no real freedom, while there is no just understanding of the nature, separation, and proper functions of the three great elements of government. The greatest discovery made in the theory of government is that of the natural and necessary separation of these great functions. In the head of a family we see them united; but there is little danger of abuse there, because all tyranny is restrained by natural affections. In a despotism we see them again united, and what is the consequence? Tyranny, oppression, and darkness. In a perfect republic only, are they entirely separated. There the legislator, the executive, and the judge, are respectively confined within their respective jurisdictions by the Constitution. The nature of a constitution of government, then, is to recognize, define, limit, and prescribe the duties of the three natural and fundamental properties of government. This is its nature and its office, as an organic law. Let us now see in what relation the people stand to this Constitution.

SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE.

It is the sovereignty of the people which enacts a constitution. Look again at the family. Abraham was before his family, its founder and maker. To him, as prior to all family regulations, there was no binding law of human regulation; that is, he was the original sovereign, ruling by virtue of a prior and natural sovereignty. So there was a time when the

people had no constitution enacted by themselves. In that condition, having granted to no one the natural powers of government existing in the family, each member of society, and consequently society as a whole, retains all the powers of a sovereign, in relation to all human regulations. This is what is called the sovereignty of the people. Perhaps there never was a time when any considerable body of people were entirely without government, and therefore no perfect example of a dormant sovereignty of the people. The sovereignty of the people, however, is prior to the constitution, and the constitution exists by virtue of that sovereignty.* This fact brings us to consider the citizen as exercising this power.

* M. de Tocqueville remarks (chapter 4-Democracy in America), that "In some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree foreign to the social body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a certain track. In others, the ruling force is divided, being partly within and partly without the ranks of the people. But nothing of the kind is to be seen in the United States; there society governs itself for itself. All power centres in its bosom; and scarcely an individual is to be met with who would venture to conceive, or still less to express, the idea of seeking it elsewhere. The nation participates in the making of its laws by the choice of its legislators, and in the execution of them, by the choice of the agents of the executive government; it may also be said to govern itself, so feeble and so restricted is the share left to the administration, so little do the authorities forget their popular origin, and the power from which they emanate."

THE CITIZEN A SOVEREIGN.

The citizen of the United States exercises the duties of a sovereign in all those functions which it is usual in modern days for a sovereign to exercise. He chooses all the ministers of power: he chooses the President, the governors, the members of Congress, the members of the Legislatures, and soon will probably choose all the State judges. He chooses, therefore, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Indirectly, he carries on the government himself. It is true, that in a certain election he may be only one in ten thousand: alone he cannot control this mass, and every election may result precisely opposite to his wishes and his vote. Does this fact absolve him from his political and moral responsibility? There is apt to come over many minds, after political defeats, a feeling of discouragement; a feeling that, do what they may, there is an irrevocable and uncontrollable majority which does and will render their votes useless. They then say that they can do no good, and that they are not responsible for results, and will not vote. This seems at first plausible; but a very simple illustration will show its fallacy, and that it leads to ruinous results. Suppose that in certain party divisions there are 3000 voters one side and 7000 on the other, thus giving a majority of more than two to one. In the violence of party spirit, this ratio remains at several elections with very little change. The minority are hopeless:

The majority,

they then cease to make opposition. because there is no opposition, fall off in their votes, success being certain. In two or three years, not half the majority vote. The minority do not vote; and it soon appears that out of 10,000 voters not over 4000 have voted! What happens from this? There being no attention paid to their political duties by the majority, the political power has fallen into the hands of the minority! Not only this; but the direction of this minority is in the hands of small caucuses and cliques. Thus the power of 10,000 voters has fallen into the hands of perhaps only a hundred! A minority governs; and the whole theory and spirit of republican government is perverted! But the minority may say, "This is no fault of ours; we should have been overwhelmed if we had voted." True; but is there no difference in the results, in fact and in morals? If the 3000 of the minority had voted, the whole 10,000 would have voted. The majority would have been compelled to exercise their discretion, and stand upon their responsibility. In one word, the minority would have held the majority to their duties, and it would be the majority and not a minority which governs. Minorities have power, and it is false reasoning-utterly false-by which any man excuses himself from political duties, or neglects the public responsibilities which in the course of human events have been cast upon him.

From these facts we come to the particular con

clusion which concerns us in an American education. If, in the United States, every man is in one sense a sovereign, and has political duties inevitably cast upon him; if all these political duties, and the general scheme of government, are marked out and limited by a constitution, then it follows that this sovereign citizen ought to read, study, and understand that constitution.

Government is in its very nature a complex machine; and the republican form of government the most complex of any in its practical operation. It is by the separation of the functions of government, the divisions of departments, the checks and balances of power, that freedom is secured. Elections are very simple; but the rights, duties, and operations of the citizen, the public officer, the legislator, the judge, the army, the navy, the states, the municipalities, and the townships, are not simple, by any means. On the contrary, all these various functions of American government make up a very complex system; and there are few who have studied it in all its branches.

The sovereign citizen should, therefore, at least study and understand the constitution of his country.

A CITIZEN A SUBJECT.

The citizen is a sovereign; but there is an anomaly in his sovereignty which attends no other sovereign on earth. He is also a subject. To what is