,a ,,letter ,,to ,,grover ,,cleveland1 ,,on ,,his ,,false ,,inaugural ,,address1 ,,the ,,usurpations ,,and ,,crimes ,,of ,,lawmakers ,,and ,,judges1 ,,and ,,the ,,consequent ,,poverty1 ,,ignorance1 ,,and ,,servitude ,,of ,,the ,,people4 ,,by ,,lysander ,,spooner4 ,,boston3 ,,benj4 ,r4 ,,tucker1 ,,publisher4 #ahhf4 ,the author reserves his copyright in this letter4 ,first pamphlet edition published in ,july1 #ahhf4a #a ,under a somewhat different title1 to wit1 ,a ,letter to ,grover ,cleveland1 on his ,false1 ,absurd1 ,if-contradictory1 and ,ridiculous ,inaugural ,address1 this letter was first published1 in instalments1 ,,liberty 7a paper published in ,boston72 the instalments commencing ,june #bj1 #ahhe1 and continuing to ,may #bb1 #ahhf3 notice being given1 in each paper1 of the reservation of copyright4 ,a ,,letter ,,to ,,grover ,,cleveland4 ,,section ,i4 ,to ,grover ,cleveland3 ,,sir1--,your inaugural address is probably as honest1 sensible1 and consistent a one as that of any president within the last fifty years1 or1 perhaps1 as any since the foundation of the government4 ,if1 therefore1 it is false1 absurd1 self-contradictory1 and ridiculous1 it is not 7as ,i think7 because you are personally less honest1 sensible1 or consistent than your predecessors1 but because the government itself--according to your own description of it1 and according to the practical administration of it for nearly a hundred years--is an utterly and palpably false1 absurd1 and criminal one4 ,such praises as you bestow upon it are1 therefore1 necessarily false1 absurd1 and ridiculous4 ,thus you describe it as a government pledged to do equal and exact justice to all men4 ,did you stop to think what that means8 ,evidently you did not2 for nearly1 or quite1 all the rest of your address is in direct contradiction to it4 ,let me then remind you that justice is an immutable1 natural principle2 and not anything that can be made1 unmade1 or altered by any human power4 ,it is also a subject of science1 and is to be learned1 like mathematics1 or any other science4 ,it does not derive its authority from the commands1 will1 pleasure1 or discretion of any possible combination of men1 whether calling themselves a government1 or by any other name4 ,it is also1 at all times1 and in all places1 the supreme law4 ,and being everywhere and always the supreme law1 it is necessarily everywhere and always the only law4 ,lawmakers1 as they call themselves1 can add nothing to it1 nor take anything from it4 ,therefore all their laws1 as they call them1--that is1 all the laws of their own making1--have no color of authority or obligation4 ,it is a falsehood to call them laws2 for there is nothing in them that either creates men's duties or rights1 or enlightens them as to their duties or rights4 ,there is consequently nothing binding or obligatory about them4 ,and nobody is bound to take the least notice of them1 unless it be to trample them under foot1 as usurpations4 ,if they command men to do justice1 they add nothing to men's obligation to do it1 or to any man's right to enforce it4 ,they are therefore mere idle wind1 such as would be commands to consider the day as day1 and the night as night4 ,if they command or license any man to do injustice1 they are criminal on their face4 ,if they command any man to do anything which justice does not require him to do1 they are simple1 naked usurpations and tyrannies4 ,if they forbid any man to do anything1 which justice would permit him to do1 they are criminal invasions of his natural and rightful liberty4 ,in whatever light1 therefore1 they are viewed1 they are utterly destitute of everything like authority or obligation4 ,they are all necessarily either the impudent1 fraudulent1 and criminal usurpations of tyrants1 robbers1 and murderers1 or the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men1 who do not know1 or certainly do not realize1 what they are doing4 ,this science of justice1 or natural law1 is the only science that tells us what are1 and what are not1 each man's natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 individual rights1 as against any and all other men4 ,and to say that any1 or all1 other men may rightfully compel him to obey any or all such other laws as they may see fit to make1 is to say that he has no rights of his own1 but is their subject1 their property1 and their slave4 ,for the reasons now given1 the simple maintenance of justice1 or natural law1 is plainly the one only purpose for which any coercive power--or anything bearing the name of government--has a right to exist4 ,it is intrinsically just as false1 absurd1 ludicrous1 and ridiculous to say that lawmakers1 so-called1 can invent and make any laws1 of their own1 authoritatively fixing1 or declaring1 the rights of individuals1 or that shall be in any manner authoritative or obligatory upon individuals1 or that individuals may rightfully be compelled to obey1 as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics1 chemistry1 physiology1 or other sciences1 as they see fit1 and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them1 instead of conforming them to the mathematics1 chemistry1 physiology1 or other sciences of nature4 ,lawmakers1 as they call themselves1 might just as well claim the right to abolish1 by statute1 the natural law of gravitation1 the natural laws of light1 heat1 and electricity1 and all the other natural laws of matter and mind1 and institute laws of their own in the place of them1 and compel conformity to them1 as to claim the right to set aside the natural law of justice1 and compel obedience to such other laws as they may see fit to manufacture1 and set up in its stead4 ,let me now ask you how you imagine that your so-called lawmakers can do equal and exact justice to all men1 by any so-called laws of their own making4 ,if their laws command anything but justice1 or forbid anything but injustice1 they are themselves unjust and criminal4 ,if they simply command justice1 and forbid injustice1 they add nothing to the natural authority of justice1 or to men's obligation to obey it4 ,it is1 therefore1 a simple impertinence1 and sheer impudence1 on their part1 to assume that their commands1 as such1 are of any authority whatever4 ,it is also sheer impudence1 on their part1 to assume that their commands are at all necessary to teach other men what is1 and what is not1 justice4 ,the science of justice is as open to be learned by all other men1 as by themselves2 and it is1 in general1 so simple and easy to be learned1 that there is no need of1 and no place for1 any man1 or body of men1 to teach it1 declare it1 or command it1 on their own authority4 ,for one1 or another1 of these reasons1 therefore1 each and every law1 so-called1 that forty-eight different congresses have presumed to make1 within the last ninety-six years1 have been utterly destitute of all legitimate authority4 ,that is to say1 they have either been criminal1 as commanding or licensing men to do what justice forbade them to do1 or as forbidding them to do what justice would have permitted them to do2 or else they have been superfluous1 as adding nothing to men's knowledge of justice1 or to their obligation to do justice1 or abstain from injustice4 ,what excuse1 then1 have you for attempting to enforce upon the people that great mass of superfluous or criminal laws 7so-called7 which ignorant and foolish1 or impudent and criminal1 men have1 for so many years1 been manufacturing1 and promulgating1 and enforcing1 in violation of justice1 and of all men's natural1 inherent1 and inalienable rights8 ,,section ,,ii4 ,perhaps you will say that there is no such science as that of justice4 ,if you do say this1 by what right1 or on what reason1 do you proclaim your intention to do equal and exact justice to all men8 ,if there is no science of justice1 how do you know that there is any such principle as justice8 ,or how do you know what is1 and what is not1 justice8 ,if there is no science of justice1--such as the people can learn and understand for themselves1--why do you say anything about justice to them8 ,or why do you promise them any such thing as equal and exact justice1 if they do not know1 and are incapable of learning1 what justice is8 ,do you use this phrase to deceive those whom you look upon as being so ignorant1 so destitute of reason1 as to be deceived by idle1 unmeaning words8 ,if you do not1 you are plainly bound to let us all know what you do mean1 by doing equal and exact justice to all men4 ,i can assure you1 sir1 that a very large portion of the people of this country do not believe that the government is doing equal and exact justice to all men4 ,and some persons are earnestly promulgating the idea that the government is not attempting to do1 and has no intention of doing1 anything like equal and exact justice to all men2 that1 on the contrary1 it is knowingly1 deliberately1 and wilfully doing an incalculable amount of injustice2 that it has always been doing this in the past1 and that it has no intention of doing anything else in the future2 that it is a mere tool in the hands of a few ambitious1 rapacious1 and unprincipled men2 that its purpose1 in doing all this injustice1 is to keep--so far as they can without driving the people to rebellion--all wealth1 and all political power1 in as few hands as possible2 and that this injustice is the direct cause of all the widespread poverty1 ignorance1 and servitude among the great body of the people4 ,now1 ,sir1 ,i wish ,i could hope that you would do something to show that you are not a party to any such scheme as that2 something to show that you are neither corrupt enough1 nor blind enough1 nor coward enough1 to be made use of for any such purpose as that2 something to show that when you profess your intention to do equal and exact justice to all men1 you attach some real and definite meaning to your words4 ,until you do that1 is it not plain that the people have a right to consider you a tyrant1 and the confederate and tool of tyrants1 and to get rid of you as unceremoniously as they would of any other tyrant8 ,,section ,,iii4 ,sir1 if any government is to be a rational1 consistent1 and honest one1 it must evidently be based on some fundamental1 immutable1 eternal principle2 such as every man may reasonably agree to1 and such as every man may rightfully be compelled to abide by1 and obey4 ,and the whole power of the government must be limited to the maintenance of that single principle4 ,and that one principle is justice4 ,there is no other principle that any man can rightfully enforce upon others1 or ought to consent to have enforced against himself4 ,every man claims the protection of this principle for himself1 whether he is willing to accord it to others1 or not4 ,yet such is the inconsistency of human nature1 that some men--in fact1 many men--who will risk their lives for this principle1 when their own liberty or property is at stake1 will violate it in the most flagrant manner1 if they can thereby obtain arbitrary power over the persons or property of others4 ,we have seen this fact illustrated in this country1 through its whole history--especially during the last hundred years--and in the case of many of the most conspicuous persons4 ,and their example and influence have been employed to pervert the whole character of the government4 ,it is against such men1 that all others1 who desire nothing but justice for themselves1 and are willing to unite to secure it for all others1 must combine1 if we are ever to have justice established for any4 ,,section ,,iv4 ,it is self-evident that no number of men1 by conspiring1 and calling themselves a government1 can acquire any rights whatever over other men1 or other men's property1 which they had not before1 as individuals4 ,and whenever any number of men1 calling themselves a government1 do anything to another man1 or to his property1 which they had no right to do as individuals they thereby declare themselves trespassers1 robbers1 or murderers1 according to the nature of their acts4 ,men1 as individuals1 may rightfully compel each other to obey this one law of justice4 ,and it is the only law which any man can rightfully be compelled1 by his fellow men1 to obey4 ,all other laws1 it is optional with each man to obey1 or not1 as he may choose4 ,but this one law of justice he may rightfully be compelled to obey2 and all the force that is reasonably necessary to compel him1 may rightfully be used against him4 ,but the right of every man to do anything1 and everything1 which justice does not forbid him to do1 is a natural1 inherent1 inalienable right4 ,it is his right1 as against any and all other men1 whether they be many1 or few4 ,it is a right indispensable to every man's highest happiness2 and to every man's power of judging and determining for himself what will1 and what will not1 promote his happiness4 ,any restriction upon the exercise of this right is a restriction upon his rightful power of providing for1 and accomplishing1 his own well-being4 ,sir1 these natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 individual rights are sacred things4 ,they are the only human rights4 ,they are the only rights by which any man can protect his own property1 liberty1 or life against any one who may be disposed to take it away4 ,consequently they are not things that any set of either blockheads or villains1 calling themselves a government1 can rightfully take into their own hands1 and dispose of at their pleasure1 as they have been accustomed to do in this1 and in nearly or quite all other countries4 ,,section ,v4 ,sir1 ,i repeat that individual rights are the only human rights4 ,legally speaking1 there are no such things as public rights1 as distinguished from individual rights4 ,legally speaking1 there is no such creature or thing as the public4 ,the term the public is an utterly vague and indefinite one1 applied arbitrarily and at random to a greater or less number of individuals1 each and every one of whom have their own separate1 individual rights1 and none others4 ,and the protection of these separate1 individual rights is the one only legitimate purpose1 for which anything in the nature of a governing1 or coercive1 power has a right to exist4 ,and these separate1 individual rights all rest upon1 and can be ascertained only by1 the one science of justice4 ,legally speaking1 the term public rights is as vague and indefinite as are the terms public health1 public good1 public welfare1 and the like4 ,it has no legal meaning1 except when used to describe the separate1 private1 individual rights of a greater or less number of individuals4 ,in so far as the separate1 private1 natural rights of individuals are secured1 in just so far1 and no farther1 are the public rights secured4 ,in so far as the separate1 private1 natural rights of individuals are disregarded or violated1 in just so far are public rights disregarded or violated4 ,therefore all the pretences of so-called lawmakers1 that they are protecting public rights1 by violating private rights1 are sheer and utter contradictions and frauds4 ,they are just as false and absurd as it would be to say that they are protecting the public health1 by arbitrarily poisoning and destroying the health of single individuals4 ,the pretence of the lawmakers1 that they are promoting the public good1 by violating individual rights1 is just as false and absurd as is the pretence that they are protecting public rights by violating private rights4 ,sir1 the greatest public good1 of which any coercive power1 calling itself a government1 or by any other name1 is capable1 is the protection of each and every individual in the quiet and peaceful enjoyment and exercise of all his own natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 individual rights4 ,this is a good that comes home to each and every individual1 of whom the public is composed4 ,it is also a good1 which each and every one of these individuals1 composing the public1 can appreciate4 ,it is a good1 for the loss of which governments can make no compensation whatever4 ,it is a universal and impartial good1 of the highest importance to each and every human being2 and not any such vague1 false1 and criminal thing as the lawmakers--when violating private rights--tell us they are trying to accomplish1 under the name of the public good4 ,it is also the only equal and exact justice1 which you1 or anybody else1 are capable of securing1 or have any occasion to secure1 to any human being4 ,let but this equal and exact justice be secured to all men1 and they will then be abundantly able to take care of themselves1 and secure their own highest good4 ,or if any one should ever chance to need anything more than this1 he may safely trust to the voluntary kindness of his fellow men to supply it4 ,it is one of those things not easily accounted for1 that men who would scorn to do an injustice to a fellow man1 in a private transaction1--who would scorn to usurp any arbitrary dominion over him1 or his property1--who would be in the highest degree indignant1 if charged with any private injustice1--and who1 at a moment's warning1 would take their lives in their hands1 to defend their own rights1 and redress their own wrongs1--will1 the moment they become members of what they call a government1 assume that they are absolved from all principles and all obligations that were imperative upon them1 as individuals2 will assume that they are invested with a right of arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over other men1 and other men's property4 ,yet they are doing this continually4 ,and all the laws they make are based upon the assumption that they have now become invested with rights that are more than human1 and that those1 on whom their laws are to operate1 have lost even their human rights4 ,they seem to be utterly blind to the fact1 that the only reason there can be for their existence as a government1 is that they may protect those very rights1 which they before scrupulously respected1 but which they now unscrupulously trample upon4 ,,section ,,vi4 ,but you evidently believe nothing of what ,i have now been saying4 ,you evidently believe that justice is no law at all1 unless in cases where the lawmakers may chance to prefer it to any law which they themselves can invent4 ,you evidently believe that1 a certain paper1 called the constitution1 which nobody ever signed1 which few persons ever read1 which the great body of the people never saw1 and as to the meaning of which no two persons were ever agreed1 is the supreme law of this land1 anything in the law of nature--anything in the natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 individual rights of fifty millions of people--to the contrary not withstanding4 ,did folly1 falsehood1 absurdity1 assumption1 or criminality ever reach a higher point than that8 ,you evidently believe that those great volumes of statutes1 which the people at large have never read1 nor even seen1 and never will read1 nor see1 but which such men as you and your lawmakers have been manufacturing for nearly a hundred years1 to restrain them of their liberty1 and deprive them of their natural rights1 were all made for their benefit1 by men wiser than they--wiser even than justice itself--and having only their welfare at heart6 ,you evidently believe that the men who made those laws were duly authorized to make them2 and that you yourself have been duly authorized to enforce them4 ,but in this you are utterly mistaken4 ,you have not so much as the honest1 responsible scratch of one single pen1 to justify you in the exercise of the power you have taken upon yourself to exercise4 ,for example1 you have no such evidence of your right to take any man's property for the support of your government1 as would be required of you1 if you were to claim pay for a single day's honest labor4 ,it was once said1 in this country1 that taxation without consent was robbery4 ,and a seven years' war was fought to maintain that principle4 ,but if that principle were a true one in behalf of three millions of men1 it is an equally true one in behalf of three men1 or of one man4 ,who are ever taxed8 ,individuals only4 ,who have property that can be taxed8 ,individuals only4 ,who can give their consent to be taxed8 ,individuals only4 ,who are ever taxed without their consent8 ,individuals only4 ,who1 then1 are robbed1 if taxed without their consent8 ,individuals only4 ,if taxation without consent is robbery1 the ,united ,states government has never had1 has not now1 and is never likely to have1 a single honest dollar in its treasury4 ,if taxation without consent is not robbery1 then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government1 and all their robberies are legalized4 ,if any man's money can be taken by a so-called government1 without his own personal consent1 all his other rights are taken with it2 for with his money the government can1 and will1 hire soldiers to stand over him1 compel him to submit to its arbitrary will1 and kill him if he resists4 ,that your whole claim of a right to any man's money for the support of your government1 without his consent1 is the merest farce and fraud1 is proved by the fact that you have no such evidence of your right to take it1 as would be required of you1 by one of your own courts1 to prove a debt of five dollars1 that might be honestly due you4 ,you and your lawmakers have no such evidence of your right of dominion over the people of this country1 as would be required to prove your right to any material property1 that you might have purchased4 ,when a man parts with any considerable amount of such material property as he has a natural right to part with1--as1 for example1 houses1 or lands1 or food1 or clothing1 or anything else of much value1--he usually gives1 and the purchaser usually demands1 some written acknowledgment1 receipt1 bill of sale1 or other evidence1 that will prove that he voluntarily parted with it1 and that the purchaser is now the real and true owner of it4 ,but you hold that fifty millions of people have voluntarily parted1 not only with their natural right of dominion over all their material property1 but also with all their natural right of dominion over their own souls and bodies2 when not one of them has ever given you a scrap of writing1 or even made his mark1 to that effect4 ,you have not so much as the honest signature of a single human being1 granting to you or your lawmakers any right of dominion whatever over him or his property4 ,you hold your place only by a title1 which1 on no just principle of law or reason1 is worth a straw4 ,and all who are associated with you in the government--whether they be called senators1 representatives1 judges1 executive officers1 or what not--all hold their places1 directly or indirectly1 only by the same worthless title4 ,that title is nothing more nor less than votes given in secret 7by secret ballot71 by not more than one-fifth of the whole population4 ,these votes were given in secret solely because those who gave them did not dare to make themselves personally responsible1 either for their own acts1 or the acts of their agents1 the lawmakers1 judges1 etc4 ,these voters1 having given their votes in secret 7by secret ballot71 have put it out of your power--and out of the power of all others associated with you in the government--to designate your principals individually4 ,that is to say1 you have no legal knowledge as to who voted for you1 or who voted against you4 ,and being unable to designate your principals individually1 you have no right to say that you have any principals4 ,and having no right to say that you have any principals1 you are bound1 on every just principle of law or reason1 to confess that you are mere usurpers1 making laws1 and enforcing them1 upon your own authority alone4 ,a secret ballot makes a secret government2 and a secret government is nothing else than a government by conspiracy4 ,and a government by conspiracy is the only government we now have4 ,you say that every voter exercises a public trust4 ,who appointed him to that trust8 ,nobody4 ,he simply usurped the power2 he never accepted the trust4 ,and because he usurped the power1 he dares exercise it only in secret4 ,not one of all the ten millions of voters1 who helped to place you in power1 would have dared to do so1 if he had known that he was to be held personally responsible1 before any just tribunal1 for the acts of those for whom he voted4 ,inasmuch as all the votes1 given for you and your lawmakers1 were given in secret1 all that you and they can say1 in support of your authority as rulers1 is that you venture upon your acts as lawmakers1 etc41 not because you have any open1 authentic1 written1 legitimate authority granted you by any human being1--for you can show nothing of the kind1--but only because1 from certain reports made to you of votes given in secret1 you have reason to believe that you have at your backs a secret association strong enough to sustain you by force1 in case your authority should be resisted4 ,is there a government on earth that rests upon a more false1 absurd1 or tyrannical basis than that8 ,,section ,,vii4 ,but the falsehood and absurdity of your whole system of government do not result solely from the fact that it rests wholly upon votes given in secret1 or by men who take care to avoid all personal responsibility for their own acts1 or the acts of their agents4 ,on the contrary1 if every man1 woman1 and child in the ,united ,states had openly signed1 sealed1 and delivered to you and your associates1 a written document1 purporting to invest you with all the legislative1 judicial1 and executive powers that you now exercise1 they would not thereby have given you the slightest legitimate authority4 ,such a contract1 purporting to surrender into your hands all their natural rights of person and property1 to be disposed of at your pleasure or discretion1 would have been simply an absurd and void contract1 giving you no real authority whatever4 ,it is a natural impossibility for any man to make a binding contract1 by which he shall surrender to others a single one of what are commonly called his natural1 inherent1 inalienable rights4 ,it is a natural impossibility for any man to make a binding contract1 that shall invest others with any right whatever of arbitrary1 irresponsible dominion over him4 ,the right of arbitrary1 irresponsible dominion is the right of property2 and the right of property is the right of arbitrary1 irresponsible dominion4 ,the two are identical4 ,there is no difference between them4 ,neither can exist without the other4 ,if1 therefore1 our so-called lawmakers really have that right of arbitrary1 irresponsible dominion over us1 which they claim to have1 and which they habitually exercise1 it must be because they own us as property4 ,if they own us as property1 it must be because nature made us their property2 for1 as no man can sell himself as a slave1 we could never make a binding contract that should make us their property--or1 what is the same thing1 give them any right of arbitrary1 irresponsible dominion over us4 ,as a lawyer1 you certainly ought to know that all this is true4 ,,section ,,viii4 ,sir1 consider1 for a moment1 what an utterly false1 absurd1 ridiculous1 and criminal government we now have4 ,it all rests upon the false1 ridiculous1 and utterly groundless assumption1 that fifty millions of people not only could voluntarily surrender1 but actually have voluntarily surrendered1 all their natural rights1 as human beings1 into the custody of some four hundred men1 called lawmakers1 judges1 etc41 who are to be held utterly irresponsible for the disposal they may make of them4#b #b ,the irresponsibility of the senators and representatives is guaranteed to them in this wise3 ,for any speech or debate or vote in either house1 they the senators and representatives shall not be questioned held to any legal responsibility in any other place4--,constitution1 ,art4 #a1 ,sec4 #f4 ,the judicial and executive officers are all equally guaranteed against all responsibility to the people4 ,they are made responsible only to the senators and representatives1 whose laws they are to administer and execute4 ,so long as they sanction and execute all these laws1 to the satisfaction of the lawmakers1 they are safe against all responsibility4 ,in no case can the people1 whose rights they are continually denying and trampling upon1 hold them to any accountability whatever4 ,thus it will be seen that all departments of the government1 legislative1 judicial1 and executive1 are placed entirely beyond any responsibility to the people1 whose agents they profess to be1 and whose rights they assume to dispose of at pleasure4 ,was a more absolute1 irresponsible government than that ever invented8 ,the only right1 which any individual is supposed to retain1 or possess1 under the government1 is a purely fictitious one1--one that nature never gave him1--to wit1 his right 7so-called71 as one of some ten millions of male adults1 to give away1 by his vote1 not only all his own natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 human rights1 but also all the natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 human rights of forty millions of other human beings--that is1 women and children4 ,to suppose that any one of all these ten millions of male adults would voluntarily surrender a single one of all his natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 human rights into the hands of irresponsible men1 is an absurdity2 because1 first1 he has no power to do so1 any contract he may make for that purpose being absurd1 and necessarily void2 and1 secondly1 because he can have no rational motive for doing so4 ,to suppose him to do so1 is to suppose him to be an idiot1 incapable of making any rational and obligatory contract4 ,it is to suppose he would voluntarily give away everything in life that was of value to himself1 and get nothing in return4 ,to suppose that he would attempt to give away all the natural rights of other persons--that is1 the women and children--as well as his own1 is to suppose him to attempt to do something that he has no right1 or power1 to do4 ,it is to suppose him to be both a villain and a fool4 ,and yet this government now rests wholly upon the assumption that some ten millions of male adults--men supposed to be compos mentis--have not only attempted to do1 but have actually succeeded in doing1 these absurd and impossible things4 ,it cannot be said that men put all their rights into the hands of the government1 in order to have them protected2 because there can be no such thing as a man's being protected in his rights1 any longer than he is allowed to retain them in his own possession4 ,the only possible way1 in which any man can be protected in his rights1 is to protect him in his own actual possession and exercise of them4 ,and yet our government is absurd enough to assume that a man can be protected in his rights1 after he has surrendered them altogether into other hands than his own4 ,this is just as absurd as it would be to assume that a man had given himself away as a slave1 in order to be protected in the enjoyment of his liberty4 ,a man wants his rights protected1 solely that he himself may possess and use them1 and have the full benefit of them4 ,but if he is compelled to give them up to somebody else1--to a government1 so-called1 or to any body else1--he ceases to have any rights of his own to be protected4 ,to say1 as the advocates of our government do1 that a man must give up some of his natural rights1 to a government1 in order to have the rest of them protected--the government being all the while the sole and irresponsible judge as to what rights he does give up1 and what he retains1 and what are to be protected--is to say that he gives up all the rights that the government chooses1 at any time1 to assume that he has given up2 and that he retains none1 and is to be protected in none1 except such as the government shall1 at all times1 see fit to protect1 and to permit him to retain4 ,this is to suppose that he has retained no rights at all1 that he can1 at any time1 claim as his own1 as against the government4 ,it is to say that he has really given up every right1 and reserved none4 ,for a still further reason1 it is absurd to say that a man must give up some of his rights to a government1 in order that government may protect him in the rest4 ,that reason is1 that every right he gives up diminishes his own power of self-protection1 and makes it so much more difficult for the government to protect him4 ,and yet our government says a man must give up all his rights1 in order that it may protect him4 ,it might just as well be said that a man must consent to be bound hand and foot1 in order to enable a government1 or his friends1 to protect him against an enemy4 ,leave him in full possession of his limbs1 and of all his powers1 and he will do more for his own protection than he otherwise could1 and will have less need of protection from a government1 or any other source4 ,finally1 if a man1 who is compos mentis1 wants any outside protection for his rights1 he is perfectly competent to make his own bargain for such as he desires2 and other persons have no occasion to thrust their protection upon him1 against his will2 or to insist1 as they now do1 that he shall give up all1 or any1 of his rights to them1 in consideration of such protection1 and only such protection1 as they may afterwards choose to give him4 ,it is especially noticeable that those persons1 who are so impatient to protect other men in their rights that they cannot wait until they are requested to do so1 have a somewhat inveterate habit of killing all who do not voluntarily accept their protection2 or do not consent to give up to them all their rights in exchange for it4 ,if ,a were to go to ,b1 a merchant1 and say to him1 ,sir1 ,i am a night-watchman1 and ,i insist upon your employing me as such in protecting your property against burglars2 and to enable me to do so more effectually1 ,i insist upon your letting me tie your own hands and feet1 so that you cannot interfere with me2 and also upon your delivering up to me all your keys to your store1 your safe1 and to all your valuables2 and that you authorize me to act solely and fully according to my own will1 pleasure1 and discretion in the matter2 and ,i demand still further1 that you shall give me an absolute guaranty that you will not hold me to any accountability whatever for anything ,i may do1 or for anything that may happen to your goods while they are under my protection2 and unless you comply with this proposal1 ,i will now kill you on the spot1--if ,a were to say all this to ,b1 ,b would naturally conclude that ,a himself was the most impudent and dangerous burglar that he 7,b7 had to fear2 and that if he 7,b7 wished to secure his property against burglars1 his best way would be to kill ,a in the first place1 and then take his chances against all such other burglars as might come afterwards4 ,our government constantly acts the part that is here supposed to be acted by ,a4 ,and it is just as impudent a scoundrel as ,a is here supposed to be4 ,it insists that every man shall give up all his rights unreservedly into its custody1 and then hold it wholly irresponsible for any disposal it may make of them4 ,and it gives him no alternative but death4 ,if by putting a bayonet to a man's breast1 and giving him his choice1 to die1 or be protected in his rights1 it secures his consent to the latter alternative1 it then proclaims itself a free government1--a government resting on consent6 ,you yourself describe such a government as the best government ever vouchsafed to man4 ,can you tell me of one that is worse in principle8 ,but perhaps you will say that ours is not so bad1 in principle1 as the others1 for the reason that here1 once in two1 four1 or six years1 each male adult is permitted to have one vote in ten millions1 in choosing the public protectors4 ,well1 if you think that that materially alters the case1 ,i wish you joy of your remarkable discernment4 ,,section ,,ix4 ,sir1 if a government is to do equal and exact justice to all men1 it must do simply that1 and nothing more4 ,if it does more than that to any1--that is1 if it gives monopolies1 privileges1 exemptions1 bounties1 or favors to any1--it can do so only by doing injustice to more or less others4 ,it can give to one only what it takes from others2 for it has nothing of its own to give to any one4 ,the best that it can do for all1 and the only honest thing it can do for any1 is simply to secure to each and every one his own rights1--the rights that nature gave him1--his rights of person1 and his rights of property2 leaving him1 then1 to pursue his own interests1 and secure his own welfare1 by the free and full exercise of his own powers of body and mind2 so long as he trespasses upon the equal rights of no other person4 ,if he desires any favors from any body1 he must1 ,i repeat1 depend upon the voluntary kindness of such of his fellow men as may be willing to grant them4 ,no government can have any right to grant them2 because no government can have a right to take from one man any thing that is his1 and give it to another4 ,if this be the only true idea of an honest government1 it is plain that it can have nothing to do with men's interests1 welfare1 or prosperity1 as distinguished from their rights4 ,being secured in their rights1 each and all must take the sole charge of1 and have the sole responsibility for1 their own interests1 welfare1 and prosperity4 ,by simply protecting every man in his rights1 a government necessarily keeps open to every one the widest possible field1 that he honestly can have1 for such industry as he may choose to follow4 ,it also insures him the widest possible field for obtaining such capital as he needs for his industry1 and the widest possible markets for the products of his labor4 ,with the possession of these rights1 he must be content4 ,no honest government can go into business with any individuals1 be they many1 or few4 ,it cannot furnish capital to any1 nor prohibit the loaning of capital to any4 ,it can give to no one any special aid to competition2 nor protect any one from competition4 ,it must adhere inflexibly to the principle of entire freedom for all honest industry1 and all honest traffic4 ,it can do to no one any favor1 nor render to any one any assistance1 which it withholds from another4 ,it must hold the scales impartially between them2 taking no cognizance of any man's interests1 welfare1 or prosperity1 otherwise than by simply protecting him in his rights4 ,in opposition to this view1 lawmakers profess to have weighty duties laid upon them1 to promote men's interests1 welfare1 and prosperity1 as distinguished from their rights4 ,they seldom have any thing to say about men's rights4 ,on the contrary1 they take it for granted that they are charged with the duty of promoting1 superintending1 directing1 and controlling the business of the country4 ,in the performance of this supposed duty1 all ideas of individual rights are cast aside4 ,not knowing any way--because there is no way--in which they can impartially promote all men's interests1 welfare1 and prosperity1 otherwise than by protecting impartially all men's rights1 they boldly proclaim that individual rights must not be permitted to stand in the way of the public good1 the public welfare1 and the business interests of the country4 ,substantially all their lawmaking proceeds upon this theory2 for there is no other theory1 on which they can find any justification whatever for any lawmaking at all4 ,so they proceed to give monopolies1 privileges1 bounties1 grants1 loans1 etc41 etc41 to particular persons1 or classes of persons2 justifying themselves by saying that these privileged persons will give employment to the unprivileged2 and that this employment1 given by the privileged to the unprivileged1 will compensate the latter for the loss of their rights4 ,and they carry on their lawmaking of this kind to the greatest extent they think is possible1 without causing rebellion and revolution1 on the part of the injured classes4 ,sir1 ,i am sorry to see that you adopt this lawmaking theory to its fullest extent2 that although1 for once only1 and in a dozen words only1--and then merely incidentally1--you describe the government as a government pledged