“ THE CRISIS 
 
 Of THE 
 
 ? srrv of hav 
 
 ,7 M AY1S1 
 
 IN CONSTITUTIONALISM 
 
 BY 
 
 DR. DAVID JAYNE HILL 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 
 
 PRESENTED 
 
 BY 
 
 HON. FRANK B. BRANDEGEE 
 
 OF CONNECTICUT 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 DECEMBER 22, 1913 
 
 'b 
 
 227G9 12G29 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 1913 
 
The person charging this material is re¬ 
 sponsible for its return on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
 are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
 result in dismissal from the University. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
r-. ^ 
 
 H t 54c_ 
 
 1 M 
 
 THE CRISIS IN CONSTITUTIONALISM, 
 
 BY 
 
 DR. DAVID JAYNE HILL. 
 
 Mr. BRANDEGEE. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to 
 make an observation upon a matter which I regard as of great 
 importance, a matter not before the Senate at the present time 
 in any legislative way, but concerning the Constitution of this 
 country and its form of government with relation to the proba¬ 
 bilities of the future and what certain existing tendencies may * 
 lead to. 
 
 I am going to read a short article appearing in the North 
 American Review for this month by David Jayne Hill, entitled 
 “ The Crisis in Constitutionalism.” The North American Re¬ 
 view comments upon this article as follows: 
 
 “ FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CLUBS. 
 
 
 “ The foremost American diplomat now living—barring Mr. 
 Charles Francis Adams, Mr. Wayne MacVeagli, Mr. Choate, and 
 Gen. Porter as of another generation—is undoubtedly Dr. David 
 Jayne Hill, who served his apprenticeship under Secretary Hay 
 and won the respect and admiration of European statesmen 
 while representing his country abroad. Just as Mr. John Bas¬ 
 sett Moore and Mr. Adee stand preeminent as masters, respec¬ 
 tively, of international law and the technique of diplomacy, so 
 is Dr. Hill without a peer in the shaping of national policies. 
 It is, then, a matter of sincere congratulation that he has re¬ 
 turned to his own country at a time when the wisdom derived 
 from thought and experience is sadly needed. 
 
 “ We wish that every thinking American might read the 
 article on ‘ The Crisis of Constitutionalism ’ which appears in 
 this Review. Dr. Hill writes, of course, as a scholar and 
 philosopher rather than as a diplomat, but the marked advan¬ 
 tage which he has acquired, from long and thorough training, 
 227G9—12629 3 
 
 <V> 
 
 * 
 
4 
 
 over others who have treated of the subject becomes quickly 
 apparent to the reader. We can not recall in recent years a 
 setting forth of the basic, principles peculiar to our Government 
 so incomplex and understandable, nor, better yet, so convincing 
 a statement of the reasons for their more rigid application and 
 of the true methods of accomplishment. 
 
 “ ‘ What is our political future to be? ’ is the question with 
 which Dr. Hill finds the United States is now brought face to 
 face. That the answer will be found ultimately in the reason 
 and conscience of the people he has no doubt, but first, he de¬ 
 clares with emphasis, must be determined the lines on which 
 the answer is to be given. ‘ What we need at present is not so 
 much leaders as a statement of the principles by which we 
 should be led.’ And here the choice must be made ‘ between 
 experience and experiment; between arbitrary decisions and 
 fundamental principles; in a word, between political anarchy 
 and constitutional government.’ If any corroboration of this 
 declaration were needed, it can be found readily in the present 
 tendency of legislation, in the constant expanding of the powers 
 of government, in the growth of paternalistic sentiment, in the 
 resentment against law ‘ because it is law,’ in the. encroachment 
 upon the prerogatives bestowed upon others, in the development 
 of positive dictation or ‘ bossism ’ in the guise of ‘leadership,’ 
 and in the ready assurance of those holding or seeking authority 
 that they are, indeed, tribunes of the people rather than flip ad¬ 
 ministrative officers they were designed by the Constitution to 
 be. Dr. Hill might well have enlarged, and may*yet, we trust, 
 expand his thought along these lines. p 
 
 “ Of his own judgment that the Constitution itself is ‘ the 
 one overmastering issue,’ Dr. Hill leaves no room for doubt. 
 And he is firmly convinced that now, of all times, the preserva¬ 
 tion of constitutional government hangs upon ‘ cultivation of 
 respect for the spirit’ of our fundamental law. To this end, 
 speaking as a practical statesman, he advocates definite organi¬ 
 zation. ‘ If w r e are to defend the Constitution, we who believe 
 in it must act together,’ Finally, recalling that ‘ in the days of 
 our Civil War much aid was afforded to the cause of preserving 
 the Union by the formation of clubs of citizens,’ he urges the 
 22769—12G29 
 
 ft 
 
inauguration of a similar movement, feeling certain that the 
 opposition sure to arise would at least ‘ furnish surprising 
 proofs that we are at present passing through a crisis of con¬ 
 stitutionalism in which the great structure of liberty and justice 
 erected by our fathers is being insidiously undermined.’ 
 
