LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 cAuro*A 
 
 SANOtCOO
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE 
 
 AND 
 
 OTHER ADDRESSES. 
 
 ALFRED A.fsTOpKTON, LL.D., D. C. L. 
 
 OSK OF IIKR M i.ll -KL; MKMHKK (IK TIIK I.F.lilM.ATI V K 
 
 ASSEMBLY OK SKW BRUNSWICK FOR TIIK CITY OF ST. JOHN; 
 LECTURER OX COXSTITfTIOXAL LAW IS THK LAW- 
 SCHOOL AT ST. JOHN, N. B., OK THK UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF KIV,'- lipl.I.l'-.r. WINDSOR, N. 8. 
 
 AUTHOR OK ADMIRALTY REPORTS AM) DKiEST; EDITOR OF 
 HKRTON'S REI-oiil.- "K I HE SUPBKMK COURT OF SKW l!KlWH K, KTf. 
 
 Ctmtentpornnra rrpotilio tit optima el furliaima in legt. 2 Inst. II. 
 
 oHN, N. B. 
 
 J. A A. M< Mil i vs, 98 PRIKCK WILLIAM STREET. 
 1898.
 
 Entered according to Act of Parliament of Canada, in the year 1898, 
 
 BY ALFRED A. STOCKTON, LL.D., D. C. L., 
 In the office of the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 When the addresses contained in this volume were 
 delivered I had no thought that they would ever he 
 published. They were prepared for special occa- 
 sions ; the subjects were assigned by those asking for 
 their preparation and delivery ; and the articles as 
 now printed are substantially as delivered. Several 
 friends, to whose judgment I have deferred, suggested 
 that it would be advantageous to put these articles 
 in permanent form, and hence this volume. It is 
 notorious that many people, especially in the United 
 States, have hazy and incorrect views as to what the 
 Monroe Doctrine really is, and by whom originated. 
 The hope is expressed that the article on that subject 
 may at least prove useful in stimulating a desire for 
 full and correct information. I trust the reader may 
 find something in the following pages of interest and 
 profit. My thanks are tendered to Mr. Reginald R. 
 Fuirweather, student-at-law, for his kindness in pre- 
 paring the Index. It will facilitate easy reference 
 
 to the topics discussed. 
 
 A. A. STOCKTON. 
 ST. JOHN, N. B. 
 
 18 Charles Street, 
 
 February 8, 1898. 
 
 (iii)
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 PREFACE, iii 
 
 I. THE MONROE DOCTRINE, 1 
 
 II. FIFTY YEARS A QUEEN, 76 
 
 III. SIXTY YEARS A QUEEN, 90 
 
 IV. THE AIM OF LEGISLATION 106 
 
 V. THE OBJECT OF LAW, 138
 
 I. 
 
 TIIK MOXUOK IHKTUINK. 
 
 \Din:r ii i.i\ i 1:1 D I:I-:K"|;K TIIK KM ri.rv AMI 
 STUDENTS OF mi: i MVKI:>ITV .K M \\ i:ur\-\\ i< K. 
 AT KI:KIM i:i< T\. N. i:.. NOVKMHKI: :,, i.v;. 
 
 Tin- seventh annual message of President 
 Monroe, delivered 1 >e.-t mber 2, 1823, contained, 
 aiming other things, the following declarations : 
 
 " At the proposal of the Russian Imperial 
 < ioveriniii-iit, made through the minister of the 
 Kmperor residing here, a full power and in- 
 >tnii-tions have been transmitted to the minister 
 of the I'nited States at St. Petersburg to arrange, 
 
 liy amii-alile negotiati the respective rights 
 
 and interests of thf two nations on the north- 
 oast of this continent. A similar proposal 
 had leen made hy his Imperial Majesty to the 
 government of (ireat Britain, which has like- 
 \\ ']-< Keen acceded to. The government of the 
 I'niti-d State- has been desirous, by this friendly 
 }>roceeding, of manifesting the u'reat value which 
 they have invariably attached to the friendship 
 of the Kmperor, and their solicitude to cultivate 
 the best understanding with his government. 
 In the discussions to which this interest has 
 given rise, and in the arrangements by which
 
 2 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 they may terminate, the occasion has been ad- 
 judged proper for asserting, as a principle, in 
 which the rights and interests of the United 
 States are involved, that the American conti- 
 nents, by the free and independent condition 
 which they have assumed and maintain, are 
 henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future 
 colonization, by any European powers." 
 
 " It was stated at the commencement of the 
 last session that a great eifort was then making 
 in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition 
 of the people of those countries, and that it 
 appeared to be conducted with extraordinary 
 moderation. It need scarcely be remarked 
 that the result has been, so far, very different 
 from what was then anticipated. Of events in 
 that quarter of the globe, with which we have 
 so much intercourse, and from which we derive 
 our origin, we have always been anxious and 
 interested spectators. The citizens of the United 
 States cherish sentiments the most friendly in 
 favor 6f the liberty and happiness of their fel- 
 low men on that side of the Atlantic. In the 
 wars of the European powers, in matters relat- 
 ing to themselves, we have never taken any 
 part, nor does it comport with our policy to do 
 so. It is only when our rights are invaded or 
 seriously menaced that we resent injuries or 
 make preparations for our defence. With the
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRIM-. -I 
 
 movements in this hemisphere we are, of neces- 
 sity, more immediately connected, and by causes 
 which must be obvious to all enlightened and 
 impartial observers. The political system of 
 the allied powers is essentially different in this 
 tv>|.e<;t from that of America. This difference 
 proceeds from that which exists in their respec- 
 tive irovernments. And to the defense of our 
 own, which has been achieved by the loss of so 
 much blood and treasure, and matured by the 
 wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and 
 under which we have enjoyed unexampled feli- 
 city, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, 
 therefore, to candor, and to the amicable rela- 
 tions existing between the United States and 
 those powers, to declare that we should coniil< r 
 t//i</ nit, nijii mi /Ac//- /HIT/ in i.rfcnd (heir systf/n / 
 ////_// i>nr(i<>n of this hemisphere as danyerous to our 
 peace and safety. With the existing colonies or 
 <l, l>, iitlfin-ies of any European />"//-<r we have not 
 interfered, and shall not interfere; but with the 
 governments who have declared their inde- 
 pendence, and maintained it. and whose in- 
 dependence we have, on irivat consideration 
 and on just principles, acknowledged, we could 
 not view any interposition for the purpose of 
 oppressing them, or controlling in :my other 
 manner their destiny, by any Knropean power, 
 in any other liirht than as the manifestation of
 
 4 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 an unfriendly disposition towards the United 
 States. In the war between those new govern- 
 ments and Spain, we declared our neutrality 
 at the time of their recognition ; and to thi& 
 we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, 
 provided no change shall occur which, in the 
 judgment of the competent authorities of this 
 government, shall make a corresponding change 
 on the part of the United States indispensable 
 to their security. The late events in Spain and 
 Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. 
 Of this important fact no stronger proof can be 
 adduced than that the allied powers should 
 have thought it proper, on a principle satisftic- 
 tory to themselves, to have interposed by force 
 in the internal concerns of Spain. To what 
 extent such interposition may be carried, on 
 the same principle, is a question in which all 
 independent powers whose governments differ 
 from their own are interested, even those most 
 remote ; and surely none more so than the 
 United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, 
 which was adopted at an early stage of the wars 
 which have so long agitated that quarter of the 
 globe, nevertheless remains the same, which 
 is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of 
 any of its powers ; to consider the government 
 de facto as the legitimate government for us ; 
 to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to
 