to do equal and exact justice to all men1 you show1 throughout the rest of your address1 that you have no thought of abiding by that principle2 that you are either utterly ignorant1 or utterly regardless1 of what that principle requires of you2 that the government1 so far as your influence goes1 is to be given up to the business of lawmaking1--that is1 to the business of abolishing justice1 and establishing injustice in its place2 that you hold it to be the proper duty and function of the government to be constantly looking after men's interests1 welfare1 prosperity1 etc41 etc41 as distinguished from their rights2 that it must consider men's rights as no guide to the promotion of their interests2 that it must give favors to some1 and withhold the same favors from others2 that in order to give these favors to some1 it must take from others their rights2 that1 in reality1 it must traffic in both men's interests and their rights2 that it must keep open shop1 and sell men's interests and rights to the highest bidders2 and that this is your only plan for promoting the general welfare1 the common interest1 etc41 etc4 ,that such is your idea of the constitutional duties and functions of the government1 is shown by different parts of your address3 but more fully1 perhaps1 by this3 ,the large variety of diverse and competing interests subject to federal control1 persistently seeking recognition of their claims1 need give us no fear that the greatest good of the greatest number will fail to be accomplished1 if1 in the halls of national legislation1 that spirit of amity and mutual concession shall prevail1 in which the constitution had its birth4 ,if this involves the surrender or postponement of private interests1 and the abandonment of local advantages1 compensation will be found in the assurance that thus the common interest is subserved1 and the general welfare advanced4 ,what is all this but saying that the government is not at all an institution for doing equal and exact justice to all men1 or for the impartial protection of all men's rights2 but that it is its proper business to take sides1 for and against1 a large variety of diverse and competing interests2 that it has this large variety of diverse and competing interests under its arbitrary control2 that it can1 at its pleasure1 make such laws as will give success to some of them1 and insure the defeat of others2 that these various1 diverse1 and competing interests will be persistently seeking recognition of their claims 444 in the halls of national legislation1--that is1 will be persistently clamoring for laws to be made in their favor2 that1 in fact1 the halls of national legislation are to be mere arenas1 into which the government actually invites the advocates and representatives of all the selfish schemes of avarice and ambition that unprincipled men can devise2 that these schemes will there be free to compete with each other in their corrupt offers for government favor and support2 and that it is to be the proper and ordinary business of the lawmakers to listen to all these schemes2 to adopt some of them1 and sustain them with all the money and power of the government2 and to postpone1 abandon1 oppose1 and defeat all others2 it being well known1 all the while1 that the lawmakers will1 individually1 favor1 or oppose1 these various schemes1 according to their own irresponsible will1 pleasure1 and discretion1--that is1 according as they can better serve their own personal interests and ambitions by doing the one or the other4 ,was a more thorough scheme of national villainy ever invented8 ,sir1 do you not know that in this conflict1 between these various1 diverse1 and competing interests1 all ideas of individual rights--all ideas of equal and exact justice to all men--will be cast to the winds2 that the boldest1 the strongest1 the most fraudulent1 the most rapacious1 and the most corrupt1 men will have control of the government1 and make it a mere instrument for plundering the great body of the people8 ,your idea of the real character of the government is plainly this3 ,the lawmakers are to assume absolute and irresponsible control of all the financial resources1 all the legislative1 judicial1 and executive powers1 of the government1 and employ them all for the promotion of such schemes of plunder and ambition as they may select from all those that may be submitted to them for their approval2 that they are to keep the halls of national legislation wide open for the admission of all persons having such schemes to offer2 and that they are to grant monopolies1 privileges1 loans1 and bounties to all such of these schemes as they can make subserve their own individual interests and ambitions1 and reject or postpone all others4 ,and that there is to be no limit to their operations of this kind1 except their fear of exciting rebellion and resistance on the part of the plundered classes4 ,and you are just fool enough to tell us that such a government as this may be relied on to accomplish the greatest good to the greatest number1 to subserve the common interest1 and advance the general welfare1 if1 only1 in the halls of national legislation1 that spirit of amity and mutual concession shall prevail1 in which the constitution had its birth4 ,you here assume that the general welfare is to depend1 not upon the free and untrammelled enterprise and industry of the whole people1 acting individually1 and each enjoying and exercising all his natural rights2 but wholly or principally upon the success of such particular schemes as the government may take under its special control4 ,and this means that the general welfare is to depend1 wholly or principally1 upon such privileges1 monopolies1 loans1 and bounties as the government may grant to more or less of that large variety of diverse and competing interests--that is1 schemes--that may be persistently pressed upon its attention4 ,but as you impliedly acknowledge that the government cannot take all these interests 7schemes7 under its control1 and bestow its favors upon all alike1 you concede that some of them must be surrendered1 postponed1 or abandoned2 and that1 consequently1 the government cannot get on at all1 unless1 in the halls of national legislation1 that spirit of amity and mutual concession shall prevail1 in which the constitution had its birth4 ,this spirit of amity and mutual concession in the halls of legislation1 you explain to mean this3 a disposition1 on the part of the lawmakers respectively--whose various schemes of plunder cannot all be accomplished1 by reason of their being beyond the financial resources of the government1 or the endurance of the people--to surrender some of them1 postpone others1 and abandon others1 in order that the general business of robbery may go on to the greatest extent possible1 and that each one of the lawmakers may succeed with as many of the schemes he is specially intrusted with1 as he can carry through by means of such bargains1 for mutual help1 as he may be able to make with his fellow lawmakers4 ,such is the plan of government1 to which you say that you consecrate yourself1 and engage your every faculty and effort4 ,was a more shameless avowal ever made8 ,you cannot claim to be ignorant of what crimes such a government will commit4 ,you have had abundant opportunity to know--and if you have kept your eyes open1 you do know--what these schemes of robbery have been in the past2 and from these you can judge what they will be in the future4 ,you know that under such a system1 every senator and representative--probably without an exception--will come to the congress as the champion of the dominant scoundrelisms of his own ,state or district2 that he will be elected solely to serve those interests1 as you call them2 that in offering himself as a candidate1 he will announce the robbery1 or robberies1 to which all his efforts will be directed2 that he will call these robberies his policy2 or if he be lost to all decency1 he will call them his principles2 that they will always be such as he thinks will best subserve his own interests1 or ambitions2 that he will go to the halls of national legislation with his head full of plans for making bargains with other lawmakers--as corrupt as himself--for mutual help in carrying their respective schemes4 ,such has been the character of our congresses nearly1 or quite1 from the beginning4 ,it can scarcely be said that there has ever been an honest man in one of them4 ,a man has sometimes gained a reputation for honesty1 in his own ,state or district1 by opposing some one or more of the robberies that were proposed by members from other portions of the country4 ,but such a man has seldom1 or never1 deserved his reputation2 for he has1 generally1 if not always1 been the advocate of some one or more schemes of robbery1 by which more or less of his own constituents were to profit1 and which he knew it would be indispensable that he should advocate1 in order to give him votes at home4 ,if there have ever been any members1 who were consistently honest throughout1--who were really in favor of doing equal and exact justice to all men1--and1 of course1 nothing more than that to any1--their numbers have been few2 so few as to have left no mark upon the general legislation4 ,they have but constituted the exceptions that proved the rule4 ,if you were now required to name such a lawmaker1 ,i think you would search our history in vain to find him4 ,that this is no exaggerated description of our national lawmaking1 the following facts will prove4 ,for the first seventy years of the government1 one portion of the lawmakers would be satisfied with nothing less than permission to rob one-sixth1 or one-seventh1 of the whole population1 not only of their labor1 but even of their right to their own persons4 ,in #ahfj1 this class of lawmakers comprised all the senators and representatives from fifteen1 of the then thirty-three1 ,states4#c #c ,in the ,senate they stood thirty to thirty-six1 in the house ninety to one hundred and forty-seven1 in the two branches united one hundred and twenty to one hundred and eighty-three1 relatively to the non-slaveholding members4 ,from the foundation of the government--without a single interval1 ,i think--the lawmakers from the slaveholding ,states had been1 relatively1 as strong1 or stronger1 than in #ahfj4 ,this body of lawmakers1 standing always firmly together1 and capable of turning the scale for1 or against1 any scheme of robbery1 in which northern men were interested1 but on which northern men were divided1--such as navigation acts1 tariffs1 bounties1 grants1 war1 peace1 etc41--could purchase immunity for their own crime1 by supporting such1 and so many1 northern crimes--second only to their own in atrocity--as could be mutually agreed on4 ,in this way the slaveholders bargained for1 and secured1 protection for slavery and the slave trade1 by consenting to such navigation acts as some of the northern ,states desired1 and to such tariffs on imports--such as iron1 coal1 wool1 woollen goods1 etc41--as should enable the home producers of similar articles to make fortunes by robbing everybody else in the prices of their goods4 ,another class of lawmakers have been satisfied with nothing less than such a monopoly of money1 as should enable the holders of it to suppress1 as far as possible1 all industry and traffic1 except such as they themselves should control2 such a monopoly of money as would put it wholly out of the power of the great body of wealth-producers to hire the capital needed for their industries2 and thus compel them--especially the mechanical portions of them--by the alternative of starvation--to sell their labor to the monopolists of money1 for just such prices as these latter should choose to pay4 ,this monopoly of money has also given1 to the holders of it1 a control1 so nearly absolute1 of all industry--agricultural as well as mechanical--and all traffic1 as has enabled them to plunder all the producing classes in the prices of their labor1 or the products of their labor4 ,have you been blind1 all these years1 to the existence1 or the effects1 of this monopoly of money8 ,still another class of lawmakers have demanded unequal taxation on the various kinds of home property1 that are subject to taxation2 such unequal taxation as would throw heavy burdens upon some kinds of property1 and very light burdens1 or no burdens at all1 upon other kinds4 ,and yet another class of lawmakers have demanded great appropriations1 or loans1 of money1 or grants of lands1 to enterprises intended to give great wealth to a few1 at the expense of everybody else4 ,these are some of the schemes of downright and outright robbery1 which you mildly describe as the large variety of diverse and competing interests1 subject to federal control1 persistently seeking recognition of their claims 444 in the halls of national legislation2 and each having its champions and representatives among the lawmakers4 ,you know that all1 or very nearly all1 the legislation of congress is devoted to these various schemes of robbery2 and that little1 or no1 legislation goes through1 except by means of such bargains as these lawmakers may enter into with each other1 for mutual support of their respective robberies4 ,and yet you have the mendacity1 or the stupidity1 to tell us that so much of this legislation as does go through1 may be relied on to accomplish the greatest good to the greatest number1 to subserve the common interest1 and advance the general welfare4 ,and when these schemes of robbery become so numerous1 atrocious1 and unendurable that they can no longer be reconciled in the halls of national legislation1 by surrendering some of them1 postponing others1 and abandoning others1 you assume--for such has been the prevailing opinion1 and you say nothing to the contrary--that it is the right of the strongest party1 or parties1 to murder a half million of men1 if that be necessary1--and as we once did1--not to secure liberty or justice to any body1--but to compel the weaker of these would-be robbers to submit to all such robberies as the stronger ones may choose to practise upon them4 ,,section ,x4 ,sir1 your idea of the true character of our government is plainly this3 you assume that all the natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 individual1 human rights of fifty millions of people--all their individual rights to preserve their own lives1 and promote their own happiness--have been thrown into one common heap1--into hotchpotch1 as the lawyers say3 and that this hotchpotch has been given into the hands of some four hundred champion robbers1 each of whom has pledged himself to carry off as large a portion of it as possible1 to be divided among those men--well known to himself1 but who--to save themselves from all responsibility for his acts--have secretly 7by secret ballot7 appointed him to be their champion4 ,sir1 if you had assumed that all the people of this country had thrown all their wealth1 all their rights1 all their means of living1 into hotchpotch2 and that this hotchpotch had been given over to four hundred ferocious hounds2 and that each of these hounds had been selected and trained to bring to his masters so much of this common plunder as he1 in the general fight1 or scramble1 could get off with1 you would scarcely have drawn a more vivid picture of the true character of the government of the ,united ,states1 than you have done in your inaugural address4 ,no wonder that you are obliged to confess that such a government can be carried on only amid the din of party strife2 that it will be influenced--you should have said directed--by purely partisan zeal2 and that it will be attended by the animosities of political strife1 the bitterness of partisan defeat1 and the exultation of partisan triumph4 ,what gang of robbers1 quarrelling over the division of their plunder1 could exhibit a more shameful picture than you thus acknowledge to be shown by the government of the ,united ,states8 ,sir1 nothing of all this din1 and strife1 and animosity1 and bitterness1 is caused by any attempt1 on the part of the government1 to simply do equal and exact justice to all men1--to simply protect every man impartially in all his natural rights to life1 liberty1 and property4 ,it is all caused simply and solely by the government's violation of some men's rights1 to promote other men's interests4 ,if you do not know this1 you are mentally an object of pity4 ,sir1 men's rights are always harmonious4 ,that is to say1 each man's rights are always consistent and harmonious with each and every other man's rights4 ,but their interests as you estimate them1 constantly clash2 especially such interests as depend on government grants of monopolies1 privileges1 loans1 and bounties4 ,and these interests1 like the interests of other gamblers1 clash with a fury proportioned to the amounts at stake4 ,it is these clashing interests and not any clashing rights that give rise to all the strife you have here depicted1 and to all this necessity for that spirit of amity and mutual concession1 which you hold to be indispensable to the accomplishment of such legislation as you say is necessary to the welfare of the country4 ,each and every man's rights being consistent and harmonious with each and every other man's rights2 and all men's rights being immutably fixed1 and easily ascertained1 by a science that is open to be learned and known by all2 a government that does nothing but equal and exact justice to all men--that simply gives to every man his own1 and nothing more to any--has no cause and no occasion for any political parties4 ,what are these political parties but standing armies of robbers1 each trying to rob the other1 and to prevent being itself robbed by the other8 ,a government that seeks only to do equal and exact justice to all men1 has no cause and no occasion to enlist all the fighting men in the nation in two hostile ranks2 to keep them always in battle array1 and burning with hatred towards each other4 ,it has no cause and no occasion for any political warfare any political hostility any political campaigns any political contests any political fights any political defeats or any political triumphs4 ,it has no cause and no occasion for any of those political leaders so called1 whose whole business is to invent new schemes of robbery1 and organize the people into opposing bands of robbers2 all for their own aggrandizement alone4 ,it has no cause and no occasion for the toleration1 or the existence1 of that vile horde of political bullies1 and swindlers1 and blackguards1 who enlist on one side or the other1 and fight for pay2 who1 year in and year out1 employ their lungs and their ink in spreading lies among ignorant people1 to excite their hopes of gain1 or their fears of loss1 and thus obtain their votes4 ,in short1 it has no cause and no occasion for all this din of party strife1 for all this purely partisan zeal1 for all the bitterness of partisan defeat1 for all the exultation of partisan triumph1 nor1 worst of all1 for any of that spirit of amity and mutual concession by which you evidently mean that readiness1 in the halls of national legislation1 to sacrifice some men's rights to promote other men's interests in which you say the constitution had its birth4 ,if the constitution does really1 or naturally1 give rise to all this strife1 and require all this spirit of amity and mutual concession1--and ,i do not care now to deny that it does1--so much the worse for the constitution4 ,and so much the worse for all those men who1 like yourself1 swear to preserve1 protect1 and defend it4 ,and yet you have the face to make no end of professions1 or pretences1 that the impelling power1 the real motive1 in all this robbery and strife1 is nothing else than the service of the people1 their interests1 the promotion of their welfare1 good government1 government by the people1 the popular will1 the general weal1 the achievements of our national destiny1 the benefits which our happy form of government can bestow1 the lasting welfare of the country1 the priceless benefits of the constitution1 the greatest good to the greatest number1 the common interest1 the general welfare1 the people's will1 the mission of the ,american people1 our civil policy1 the genius of our institutions1 the needs of our people in their home life1 the settlement and development of the resources of our vast territory1 the prosperity of our republic1 the interests and prosperity of all the people1 the safety and confidence of business interests1 making the wage of labor sure and steady1 a due regard to the interests of capital invested and workingmen employed in ,american industries1 reform in the administration of the government1 the application of business principles to public affairs1 the constant and ever varying wants of an active and enterprising population1 a firm determination to secure to all the people of the land the full benefits of the best form of government ever vouchsafed to man1 the blessings of our national life1 etc41 etc4 ,sir1 what is the use of such a deluge of unmeaning words1 unless it be to gloss over1 and1 if possible1 hide1 the true character of the acts of the government8 ,such generalities as these do not even glitter4 ,they are only the stale phrases of the demagogue1 who wishes to appear to promise everything1 but commits himself to nothing4 ,or else they are the senseless talk of a mere political parrot1 who repeats words he has been taught to utter1 without knowing their meaning4 ,at best1 they are the mere gibberish of a man destitute of all political ideas1 but who imagines that good government1 the general welfare1 the common interest1 the best form of government ever vouchsafed to man1 etc41 etc41 must be very good things1 if anybody can ever find out what they are4 ,there is nothing definite1 nothing real1 nothing tangible1 nothing honest1 about them4 ,yet they constitute your entire stock in trade4 ,in resorting to them--in holding them up to public gaze as comprising your political creed--you assume that they have a meaning2 that they are matters of overruling importance2 that they require the action of an omnipotent1 irresponsible1 lawmaking government2 that all these interests must be represented1 and can be secured1 only in the halls of national legislation2 and by such political hounds as have been selected and trained1 and sent there1 solely that they may bring off1 to their respective masters1 as much as possible of the public plunder they hold in their hands2 that is1 as much as possible of the earnings of all the honest wealth-producers of the country4 ,and when these masters count up the spoils that their hounds have thus brought home to them1 they set up a corresponding shout that the public prosperity1 the common interest1 and the general welfare have been advanced4 ,and the scoundrels by whom the work has been accomplished1 in the halls of national legislation1 are trumpeted to the world as great statesmen4 ,and you are just stupid enough to be deceived into the belief1 or just knave enough to pretend to be deceived into the belief1 that all this is really the truth4 ,one would infer from your address that you think the people of this country incapable of doing anything for themselves1 individually2 that they would all perish1 but for the employment given them by that large variety of diverse and competing interests--that is1 such purely selfish schemes--as may be persistently seeking recognition of their claims 444 in the halls of national legislation1 and secure for themselves such monopolies and advantages as congress may see fit to grant them4 ,instead of your recognizing the right of each and every individual to judge of1 and provide for1 his own well-being1 according to the dictates of his own judgment1 and by the free exercise of his own powers of body and mind1--so long as he infringes the equal rights of no other person1--you assume that fifty millions of people1 who never saw you1 and never will see you1 who know almost nothing about you1 and care very little about you1 are all so weak1 ignorant1 and degraded as to be humbly and beseechingly looking to you--and to a few more lawmakers 7so called7 whom they never saw1 and never will see1 and of whom they know almost nothing--to enlighten1 direct1 and control them in their daily labors to supply their own wants1 and promote their own happiness6 ,you thus assume that these fifty millions of people are so debased1 mentally and morally1 that they look upon you and your associate lawmakers as their earthly gods1 holding their destinies in your hands1 and anxiously studying their welfare2 instead of looking upon you--as most of you certainly ought to be looked upon--as a mere cabal of ignorant1 selfish1 ambitious1 rapacious1 and unprincipled men1 who know very little1 and care to know very little1 except how you can get fame1 and power1 and money1 by trampling upon other men's rights1 and robbing them of the fruits of their labor4 ,assuming yourself to be the greatest of these gods1 charged with the welfare of fifty millions of people1 you enter upon the mighty task with all the mock solemnity1 and ridiculous grandiloquence1 of a man ignorant enough to imagine that he is really performing a solemn duty1 and doing an immense public service1 instead of simply making a fool of himself4 ,thus you say3 ,fellow citizens3 ,in the presence of this vast assemblage of my countrymen1 ,i am about to supplement and seal1 by the oath which ,i shall take1 the manifestation of the will of a great and free people4 ,in the exercise of their power and right of self-government1 they have committed to one of their fellow citizens a supreme and sacred trust1 and he here consecrates himself to their service4 ,this impressive ceremony adds little to the solemn sense of responsibility with which ,i contemplate the duty ,i owe to all the people of the land4 ,nothing can relieve me from anxiety lest by any act of mine their interests not their rights may suffer1 and nothing is needed to strengthen my resolution to engage every faculty and effort in the promotion of their welfare4 ,not in doing equal and exact justice to all men4 ,after having once described the government as one pledged to do equal and exact justice to all men1 you drop that subject entirely1 and wander off into interests1 and welfare1 and an astonishing number of other equally unmeaning things4 ,sir1 you would have no occasion to take all this tremendous labor and responsibility upon yourself1 if you and your lawmakers would but keep your hands off the rights of your countrymen4 ,your countrymen would be perfectly competent to take care of their own interests1 and provide for their own welfare1 if their hands were not tied1 and their powers crippled1 by such fetters as men like you and your lawmakers have fastened upon them4 ,do you know so little of your countrymen1 that you need to be told that their own strength and skill must be their sole reliance for their own well-being8 ,or that they are abundantly able1 and willing1 and anxious above all other things1 to supply their own needs in their home life1 and secure their own welfare8 ,or that they would do it1 not only without jar or friction1 but as their highest duty and pleasure1 if their powers were not manacled by the absurd and villainous laws you propose to execute upon them8 ,are you so stupid as to imagine that putting chains on men's hands1 and fetters on their feet1 and insurmountable obstacles in their paths1 is the way to supply their needs1 and promote their welfare8 ,do you think your countrymen need to be told1 either by yourself1 or by any such gang of ignorant or unprincipled men as all lawmakers are1 what to do1 and what not to do1 to supply their own needs in their home life8 ,do they not know how to grow their own food1 make their own clothing1 build their own houses1 print their own books1 acquire all the knowledge1 and create all the wealth1 they desire1 without being domineered over1 and thwarted in all their efforts1 by any set of either fools or villains1 who may call themselves their lawmakers8 ,and do you think they will never get their eyes open to see what blockheads1 or impostors1 you and your lawmakers are8 ,do they not now--at least so far as you will permit them to do it--grow their own food1 build their own houses1 make their own clothing1 print their own books8 ,do they not make all the scientific discoveries and mechanical inventions1 by which all wealth is created8 ,or are all these things done by the government8 ,are you an idiot1 that you can talk as you do1 about what you and your lawmakers are doing to provide for the real wants1 and promote the real welfare1 of fifty millions of people8 ,,section ,,xi4 ,but perhaps the most brilliant idea in your whole address1 is this3 ,every citizen owes the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of its public servants1 and a fair and reasonable estimate of their fidelity and usefulness4 ,thus is the people's will impressed upon the whole framework of our civil policy1 municipal1 ,state1 and federal2 and this is the price of our liberty1 and the inspiration of our faith in the republic4 ,the essential parts of this declaration are these3 ,every citizen owes the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of its public servants1 444 and this is the price of our liberty4 ,who are these public servants1 that need all this watching8 ,evidently they are the lawmakers1 and the lawmakers only4 ,they are not only the chief public servants1 but they are absolute masters of all the other public servants4 ,these other public servants1 judicial and executive1--the courts1 the army1 the navy1 the collectors of taxes1 etc41 etc41--have no function whatever1 except that of simple obedience to the lawmakers4 ,they are appointed1 paid1 and have their duties prescribed to them1 by the lawmakers2 and are made responsible only to the lawmakers4 ,they are mere puppets in the hands of the lawmakers4 ,clearly1 then1 the lawmakers are the only ones we have any occasion to watch4 ,your declaration1 therefore1 amounts1 practically1 to this1 and this only3 ,every citizen owes the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of ,,its ,,lawmakers1 444 and this is the price of our liberty4 ,sir1 your declaration is so far true1 as that all the danger to our liberty comes solely from the lawmakers4 ,and why are the lawmakers dangerous to our liberty8 ,because it is a natural impossibility that they can make any law--that is1 any law of their own invention--that does not violate our liberty4 ,the law of justice is the one only law that does not violate our liberty4 ,and that is not a law that was made by the lawmakers4 ,it existed before they were born1 and will exist after they are dead4 ,it derives not one particle of its authority from any commands of theirs4 ,it is1 therefore1 in no sense1 one of their laws4 ,only laws of their own invention are their laws4 ,and as it is naturally impossible that they can invent any law of their own1 that shall not conflict with the law of justice1 it is naturally impossible that they can make a law--that is1 a law of their own invention--that shall not violate our liberty4 ,the law of justice is the precise measure1 and the only precise measure1 of the rightful liberty of each and every human being4 ,any law--made by lawmakers--that should give to any man more liberty than is given him by the law of justice1 would be a license to commit an injustice upon one or more other persons4 ,on the other hand1 any law--made by lawmakers--that should take from any human being any liberty that is given him by the law of justice1 would be taking from him a part of his own rightful liberty4 ,inasmuch1 then1 as every possible law1 that can be made by lawmakers1 must either give to some one or more persons more liberty than the law of nature--or the law of justice--gives them1 and more liberty than is consistent with the natural and equal liberty of all other persons2 or else must take from some one or more persons some portion of that liberty which the law of nature--or the law of justice--gives to every human being1 it is inevitable that every law1 that can be made by lawmakers1 must be a violation of the natural and rightful liberty of some one or more persons4 ,therefore the very idea of a lawmaking government--a government that is to make laws of its own invention--is necessarily in direct and inevitable conflict with our liberty4 ,in fact1 the whole1 sole1 and only real purpose of any lawmaking government whatever is to take from some one or more persons their liberty4 ,consequently the only way in which all men can preserve their liberty1 is not to have any lawmaking government at all4 ,we have been told1 time out of mind1 that ,eternal vigilance is the price of liberty4 ,but this admonition1 by reason of its indefiniteness1 has heretofore fallen dead upon the popular mind4 ,it1 in reality1 tells us nothing that we need to know1 to enable us to preserve our liberty4 ,it does not even tell us what our liberty is1 or how1 or when1 or through whom1 it is endangered1 or destroyed4 #a4 ,it does not tell us that individual liberty is the only human liberty4 ,it does not tell us that national liberty1 political liberty1 republican liberty1 democratic liberty1 constitutional liberty1 liberty under law1 and all the other kinds of liberty that men have ever invented1 and with which tyrants1 as well as demagogues1 have amused and cheated the ignorant1 are not liberty at all1 unless in so far as they may1 under certain circumstances1 have chanced to contribute something to1 or given some impulse toward1 individual liberty4 #b4 ,it does not tell us that individual liberty means freedom from all compulsion to do anything whatever1 except what justice requires us to do1 and freedom to do everything whatever that justice permits us to do4 ,it does not tell us that individual liberty means freedom from all human restraint or coercion whatsoever1 so long as we live honestly1 hurt nobody1 and give to every one his due4 #c4 ,it does not tell us that there is any science of liberty2 any science1 which every man may learn1 and by which every man may know1 what is1 and what is not1 his own1 and every other man's1 rightful liberty4 #d4 ,it does not tell us that this right of individual liberty rests upon an immutable1 natural principle1 which no human power can make1 unmake1 or alter2 nor that all human authority1 that claims to set it aside1 or modify it1 is nothing but falsehood1 absurdity1 usurpation1 tyranny1 and crime4 #e4 ,it does not tell us that this right of individual liberty is a natural1 inherent1 inalienable right2 that therefore no man can part with it1 or delegate it to another1 if he would2 and that1 consequently1 all the claims that have ever been made1 by governments1 priests1 or any other powers1 that individuals have voluntarily surrendered1 or delegated1 their liberty to others1 are all impostures and frauds4 #f4 ,it does not tell us that all human laws1 so called1 and all human lawmaking1--all commands1 either by one man1 or any number of men1 calling themselves a government1 or by any other name--requiring any individual to do this1 or forbidding him to do that--so long as he lives honestly1 hurts no one1 and gives to every one his due--are all false and tyrannical assumptions of a right of authority and dominion over him2 are all violations of his natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 rightful1 individual liberty2 and1 as such1 are to be resented and resisted to the utmost1 by every one who does not choose to be a slave4 #g4 ,and1 finally1 it does not tell us that all lawmaking governments whatsoever--whether called monarchies1 aristocracies1 republics1 democracies1 or by any other name--are all alike violations of men's natural and rightful liberty4 ,we can now see why lawmakers are the only enemies1 from whom our liberty has anything to fear1 or whom we have any occasion to watch4 ,they are to be watched1 because they claim the right to abolish justice1 and establish injustice in its stead2 because they claim the right to command us to do things which justice does not require us to do1 and to forbid us to do things which justice permits us to do2 because they deny our right to be1 individually1 and absolutely1 our own masters and owners1 so long as we obey the one law of justice towards all other persons2 because they claim to be our masters1 and that their commands1 as such1 are authoritative and binding upon us as law2 and that they may rightfully compel us to obey them4 ,our liberty is in danger only from the lawmakers1 because it is only through the agency of lawmakers1 that anybody pretends to be able to take away our liberty4 ,it is only the lawmakers that claim to be above all responsibility for taking away our liberty4 ,lawmakers are the only ones who are impudent enough to assert for themselves the right to take away our liberty4 ,they are the only ones who are impudent enough to tell us that we have voluntarily surrendered our liberty into their hands4 ,they are the only ones who have the insolent condescension to tell us that1 in consideration of our having surrendered into their hands our liberty1 and all our natural1 inherent1 inalienable rights as human beings1 they are disposed to give us1 in return1 good government1 the best form of government ever vouchsafed to man2 to protect us1 to provide for our welfare1 to promote our interests1 etc41 etc4 ,and yet you are just blockhead enough to tell us that if ,every citizen--fifty millions and more of them--will but keep a vigilant watch and close scrutiny upon these lawmakers1 our liberty may be preserved6 ,don't you think1 sir1 that you are really the wisest man that ever told a great and free people how they could preserve their liberty8 ,to be entirely candid1 don't you think1 sir1 that a surer way of preserving our liberty would be to have no lawmakers at all8 ,,section ,,xii4 ,but1 in spite of all ,i have said1 or1 perhaps1 can say1 you will probably persist in your idea that the world needs a great deal of lawmaking2 that mankind in general are not entitled to have any will1 choice1 judgment1 or conscience of their own2 that1 if not very wicked1 they are at least very ignorant and stupid2 that they know very little of what is for their own good1 or how to promote their own interests1 welfare1 or prosperity2 that it is therefore necessary that they should be put under guardianship to lawmakers2 that these lawmakers1 being a very superior race of beings1--wise beyond the rest of their species1--and entirely free from all those selfish passions which tempt common mortals to do wrong1--must be intrusted with absolute and irresponsible dominion over the less favored of their kind2 must prescribe to the latter1 authoritatively1 what they may1 and may not1 do2 and1 in general1 manage the affairs of this world according to their discretion1 free of all accountability to any human tribunals4 ,and you seem to be perfectly confident that1 under this absolute and irresponsible dominion of the lawmakers1 the affairs of this world will be rightly managed2 that the interests1 welfare1 and prosperity of a great and free people will be properly attended to2 that the greatest good of the greatest number will be accomplished1 etc41 etc4 ,and yet you hold that all this lawmaking1 and all this subjection of the great body of the people to the arbitrary1 irresponsible dominion of the lawmakers1 will not interfere at all with our liberty1 if only every citizen will but keep a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of the lawmakers4 ,well1 perhaps this is all so2 although this subjection to the arbitrary will of any man1 or body of men1 whatever1 and under any pretence whatever1 seems1 on the face of it1 to be much more like slavery1 than it does like liberty4 ,if1 therefore1 you really intend to continue this system of lawmaking1 it seems indispensable that you should explain to us what you mean by the term our liberty4 ,so far as your address gives us any light on the subject1 you evidently mean1 by the term our liberty1 just such1 and only such1 liberty1 as the lawmakers may see fit to allow us to have4 ,you seem to have no conception of any other liberty whatever4 ,you give us no idea of any other liberty that we can secure to ourselves1 even though every citizen--fifty millions and