 “ The suggestion well deserves thoughtful consideration. It 
 is probably not too much to say that, to the adoption of this 
 method many years ago England to-day owes her national ex¬ 
 istence. Surely, at any rate, to the influence of the clubs may 
 safely be attributed many far-reaching reforms and a higher 
 order of politics generally. If so successful there, why should 
 Div Hill’s suggestion fail here? Is it not worth while and 
 worth trying? 
 
 “ We invite opinions from the press.” 
 
 “the crisis in constitutionalism. 
 
 “ Thoughtful men in all countries of the world are united in f 
 the conviction that constitutional government embodies the 
 highest ideal for the regulation of human affairs ever conceived 
 by man. 
 
 “ With regard to the attainability and permanence of this 
 ideal, opinions differ widely. Most men agree in the belief 
 that certain peoples are not ripe for it. Others consider it neces¬ 
 sary to combine with it some vestiges of absolutism, as a means 
 Of rescuing society from the anarchy that would follow upon 
 its possible failure. Still others openly oppose it, because, for 
 various reasons, it is their personal interest to do so. 
 
 “ The dangers to constitutional government, however, do not J 
 arise from the open opposition of its enemies, for in the field 
 of free debate it is abundantly able to defend itself. Its real 
 foes—and they are not a few—are those who do not avowedly 
 attack or resist it, but who, while professing to be its friends 
 and its advocates, secretly repudiate or intentionally pervert 
 its fundamental principles. 
 
 “ In contrast with the political absolutism which it was in¬ 
 tended to destroy, and which it has endeavored to supersede, 
 constitutional government is based upon the principle of equal 
 guaranties for the rights of all citizens, without distinction of 
 227G9—12629 
 
6 
 
 persons or classes, under the protection of coordinate and dis¬ 
 tributed powers, exercised by public officers freely chosen by 
 the people, and revocable after fixed periods of office. Recog¬ 
 nizing life, personal liberty, and property as elements of inalien¬ 
 able right, constitutional government aims to guard these from 
 every form of violation. 
 
 “ The mere statement of the meaning of constitutional govern¬ 
 ment plainly indicates who are its natural enemies. These in¬ 
 clude all those who, in any form whatever, desire to make the 
 State their private servant, and through control of the public 
 powers use it to serve their own personal or class interests at 
 the expense of others. 
 
 “ The division of men into friends and enemies of constitu¬ 
 tional government must be based upon the attitude they assume 
 toward its fundamental principle. This principle being the 
 existence of equal and adequate guaranties, by which the life, 
 the personal liberty, and the property of every citizen are ren* 
 dered inviolate, every person and every organization that aims 
 by means of exceptional legislation to secure advantages to the 
 detriment of others must be classed as an enemy of constitu¬ 
 tional government, which—although not a guaranty of equal 
 conditions, which is impossible—is essentially a guaranty of 
 equal rights. 
 
 “ The means by which the founders of constitutional govern¬ 
 ment intended to obtain this guaranty were threefold. 
 
 “ First of all, the ‘ inalienable rights ’ of all citizens were to 
 be secured by a fundamental law which placed them beyond 
 the reach of unequal legislation or executive violence. What 
 the advocates of constitutional government had suffered frofii 
 was the exercise of absolute and arbitrary authority. This they 
 intended to end, and in order to do so they placed certain en¬ 
 croachments upon personal rights beyond the power of legisla¬ 
 tures and executives. In brief, legislative bodies and executive 
 officers were themselves made subject to law; and no man was 
 to be judged except in accordance with the law. Life, liberty, 
 and property were not to be taken away without a day in court, 
 in the presence of responsible authorities acting under the 
 obligations of equal laws. 
 
