common traditions, manners, civilization, and customs. It also suggests a common home, present or past, from which, however, portions of the nation, or even the whole nation, may have emigrated. But nation has become a political word, and this we may call its secondary meaning. In this sense the state and the nation are the same thing. It is good usage, therefore, to call the Germans or the Poles a nation although they are found in a number of states, and to call the Jews or the Gypsies a nation, although scattered over the world; and it is equally good usage to say that the British State, the Austrian State, or the Russian State, comprises a great number of nations. This is the ethnological sense of the word. It is equally good usage to call the three states just mentioned, as units, nations. This is the political sense of the word, and in this sense it will generally be used in the present work. In Germany the tendency is to confine nation to its original meaning; but in English-speaking countries the secondary meaning is too firmly established to be disturbed. In recent times there has been a strong tendency to make nationality, in the primal sense, or race kinship, the basis of the state. Examples are seen in the efforts to realize national unity met with in the history of Germany and Italy since the downfall of Napoleon, and also in the Balkan Peninsula. There is still another, and a less definite, meaning of nation. Before the Declaration of Independence the Thirteen Colonies were not uncommonly called a nation, but never a state; and the Dominion of Canada might be so-called to-day. Here the bonds of unity appear to be race kinship and common interests, the emphasis being thrown upon the latter element.

IO.

The State and the Government.—It is important to observe that the state is one thing, the government quite another. The state is the corporate people; the government, a system of agents and powers that the people have either organized, or permitted to be organized, to carry on the public functions of society. Therefore, government is not an end but a means. This doctrine, which was explicitly taught by Aristotle, has not been better stated than by Dante :

"And the aim of such rightful Commonwealths is liberty, to wit, that men may live for their own sake. For citizens are not for the sake of the Consuls, nor a nation for the King; but contrariwise the Consuls are for the sake of the citizens, the King for the sake of the nation. For as a Commonwealth is not subordinate to laws, but laws to the Commonwealth; so men who live according to the law are not for the service of the lawgiver, but he for theirs; which is the Philosopher [Plato's] opinion in that which he hath left us concerning the present matter. Hence it is plain also that though a

Consul or King in regard of means be the lords of others, yet in regard of the end they are the servants of others; and most of all, the Monarch, who, without doubt, is to be deemed the servant of all." 1

II. Sovereignty.—In defining the state this much-used word has been employed. In every independent society, such as a state, there must be some authority from which the whole law and administration ultimately proceed. This authority is sovereignty, and the person or persons who wield it are called the sovereign or sovereigns. The following particulars are essentials to a full understanding of the subject:

I. Sovereignty is unlimited power over the individual member of the state and all associations of members. This is sometimes denied as savoring of despotism. The difficulty lies in the fact that men do not carefully distinguish between the state and the government. For example, the people of the United States, in their Constitutions, have delegated certain powers to their governments, National and State; their governments are, therefore, relative and limited governments. But, plainly, the power of the people of the United States to change these governments to please themselves is absolute and unlimited. The discussion of this topic will be renewed when we come to discuss the relations of the American States to the Union.

2. As sovereignty makes the law, it is necessarily superior to it and cannot be bound by it. It is not, however, higher than duty or moral obligation.

3. In the absolute sense, sovereignty cannot be divided; the very supposition implies two highest, or sovereign, authorities in the state, which is impossible. Still, the sovereign authority may delegate certain powers to one government and certain other powers to another, as is done in the United States; but this is not dividing the ultimate supreme power which resides in the people.

4. Sovereignty may vest in one person, in the few, or in the many, according to the nature of the state. In a democratic state, like the United States, it is vested in the many-that is, in the people or the nation.

12.

IV. THEORIES OF THE STATE.

The Historical Theory.-The true account of the origin of the state is that given by Aristotle, which may be thus summarized: Man cannot exist in solitude; the union of the two sexes is necessary for the perpetuation of the race, and to its proper direction and guidThe relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant, determine the household or family. Families coming

ance.

1 Quoted by Pollock, pp. 37, 38.

together form the village or tribe, and a union of tribes, or the expansion of the single tribe, forms the state. The units of the family are individuals, the units of the tribe are families, the units of the state are tribes or villages. The family is the first step, the tribe the second step, and the state the last step in social development. Man becomes perfect only in the state. The state is not the result of agreement, contract, or convention among men; it is an organic development, and so, perfectly natural. It is imposed on man by the conditions of his highest life; it is the only condition in which he can achieve all that he is capable of achieving. Hence the maxim, "Man is born to be a citizen." The state differs from the family, and the tribe, therefore, in the number of its members, and in the number and nature of their relations.