more of them--shall all keep a vigilant watch and close scrutiny upon the lawmakers4 ,now1 inasmuch as the human race always have had all the liberty their lawmakers have seen fit to permit them to have2 and inasmuch as1 under your system of lawmaking1 they always will have as much liberty as their lawmakers shall see fit to give them2 and inasmuch as you apparently concede the right1 which the lawmakers have always claimed1 of killing all those who are not content with so much liberty as their lawmakers have seen fit to allow them1--it seems very plain that you have not added anything to our stock of knowledge on the subject of our liberty4 ,leaving us thus1 as you do1 in as great darkness as we ever were1 on this all-important subject of our liberty1 ,i think you ought to submit patiently to a little questioning on the part of those of us1 who feel that all this lawmaking--each and every separate particle of it--is a violation of our liberty4 ,will you1 therefore1 please tell us whether any1 and1 if any1 how much1 of that natural liberty--of that natural1 inherent1 inalienable1 individual right to liberty--with which it has generally been supposed that ,god1 or ,nature1 has endowed every human being1 will be left to us1 if the lawmakers are to continue1 as you would have them do1 the exercise of their arbitrary1 irresponsible dominion over us8 ,are you prepared to answer that question8 ,no4 ,you appear to have never given a thought to any such question as that4 ,i will therefore answer it for you4 ,and my answer is1 that from the moment it is conceded that any man1 or body of men1 whatever1 under any pretence whatever1 have the right to make laws of their own invention1 and compel other men to obey them1 every vestige of man's natural and rightful liberty is denied him4 ,that this is so is proved by the fact that all a man's natural rights stand upon one and the same basis1 viz41 that they are the gift of ,god1 or ,nature1 to him1 as an individual1 for his own uses1 and for his own happiness4 ,if any one of these natural rights may be arbitrarily taken from him by other men1 all of them may be taken from him on the same reason4 ,no one of these rights is any more sacred or inviolable in its nature1 than are all the others4 ,the denial of any one of these rights is therefore equivalent to a denial of all the others4 ,the violation of any one of these rights1 by lawmakers1 is equivalent to the assertion of a right to violate all of them4 ,plainly1 unless all a man's natural rights are inviolable by lawmakers1 none of them are4 ,it is an absurdity to say that a man has any rights of his own1 if other men1 whether calling themselves a government1 or by any other name1 have the right to take them from him1 without his consent4 ,therefore the very idea of a lawmaking government necessarily implies a denial of all such things as individual liberty1 or individual rights4 ,from this statement it does not follow that every lawmaking government will1 in practice1 take from every man all his natural rights4 ,it will do as it pleases about it4 ,it will take some1 leaving him to enjoy others1 just as its own pleasure or discretion shall dictate at the time4 ,it would defeat its own ends1 if it were wantonly to take away all his natural rights1--as1 for example1 his right to live1 and to breathe1--for then he would be dead1 and the government could then get nothing more out of him4 ,the most tyrannical government will1 therefore1 if it have any sense1 leave its victims enough liberty to enable them to provide for their own subsistence1 to pay their taxes1 and to render such military or other service as the government may have need of4 ,but it will do this for its own good1 and not for theirs4 ,in allowing them this liberty1 it does not at all recognize their right to it1 but only consults its own interests4 ,now1 sir1 this is the real character of the government of the ,united ,states1 as it is of all other lawmaking governments4 ,there is not a single human right1 which the government of the ,united ,states recognises as inviolable4 ,it tramples upon any and every individual right1 whenever its own will1 pleasure1 or discretion shall so dictate4 ,it takes men's property1 liberty1 and lives whenever it can serve its own purposes by doing so4 ,all these things prove that the government does not exist at all for the protection of men's rights2 but that it absolutely denies to the people any rights1 or any liberty1 whatever1 except such as it shall see fit to permit them to have for the time being4 ,it virtually declares that it does not itself exist at all for the good of the people1 but that the people exist solely for the use of the government4 ,all these things prove that the government is not one voluntarily established and sustained by the people1 for the protection of their natural1 inherent1 individual rights1 but that it is merely a government of usurpers1 robbers1 and tyrants1 who claim to own the people as their slaves1 and claim the right to dispose of them1 and their property1 at their 7the usurpers'7 pleasure or discretion4 ,now1 sir1 since you may be disposed to deny that such is the real character of the government1 ,i propose to prove it1 by evidences so numerous and conclusive that you cannot dispute them4 ,my proposition1 then1 is1 that there is not a single natural1 human right1 that the government of the ,united ,states recognizes as inviolable2 that there is not a single natural1 human right1 that it hesitates to trample under foot1 whenever it thinks it can promote its own interests by doing so4 ,the proofs of this proposition are so numerous1 that only a few of the most important can here be enumerated4 #a4 ,the government does not even recognize a man's natural right to his own life4 ,if it have need of him1 for the maintenance of its power1 it takes him1 against his will 7conscripts him71 and puts him before the cannon's mouth1 to be blown in pieces1 as if he were a mere senseless thing1 having no more rights than if he were a shell1 a canister1 or a torpedo4 ,it considers him simply as so much senseless war material1 to be consumed1 expended1 and destroyed for the maintenance of its power4 ,it no more recognizes his right to have anything to say in the matter1 than if he were but so much weight of powder or ball4 ,it does not recognize him at all as a human being1 having any rights whatever of his own1 but only as an instrument1 a weapon1 or a machine1 to be used in killing other men4 #b4 ,the government not only denies a man's right1 as a moral human being1 to have any will1 any judgment1 or any conscience of his own1 as to whether he himself will be killed in battle1 but it equally denies his right to have any will1 any judgment1 or any conscience of his own1 as a moral human being1 as to whether he shall be used as a mere weapon for killing other men4 ,if he refuses to kill any1 or all1 other men1 whom it commands him to kill1 it takes his own life1 as unceremoniously as if he were but a dog4 ,is it possible to conceive of a more complete denial of all a man's natural1 human rights1 than is the denial of his right to have any will1 judgment1 or conscience of his own1 either as to his being killed himself1 or as to his being used as a mere weapon for killing other men8 #c4 ,but in still another way1 than by its conscriptions1 the government denies a man's right to any will1 choice1 judgment1 or conscience of his own1 in regard either to being killed himself1 or used as a weapon in its hands for killing other people4 ,if1 in private life1 a man enters into a perfectly voluntary agreement to work for another1 at some innocent and useful labor1 for a day1 a week1 a month1 or a year1 he cannot lawfully be compelled to fulfil that contract2 because such compulsion would be an acknowledgment of his right to sell his own liberty4 ,and this is what no one can do4 ,this right of personal liberty is inalienable4 ,no man can sell it1 or transfer it to another2 or give to another any right of arbitrary dominion over him4 ,all contracts for such a purpose are absurd and void contracts1 that no man can rightfully be compelled to fulfil4 ,but when a deluded or ignorant young man has once been enticed into a contract to kill others1 and to take his chances of being killed himself1 in the service of the government1 for any given number of years1 the government holds that such a contract to sell his liberty1 his judgment1 his conscience1 and his life1 is a valid and binding contract2 and that if he fails to fulfil it1 he may rightfully be shot4 ,all these things prove that the government recognizes no right of the individual1 to his own life1 or liberty1 or to the exercise of his own will1 judgment1 or conscience1 in regard to his killing his fellow-men1 or to being killed himself1 if the government sees fit to use him as mere war material1 in maintaining its arbitrary dominion over other human beings4 #d4 ,the government recognizes no such thing as any natural right of property1 on the part of individuals4 ,this is proved by the fact that it takes1 for its own uses1 any and every man's property--when it pleases1 and as much of it as it pleases--without obtaining1 or even asking1 his consent4 ,this taking of a man's property1 without his consent1 is a denial of his right of property2 for the right of property is the right of supreme1 absolute1 and irresponsible dominion over anything that is naturally a subject of property1--that is1 of ownership4 ,it is a right against all the world4 ,and this right of property--this right of supreme1 absolute1 and irresponsible dominion over anything that is naturally a subject of ownership--is subject only to this qualification1 viz41 that each man must so use his own1 as not to injure another4 ,if ,a uses his own property so as to injure the person or property of ,b1 his own property may rightfully be taken to any extent that is necessary to make reparation for the wrong he has done4 ,this is the only qualification to which the natural right of property is subject4 ,when1 therefore1 a government takes a man's property1 for its own support1 or for its own uses1 without his consent1 it practically denies his right of property altogether2 for it practically asserts that its right of dominion is superior to his4 ,no man can be said to have any right of property at all1 in any thing--that is1 any right of supreme1 absolute1 and irresponsible dominion over any thing--of which any other men may rightfully deprive him at their pleasure4 ,now1 the government of the ,united ,states1 in asserting its right to take at pleasure the property of individuals1 without their consent1 virtually denies their right of property altogether1 because it asserts that its right of dominion over it1 is superior to theirs4 #e4 ,the government denies the natural right of human beings to live on this planet4 ,this it does by denying their natural right to those things that are indispensable to the maintenance of life4 ,it says that1 for every thing necessary to the maintenance of life1 they must have a special permit from the government2 and that the government cannot be required to grant them any other means of living than it chooses to grant them4 ,all this is shown as follows1 viz43 ,the government denies the natural right of individuals to take possession of wilderness land1 and hold and cultivate it for their own subsistence4 ,it asserts that wilderness land is the property of the government2 and that individuals have no right to take possession of1 or cultivate1 it1 unless by special grant of the government4 ,and if an individual attempts to exercise this natural right1 the government punishes him as a trespasser and a criminal4 ,the government has no more right to claim the ownership of wilderness lands1 than it has to claim the ownership of the sunshine1 the water1 or the atmosphere4 ,and it has no more right to punish a man for taking possession of wilderness land1 and cultivating it1 without the consent of the government1 than it has to punish him for breathing the air1 drinking the water1 or enjoying the sunshine1 without a special grant from the government4 ,in thus asserting the government's right of property in wilderness land1 and in denying men's right to take possession of and cultivate it1 except on first obtaining a grant from the government1--which grant the government may withhold if it pleases1--the government plainly denies the natural right of men to live on this planet1 by denying their natural right to the means that are indispensable to their procuring the food that is necessary for supporting life4 ,in asserting its right of arbitrary dominion over that natural wealth that is indispensable to the support of human life1 it asserts its right to withhold that wealth from those whose lives are dependent upon it4 ,in this way it denies the natural right of human beings to live on the planet4 ,it asserts that government owns the planet1 and that men have no right to live on it1 except by first getting a permit from the government4 ,this denial of men's natural right to take possession of and cultivate wilderness land is not altered at all by the fact that the government consents to sell as much land as it thinks it expedient or profitable to sell2 nor by the fact that1 in certain cases1 it gives outright certain lands to certain persons4 ,notwithstanding these sales and gifts1 the fact remains that the government claims the original ownership of the lands2 and thus denies the natural right of individuals to take possession of and cultivate them4 ,in denying this natural right of individuals1 it denies their natural right to live on the earth2 and asserts that they have no other right to life than the government1 by its own mere will1 pleasure1 and discretion1 may see fit to grant them4 ,in thus denying man's natural right to life1 it of course denies every other natural right of human beings2 and asserts that they have no natural right to anything2 but that1 for all other things1 as well as for life itself1 they must depend wholly upon the good pleasure and discretion of the government4 ,,section ,,xiii4 ,in still another way1 the government denies men's natural right to life4 ,and that is by denying their natural right to make any of those contracts with each other1 for buying and selling1 borrowing and lending1 giving and receiving1 property1 which are necessary1 if men are to exist in any considerable numbers on the earth4 ,even the few savages1 who contrive to live1 mostly or wholly1 by hunting1 fishing1 and gathering wild fruits1 without cultivating the earth1 and almost wholly without the use of tools or machinery1 are yet1 at times1 necessitated to buy and sell1 borrow and lend1 give and receive1 articles of food1 if no others1 as their only means of preserving their lives4 ,but1 in civilized life1 where but a small portion of men's labor is necessary for the production of food1 and they employ themselves in an almost infinite variety of industries1 and in the production of an almost infinite variety of commodities1 it would be impossible for them to live1 if they were wholly prohibited from buying and selling1 borrowing and lending1 giving and receiving1 the products of each other's labor4 ,yet the government of the ,united ,states--either acting separately1 or jointly with the ,state governments--has heretofore constantly denied1 and still constantly denies1 the natural right of the people1 as individuals1 to make their own contracts1 for such buying and selling1 borrowing and lending1 and giving and receiving1 such commodities as they produce for each other's uses4 ,i repeat that both the national and ,state governments have constantly denied the natural right of individuals to make their own contracts4 ,they have done this1 sometimes by arbitrarily forbidding them to make particular contracts1 and sometimes by arbitrarily qualifying the obligation of particular contracts1 when the contracts themselves were naturally and intrinsically as just and lawful as any others that men ever enter into2 and were1 consequently1 such as men have as perfect a natural right to make1 as they have to make any of those contracts which they are permitted to make4 ,the laws arbitrarily prohibiting1 or arbitrarily qualifying1 certain contracts1 that are naturally and intrinsically just and lawful1 are so numerous1 and so well known1 that they need not all be enumerated here4 ,but any and all such prohibitions1 or qualifications1 are a denial of men's natural right to make their own contracts4 ,they are a denial of men's right to make any contracts whatever1 except such as the governments shall see fit to permit them to make4 ,it is the natural right of any and all human beings1 who are mentally competent to make reasonable contracts1 to make any and every possible contract1 that is naturally and intrinsically just and honest1 for buying and selling1 borrowing and lending1 giving and receiving1 any and all possible commodities1 that are naturally vendible1 loanable1 and transferable1 and that any two or more individuals may1 at any time1 without force or fraud1 choose to buy and sell1 borrow and lend1 give and receive1 of and to each other4 ,and it is plainly only by the untrammelled exercise of this natural right1 that all the loanable capital1 that is required by men's industries1 can be lent and borrowed1 or that all the money can be supplied for the purchase and sale of that almost infinite diversity and amount of commodities1 that men are capable of producing1 and that are to be transferred from the hands of the producers to those of the consumers4 ,but the government of the ,united ,states--and also the governments of the ,states--utterly deny the natural right of any individuals whatever to make any contracts whatever1 for buying and selling1 borrowing and lending1 giving and receiving1 any and all such commodities1 as are naturally vendible1 loanable1 and transferable1 and as the producers and consumers of such commodities may wish to buy and sell1 borrow and lend1 give and receive1 of and to each other4 ,these governments 7,state and national7 deny this natural right of buying and selling1 etc41 by arbitrarily prohibiting1 or qualifying1 all such1 and so many1 of these contracts1 as they choose to prohibit1 or qualify4 ,the prohibition1 or qualification1 of any one of these contracts--that are intrinsically just and lawful--is a denial of all individual natural right to make any of them4 ,for the right to make any and all of them stands on the same grounds of natural law1 natural justice1 and men's natural rights4 ,if a government has the right to prohibit1 or qualify1 any one of these contracts1 it has the same right to prohibit1 or qualify1 all of them4 ,therefore the assertion1 by the government1 of a right to prohibit1 or qualify1 any one of them1 is equivalent to a denial of all natural right1 on the part of individuals1 to make any of them4 ,the power that has been thus usurped by governments1 to arbitrarily prohibit or qualify all contracts that are naturally and intrinsically just and lawful1 has been the great1 perhaps the greatest1 of all the instrumentalities1 by which1 in this1 as in other countries1 nearly all the wealth1 accumulated by the labor of the many1 has been1 and is now1 transferred into the pockets of the few4 ,it is by this arbitrary power over contracts1 that the monopoly of money is sustained4 ,few people have any real perception of the power1 which this monopoly gives to the holders of it1 over the industry and traffic of all other persons4 ,and the one only purpose of the monopoly is to enable the holders of it to rob everybody else in the prices of their labor1 and the products of their labor4 ,the theory1 on which the advocates of this monopoly attempt to justify it1 is simply this3 ,that it is not at all necessary that money should be a bona fide equivalent of the labor or property that is to be bought with it2 that if the government will but specially license a small amount of money1 and prohibit all other money1 the holders of the licensed money will then be able to buy with it the labor and property of all other persons for a half1 a tenth1 a hundredth1 a thousandth1 or a millionth1 of what such labor and property are really and truly worth4 ,david ,a4 ,wells1 one of the most prominent--perhaps at this time1 the most prominent--advocate of the monopoly1 in this country1 states the theory thus3 ,a three-cent piece1 if it could be divided into a sufficient number of pieces1 with each piece capable of being handled1 would undoubtedly suffice for doing all the business of the country in the way of facilitating exchanges1 if no other better instrumentality was available4--,new ,york ,herald1 ,february #ac1 #ahge4 ,he means here to say1 that a three-cent piece contains as much real1 true1 and natural market value1 as it would be necessary that all the money of the country should have1 if the government would but prohibit all other money2 that is1 if the government1 by its arbitrary legislative power1 would but make all other and better money unavailable4 ,and this is the theory1 on which ,john ,locke1 ,david ,hume1 ,adam ,smith1 ,david ,ricardo1 ,j4 ,r4 ,mc,culloch1 and ,john ,stuart ,mill1 in ,england1 and ,amasa ,walker1 ,charles ,h4 ,carroll1 ,hugh ,mc,culloch1 in this country1 and all the other conspicuous advocates of the monopoly1 both in this country and in ,england1 have attempted to justify it4 ,they have all held that it was not necessary that money should be a bona fide equivalent of the labor or property to be bought with it2 but that1 by the prohibition of all other money1 the holders of a comparatively worthless amount of licensed money would be enabled to buy1 at their own prices1 the labor and property of all other men4 ,and this is the theory on which the governments of ,england and the ,united ,states have always1 with immaterial exceptions1 acted1 in prohibiting all but such small amounts of money as they 7the governments7 should specially license4 ,and it is the theory upon which they act now4 ,and it is so manifestly a theory of pure robbery1 that scarce a word can be necessary to make it more evidently so than it now is4 ,but inasmuch as your mind seems to be filled with the wildest visions of the excellency of this government1 and to be strangely ignorant of its wrongs2 and inasmuch as this monopoly of money is1 in its practical operation1 one of the greatest--possibly the greatest--of all these wrongs1 and the one that is most relied upon for robbing the great body of the people1 and keeping them in poverty and servitude1 it is plainly important that you should have your eyes opened on the subject4 ,i therefore submit1 for your consideration1 the following self-evident propositions3 #a4 ,that to make all traffic just and equal1 it is indispensable that1 in each separate purchase and sale1 the money paid should be a bona fide equivalent of the labor or property bought with it4 ,dare you1 or any other man1 of common sense and common honesty1 dispute the truth of that proposition8 ,if not1 let us consider that principle established4 ,it will then serve as one of the necessary and infallible guides to the true settlement of all the other questions that remain to be settled4 #b4 ,that so long as no force or fraud is practised by either party1 the parties themselves1 to each separate contract1 have the sole1 absolute1 and unqualified right to decide for themselves1 what money1 and how much of it1 shall be considered a bona fide equivalent of the labor or property that is to be exchanged for it4 ,all this is necessarily implied in the natural right of men to make their own contracts1 for buying and selling their respective commodities4 ,will you dispute the truth of that proposition8 #c4 ,that any one man1 who has an honest dollar1 of any kind whatsoever1 has as perfect a right1 as any other man can have1 to offer it in the market1 in competition with any and all other dollars1 in exchange for such labor or property as may be in the market for sale4 ,will you dispute the truth of that proposition8 #d4 ,that where no fraud is practised1 every person1 who is mentally competent to make reasonable contracts1 must be presumed to be as competent to judge of the value of the money that is offered in the market1 as he is to judge of the value of all the other commodities that are bought and sold for money4 ,will you dispute the truth of that proposition8 #e4 ,that the free and open market1 in which all honest money and all honest commodities are free to be given and received in exchange for each other1 is the true1 final1 absolute1 and only test of the true and natural market value of all money1 as of all the other commodities that are bought and sold for money4 ,will you dispute the truth of that proposition8 #f4 ,that any prohibition1 by a government1 of any such kind or amount of money--provided it be honest in itself--as the parties to contracts may voluntarily agree to give and receive in exchange for labor or property1 is a palpable violation of their natural right to make their own contracts1 and to buy and sell their labor and property on such terms as they may find to be necessary for the supply of their wants1 or may think most beneficial to their interests4 ,will you dispute the truth of that proposition8 #g4 ,that any government1 that licenses a small amount of an article of such universal necessity as money1 and that gives the control of it into a few hands1 selected by itself1 and then prohibits any and all other money--that is intrinsically honest and valuable--palpably violates all other men's natural right to make their own contracts1 and infallibly proves its purpose to be to enable the few holders of the licensed money to rob all other persons in the prices of their labor and property4 ,will you dispute the truth of that proposition8 ,are not all these propositions so self-evident1 or so easily demonstrated1 that they cannot1 with any reason1 be disputed8 ,if you feel competent to show the falsehood of any one of them1 ,i hope you will attempt the task4 ,,section ,,xiv4 ,if1 now1 you wish to form some rational opinion of the extent of the robbery practised in this country1 by the holders of this monopoly of money1 you have only to look at the following facts4 ,there are1 in this country1 ,i think1 at least twenty-five millions of persons1 male and female1 sixteen years old1 and upwards1 mentally and physically capable of running machinery1 producing wealth1 and supplying their own needs for an independent and comfortable subsistence4 ,to make their industry most effective1 and to enable them1 individually1 to put into their own pockets as large a portion as possible of their own earnings1 they need1 on an average1 one thousand dollars each of money capital4 ,some need one1 two1 three1 or five hundred dollars1 others one1 two1 three1 or five thousand4 ,these persons1 then1 need1 in the aggregate1 twenty-five thousand millions of dollars 7#be1jjj1jjj1jjj71 of money capital4 ,they need all this money capital to enable them to buy the raw materials upon which to bestow their labor1 the implements and machinery with which to labor1 and their means of subsistence while producing their goods for the market4 ,unless they can get this capital1 they must all either work at a disadvantage1 or not work at all4 ,a very large portion of them1 to save themselves from starvation1 have no alternative but to sell their labor to others1 at just such prices these others choose to pay4 ,and these others choose to pay only such prices as are far below what the laborers could produce1 if they themselves had the necessary capital to work with4 ,but this needed capital your lawmakers arbitrarily forbid them to have2 and for no other reason than to reduce them to the condition of servants2 and subject them to all such extortions as their employers--the holders of the privileged money--may choose to practise upon them4 ,if1 now1 you ask me where these twenty-five thousand millions of dollars of money capital1 which these laborers need1 are to come from1 ,i answer3 ,theoretically1 there are1 in this country1 fifty thousand millions of dollars of money capital 7#ej1jjj1jjj1jjj7--or twice as much as ,i have supposed these laborers to need--,,now ,,lying ,,idle6 ,and it is lying idle1 solely because the circulation of it1 as money1 is prohibited by the lawmakers4 ,if you ask how this can be1 ,i will tell you4 ,theoretically1 every dollar's worth of material property1 that is capable of being taken by law1 and applied to the payment of the owner's debts1 is capable of being represented by a promissory note1 that shall circulate as money4 ,but taking all this material property at only half its actual value1 it is still capable of supplying the twenty-five thousand millions of dollars--or one thousand dollars each--which these laborers need4 ,now1 we know--because experience has taught us--that solvent promissory notes1 made payable in coin on demand1 are the best money that mankind have ever had2 7although probably not the best they ever will have74 ,to make a note solvent1 and suitable for circulation as money1 it is only necessary that it should be made payable in coin on demand1 and be issued by a person1 or persons1 who are known to have in their hands abundant material property1 that can be taken by law1 and applied to the payment of the note1 with all costs and damages for non-payment on demand4 ,theoretically1 ,i repeat1 all the material property in the country1 that can be taken by law1 and applied to the payment of debt can be used as banking capital2 and be represented by promissory notes1 made payable in coin on demand4 ,and1 practically1 so much of it can be used as banking capital as may be required for supplying all the notes that can be kept in circulation as money4 ,although these notes are made legally payable in coin on demand1 it is seldom that such payment is demanded1 if only it be publicly known that the notes are solvent3 that is1 if it be publicly known that they are issued by persons who have so much material property1 that can be taken by law1 and sold1 as may be necessary to bring the coin that is needed to pay the notes4 ,in such cases1 the notes are preferred to the coin1 because they are so much more safe and convenient for handling1 counting1 and transportation1 than is the coin2 and also because we can have so many times more of them4 ,these notes are also a legal tender1 to the banks that issue them1 in payment of the notes discounted2 that is1 in payment of the notes given by the borrowers to the banks4 ,and1 in the ordinary course of things1 all the notes1 issued by the banks for circulation1 are wanted1 and come back to the banks1 in payment of the notes discounted2 thus saving all necessity for redeeming them with coin1 except in rare cases4 ,for meeting these rare cases1 the banks find it necessary to keep on hand small amounts of coin2 probably not more than one per cent4 of the amount of notes in circulation4 ,as the notes discounted have usually but a short time to run1--say three months on an average1--the bank notes issued for circulation will all come back1 on an average1 once in three months1 and be redeemed by the bankers1 by being accepted in payment of the notes discounted4 ,then the bank notes will be re-issued1 by discounting new notes1 and will go into circulation again2 to be again brought back1 at the end of another three months1 and redeemed1 by being accepted in payment of the new notes discounted4 ,in this way the bank notes will be continually re-issued1 and redeemed1 in the greatest amounts that can be kept in circulation long enough to earn such an amount of interest as will make it an object for the bankers to issue them4 ,each of these notes1 issued for circulation1 if known to be solvent1 will always have the same value in the market1 as the same nominal amount of coin4 ,and this value is a just one1 because the notes are in the nature of a lien1 or mortgage1 upon so much property of the bankers as is necessary to pay the notes1 and as can be taken by law1 and sold1 and the proceeds applied to their payment4 ,there is no danger that any more of these notes will be issued than will be wanted for buying and selling property at its true and natural market value1 relatively to coin2 for as the notes are all made legally payable in coin on demand1 if they should ever fall below the value of coin in the market1 the holders of them will at once return them to the banks1 and demand coin for them2 and thus take them out of circulation4 ,the bankers1 therefore1 have no motive for issuing more of them than will remain long enough in circulation1 to earn so much interest as will make it an object to issue them2 the only motive for issuing them being to draw interest on them while they are in circulation4 ,the bankers readily find how many are wanted for circulation1 by the time those issued remain in circulation1 before coming back for redemption4 ,if they come back immediately1 or very quickly1 after being issued1 the bankers know that they have over-issued1 and that they must therefore pay in coin--to their inconvenience and perhaps loss--notes that would otherwise have remained in circulation long enough to earn so much interest as would have paid for issuing them2 and would then have come back to them in payment of notes discounted1 instead of coming back on a demand for redemption in coin4 ,now1 the best of all possible banking capital is real estate4 ,it is the best1 because it is visible1 immovable1 and indestructible4 ,it cannot1 like coin1 be removed1 concealed1 or carried out of the country4 ,and its aggregate value1 in all civilized countries1 is probably a hundred times greater than the amount of coin in circulation4 ,it is therefore capable of furnishing a hundred times as much money as we can have in coin4 ,the owners of this real estate have the greatest inducements to use it as banking capital1 because all the banking profit1 over and above expenses1 is a clear profit2 inasmuch as the use of the real estate as banking capital does not interfere at all with its use for other purposes4 ,farmers have a double1 and much more than a double1 inducement to use their lands as banking capital2 because they not only get a direct profit from the loan of their notes1 but1 by loaning them1 they furnish the necessary capital for the greatest variety of manufacturing purposes4 ,they thus induce a much larger portion of the people1 than otherwise would1 to leave agriculture1 and engage in mechanical employments2 and thus become purchasers1 instead of producers1 of agricultural commodities4 ,they thus get much higher prices for their agricultural products1 and also a much greater variety and amount of manufactured commodities in exchange4 ,the amount of money1 capable of being furnished by this system1 is so great that every man1 woman1 and child1 who is worthy of credit1 could get it1 and do business for himself1 or herself--either singly1 or in partnerships--and be under no necessity to act as a servant1 or sell his or her labor to others4 ,all the great establishments1 of every kind1 now in the hands of a few proprietors1 but employing a great number of wage laborers1 would be broken up2 for few1 or no persons1 who could hire capital1 and do business for themselves1 would consent to labor for wages for another4 ,the credit furnished by this system would always be stable2 for the system is probably capable of furnishing1 at all times1 all the credit1 and all the money1 that can be needed4 ,it would also introduce a substantially universal system of cash payments4 ,everybody1 who could get credit at all1 would be able to get it at a bank1 in money4 ,with the money1 he would buy everything he needed for cash4 ,he would also sell everything for cash2 for when everybody buys for cash1 everybody sells for cash2 since buying for cash1 and selling for cash1 are necessarily one and the same thing4 ,we should1 therefore1 never have another crisis1 panic1 revulsion of credit1 stagnation of industry1 or fall of prices2 for these are all caused by the lack of money1 and the consequent necessity of buying and selling on credit2 whereby the amount of indebtedness becomes so great1 so enormous1 in fact1 in proportion to the amount of money extant1 with which to meet it1 that the whole system of credit breaks down2 to the ruin of everybody1 except the few holders of the monopoly of money1 who reap a harvest in the fall of prices1 and the consequent bankruptcy of everybody who is dependent on credit for his means of doing business4 ,it would be inadmissible for me1 in this letter1 to occupy the space that would be necessary1 to expose all the false1 absurd1 and ridiculous pretences1 by which the advocates of the monopoly of money have attempted to justify it4 ,the only real argument they ever employed has been that1 by means of the monopoly1 the few holders of it were enabled to rob everybody else in the prices of their labor and property4 ,and our governments1 ,state and national1 have hitherto acted together in maintaining this monopoly1 in flagrant violation of men's natural right to make their own contracts1 and in flagrant violation of the self-evident truth1 that1 to make all traffic just and equal1 it is indispensable that the money paid should be1 in all cases1 a bona fide equivalent of the labor or property that is bought with it4 ,the holders of this monopoly now rule and rob this nation2 and the government1 in all its branches1 is simply their tool4 ,and being their tool for this gigantic robbery1 it is equally their tool for all the lesser robberies1 to which it is supposed that the people at large can be made to submit4 ,,section ,,xv4 ,but although the monopoly of money is one of the most glaring violations of men's natural right to make their own contracts1 and one of the most effective--perhaps the most effective--for enabling a few men to rob everybody else1 and for keeping the great body of the people in poverty and servitude1 it is not the only one that our government practises1 nor the only one that has the same robbery in view4 ,the so-called taxes or duties1 which the government levies upon imports1 are a practical violation both of men's natural right of property1 and of their natural right to make their own contracts4 ,a man has the same natural right to traffic with another1 who lives on the opposite side of the globe1 as he has to traffic with his next-door neighbor4 ,and any obstruction1 price1 or penalty1 interposed by the government1 to the exercise of that right1 is a practical violation of the right itself4 ,the ten1 twenty1 or fifty per cent4 of a man's property1 which is taken from him1 for the reason that he purchased it in a foreign country1 must be considered either as the price he is required to pay for the privilege of buying property in that country1 or else as a penalty for having exercised his natural right of buying it in that country4 ,whether it be considered as a price paid for a privilege1 or a penalty for having exercised a natural right1 it is a violation both of his natural right of property1 and of his natural right to make a contract in that country4 ,in short1 it is nothing but downright robbery4 ,and when a man seeks to avoid this robbery1 by evading the government robbers who are lying in wait for him1--that is1 the so-called revenue officers1--whom he has as perfect a right to evade1 as he has to evade any other robbers1 who may be lying in wait for him1--the seizure of his whole property1--instead of the ten1 twenty1 or fifty per cent4 that would otherwise have been taken from him1--is not merely adding so much to the robbery itself1 but is adding insult to the robbery4 ,it is punishing a man as a criminal1 for simply trying to save his property from robbers4 ,but it will be said that these taxes or duties are laid to raise revenue for the support of the government4 ,be it so1 for the sake of the argument4 ,all taxes1 levied upon a man's property for the support of government1 without his consent1 are mere robbery2 a violation of his natural right of property4 ,and when a government takes ten1 twenty1 or fifty per cent4 of a man's property1 for the reason that he bought it in a foreign country1 such taking is as much a violation of his natural right of property1 or of his natural right to purchase property1 as is the taking of property which he has