 22769—12629 
 
7 
 
 ‘ The second security afforded was a form of government in 
 which public powers were so distributed that no public officer 
 could commit an act of oppression without rendering himself 
 responsible for his action. The people, through their representa¬ 
 tives, could make new laws, but they could make nc laws which 
 encroached upon the rights already sacredly guarded by the 
 fundamental law. The executive, when necessary, could act, 
 but only according to law. The judiciary could judge if the 
 law was respected, but only in accordance with those personal 
 securities which the fundamental law provided. 
 
 “ Finally, the people, standing in the place of the sovereign, 
 and exercising sovereign power, did what no other sovereign had 
 ever before voluntarily done in the history of the world—they 
 freely and formally renounced the power to impose their per¬ 
 sonal arbitrary will upon the organs of government or upon one 
 another. They confided to the operation of the system they had 
 devised and created the legislative, executive, and judicial func¬ 
 tions necessary to the application of justice, subject to their 
 approval or reprobation by means already provided for in that 
 system. 
 
 “ Thus absolutism in every form was intended to be extruded 
 from government, which aimed to be a system of just laws and 
 principles in place of mere arbitrary will actuated by caprice, 
 prejudice, malignity, or self-interest. 
 
 “ It is easy to see how this system could be covertly attacked 
 by those who, consciously or unconsciously, were inspired by 
 motives for subverting it. 
 
 “ The first method of attack is through the hasty alteration 
 q£ the fundamental law itself. Believing in the approximate 
 perfection of our system, the people of the United States have, 
 in general, desired to maintain the stability of the Constitution, 
 and so far it has been subjected to very little change. Being 
 essentially a restriction of arbitrary power, it presents a bar¬ 
 rier to the aims of those who seek to derive private advantage 
 through the control of the State. As long as it remains intact 
 there exists a legal obstacle to depredation. No mere dema¬ 
 gogue ever has loved, or ever will love, the Constitution, for it 
 is a restraint upon personal ambition and personal interests. 
 
 22769—12620 
 
8 
 
 He would much prefer to substitute for it the unrestrained 
 ‘ will of the people,’ by which he understands assent to his own 
 proposals. With seductive simplicity he blandly asks, ‘ What is 
 the Constitution between friends? ’ 
 
 “ Undoubtedly, any inflexible obstacle to a transitory popular 
 impulse can at times be made to appear too rigid, but it is pre¬ 
 cisely this clear and definite obstruction to impulsive and ill- 
 considered action which constitutional guaranties are intended 
 to impose. It is always a dangerous moment for the liberties of 
 a people when it is proposed to substitute for the deliberately 
 established reasonableness of a constitutional provision the 
 impromptu and uncontrolled impulses of the moment, or to open 
 the way without serious reflection and debate for mere political 
 experiments. 
 
 “ Two constitutional changes have been recently urged and 
 passively accepted. The election of United States Senators by 
 legislative bodies has sometimes been attended with corruption, 
 and this has led to a demand for popular nominations and 
 elections. In order to lower import duties an income tax—hith¬ 
 erto left to the several States, which can levy no import taxes— 
 has been urged as a means of supporting the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment. To accomplish this a constitutional change was neces¬ 
 sary, since an unequal tax was prohibited, and an equal tax was 
 not deemed practicable. It is, perhaps, too early to demonstrate 
 the results of these changes, but it remains to be seen how the 
 people, if they can not succeed in choosing trustworthy legis¬ 
 lators from among their own immediate neighbors, will be able 
 to select worthier Senators from among persons whom they 
 know only by reputation; nor is it certain that the power to 
 impose a Federal income tax without any kind of restriction 
 may not eventually become the instrument of mere class and 
 sectional legislation. It will be gratifying if these experi¬ 
 ments result in an elevation of political morals or in greater 
 social equity, but it is not yet certain that these results will 
 follow. 
 
 “A second point of attack upon the Constitution is through 
 the encroachment of one or more of the three divisions of public 
 power upon the legitimate domain of the others. The American 
 22769—12629 
 