13. Patriarchal Societies.-Family and tribal societies are called patriarchal societies, their governments patriarchal governments. Such societies well illustrate a certain stage in the development of the state, or of civil society. The first two syllables of the word patriarchal mean father, the second two government; so that, in the original sense, patriarchal government is government by a father. It is applied to tribes as well as families, because the original rulers of the tribe were the fathers of the oldest family. It is a form of government well-adapted to the purposes of the tribe, but will not answer the purposes of a large and progressive society. Accordingly, we find patriarchal government in the savage or half-civilized states of society, although not to the exclusion of other forms in the half-civilized state, but we never find it in civilized societies. They have outgrown it. But human society, at some stage of its progress, universally presents this type of social organization. We have an excellent example of a patriarchal ruler in Abraham, and of the development of a patriarchal tribe into a nation and a state in his descendants, as narrated in the Book of Genesis. The same history is also a good example of the manner in which early states were formed.

14. The Theory of Contract.-Once it was the fashion to say that the state is an artificial product or mechanism. Those who held this doctrine reasoned that at first there was no society or government. Men lived in a free, natural condition, everyone doing what he pleased. In this condition they enjoyed a great many rights and privileges that they could not enjoy when they came to live together in society. For example, men living alone in the forest, or in small numbers, could safely do a great many things that they could not do living in a town or city. But living in this way, men suffered the want of those advantages that spring out of society and government. Hence, they agreed to enter into society, and to constitute government. According to this agreement, they surrendered those natural

rights that would bring them into conflict with one another, they established certain rules of conduct, and appointed officers to enforce these rules. The most celebrated defense of this theory is Rousseau's "Social Contract." 1

15. Refutation of This Theory.-The truth is, no such contract as this was ever entered into by men, either directly or indirectly. Men live together just as naturally as birds pair and gather into flocks, or as bees live in swarms; and government is a natural and necessary outgrowth of this condition. Thus, society and government, although very simple at first, have existed from the time that the first man and the first woman formed the first family. The first child was born into a community already existing, and he became subject to an authority that he had had no part in creating or administering. And so it is now; children are born into society, and are subject to government from the time that they draw their first breath. As they grow up, they continue members of society; they may or they may not assist in carrying on the government; but they never have anything to do with creating the society into which they are born, or with originating its government. No man is ever invited to enter society; no man ever enters it of his own accord; no man is ever asked whether he will become a subject of government; no man ever becomes such of his own choice. A man may choose to live in this society rather than in that one, or to be subject to one government rather than to another; but he must live in some society, and so be under some government, unless, indeed, he become a hermit. Hence the rule, that a man is bound to render obedience to the government under which he lives.

But still more, men could not come together and frame a social compact unless society, government, and the state already existed. Compacts in plenty are found in political history, but they belong to a considerably advanced stage of social and political progress, and never to its beginning. Thus, compact assumes the very fact that it seeks to explain.

16. The Theological Theory.-This theory regards the state as the immediate workmanship of God. The New Testament says government is an ordinance of God, and makes it a divine institution. But this language cannot mean that the Divine Being directly created the particular governments that now exist, or that have existed. Government is divine in the sense that marriage, the family, children, society, and the state are divine; it is a necessary condition of the existence of the human race. God ordained society, government, and the state when He gave man his social nature.

1 See Pollock, pp. 65-92.

V. KINDS OF GOVERNMENT.

17. Aristotle's Division of Governments. Apparently the first scientific division of governments was that made by Aristotle, into the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the democracy. This division has been much criticised but generally followed: its general acceptance attests its excellence. Plainly, the three names all have reference to the vesting of authority or to sovereignty; in other words, they simply tell us who holds political power, but tell us nothing as to the nature of governments as determined by the ends to whick they are directed, that is, whether they are good or bad. The fact is, governments may be divided in several ways that throw light on their nature, according as we adopt different ideas or standpoints for our division. Aristotle's division is, the One, the Many, the Few.

18. Monarchy. - Monarchy is government by one man, or a monarch. A large number of persons may be employed in carrying on the government, but they do so in the name and by the authority of the monarch. Monarchical governments are more numerous in history than all other governments put together. It is common to divide them into limited and unlimited monarchies, according as the power of the monarch is or is not limited by a constitution. As a matter of fact, every monarch is limited by the national genius and by popular feeling.

19. Democracy.- Democracy is government by the many, or the people. The people, or so many as participate in public affairs, come together at one place to enact laws, to settle questions of public policy, and to choose officers to carry out their will. Athens was a democracy in ancient times, and so was the Plymouth Colony for a brief period in modern times. But such a government is adapted only to small societies and to narrow territories. The Athenians could meet in Athens to pass upon public questions, and the Pilgrims in Plymouth for the same purpose; but the English could not in this way govern the British Empire from London, or the Americans America from Washington. This is one of the reasons why pure democracies have been few in number.

20. Aristocracy. In an aristocracy, power is not intrusted to one, as in a monarchy, or to the many, as in a democracy, but is confined to a few persons of superior birth and position. Pure aristocracies have been few. Venice was such a government. The word aristocracy means government by the best or the few.

21. Mixed Governments. Many governments contain a variety of elements, and so are really mixed governments. England is a good example. The monarch reigns by hereditary right; the House of Lords, consisting of the heads of the great families, is an heredi