himself produced1 or which he has bought in his own village4 ,a man's natural right of property1 in a commodity he has bought in a foreign country1 is intrinsically as sacred and inviolable as it is in a commodity produced at home4 ,the foreign commodity is bought with the commodity produced at home2 and therefore stands on the same footing as the commodity produced at home4 ,and it is a plain violation of one's right1 for a government to make any distinction between them4 ,government assumes to exist for the impartial protection of all rights of property4 ,if it really exists for that purpose1 it is plainly bound to make each kind of property pay its proper proportion1 and only its proper proportion1 of the cost of protecting all kinds4 ,to levy upon a few kinds the cost of protecting all1 is a naked robbery of the holders of those few kinds1 for the benefit of the holders of all other kinds4 ,but the pretence that heavy taxes are levied upon imports1 solely1 or mainly1 for the support of government1 while light taxes1 or no taxes at all1 are levied upon property at home1 is an utterly false pretence4 ,they are levied upon the imported commodity1 mainly1 if not solely1 for the purpose of enabling the producers of competing home commodities to extort from consumers a higher price than the home commodities would bring in free and open market4 ,and this additional price is sheer robbery1 and is known to be so4 ,and the amount of this robbery--which goes into the pockets of the home producers--is five1 ten1 twenty1 or fifty times greater than the amount that goes into the treasury1 for the support of the government1 according as the amount of the home commodities is five1 ten1 twenty1 or fifty times greater than the amount of the imported competing commodities4 ,thus the amounts that go to the support of the government1 and also the amounts that go into the pockets of the home producers1 in the higher prices they get for their goods1 are all sheer robberies2 and nothing else4 ,but it will be said that the heavy taxes are levied upon the foreign commodity1 not to put great wealth into a few pockets1 but to protect the home laborer against the competition of the pauper labor of other countries4 ,this is the great argument that is relied on to justify the robbery4 ,this argument must have originated with the employers of home labor1 and not with the home laborers themselves4 ,the home laborers themselves could never have originated it1 because they must have seen that1 so far as they were concerned1 the object of the protection1 so-called1 was1 at best1 only to benefit them1 by robbing others who were as poor as themselves1 and who had as good a right as themselves to live by their labor4 ,that is1 they must have seen that the object of the protection was to rob the foreign laborers1 in whole1 or in part1 of the pittances on which they were already necessitated to live2 and1 secondly1 to rob consumers at home1--in the increased prices of the protected commodities1--when many or most of these home consumers were also laborers as poor as themselves4 ,even if any class of laborers would have been so selfish and dishonest as to wish to thus benefit themselves by injuring others1 as poor as themselves1 they could have had no hope of carrying through such a scheme1 if they alone were to profit by it2 because they could have had no such influence with governments1 as would be necessary to enable them to carry it through1 in opposition to the rights and interests of consumers1 both rich and poor1 and much more numerous than themselves4 ,for these reasons it is plain that the argument originated with the employers of home labor1 and not with the home laborers themselves4 ,and why do the employers of home labor advocate this robbery8 ,certainly not because they have such an intense compassion for their own laborers1 that they are willing to rob everybody else1 rich and poor1 for their benefit4 ,nobody will suspect them of being influenced by any such compassion as that4 ,but they advocate it solely because they put into their own pockets a very large portion certainly--probably three-fourths1 ,i should judge--of the increased prices their commodities are thus made to bring in the market4 ,the home laborers themselves probably get not more than one-fourth of these increased prices4 ,thus the argument for protection is really an argument for robbing foreign laborers--as poor as our own--of their equal and rightful chances in our markets2 and also for robbing all the home consumers of the protected article--the poor as well as the rich--in the prices they are made to pay for it4 ,and all this is done at the instigation1 and principally for the benefit1 of the employers of home labor1 and not for the benefit of home laborers themselves4 ,having now seen that this argument--of protecting our home laborers against the competition of the pauper labor of other countries--is1 of itself1 an utterly dishonest argument2 that it is dishonest towards foreign laborers and home consumers2 that it must have originated with the employers of home labor1 and not with the home laborers themselves2 and that the employers of home labor1 and not the home laborers themselves1 are to receive the principal profits of the robbery1 let us now see how utterly false is the argument itself4 #a4 ,the pauper laborers 7if there are any such7 of other countries have just as good a right to live by their labor1 and have an equal chance in our own markets1 and in all the markets of the world1 as have the pauper laborers1 or any other laborers1 of our own country4 ,every human being has the same natural right to buy and sell1 of and to1 any and all other people in the world1 as he has to buy and sell1 of and to1 the people of his own country4 ,and none but tyrants and robbers deny that right4 ,and they deny it for their own benefit solely1 and not for the benefit of their laborers4 ,and if a man1 in our own country--either from motives of profit to himself1 or from motives of pity towards the pauper laborers of other countries--chooses to buy the products of the foreign pauper labor1 rather than the products of the laborers of his own country1 he has a perfect legal right to do so4 ,and for any government to forbid him to do so1 or to obstruct his doing so1 or to punish him for doing so1 is a violation of his natural right of purchasing property of whom he pleases1 and from such motives as he pleases4 #b4 ,to forbid our own people to buy in the best markets1 is equivalent to forbidding them to sell the products of their own labor in the best markets2 for they can buy the products of foreign labor1 only by giving the products of their own labor in exchange4 ,therefore to deny our right to buy in foreign markets1 is to forbid us to sell in foreign markets4 ,and this is a plain violation of men's natural rights4 ,if1 when a producer of cotton1 tobacco1 grain1 beef1 pork1 butter1 cheese1 or any other commodity1 in our own country1 has carried it abroad1 and exchanged it for iron or woolen goods1 and has brought these latter home1 the government seizes one-half of them1 because they were manufactured abroad1 the robbery committed upon the owner is the same as if the government had seized one-half of his cotton1 tobacco1 or other commodity1 before he exported it2 because the iron or woolen goods1 which he purchased abroad with the products of his own home labor1 are as much his own property1 as was the commodity with which he purchased them4 ,therefore the tax laid upon foreign commodities1 that have been bought with the products of our home labor1 is as much a robbery of the home laborer1 as the same tax would have been1 if laid directly upon the products of our home labor4 ,it is1 at best1 only a robbery of one home laborer--the producer of cotton1 tobacco1 grain1 beef1 pork1 butter1 or cheese--for the benefit of another home laborer--the producer of iron or woolen goods4 #c4 ,but this whole argument is a false one1 for the further reason that our home laborers do not have to compete with the pauper labor of any country on earth2 since the actual paupers of no country on earth are engaged in producing commodities for export to any other country4 ,they produce few1 or no1 other commodities than those they themselves consume2 and ordinarily not even those4 ,there are a great many millions of actual paupers in the world4 ,in some of the large provinces of ,british ,india1 for example1 it is said that nearly half the population are paupers4 ,but ,i think that the commodities they are producing for export to other countries than their own1 have never been heard of4 ,the term1 pauper labor1 is therefore a false one4 ,and when these robbers--the employers of home labor--talk of protecting their laborers against the competition of the pauper labor of other countries1 they do not mean that they are protecting them against the competition of actual paupers2 but only against the competition of that immense body of laborers1 in all parts of the world1 who are kept constantly on the verge of pauperism1 or starvation2 who have little1 or no1 means of subsistence1 except such as their employers see fit to give them1--which means are usually barely enough to keep them in a condition to labor4 ,these are the only pauper laborers1 from whose competition our own laborers are sought to be protected4 ,they are quite as badly off as our own laborers2 and are in equal need of protection4 ,what1 then1 is to be done8 ,this policy of excluding foreign commodities from our markets1 is a game that all other governments can play at1 as well as our own4 ,and if it is the duty of our government to protect our laborers against the competition of the pauper labor1 so-called1 of all other countries1 it is equally the duty of every other government to protect its laborers against the competition of the so-called pauper labor of all other countries4 ,so that1 according to this theory1 each nation must either shut out entirely from its markets the products of all other countries2 or1 at least1 lay such heavy duties upon them1 as will1 in some measure1 protect its own laborers from the competition of the pauper labor of all other countries4 ,this theory1 then1 is that1 instead of permitting all mankind to supply each other's wants1 by freely exchanging their respective products with each other1 the government of each nation should rob the people of every other1 by imposing heavy duties upon all commodities imported from them4 ,the natural effect of this scheme is to pit the so-called pauper labor of each country against the so-called pauper labor of every other country2 and all for the benefit of their employers4 ,and as it holds that so-called pauper labor is cheaper than free labor1 it gives the employers in each country a constant motive for reducing their own laborers to the lowest condition of poverty1 consistent with their ability to labor at all4 ,in other words1 the theory is1 that the smaller the portion of the products of labor1 that is given to the laborers1 the larger will be the portion that will go into the pockets of the employers4 ,now1 it is not a very honorable proceeding for any government to pit its own so-called pauper laborers--or laborers that are on the verge of pauperism--against similar laborers in all other countries3 and all for the sake of putting the principal proceeds of their labor into the pockets of a few employers4 ,to set two bodies of pauper laborers--or of laborers on the verge of pauperism--to robbing each other1 for the profit of their employers1 is the next thing1 in point of atrocity1 to setting them to killing each other1 as governments have heretofore been in the habit of doing1 for the benefit of their rulers4 ,the laborers1 who are paupers1 or on the verge of pauperism--who are destitute1 or on the verge of destitution--comprise 7with their families7 doubtless nine-tenths1 probably nineteen-twentieths1 of all the people on the globe4 ,they are not all wage laborers4 ,some of them are savages1 living only as savages do4 ,others are barbarians1 living only as barbarians do4 ,but an immense number are mere wage laborers4 ,much the larger portion of these have been reduced to the condition of wage laborers1 by the monopoly of land1 which mere bands of robbers have succeeded in securing for themselves by military power4 ,this is the condition of nearly all the ,asiatics1 and of probably one-half the ,europeans4 ,but in those portions of ,europe and the ,united ,states1 where manufactures have been most extensively introduced1 and where1 by science and machinery1 great wealth has been created1 the laborers have been kept in the condition of wage laborers1 principally1 if not wholly1 by the monopoly of money4 ,this monopoly1 established in all these manufacturing countries1 has made it impossible for the manufacturing laborers to hire the money capital that was necessary to enable them to do business for themselves2 and has consequently compelled them to sell their labor to the monopolists of money1 for just such prices as these latter should choose to give4 ,it is1 then1 by the monopoly of land1 and the monopoly of money1 that more than a thousand millions of the earth's inhabitants--as savages1 barbarians1 and wage laborers--are kept in a state of destitution1 or on the verge of destitution4 ,hundreds of millions of them are receiving1 for their labor1 not more than three1 five1 or1 at most1 ten cents a day4 ,in western ,europe1 and in the ,united ,states1 where1 within the last hundred and fifty years1 machinery has been introduced1 and where alone any considerable wealth is now created1 the wage laborers1 although they get so small a portion of the wealth they create1 are nevertheless in a vastly better condition than are the laboring classes in other parts of the world4 ,if1 now1 the employers of wage labor1 in this country1--who are also the monopolists of money1--and who are ostensibly so distressed lest their own wage laborers should suffer from the competition of the pauper labor of other countries1--have really any of that humanity1 of which they make such profession1 they have before them a much wider field for the display of it1 than they seem to desire4 ,that is to say1 they have it in their power1 not only to elevate immensely the condition of the laboring classes in this country1 but also to set an example that will be very rapidly followed in all other countries2 and the result will be the elevation of all oppressed laborers throughout the world4 ,this they can do1 by simply abolishing the monopoly of money4 ,the real producers of wealth1 with few or no exceptions1 will then be able to hire all the capital they need for their industries1 and will do business for themselves4 ,they will also be able to hire their capital at very low rates of interest2 and will then put into their own pockets all the proceeds of their labor1 except what they pay as interest on their capital4 ,and this amount will be too small to obstruct materially their rise to independence and wealth4 ,,section ,,xvi4 ,but will the monopolists of money give up their monopoly8 ,certainly not voluntarily4 ,they will do it only upon compulsion4 ,they will hold on to it as long as they own and control governments as they do now4 ,and why will they do so8 ,because to give up their monopoly would be to give up their control of those great armies of servants--the wage laborers--from whom all their wealth is derived1 and whom they can now coerce by the alternative of starvation1 to labor for them at just such prices as they 7the monopolists of money7 shall choose to pay4 ,now these monopolists of money have no plans whatever for making their capital1 as they call it--that is1 their money capital--their privileged money capital--profitable to themselves1 otherwise than by using it to employ other men's labor4 ,and they can keep control of other men's labor only by depriving the laborers themselves of all other means of subsistence4 ,and they can deprive them of all other means of subsistence only by putting it out of their power to hire the money that is necessary to enable them to do business for themselves4 ,and they can put it out of their power to hire money1 only by forbidding all other men to lend them their credit1 in the shape of promissory notes1 to be circulated as money4 ,if the twenty-five or fifty thousand millions of loanable capital--promissory notes--which1 in this country1 are now lying idle1 were permitted to be loaned1 these wage laborers would hire it1 and do business for themselves1 instead of laboring as servants for others2 and would of course retain in their own hands all the wealth they should create1 except what they should pay as interest for their capital4 ,and what is true of this country1 is true of every other where civilization exists2 for wherever civilization exists1 land has value1 and can be used as banking capital1 and be made to furnish all the money that is necessary to enable the producers of wealth to hire the capital necessary for their industries1 and thus relieve them from their present servitude to the few holders of privileged money4 ,thus it is that the monopoly of money is the one great obstacle to the liberation of the laboring classes all over the world1 and to their indefinite progress in wealth4 ,but we are now to show1 more definitely1 what relation this monopoly of money is made to bear to the freedom of international trade2 and why it is that the holders of this monopoly1 in this country1 demand heavy tariffs on imports1 on the lying pretence of protecting our home labor against the competition of the so-called pauper labor of other countries4 ,the explanation of the whole matter is as follows4 #a4 ,the holders of the monopoly of money1 in each country1--more especially in the manufacturing countries like ,england1 the ,united ,states1 and some others1--assume that the present condition of poverty1 for the great mass of mankind1 all over the world1 is to be perpetuated forever2 or at least for an indefinite period4 ,from this assumption they infer that1 if free trade between all countries is to be allowed1 the so-called pauper labor of each country is to be forever pitted against the so-called pauper labor of every other country4 ,hence they infer that it is the duty of each government--or certainly of our government--to protect the so-called pauper labor of our own country--that is1 the class of laborers who are constantly on the verge of pauperism--against the competition of the so-called pauper labor of all other countries1 by such duties on imports as will secure to our own laborers a monopoly of our own home market4 ,this is1 on the face of it1 the most plausible argument--and almost1 if not really1 the only argument--by which they now attempt to sustain their restrictions upon international trade4 ,if this argument is a false one1 their whole case falls to the ground4 ,that it is a false one1 will be shown hereafter4 #b4 ,these monopolists of money assume that pauper labor1 so-called1 is the cheapest labor in the world2 and that therefore each nation1 in order to compete with the pauper labor of all other nations1 must itself have cheap labor4 ,in fact1 cheap labor is1 with them1 the great sine qua non of all national industry4 ,to compete with cheap labor1 say they1 we must have cheap labor4 ,this is1 with them1 a self-evident proposition4 ,and this demand for cheap labor means1 of course1 that the laboring classes1 in this country1 must be kept1 as nearly as possible1 on a level with the so-called pauper labor of all other countries4 ,thus their whole scheme of national industry is made to depend upon cheap labor4 ,and to secure cheap labor1 they hold it to be indispensable that the laborers shall be kept constantly either in actual pauperism1 or on the verge of pauperism4 ,and1 in this country1 they know of no way of keeping the laborers on the verge of pauperism1 but by retaining in their 7the monopolists'7 own hands such a monopoly of money as will put it out of the power of the laborers to hire money1 and do business for themselves2 and thus compel them1 by the alternative of starvation1 to sell their labor to the monopolists of money at such prices as will enable them 7the monopolists7 to manufacture goods in competition with the so-called pauper laborers of all other countries4 ,let it be repeated--as a vital proposition--that the whole industrial programme of these monopolists rests upon1 and implies1 such a degree of poverty1 on the part of the laboring classes1 as will put their labor in direct competition with the so-called pauper labor of all other countries4 ,so long as they 7the monopolists7 can perpetuate this extreme poverty of the laboring classes1 in this country1 they feel safe against all foreign competition2 for1 in all other things than cheap labor1 we have advantages equal to those of any other nation4 ,furthermore1 this extreme poverty1 in which the laborers are to be kept1 necessarily implies that they are to receive no larger share of the proceeds of their own labor1 than is necessary to keep them in a condition to labor4 ,it implies that their industry--which is really the national industry--is not to be carried on at all for their own benefit1 but only for the benefit of their employers1 the monopolists of money4 ,it implies that the laborers are to be mere tools and machines in the hands of their employers2 that they are to be kept simply in running order1 like other machinery2 but that1 beyond this1 they are to have no more rights1 and no more interests1 in the products of their labor1 than have the wheels1 spindles1 and other machinery1 with which the work is done4 ,in short1 this whole programme implies that the laborers--the real producers of wealth--are not to be considered at all as human beings1 having rights and interests of their own2 but only as tools and machines1 to be owned1 used1 and consumed in producing such wealth as their employers--the monopolists of money--may desire for their own subsistence and pleasure4 ,what1 then1 is the remedy8 ,plainly it is to abolish the monopoly of money4 ,liberate all this loanable capital--promissory notes--that is now lying idle1 and we liberate all labor1 and furnish to all laborers all the capital they need for their industries4 ,we shall then have no longer1 all over the earth1 the competition of pauper labor with pauper labor1 but only the competition of free labor with free labor4 ,and from this competition of free labor with free labor1 no people on earth have anything to fear1 but all peoples have everything to hope4 ,and why have all peoples everything to hope from the competition of free labor with free labor8 ,because when every human being1 who labors at all1 has1 as nearly as possible1 all the fruits of his labor1 and all the capital that is necessary to make his labor most effective1 he has all needed inducements to the best use of both his brains and his muscles1 his head and his hands4 ,he applies both his head and his hands to his work4 ,he not only acquires1 as far as possible1 for his own use1 all the scientific discoveries and mechanical inventions1 that are made by others1 but he himself makes scientific discoveries and mechanical inventions4 ,he thus multiplies indefinitely his powers of production4 ,and the more each one produces of his own particular commodity1 the more he can buy of every other man's products1 and the more he can pay for them4 ,with freedom in money1 the scientific discoveries and mechanical inventions1 made in each country1 will not only be used to the utmost in that country1 but will be carried into all other countries4 ,and these discoveries and inventions1 given by each country to every other1 and received by each country from every other1 will be of infinitely more value than all the material commodities that will be exchanged between these countries4 ,in this way each country contributes to the wealth of every other1 and the whole human race are enriched by the increased power and stimulus given to each man's labor of body and mind4 ,but it is to be kept constantly in mind1 that there can be no such thing as free labor1 unless there be freedom in money2 that is1 unless everybody1 who can furnish money1 shall be at liberty to do so4 ,plainly labor cannot be free1 unless the laborers are free to hire all the money capital that is necessary for their industries4 ,and they cannot be free to hire all this money capital1 unless all who can lend it to them1 shall be at liberty to do so4 ,in short1 labor cannot be free1 unless each laborer is free to hire all the capital--money capital1 as well as all other capital--that he honestly can hire2 free to buy1 wherever he can buy1 all the raw material he needs for his labor2 and free to sell1 wherever he can sell1 all the products of his labor4 ,therefore labor cannot be free1 unless we have freedom in money1 and free trade with all mankind4 ,we can now understand the situation4 ,in the most civilized nations--such as ,western ,europe and the ,united ,states--labor is utterly crippled1 robbed1 and enslaved by the monopoly of money2 and also1 in some of these countries1 by the monopoly of land4 ,in nearly or quite all the other countries of the world1 labor is not only robbed and enslaved1 but to a great extent paralyzed1 by the monopoly of land1 and by what may properly be called the utter absence of money4 ,there is1 consequently1 in these latter countries1 almost literally1 no diversity of industry1 no science1 no skill1 no invention1 no machinery1 no manufactures1 no production1 and no wealth2 but everywhere miserable poverty1 ignorance1 servitude1 and wretchedness4 ,in this country1 and in ,western ,europe1 where the uses of money are known1 there is no excuse to be offered for the monopoly of money4 ,it is maintained1 in each of these countries1 by a small knot of tyrants and robbers1 who have got control of the governments1 and use their power principally to maintain this monopoly2 understanding1 as they do1 that this one monopoly of money gives them a substantially absolute control of all other men's property and labor4 ,but not satisfied with this substantially absolute control of all other men's property and labor1 the monopolists of money1 in this country1--feigning great pity for their laborers1 but really seeking only to make their monopoly more profitable to themselves1--cry out for protection against the competition of the pauper labor of all other countries2 when they alone1 and such as they1 are the direct cause of all the pauper labor in the world4 ,but for them1 and others like them1 there would be neither poverty1 ignorance1 nor servitude on the face of the earth4 ,but to all that has now been said1 the advocates of the monopoly of money will say that1 if all the material property of the country were permitted to be represented by promissory notes1 and these promissory notes were permitted to be lent1 bought1 and sold as money1 the laborers would not be able to hire them1 for the reason that they could not give the necessary security for repayment4 ,but let those who would say this1 tell us why it is that1 in order to prevent men from loaning their promissory notes1 for circulation as money1 it has always been necessary for governments to prohibit it1 either by penal enactments1 or prohibitory taxation4 ,these penal enactments and prohibitory taxation are acknowledgments that1 but for them1 the notes would be loaned to any extent that would be profitable to the lenders4 ,what this extent would be1 nothing but experience of freedom can determine4 ,but freedom would doubtless give us ten1 twenty1 most likely fifty1 times as much money as we have now1 if so much could be kept in circulation4 ,and laborers would at least have ten1 twenty1 or fifty times better chances for hiring capital1 than they have now4 ,and1 furthermore1 all labor and property would have ten1 twenty1 or fifty times better chances of bringing their full value in the market1 than they have now4 ,but in the space that is allowable in this letter1 it is impossible to say all1 or nearly all1 of what might be said1 to show the justice1 the utility1 or the necessity1 for perfect freedom in the matters of money and international trade4 ,to pursue these topics further would exclude other matters of great importance1 as showing how the government acts the part of robber and tyrant in all its legislation on contracts2 and that the whole purpose of all its acts is that the earnings of the many may be put into the pockets of the few4 ,,section ,,xvii4 ,although1 as has already been said1 the constitution is a paper that nobody ever signed1 that few persons have ever read1 and that the great body of the people never saw2 and that has1 consequently1 no more claim to be the supreme law of the land1 or to have any authority whatever1 than has any other paper1 that nobody ever signed1 that few persons ever read1 and that the great body of the people never saw2 and although it purports to authorize a government1 in which the lawmakers1 judges1 and executive officers are all to be secured against any responsibility whatever to the people1 whose liberty and rights are at stake2 and although this government is kept in operation only by votes given in secret 7by secret ballot71 and in a way to save the voters from all personal responsibility for the acts of their agents--the lawmakers1 judges1 etc42 and although the whole affair is so audacious a fraud and usurpation1 that no people could be expected to agree to it1 or ought to submit to it1 for a moment2 yet1 inasmuch as the constitution declares itself to have been ordained and established by the people of the ,united ,states1 for the maintenance of liberty and justice for themselves and their posterity2 and inasmuch as all its supporters--that is1 the voters1 lawmakers1 judges1 etc4--profess to derive all their authority from it2 and inasmuch as all lawmakers1 and all judicial and executive officers1 both national and ,state1 swear to support it2 and inasmuch as they claim the right to kill1 and are evidently determined to kill1 and esteem it the highest glory to kill1 all who do not submit to its authority2 we might reasonably expect that1 from motives of common decency1 if from no other1 those who profess to administer it1 would pay some deference to its commands1 at least in those particular cases where it explicitly forbids any violation of the natural rights of the people4 ,especially might we expect that the judiciary--whose courts claim to be courts of justice--and who profess to be authorized and sworn to expose and condemn all such violations of individual rights as the constitution itself expressly forbids--would1 in spite of all their official dependence on1 and responsibility to1 the lawmakers1 have sufficient respect for their personal characters1 and the opinions of the world1 to induce them to pay some regard to all those parts of the constitution that expressly require any rights of the people to be held inviolable4 ,if the judicial tribunals cannot be expected to do justice1 even in those cases where the constitution expressly commands them to do it1 and where they have solemnly sworn to do it1 it is plain that they have sunk to the lowest depths of servility and corruption1 and can be expected to do nothing but serve the purposes of robbers and tyrants4 ,but how futile have been all expectations of justice from the judiciary1 may be seen in the conduct of the courts--and especially in that of the so-called ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states--in regard to men's natural right to make their own contracts4 ,although the ,state lawmakers have1 more frequently than the national lawmakers1 made laws in violation of men's natural right to make their own contracts1 yet all laws1 ,state and national1 having for their object the destruction of that right1 have always1 without a single exception1 ,i think1 received the sanction of the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states4 ,and having been sanctioned by that court1 they have been1 as a matter of course1 sanctioned by all the other courts1 ,state and national4 ,and this work has gone on1 until1 if these courts are to be believed1 nothing at all is left of men's natural right to make their own contracts4 ,that such is the truth1 ,i now propose to prove4 ,and1 first1 as to the ,state governments4 ,the constitution of the ,united ,states 7,art4 #a1 ,sec4 #aj7 declares that3 ,no ,state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts4 ,this provision does not designate what contracts have1 and what have not1 an obligation4 ,but it clearly presupposes1 implies1 assumes1 and asserts that there are contracts that have an obligation4 ,any ,state law1 therefore1 which declares that such contracts shall have no obligation1 is plainly in conflict with this provision of the constitution of the ,united ,states4 ,this provision1 also1 by implying that there are contracts1 that have an obligation1 necessarily implies that men have a right to enter into them2 for if men had no right to enter into the contracts1 the contracts themselves could have no obligation4 ,this provision1 then1 of the constitution of the ,united ,states1 not only implies that there are contracts that have an obligation1 but it also implies that the people have the right to enter into all such contracts1 and have the benefit of them4 ,and any ,state law1 conflicting with either of these implications1 is necessarily unconstitutional and void4 ,furthermore1 the language of this provision of the constitution1 to wit1 the obligation singular of contracts plural1 implies that there is one and the same obligation to all contracts whatsoever1 that have any legal obligation at all4 ,and there obviously must be some one principle1 that gives validity to all contracts alike1 that have any validity4 ,the law1 then1 of this whole country1 as established by the constitution of the ,united ,states1 is1 that all contracts whatsoever1 in which this one principle of validity1 or obligation1 is found1 shall be held valid2 and that the ,states shall impose no restraint whatever upon the people's entering into all such contracts4 ,all1 therefore1 that courts have to do1 in order to determine whether any particular contract1 or class of contracts1 are valid1 and whether the people have a right to enter into them1 is simply to determine whether the contracts themselves have1 or have not1 this one principle of validity1 or obligation1 which the constitution of the ,united ,states declares shall not be impaired4 ,state legislation can obviously have nothing to do with the solution of this question4 ,it can neither create1 nor destroy1 that obligation of contracts1 which the constitution forbids it to impair4 ,it can neither give1 nor take away1 the right to enter into any contract whatever1 that has that obligation4 ,on the supposition1 then1 that the constitution of the ,united ,states is1 what it declares itself to be1 viz41 the supreme law of the land1 444 anything in the constitutions or laws of the ,states to the contrary notwithstanding1 this provision against any ,state law impairing the obligation of contracts1 is so explicit1 and so authoritative1 that the legislatures and courts of the ,states have no color of authority for violating it4 ,and the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states has had no color of authority or justification for suffering it to be violated4 ,this provision is certainly one of the most important--perhaps the most important--of all the provisions of the constitution of the ,united ,states1 as protective of the natural rights of the people to make their own contracts1 or provide for their own welfare4 ,yet it has been constantly trampled under foot1 by the ,state legislatures1 by all manner of laws1 declaring who may1 and who may not1 make certain contracts2 and what shall1 and what shall not1 be the obligation of particular contracts2 thus setting at defiance all ideas of justice1 of natural rights1 and equal rights2 conferring monopolies and privileges upon particular individuals1 and imposing the most arbitrary and destructive restraints and penalties upon others2 all with a view of putting1 as far as possible1 all wealth into the hands of the few1 and imposing poverty and servitude upon the great body of the people4 ,and yet all these enormities have gone on for nearly a hundred years1 and have been sanctioned1 not only by all the ,state courts1 but also by the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states4 ,and what color of excuse have any of these courts offered for thus upholding all these violations of justice1 of men's natural rights1 and even of that constitution which they had all sworn to support8 ,they have offered only this3 ,they have all said they did not know what the obligation of contracts was6 ,well1 suppose1 for the sake of the argument1 that they have not known what the obligation of contracts was1 what1 then1 was their duty8 ,plainly this1 to neither enforce1 nor annul1 any contract whatever1 until they should have discovered what the obligation of contracts was4 ,clearly they could have no right to either enforce1 or annul1 any contract whatever1 until they should have ascertained whether it had any obligation1 and1 if any1 what that obligation was4 ,if these courts really do not know--as perhaps they do not--what the obligation of contracts is1 they deserve nothing but contempt for their ignorance4 ,if they do know what the obligation of contracts is1 and yet sanction the almost literally innumerable laws that violate it1 they deserve nothing but detestation for their villainy4 ,and until they shall suspend all their judgments for either enforcing1 or annulling1 contracts1 or1 on the other hand1 shall ascertain what the obligation of contracts is1 and sweep away all ,state laws that impair it1 they will deserve both contempt for their ignorance1 and detestation for their crimes4 ,individual ,justices of the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states have1 at least in one instance1 in #ahbg 7,ogden vs4 ,saunders1 #ab ,wheaton #bac71 attempted to give a definition of the obligation of contracts4 ,but there was great disagreement among them2 and no one definition secured the assent of the whole court1 or even of a majority4 ,since then1 so far as ,i know1 that court has never attempted to give a definition4 ,and1 so far as the opinion of that court is concerned1 the question is as unsettled now1 as it was sixty years ago4 ,and the opinions of the ,supreme ,courts of the ,states are equally unsettled with those of the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states4 ,the consequence is1 that the obligation of contracts--the principle on which the real validity1 or invalidity1 of all contracts whatsoever depends--is practically unknown1 or at least unrecognized1 by a single court1 either of the ,states1 or of the ,united ,states4 ,and1 as a result1 every species of absurd1 corrupt1 and robber legislation goes on unrestrained1 as it always has done4 ,what1 now1 is the reason why not one of these courts has ever so far given its attention to the subject as to have discovered what the obligation of contracts is8 ,what that principle is1 ,i repeat1 which they have all sworn to sustain1 and on which the real validity1 or invalidity1 of every contract on which they ever adjudicate1 depends8 ,why is it that they have all gone on sanctioning and enforcing all the nakedly iniquitous laws1 by which men's natural right to make their own contracts has been trampled under foot8 ,surely it is not because they do not know that all men have a natural right to make their own contracts2 for they know that1 as well as they know that all men have a natural right to live1 to breathe1 to move1 to speak1 to hear1 to see1 or to do anything whatever for the support of their lives1 or the promotion of their happiness4 ,why1 then1 is it1 that they strike down this right1 without ceremony1 and without compunction1 whenever they are commanded to do so by the lawmakers8 ,it is because1 and solely because1 they are so servile1 slavish1 degraded1 and corrupt1 as to act habitually on the principle1 that justice and men's natural rights are matters of no importance1 in comparison with the commands of the impudent and tyrannical lawmakers1 on whom they are dependent for their offices and their salaries4 ,it is