9 
 
 conception of government lias always laid stress upon tlie bal¬ 
 ance of.tlie public powers, which is intended to limit the ex¬ 
 cesses of all. When, however, we consider the possible effect 
 of the power concentrated in one man both to urge and to veto 
 new laws, backed with the enormous influence of Federal patron¬ 
 age, the employment of which may be so easily concealed behind 
 the mask of apparently beneficent legislation, we contemplate 
 the nearest approach to absolute power now to be found in any 
 constitutional government in the world. In defense of this cen¬ 
 tralization of authority it may be said that a President of the 
 United States is responsible to the country, and particularly to 
 his party, for the fulfillment of promises made in the platform 
 of the party that elected him, and this is true; but Executive 
 urgency and Executive prohibition have not always been exer¬ 
 cised exclusively with the purpose of fulfilling party promises, 
 but sometimes merely upon the personal initiative of the Execu¬ 
 tive himself, who has thereby assumed the exercise of a pre¬ 
 rogative which, however pleasing it may be to those who profit 
 by its results, when considered from a constitutional point of 
 view, is certainly of doubtful propriety, if not of doubtful legal¬ 
 ity. Fidelity in urging the fulfillment, of previously made party 
 promises and personal ballons d’essai sent up for the purpose of 
 securing the favor of the majority, without regard to the pre¬ 
 viously determined policies of the party, are two entirely dif¬ 
 ferent methods of official procedure. The business of a Presi¬ 
 dent is to execute the laws and urge the fulfillment of party 
 pledges, but it is not his prerogative to revolutionize the Govern¬ 
 ment. 
 
 “ But encroachments upon constitutional limitations by the 
 Executive are not more dangerous than those of a legislative 
 origin. For these there is always the plausible excuse that 
 they spring more directly from the expressed will of the peo¬ 
 ple, since the legislators have received a recent mandate from 
 them. It is, however, a perversion of reasoning to maintain 
 that their mandate includes an instruction to disregard the 
 spirit of the Constitution, or to strain it to the breaking point. 
 It is therefore essential that the judiciary be free, pure, and 
 faithful in its interpretation of the fundamental law. It is 
 227G9—12G29 
 
10 
 
 equally important that it should have the confidence and sup¬ 
 port of the people. Nothing could so fatally affect the founda¬ 
 tions of constitutional government as a loss of confidence on 
 the part of the people in the purity, fidelity, and intelligence of 
 the judiciary. By every means that will leave it free and re¬ 
 sponsible it should be placed and kept upon the highest plane 
 of honor and authority, for it is by its essential nature the 
 guardian of our guaranties of liberty. 
 
 “ There is a third and a far more insidious form of attack 
 upon constitutional government which should not escape ob¬ 
 servation. It is the disposition to withdraw and annul that act 
 of popular renunciation of each in the interest of all upon 
 which the success of constitutional government is based. It 
 is important that this point should be made clear, for it con¬ 
 tains the chief justification for speaking of a ‘ crisis ’ in con¬ 
 stitutionalism. 
 
 “Attention has been called to the fact that the third step 
 in the development of the Constitution of the United States 
 was the voluntary surrender of arbitrary power by the sov¬ 
 ereign people. This was not an abdication of power by the 
 people as a whole in the interest of a majority, but a determi¬ 
 nation that absolutism in every form should be abolished alto¬ 
 gether. It was the surrender of will to reason, of private 
 interest to the public good, of the individual to the State as the 
 institution of organized justice. 
 
 “ The greatest present danger to constitutional government 
 is the revocation of this splendid sacrifice of personal advantage 
 to the common well-being; the agreement of the people not to 
 attempt an act of conquest upon one another, but to live on 
 terms of equality under just laws. 
 
 “ It is worthy of observation that wherever this act of pa¬ 
 triotism has been refused constitutional government has proved 
 an abject failure. If we consider the revolutions that have 
 stained with blood and ruined the economic life of several of 
 our sister Republics on this continent, we shall find ample and 
 striking illustrations of this assertion. They, like ourselves, 
 have had a fundamental law, often expressed in most irre¬ 
 proachable language, and a frame of government in which 
 227G9—12629 
 
11 
 
 the division of powers is theoretically accepted. In fact, how¬ 
 ever, these elements of constitutional organization have not 
 been treated as realities. Personal ambition, conspiracy, and 
 revolution have defied the system, and frequently destroyed it. 
 Instead of devoting themselves to the State and making a 
 religion of vital patriotism—that is, of consecration to the 
 State as the institution of order and justice—these unfortunate 
 brethren have attached themselves to factions, each seeking to 
 dominate by force the others, and thus creating a scene of con¬ 
 stant incertitude, turmoil, lawlessness, and rapine. 
 
 “We have at the present moment a startling example.of this 
 assertion of arbitrary will and repudiation of public authority 
 in our nearest neighbor to the South. Everyone who personally 
 knows the Mexican statesmen of the highest type appreciates 
 their learning, their culture, and their sometimes great execu¬ 
 tive ability. What is lacking to that country? It is the spirit 
 of personal renunciation of arbitrary power in the interest of 
 the public well-being. Rich in natural resources, situated in 
 a most favorable geographical environment, and not wanting 
 in capable men, Mexico is doomed to stagnation, poverty, and 
 discredit because it is the prey of rival forces within the State, 
 each claiming the right to rule, each determined to destroy the 
 others. 
 