 THE MONHOE DOCTRINE. 5 
 
 preserve those relations by a frank, firm, aul 
 manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just 
 claims of every power, submitting to injuries 
 from none. But in regard to these Continents 
 circumstances are eminently and conspicuously dif- 
 jn-ii't. It is impossible that the Allied Powers 
 should extend tho'r jiofitfcal system to any portion 
 of either continent without endangering our peace 
 j i'<l ltj>j"'ness; nor can any one believe that 
 our Southern brethren, if left to themselves, 
 would adopt it of their own accord. It is 
 equally impossible, therefore, that we should 
 behold such interposition, in any form, with 
 indifference. If we look to the comparative 
 strength and resources of Spain and these new 
 governments, and their distance from each 
 other, it must be obvious that she can never 
 subdue them. It is still the true policy of the 
 United States to leave the parties to themselves, 
 in the hope that other powers will pursue the 
 same course." 
 
 The President in the following year 1824 
 in his annual message, directed attention to the 
 South American difficulties, and the war being 
 waged between Spain and the South American 
 colonies which had thrown off allegiance to the 
 parent state. After adverting to the so called 
 doctrine of the " balance of power," which then 
 so largely entered into the diplomacy of Euro-
 
 6 THE MONROE >OCTRINE. 
 
 pean States, he said : " The balance of power 
 between them, into whichever scale it may turn 
 in its various vibrations, cannot affect us. It 
 is the interest of the United States to preserve 
 the most friendly relations with every power, 
 und on conditions fair, equal, and applicable to 
 nil. But in regard to our neighbors our situa- 
 tion is different. It is impossible for European 
 governments to interfere in their concerns, 
 especially in those alluded to, which are vital, 
 without affecting us ; indeed, the motive which 
 might induce such interference in the present 
 state of the war between the parties, if a war 
 it may be called, would appear to be equally 
 applicable to us. It is gratifying to know that 
 some of the powers with whom we enjoy a very 
 friendly intercourse, and to whom these views 
 have been communicated, have appeared to 
 acquiesce in them." 
 
 I have quoted at length from the President's 
 messages, for the purpose of making as clear 
 as possible their scope and object. For nearly 
 three quarters of a century, in the United States, 
 public policy and political action, have on occa- 
 sions appealed to the "Monroe Doctrine" for 
 support and vindication. The message of Pre- 
 sident Cleveland to the Senate of the United 
 States on December 17, 1895, concerning the 
 Venezuelan boundary controversy, has revived
 
 THK MIINKOE DOCTRINK. I 
 
 the inquiry as to what the doctrine really is, 
 ami by whom originally conceived and formu- 
 lated. President Cleveland appeals to tin- 
 authority of the doctrine a> a justification for 
 the United States to intervene, even to the 
 extent of armed force, in a dispute between 
 (Jivat Britain and Venezuela as to the true 
 dividing line between the territories of these 
 nations. The letter of Mr. Olney, the Secretary 
 of State, to tin- American ambassador at Lon- 
 don a copy of which accompanied the Presi- 
 dent's me-.-agt puts forward claims alleged 
 to be founded on this doctrine, which, I venture 
 to think, would startle President Monroe were 
 he alive to read them. To understand intelli- 
 gently what the doctrine really is, we must 
 remember the historical circumstances which 
 called it forth, and the origin and source of its 
 inspiration. Xo public utterance of any public 
 man has received more diverse interpretation, 
 or has been more misunderstood by even the 
 majority of the people of the United States, 
 than President Monroe's message of 1823. It 
 will be noticed three subjects are dwelt upon 
 in the message: (1) No further colonization on 
 the part of a Kuropean power: (2) no exten- 
 sion of the political system of the Allied Powers 
 to the American continents; and (3) no inter- 
 vention on the part of a European power in
 
 8 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 favor of Spain against the South American 
 Republics. The first and second will be re- 
 served for consideration at the close of this 
 paper; the third will be first considered. As 
 to the general subject, I shall endeavor to 
 prove three things in the course of the discus- 
 sion : (1) That the doctrine itself, as enunciated 
 and understood by President Monroe and his 
 Cabinet, owes its origin to British statesman- 
 ship, to the sagacity and enlightened policy of 
 George Canning; (2) that it has never received 
 the formal sanction of the Congress of the 
 United States ; and (3) that it is not a part of 
 international law, binding upon the family of 
 nations. To understand the political events 
 of 1823, we must go back a few years in 
 European history. The fury of the French 
 revolution had spent itself, and the military 
 despotism of the great Xapoleon had succeeded 
 the unbridled license of the French democracy. 
 Xapoleon's soaring ambition urged him forward 
 to the attainment of universal sovereignty. In 
 the attempted accomplishment of that object, 
 the thrones of Europe tottered, their occupants 
 were expelled, and the vacancies filled by suc- 
 cessful generals or relatives of the great con- 
 queror. His career of blood and conquest was 
 stopped by the defeat of Waterloo, and fugitive 
 rulers were thereby restored to their ancestral
 
 TIIK MnMinK DOCTRINE. 9 
 
 crowns. The events, however, which had hap- 
 pened during Napoleon's career made a pro- 
 found impression upon the crowned heads of 
 Europe. The impression was so great, that the 
 rulers of Continental Europe handed themselves ' 
 her as the "Holy Alliance," for mutual 
 support in the maintenance of absolute govern- 
 ment. From the eventful issue of Waterloo 
 till the deliver}' of President Monroe's message 
 in 1823, the great powers of Europe had held 
 at least five Congresses for settling European 
 affairs: that of Vienna in 1815; Aix-la-Chapelle 
 in 1818; Troppau in 1820; Laybach in 1821; 
 and Verona in 1822. Successive coalitions ot 
 the invat Kuropean powers had previously been 
 formed against France subsequent to the latter"- 
 revolution of 1789. The avowed object of the-e 
 coalitions was to check the progress of revolu- 
 tionary principles and practices, and to curb 
 the extension of her military power. The 
 great powers at first composing the coalition 
 were l(n.ia. Prussia, Austria and Great Bri- 
 tain. Kraii.-e gave in her adhesion and became 
 a party at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 
 1818. As stated by Mr. Wheat. .IK' the distin- 
 guished author of International law, "this union 
 was intended to form a perpetual system of inter- 
 vention among the Kuropean States, adapted t<> 
 1 Wlieaton's Int. I-aw (by Lawrence), p. 120.
 