because1 and solely because1 they1 like the judges under all other irresponsible and tyrannical governments1 are part and parcel of a conspiracy for robbing and enslaving the great body of the people1 to gratify the luxury and pride of a few4 ,it is because1 and solely because1 they do not recognize our governments1 ,state or national1 as institutions designed simply to maintain justice1 or to protect all men in the enjoyment of all their natural rights2 but only as institutions designed to accomplish such objects as irresponsible cabals of lawmakers may agree upon4 ,in proof of all this1 ,i give the following4 ,previous to #ahbd1 two cases had come up from the ,state courts1 to the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1 involving the question whether a ,state law1 invalidating some particular contract1 came within the constitutional prohibition of any law impairing the obligation of contracts4 ,one of these cases was that of ,fletcher vs4 ,peck1 7#f ,cranch #hg71 in the year #ahaj4 ,in this case the court held simply that a grant of land1 once made by the legislature of ,georgia1 could not be rescinded by a subsequent legislature4 ,but no general definition of the obligation of contracts was given4 ,again1 in the year #ahai1 in the case of ,dartmouth ,college vs4 ,woodward 7#d ,wheaton #eah71 the court held that a charter1 granted to ,dartmouth ,college1 by the king of ,england1 before the ,revolution1 was a contract2 and that a law of ,new ,hampshire1 annulling1 or materially altering1 the charter1 without the consent of the trustees1 was a law impairing the obligation of that contract4 ,but1 in this case1 as in that of ,fletcher vs4 ,peck1 the court gave no general definition of the obligation of contracts4 ,but in the year #ahbd1 and again in #ahbg1 in the case of ,ogden vs4 ,saunders 7#ab ,wheaton #bac7 the question was1 whether an insolvent law of the ,state of ,new ,york1 which discharged a debtor from a debt1 contracted after the passage of the law1 or1 as the courts would say1 contracted under the law--on his giving up his property to be distributed among his creditors--was a law impairing the obligation of contracts8 ,to the correct decision of this case1 it seemed indispensable that the court should give a comprehensive1 precise1 and universal definition of the obligation of contracts2 one by which it might forever after be known what was1 and what was not1 that obligation of contracts1 which the ,state governments were forbidden to impair by any law whatever4 ,the cause was heard at two terms1 that of #ahbd1 and that of #ahbg4 ,it was argued by ,webster1 ,wheaton1 ,wirt1 ,clay1 ,livingston1 ,ogden1 ,jones1 ,sampson1 and ,haines2 nine in all4 ,their arguments were so voluminous that they could not be reported at length4 ,only summaries of them are given4 ,but these summaries occupy thirty-eight pages in the reports4 ,the judges1 at that time1 were seven1 viz41 ,marshall1 ,washington1 ,johnson1 ,duvall1 ,story1 ,thompson1 and ,trimble4 ,the judges gave five different opinions2 occupying one hundred pages of the reports4 ,but no one definition of the obligation of contracts could be agreed on2 not even by a majority4 ,here1 then1 sixteen lawyers and judges--many of them among the most eminent the country has ever had--were called upon to give their opinions upon a question of the highest importance to all men's natural rights1 to all the interests of civilized society1 and to the very existence of civilization itself2 a question1 upon the answer to which depended the real validity1 or invalidity1 of every contract that ever was made1 or ever will be made1 between man and man4 ,and yet1 by their disagreements1 they all virtually acknowledged that they did not know what the obligation of contracts was6 ,but this was not all4 ,although they could not agree as to what the obligation of contracts was1 they did all agree that it could be nothing which the ,state lawmakers could not prohibit and abolish1 by laws passed before the contracts were made4 ,that is to say1 they all agreed that the ,state lawmakers had absolute power to prohibit all contracts whatsoever1 for buying and selling1 borrowing and lending1 giving and receiving1 property2 and that1 whenever they did prohibit any particular contract1 or class of contracts1 all such contracts1 thereafter made1 could have no obligation6 ,they said this1 be it noted1 not of contracts that were naturally and intrinsically criminal and void1 but of contracts that were naturally and intrinsically as just1 and lawful1 and useful1 and necessary1 as any that men ever enter into2 and that had as perfect a natural1 intrinsic1 inherent obligation1 as any of those contracts1 by which the traffic of society is carried on1 or by which men ever buy and sell1 borrow and lend1 give and receive1 property1 of and to each other4 ,not one of these sixteen lawyers and judges took the ground that the constitution1 in forbidding any ,state to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts1 intended to protect1 against the arbitrary legislation of the ,states1 the only true1 real1 and natural obligation of contracts1 or the right of the people to enter into all really just1 and naturally obligatory contracts4 ,is it possible to conceive of a more shameful exhibition1 or confession1 of the servility1 the baseness1 or the utter degradation1 of both bar and bench1 than their refusal to say one word in favor of justice1 liberty1 men's natural rights1 or the natural1 and only real1 obligation of their contracts8 ,and yet1 from that day to this--a period of sixty years1 save one--neither bar nor bench1 so far as ,i know1 have ever uttered one syllable in vindication of men's natural right to make their own contracts1 or to have the only true1 real1 natural1 inherent1 intrinsic obligation of their contracts respected by lawmakers or courts4 ,can any further proof be needed that all ideas of justice and men's natural rights are absolutely banished from the minds of lawmakers1 and from so-called courts of justice8 ,or that absolute and irresponsible lawmaking has usurped their place8 ,or can any further proof be needed1 of the utter worthlessness of all the constitutions1 which these lawmakers and judges swear to support1 and profess to be governed by8 ,,section ,,xviii4 ,if1 now1 it be asked1 what is this constitutional obligation of contracts1 which the ,states are forbidden to impair1 the answer is1 that it is1 and necessarily must be1 the natural obligation2 or that obligation1 which contracts have1 on principles of natural law1 and natural justice1 as distinguished from any arbitrary or unjust obligation1 which lawmakers may assume to create1 and attach to contracts4 ,this natural obligation is the only one obligation which all obligatory contracts can be said to have4 ,it is the only inherent obligation1 that any contract can be said to have4 ,it is recognized all over the world--at least as far as it is known--as the one only true obligation1 that any1 or all1 contracts can have4 ,and1 so far as it is known--it is held valid all over the world1 except in those exceptional cases1 where arbitrary and tyrannical governments have assumed to annul it1 or substitute some other in its stead4 ,the constitution assumes that this one obligation of contracts1 which it designs to protect1 is the natural one1 because it assumes that it existed1 and was known1 at the time the constitution itself was established2 and certainly no one obligation1 other than the natural one1 can be said to have been known1 as applicable to all obligatory contracts1 at the time the constitution was established4 ,unless1 therefore1 the constitution be presumed to have intended the natural obligation1 it cannot be said to have intended any one obligation whatever2 or1 consequently1 to have forbidden the violation of any one obligation whatever4 ,it cannot be said that the obligation1 which the constitution designed to protect was any arbitrary obligation1 that was unknown at the time the constitution was established1 but that was to be created1 and made known afterward2 for then this provision of the constitution could have had no effect1 until such arbitrary obligation should have been created1 and made known4 ,and as it gives us no information as to how1 or by whom1 this arbitrary obligation was to be created1 or what the obligation itself was to be1 or how it could ever be known to be the one that was intended to be protected1 the provision itself becomes a mere nullity1 having no effect to protect any obligation at all4 ,it would be a manifest and utter absurdity to say that the constitution intended to protect any obligation whatever1 unless it be presumed to have intended some particular obligation1 that was known at the time2 for that would be equivalent to saying that the constitution intended to establish a law1 of which no man could know the meaning4 ,but this is not all4 ,the right of property is a natural right4 ,the only real right of property1 that is known to mankind1 is the natural right4 ,men have also a natural right to convey their natural rights of property from one person to another4 ,and there is no means known to mankind1 by which this natural right of property can be transferred1 or conveyed1 by one man to another1 except by such contracts as are naturally obligatory2 that is1 naturally capable of conveying and binding the right of property4 ,all contracts whatsoever1 that are naturally capable1 competent1 and sufficient to convey1 transfer1 and bind the natural right of property1 are naturally obligatory2 and really and truly do convey1 transfer1 and bind such rights of property as they purport to convey1 transfer1 and bind4 ,all the other modes1 by which one man has ever attempted to acquire the property of another1 have been thefts1 robberies1 and frauds4 ,but these1 of course1 have never conveyed any real rights of property4 ,to make any contract binding1 obligatory1 and effectual for conveying and transferring rights of property1 these three conditions only are essential1 viz41 #a4 ,that it be entered into by parties1 who are mentally competent to make reasonable contracts4 #b4 ,that the contract be a purely voluntary one3 that is1 that it be entered into without either force or fraud on either side4 #c4 ,that the right of property1 which the contract purports to convey1 be such an one as is naturally capable of being conveyed1 or transferred1 by one man to another4 ,subject to these conditions1 all contracts whatsoever1 for conveying rights of property--that is1 for buying and selling1 borrowing and lending1 giving and receiving property--are naturally obligatory1 and bind such rights of property as they purport to convey4 ,subject to these conditions1 all contracts1 for the conveyance of rights of property1 are recognized as valid1 all over the world1 by both civilized and savage man1 except in those particular cases where governments arbitrarily and tyrannically prohibit1 alter1 or invalidate them4 ,this natural obligation of contracts must necessarily be presumed to be the one1 and the only one1 which the constitution forbids to be impaired1 by any ,state law whatever1 if we are to presume that the constitution was intended for the maintenance of justice1 or men's natural rights4 ,on the other hand1 if the constitution be presumed not to protect this natural obligation of contracts1 we know not what other obligation it did intend to protect4 ,it mentions no other1 describes no other1 gives us no hint of any other2 and nobody can give us the least information as to what other obligation of contracts was intended4 ,it could not have been any obligation which the ,state lawmakers might arbitrarily create1 and annex to all contracts2 for this is what no lawmakers have ever attempted to do4 ,and it would be the height of absurdity to suppose they ever will invent any one obligation1 and attach it to all contracts4 ,they have only attempted either to annul1 or impair1 the natural obligation of particular contracts2 or1 in particular cases1 to substitute other obligations of their own invention4 ,and this is the most they will ever attempt to do4 ,,section ,,xix4 ,assuming it now to be proved that the obligation of contracts1 which the ,states are forbidden to impair1 is the natural obligation2 and that1 constitutionally speaking1 this provision secures to all the people of the ,united ,states the right to enter into1 and have the benefit of1 all contracts whatsoever1 that have that one natural obligation1 let us look at some of the more important of those ,state laws that have either impaired that obligation or prohibited the exercise of that right4 #a4 ,that law1 in all the ,states1 by which any1 or all1 the contracts of persons1 under twenty-one years of age1 are either invalidated1 or forbidden to be entered into4 ,the mental capacity of a person to make reasonable contracts1 is the only criterion1 by which to determine his legal capacity to make obligatory contracts4 ,and his mental capacity to make reasonable contracts is certainly not to be determined by the fact that he is1 or is not1 twenty-one years of age4 ,there would be just as much sense in saying that it was to be determined by his height or his weight1 as there is in saying that it should be determined by his age4 ,nearly all persons1 male and female1 are mentally competent to make reasonable contracts1 long before they are twenty-one years of age4 ,and as soon as they are mentally competent to make reasonable contracts1 they have the same natural right to make them1 that they ever can have4 ,and their contracts have the same natural obligation that they ever can have4 ,if a person's mental capacity to make reasonable contracts be drawn in question1 that is a question of fact1 to be ascertained by the same tribunal that is to ascertain all the other facts involved in the case4 ,it certainly is not to be determined by any arbitrary legislation1 that shall deprive any one of his natural right to make contracts4 #b4 ,all the ,state laws1 that do now forbid1 or that have heretofore forbidden married women to make any or all contracts1 that they are1 or were1 mentally competent to make reasonably1 are violations of their natural right to make their own contracts4 ,a married woman has the same natural right to acquire and hold property1 and to make all contracts that she is mentally competent to make reasonably1 as has a married man1 or any other man4 ,and any law invalidating her contracts1 or forbidding her to enter into contracts1 on the ground of her being married1 are not only absurd and outrageous in themselves1 but are also as plainly violations of that provision of the constitution1 which forbids any ,state to pass any law impairing the natural obligation of contracts1 as would be laws invalidating or prohibiting similar contracts by married men4 #c4 ,all those ,state laws1 commonly called acts of incorporation1 by which a certain number of persons are licensed to contract debts1 without having their individual properties held liable to pay them1 are laws impairing the natural obligation of their contracts4 ,on natural principles of law and reason1 these persons are simply partners2 and their private properties1 like those of any other partners1 should be held liable for their partnership debts4 ,like any other partners1 they take the profits of their business1 if there be any profits4 ,and they are naturally bound to take all the risks of their business1 as in the case of any other business4 ,for a law to say that1 if they make any profits1 they may put them all into their own pockets1 but that1 if they make a loss1 they may throw it upon their creditors1 is an absurdity and an outrage4 ,such a law is plainly a law impairing the natural obligation of their contracts4 #d4 ,all ,state insolvent laws1 so-called1 that distribute a debtor's property equally among his creditors1 are laws impairing the natural obligation of his contracts4 ,if the natural obligation of contracts were known1 and recognized as law1 we should have no need of insolvent or bankrupt laws4 ,the only force1 function1 or effect of a legal contract is to convey and bind rights of property4 ,a contract that conveys and binds no right of property1 has no legal force1 effect1 or obligation whatever4#d #d ,it may have very weighty moral obligation2 but it can have no legal obligation4 ,consequently1 the natural obligation of a contract of debt binds the debtor's property1 and nothing more4 ,that is1 it gives the creditor a mortgage upon the debtor's property1 and nothing more4 ,a first debt is a first mortgage2 a second debt is a second mortgage2 a third debt is a third mortgage2 and so on indefinitely4 ,the first mortgage must be paid in full1 before anything is paid on the second4 ,the second must be paid in full1 before anything is paid on the third2 and so on indefinitely4 ,when the mortgaged property is exhausted1 the debt is cancelled2 there is no other property that the contract binds4 ,if1 therefore1 a debtor1 at the time his debt becomes due1 pays to the extent of his ability1 and has been guilty of no fraud1 fault1 or neglect1 during the time his debt had to run1 he is thenceforth discharged from all legal obligation4 ,if this principle were acknowledged1 we should have no occasion1 and no use1 for insolvent or bankrupt laws4 ,of course1 persons who have never asked themselves what the natural obligation of contracts is1 will raise numerous objections to the principle1 that a legal contract binds nothing else than rights of property4 ,but their objections are all shallow and fallacious4 ,i have not space here to go into all the arguments that may be necessary to prove that contracts can have no legal effect1 except to bind rights of property2 or to show the truth of that principle in its application to all contracts whatsoever4 ,to do this would require a somewhat elaborate treatise4 ,such a treatise ,i hope sometime to publish4 ,for the present1 ,i only assert the principle2 and assert that the ignorance of this truth is at least one of the reasons why courts and lawyers have never been able to agree as to what the obligation of contracts was4 ,in all the cases that have now been mentioned1--that is1 of minors 7so-called71 married women1 corporations1 insolvents1 and in all other like cases--the tricks1 or pretences1 by which the courts attempt to uphold the validity of all laws that forbid persons to exercise their natural right to make their own contracts1 or that annul1 or impair1 the natural obligation of their contracts1 are these3 #a4 ,they say that1 if a law forbids any particular contract to be made1 such contract1 being then an illegal one1 can have no obligation4 ,consequently1 say they1 the law cannot be said to impair it2 because the law cannot impair an obligation1 that has never had an existence4 ,they say this of all contracts1 that are arbitrarily forbidden2 although1 naturally and intrinsically1 they have as valid an obligation as any others that men ever enter into1 or as any that courts enforce4 ,by such a naked trick as this1 these courts not only strike down men's natural right to make their own contracts1 but even seek to evade that provision of the constitution1 which they are all sworn to support1 and which commands them to hold valid the natural obligation of all men's contracts2 anything in the constitutions or laws of the ,states to the contrary notwithstanding4 ,they might as well have said that1 if the constitution had declared that no ,state shall pass any law impairing any man's natural right to life1 liberty1 or property--7that is1 his natural right to live1 and do what he will with himself and his property1 so long as he infringes the right of no other person7--this prohibition could be evaded by a ,state law declaring that1 from and after such a date1 no person should have any natural right to life1 liberty1 or property2 and that1 therefore1 a law arbitrarily taking from a man his life1 liberty1 and property1 could not be said to impair his right to them1 because no law could impair a right that did not exist4 ,the answer to such an argument as this1 would be1 that it is a natural truth that every man1 who ever has been1 or ever will be1 born into the world1 necessarily has been1 and necessarily will be1 born with an inherent right to life1 liberty1 and property2 and that1 in forbidding this right to be impaired1 the constitution presupposes1 implies1 assumes1 and asserts that every man has1 and will have1 such a right2 and that this natural right is the very right1 which the constitution forbids any ,state law to impair4 ,or the courts might as well have said that1 if the constitution had declared that no ,state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts made for the purchase of food1 that provision could have been evaded by a ,state law forbidding any contract to be made for the purchase of food2 and then saying that such contract1 being illegal1 could have no obligation1 that could be impaired4 ,the answer to this argument would be that1 by forbidding any ,state law impairing the obligation of contracts made for the purchase of food1 the constitution presupposes1 implies1 assumes1 and asserts that such contracts have1 and always will have1 a natural obligation2 and that this natural obligation is the very obligation1 which the constitution forbids any ,state law to impair4 ,so in regard to all other contracts4 ,the constitution presupposes1 implies1 assumes1 and asserts the natural truth1 that certain contracts have1 and always necessarily will have1 a natural obligation4 ,and this natural obligation--which is the only real obligation that any contract can have--is the very one that the constitution forbids any ,state law to impair1 in the case of any contract whatever that has such obligation4 ,and yet all the courts hold the direct opposite of this4 ,they hold that1 if a ,state law forbids any contract to be made1 such a contract can then have no obligation2 and that1 consequently1 no ,state law can impair an obligation that never existed4 ,but if1 by forbidding a contract to be made1 a ,state law can prevent the contract's having any obligation1 ,state laws1 by forbidding any contracts at all to be made1 can prevent all contracts1 thereafter made1 from having any obligation2 and thus utterly destroy all men's natural rights to make any obligatory contracts at all4 #b4 ,a second pretence1 by which the courts attempt to evade that provision of the constitution1 which forbids any ,state to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts1 is this3 ,they say that the ,state law1 that requires1 or obliges1 a man to fulfil his contracts1 is itself the obligation1 which the constitution forbids to be impaired2 and that therefore the constitution only prohibits the impairing of any law for enforcing such contracts as shall be made under it4 ,but this pretence1 it will be seen1 utterly discards the idea that contracts have any natural obligation4 ,it implies that contracts have no obligation1 except the laws that are made for enforcing them4 ,but if contracts have no natural obligation1 they have no obligation at all1 that ought to be enforced2 and the ,state is a mere usurper1 tyrant1 and robber1 in passing any law to enforce them4 ,plainly a ,state cannot rightfully enforce any contracts at all1 unless they have a natural obligation4 #c4 ,a third pretence1 by which the courts attempt to evade this provision of the constitution1 is this3 ,they say that the law is a part of the contract itself2 and therefore cannot impair its obligation4 ,by this they mean that1 if a law is standing upon the statute book1 prescribing what obligation certain contracts shall1 or shall not1 have1 it must then be presumed that1 whenever such a contract is made1 the parties intended to make it according to that law2 and really to make the law a part of their contract2 although they themselves say nothing of the kind4 ,this pretence1 that the law is a part of the contract1 is a mere trick to cheat people out of their natural right to make their own contracts2 and to compel them to make only such contracts as the lawmakers choose to permit them to make4 ,to say that it must be presumed that the parties intended to make their contracts according to such laws as may be prescribed to them--or1 what is the same thing1 to make the laws a part of their contracts--is equivalent to saying that the parties must be presumed to have given up all their natural right to make their own contracts2 to have acknowledged themselves imbeciles1 incompetent to make reasonable contracts1 and to have authorized the lawmakers to make their contracts for them2 for if the lawmakers can make any part of a man's contract1 and presume his consent to it1 they can make a whole one1 and presume his consent to it4 ,if the lawmakers can make any part of men's contracts1 they can make the whole of them2 and can1 therefore1 buy and sell1 borrow and lend1 give and receive men's property of all kinds1 according to their 7the lawmakers'7 own will1 pleasure1 or discretion2 without the consent of the real owners of the property1 and even without their knowledge1 until it is too late4 ,in short1 they may take any man's property1 and give it1 or sell it1 to whom they please1 and on such conditions1 and at such prices1 as they please2 without any regard to the rights of the owner4 ,they may1 in fact1 at their pleasure1 strip any1 or every1 man of his property1 and bestow it upon whom they will2 and then justify the act upon the presumption that the owner consented to have his property thus taken from him and given to others4 ,this absurd1 contemptible1 and detestable trick has had a long lease of life1 and has been used as a cover for some of the greatest of crimes4 ,by means of it1 the marriage contract has been perverted into a contract1 on the part of the woman1 to make herself a legal non-entity1 or non compos mentis2 to give up1 to her husband1 all her personal property1 and the control of all her real estate2 and to part with her natural1 inherent1 inalienable right1 as a human being1 to direct her own labor1 control her own earnings1 make her own contracts1 and provide for the subsistence of herself and her children4 ,there would be just as much reason in saying that the lawmakers have a right to make the entire marriage contract2 to marry any man and woman against their will2 dispose of all their personal and property rights2 declare them imbeciles1 incapable of making a reasonable marriage contract2 then presume the consent of both the parties2 and finally treat them as criminals1 and their children as outcasts1 if they presume to make any contract of their own4 ,this same trick1 of holding that the law is a part of the contract1 has been made to protect the private property of stockholders from liability for the debts of the corporations1 of which they were members2 and to protect the private property of special partners1 so-called1 or limited partners1 from liability for partnership debts4 ,this same trick has been employed to justify insolvent and bankrupt laws1 so-called1 whereby a first creditor's right to a first mortgage on the property of his debtor1 has been taken from him1 and he has been compelled to take his chances with as many subsequent creditors as the debtor may succeed in becoming indebted to ,all these absurdities and atrocities have been practiced by the lawmakers of the ,states1 and sustained by the courts1 under the pretence that they 7the courts7 did not know what the natural obligation of contracts was2 or that1 if they did know what it was1 the constitution of the ,united ,states imposed no restraint upon its unlimited violation by the ,state lawmakers4 ,,section ,,xx4 ,but1 not content with having always sanctioned the unlimited power of the ,state lawmakers to abolish all men's natural right to make their own contracts1 the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states has1 within the last twenty years1 taken pains to assert that congress also has the arbitrary power to abolish the same right4 #a4 ,it has asserted the arbitrary power of congress to abolish all men's right to make their own contracts1 by asserting its power to alter the meaning of all contracts1 after they are made1 so as to make them widely1 or wholly1 different from what the parties had made them4 ,thus the court has said that1 after a man has made a contract to pay a certain number of dollars1 at a future time1--meaning such dollars as were current at the time the contract was made1--congress has power to coin a dollar of less value than the one agreed on1 and authorize the debtor to pay his debt with a dollar of less value than the one he had promised4 ,to cover up this infamous crime1 the court asserts1 over and over again1--what no one denies1--that congress has power 7constitutionally speaking7 to alter1 at pleasure1 the value of its coins4 ,but it then asserts that congress has this additional1 and wholly different1 power1 to wit1 the power to declare that this alteration in the value of the coins shall work a corresponding change in all existing contracts for the payment of money4 ,in reality they say that a contract to pay money is not a contract to pay any particular amount1 or value1 of such money as was known and understood by the parties at the time the contract was made1 but only such1 and so much1 as congress shall afterwards choose to call by that name1 when the debt shall become due4 ,they assert that1 by simply retaining the name1 while altering the thing1--or by simply giving an old name to a new thing1--congress has power to utterly abolish the contract which the parties themselves entered into1 and substitute for it any such new and different one1 as they 7congress7 may choose to substitute4 ,here are their own words3 ,the contract obligation 444 was not a duty to pay gold or silver1 or the kind of money recognized by law at the time when the contract was made1 nor was it a duty to pay money of equal intrinsic value in the market4444 ,but the obligation of a contract to pay money is to pay that which the law shall recognize as money when the payment is to be made4--,legal ,tender ,cases1 #ab ,wallace #edh4 ,this is saying that the obligation of a contract to pay money is not an obligation to pay what both the law and the parties recognize as money1 at the time when the contract is made1 but only such substitute as congress shall afterwards prescribe1 when the payment is to be made4 ,this opinion was given by a majority of the court in the year #ahgj4 ,in another opinion the court says3 ,under the power to coin money1 and to regulate its value1 congress may issue coins of same denomination that is1 bearing the same name as those already current by law1 but of less intrinsic value than those1 by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals1 and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value4 ,a contract to pay a certain sum of money1 without any stipulation as to the kind of money in which it shall be made1 may always be satisfied by payment of that sum that is1 that nominal amount in any currency which is lawful money at the place and time at which payment is to be made4--,juilliard vs4 ,greenman1 #aaj ,u4 ,s4 ,reports1 #ddi4 ,this opinion was given by the entire court--save one1 ,field--at the ,october term of #ahhc4 ,both these opinions are distinct declarations of the power of congress to alter men's contracts1 after they are made1 by simply retaining the name1 while altering the thing1 that is agreed to be paid4 ,in both these cases1 the court means distinctly to say that1 after the parties to a contract have agreed upon the number of dollars to be paid1 congress has power to reduce the value of the dollar1 and authorize all debtors to pay the less valuable dollar1 instead of the one agreed on4 ,in other words1 the court means to say that1 after a contract has been made for the payment of a certain number of dollars1 congress has power to alter the meaning of the word dollar1 and thus authorize the debtor to pay in something different from1 and less valuable than1 the thing he agreed to pay4 ,well1 if congress has power to alter men's contracts1 after they are made1 by altering the meaning of the word dollar1 and thus reducing the value of the debt1 it has a precisely equal power to increase the value of the dollar1 and thus compel the debtor to pay more than he agreed to pay4 ,congress has evidently just as much right to increase the value of the dollar1 after a contract has been made1 as it has to reduce its value4 ,it has1 therefore1 just as much right to cheat debtors1 by compelling them to pay more than they agreed to pay1 as it has to cheat creditors1 by compelling them to accept less than they agreed to accept4 ,all this talk of the court is equivalent to asserting that congress has the right to alter men's contracts at pleasure1 after they are made1 and make them over into something1 or anything1 wholly different from what the parties themselves had made them4 ,and this is equivalent to denying all men's right to make their own contracts1 or to acquire any contract rights1 which congress may not afterward1 at pleasure1 alter1 or abolish4 ,it is equivalent to saying that the words of contracts are not to be taken in the sense in which they are used1 by the parties themselves1 at the time when the contracts are entered into1 but only in such different senses as congress may choose to put upon them at any future time4 ,if this is not asserting the right of congress to abolish altogether men's natural right to make their own contracts1 what is it8 ,incredible as such audacious villainy may seem to those unsophisticated persons1 who imagine that a court of law should be a court of justice1 it is nevertheless true1 that this court intended to declare the unlimited power of congress to alter1 at pleasure1 the contracts of parties1 after they have been made1 by altering the kind and amount of money by which the contracts may be fulfilled4 ,that they intended all this1 is proved1 not only by the extracts already given from their opinions1 but also by the whole tenor of their arguments--too long to be repeated here--and more explicitly by these quotations1 viz43 ,there is no well-founded distinction to be made between the constitutional validity of an act of congress declaring treasury notes a legal tender for the payment of debts contracted after its passage1 and that of an act making them a legal tender for the discharge of all debts1 as well those incurred before1 as those made after1 its enactment4--,legal ,tender ,cases1 #ab ,wallace #ecj 7#ahgj74 ,every contract for the payment of money1 simply1 is necessarily subject to the constitutional power of the government over the currency1 whatever that power may be1 and the obligation of the parties is1 therefore1 assumed with reference to that power4--#ab ,wallace #edi4 ,contracts for the payment of money are subject to the authority of congress1 at least so far as relates to the means of payment4--#ab ,wallace #edi4 ,the court means here to say that every contract for the payment of money1 simply1 is necessarily made1 by the parties1 subject to the power of congress to alter it afterward--by altering the kind and value of the money with which it may be paid--into anything1 into which they 7congress7 may choose to alter it4 ,and this is equivalent to saying that all such contracts are made1 by the parties1 with the implied understanding that the contracts1 as written and signed by themselves1 do not bind either of the parties to anything2 but that they simply suggest1 or initiate1 some non-descript or other1 which congress may afterward convert into a binding contract1 of such a sort1 and only such a sort1 as they 7congress7 may see fit to convert it into4 ,every one of these judges knew that no two men1 having common honesty and common sense1--unless first deprived of all power to make their own contracts1--would ever enter into a contract to pay money1 with any understanding that the government had any such arbitrary power as the court here ascribes to it1 to alter their contract after it should be made4 ,such an absurd contract would1 in reality1 be no legal contract at all4 ,it would be a mere gambling agreement1 having1 naturally and really1 no legal obligation at all4 ,but further4 ,a solvent contract to pay money is in reality--in law1 and in equity--a bona fide mortgage upon the debtor's property4 ,and this mortgage right is as veritable a right of property1 as is any right of property1 that is conveyed by a warranty deed4 ,and congress has no more right to invalidate this mortgage1 by a single iota1 than it has to invalidate a warranty deed of land4 ,and these judges will sometime find out that such is the obligation of contracts1 if they ever find out what the obligation of contracts is4 ,the justices of that court have had this question--what is the obligation of contracts8--before them for seventy years1 and more4 ,but they have never agreed among themselves--even by so many as a majority--as to what it is4 ,and this disagreement is very good evidence that none of them have known what it is2 for if any one of them had known what it is1 he would doubtless have been able1 long ago1 to enlighten the rest4 ,considering the vital importance of men's contracts1 it would evidently be more to the credit of these judges1 if they would give their attention to this question of the obligation of contracts1 until they shall have solved it1 than it is to be telling fifty millions of people that they have no right to make any contracts at all1 except such as congress has power to invalidate after they shall have been made4 ,such assertions as this1 coming from a court that cannot even tell us what the obligation of contracts is1 are not entitled to any serious consideration4 ,on the contrary1 they show us what farces and impostures these judicial opinions--or decisions1 as they call them--are4 ,they show that these judicial oracles1 as men call them1 are no better than some of the other so-called oracles1 by whom mankind have been duped4 ,but these judges certainly never will find out what the obligation of contracts is1 until they find out that men have the natural right to make their own contracts1 and unalterably fix their obligation2 and that governments can have no power whatever to make1 unmake1 alter1 or invalidate that obligation4 ,still further4 ,congress has the same power over weights and measures that it has over coins4 ,and the court has no more right or reason to say that congress has power to alter existing contracts1 by altering the value of the coins1 than it has to say that1 after any or all men have1 for value received1 entered into contracts to deliver so many bushels of wheat or other grain1 so many pounds of beef1 pork1 butter1 cheese1 cotton1 wool1 or iron1 so many yards of cloth1 or so many feet of lumber1 congress has power1 by altering these weights and measures1 to alter all these existing contracts1 so as to convert them into contracts to deliver only half as many1 or to deliver twice as many1 bushels1 pounds1 yards1 or feet1 as the parties agreed upon4 ,to add to the farce1 as well as to the iniquity1 of these judicial opinions1 it must be kept in mind1 that the court says that1 after ,a has sold valuable property to ,b1 and has taken in payment an honest and sufficient mortgage on ,b's property1 congress has the power to compel him 7,a7 to give up this mortgage1 and to accept1 in place of it1 not anything of any real value whatever1 but only the promissory note of a so-called government2 and that government one which--if taxation without consent is robbery--never had an honest dollar in its treasury1 with which to pay any of its debts1 and is never likely to have one2 but relies wholly on its future robberies for its means to pay them2 and can give no guaranty1 but its own interest at the time1 that it will even make the payment out of its future robberies4 ,if a company of bandits were to seize a man's property for their own uses1 and give him their note1 promising to pay him out of their future robberies1 the transaction would not be considered a very legitimate one4 ,but it would be intrinsically just as legitimate as is the one which the ,supreme ,court sanctions on the part of congress4 ,banditti have not usually kept supreme courts of their own1 to legalize either their robberies1 