 “ Let us not lose the lesson of this impressive illustration 
 of the unwillingness of men to accept the authority of prin¬ 
 ciples because we ourselves are not at present harassed by 
 banditti and visibly divided by opposing powers within the 
 State. It is opportune for us to ask ourselves why we are 
 not subjected to this anarchy, and why we enjoy a high degree 
 of peace, order, and justice in our own Republic, which is based 
 on the same fundamental ideas as that of our unfortunate 
 neighbors? 
 
 “ The answ r er to this question is evident to every thoughtful 
 observer. We have thus far been able to maintain respect for 
 our Constitution and our judiciary. We have, in the interest of 
 the public peace, renounced the primitive right of personal self- 
 defense. We have differences, but we endeavor, for the most 
 part, to settle them by an appeal to the law and to the courts. 
 
 227G9—12G29 
 
 LIBRARY' 
 
 .■UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 AT URBAN A- CHAMPAIGN 
 
12 
 
 We have thus far maintained the renunciation of arbitrary 
 power which has made our Government a success where 
 others have failed, and we have had, and are having, our 
 reward. 
 
 “Will this condition always continue? There is more than 
 one sign that it will not unless we are on our guard. The 
 dangers arising from the first and second forms of attack on 
 constitutional government are not unworthy of attention, but 
 they are insignificant in comparison with the third; for further 
 alterations can not be made in the Constitution without fresh 
 consideration by the people, and a misuse of power by the leg¬ 
 islative and executive, or even by the judicial, authorities is at 
 least subject to correction. But the third form of attack is of a 
 different nature. It results from a social transformation that 
 may affect constitutionalism at its source by perverting the 
 minds of the people. 
 
 “ For a long time the chief danger to constitutionalism in our 
 country was the menace of conflict between the States. That 
 peril seems now to have passed, for their interests are so nearly 
 identical and their populations are so homogeneous that a di¬ 
 vergence of purposes sufficiently wide to lead to armed conflict 
 is altogether improbable. 
 
 “ But there is another source of antagonism which would 
 have an equally disastrous effect upon constitutional govern¬ 
 ment, the possibility of which is not entirely excluded from 
 consideration. 
 
 “ We have in recent years developed in the United States a 
 spirit of class antagonism which is peculiarly disquieting. In 
 stating this point it is not at all necessary to cast the blame on 
 any particular stratum of society, and a careful analysis might 
 distribute responsibility in a manner that would not be welcome 
 in quite opposite quarters. The one undeniable fact is that this 
 antagonism exists and that it has been stimulated by political 
 ambitions that have found their advantage in creating unrest 
 and in deepening the hostility of certain conditions of life 
 toward others. 
 
 “ The peril of this situation is that it does not consist merely 
 in opposing personal sentiments entertained by isolated indi- 
 22769—12629 
 
13 
 
 viduals, but that it aims to control the State by massing its 
 forces in powerful organizations with the purpose of changing 
 the laws, and even the Constitution, in the interest of special 
 classes. 
 
 “ Books have recently been written with the endeavor to 
 make it appear that the Constitution of the United States is a 
 belated eighteenth-century construction, devised in the interest 
 of a property-possessing class, and at present an anachronism. 
 For the first time since it was adopted the Constitution has 
 within very recent years been treated with open disrespect. 
 What is the reason for this opposition? It is that the Consti¬ 
 tution presents an obvious barrier to the designs of those who 
 oppose it. If we seek the actuating principle of this opposition, 
 we find it in the doctrine that the unregulated will of the ma¬ 
 jority is a more desirable form of authority than deliberately 
 accepted principles of government sanctioned by general assent 
 and tried and tested by experience. 
 
 “ Should this tendency become further accentuated by combi¬ 
 nations of power able eventually to control the State in their 
 own interest, we should find ourselves in a position not dis¬ 
 similar from that in which Mexico is placed to-day—divided 
 into hostile factions, one class plundered by another, and the 
 country utterly powerless to defend its interests or maintain its 
 dignity in the field of international relations. 
 
 “ The means of preventing this calamity, or the remedy for 
 it, if it is already in some degree upon us, is evidently a deter¬ 
 mination on the part of the people that arbitrary power in 1 
 every form must be renounced; that life, liberty, and property 
 shall still enjoy protection against any form of absolutism that 
 may be asserted within the State. 
 