 10 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 prevent any such change in the internal forms 
 of their respective governments, as might en- 
 danger the existence of the monarchical insti- 
 tutions which had been re-established under the 
 legitimate dynasties of their respective reign- 
 ing houses. This general right of interference 
 was sometimes defined so as to be applicable 
 to every case of popular revolution, where the 
 change in the form of government did not 
 proceed from the voluntary concession of the 
 reigning sovereign, or was not confirmed by 
 his sanction, given under such circumstances- 
 as to remove all doubt of his having freely 
 consented. At other times, it was extended 
 to every revolutionary movement pronounced 
 by these powers to endanger, in its conse- 
 quences, immediate or remote, the social order 
 of Europe, or the particular safety of neighbor- 
 ing States." Daniel Webster, in the House of 
 Representatives in January, 1824, on moving 
 his resolution respecting the revolution then 
 existing in Greece, well summarized the aim 
 of the Holy Alliance when he declared 1 : "The 
 end and scope of this amalgamated policy are 
 neither more nor less than this : to interfere, 
 by force, for any government against any peo- 
 ple who may resist it. Be the state of the people 
 what it may, they shall not rise; be the gov- 
 
 1 Webster's Great Speeches by Whipple, p. 65. .
 
 THE .MHNKOK nm THINK. 11 
 
 eminent wluit it will, it shall not be opposed." 
 Tin- Neapolitan ivvolution in 1820 so pivcipi- 
 tated a Hairs tliat <livat Britain was forced to 
 dissent from the principles propounded hy the 
 Holy Alliance. It could not well be otherwise. 
 A country governed by constitutional forms 
 and methods, -rained after many years and 
 centuries of conflict, could not well afford to 
 subordinate those conditions to the dangerous 
 principles of absolute monarchy. Indeed, if 
 the government of Great Britain had been 
 willing to do so, the people behind the govern- 
 ment would have refused. And any attempt 
 arbitrarily to commit the nation to such a 
 policy, in defiance of public opinion, would have 
 eaused a revolution. The armies of Austria, 
 with unsparing hand, put down the revolution 
 in Naples, and restored the legitimate ruler. 
 The wishes of the people, the aspirations of 
 the country to obtain constitutional govern- 
 ment, met with no sympathy at the hands of 
 absolutism. In order to perpetuate absolutism, 
 and to destroy efforts for freedom for all time 
 throughout the world, Russia, 1'rns-ia and 
 Austria, at Laybach in 1821, formulated their 
 policy, and i>siied their circular to the nations, 
 in which were set forth the principles upon 
 which they were prepared to act. 
 
 The revolutions in Naples and Piedmont
 
 12 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 were occasions for giving practical eftect to 
 the principles of the allied powers. Both of 
 these revolutions had been put down by for- 
 eign bayonets, and confessedly in opposition to 
 the popular will. The circular declared that 
 " the allied sovereigns could not fail to perceive 
 that there was only one barrier to offer to 
 this devastating torrent. To preserve what is 
 legally established such, as it ought to be, 
 is the invariable principle of their policy. Use- 
 ful or necessary changes in legislation and in 
 the administration of States ought only to 
 emanate from the free will and the intelligent 
 and well-weighed conviction of those whom 
 God has rendered responsible for power." 
 This declaration disclosed in all its nakedness 
 the object of absolutism in the formation of 
 the Holy Alliance. The people of any nation 
 were not to have, and under the correct inter- 
 pretation of such a declaration, could never 
 have any right to reform abuses in govern- 
 ment, either in organization or administration. 
 Any concession granted must come spontane- 
 ously, as a matter of grace, from " those whom 
 God has rendered responsible for power." This 
 doctrine would grate very harshly on the ears 
 of the British people. Mr. "Walpole, in his 
 History, 1 has well said: "The United Kingdom 
 1 Vol. 3, p. 25.
 
 THE .MHMKIE DOCTRIM:. 13 
 
 wa- tin.- last country in Europe which would 
 have consented to recognize the novel doctrine. 
 Its whole history, from the days of the (in at 
 Charter to the defeat of the government <m 
 the reform of the criminal laws, had heen one 
 eloquent protest against it/' In fact the people 
 of Great Britain took much stronger ground 
 than the government of the day. Great fault 
 was found hecause British representatives had 
 taken part in the proceedings, both atTroppau 
 and at Laybaeh. British public opinion in- 
 sisted that the allied sovereigns had no right 
 to interfere in the internal affairs of an inde- 
 pendent and friendly nation. The Briti-h 
 government, through Lord Castlereagh, in 
 .Ian nary, 1821, issued a circular note protest- 
 ing against the principles of action laid down 
 "as such as could not be safely admitted a> a 
 system of international law." The declaration 
 of the allied sovereigns that "'useful or neces- 
 sary changes in legislation and in the adminis- 
 tration of States ought only to emanate from 
 the free will and the intelligent and well- 
 weighed conviction of those whom God had 
 n-ndeivd responsible for power," necessarily 
 could not tind acceptance in (Jreat Britain. 
 It was directly antagonistic to every principle 
 of our constitutional system. Its adoption 
 would ignore tin- M niggles and triumphs in
 
 14 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 the motherland on behalf of freedom of gov- 
 ernment. It would turn backward the dial of 
 popular progress, and rehabilitate the exploded 
 dogmas of the divine rights of kings, and the 
 absolute servility of the nation to the crown. 
 The Great Charter, the Petition of Rights, and 
 the Bill of Rights, would have existed only as 
 idle traditions, and not as living, moulding 
 forces in our system of government. The 
 British government, therefore, had no other 
 course but to protest against the asserted right 
 of one nation to interfere by force in the inter- 
 nal concerns of another nation simply because 
 that other might desire to effect changes of 
 government not in accordance with the prin- 
 ciples of absolutism. Naples and Piedmont 
 sought to shake oft' tyrannical rule, and to 
 introduce popular reforms. But under the 
 sanction of the allied sovereigns, and in ac- 
 cordance with the principles laid down, the 
 aspirations of these peoples were crushed by 
 Austrian bayonets. Webster, in the speech 
 from which I have just quoted, has, with great 
 force, said : " This asserted right of forcible 
 intervention in the aifairs of other nations is in 
 open violation of the public law of the world. 
 Who has authorized these learned doctors ot 
 Troppau to establish new articles in this code ? 
 Whence are their diplomas? Is the whole
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 1 "> 
 
 world expected to aeqiiiesee ill principles whieh 
 entirely .-ubvert the independence of nations? 
 On tin- basis of this independence has been 
 iv:iiv<l the beautiful fabric of international law. 
 On the principle of this independence Europe 
 has seen a family of nations flourishing within 
 its limits, the small among the large, protected 
 not always by power, l>ut hy a principle above 
 power, hy a sense of propriety and justice. On 
 this principle the great commonwealth of c-ivi- 
 li/.ed states has been hitherto upheld." But 
 " these learned doctors of Troppau," to wit, 
 the allied sovereigns, had determined to dis- 
 _anl the first principles of international law. 
 and to enforce obedience to absolutism in the 
 government of nations. The application of 
 their circular was not to be confined to Naples 
 and Piedmont. Spain had given evidence of 
 a desire for larger liberty, and freer constitu- 
 tional methods of government. An insurrec- 
 tion had broken out in Spain in 1821; and in 
 response to 'the popular wish a constitution, 
 fairly liberal in its terms, had been assented to 
 by King Ferdinand. The Holy Alliance saw 
 in this movement a menace to their system. 
 The Congress of Verona was convened in 
 October, 1822, and it was there arranged by 
 Russia, Austria, Prussia and France that tin- 
 latter nation should invade Spain, with the
 
