THE STATE; ITS FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES.

BY C. S. DARROW.

The idea of the State had its birth in that instinct of man that draws him irresistably to his fellow man. Before man reached his present position, while he was yet a brute, there was planted in his nature a certain instinct, the influence of which he could not avoid, that caused him to associate with others of his kind. The very life of mankind and the continuance of the human race depend upon the strength of this instinct. If we could imagine that in some mysterious way the human race should be dispersed over the surface of the globe, each one given an equal piece of ground, its members would instantly commence a slow and painful pilgrimage to come together once again as they are now. They would build again the villages and the cities of the present time; man would unite with man and form the same sort of organizations, the same sort of society, that exists all over the world, in different forms, to-day, because nature has decreed that in no other way can the human race be preserved; it is only possible to save its life when men congregate in communities, as they do now. So long as man chooses to unite with his fellows, he must recognize the fact that if he would live with others he must be willing to observe such rules of conduct as will allow others to exist by his side. In no other way is it possible for men to dwell together. If I were transported to the midst of a mighty forest, or some great plain, there, solitary and alone, I might exist independently of all other people; yet, in my isolated condition, I would be the abject slave of the powers of nature; it would require my whole time and strength to gain a precarious livelihood, and even then a few short years would see the end. But, if I seek to unite my strength with that of my fellow men, if I seek their aid and co-operation in the struggle of life, then must I submit to be bound by such rules, whatever they may be, as will allow others to exist as well as me.

When I do this to a certain extent I free myself from the powers of nature; it becomes easier for me to live; I can obtain the food, clothing, and shelter that I need, to better advantage than when wandering alone in the midst of the forest or the plain. But I must submit to certain restrictions, the restrictions that are necessary to allow a number to dwell together in unity and peace.

I expected that the gentleman who preceded me would have said something about the doctrine of laissez faire. Those who believe in our present State; those who believe no State whatever; generally speak of this. It seems to be the foundation stone of certain schools of political economy. The doctrine of laissez faire-let alone, let every one do as he wishesleaves the government with few functions or with none. From the time when man first stretched out his hand to unite with his fellows, until to-day; from the time when he made the first rude and barbarous law, even though it were the law, "Thou shalt not kill," from that time onward no man has believed or practiced the doctrine of laissez faire. The doctrine is inconsistent with any law whatever. The only individual who has the logical right to advocate it is the man who says that we should look to the laws of nature and nothing else; and that no individual has the right to make a law to govern any other individual in the world. If you say that society, in its aggregate capacity, has the right to make any law whatever, you can only support that claim of right upon the ground that because of it society as a whole is better off; and when you have said that you must go one step farther and say that any law, any organization, any rule of action, that conduces to the life of the whole is within the province of the State, and properly its function.

We have had various ideals of the State. There have been those who have elevated the policeman's club and said: "Behold the State"-the State which our sons and daughters should obey, respect and love—but, from the days of Socrates and Plato until now, the greatest and the wisest and the best have not mistaken the police powers of the State for the State itself.

We are told that sometime in the future co-operation may be possible. The course of civilization is toward co-operation. The course of civilization is from the time when every man's hand is turned against his neighbor, toward that time when each is seeking by every effort he can put forth, not only his own good, but the good of all the rest. It may be slow, it may be a long and toilsome journey, but all we claim is, that slow as it may be, it is the course of civilization, and that the time will come unless civilization be a lie-when the strifes, bickerings, and warfare that now exist among men will be melted and fused into the gentle and humane forces of co-operation and mutual aid.

Why should the State have any powers whatever? Suppose the gentlemen in this room should represent a state organized for a certain purpose. If I raise my hand, armed with a dagger, to kill my brother, what reason, what right, has any other gentleman in the room to interfere? Why should you do it? Is it not my inalienable right to do with my own hand what I will? Has anyone the right to prevent it, excepting him who might interfere for his own defence? What right have you at the further end of this room to stay my hand when I seek the life of my fellow at this end? You have just this one right-just this one reason-that society never knows whose turn may come next. You know that if society does not interfere, if you do not stay my hand, that all the rest may suffer one after another, and thus all become the abject slaves of the most power

ful. Society has the right to organize to prevent any individual member from usurping a power that is detrimental to the whole. You may trace all the police powers of the State back to this common source. I care not if it be the simple law, "Thou shalt not kill," in the end it will be found to rest upon one reason and one alone, and that is that the whole community may best be served by the enforcement of that rule. Any law that subserves the common good, any human regulation whatsoever that is for the interests of the race, has the same basis, no more, nor less, than all other laws that man can possibly devise.