or their promises to pay for past robberies1 out of the proceeds of their future ones4 ,perhaps they may now take a lesson from our ,supreme ,court1 and establish courts of their own1 that will hereafter legalize all their contracts of this kind4 ,,section ,,xxi4 ,to justify its declaration1 that congress has power to alter men's contracts after they are made1 the court dwells upon the fact that1 at the times when the legal-tender acts were passed1 the government was in peril of its life2 and asserts that it had therefore a right to do almost anything for its self-preservation1 without much regard to its honesty1 or dishonesty1 towards private persons4 ,thus it says3 ,a civil war was then raging1 which seriously threatened the overthrow of the government1 and the destruction of the constitution itself4 ,it demanded the equipment and support of large armies and navies1 and the employment of money to an extent beyond the capacity of all ordinary sources of supply4 ,meanwhile the public treasury was nearly empty1 and the credit of the government1 if not stretched to its utmost tension1 had become nearly exhausted4 ,moneyed institutions had advanced largely of their means1 and more could not be expected of them4 ,they had been compelled to suspend specie payments4 ,taxation was inadequate to pay even the interest on the debt already incurred1 and it was impossible to await the income of additional taxes4 ,the necessity was immediate and pressing4 ,the army was unpaid4 ,there was then due to the soldiers in the field nearly a score of millions of dollars4 ,the requisitions from the ,war and ,navy departments for supplies1 exceeded fifty millions1 and the current expenditure was over one million per day4444 ,foreign credit we had none4 ,we say nothing of the overhanging paralysis of trade1 and business generally1 which threatened loss of confidence in the ability of the government to maintain its continued existence1 and therewith the complete destruction of all remaining national credit4 ,it was at such a time1 and in such circumstances1 that congress was called upon to devise means to maintaining the army and navy1 for securing the large supplies of money needed1 and indeed for the preservation of the government created by the constitution4 ,it was at such a time1 and in such and emergency1 that the legal-tender acts were passed4--#ab ,wallace #edj-a4 ,in the same case ,bradley said3 ,can the poor man's cattle1 and horses1 and corn be thus taken by the government1 when the public exigency requires it1 and cannot the rich man's bonds and notes be in like manner taken to reach the same end8--p4 #efa4 ,he also said3 ,it is absolutely essential to independent national existence that government should have a firm hold on the two great instrumentalities of the sword and the purse1 and the right to wield them without restriction1 on occasions of national peril4 ,in certain emergencies government must have at its command1 not only the personal services--the bodies and lives--of its citizens1 but the lesser1 though not less essential1 power of absolute control over the resources of the country4 ,its armies must be filled1 and its navies manned1 by the citizens in person4--p4 #efc4 ,also he said3 ,the conscription may deprive me of liberty1 and destroy my life4444 ,all these are fundamental political conditions on which life1 property1 and money are respectively held and enjoyed under our system of government1 nay1 under any system of government4 ,there are times when the exigencies of the ,state rightly absorb all subordinate considerations of private interest1 convenience1 and feeling4--p4 #efe4 ,such an attempt as this1 to justify one crime1 by taking for granted the justice of other and greater crimes1 is a rather desperate mode of reasoning1 for a court of law2 to say nothing of a court of justice4 ,the answer to it is1 that no government1 however good in other respects--any more than any other good institution--has any right to live otherwise than on purely voluntary support4 ,it can have no right to take either the poor man's cattle1 and horses1 and corn1 or the rich man's bonds and notes1 or poor men's bodies and lives1 without their consent4 ,and when a government resorts to such measures to save its life1 we need no further proof that its time to die has come4 ,a good government1 no more than a bad one1 has any right to live by robbery1 murder1 or any other crime4 ,but so think not the ,justices of the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states4 ,on the contrary1 they hold that1 in comparison with the preservation of the government1 all the rights of the people to property1 liberty1 and life are worthless things1 not to be regarded4 ,so they hold that in such an exigency as they describe1 congress had the right to commit any crime against private persons1 by which the government could be saved4 ,and among these lawful crimes1 the court holds that congress had the right to issue money that should serve as a license to all holders of it1 to cheat--or rather openly rob--their creditors4 ,the court might1 with just as much reason1 have said that1 to preserve the life of the government1 congress had the right to issue such money as would authorize all creditors to demand twice the amount of their honest dues from all debtors4 ,the court might1 with just as much reason1 have said that1 to preserve the life of the government1 congress had the right to sell indulgences for all manner of crimes2 for theft1 robbery1 rape1 murder1 and all other crimes1 for which indulgences would bring a price in the market4 ,can any one imagine it possible that1 if the government had always done nothing but that equal and exact justice to all men--which you say it is pledged to do1--but which you must know it has never done1--it could ever have been brought into any such peril of its life1 as these judges describe8 ,could it ever have been necessitated to take either the poor man's cattle1 and horses1 and corn1 or the rich man's bonds and notes1 or poor men's bodies and lives1 without their consent8 ,could it ever have been necessitated to conscript the poor man--too poor to pay a ransom of three hundred dollars--made thus poor by the tyranny of the government itself--deprive him of his liberty1 and destroy his life8 ,could it ever have been necessitated to sell indulgences for crime to either debtors1 or creditors1 or anybody else8 ,to preserve the constitution--a constitution1 ,i repeat1 that authorized nothing but equal and exact justice to all men--could it ever have been necessitated to send into the field millions of ignorant young men1 to cut the throats of other young men as ignorant as themselves--few of whom1 on either side1 had ever read the constitution1 or had any real knowledge of its legal meaning2 and not one of whom had ever signed it1 or promised to support it1 or was under the least obligation to support it8 ,it is1 ,i think1 perfectly safe to say1 that not one in a thousand1 probably not one in ten thousand1 of these young men1 who were sent out to butcher others1 and be butchered themselves1 had any real knowledge of the constitution they were professedly sent out to support2 or any reasonable knowledge of the real character and motives of the congresses and courts that profess to administer the constitution4 ,if they had possessed this knowledge1 how many of them would have ever gone to the field8 ,but further4 ,is it really true that the right of the government to commit all these atrocities3 ,are the fundamental political conditions on which life1 property1 and money are respectively held and enjoyed under our system of government8 ,if such is the real character of the constitution1 can any further proof be required of the necessity that it be buried out of sight at once and forever8 ,the truth was that the government was in peril1 solely because it was not fit to exist4 ,it1 and the ,state governments--all but parts of one and the same system--were rotten with tyranny and crime4 ,and being bound together by no honest tie1 and existing for no honest purpose1 destruction was the only honest doom to which any of them were entitled4 ,and if we had spent the same money and blood to destroy them1 that we did to preserve them1 it would have been ten thousand times more creditable to our intelligence and character as a people4 ,clearly the court has not strengthened its case at all by this picture of the peril in which the government was placed4 ,it has only shown to what desperate straits a government1 founded on usurpation and fraud1 and devoted to robbery and oppression1 may be brought1 by the quarrels that are liable to arise between the different factions--that is1 the different bands of robbers--of which it is composed4 ,when such quarrels arise1 it is not to be expected that either faction--having never had any regard to human rights1 when acting in concert with the other--will hesitate at any new crimes that may be necessary to prolong its existence4 ,here was a government that had never had any legitimate existence4 ,it professedly rested all its authority on a certain paper called a constitution2 a paper1 ,i repeat1 that nobody had ever signed1 that few persons had ever read1 that the great body of the people had never seen4 ,this government had been imposed1 by a few property holders1 upon a people too poor1 too scattered1 and many of them too ignorant1 to resist4 ,it had been carried on1 for some seventy years1 by a mere cabal of irresponsible men1 called lawmakers4 ,in this cabal1 the several local bands of robbers--the slaveholders of the ,south1 the iron monopolists1 the woollen monopolists1 and the money monopolists1 of the ,north--were represented4 ,the whole purpose of its laws was to rob and enslave the many--both ,north and ,south--for the benefit of a few4 ,but these robbers and tyrants quarreled--as lesser bands of robbers have done--over the division of their spoils4 ,and hence the war4 ,no such principle as justice to anybody--black or white--was the ruling motive on either side4 ,in this war1 each faction--already steeped in crime--plunged into new1 if not greater1 crimes4 ,in its desperation1 it resolved to destroy men and money1 without limit1 and without mercy1 for the preservation of its existence4 ,the northern faction1 having more men1 money1 and credit than the southern1 survived the ,kilkenny fight4 ,neither faction cared anything for human rights then1 and neither of them has shown any regard for human rights since4 ,as a war measure1 the northern faction found it necessary to put an end to the one great crime1 from which the southern faction had drawn its wealth4 ,but all other government crimes have been more rampant since the war1 than they were before4 ,neither the conquerors1 nor the conquered1 have yet learned that no government can have any right to exist for any other purpose than the simple maintenance of justice between man and man4 ,and now1 years after the fiendish butchery is over1 and after men would seem to have had time to come to their senses1 the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1 representing the victorious faction1 comes forward with the declaration that one of the crimes--the violation of men's private contracts--resorted to by its faction1 in the heat of conflict1 as a means of preserving its power over the other1 was not only justifiable and proper at the time1 but that it is also a legitimate and constitutional power1 to be exercised forever hereafter in time of peace6 ,mark the knavery of these men4 ,they first say that1 because the government was in peril of its life1 it had a right to license great crimes against private persons1 if by so doing it could raise money for its own preservation4 ,next they say that1 although the government is no longer in peril of its life1 it may still go on forever licensing the same crimes as it was before necessitated to license6 ,they thus virtually say that the government may commit the same crimes in time of peace1 that it is necessitated to do in time of war2 and1 that1 consequently1 it has the same right to take the poor man's cattle1 and horses1 and corn1 and the rich man's bonds and notes1 and poor men's bodies and lives1 in time of peace1 when no necessity whatever can be alleged1 as in time of war1 when the government is in peril of its life4 ,in short1 they virtually say1 that this government exists for itself alone2 and that all the natural rights of the people1 to property1 liberty1 and life1 are mere baubles1 to be disposed of1 at its pleasure1 whether in time of peace1 or in war4 ,,section ,,xxii4 ,as if to place beyond controversy the fact1 that the court may forever hereafter be relied on to sanction every usurpation and crime that congress will ever dare to put into the form of a statute1 without the slightest color of authority from the constitution1 necessity1 utility1 justice1 or reason1 it has1 on three separate occasions1 announced its sanction of the monopoly of money1 as finally established by congress in #ahff1 and continued in force ever since4 ,this monopoly is established by a prohibitory tax--a tax of ten per cent4--on all notes issued for circulation as money1 other than the notes of the ,united ,states and the national banks4 ,this ten per cent4 is called a tax1 but is really a penalty1 and is intended as such1 and as nothing else4 ,its whole purpose is--not to raise revenue--but solely to establish a monopoly of money1 by prohibiting the issue of all notes intended for circulation as money1 except those issued1 or specially licensed1 by the government itself4 ,this prohibition upon the issue of all notes1 except those issued1 or specially licensed1 by the government1 is a prohibition upon all freedom of industry and traffic4 ,it is a prohibition upon the exercise of men's natural right to lend and hire such money capital as all men need to enable them to create and distribute wealth1 and supply their own wants1 and provide for their own happiness4 ,its whole purpose is to reduce1 as far as possible1 the great body of the people to the condition of servants to a few--a condition but a single grade above that of chattel slavery--in which their labor1 and the products of their labor1 may be extorted from them at such prices only as the holders of the monopoly may choose to give4 ,this prohibitory tax--so-called--is therefore really a penalty imposed upon the exercise of men's natural right to create and distribute wealth1 and provide for their own and each other's wants4 ,and it is imposed solely for the purpose of establishing a practically omnipotent monopoly in the hands of a few4 ,calling this penalty a tax is one of the dirty tricks1 or rather downright lies--that of calling things by false names--to which congress and the courts resort1 to hide their usurpations and crimes from the common eye4 ,everybody--who believes in the government--says1 of course1 that congress has power to levy taxes2 that it must do so to raise revenue for the support of the government4 ,therefore this lying congress call this penalty a tax1 instead of calling it by its true name1 a penalty4 ,it certainly is no tax1 because no revenue is raised1 or intended to be raised1 by it4 ,it is not levied upon property1 or persons1 as such1 but only upon a certain act1 or upon persons for doing a certain act2 an act that if not only perfectly innocent and lawful in itself1 but that is naturally and intrinsically useful1 and even indispensable for the prosperity and welfare of the whole people4 ,its whole object is simply to deter everybody--except those specially licensed--from performing this innocent1 useful1 and necessary act4 ,and this it has succeeded in doing for the last twenty years2 to the destruction of the rights1 and the impoverishment and immeasurable injury of all the people1 except the few holders of the monopoly4 ,if congress had passed an act1 in this form1 to wit3 ,no person1 nor any association of persons1 incorporated or unincorporated--unless specially licensed by congress--shall issue their promissory notes for circulation as money2 and a penalty of ten per cent4 upon the amount of all such notes shall be imposed upon the persons issuing them1 the act would have been the same1 in effect and intention1 as is this act1 that imposes what it calls a tax4 ,the penalty would have been understood by everybody as a punishment for issuing the notes2 and would have been applied to1 and enforced against1 those only who should have issued them4 ,and it is the same with this so-called tax4 ,it will never be collected1 except for the same cause1 and under the same circumstances1 as the penalty would have been4 ,it has no more to do with raising a revenue1 than the penalty would have had4 ,and all these lying lawmakers and courts know it4 ,but if congress had put this prohibition distinctly in the form of a penalty1 the usurpation would have been so barefaced--so destitute of all color of constitutional authority--that congress dared not risk the consequences4 ,and possibly the court might not have dared to sanction it2 if1 indeed1 there be any crime or usurpation which the court dare not sanction4 ,so these knavish lawmakers called this penalty a tax2 and the court says that such a tax is clearly constitutional4 ,and the monopoly has now been established for twenty years4 ,and substantially all the industrial and financial troubles of that period have been the natural consequences of the monopoly4 ,if congress had laid a prohibitory tax upon all food--that is1 had imposed a penalty upon the production and sale of all food--except such as it should have itself produced1 or specially licensed2 and should have reduced the amount of food1 thus produced or licensed1 to one tenth1 twentieth1 or fiftieth of what was really needed2 the motive and the crime would have been the same1 in character1 if not in degree1 as they are in this case1 viz41 to enable the few holders of the licensed food to extort1 from everybody else1 by the fear of starvation1 all their 7the latter's7 earnings and property1 in exchange for this small quantity of privileged food4 ,such a monopoly of food would have been no clearer violation of men's natural rights1 than is the present monopoly of money4 ,and yet this colossal crime--like every other crime that congress chooses to commit--is sanctioned by its servile1 rotten1 and stinking court4 ,on what constitutional grounds--that is1 on what provisions found in the constitution itself--does the court profess to give its sanction to such a crime8 ,on these three only3 #a4 ,on the power of congress to lay and collect taxes1 etc4 #b4 ,on the power of congress to coin money4 #c4 ,on the power of congress to borrow money4 ,out of these simple1 and apparently harmless provisions1 the court manufactures an authority to grant1 to a few persons1 a monopoly that is practically omnipotent over all the industry and traffic of the country2 that is fatal to all other men's natural right to lend and hire capital for any or all their legitimate industries2 and fatal absolutely to all their natural right to buy1 sell1 and exchange any1 or all1 the products of their labor at their true1 just1 and natural prices4 ,let us look at these constitutional provisions1 and see how much authority congress can really draw from them4 #a4 ,the constitution says3 ,the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes1 duties1 imposts1 and excises1 to pay the debts1 and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the ,united ,states4 ,this provision plainly authorizes no taxation whatever1 except for the raising of revenue to pay the debts and legitimate expenses of the government4 ,it no more authorizes taxation for the purpose of establishing monopolies of any kind whatever1 than it does for taking openly and boldly all the property of the many1 and giving it outright to a few4 ,and none but a congress of usurpers1 robbers1 and swindlers would ever think of using it for that purpose4 ,the court says1 in effect1 that this provision gives congress power to establish the present monopoly of money2 that the power to tax all other money1 is a power to prohibit all other money2 and a power to prohibit all other money is a power to give the present money a monopoly4 ,how much is such an argument worth8 ,let us show by a parallel case1 as follows4 ,congress has the same power to tax all other property1 that it has to tax money4 ,and if the power to tax money is a power to prohibit money1 then it follows that the power of congress to tax all other property than money1 is a power to prohibit all other property than money2 and a power to prohibit all other property than money1 is a power to give monopolies to all such other property as congress may not choose to prohibit2 or may choose to specially license4 ,on such reasoning as this1 it would follow that the power of congress to tax money1 and all other property1 is a power to prohibit all money1 and all other property2 and thus to establish monopolies in favor of all such money1 and all such other property1 as it chooses not to prohibit2 or chooses to specially license4 ,thus1 this reasoning would give congress power to establish all the monopolies1 it may choose to establish1 not only in money1 but in agriculture1 manufactures1 and commerce2 and protect these monopolies against infringement1 by imposing prohibitory taxes upon all money and other property1 except such as it should choose not to prohibit2 or should choose to specially license4 ,because the constitution says that congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes1 etc41 to raise the revenue necessary for paying the current expenses of the government1 the court say that congress have power to levy prohibitory taxes--taxes that shall yield no revenue at all--but shall operate only as a penalty upon all industries and traffic1 and upon the use of all the means of industry and traffic1 that shall compete with such monopolies as congress shall choose to grant4 ,this is no more than an unvarnished statement of the argument1 by which the court attempts to justify a prohibitory tax upon money2 for the same reasoning would justify the levying of a prohibitory tax--that is1 penalty--upon the use of any and all other means of industry and traffic1 by which any other monopolies1 granted by congress1 might be infringed4 ,there is plainly no more connection between the power to lay and collect taxes1 etc41 for the necessary expenses of the government1 and the power to establish this monopoly of money1 than there is between such a power of taxation1 and a power to punish1 as a crime1 any or all industry and traffic whatsoever1 except such as the government may specially license4 ,this whole cheat lies in the use of the word tax1 to describe what is really a penalty1 upon the exercise of any or all men's natural rights of providing for their subsistence and well-being4 ,and none but corrupt and rotten congresses and courts would ever think of practising such a cheat4 #b4 ,the second provision of the constitution1 relied on by the court to justify the monopoly of money1 is this3 ,the congress shall have power to coin money1 regulate the value thereof1 and of foreign coins4 ,the only important part of this provision is that which says that the congress shall have power to coin money1 and regulate the value thereof4 ,that part about regulating the value of foreign coins--if any one can tell how congress can regulate it--is of no appreciable importance to anybody2 for the coins will circulate1 or not1 as men may1 or may not1 choose to buy and sell them as money1 and at such value as they will bear in free and open market1--that is1 in competition with all other coins1 and all other money4 ,this is their only true and natural market value2 and there is no occasion for congress to do anything in regard to them4 ,the only thing1 therefore1 that we need to look at1 is simply the power of congress to coin money4 ,so far as congress itself is authorized to coin money1 this is simply a power to weigh and assay metals1--gold1 silver1 or any other1--stamp upon them marks indicating their weight and fineness1 and then sell them to whomsoever may choose to buy them2 and let them go in the market for whatever they may chance to bring1 in competition with all other money that may chance to be offered there4 ,it is no power to impose any restrictions whatever upon any or all other honest money1 that may be offered in the market1 and bought and sold in competition with the coins weighed and assayed by the government4 ,the power itself is a frivolous one1 of little or no utility2 for the weighing and assaying of metals is a thing so easily done1 and can be done by so many different persons1 that there is certainly no necessity for its being done at all by a government4 ,and it would undoubtedly have been far better if all coins--whether coined by governments or individuals--had all been made into pieces bearing simply the names of pounds1 ounces1 pennyweights1 etc41 and containing just the amounts of pure metal described by those weights4 ,the coins would then have been regarded as only so much metal2 and as having only the same value as the same amount of metal in any other form4 ,men would then have known exactly how much of certain metals they were buying1 selling1 and promising to pay4 ,and all the jugglery1 cheating1 and robbery that governments have practised1 and licensed individuals to practise--by coining pieces bearing the same names1 but having different amounts of metal--would have been avoided4 ,and all excuses for establishing monopolies of money1 by prohibiting all other money than the coins1 would also have been avoided4 ,as it is1 the constitution imposes no prohibition upon the coining of money by individuals1 but only by ,state governments4 ,individuals are left perfectly free to coin it1 except that they must not counterfeit the securities and current coin of the ,united ,states4 ,for quite a number of years after the discovery of gold in ,california--that is1 until the establishment of a government mint there--a large part of the gold that was taken out of the earth1 was coined by private persons and companies2 and this coinage was perfectly legal4 ,and ,i do not remember to have ever heard any complaint1 or accusation1 that it was not honest and reliable4 ,the true and only value1 which the coins have as money1 is that value which they have as metals1 for uses in the arts1--that is1 for plate1 watches1 jewelry1 and the like4 ,this value they will retain1 whether they circulate as money1 or not4 ,at this value1 they are so utterly inadequate to serve as bona fide equivalents for such other property as is to be bought and sold for money2 and1 after being minted1 are so quickly taken out of circulation1 and worked up into articles of use--plate1 watches1 jewelry1 etc4--that they are practically of almost no importance at all as money4 ,but they can be so easily and cheaply carried from one part of the world to another1 that they have substantially the same market value all over the world4 ,they are also1 in but a small degree1 liable to great or sudden changes in value4 ,for these reasons1 they serve well as standards--are perhaps the best standards we can have--by which to measure the value of all other money1 as well as other property4 ,but to give them any monopoly as money1 is to deny the natural right of all men to make their own contracts1 and buy and sell1 borrow and lend1 give and receive1 all such money as the parties to bargains may mutually agree upon2 and also to license the few holders of the coins to rob all other men in the prices of the latter's labor and property4 #c4 ,the third provision of the constitution1 on which the court relies to justify the monopoly of money1 is this3 ,the congress shall have power to borrow money4 ,can any one see any connection between the power of congress to borrow money1 and its power to establish a monopoly of money8 ,certainly no such connection is visible to the legal eye4 ,but it is distinctly visible to the political and financial eye2 that is1 to that class of men1 for whom governments exist1 and who own congresses and courts1 and set in motion armies and navies1 whenever they can promote their own interests by doing so4 ,to a government1 whose usurpations and crimes have brought it to the verge of destruction1 these men say3 ,make bonds bearing six per cent4 interest2 sell them to us at half their face value2 then give us a monopoly of money based upon these bonds--such a monopoly as will subject the great body of the people to a dependence upon us for the necessaries of life1 and compel them to sell their labor and property to us at our own prices2 then1 under pretence of raising revenue to pay the interest and principal of the bonds1 impose such a tariff upon imported commodities as will enable us to get fifty per cent4 more for our own goods than they are worth2 in short1 pledge to us all the power of the government to extort for us1 in the future1 everything that can be extorted from the producers of wealth1 and we will lend you all the money you need to maintain your power4 ,and the government has no alternative but to comply with this infamous proposal1 or give up its infamous life4 ,this is the only real connection there is between the power of congress to borrow money1 and its power to establish a monopoly of money4 ,it was only by an outright sale of the rights of the whole people1 for a long series of years1 that the government could raise the money necessary to continue its villainous existence4 ,congress had just as much constitutional power to borrow money1 by the sale of any and all the other natural rights of the people at large1 as it had to borrow money by the sale of the people's natural rights to lend and hire money4 ,when the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states--assuming to be an oracle1 empowered to define authoritatively the legal rights of every human being in the country--declares that congress has a constitutional power to prohibit the use of all that immense mass of money capital1 in the shape of promissory notes1 which the real property of the country is capable of supplying and sustaining1 and which is sufficient to give to every laboring person1 man or woman1 the means of independence and wealth--when that court says that congress has power to prohibit the use of all this money capital1 and grant to a few men a monopoly of money that shall condemn the great body of wealth-producers to hopeless poverty1 dependence1 and servitude--and when the court has the audacity to make these declarations on such nakedly false and senseless grounds as those that have now been stated1 it is clearly time for the people of this country to inquire what constitutions and governments are good for1 and whether they 7the people7 have any natural right1 as human beings1 to live for themselves1 or only for a few conspirators1 swindlers1 usurpers1 robbers1 and tyrants1 who employ lawmakers1 judges1 etc41 to do their villainous work upon their fellow-men4 ,the court gave their sanction to the monopoly of money in these three separate cases1 viz43 ,veazie ,bank vs4 ,fenno1 #h ,wallace1 #edi 7#ahfi74 ,national ,bank vs4 ,united ,states1 #aja ,u4 ,s4 ,reports1 #e and #f 7#ahgi74 ,juilliard vs4 ,greenman1 #aaj ,u4 ,s4 ,reports #dde-f 7#ahhd74 ,section ,,xxiii4 ,if anything could add to the disgust and detestation which the monstrous falsifications of the constitution1 already described1 should excite towards the court that resorts to them1 it would be the fact that the court1 not content with falsifying to the utmost the constitution itself1 goes outside of the constitution1 to the tyrannical practices of what it calls the sovereign governments of other civilized nations1 to justify the same practices by our own4 ,it asserts1 over and over again1 the idea that our government is a sovereign government2 that it has the same rights of sovereignty1 as the governments of other civilized nations2 especially those in ,europe4 ,what1 then1 is a sovereign government8 ,it is a government that is sovereign over all the natural rights of the people4 ,this is the only sovereignty that any government can be said to have4 ,under it1 the people have no rights4 ,they are simply subjects1--that is1 slaves4 ,they have but one law1 and one duty1 viz41 obedience1 submission4 ,they are not recognized as having any rights4 ,they can claim nothing as their own4 ,they can only accept what the government chooses to give them4 ,the government owns them and their property2 and disposes of them and their property1 at its pleasure1 or discretion2 without regard to any consent1 or dissent1 on their part4 ,such was the sovereignty claimed and exercised by the governments of those1 so-called1 civilized nations of ,europe1 that were in power in #aghg1 #aghh1 and #aghi1 when our constitution was framed and adopted1 and the government put in operation under it4 ,and the court now says1 virtually1 that the constitution intended to give to our government the same sovereignty over the natural rights of the people1 that those governments had then4 ,but how did the civilized governments of ,europe become possessed of such sovereignty8 ,had the people ever granted it to them8 ,not at all4 ,the governments spurned the idea that they were dependent on the will or consent of their people for their political power4 ,on the contrary1 they claimed to have derived it from the only source1 from which such sovereignty could have been derived2 that is1 from ,god ,himself4 ,in #aghg1 #aghh1 and #aghi1 all the great governments of ,europe1 except ,england1 claimed to exist by what was called ,divine ,right4 ,that is1 they claimed to have received authority from ,god ,himself1 to rule over their people4 ,and they taught1 and a servile and corrupt priesthood taught1 that it was a religious duty of the people to obey them4 ,and they kept great standing armies1 and hordes of pimps1 spies1 and ruffians1 to keep the people in subjection4 ,and when1 soon afterwards1 the revolutionists of ,france dethroned the king then existing--the ,legitimist king1 so-called--and asserted the right of the people to choose their own government1 these other governments carried on a twenty years' war against her1 to reestablish the principle of sovereignty by ,divine ,right4 ,and in this war1 the government of ,england1 although not itself claiming to exist by ,divine ,right1--but really existing by brute force1--furnished men and money without limit1 to reestablish that principle in ,france1 and to maintain it wherever else1 in ,europe1 it was endangered by the idea of popular rights4 ,the principle1 then1 of ,sovereignty by ,divine ,right--sustained by brute force--was the principle on which the governments of ,europe then rested2 and most of them rest on that principle today4 ,and now the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states virtually says that our constitution intended to give to our government the same sovereignty--the same absolutism--the same supremacy over all the natural rights of the people--as was claimed and exercised by those ,divine ,right governments of ,europe1 a hundred years ago6 ,that ,i may not be suspected of misrepresenting these men1 ,i give some of their own words as follows3 ,it is not doubted that the power to establish a standard of value1 by which all other values may be measured1 or1 in other words1 to determine what shall be lawful money and a legal tender1 is in its nature1 and of necessity1 a governmental power4 ,it is in all countries exercised by the government4--,hepburn vs4 ,griswold1 #h ,wallace #fae4 ,the court call a power1 ,to make treasury notes a legal tender for the payment of all debts private as well as public a power confessedly possessed by every independent sovereignty other than the ,united ,states4--,legal ,tender ,cases1 #ab ,wallace1 p4 #ebi4 ,also1 in the same case1 it speaks of3 ,that general power over the currency1 which has always been an acknowledged attribute of sovereignty in every other civilized nation than our own4--p4 #ede4 ,in this same case1 by way of asserting the power of congress to do any dishonest thing that any so-called sovereign government ever did1 the court say3 ,has any one1 in good faith1 avowed his belief that even a law debasing the current coin1 by increasing the alloy and then making these debased coins a legal tender in payment of debts previously contracted1 would be taking private property8 ,it might be impolitic1 and unjust1 but could its constitutionality be doubted8--p4 #eeb4 ,in the same case1 ,bradley said3 ,as a government1 it the government of the ,united ,states was invested with all the attributes of sovereignty4--p4 #eee4 ,also he said3 ,such being the character of the ,general ,government1 it seems to be a self-evident proposition that it is invested with all those inherent and implied powers1 which1 at the time of adopting the constitution1 were generally considered to belong to every government1 as such1 and as being essential to the exercise of its functions4--p4 #eef4 ,also he said3 ,another proposition equally clear is1 that at the time the constitution was adopted1 it was1 and for a long time had been1 the practice of most1 if not all1 civilized governments1 to employ the public credit as a means of anticipating the national revenues for the purpose of enabling them to exercise their governmental functions4--p4 #eef4 ,also he said3 ,it is our duty to construe the instrument the constitution by its words1 in the light of history1 of the general nature of government1 and the incidents of sovereignty4--p4 #ee4 ,also he said3 ,the government simply demands that its credit shall be accepted and received by public and private creditors during the pending exigency4 ,every government has a right to demand this1 when its existence is at stake4--p4 #efj4 ,also he said3 ,these views are exhibited 444 for the purpose of showing that it the power to make its notes a legal tender in payment of private debts is one of those vital and essential powers inhering in every national sovereignty1 and necessary to its self-preservation4--p4 #efd4 ,in still another legal tender case1 the court said3 ,the people of the ,united ,states1 by the constitution1 established a national government1 with sovereign powers1 legislative1 executive1 and judicial4--,juilliard vs4 ,greenman1 #aaj ,u4 ,s4 ,reports1 p4 #dch4 ,also it calls the constitution3 ,a constitution1 establishing a form of government1 declaring fundamental principles1 and creating a national sovereignty1 intended to endure for ages4--p4 #dci4 ,also the court speaks of the government of the ,united ,states3 ,as a sovereign government4--p4 #ddf4 ,also it said3 ,it appears to us to follow1 as a logical and necessary consequence1 that congress has the power to issue the obligations of the ,united ,states in such form1 and to impress upon them such qualities as currency1 for the purchase of merchandise and the payment of debts1 as accord with the usage of other sovereign governments4 ,the power1 as incident to the power of borrowing money1 and issuing bills or notes of the government for money borrowed1 of impressing upon those bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the payment of private debts1 was a power universally understood to belong to sovereignty1 in ,europe and ,america1 at the time of the framing and adoption of the constitution of the ,united ,states4 ,the governments of ,europe1 acting through the monarch1 or the legislature1 according to the distribution of powers under their respective constitutions1 had1 and have1 as sovereign a power of issuing paper money as of stamping coin4 ,this power has been distinctly recognized in an important modern case1 ably argued and fully considered1 in which the ,emperor of ,austria1 as ,king of ,hungary1 obtained from the ,english ,court of ,chancery an injunction against the issue1 in ,england1 without his license1 of notes purporting to be public paper money of ,hungary4--p4 #ddg4 ,also it speaks of3 ,congress1 as the legislature of a sovereign nation4--p4 #ddi4 ,also it said3 ,the power to make the notes of the government a legal tender in payment of private debts1 being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other civilized nations1 444 we are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the impressing upon the treasury notes of