 16 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 avowed object of overthrowing the constitu- 
 tion, and of restoring Ferdinand to the position 
 of an absolute king. The Duke of Wellington 
 represented Great Britain at the Congress of 
 Verona, but he refused to be a party to any 
 such undertaking, and protested on behalf of 
 Great Britain against the introduction of such 
 a principle in the international code. The 
 representative of a nation whose cardinal prin- 
 ciples of government are that the people are 
 the origin of power, and that the object of all 
 government is the good of the governed, could 
 not well subscribe to the doctrines set forth in 
 the circular of the Holy Alliance. At this 
 time Mr. Canning was Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs. In accordance with the under- 
 standing at Verona, a French army soon after 
 invaded Spain, overthrew the constitution, and 
 restored absolutism. The well known pub- 
 licist 1 from whom I have already quoted, in 
 respect of this transaction, says: "The British 
 government disclaimed for itself,' and denied 
 to other powers, the right of requiring any 
 changes in the internal institutions of inde- 
 pendent States, with the menace of hostile 
 attack in case of refusal. It did not consider 
 the Spanish revolution as affording a case of 
 that direct and imminent danger to the safety 
 
 1 Wheaton's Inter. Law, p. 122.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 17 
 
 ;in<l interests of other States, \vhidi 
 justitv a toreihle interference. The original 
 alliance between Great Britain and the other 
 principal Kuropean powers was specifically 
 downed for the reconquest and liberation of 
 the Kui-opean continent from the military do- 
 minion of France; and having subverted that 
 dominion, it took the state of possession, as 
 established by the peace, under the joint pro- 
 tection of the alliance. It never was, however, 
 intended as an union for the government of 
 the world, or for the superintendence of the 
 internal affairs of other States. No proof had 
 been produced to the British government of 
 any design, on the part of Spain, to invade the 
 territory of France ; of any attempt to intro- 
 duce disaffection among her soldiery; or of 
 any project to undermine her political institu- 
 tions; and, so long as the struggles and dis- 
 turbances in Spain should be confined within 
 the circle of her own territory, they could not 
 be admitted by the British government to 
 afford any plea for foreign interference. If 
 the end of the last and the beginning of the 
 present century saw all Europe combined 
 against France, it was not on account of the 
 internal changes which France thought neee>- 
 sary for her own political and civil reforma- 
 tion ; but because she attempted to propagate, 
 B
 
 18 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 first her principles, and afterwards, her domin- 
 ion, by the sword." While Great Britain 
 protested against the declaration of the Con- 
 gress of Verona, yet she did not offer any 
 resistance by force of arms to the invasion of 
 Spain by the armies of France. She protested 
 against the principle involved in the act, and 
 rested contented with that. About this time, 
 a further question was beginning to disturb 
 the diplomatic firmament. For some time 
 previously to the Congress of Verona, Spain 
 bad lost her grip on her South American colo- 
 nies. In fact, these colonies had revolted, and 
 had thrown off allegiance to the parent state. 
 The United States had sympathized with them 
 in their efforts for self-government, and, at an 
 early period in their struggle for freedom, had 
 recognized their independence. Mr. Rush, at 
 the time, was Minister from the United States 
 to the Court at London. Twenty years after 
 his return home from his diplomatic mission 
 he published the second volume of his " Resi- 
 dence at the Court at London." His term as 
 minister extended from the years 1817 to 1825, 
 and in this interesting volume he has given us 
 valuable and authentic information as to the 
 part played by Mr. Canning in the relations 
 and negotiations of Great Britain with foreign 
 powers. Happily, Mr. Rush details at length
 
 THE MnNK'tK DOCTRINK. 1 ! 
 
 the confidential conversations and correspond- 
 ence which took place between himself and 
 Mr. Canning in respect of Spain and her re- 
 volted South American colonies. These com- 
 munications began as early as August, 1823, 
 and resulted at length in President- Monroe's 
 declaration as to non-intervention in his mes- 
 sage of December of that year. Under date 
 August 23, 1823, Mr. Rush, writing of a letter 
 received from Mr. Canning of the 20th of that 
 month, says 1 : "He asks if the moment has 
 not arrived when our two governments might 
 understand each other as to the Spanish Ame- 
 rican colonies ; and if so, whether it would 
 not be expedient for ourselves, and beneficial 
 for all the world, that our principles in regard 
 to them should be clearly settled and avowed. 
 That as to England she had no disguise on the 
 subject: 1. She conceived the recovery of the 
 colonies by Spain to be hopeless. 2. That 
 the question of their recognition as Inde- 
 pendent States was one of time and circum- 
 stances. 3. That England was not disposed, 
 however, to throw any impediment in the way 
 of an arrangement between the colonies and 
 the mother country, by amicable negotiation. 
 4. That she aimed at tin- possession of no 
 portion of the colonies for herself. 5. That 
 
 1 1 lush's Residence at the Court of London, p. 412.
 
 20 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 she could not see the transfer of any portion 
 of them to any other power with indifference." 
 The communication of Mr. Canning to Mr. 
 Rush was duly notified by the latter to the 
 then Secretary of State for the United States, 
 John Quihcy Adams, by letter of date August 
 23, 1823. The American Minister, on the 26th . 
 of the same month but three days later 
 notes in his diary a further communication 
 from the Foreign Secretary, in which the 
 latter says " that England had received notice, 
 though not such as imposed the necessity of 
 instant action, that as soon as the military ob- 
 jects in Spain w r ere achieved, which France 
 expected (how justly he could not determine) 
 to achieve very speedily, a proposal would be 
 made for a congress in Europe, or some other 
 concert, and consultation, specifically on the 
 affairs of Spanish America ; and he adds that 
 he need not point out to me the complications 
 to which such a proposal, however dealt with 
 by England, might lead." This was also for- 
 warded to Mr. Adams on the following day. 
 On September 10, Mr. Rush enters in his 
 diary: "Take steps to apprise the deputies of 
 Spanish America in London of the hostile 
 views of France and the continental powers, 
 should the arms of the former succeed in Spain. 
 I make no mention of Mr. Canning's name, or
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 21 
 
 any allnsion to it, as the source of my infor- 
 mation : which information, although it may 
 not be new to the deputies, I impart to put 
 them on their guard." Again, in a dispatch 
 from Mr. Rush to his government, of date 
 September 19, 1823, detailing what took place 
 at a conference between himself and Mr. Can- 
 ning the previous day, he writes that Mr. 
 Canning, in urging the co-operation of the 
 "Tinted States, said the question "was full as 
 iiim-li American as European, to say no more. 
 It concerned the United States under aspects 
 and interests as immediate and commanding 
 as it did or could any of the states of Europe. 
 They were the first power established on that 
 continent, and now confessedly the leading 
 power. They were connected with Spanish 
 America by their posilion, as with Europe by 
 their relations ; and they also stood connected 
 with these new states by political relations. 
 \V;i-; it possible they could see with indifference 
 their fate decided upon by Europe? Could 
 Europe expect this indifference ? Had not a 
 new epoch arrived in the relative position of 
 the United States towards Europe, which Eu- 
 rope must acknowledge ? Were the great po- 
 litical and commercial interests, which hung 
 upon the destinies of the new continent, to be 
 canvassed and adjusted in this hemisphere
 
