PREFACE

Government by a written constitution, as now understood, in place of a personal government, or Sovereignty, has been a factor of slow and bitterly contested growth for promoting the liberty of the individual and a representative government, in opposition to monarchical precedents. This plan of government or an ideal Republic has long existed in the minds of men and has struggled for realization for centuries. It was foreshadowed in the old Roman and Greek republics and in the various charters granted by kings of England from William the First, (1066-1089) until 1215, when King John was compelled to grant the written "Magna Charta" at Runnymede. It was later introduced in the articles of confederation between the forest cantons of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden in 1291, which confederation was gradually built up subsequently through the annexation of new cantons until now twenty-two comprise the republic of Switzerland.

This scheme of government, however, which had floated as a glorious vision in the imagination of the sons of men dissatisfied with monarchical rule for so long a period, was never realized nor materially established on so elaborate a scale that all the world was compelled to recognize it, until the founding of the Representative Democracy of the United States of America. It eliminated a personal sovereign forever, after the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776, and the successful termination of the Revolution, precipitated by the tyrannical demands made upon his subject colonies by George the Third, in defiance of well established constitutional precedents.

The Articles of "Confederation and Perpetual Union," ratified March 1st, 1781, and the subsequent Constitution made to form a more perfect union and ratified by all the states in 1788 was tested to its utmost capacity by the unprecedented civil war of 1861.

The contention between the Northern and Southern states was the right of secession. The extension of slavery into the territories was also contested and decided in the affirmative by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case March 6th, 1857.

The Supreme Court held:

I. That negroes had not been regarded as citizens by the framers of the Constitution, and that, therefore, they could not bring suit in a United States Court.

2. That the Constitution recognizes the right of property in slaves, and recognizes no difference between such property and any other, and that therefore Congress could not limit the right of property in slaves, even in the territories.

3. That the Missouri Compromise, limiting the right of property in slaves, was unconstitutional, and therefore null and void; and that, therefore, slave owners could carry their slaves into any part of the territories, and hold them as such without regard to the line established by the Missouri Compromise.

Justices McLean and Curtis' dissenting opinion.

Ist. That free negroes had been citizens before the adoption of the Constitution.

2nd. That the Constitution had not limited the rights of such negroes as citizens.

3rd. That as many as seven Acts had been passed by Congress limiting slavery in the territories, and that these Acts had been assented to by Presidents who had been in Constitutional Convention.

4th. That the constitutionality of these Acts had never been questioned.

5th. That the validity of the Missouri Compromise was not before the court, and that the dissenting justices did not hold any opinion of this court, or of any court, binding when expressed on a question not legitimately before it.

The Supreme Court decided by a mere majority vote that neither congress nor the territorial legislature can interfere with slavery in any of the territories of the United States. This question should have been submitted directly to the citizens of the entire country, as is now done in Switzerland under their constitution through referendum, as the people possess the sovereign power. The prominent political issues of today should now be submitted to the voters through a referendum. No one has deprived the people of this sovereign power. No one will attempt it.

The slave states declared their right to secede from the Union and did secede. They knew they could not carry out the antidemocratic decision eminating from the judicial branch of a free Republic which on this occasion assumed the power of an oligarchy, or a majority of the Supreme Court assume this power, for there was a dissenting opinion given by Justices McLean and Curtis. One of the fundamental principles of our republic and all republics was ruthlessly set aside.

Abraham Lincoln in his convention speech, said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and, that, "this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."

No English court would have assumed the responsibility of

rendering such an archaic and despotic decision in the nineteenth century: that there was no difference between property in slaves (human beings) and any other property.

"President Lincoln practically disregarded the Dred Scott decision in the policy of his administration with reference to slavery, and he was no doubt justified in doing so. That decision has not and could not have any direct bearing on the duties of the executive department." (McClain, Constitutional Law in America, page 202.)

The word "slave" is not used in the constitution, nor does the constitution imply that there is no difference between property in slaves and other property, because there is, for no slaveholder could kill a slave as he could kill an ox. This entire opinion was an attempt to put into the constitution something never intended by its framers. Other property could be taken into British possessions but slaves, who instantly became free.

The Civil War followed, through a chain of events not necessary to be retraced here, since they belong in another department of history. After four years of conflict the union was re-established on a firmer footing, and the constitution so amended as to make the government an absolutely representative democracy.

This triumph set in motion forces that shall profoundly affect other nations for all time. The example of a complete representative democracy standing upon a basic law that guaranteed the rights and liberties of all the people, without discrimination, setting aside the archaic decree of the Supreme Court in 1857, while leaving in the hands of the people, through equal universal suffrage, the power to make such changes as time and events might show to be necessary and to make the Constitution consistent throughout, has been followed by three continental European States, and through a gradual process of elimination by substitution, has radically changed the monarchical form in many of the others. This change has generally been brought about peacefully through evolution, not by civil war and revolution.

It prevails throughout all the states of the Western Hemisphere, on the continent of Europe and in China. Great Britain. has no regularly consolidated written constitution, but has its elaborate Magna Charta, the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the "Bill of Rights," granted by William and Mary (1689), and the "Petition of Rights" (1628). These instruments were called by Lord Chatham "the Bible of English Constitutions," and with other charters and statutes contain the elements of constitutional liberty. England has shown preference for this form of government by granting to Canada and Australia and New Zealand liberal constitutions creating separate, independent nations with local self-governments which, however, voluntarily remain inte

gers of the British Empire. They have all shown their devotion and loyalty in the mother country.

The rise and spread of this new theory and practice of government is the most significant development of the last hundred years --perhaps of all history. The purpose of the present work is to disclose the facts in connection with it, and to so group them that their meanings and their effects on each other and the world shall be made clear. Their compilation and the research it imposed began in 1863, and have been carried along continuously and carefully down to and following the inclusion of Portugal and China in the family of republics.

In 1863 I was a student in the law department of Michigan University. Upon graduation from that department, each student was required to write a thesis. Having previously studied at the University of Heidelberg in Germany in 1858-60, I became interested in the various forms of government in Europe, and I chose for my theme "A Comparison Between the Form of Government of the Republic or Representative Democracy of the United States and Those of Other Nations."

My thesis was submitted to Professor Thomas MacIntire Cooley, LL. D.; James Valentine Campbell, LL. D., and Charles Irish Walker, LL. D., of the Law Department, and at their suggestion several changes were made.

These suggestions brought about a further investigation which finally led to the production of this work, to which I have devoted a great amount of close application, tracing the events creating liberal constitutions in the last half century.

The Civil War then drawing toward its close naturally caused my mind, like many others, to follow closely the progress of events. Even then, under the critical conditions through which the nation was passing, the steadfast attitude of our great patriot and statesman, Abraham Lincoln, and the development of his clear understanding of constitutional government engrossed my attention and confirmed my conviction that our representative democracy, with its written constitution (subsequently amended) is preferable to any other form of government that has been successfully tested. It is the abuse of this form of government which excites criticism.

The re-establishment of the federal government over all the United States of America with the continuation of the republic intact, demonstrated the capability of a popular representative democracy to maintain its life, its cherished institutions, and its equilibrium in the most adverse circumstances. Under the constitution order was brought about and the reconstruction of the seceded states accomplished in much less time than was taken to restore the former government of England (with its sovereign