the ,united ,states the quality of being a legal tender in payment of private debts1 is an appropriate means1 conducive and plainly adapted to the execution of the undoubted powers of congress1 consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution1 etc4----p4 #dej4 ,on reading these astonishing ideas about sovereignty--sovereignty over all the natural rights of mankind--sovereignty1 as it prevailed in ,europe at the time of the framing and adoption of the constitution of the ,united ,states--we are compelled to see that these judges obtained their constitutional law1 not from the constitution itself1 but from the example of the ,divine ,right governments existing in ,europe a hundred years ago4 ,these judges seem never to have heard of the ,american ,revolution1 or the ,french ,revolution1 or even of the ,english ,revolutions of the seventeenth century--revolutions fought and accomplished to overthrow these very ideas of sovereignty1 which these judges now proclaim1 as the supreme law of this country4 ,they seem never to have heard of the ,declaration of ,independence1 nor of any other declaration of the natural rights of human beings4 ,to their minds1 the sovereignty of governments is everything2 human rights nothing4 ,they apparently cannot conceive of such a thing as a people's establishing a government as a means of preserving their personal liberty and rights4 ,they can only see what fearful calamities sovereign governments would be liable to1 if they could not compel their subjects--the people--to support them against their will1 and at every cost of their property1 liberty1 and lives4 ,they are utterly blind to the fact1 that it is this very assumption of sovereignty over all the natural rights of men1 that brings governments into all their difficulties1 and all their perils4 ,they do not see that it is this very assumption of sovereignty over all men's natural rights1 that makes it necessary for the ,divine ,right governments of ,europe to maintain not only great standing armies1 but also a vile purchased priesthood1 that shall impose upon1 and help to crush1 the ignorant and superstitious people4 ,these judges talk of the constitutions of these sovereign governments of ,europe1 as they existed at the time of the framing and adoption of the constitution of the ,united ,states4 ,they apparently do not know that those governments had no constitutions at all1 except the ,will of ,god1 their standing armies1 and the judges1 lawyers1 priests1 pimps1 spies1 and ruffians they kept in their service4 ,if these judges had lived in ,russia1 a hundred years ago1 and had chanced to be visited with a momentary spasm of manhood--a fact hardly to be supposed of such creatures--and had been sentenced therefor to the knout1 a dungeon1 or ,siberia1 would we ever afterward have seen them1 as judges of our ,supreme ,court1 declaring that government to be the model after which ours was formed8 ,these judges will probably be surprised when ,i tell them that the constitution of the ,united ,states contains no such word as sovereign1 or sovereignty2 that it contains no such word as subjects2 nor any word that implies that the government is sovereign1 or that the people are subjects4 ,at most1 it contains only the mistaken idea that a power of making laws--by lawmakers chosen by the people--was consistent with1 and necessary to1 the maintenance of liberty and justice for the people themselves4 ,this mistaken idea was1 in some measure1 excusable in that day1 when reason and experience had not demonstrated1 to their minds1 the utter incompatibility of all lawmaking whatsoever with men's natural rights4 ,the only other provision of the constitution1 that can be interpreted as a declaration of sovereignty in the government1 is this3 ,this constitution1 and the laws of the ,united ,states which shall be made in pursuance thereof1 and all treaties made1 or which shall be made1 under the authority of the ,united ,states1 shall be the supreme law of the land1 and the judges in every ,state shall be bound thereby1 anything in the constitution or laws of any ,state to the contrary notwithstanding4--,art4 ,,vi4 ,this provision ,i interpret to mean simply that the constitution1 laws1 and treaties of the ,united ,states1 shall be the supreme law of the land--not anything in the natural rights of the people to liberty and justice1 to the contrary notwithstanding--but only that they shall be the supreme law of the land1 anything in the constitution or laws of any ,state to the contrary notwithstanding1--that is1 whenever the two may chance to conflict with each other4 ,if this is its true interpretation1 the provision contains no declaration of sovereignty over the natural rights of the people4 ,justice is the supreme law of this1 and all other lands2 anything in the constitutions or laws of any nation to the contrary notwithstanding4 ,and if the constitution of the ,united ,states intended to assert the contrary1 it was simply an audacious lie--a lie as foolish as it was audacious--that should have covered with infamy every man who helped to frame the constitution1 or afterward sanctioned it1 or that should ever attempt to administer it4 ,inasmuch as the constitution declares itself to have been ordained and established by ,we1 the people of the ,united ,states1 in order to form a more perfect union1 establish justice1 insure domestic tranquillity1 provide for the common defence1 promote the general welfare1 and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity1 everybody who attempts to administer it1 is bound to give it such an interpretation1 and only such an interpretation1 as is consistent with1 and promotive of1 those objects1 if its language will admit of such an interpretation4 ,to suppose that the people of the ,united ,states intended to declare that the constitution and laws of the ,united ,states should be the supreme law of the land1 anything in their own natural rights1 or in the natural rights of the rest of mankind1 to the contrary notwithstanding1 would be to suppose that they intended1 not only to authorize every injustice1 and arouse universal violence1 among themselves1 but that they intended also to avow themselves the open enemies of the rights of all the rest of mankind4 ,certainly no such folly1 madness1 or criminality as this can be attributed to them by any rational man--always excepting the justices of the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1 the lawmakers1 and the believers in the ,divine ,right of the cunning and the strong1 to establish governments that shall deceive1 plunder1 enslave1 and murder the ignorant and the weak4 ,many men1 still living1 can well remember how1 some fifty years ago1 those famous champions of sovereignty1 of arbitrary power1 ,webster and ,calhoun1 debated the question1 whether1 in this country1 sovereignty resided in the general or ,state governments4 ,but they never settled the question1 for the very good reason that no such thing as sovereignty resided in either4 ,and the question was never settled1 until it was settled at the cost of a million of lives1 and some ten thousand millions of money4 ,and then it was settled only as the same question had so often been settled before1 to wit1 that the heaviest battalions are sovereign over the lighter4 ,the only real sovereignty1 or right of sovereignty1 in this or any other country1 is that right of sovereignty which each and every human being has over his or her own person and property1 so long as he or she obeys the one law of justice towards the person and property of every other human being4 ,this is the only natural right of sovereignty1 that was ever known among men4 ,all other so-called rights of sovereignty are simply the usurpations of impostors1 conspirators1 robbers1 tyrants1 and murderers4 ,it is not strange that we are in such high favor with the tyrants of ,europe1 when our ,supreme ,court tells them that our government1 although a little different in form1 stands on the same essential basis as theirs of a hundred years ago2 that it is as absolute and irresponsible as theirs were then2 that it will spend more money1 and shed more blood1 to maintain its power1 than they have ever been able to do2 that the people have no more rights here than there2 and that the government is doing all it can to keep the producing classes as poor here as they are there4 ,,section ,,xxiv4 ,john ,marshall has the reputation of having been the greatest jurist the country has ever had4 ,and he unquestionably would have been a great jurist1 if the two fundamental propositions1 on which all his legal1 political1 and constitutional ideas were based1 had been true4 ,these propositions were1 first1 that government has all power2 and1 secondly1 that the people have no rights4 ,these two propositions were1 with him1 cardinal principles1 from which1 ,i think1 he never departed4 ,for these reasons he was the oracle of all the rapacious classes1 in whose interest the government was administered4 ,and from them he got all his fame4 ,i think his record does not furnish a single instance1 in which he ever vindicated men's natural rights1 in opposition to the arbitrary legislation of congress4 ,he was chief justice thirty-four years3 from #ahja to #ahce4 ,in all that time1 so far as ,i have known1 he never declared a single act of congress unconstitutional2 and probably never would have done so1 if he had lived to this time4 ,and1 so far as ,i know1 he never declared a single ,state law unconstitutional1 on account of its injustice1 or its violation of men's natural rights2 but only on account of its conflict with the constitution1 laws1 or treaties of the ,united ,states4 ,he was considered very profound on questions of sovereignty4 ,in fact1 he never said much in regard to anything else4 ,he held that1 in this country1 sovereignty was divided3 that the national government was sovereign over certain things2 and that the ,state governments were sovereign over all other things4 ,he had apparently never heard of any natural1 individual1 human rights1 that had never been delegated to either the general or ,state governments4 ,as a practical matter1 he seemed to hold that the general government had sovereignty enough to destroy as many of the natural rights of the people as it should please to destroy2 and that the ,state governments had sovereignty enough to destroy what should be left1 if there should be any such4 ,he evidently considered that1 to the national government1 had been delegated the part of the lion1 with the right to devour as much of his prey as his appetite should crave2 and that the ,state governments were jackals1 with power to devour what the lion should leave4 ,in his efforts to establish the absolutism of our governments1 he made himself an adept in the use of all those false definitions1 and false assumptions1 to which courts are driven1 who hold that constitutions and statute books are supreme over all natural principles of justice1 and over all the natural rights of mankind4 ,here is his definition of law4 ,he professes to have borrowed it from some one1--he does not say whom1--but he accepts it as his own4 ,law has been defined by a writer1 whose definitions especially have been the theme of almost universal panegyric1 ,to be a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a ,state4 ,in our system1 the legislature of a ,state is the supreme power1 in all cases where its action is not restrained by the constitution of the ,united ,states4--,ogden vs4 ,saunders1 #ab ,wheaton #cdg4 ,this definition is an utterly false one4 ,it denies all the natural rights of the people2 and is resorted to only by usurpers and tyrants1 to justify their crimes4 ,the true definition of law is1 that it is a fixed1 immutable1 natural principle2 and not anything that man ever made1 or can make1 unmake1 or alter4 ,thus we speak of the laws of matter1 and the laws of mind2 of the law of gravitation1 the laws of light1 heat1 and electricity1 the laws of chemistry1 geology1 botany2 of physiological laws1 of astronomical and atmospherical laws1 etc41 etc4 ,all these are natural laws1 that man never made1 nor can ever unmake1 or alter4 ,the law of justice is just as supreme and universal in the moral world1 as these others are in the mental or physical world2 and is as unalterable as are these by any human power4 ,and it is just as false and absurd to talk of anybody's having the power to abolish the law of justice1 and set up their own will in its stead1 as it would be to talk of their having the power to abolish the law of gravitation1 or any of the other natural laws of the universe1 and set up their own will in the place of them4 ,yet ,marshall holds that this natural law of justice is no law at all1 in comparison with some rule of civil conduct prescribed by what he calls the supreme power in a ,state4 ,and he gives this miserable definition1 which he picked up somewhere--out of the legal filth in which he wallowed--as his sufficient authority for striking down all the natural obligation of men's contracts1 and all men's natural rights to make their own contracts2 and for upholding the ,state governments in prohibiting all such contracts as they1 in their avarice and tyranny1 may choose to prohibit4 ,he does it too1 directly in the face of that very constitution1 which he professes to uphold1 and which declares that ,no ,state shall pass any law impairing the natural obligation of contracts4 ,by the same rule1 or on the same definition of law1 he would strike down any and all the other natural rights of mankind4 ,that such a definition of law should suit the purposes of men like ,marshall1 who believe that governments should have all power1 and men no rights1 accounts for the fact that1 in this country1 men have had no rights--but only such permits as lawmakers have seen fit to allow them--since the ,state and ,united ,states governments were established1--or at least for the last eighty years4 ,marshall also said3 ,the right of government to regulate contracts1 to prescribe the rules by which they may be evidenced1 to prohibit such as may be deemed mischievous1 is unquestionable1 and has been universally exercised4--,ogden vs4 ,saunders1 #ab ,wheaton #cdg4 ,he here asserts that the supreme power in a ,state--that is1 the legislature of a ,state--has the right to deem it mischievous to allow men to exercise their natural right to make their own contracts6 ,contracts that have a natural obligation6 ,and that1 if a ,state legislature thinks it mischievous to allow men to make contracts that are naturally obligatory1 its right to prohibit them is unquestionable4 ,is not this equivalent to saying that governments have all power1 and the people no rights8 ,on the same principle1 and under the same definition of law1 the lawmakers of a ,state may1 of course1 hold it mischievous to allow men to exercise any of their other natural rights1 as well as their right to make their own contracts2 and may therefore prohibit the exercise of any1 or all1 of them4 ,and this is equivalent to saying that governments have all power1 and the people no rights4 ,if a government can forbid the free exercise of a single one of man's natural rights1 it may1 for the same reason1 forbid the exercise of any and all of them2 and thus establish1 practically and absolutely1 ,marshall's principle1 that the government has all power1 and the people no rights4 ,in the same case1 of ,ogden vs4 ,saunders1 ,marshall's principle was agreed to by all the other justices1 and all the lawyers6 ,thus ,thompson1 one of the justices1 said3 ,would it not be within the legitimate powers of a ,state legislature to declare prospectively that no one should be made responsible1 upon contracts entered into before arriving at the age of twenty-five years8 ,this1 ,i presume1 cannot be doubted4--p4 #cjj4 ,on the same principle1 he might say that a ,state legislature may declare that no person1 under fifty1 or seventy1 or a hundred1 years of age1 shall exercise his natural right of making any contract that is naturally obligatory4 ,in the same case1 ,trimble1 another of the justices1 said3 ,if the positive law that is1 the statute law of the ,state declares the contract shall have no obligation1 it can have no obligation1 whatever may be the principles of natural law in regard to such a contract4 ,this doctrine has been held and maintained by all ,states and nations4 ,the power of controlling1 modifying1 and even taking away1 all obligation from such contracts as1 independently of positive enactions to the contrary1 would have been obligatory1 has been exercised by all independent sovereigns4--p4 #cbj4 ,yes2 and why has this power been exercised by all ,states and nations1 and all independent sovereigns8 ,solely because these governments have all--or at least so many of them as ,trimble had in his mind--been despotic and tyrannical2 and have claimed for themselves all power1 and denied to the people all rights4 ,thus it seems that ,trimble1 like all the rest of them1 got his constitutional law1 not from any natural principles of justice1 not from man's natural rights1 not from the constitution of the ,united ,states1 nor even from any constitution affirming men's natural rights1 but from the doctrine that has been held and maintained by all those ,states and nations1 and all those independent sovereigns1 who have usurped all power1 and denied all the natural rights of mankind4 ,marshall gives another of his false definitions1 when1 speaking for the whole court1 in regard to the power of congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations1 and among the several ,states1 he asserts the right of congress to an arbitrary1 absolute dominion over all men's natural rights to carry on such commerce4 ,thus he says3 ,what is this power8 ,it is the power to regulate3 that is1 to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed4 ,this power1 like all others vested in congress1 is complete in itself1 may be exercised to its utmost extent1 and acknowledges no limitations1 other than are prescribed by the constitution4 ,these are expressed in plain terms1 and do not affect the questions which arise in this case1 or which have been discussed at the bar4 ,if1 as has always been understood1 the sovereignty of congress1 though limited to specific objects1 is plenary as to those objects1 the power over commerce with foreign nations1 and among the several ,states1 is vested in congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government1 having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the ,united ,states4 ,the wisdom and the discretion of congress1 their identity with the people1 and the influence which their constituents possess at elections1 are1 in this1 as in many other instances1 as that1 for example1 of declaring war1 the sole restraints on which they the people have relied1 to secure them from its abuse4 ,they are the restraints on which the people must often rely ,,solely1 in all representative governments4--,gibbons vs4 ,ogden1 #i ,wheaton #aif4 ,this is a general declaration of absolutism over all commerce with foreign nations and among the several ,states1 with certain exceptions mentioned in the constitution2 such as that all duties1 imposts1 and excises shall be uniform throughout the ,united ,states1 and no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any ,state1 and no preference shall be given1 by any regulation of commerce or revenue1 to the ports of one ,state over those of another2 nor shall vessels bound to1 or from1 one ,state1 be obliged to enter1 clear1 or pay duties in another4 ,according to this opinion of the court1 congress has--subject to the exceptions referred to--absolute1 irresponsible dominion over all commerce with foreign nations1 and among the several ,states2 and all men's natural rights to trade with each other1 among the several ,states1 and all over the world1 are prostrate under the feet of a contemptible1 detestable1 and irresponsible cabal of lawmakers2 and the people have no protection or redress for any tyranny or robbery that may be practised upon them1 except the wisdom and the discretion of congress1 their identity with the people1 and the influence which their constituents possess at elections6 ,it will be noticed that the court say that all the other powers1 vested in congress1 are complete in themselves1 and may be exercised to their utmost extent1 and acknowledge no limitations1 other than those prescribed by the constitution4 ,they say that among all the other practically unlimited powers1 vested in congress1 is the power of declaring war2 and1 of course1 of carrying on war2 that congress has power to carry on war1 for any reason1 to any extent1 and against any people1 it pleases4 ,thus they say1 virtually1 that the natural rights of mankind impose no constitutional restraints whatever upon congress1 in the exercise of their lawmaking powers4 ,is not this asserting that governments have all power1 and the people no rights8 ,but what is to be particularly noticed1 is the fact that ,marshall gives to congress all this practically unlimited power over all commerce with foreign nations1 and among the several ,states1 solely on the strength of a false definition of the verb to regulate4 ,he says that the power to regulate commerce is the power to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed4 ,this definition is an utterly false1 absurd1 and atrocious one4 ,it would give congress power arbitrarily to control1 obstruct1 impede1 derange1 prohibit1 and destroy commerce4 ,the verb to regulate does not1 as ,marshall asserts1 imply the exercise of any arbitrary control whatever over the thing regulated2 nor any power to prescribe arbitrarily the rule1 by which the thing regulated is to be governed4 ,on the contrary1 it comes from the ,latin word1 regula1 a rule2 and implies the pre-existence of a rule1 to which the thing regulated is made to conform4 ,to regulate one's diet1 for example1 is not1 on the one hand1 to starve one's self to emaciation1 nor1 on the other1 to gorge one's self with all sorts of indigestible and hurtful substances1 in disregard of the natural laws of health4 ,but it supposes the pre-existence of the natural laws of health1 to which the diet is made to conform4 ,a clock is not regulated1 when it is made to go1 to stop1 to go forwards1 to go backwards1 to go fast1 to go slow1 at the mere will or caprice of the person who may have it in hand4 ,it is regulated only when it is made to conform to1 to mark truly1 the diurnal revolutions of the earth4 ,these revolutions of the earth constitute the pre-existing rule1 by which alone a clock can be regulated4 ,a mariner's compass is not regulated1 when the needle is made to move this way and that1 at the will of an operator1 without reference to the north pole4 ,but it is regulated when it is freed from all disturbing influences1 and suffered to point constantly to the north1 as it is its nature to do4 ,a locomotive is not regulated1 when it is made to go1 to stop1 to go forwards1 to go backwards1 to go fast1 to go slow1 at the mere will and caprice of the engineer1 and without regard to economy1 utility1 or safety4 ,but it is regulated1 when its motions are made to conform to a pre-existing rule1 that is made up of economy1 utility1 and safety combined4 ,what this rule is1 in the case of a locomotive1 may not be known with such scientific precision1 as is the rule in the case of a clock1 or a mariner's compass2 but it may be approximated with sufficient accuracy for practical purposes4 ,the pre-existing rule1 by which alone commerce can be regulated1 is a matter of science2 and is already known1 so far as the natural principle of justice1 in relation to contracts1 is known4 ,the natural right of all men to make all contracts whatsoever1 that are naturally and intrinsically just and lawful1 furnishes the pre-existing rule1 by which alone commerce can be regulated4 ,and it is the only rule1 to which congress have any constitutional power to make commerce conform4 ,when all commerce1 that is intrinsically just and lawful1 is secured and protected1 and all commerce that is intrinsically unjust and unlawful1 is prohibited1 then commerce is regulated1 and not before4#e #e ,the above extracts are from a pamphlet published by me in #ahfd1 entitled ,considerations for ,bankers1 etc41 pp4 #ee1 #ef1 #eg4 ,this false definition of the verb to regulate has been used1 time out of mind1 by knavish lawmakers and their courts1 to hide their violations of men's natural right to do their own businesses in all such ways--that are naturally and intrinsically just and lawful--as they may choose to do them in4 ,these lawmakers and courts dare not always deny1 utterly and plainly1 men's right to do their own businesses in their own ways2 but they will assume to regulate them2 and in pretending simply to regulate them1 they contrive to regulate men out of all their natural rights to do their own businesses in their own ways4 ,how much have we all heard 7we who are old enough71 within the last fifty years1 of the power of congress1 or of the ,states1 to regulate the currency4 ,and to regulate the currency has always meant to fix the kind1 and limit the amount1 of currency1 that men may be permitted to buy and sell1 lend and borrow1 give and receive1 in their dealings with each other4 ,it has also meant to say who shall have the control of the licensed money2 instead of making it mean the suppression only of false and dishonest money1 and then leaving all men free to exercise their natural right of buying and selling1 borrowing and lending1 giving and receiving1 all such1 and so much1 honest and true money1 or currency1 as the parties to any or all contracts may mutually agree upon4 ,marshall's false assumptions are numerous and tyrannical4 ,they all have the same end in view as his false definitions2 that is1 to establish the principle that governments have all power1 and the people no rights4 ,they are so numerous that it would be tedious1 if not impossible1 to describe them all separately4 ,many1 or most1 of them are embraced in the following1 viz43 #a4 ,the assumption that1 by a certain paper1 called the constitution of the ,united ,states--a paper 7,i repeat and reiterate7 which nobody ever signed1 which but few persons ever read1 and which the great body of the people never saw--and also by some forty subsidiary papers1 called ,state constitutions1 which also nobody ever signed1 which but few persons ever read1 and which the great body of the people never saw--all making a perfect system of the merest nothingness--the assumption1 ,i say1 that1 by these papers1 the people have all consented to the abolition of justice itself1 the highest moral law of the ,universe2 and that all their own natural1 inherent1 inalienable rights to the benefits of that law1 shall be annulled2 and that they themselves1 and everything that is theirs1 shall be given over into the irresponsible custody of some forty little cabals of blockheads and villains called lawmakers--blockheads1 who imagine themselves wiser than justice itself1 and villains1 who care nothing for either wisdom or justice1 but only for the gratification of their own avarice and ambitions2 and that these cabals shall be invested with the right to dispose of the property1 liberty1 and lives of all the rest of the people1 at their pleasure or discretion2 or1 as ,marshall says1 their wisdom and discretion6 ,if such an assumption as that does not embrace nearly1 or quite1 all the other false assumptions that usurpers and tyrants can ever need1 to justify themselves in robbing1 enslaving1 and murdering all the rest of mankind1 it is less comprehensive than it appears to me to be4 #b4 ,in the following paragraph may be found another batch of ,marshall's false assumptions4 ,the right to contract is the attribute of a free agent1 and he may rightfully coerce performance from another free agent1 who violates his faith4 ,contracts have consequently an intrinsic obligation4 ,but ,when men come into society1 they can no longer exercise this original natural right of coercion4 ,it would be incompatible with general peace1 and is therefore surrendered4 ,society prohibits the use of private individual coercion1 and gives in its place a more safe and more certain remedy4 ,but the right to contract is not surrendered with the right to coerce performance4--,ogden vs4 ,saunders1 #ab ,wheaton #cej4 ,in this extract1 taken in connection with the rest of his opinion in the same case1 ,marshall convicts himself of the grossest falsehood4 ,he acknowledges that men have a natural right to make their own contracts2 that their contracts have an intrinsic obligation2 and that they have an original and natural right to coerce performance of them4 ,and yet he assumes1 and virtually asserts1 that men voluntarily come into society1 and surrender to society their natural right to coerce the fulfilment of their contracts4 ,he assumes1 and virtually asserts1 that they do this1 upon the ground1 and for the reason1 that society gives in its place a more safe and more certain remedy2 that is1 a more safe and more certain enforcement of all men's contracts that have an intrinsic obligation4 ,in thus saying that men come into society1 and surrender to society1 their original and natural right of coercing the fulfilment of contracts1 and that society gives in its place a more safe and certain remedy1 he virtually says1 and means to say1 that1 in consideration of such surrender of their original and natural right of coercion1 society pledges itself to them that it will give them this more safe and more certain remedy2 that is1 that it will more safely and more certainly enforce their contracts than they can do it themselves4 ,and yet1 in the same opinion--only two and three pages preceding this extract--he declares emphatically that the right of government--or of what he calls society--to prohibit such contracts as may be deemed mischievous1 is unquestionable4--p4 #cdg4 ,and as an illustration of the exercise of this right of society to prohibit such contracts as may be deemed mischievous1 he cites the usury laws1 thus3 ,the acts against usury declare the contract to be void in the beginning4 ,they deny that the instrument ever became a contract4 ,they deny it all original obligation2 and cannot impair that which never came into existence4--p4 #cdh4 ,all this is as much as to say that1 when a man has voluntarily come into society1 and has surrendered to society his original and natural right of coercing the fulfilment of his contracts1 and when he has done this in the confidence that society will fulfil its pledge to give him a more safe and more certain coercion than he was capable of himself1 society may then turn around to him1 and say3 ,we acknowledge that you have a natural right to make your own contracts4 ,we acknowledge that your contracts have an intrinsic obligation4 ,we acknowledge that you had an original and natural right to coerce the fulfilment of them4 ,we acknowledge that it was solely in consideration of our pledge to you1 that we would give you a more safe and more certain coercion than you were capable of yourself1 that you surrendered to us your right to coerce a fulfilment of them4 ,and we acknowledge that1 according to our pledge1 you have now a right to require of us that we coerce a fulfilment of them4 ,but after you had surrendered to us your own right of coercion1 we took a different view of the pledge we had given you2 and concluded that it would be mischievous to allow you to make such contracts4 ,we therefore prohibited your making them4 ,and having prohibited the making of them1 we cannot now admit that they have any obligation4 ,we must therefore decline to enforce the fulfilment of them4 ,and we warn you that1 if you attempt to enforce them1 by virtue of your own original and natural right of coercion1 we shall be obliged to consider your act a breach of the general peace1 and punish you accordingly4 ,we are sorry that you have lost your property1 but society must judge as to what contracts are1 and what are not1 mischievous4 ,we can therefore give you no redress4 ,nor can we suffer you to enforce your own rights1 or redress your own wrongs4 ,such is ,marshall's theory of the way in which society got possession of all men's original and natural right to make their own contracts1 and enforce the fulfilment of them2 and of the way in which society now justifies itself in prohibiting all contracts1 though intrinsically obligatory1 which it may choose to consider mischievous4 ,and he asserts that1 in this way1 society has acquired an unquestionable right to cheat men out of all their original and natural right to make their own contracts1 and enforce the fulfilment of them4 ,a man's original and natural right to make all contracts that are intrinsically obligatory1 and to coerce the fulfilment of them1 is one of the most valuable and indispensable of all human possessions4 ,but ,marshall assumes that a man may surrender this right to society1 under a pledge from society1 that it will secure to him a more safe and certain fulfilment of his contracts1 than he is capable of himself2 and that society1 having thus obtained from him this surrender1 may then turn around to him1 and not only refuse to fulfil its pledge to him1 but may also prohibit his own exercise of his own original and natural right1 which he has surrendered to society6 ,this is as much as to say that1 if ,a can but induce ,b to intrust his 7,b's7 property with him 7,a71 for safekeeping1 under a pledge that he 7,a7 will keep it more safely and certainly than ,b can do it himself1 ,a thereby acquires an unquestionable right to keep the property forever1 and let ,b whistle for it6 ,this is the kind of assumption on which ,marshall based all his ideas of the constitutional law of this country2 that constitutional law1 which he was so famous for expounding4 ,it is the kind of assumption1 by which he expounded the people out of all their original and natural rights4 ,he had just as much right to assume1 and practically did assume1 that the people had voluntarily come into society1 and had voluntarily surrendered to their governments all their other natural rights1 as well as their original and natural right to make and enforce their own contracts4 ,he virtually said to all the people of this country3 ,you have voluntarily come into society1 and have voluntarily surrendered to your governments all your natural rights1 of every name and nature whatsoever1 for safe keeping2 and now that these governments have1 by your own consent1 got possession of all your natural rights1 they have an unquestionable right to withhold them from you forever4 ,if it were not melancholy to see mankind thus cheated1 robbed1 enslaved1 and murdered1 on the authority of such naked impostures as these1 it would be1 to the last degree1 ludicrous1 to see a man like ,marshall--reputed to be one of the first intellects the country has ever had--solemnly expounding the constitutional powers1 as he called them1 by which the general and ,state governments were authorized to rob the people of all their natural rights as human beings4 ,and yet this same ,marshall has done more than any other one man--certainly more than any other man within the last eighty-five years--to make our governments1 ,state and national1 what they are4 ,he has1 for more than sixty years1 been esteemed an oracle1 not only by his associates and successors on the bench of the ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1 but by all the other judges1 ,state and national1 by all the ignorant1 as well as knavish1 lawmakers in the country1 and by all the sixty to a hundred thousand lawyers1 upon whom the people have been1 and are1 obliged to depend for the security of their rights4 ,this system of false definitions1 false assumptions1 and fraud and usurpation generally1 runs through all the operations of our governments1 ,state and national4 ,there is nothing genuine1 nothing real1 nothing true1 nothing honest1 to be found in any of them4 ,they all proceed upon the principle1 that governments have all power1 and the people no rights4 ,,section ,,xxv4 ,but perhaps the most absolute proof that our national lawmakers and judges are as regardless of all constitutional1 as they are of all natural1 law1 and that their statutes and decisions are as destitute of all constitutional1 as they are of all natural1 authority1 is to be found in the fact that these lawmakers and judges have trampled upon1 and utterly ignored1 certain amendments to the constitution1 which had been adopted1 and 7constitutionally speaking7 become authoritative1 as early as #agia2 only two years after the government went into operation4 ,if these amendments had been obeyed1 they would have compelled all congresses and courts to understand that1 if the government had any constitutional powers at all1 they were simply powers to protect men's natural rights1 and not to destroy any of them4 ,these amendments have actually forbidden any lawmaking whatever in violation of men's natural rights4 ,and this is equivalent to a prohibition of any lawmaking at all4 ,and if lawmakers and courts had been as desirous of preserving men's natural rights1 as they have been of violating them1 they would long ago have found out that1 since these amendments1 the constitution authorized no lawmaking at all4 ,these amendments were ten in number4 ,they were recommended by the first congress1 at its first session1 in #aghi2 two-thirds of both houses concurring4 ,and in #agia1 they had been ratified by all the ,states3 and from that time they imposed the restrictions mentioned upon all the powers of congress4 ,these amendments were proposed1 by the first congress1 for the reason that1 although the constitution1 as originally framed1 had been adopted1 its adoption had been procured only with great difficulty1 and in spite of great objections4 ,these objections were that1 as originally framed and adopted1 the constitution contained no adequate security for the private rights of the people4 ,these objections were admitted1 by very many1 if not all1 the friends of the constitution themselves1 to be very weighty2 and such as ought to be immediately removed by amendments4 ,and it was only because these friends of the constitution pledged themselves to use their influence to secure these amendments1 that the adoption of the constitution itself was secured4 ,and it was in fulfilment of these pledges1 and to remove these objections1 that the amendments were proposed and adopted4 ,the first eight amendments specified particularly various prohibitions upon the power of congress2 such1 for example1 as those securing to the people the free exercise of religion1 the freedom of speech and the press1 the right to keep and bear arms1 etc41 etc4 ,then followed the ninth amendment1 in these words3 ,the enumeration in the constitution1 of certain rights1 retained by the people shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people4 ,here is an authoritative declaration1 that the people have other rights than those specially enumerated in the constitution2 and that these other rights were retained by the people2 that is1 that congress should have no power to infringe them4 ,what1 then1 were these other rights1 that had not been enumerated2 but which were nevertheless retained by the people8 ,plainly they were men's natural rights2 for these are the only rights that the people ever had1 or1 consequently1 that they could retain4 ,and as no attempt is made to enumerate all these other rights1 or any considerable number of them1 and as it would be obviously impossible to enumerate all1 or any considerable number1 of them2 and as no exceptions are made of any of them1 the necessary1 the legal1 the inevitable inference is1 that they were all retained2 and that congress should have no power to violate any of them4 ,now1 if congress and the courts had attempted to obey this amendment1 as they were constitutionally bound to do1 they would soon have found that they had really no lawmaking power whatever left to them2 because they would have found that they could make no law at all1 of their own invention1 that would not violate men's natural rights4 ,all men's natural rights are co-extensive with natural law1 the law of justice2 or justice as a science4 ,this law is the exact measure1 and the only