 22 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 without the co-operation, or even knowledge, 
 of the United States ? Were they to be can- 
 vassed and adjusted, he would even add, with- 
 out some proper understanding between the 
 United States and Great Britain, as the two 
 chief commercial and maritime states of both 
 Avorlds? He hoped not; he would wish to 
 persuade himself not." Such, says Mr. Rush, 
 Avas the tenor of Mr. Canning's remarks at 
 that interview. It is evident England's For- 
 eign Secretary, all through the conversations 
 and correspondence, was endeavoring to im- 
 press upon the American Minister the urgent 
 importance of actively and vigorously co-oper- 
 ating with Great Britain against the aims of 
 the Holy Alliance in aiding Spain against 
 Spanish America. The correspondence also 
 shows that Mr. Rush was willing to act, but as 
 a condition precedent, he desired Great Britain 
 at once to acknowledge the independence of 
 the newly organized South American Repub- 
 lics. It is also quite evident from the subse- 
 quent course of events that Mr. Canning had 
 learned that it was the intention of France, 
 under the support and guidance of the allies, 
 after the overthrow of constitutional govern- 
 ment in Spain, and the restoration of Ferdinand 
 to his throne based on absolutism, to aid Spain 
 in subduing her revolted South American colo-
 
 mi: MONROE DOCTRIXK. 23 
 
 nies. Tliis knowledge it was which induced 
 Mr. Canning to stimulate the American Minis- 
 ter and his government on behalf of these rising 
 Republics. Canning addressed himself to the 
 French Ambassador, Prince de Polignac, and 
 frankly told him that in such a contingency 
 (Jreat iSritain would assuredly interfere. And 
 we know well what was the effect produced l>y 
 Canning's attitude. Mr. liush 1 frankly says: 
 That the change in France and her allies 
 was produced l>y the knowledge that England 
 would oppose at all hazards hostile plans upon 
 Spanish America may In- inferred with little 
 danger of error. The certainty of it is, indeed, 
 part of European history at that epoch." He 
 further says as to the course of the United 
 States : " By the early transmission of the pro- 
 posals made to me by Mr. Canning in his notes 
 of the latter end of August, the copies of 
 them, as well as of my reports of our confer- 
 ence on the whole subject, arrived at Wash- 
 ington in time to engage the deliberations of 
 President Monroe and his cabinet before the 
 meeting of Congress in December." He fur- 
 ther says, and this is highly significant : "Al- 
 though no joint movement took place, my 
 dispatches had distinctly put before our gov- 
 ernment the intentions of England, with which, 
 
 1 Residence at the Court of London, p. 456.
 
 24 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 in the main, our policy harmonized; and 
 President Monroe, in his opening message to 
 Congress, which followed almost immediately 
 afterwards, in December, 1823, put forth the 
 two following declarations." The two declara- 
 tions were (1) non-intervention, and (2) non- 
 colonization, which have already been stated 
 at length. Mr. Rush says the first was prob- 
 ably expected by England and was well re- 
 ceived; the second was unexpected, and not 
 acquiesced in by the British government. In 
 closing his narrative of this interesting diplo- 
 matic event, Mr. Rush further says: "It may 
 be inferred that the moral certainty which 
 England derived through my correspondence 
 and conferences with the Foreign Secretary 
 that the United States would, in the end, go 
 hand in hand with her in shielding those new 
 states from European domination, even had 
 the certainty of such a policy in the United 
 States not been otherwise declucible, must have 
 had its natural influence upon England in 
 strengthening her in her line of policy laid 
 down towards France and the Continental 
 Powers." 
 
 I have thought it advisable to quote exten- 
 sively from the man who, at the time, was 
 American Minister in London. We cannot 
 look for information in any direction more
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 25 
 
 authentic. Mr. Rush's statements fully justify 
 the contention that President Monroe's mes- 
 sage against non-interference, at that time, in 
 ^l-anish American affairs, was inspired by 
 ( 'aiming. And this has been the view of lead- 
 ing American statesmen, some of whom were 
 personally cognizant of the facts. When Presi- 
 dent Monroe received, through Mr. Rush, the 
 proposals of Canning, he communicated with 
 Jefferson and Madison, predecessors in his 
 high office. It was natural that he should seek 
 their advice. They both were men of marked 
 ability, and were well versed in diplomacy. 
 .Jetterson, in his letter of reply to the Presi- 
 dent, dated October 24, 1823, after discussing 
 the position of the allies and their attitude 
 towards the Spanish American colonies, says 1 : 
 "I should think it therefore advisable that the 
 executive should encourage the British gov- 
 ernment to a continuance in the dispositions 
 expressed in these letters by an assurance of 
 his concurrence with them as far as his au- 
 thority goes, and that as it may K ad to war, 
 tin- declaration of which requires an act of 
 Congress, the case should he laid before them 
 for consideration at their first meeting, and 
 
 1 Wharton's Dig. Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 269; Tucker's Life 
 of Jefferson, vol. 2, p. 461.
 
 26 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 under the reasonable aspect in which it is seen 
 by himself." We have in this reply advice 
 tendered to the President in October to concur 
 in the British proposals, and as following this 
 advice might mean war, the President is fur- 
 ther advised to lay the whole case before the 
 next meeting of Congress. The next meeting 
 of Congress was held within six weeks there- 
 after, and at that meeting the President's mes- 
 sage was delivered. Mr. Madison, in his reply, 
 dated October 30, 1823, among other things 
 said : " It cannot be doubted that Mr. Can- 
 ning's proposal, though made with the air of 
 consultation as well as concert, was founded on 
 a predetermination to take the course marked 
 out, whatever might be the reception given 
 here to his invitation. But this consideration 
 ought not to divert us from what is just and 
 proper in itself. Our co-operation is due to 
 ourselves and to the world, and while it must 
 insure success in the event of our appeal to 
 force, it doubles the chance of success with- 
 out that appeal." Co-operation with whom? 
 Why, assuredly with Great Britain, in accord- 
 ance with the proposals of Canning to Rush. 
 Xo other conclusion can be drawn from the 
 language of the correspondence. In a letter 
 from Jefferson to Madison, November 1, 1823, 
 the former, in giving a summary of his reply
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. -7 
 
 to the President, uses tliis language: 1 "I have 
 expressed to him my concurrence in the policy 
 of meeting the advances of the British gov- 
 ernment, having an eye to the forms of our 
 constitution in every step in the road to war. 
 With the British power and navy combined 
 with our own, we have nothing to fear from 
 the rest of the world, and in the great struggle 
 of the epoch between liberty and despotism, 
 we owe it to ourselves to sustain the former, in 
 this hemisphere at least. I have even sug- 
 gested an invitation to the British government 
 to join in applying tin- 'small effort for so inn<-h 
 good' to the Fi-cncli invasion of Spain, and to 
 make Greece an object of some such favorable 
 attention. Why Mr. Canning and his col- 
 leagues did not sooner interpose against the 
 calamity, which could not have escaped fore- 
 sight, cannot be otherwise explained but by 
 the difficult aspect of the question when it re- 
 lated to liberty in Spain and the extension of 
 British commerce to her former colonies." 
 Tin- suggestion of "meeting the advances of 
 the British government" on the part of tin- 
 United States, proves that the moving spirit 
 was the British government under the inspira- 
 tion and guidance of Canning, and that the 
 effort was to get the United States to concur 
 
