal instrument; binding, until legally terminated, upon the people of the United States, who executed the covenant.

In the discussions which attended of the Constitution, two parties, quite different opinions, appeared.

the adoption actuated by One, as has

been previously observed, feared the absorption of power by the new government as tending towards monarchy; the other, apprehensive of anarchy, thought the only safety of the country lay in a strong central government. Of the fundamental democratic principle-the right of the people to govern-there was no question. Not a dissenting opinion existed as to the right or power of the people, through their representatives, to enact the Constitution. It, therefore, now seems strange that many of these worthy men, representing the people, should have shown a disposition to prevent rather than encourage the expression of the people's will. It was proposed that the Senate and President should hold office during good behavior, or, in other words, for life, unless impeached. Mr. Hamilton thought the governors of each State ought to be appointed by Congress, and even Mr. Madison advised a veto power by Congress on all State legislation.

We now can sce the wisdom of a frequent submittal of the choice of the chief magistrate, and of other officials, to the people. By this method, should a public man lose the confidence or oppose the will of the people, the evil is cured effectually at the next election, all the excitements which would attend an impeachment are avoided, and the citizens of the country acquire the habit of regarding the government as an expression of their will, rather than that

of a set of officers set over them through the exercise of some vague idea of divine right.

It has also been thought by some that a frcquent change in public men tended to prevent efficiency in the public service. This may be so in certain instances, requiring peculiar skill and knowledge, but such cases will prove to be the exception to the general rule exemplified in the old adage, “a new broom sweeps clean." And it certainly is in accordance with the democratic principle-the people to govern-that their will shall be expressed as often as prudence and expcrience shall demonstrate to be necessary.

The subject of State Rights was also freely mentioned in the debates upon the Constitution. But the subject at that time had a very different and opposite signification to that which was afterwards understood by the term. The smaller States were determined to submit to no Union which did not admit them with equal representation without any reference to number of population. The present arrangement of the Senate is due to this absurd relic of colonial independence, and the right of the small States to defend themselves against the encroachments of the larger. We shall see that to "State Rights was afterwards attached a very different meaning. The electoral college plan of electing the President was the result of the same jealousy of the smaller States, and was concurred in as a scheme which would probably secure

the selection of the most suitable candidates. This feature of our Constitution, entirely at var iance with the democratic idea of the people to choose, has not accomplished its intended purpose, and should be changed, as strongly recommended by Jackson and Benton. These discussions and differences led to the formation of two parties, which, quiescent during Washington's administration, soon afterwards rose into prominence, then known as Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, who having but little confidence in the ability of any people to govern themselves, desired a strong government modeled on that of Great Britain. The other party, led by Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benj. Franklin and Patrick Henry, were fearful of the establishment of a monarchy, which to them seemed imminent, and towards which Patrick Henry thought the new Constitution had an "awful squinting." The sovereignty of the States, they thought, was the best defence against any tendency towards centralization, and they were therefore in favor of the retention of as much power as possible in the hands of the people through the different State organizations. An extract from a letter of Samuel Adams, dated 1788, gives a fair idea of this position: "I confess as I enter the building I stumble at the threshhold. I meet with a National government instead of a federal union of sovereign States. * * * If the several States of the Union are