measure1 of any and every man's natural rights4 ,no one of these natural rights can be taken from any man1 without doing him an injustice2 and no more than these rights can be given to any one1 unless by taking from the natural rights of one or more others4 ,in short1 every man's natural rights are1 first1 the right to do1 with himself and his property1 everything that he pleases to do1 and that justice towards others does not forbid him to do2 and1 secondly1 to be free from all compulsion1 by others1 to do anything whatever1 except what justice to others requires him to do4 ,such1 then1 has been the constitutional law of this country since #agia2 admitting1 for the sake of the argument--what ,i do not really admit to be a fact--that the constitution1 so called1 has ever been a law at all4 ,this amendment1 from the remarkable circumstances under which it was proposed and adopted1 must have made an impression upon the minds of all the public men of the time2 although they may not have fully comprehended1 and doubtless did not fully comprehend1 its sweeping effects upon all the supposed powers of the government4 ,but whatever impression it may have made upon the public men of that time1 its authority and power were wholly lost upon their successors2 and probably1 for at least eighty years1 it has never been heard of1 either in congress or the courts4 ,john ,marshall was perfectly familiar with all the circumstances1 under which this1 and the other nine amendments1 were proposed and adopted4 ,he was thirty-two years old 7lacking seven days7 when the constitution1 as originally framed1 was published 7,september #ag1 #aghg72 and he was a member of the ,virginia convention that ratified it4 ,he knew perfectly the objections that were raised to it1 in that convention1 on the ground of its inadequate guaranty of men's natural rights4 ,he knew with what force these objections were urged by some of the ablest members of the convention4 ,and he knew that1 to obviate these objections1 the convention1 as a body1 without a dissenting voice1 so far as appears1 recommended that very stringent amendments1 for securing men's natural rights1 be made to the constitution4 ,and he knew further1 that1 but for these amendments being recommended1 the constitution would not have been adopted by the convention4#f #f ,for the amendments recommended by the ,virginia convention1 see ,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #c1 pp4 #feg to #ffc4 ,for the debates upon these amendments1 see pages #ddd to #deb1 and #dfj to #dfb1 and #dff to #dga1 and #egi to #feb4 ,the amendments proposed were too numerous to be repeated here1 although they would be very instructive1 as showing how jealous the people were1 lest their natural rights should be invaded by laws made by congress4 ,and that the convention might do everything in its power to secure the adoption of these amendments1 it resolved as follows3 ,and the convention do1 in the name and behalf of the people of this commonwealth1 enjoin it upon their representatives in congress to exert all their influence1 and use all reasonable and legal methods1 to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alterations and provisions1 in the manner provided by the #eth article of the said ,constitution2 and1 in all congressional laws to be passed in the meantime1 to conform to the spirit of these amendments1 as far as the said ,constitution will admit4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #c1 p4 #ffa4 ,in seven other ,state conventions1 to wit1 in those of ,massachusetts1 ,new ,hampshire1 ,rhode ,island1 ,new ,york1 ,maryland1 ,north ,carolina1 and ,south ,carolina1 the inadequate security for men's natural rights1 and the necessity for amendments1 were admitted1 and insisted upon1 in very similar terms to those in ,virginia4 ,in ,massachusetts1 the convention proposed nine amendments to the constitution2 and resolved as follows3 ,and the convention do1 in the name and in the behalf of the people of this commonwealth1 enjoin it upon their representatives in ,congress1 at all times1 until the alterations and provisions aforesaid have been considered1 agreeably to the #eth article of the said ,constitution1 to exert all their influence1 and use all reasonable and legal methods1 to obtain a ratification of the said alterations and provisions1 in such manner as is provided in the said article4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #b1 p4 #agh4 ,the ,new ,hampshire convention1 that ratified the constitution1 proposed twelve amendments1 and added3 ,and the ,convention do1 in the name and behalf of the people of this ,state1 enjoin it upon their representatives in congress1 at all times1 until the alterations and provisions aforesaid have been considered agreeably to the fifth article of the said ,constitution1 to exert all their influence1 and use all reasonable and legal methods1 to obtain a ratification of the said alterations and provisions1 in such manner as is provided in the article4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cbf4 ,the ,rhode ,island convention1 in ratifying the constitution1 put forth a declaration of rights1 in eighteen articles1 and also proposed twenty-one amendments to the constitution2 and prescribed as follows3 ,and the ,convention do1 in the name and behalf of the people of the ,state of ,rhode ,island and ,providence ,plantations1 enjoin it upon their senators and representative or representatives1 which may be elected to represent this ,state in congress1 to exert all their influence1 and use all reasonable means1 to obtain a ratification of the following amendments to the said ,constitution1 in the manner prescribed therein2 and in all laws to be passed by the congress in the mean time1 to conform to the spirit of the said amendments1 as far as the ,constitution will admit4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cce4 ,the ,new ,york convention1 that ratified the constitution1 proposed a great many amendments1 and added3 ,and the ,convention do1 in the name and behalf of the people of the ,state of ,new ,york1 enjoin it upon their representatives in congress1 to exert all their influence1 and use all reasonable means1 to obtain a ratification of the following amendments to the said ,constitution1 in the manner prescribed therein2 and in all laws to be passed by the congress1 in the mean time1 to conform to the spirit of the said amendments as far as the ,constitution will admit4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cbi4 ,the ,new ,york convention also addressed a ,,circular ,,letter to the governors of all the other ,states1 the first two paragraphs of which are as follows3 ,,the ,,circular ,,letter1 ,from the ,convention of the ,state of ,new ,york to the ,governors of the several ,states in the ,union4 ,,poughkeepsie1 ,,july #bh1 #aghh4 ,sir1 ,we1 the members of the ,convention of this ,state1 have deliberately and maturely considered the ,constitution proposed for the ,united ,states4 ,several articles in it appear so exceptionable to a majority of us1 that nothing but the fullest confidence of obtaining a revision of them by a general convention1 and an invincible reluctance to separating from our sister ,states1 could have prevailed upon a sufficient number to ratify it1 without stipulating for previous amendments4 ,we all unite in opinion1 that such a revision will be necessary to recommend it to the approbation and support of a numerous body of our constituents4 ,we observe that amendments have been proposed1 and are anxiously desired1 by several of the ,states1 as well as by this2 and we think it of great importance that effectual measures be immediately taken for calling a convention1 to meet at a period not far remote2 for we are convinced that the apprehensions and discontents1 which those articles occasion1 cannot be removed or allayed1 unless an act to provide for it be among the first that shall be passed by the new congress4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #b1 p4 #dac4 ,in the ,maryland convention1 numerous amendments were proposed1 and thirteen were agreed to2 most of them by a unanimous vote1 and all by a great majority4 ,fifteen others were proposed1 but there was so much disagreement in regard to them1 that none at all were formally recommended to congress4 ,but1 says ,elliot3 ,all the members1 who voted for the ratification of the constitution1 declared that they would engage themselves1 under every tie of honor1 to support the amendments they had agreed to1 both in their public and private characters1 until they should become a part of the general government4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #b1 pp4 #eej1 #eeb-c4 ,the first ,north ,carolina convention refused to ratify the constitution1 and ,resolved1 ,that a declaration of rights1 asserting and securing from encroachments the great principles of civil and religious liberty1 and the inalienable rights of the people1 together with amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptionable parts of the said constitution of government1 ought to be laid before congress1 and the convention of ,states that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said ,constitution1 for their consideration1 previous to the ratification of the ,constitution aforesaid1 on the part of the ,state of ,north ,carolina4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #ccb4 ,the ,south ,carolina convention1 that ratified the constitution1 proposed certain amendments1 and ,resolved1 ,that it be a standing instruction to all such delegates as may hereafter be elected to represent this ,state in the ,general ,government1 to exert their utmost abilities and influence to effect an alteration of the ,constitution1 conformably to the foregoing resolutions4--,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #a4 p4 #cbe4 ,in the ,pennsylvania convention1 numerous objections were made to the constitution1 but it does not appear that the convention1 as a convention1 recommended any specific amendments4 ,but a strong movement1 outside of the convention1 was afterwards made in favor of such amendments4 7,elliot's ,debates1 ,vol4 #b1 p4 #edb47 ,of the debates in the ,connecticut convention1 ,elliot gives only what he calls ,a ,fragment4 ,of the debates in the conventions of ,new ,jersey1 ,delaware1 and ,georgia1 ,elliot gives no accounts at all4 ,i therefore cannot state the grounds1 on which the adoption of the constitution was opposed4 ,they were doubtless very similar to those in the other ,states4 ,this is rendered morally certain by the fact1 that the amendments1 soon afterwards proposed by congress1 were immediately ratified by all the ,states4 ,also by the further fact1 that these ,states1 by reason of the smallness of their representation in the popular branch of congress1 would naturally be even more jealous of their rights1 than the people of the larger ,states4 ,it is especially worthy of notice that1 in some1 if not in all1 the conventions that ratified the constitution1 although the ratification was accompanied by such urgent recommendations of amendments1 and by an almost absolute assurance that they would be made1 it was nevertheless secured only by very small majorities4 ,thus in ,virginia1 the vote was only #hi ayes to #gi nays4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #c1 p4 #fed47 ,in ,massachusetts1 the ratification was secured only by a vote of #ahg yeas to #afh nays4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #b1 p4 #aha47 ,in ,new ,york1 the vote was only #cj yeas to #bg nays4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #b1 p4 #dac47 ,in ,new ,hampshire and ,rhode ,island1 neither the yeas nor nays are given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a1 pp4 #cbg-cce47 ,in ,connecticut1 the yeas were #abh2 nays not given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a4 p4 #cba-b47 ,in ,new ,jersey1 the yeas were #ch2 nays not given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cba47 ,in ,pennsylvania1 the yeas were #df2 the nays not given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cbj47 ,in ,delaware1 the yeas were #cj2 nays not given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cai47 ,in ,maryland1 the vote was #eg yeas2 nays not given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cbe47 ,in ,north ,carolina1 neither the yeas nor nays are given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #ccc47 ,in ,south ,carolina1 neither the yeas nor nays are given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cbe47 ,in ,georgia1 the yeas were #bf2 nays not given4 7,elliot1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #cbd47 ,we can thus see by what meagre votes the constitution was adopted4 ,we can also see that1 but for the prospect that important amendments would be made1 specially for securing the natural rights of the people1 the constitution would have been spurned with contempt1 as it deserved to be4 ,and yet now1 owing to the usurpations of lawmakers and courts1 the original constitution--with the worst possible construction put upon it--has been carried into effect2 and the amendments have been simply cast into the waste baskets4 ,marshall was thirty-six years old1 when these amendments became a part of the constitution in #agia4 ,ten years after1 in #ahja1 he became ,chief ,justice4 ,it then became his sworn constitutional duty to scrutinize severely every act of congress1 and to condemn1 as unconstitutional1 all that should violate any of these natural rights4 ,yet he appears never to have thought of the matter afterwards4 ,or1 rather1 this ninth amendment1 the most important of all1 seems to have been so utterly antagonistic to all his ideas of government1 that he chose to ignore it altogether1 and1 as far as he could1 to bury it out of sight4 ,instead of recognizing it as an absolute guaranty of all the natural rights of the people1 he chose to assume--for it was all a mere assumption1 a mere making a constitution out of his own head1 to suit himself--that the people had all voluntarily come into society1 and had voluntarily surrendered to society all their natural rights1 of every name and nature--trusting that they would be secured2 and that now1 society1 having thus got possession of all these natural rights of the people1 had the unquestionable right to dispose of them1 at the pleasure--or1 as he would say1 according to the wisdom and discretion--of a few contemptible1 detestable1 and irresponsible lawmakers1 whom the constitution 7thus amended7 had forbidden to dispose of any one of them4 ,if1 now1 ,marshall did not see1 in this amendment1 any legal force or authority1 what becomes of his reputation as a constitutional lawyer8 ,if he did see this force and authority1 but chose to trample them under his feet1 he was a perjured tyrant and traitor4 ,what1 also1 are we to think of all the judges1--forty in all1--his associates and successors1 who1 for eighty years1 have been telling the people that the government has all power1 and the people no rights8 ,have they all been mere blockheads1 who never read this amendment1 or knew nothing of its meaning8 ,or have they1 too1 been perjured tyrants and traitors8 ,what1 too1 becomes of those great constitutional lawyers1 as we have called them1 who have been supposed to have won such immortal honors1 as expounders of the constitution1 but who seem never to have discovered in it any security for men's natural rights8 ,is their apparent ignorance1 on this point1 to be accounted for by the fact1 that that portion of the people1 who1 by authority of the government1 are systematically robbed of all their earnings1 beyond a bare subsistence1 are not able to pay such fees as are the robbers who are authorized to plunder them8 ,if any one will now look back to the records of congress and the courts1 for the last eighty years1 ,i do not think he will find a single mention of this amendment4 ,and why has this been so8 ,solely because the amendment--if its authority had been recognized--would have stood as an insuperable barrier against all the ambition and rapacity--all the arbitrary power1 all the plunder1 and all the tyranny--which the ambitious and rapacious classes have determined to accomplish through the agency of the government4 ,the fact that these classes have been so successful in perverting the constitution 7thus amended7 from an instrument avowedly securing all men's natural rights1 into an authority for utterly destroying them1 is a sufficient proof that no lawmaking power can be safely intrusted to any body1 for any purpose whatever4 ,and that this perversion of the constitution should have been sanctioned by all the judicial tribunals of the country1 is also a proof1 not only of the servility1 audacity1 and villainy of the judges1 but also of the utter rottenness of our judicial system4 ,it is a sufficient proof that judges1 who are dependent upon lawmakers for their offices and salaries1 and are responsible to them by impeachment1 cannot be relied on to put the least restraint upon the acts of their masters1 the lawmakers4 ,such1 then1 would have been the effect of the ninth amendment1 if it had been permitted to have its legitimate authority4 ,,section ,,xxvi4 ,the tenth amendment is in these words3 ,the powers not delegated to the ,united ,states by the constitution1 nor prohibited by it to the ,states1 are reserved to the ,states respectively1 or to the people4 ,this amendment1 equally with the ninth1 secures to the people all their natural rights4 ,and why8 ,because1 in truth1 no powers at all1 neither legislative1 judicial1 nor executive1 had been delegated to the ,united ,states by the constitution4 ,but it will be said that the amendment itself implies that certain lawmaking powers had been delegated to the ,united ,states by the constitution4 ,no4 ,it only implies that those who adopted the amendment believed that such lawmaking powers had been delegated to the ,united ,states by the constitution4 ,but in this belief1 they were entirely mistaken4 ,and why8 #a4 ,because it is a natural impossibility that any lawmaking powers whatever can be delegated by any one man1 or any number of men1 to any other man1 or any number of other men4 ,men's natural rights are all inherent and inalienable2 and therefore cannot be parted with1 or delegated1 by one person to another4 ,and all contracts whatsoever1 for such a purpose1 are necessarily absurd and void contracts4 ,for example4 ,i cannot delegate to another man any right to make laws--that is1 laws of his own invention--and compel me to obey them4 ,such a contract1 on my part1 would be a contract to part with my natural liberty2 to give myself1 or sell myself1 to him as a slave4 ,such a contract would be an absurd and void contract1 utterly destitute of all legal or moral obligation4 #b4 ,i cannot delegate to another any right to make laws--that is1 laws of his own invention--and compel a third person to obey them4 ,for example4 ,i cannot delegate to ,a any right to make laws--that is1 laws of his own invention--and compel ,z to obey them4 ,i cannot delegate any such right to ,a1 because ,i have no such right myself2 and ,i cannot delegate to another what ,i do not myself possess4 ,for these reasons no lawmaking powers ever could be--and therefore no lawmaking powers ever were--delegated to the ,united ,states by the constitution2 no matter what the people of that day--any or all of them--may have attempted to do1 or may have believed they had power to do1 in the way of delegating such powers4 ,but not only were no lawmaking powers delegated to the ,united ,states by the constitution1 but neither were any judicial powers so delegated4 ,and why8 ,because it is a natural impossibility that one man can delegate his judicial powers to another4 ,every man has1 by nature1 certain judicial powers1 or rights4 ,that is to say1 he has1 by nature1 the right to judge of1 and enforce his own rights1 and judge of1 and redress his own wrongs4 ,but1 in so doing1 he must act only in accordance with his own judgment and conscience1 and subject to his own personal responsibility1 if1 through either ignorance or design1 he commits any error injurious to another4 ,now1 inasmuch as no man can delegate1 or impart1 his own judgment or conscience to another1 it is naturally impossible that he can delegate to another his judicial rights or powers4 ,so1 too1 every man has1 by nature1 a right to judge of1 and enforce1 the rights1 and judge of1 and redress the wrongs1 of any and all other men4 ,this right is included in his natural right to maintain justice between man and man1 and to protect the injured party against the wrongdoer4 ,but1 in doing this1 he must act only in accordance with his own judgment and conscience1 and subject to his own personal responsibility for any error he may commit1 either through ignorance or design4 ,but1 inasmuch as1 in this case1 as in the preceding one1 he can neither delegate nor impart his own judgment or conscience to another1 he cannot delegate his judicial power or right to another4 ,but not only were no lawmaking or judicial powers delegated to the ,united ,states by the constitution1 neither were any executive powers so delegated4 ,and why8 ,because1 in a case of justice or injustice1 it is naturally impossible that any one man can delegate his executive right or power to another4 ,every man has1 by nature1 the right to maintain justice for himself1 and for all other persons1 by the use of so much force as may be reasonably necessary for that purpose4 ,but he can use the force only in accordance with his own judgment and conscience1 and on his own personal responsibility1 if1 through ignorance or design1 he commits any wrong to another4 ,but inasmuch as he cannot delegate1 or impart1 his own judgment or conscience to another1 he cannot delegate his executive power or right to another4 ,the result is1 that1 in all judicial and executive proceedings1 for the maintenance of justice1 every man must act only in accordance with his own judgment and conscience1 and on his own personal responsibility for any wrong he may commit2 whether such wrong be committed through either ignorance or design4 ,the effect of this principle of personal responsibility1 in all judicial and executive proceedings1 would be--or at least ought to be--that no one would give any judicial opinions1 or do any executive acts1 except such as his own judgment and conscience should approve1 and such as he would be willing to be held personally responsible for4 ,no one could justify1 or excuse1 his wrong act1 by saying that a power1 or authority1 to do it had been delegated to him1 by any other men1 however numerous4 ,for the reasons that have now been given1 neither any legislative1 judicial1 nor executive powers ever were1 or ever could have been1 delegated to the ,united ,states by the constitution2 no matter how honestly or innocently the people of that day may have believed1 or attempted1 the contrary4 ,and what is true1 in this matter1 in regard to the national government1 is1 for the same reasons1 equally true in regard to all the ,state governments4 ,but this principle of personal responsibility1 each for his own judicial or executive acts1 does not stand in the way of men's associating1 at pleasure1 for the maintenance of justice2 and selecting such persons as they think most suitable1 for judicial and executive duties2 and requesting them to perform those duties2 and then paying them for their labor4 ,but the persons1 thus selected1 must still perform their duties according to their own judgments and consciences alone1 and subject to their own personal responsibility for any errors of either ignorance or design4 ,to make it safe and proper for persons to perform judicial duties1 subject to their personal responsibility for any errors of either ignorance or design1 two things would seem to be important1 if not indispensable1 viz43 #a4 ,that1 as far as is reasonably practicable1 all judicial proceedings should be in writing2 that is1 that all testimony1 and all judicial opinions1 even to quite minute details1 should be in writing1 and be preserved2 so that judges may always have it in their power to show fully what their acts1 and their reasons for their acts1 have been2 and also that anybody1 and everybody1 interested1 may forever after have the means of knowing fully the reasons on which everything has been done2 and that any errors1 ever afterwards discovered1 may be corrected4 #b4 ,that all judicial tribunals should consist of so many judges--within any reasonable number--as either party may desire2 or as may be necessary to prevent any wrong doing1 by any one or more of the judges1 either through ignorance or design4 ,such tribunals1 consisting of judges1 numerous enough1 and perfectly competent to settle justly probably ninety-nine one-hundredths of all the controversies that arise among men1 could be obtained in every village4 ,they could give their immediate attention to every case2 and thus avoid most of the delay1 and most of the expense1 now attendant on judicial proceedings4 ,to make these tribunals satisfactory to all reasonable and honest persons1 it is important1 and probably indispensable1 that all judicial proceedings should be had1 in the first instance1 at the expense of the association1 or associations1 to which the parties to the suit belong4 ,an association for the maintenance of justice should be a purely voluntary one2 and should be formed upon the same principle as a mutual fire or marine insurance company2 that is1 each member should pay his just proportion of the expense necessary for protecting all4 ,a single individual could not reasonably be expected to delay1 or forego1 the exercise of his natural right to enforce his own rights1 and redress his own wrongs1 except upon the condition that there is an association that will do it promptly1 and without expense to him4 ,but having paid his proper proportion of the expense necessary for the protection of all1 he has then a right to demand prompt and complete protection for himself4 ,inasmuch as it cannot be known which party is in the wrong1 until the trial has been had1 the expense of both parties must1 in the first instance1 be paid by the association1 or associations1 to which they belong4 ,but after the trial has been had1 and it has been ascertained which party was in the wrong1 and 7if such should be the case7 so clearly in the wrong as to have had no justification for putting the association to the expense of a trial1 he then may properly be compelled to pay the cost of all the proceedings4 ,if the parties to a suit should belong to different associations1 it would be right that the judges should be taken from both associations2 or from a third association1 with which neither party was connected4 ,if1 with all these safeguards against injustice and expense1 a party1 accused of a wrong1 should refuse to appear for trial1 he might rightfully be proceeded against1 in his absence1 if the evidence produced against him should be sufficient to justify it4 ,it is probably not necessary to go into any further details here1 to show how easy and natural a thing it would be1 to form as many voluntary and mutually protective judicial associations1 as might be either necessary or convenient1 in order to bring justice home to every man's door2 and to give to every honest and dishonest man1 all reasonable assurance that he should have justice1 and nothing else1 done for him1 or to him4 ,,section ,,xxvii4 ,of course we can have no courts of justice1 under such systems of lawmaking1 and supreme court decisions1 as now prevail4 ,we have a population of fifty to sixty millions2 and not a single court of justice1 ,state or national6 ,but we have everywhere courts of injustice--open and avowed injustice--claiming sole jurisdiction of all cases affecting men's rights of both person and property2 and having at their beck brute force enough to compel absolute submission to their decrees1 whether just or unjust4 ,can a more decisive or infallible condemnation of our governments be conceived of1 than the absence of all courts of justice1 and the absolute power of their courts of injustice8 ,yes1 they lie under still another condemnation1 to wit1 that their courts are not only courts of injustice1 but they are also secret tribunals2 adjudicating all causes according to the secret instructions of their masters1 the lawmakers1 and their authorized interpreters1 their supreme courts4 ,i say secret tribunals1 and secret instructions1 because1 to the great body of the people1 whose rights are at stake1 they are secret to all practical intents and purposes4 ,they are secret1 because their reasons for their decrees are to be found only in great volumes of statutes and supreme court reports1 which the mass of the people have neither money to buy1 nor time to read2 and would not understand1 if they were to read them4 ,these statutes and reports are so far out of reach of the people at large1 that the only knowledge a man can ordinarily get of them1 when he is summoned before one of the tribunals appointed to execute them1 is to be obtained by employing an expert--or so-called lawyer--to enlighten him4 ,this expert in injustice is one who buys these great volumes of statutes and reports1 and spends his life in studying them1 and trying to keep himself informed of their contents4 ,but even he can give a client very little information in regard to them2 for the statutes and decisions are so voluminous1 and are so constantly being made and unmade1 and are so destitute of all conformity to those natural principles of justice which men readily and intuitively comprehend2 and are moreover capable of so many different interpretations1 that he is usually in as great doubt--perhaps in even greater doubt--than his client1 as to what will be the result of a suit4 ,the most he can usually say to his client1 is this3 ,every civil suit must finally be given to one of two persons1 the plaintiff or defendant4 ,whether1 therefore1 your cause is a just1 or an unjust1 one1 you have at least one chance in two1 of gaining it4 ,but no matter how just your cause may be1 you need have no hope that the tribunal that tries it1 will be governed by any such consideration1 if the statute book1 or the past decisions of the supreme court1 are against you4 ,so1 also1 no matter how unjust your cause may be1 you may nevertheless expect to gain it1 if the statutes and past decisions are in your favor4 ,if1 therefore1 you have money to spend in such a lottery as this1 ,i will do my best to gain your cause for you1 whether it be a just1 or an unjust1 one4 ,if the charge is a criminal one1 this expert says to his client3 ,you must either be found guilty1 or acquitted4 ,whether1 therefore1 you are really innocent or guilty1 you have at least one chance in two1 of an acquittal4 ,but no matter how innocent you may be of any real crime1 you need have no hope of an acquittal1 if the statute book1 or the past decisions of the supreme court1 are against you4 ,if1 on the other hand1 you have committed a real wrong to another1 there may be many laws on the statute book1 many precedents1 and technicalities1 and whimsicalities1 through which you may hope to escape4 ,but your reputation1 your liberty1 or perhaps your life1 is at stake4 ,to save these you can afford to risk your money1 even though the result is so uncertain4 ,therefore you had best give me your money1 and ,i will do my best to save you1 whether you are innocent or guilty4 ,but for the great body of the people1--those who have no money that they can afford to risk in a lawsuit1--no matter what may be their rights in either a civil or criminal suit1--their cases are hopeless4 ,they may have been taxed1 directly and indirectly1 to their last dollars1 for the support of the government2 they may even have been compelled to risk their lives1 and to lose their limbs1 in its defence2 yet when they want its protection1--that protection for which their taxes and military services were professedly extorted from them1--they are coolly told that the government offers no justice1 nor even any chance or semblance of justice1 except to those who have more money than they4 ,but the point now to be specially noticed is1 that in the case of either the civil or criminal suit1 the client1 whether rich or poor1 is nearly or quite as much in the dark as to his fate1 and as to the grounds on which his fate will be determined1 as though he were to be tried by an ,english ,star ,chamber court1 or one of the secret tribunals of ,russia1 or even the ,spanish ,inquisition4 ,thus in the supreme exigencies of a man's life1 whether in civil or criminal cases1 where his property1 his reputation1 his liberty1 or his life is at stake1 he is really to be tried by what is1 to him1 at least1 a secret tribunal2 a tribunal that is governed by what are1 to him1 the secret instructions of lawmakers1 and supreme courts2 neither of whom care anything for his rights of property in a civil suit1 or for his guilt or innocence in a criminal one2 but only for their own authority as lawmakers and judges4 ,the bystanders1 at these trials1 look on amazed1 but powerless to defend the right1 or prevent the wrong4 ,human nature has no rights1 in the presence of these infernal tribunals4 ,is it any wonder that all men live in constant terror of such a government as that8 ,is it any wonder that so many give up all attempts to preserve their natural rights of person and property1 in opposition to tribunals1 to whom justice and injustice are indifferent1 and whose ways are1 to common minds1 hidden mysteries1 and impenetrable secrets4 ,but even this is not all4 ,the mode of trial1 if not as infamous as the trial itself1 is at least so utterly false and absurd1 as to add a new element of uncertainty to the result of all judicial proceedings4 ,a trial in one of these courts of injustice is a trial by battle1 almost1 if not quite1 as really as was a trial by battle1 five hundred or a thousand years ago4 ,now1 as then1 the adverse parties choose their champions1 to fight their battles for them4 ,these champions1 trained to such contests1 and armed1 not only with all the weapons their own skill1 cunning1 and power can supply1 but also with all the iniquitous laws1 precedents1 and technicalities that lawmakers and supreme courts can give them1 for defeating justice1 and accomplishing injustice1 can--if not always1 yet none but themselves know how often--offer their clients such chances of victory--independently of the justice of their causes--as to induce the dishonest to go into court to evade justice1 or accomplish injustice1 not less often perhaps than the honest go there in the hope to get justice1 or avoid injustice4 ,we have now1 ,i think1 some sixty thousand of these champions1 who make it the business of their lives to equip themselves for these conflicts1 and sell their services for a price4 ,is there any one of these men1 who studies justice as a science1 and regards that alone in all his professional exertions8 ,if there are any such1 why do we so seldom1 or never1 hear of them8 ,why have they not told us1 hundreds of years ago1 what are men's natural rights of person and property8 ,and why have they not told us how false1 absurd1 and tyrannical are all these lawmaking governments8 ,why have they not told us what impostors and tyrants all these so-called lawmakers1 judges1 etc41 etc41 are8 ,why are so many of them so ambitious to become lawmakers and judges themselves8 ,is it too much to hope for mankind1 that they may sometime have courts of justice1 instead of such courts of injustice as these8 ,if we ever should have courts of justice1 it is easy to see what will become of statute books1 supreme courts1 trial by battle1 and all the other machinery of fraud and tyranny1 by which the world is now ruled4 ,if the people of this country knew what crimes are constantly committed by these courts of injustice1 they would squelch them1 without mercy1 as unceremoniously as they would squelch so many gangs of bandits or pirates4 ,in fact1 bandits and pirates are highly respectable and honorable villains1 compared with the judges of these courts of injustice4 ,bandits and pirates do not--like these judges--attempt to cheat us out of our common sense1 in order to cheat us out of our property1 liberty1 or life4 ,they do not profess to be anything but such villains as they really are4 ,they do not claim to have received any ,divine authority for robbing1 enslaving1 or murdering us at their pleasure4 ,they do not claim immunity for their crimes1 upon the ground that they are duly authorized agents of any such invisible1 intangible1 irresponsible1 unimaginable thing as society1 or the ,state4 ,they do not insult us by telling us that they are only exercising that authority to rob1 enslave1 and murder us1 which we ourselves have delegated to them4 ,they do not claim that they are robbing1 enslaving1 and murdering us1 solely to secure our happiness and prosperity1 and not from any selfish motives of their own4 ,they do not claim a wisdom so superior to that of the producers of wealth1 as to know1 better than they1 how their wealth should be disposed of4 ,they do not tell us that we are the freest and happiest people on earth1 inasmuch as each of our male adults is allowed one voice in ten millions in the choice of the men1 who are to rob1 enslave1 and murder us4 ,they do not tell us that all liberty and order would be destroyed1 that society itself would go to pieces1 and man go back to barbarism1 if it were not for the care1 and supervision1 and protection1 they lavish upon us4 ,they do not tell us of the almshouses1 hospitals1 schools1 churches1 etc41 which1 out of the purest charity and benevolence1 they maintain for our benefit1 out of the money they take from us4 ,they do not carry their heads high1 above all other men1 and demand our reverence and admiration1 as statesmen1 patriots1 and benefactors4 ,they do not claim that we have voluntarily come into their society1 and surrendered to them all our natural rights of person and property2 nor all our original and natural right of defending our own rights1 and redressing our own wrongs4 ,they do not tell us that they have established infallible supreme courts1 to whom they refer all questions as to the legality of their acts1 and that they do nothing that is not sanctioned by these courts4 ,they do not attempt to deceive us1 or mislead us1 or reconcile us to their doings1 by any such pretences1 impostures1 or insults as these4 ,there is not a single ,john ,marshall among them4 ,on the contrary1 they acknowledge themselves robbers1 murderers1 and villains1 pure and simple4 ,when they have once taken our money1 they have the decency to get out of our sight as soon as possible2 they do not persist in following us1 and robbing us1 again and again1 so long as we produce anything that they can take from us4 ,in short1 they acknowledge themselves hostes humani generis3 enemies of the human race4 ,they acknowledge it to be our unquestioned right and duty to kill them1 if we can2 that they expect nothing else1 than that we will kill them1 if we can2 and that we are only fools and cowards1 if we do not kill them1 by any and every means in our power4 ,they neither ask1 nor expect1 any mercy1 if they should ever fall into the hands of honest men4 ,for all these reasons1 they are not only modest and sensible1 but really frank1 honest1 and honorable villains1 contrasted with these courts of injustice1 and the lawmakers by whom these courts are established4 ,such1 ,mr4 ,cleveland1 is the real character of the government1 of which you are the nominal head4 ,such are1 and have been1 its lawmakers4 ,such are1 and have been1 its judges4 ,such have been its executives4 ,such is its present executive4 ,have you anything to say for any of them8 ,yours frankly1 ,,lysander ,,spooner4 ,,boston1 ,,may #ae1 #ahhf4 ,,the ,,end4 ,transcriber's ,notes3 ,text in italics was enclosed with underscores 7italics74 ,text in small caps was replaced with ,,all ,,caps 7,,small ,,caps74 ,on page #bb1 there was the use of double quotation marks within double quotation marks4 ,that usage was not changed4 ,on page #dc1 at bank was replaced at a bank4 ,on page #fj1 viz41 #a1 was replaced with viz41 #a44 ,on page #aje1 viz4 was italized4 ,on page #fe1 a period as added after indebted to4