I would that I might picture to you two views of the State. I wish that I might picture them so plainly that they would leave a lasting impression on your minds. Two views of the State that we find existing side by side in the life of the present-for the civilization of to-day, is made up of the good and the bad of the past as well as the aspirations and hopes of the future. I would picture one ideal of the State with the school room filled with happy children, learning to be wise and useful citizens of the State that is to come; with the library that is bringing culture and peace and joy to all the citizens of that State; with the parks laid out for the pleasure of the whole people of that State; with magnificent roadways made for your comfort and mine; with the Postoffice, transacting the business of the State; with other business institutions which are as much the proper function of the State as any that it now performs. I would picture to you another view of the State, a view that was painted on the canvas of that wonderful artist Verestchagin. He pictured the State as some men see it; the State of the believer in laissez faire; the State of him who believes that the function of the State is to say, "You must," or "You shall not." He depicted it in three scenes. The first was the State of Ancient Rome. The cross with its victim upon it; the blood trickling to the earth. He pictured the State of India, with men lashed at the cannon's mouth, waiting to be scattered to the four winds of Heaven. This was the State of India, which the children of that land were called upon as a sacred duty to love and to admire.

He pictured the State of Russia. In a bleak plain, while the snow is falling, a scaffold has been erected, upon which human lives are taken. That is the State of Russia which the Russian people are asked to venerate, love and obey. We have a portion of that state in America too. We have a portion of the new and a portion of the old; a portion of the good and a portion of the evil. Not long since the State of Illinois erected a scaffold in the City of Chicago, and they led up its steps a poor, weak, ignorant boy, a child of African descent; of that race which has in all ages received persecution and cruelty from men of our color and our race, a boy who never knew the State, a young boy who in all the darkness of his childish life had never known the pressure of a kindly hand, or the tones of a gentle voice. The State of Illinois laid its hands upon this boy but once, and then it strangled him to death. The State of the future will look at him (no matter what his crime), and they will say: "Before you arraign him at the bar of justice, find what the State has done for him? You shall fulfill your obligations to the boy before you take his life."

Go out into the highways and byways, meet those who have never known happiness, who have never known instruction, who have never known the sound of gentle voices, and give them a chance for their future and their life.

Gentlemen, the two ideals of the State are inconsistent. Abraham Lincoln one said that freedom and slavery could not stand side by side, and so I say that the school room and the gallows were never meant for the same land or the same age.

If we would build the State upon the broad foundation of intelligence, of reason and of justice, we will leave the school room where it is and broaden and enlarge the functions of the State. But if you expect that through the coming years men and women and children shall be kept in line by the policeman's club, or the fear of the gallows, then we have no room for the school room, the library or the public park.

Gentlemen; the ideal of the State, that it is not the policeman, that it is not the jail, that it is not the court house, that it is not the police power, is old. It has been indorsed, as I have said, by the wisest and the best men that have ever lived. The wisest and the greatest, and the most humane have lent their energies and their lives to this cause. You may find amongst its believers and supporters, amongst those who have shared this higher ideal of the State, Socrates, Plato, Buddha, Jesus, Hugo, Carlyle, Emerson. The good and great of every age and land have never yet mistaken the police powers of the State for the State itself.

One would think, from some things that gentlemen say of the State, that it is a superior being, standing beyond us, with a club raised above our heads to strike us when it will. One would think it was superhuman. But, gentlemen, it is not. The State is the men and the women and the children who compose it. The State is 'the good thoughts, the gentle deeds, the worthy actions of all who make it up. The State is you and I and every other individual who lives within it.

The other day I saw some men erecting a building. I looked and thought I beheld the emblem of the State. I saw surrounding the structure as it rose, a scaffolding upon which the workmen stood; a scaffolding which was plainer to the view than all else; a scaffolding made of rough boards and scantling, unattractive to the eye. But within it I saw growing, brick on brick, stone on stone, a magnificent edifice, to be the future home of men and women and children who should live within its walls. I fancied I saw the believer in the doctrine of laissez faire, who looking at the building mistook the scaffolding for the structure within; who mistook the rude instrument with which the workmen were enabled to perform their labors for that structure itself, the structure that should shelter from cold and storm, and give comfort and happiness to its inmates; they mistook the rough exterior for the edifice that should be the future home of men and women and littie children, giving joy and happiness to those beneath its roof. But for me there was no mistake. I saw the emblem of the State. I saw that scaffolding like the police powers of the present, like the jail and the club and the court house, and the criminal statutes of to-day. I saw its use in building up the grand and beautiful home of

humanity. I looked at it growing toward the heavens, and I said, "How can men make a mistake like this?" I thought that one day when the last stone shall be placed upon it, when the walls shall be frescoed, and the building is complete in all its beauty, then this scaffold will fall to the earth and rot away; and so, gentlemen, the State of the future, that State that has been growing through all the ages of the past; that State which is growing to-day; that State upon which the best men of our race have left their imprint; that State commenced back in the ages when man in his ignorance and weakness first reached out his hand to feel the sympathetic touch of his brother man; which has been growing, day by day and year by year down all the centuries until now; that State will only be complete in the days to come when all the people shall be welded and fused into one homogeneous mass, and when men shall dwell together as harmoniously as the stars pursue their course in the heavens above. In that day when the State shall be complete, when order shall come out of chaos, when no longer the strong and the great shall trample on the weak; when even the smallest and the poorest of these little ones shall have an equal portion, when the State shall be completed, then the scaffolding upon which we have been working, within which we shall have erected this glorious temple, these laws, barbarous as they are to-day, but which enable us to construct the State of the future; this scaffolding will fade away, and the stately structure of the future State will stand in all its beauty, in all its grandeur, in all its perfection, and be the sheltering home of all.