 1 Wharton's Dig. Int. Law, vol. 1, p. 271.
 
 28 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 with Great Britain. Mr. Calhoun was a mem- 
 ber of President Monroe's cabinet in 1823, at 
 the time the message was framed and delivered. 
 His statements and opinions, therefore, as to 
 the origin of this so-called " Monroe Doctrine " 
 should necessarily have great weight. He 
 reviewed this whole subject at considerable 
 length in a speech i delivered in the United 
 States Senate in 1848, when the proposed oc- 
 cupation of Yucatan was under consideration. 
 Upon that occasion he said : " I remember the 
 reception of the dispatch from Mr. Rush as 
 distinctly as if all the circumstances had oc- 
 curred yesterday. I well recollect the great 
 satisfaction with which it was received by the 
 cabinet. It came late in the~year not long 
 before the meeting of Congress. As was usual 
 with Mr. Monroe upon great occasions, the 
 papers were sent round to each member of the 
 cabinet, so that each might be duly apprised of 
 all the circumstances, and be prepared to give 
 his opinion. The cabinet met. It deliberated. 
 There was long and careful consultation ; and 
 the result was the declaration which I have 
 just announced. All this has passed away. 
 That very movement on the part of England, 
 sustained by this declaration, gave a blow to 
 the celebrated alliance from which it never 
 1 Calhoun's Works, vol. 4, p. 454.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 29 
 
 recovered. From that time forward it gradually 
 decayed, till it utterly perished." In another 
 part of tin- sunn- speech 1 Mr. Calhoun, in de- 
 tailing the history of the transaction leading 
 up to the President's declaration, says that the 
 circumstances show distinctly that the pro- 
 posals " came through Mr. Utish originating 
 not with Mr. Adams but Mr. Canning and 
 were first presented in the form of a proposi- 
 tion from England." 
 
 Before I close I shall refer to Mr. Calhoun 's 
 statements respecting the clauses of the mes- 
 sage relating to non-colonization. What I have 
 quoted refers to non-intervention, and the non- 
 I'.xu-nsion of the political system of the allied 
 powers to the American continents. He says 
 the cabinet met and deliberated, and the result 
 of the deliberation was a determination to sup- 
 port England against the allied powers. Great 
 Britain, under Canning's guidance, had pro- 
 tested against the assumed right of one nation 
 to intervene in the internal affairs of another 
 nation, and to settle by force, if necessary, its 
 form of government. Mr. Calhoun states that 
 there was " long and careful consultation " over 
 the dispatch received from Mr. Rush. That 
 dispatch detailed Canning's proposals urging 
 the United States to stand by Great Britain in 
 > p. 462.
 
 30 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 resisting the reactionary and autocratic prin- 
 ciples of the allied powers. Mr. Calhoun was 
 in a position to know fully the facts whereof 
 he affirmed. He was a prominent member ot 
 the cabinet at the time of the " careful consul- 
 tation" over Mr. Rush's dispatch. His testi- 
 mony is that of a witness in a position to speak 
 with certainty of knowledge. The conclusion 
 reached was to support England in her move- 
 ment. The President's declaration contained 
 in his message was the result of that conclu- 
 sion. Here, then, we have the unanswerable 
 proof that the declaration of -Mr. Monroe was 
 inspired by Cunning. 
 
 But there are other names distinguished in 
 American public life who support the position 
 of Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Sumner, 1 in one of his 
 books, says : " The Monroe Doctrine, as now 
 familiarly called, proceeded from Canning. He 
 was its inventor, promoter, and champion, at 
 least so far as it bears against European inter- 
 vention in American aifairs." And on another 
 page of the same work he says : "At last, after 
 much discussion in the cabinet at Washington, 
 President Monroe, accepting the lead of Mr. 
 Canning, and with the consent of John Quincy 
 Adams, put forth his famous declaration." 
 Mr. Sumner is no mean authority on such a 
 
 1 Prophetic Voices Concerning America, p. 157.
 
 TUB MONKOE DOCTRINK. 31 
 
 subject as the one now under discussion. lli- 
 scholarly attaiimiriits were of the highest rank : 
 his means of knowledge were ample ; and his 
 jealous watchfulness for his country's credit 
 would keep him from making any such admis- 
 sions unless fully warranted by the facts. He 
 was noted for liom-sty and fearlessness in the 
 expression of his opinions. In the extracts 
 quoted he gives credit to Canning as the pro- 
 moter of the doctrine, and asserts that the 
 President's declaration followed the lead of 
 Great Britain's Foreign Secretary. To the 
 list of distinguished Americans, already given, 
 a Bribing the parentage of this doctrine to 
 Canning, may be added the names of such 
 noted publicists as President Woolsey, Prof. 
 Woolsey, Von Hoist, and others. If we turn 
 to writers of our own country, many promi- 
 nent ones can be named who support the same 
 view. The name of Dr. Philliniore stands so 
 deservedly high as a jurist and publicist that I 
 feel it important to give a short extract from 
 his great work on International Law. 1 After 
 referring to the reasons which brought about 
 the formation of the Holy Alliance, and the 
 intervention in the affairs of Spain to crush 
 tree government and restore absolutism in that 
 country, he says : " Subsequently, under the 
 
 1 Vol. 1, 3 ed., p. 589.
 
 32 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 wise and vigorous administration of Mr. Can- 
 ning, Great Britain protested against any in- 
 tervention of the European powers in the 
 contest between Spain and her American colo- 
 nies, declaring that she would consider any 
 such intervention by force or menace as a rea- 
 son for recognizing the latter without delay, 
 and at the same time the United States of 
 America announced that they would consider 
 any such interference as an unfriendly mani- 
 festation towards themselves." A perusal of 
 Stapleton's Life of Canning will fully bear out 
 what I have already claimed for the British 
 statesman. Mr, Stapleton was private secre- 
 tary to Canning, and was in a position to speak 
 with a degree of certainty. He asserts that 
 while there was no agreement between the two 
 countries, 1 yet it is impossible not to believe 
 but that the correspondence which passed be- 
 tween Mr. Canning and Mr. Rush, mainly 
 encouraged, if it did not originate to the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, the idea of tak- 
 ing so firm and decisive a tone. He further 
 declares that the language of the President's 
 message was * " in a very great degree, if not 
 wholly, the result of Mr. Canning's overture 
 to Rush." Mr. Canning, in a private letter, 
 
 1 Stapleton's Life of Canning, vol. 2, p. 39. 
 3 p. 46.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINi:. 33 
 
 December 21, 1823, to Sir AVilliani a Court, 
 who was then British minister to Spain. <!- 
 clarecl his belief that Mr. Rush's report to 
 his government of the correspondence and con- 
 ferences between them " had a great share in 
 producing tin- explicit declaration of the l'iv-i- 
 dent." * And again, in 1826, when Mr. Canning 
 defended his foreign policy, his proud boast 
 was : " I resolved that if France had Spain, it 
 should not be Spain ' with the Indies.' I ml led 
 the new world into existence to redress the 
 balance of the old." 2 Sir James Mackintosh 
 is also authority for the statement that " the 
 message was influenced by our communica- 
 tions." 
 
 I do not deem it necessary further to mul- 
 tiply proofs that this doctrine put forth by 
 President Monroe in 1823, against foreign in- 
 tervention, emanated from Mr. Canning, and 
 through his influence was adopted by the gov- 
 ernment of the United States. The proofs 
 given in the preceding pages fully warrant 
 the statement as to Canning's guiding hand. 
 Closely connected with this branch of our sub- 
 ject is a prevalent but erroneous opinion that 
 the doctrine in some way is hostile to all forms 
 of monarchical government on these continents. 
 