 “ To apply this remedy the country needs two things: First, 
 to consider seriously the drift of the social forces now operating 
 among us, with a view to forming a clear conception of the 
 degree in which we are adhering to or departing from the 
 spirit of conformity to just and equal laws; and, second, an 
 active movement on the part of thoughtful citizens to arrest an 
 anticonstitutional tendency. 
 
 22769—12629 
 
 4 
 
14 
 
 “ In considering tlie drift of the social forces now in opera¬ 
 tion, one is struck by the diminished respect for law simply 
 because it is law. This is, no doubt, in part owing to the 
 changed conception of the source of legal authority. Whan 
 men sincerely believed in ‘ inalienable rights ’ and conceived 
 of law as the guardian of those rights, it was esteemed worthy 
 of a sentiment of reverence. At present the importation of a 
 conception of law as the decree of a dominating will, without 
 relation to fundamental rights, which are alleged to have no 
 demonstrable existence, has made it difficult to respect law in 
 and for itself. If, after all, it is merely arbitrary, if it pro¬ 
 ceeds from no moral principle, if, in short, it is the expression 
 of mere will and not of reason, it is difficult, it is even unrea¬ 
 sonable, to demand that it be respected. 
 
 “ It is necessary in the life of every nation that from time to 
 time it be called upon to reflect upon the principles that under¬ 
 lie its existence. The present generation has been confronted 
 with no great national crisis that has called for such reflection. 
 The shock that has been given to the party system of govern¬ 
 ment in the United States may prove to be such a crisis. We 
 have suddenly been brought face to face with the question, 
 ‘What is our political future to be?' It is for the reason and 
 the conscience of the people to answer, but it remains to be 
 determined on what lines the answer is to be given. 
 
 “ Naturally in moments of indecision men look for leaders, 
 but unless they look also for principles they look in vain. The 
 choice must be made between experience and experiment, be¬ 
 tween arbitrary decisions and fundamental principles; in a 
 word, between political anarchy and constitutional government. 
 
 “ The one thing most certain is that if we are to preserve 
 and justify constitutional government we must be ever ready to 
 defend it. If we are to defend it, we who believe in it must act 
 together. To many minds it seems at this moment the one 
 overmastering issue. When principles have been settled men 
 have always been found to render them effective. What we 
 need at present is not so much leaders as a statement of the 
 principles by which we should be led and which we should then 
 insist upon having applied in practice. In seeking for these we 
 22769—12G29 
 
 \ 
 
15 
 
 can not do bettor than to revert to the great doctrines of our 
 fathers, which, in the midst of revolutions on every side, have 
 brought us to great power as a Nation, and which, if faithfully 
 applied, will continue to give us great prosperity as a people. 
 
 “ If from the dissolution of party ties, which has brought 
 home to us the problem of our political future, we are able to 
 rally about the one rock of salvation, the rights of the individ¬ 
 ual citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution, the atmosphere 
 will clear. We shall see that a State can not be built upon 
 private interests of any kind, and that our prosperity as a Re¬ 
 public consists in the readiness to renounce the control of the 
 State for our own advantage, by giving to each individual not 
 only full liberty to exercise and develop all his powers in his 
 own way, but protection in preserving that liberty by preventing 
 the public powers from falling under the domination of any class 
 or combination of men having for its object the subjection of 
 others to their private will. 
 
 “ In the days of our Civil War much aid was afforded to the 
 cause of preserving the Union by the formation of clubs com¬ 
 posed of citizens who perceived in that movement the great issue 
 of the hour. It is possible that the time has come when a simi¬ 
 lar interest in the preservation of constitutional government, 
 through the cultivation of respect for the spirit of the Consti¬ 
 tution, may be desirable and even necessary. 
 
 “ Such a movement would, undoubtedly, be stoutly opposed, 
 but the intensity of the opposition and the comments that would 
 attend it would, perhaps, furnish surprising proofs that we are 
 at present passing through a crisis of constitutionalism in which 
 the great structure of liberty and justice erected by our fathers 
 is being insidiously undermined, not in the interest of the peo¬ 
 ple, of whose rights it is the only guaranty, but in the interest 
 of private powers within the State, which, for purposes of their 
 own, wish to dominate it and employ it as the instrument of 
 their designs. 
 
 “ David Jayne Hill.” 
 
 22769—I2G29 
 
 O