 1 Wharton's Int. Law Dig., vol. 1, p. 272. 
 1 Stapleton's Life of Canning, vol. 2, p. 39. 
 C
 
 34 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 The notion obtains largely that the underlying 
 principle of the declaration is that all forms of 
 monarchical government must be swept from 
 these American continents, and that none but 
 republican forms of government are to be 
 tolerated. That is the popular view both in 
 the United States and in some other quarters. 
 But the declaration, and the circumstances of 
 its announcement, do not warrant any such 
 conclusion. The declaration against non-inter- 
 ference only goes to the extent of protesting 
 against a foreign power imposing any form of 
 government upon another country against its 
 will. So far as the declaration goes, any coun- 
 try is at liberty freely to adopt either a repub- 
 lican or monarchical form of government. The 
 opinions of American statesmen and the facts 
 of history amply sustain this view. Dr. Whar- 
 ton 1 quotes Mr. Seward's correspondence, as 
 Secretary of State, respecting Mexico, to show 
 that all countries should be free to adopt their 
 own form of government. That correspond- 
 ence covers a period from 1862 to 1866. Mr. 
 Seward says : " It has sometimes been assumed 
 that the Monroe Doctrine contained some de- 
 claration against any other than democratic- 
 republican institutions on this continent, how- 
 ever arising or introduced. The message will 
 
 1 Wharton's Int. Law Dig., vol. 1, p. 277.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 35 
 
 be searched in vain for anything of the kind. 
 We were first to recogni/e the imperial au- 
 thority of Dom Pedro in Brazil, and of Iturbide 
 in Mexico; and more than half the northern 
 continent was under the sceptres of Great 
 Britain and Russia; and these dependencies 
 would certainly he free to adopt what institu- 
 tions they pleased, in case of successful rebel- 
 lion, or of peaceful separation from their parent 
 states." Here we have the statement of a 
 Secretary of State, and a very prominent one 
 indeed, that the introduction of republican gov- 
 ernment into American nations is not what was 
 claimed or aimed at by Mr. Monroe, hut entire 
 freedom for every country to choose its own 
 form of government. It is well known that 
 Mr. Seward had strong continental proclivi- 
 ties. Alaska was acquired from Russia chiefly 
 through his instrumentality. It may be he 
 had dreams of the time when the flag of the 
 United States might wave in undisputed sove- 
 reignty from ocean to ocean, and from the (Inlf 
 of Mexico to the North Pole. But he found 
 nothing in the doctrine hostile to the continu- 
 ance of Russian and British occupation of a 
 part of the North American continent. If 
 Canada, by peaceful negotiation or successful 
 revolt, separated from the mother country, and 
 sought to erect a monarchical form of govern-
 
 36 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 ment, there is nothing in Mr. Monroe's message 
 antagonistic to such a course. Doing so could 
 in no sense be considered by our neighbors to 
 the south of us an act hostile to them, or to any 
 policy outlined in the message. And yet by 
 many it is thought that this doctrine has com- 
 mitted the United States to the policy of driv- 
 ing monarchical institutions from these conti- 
 nents, and of substituting republican forms of 
 government instead. This is a popular delu- 
 sion, and ought not to exist. 
 
 It will now be convenient to discuss that 
 portion of the President's message relating to 
 non-colonization. It is declared " as a prin- 
 ciple in which the rights and interests of the 
 United States are involved, that the American 
 continents, by the free and independent con- 
 dition which they have assumed and maintain, 
 are henceforth not to be considered as sub- 
 jects for future colonization by any European 
 power." This part of the message was in- 
 tended to meet a difficulty then pending res- 
 pecting the North-west boundary. Russia, 
 Great Britain and the United States were the 
 nations aifected. And in this connection we 
 must not forget that the condition of the con- 
 tinent at the time was far different from what 
 it is at present. Knowledge of its geography 
 was comparatively limited. Th great trans-con-
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 37 
 
 tinental highways had not even been dreamed 
 about. The means of rapid transit and ready 
 interchange ot communication were all un- 
 known. The governments of these nations, 
 possibly, had, in many cases, no definite know- 
 ledge as to the exact location of the settlements 
 of their people. The paternity of this part of 
 the message belongs to John Quincy Adams. 
 It was never assented to by England, and has 
 received sharp criticism at the hands of leading 
 American statesmen. An American writer ' in 
 the North American Review for April, 1856, 
 s;iys : " We shall endeavor to prove that this 
 doctrine of non-colonization has been greatly 
 ini-<-onceived, and therefore perverted from its 
 original meaning, and lastly that even in its 
 authentic form, it Las been not only tacitly 
 rejected, but expressly repudiated by the action 
 of Congress." At this time there was a pend- 
 ing controversv between Russia and the United 
 
 v 
 
 States as to their possessions in America. This 
 controversy, as already stated, was generally 
 known as the Xorth-west boundary dispute. 
 The Russian Kniporor, in September, 1821, 
 issued an ukase asserting an exclusive terri- 
 torial right in Russia to the north-west coast of 
 
 1 82 North Am. Rev., p. 494 ; Wharton's Int. Law Dig., 
 vol. 1, p. 283.
 
 38 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 America. The extent claimed was 1 " from the 
 northern extremity of the continent to latitude 
 51. And by the third article of a convention 
 between the United States and Great Britain, 
 it had been agreed that the question of pro- 
 prietary right in any country that may be 
 claimed by either party on the north-west coast 
 of America, westward of the stony mountains/' 
 should remain in abeyance for ten years with- 
 out prejudice to the rights of either party. 
 The United States were endeavoring to claim r 
 under treaty with Spain in 1819, the rights 
 that country had pretended to have in respect 
 of the original discovery of America. This 
 position was denied by Great Britain, but the 
 latter country joined \vith the United States 
 in resisting the claims of Russia. It was in 
 consequence of this state of affairs that Mr, 
 Adams, then Secretary of State, instructed Mr. 
 Rush at London 2 "that the American conti- 
 nents hereafter will no longer be subject to- 
 colonization. Occupied by civilized nations,, 
 they will be accessible to Europeans and each 
 other on that footing alone; and the Pacific 
 ocean, in every part of it, will remain open to- 
 the navigation of all nations in like manner 
 
 1 82 North Am. Rev., p. 495 ; see also Wheaton's Int. Law 
 (by Lawrence), p. 307. 
 
 2 Tucker's The Monroe Doctrine, p. 12.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 3 
 
 \vitli the Atlantic/' Mr. Lawrence distinctly 
 -;i\ -, in his note to Wheaton, that the part ot 
 the message as to non-coloni/ation was made 
 with reference to the discussion then pend- 
 ing with Russia as to the north-west coast of 
 America. 1 The Russian Kmperor claimed not 
 only territorial right in the limits above set 
 forth, but claimed a right to prohibit the navi- 
 gation and fishing of all other nations therein. 
 This branch of the message as to non-coloni/a- 
 tion could not mean that Great Britain was to 
 hold no colonies thereafter on this continent. 
 It surely was not intended a.s a notice to quit. 
 Sudi a declaration as that by the United States 
 to Great Britain would have been tantamount 
 to a declaration of war. As to this phase of 
 the question, Mr. Rush* writes in his diary 
 under date January 2, 1824: "Had an inter- 
 view with Mr. Canning at Gloucester Lodge, 
 at his request. His attack of gout had passed 
 oft'. Tin- interview was mainly to confer on 
 the subject of the north-west coast. He ob- 
 jected strongly to our claim going as high 
 north as fifty-one, and hoped we would not 
 ill-ire it. He said -that it was to the toilth of 
 this line that Britain had her dispute with 
 
 1 Wlieaton's Int. Law (by Lawrence), p. 124, note. See 
 also Wharton's Int. Law Dig., vol. 1, p. 287. 
 * Residence at the Court of London, p. 470.
 
 40 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 Spain ' about Nootka Sound. How, there- 
 fore, could she now yield this point to the 
 United States ? It was a question too import- 
 ant for her to give up. He again hoped we 
 would not urge it." Mr. Rush then goes on to 
 say that the President's message had arrived 
 in London, and that Mr. Canning referred to 
 the statement that the United States would 
 "henceforth object to any of the powers of 
 Europe establishing colonies on either of the 
 continents of America," and desired to know 
 if he had any instructions. Mr. Canning said : 
 " Suppose, for example, that Captain Parry's 
 expedition had ended, or that any new British 
 expedition were to end in the discovery of land 
 proximate to either part of the American con- 
 tinent, north or south, would the United States 
 object to Britain planting a colony there ? " 
 The interviews and correspondence show clear- 
 ly that Great Britain, on all occasions, has 
 declined to be bound by any such interpreta- 
 tion of this clause of the message. 
 
 When Mr. Adams became President, and 
 sent a message to the Senate in 1825 as to the 
 appointment of ministers plenipotentiaries for 
 the Panama congress, he sought to explain the 
 meaning of the language of his predecessor in 
 1823. This is important, when it is borne in 
 mind that Mr. Adams, in 1823, was Secretary
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 41 
 
 of State, and was the author of the non-coloni- 
 zation clause in Mr. Monroe's message. I 
 quote his language 1 : "An agreement between 
 all the parties represented at the meeting that 
 each will guard, by its own means, against the 
 establishment of any future European colony 
 within its borders, may be found advisable. 
 This was more than two years since announced 
 by my predecessor to the world as a principle 
 ivsulting from the emancipation of both the 
 American*, continents." There was to be no 
 confederacy to enforce these opinions, but each 
 was to guard by its own means against any 
 future colonization by a European government. 
 The same explanation, 2 a few months later, 
 was given by Mr. Adams by special message 
 to the House of Representatives. It was not 
 intruded in any way to affect existing Euro- 
 pean colonies. But it was intended to prevent 
 the establishment of a colony in any possession, 
 as it might injure the United States in the en- 
 joyment of commercial intercourse with every 
 part <>t' that possession. At this time it is diffi- 
 cult to understand how any such dispute could 
 arise. It would be a violation of the first prin- 
 ciples of independent sovereignty for one nation 
 to interfere by way of colonization within the 
 
 1 Tucker's The Monroe Doctrine, p. 27. 
 1 Wharton's Int. Law Dig., vol. 1, p. 279.
 
 42 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 territorial limits of another. Mr. Monroe's 
 declaration was intended to suit a special case, 
 the extravagant pretentious of Russia as to the 
 north-west coast and the adjacent waters. It 
 did not touch Great Britain under the inter- 
 pretation, that it was only to apply to future 
 colonization, for she was a colonizer in posses- 
 sion. Again, in 1845 and 1848, President 
 Polk, in his messages of those years, gave sub- 
 stantially the same interpretation to the non- 
 colonization clause. He limited it to future 
 colonization on the part of a European state. 
 He explained 1 that the existing rights of every 
 European nation had to be respected, that the 
 message did not apply to such cases. And 
 Mr. Clay concurred in this view, for he stated 2 
 that "it was not proposed by that principle to 
 disturb pre-existing European colonies already 
 established in America; the principle looked 
 forward, not backward." This fact is also 
 brought out with great force and prominence 
 by Mr. Calhoun 3 in the speech from which I 
 have already quoted. 
 
 I feel it due to the importance of this branch 
 of the subject, so generally misunderstood, to 
 refer at length to Mr. Calhoun's statements, 
 
 1 Jenkins' Life of Polk, p. 184. 
 
 2 Wharton's Int. Law Dig., vol. 1, p. 280. 
 'Calhoun's Works, vol. 4, p. 460.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 43 
 
 although at the risk of being considered un- 
 necessarily prolix in quotation. He says : " The 
 word 'eolonixation' has a specific meaning. 
 It means the establishment of a settlement of 
 emigrants from the parent country in a terri- 
 tory either uninhabited or from which the 
 inhabitants have been partially or wholly ex- 
 pelled. This is not a case of that character. 
 But here it may be proper, in order to under- 
 stand the force of my argument, to go into a 
 history also of the declaration of Mr. Monroe. 
 It grew out of circumstances altogether differ- 
 rnt from the other two. At that time there 
 was a <|uestion between Great Britain and the 
 United States on the one side, and Russia on 
 the other. All three claimed settlements on 
 the north-west portion of this continent. Great 
 I>ritain and ourselves having common interests 
 in keeping Russia as far north as possible, the 
 former power applied to the United States for 
 co-operation; and it was in reference to that 
 matter that this additional declaration was 
 made. It was sail to be a proper opportunity 
 t> make it. It had reference specially to the 
 subject of the north-western settlement, and 
 the other portions of the continent were thrown 
 in, because all the rest of it, with tin- exception 
 of some settlements in Surinam, Maracaibo, 
 and thereabout, had passed into independent
 
 44 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 hands." Mr. Calhoun then goes on to say 1 
 that this part of the message originated with 
 Mr. Adams, and that it never came before the 
 cabinet for consideration. In this connection 
 he says : " My impression is, that it never be- 
 came a subject of deliberation in the cabinet. 
 I so stated when the Oregon question was be- 
 fore the Senate. I stated it in order that Mr. 
 Adams might have an opportunity of denying 
 it, or asserting the real state of the facts. He 
 remained silent, and I presume that rny state- 
 ment is correct that this declaration was in- 
 serted after the cabinet deliberation. It origi- 
 nated entirely with Mr. Adams, without being 
 submitted to the cabinet, and it is, in my opin- 
 ion, owing to this fact that it is not made with 
 the precision and clearness with which the 
 two former are. It declares, without qualifica- 
 tion, that these continents have asserted and 
 maintained their freedom and independence, 
 and are no longer subject to colonization by 
 any European power. This is not strictly accu- 
 rate. Taken as a whole, these continents had 
 not asserted and maintained their freedom and 
 independence. At that period Great Britain 
 had a larger portion of the continent in her 
 possession than the United States. Russia had 
 a considerable portion of it, and other powers 
 1 p. 462.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 45 
 
 i 1 >onie portions on tin- >outhern part.- 
 
 of this continent. The declaration was broader 
 than the fact, and r.'7-/7y//.v precipitancy and want 
 "f tine, reflection. Besides, there was an impro- 
 priety in it when viewed in conjunction with 
 the foregoing declarations. I speak not in the 
 language of censure. \Ve were, as to them, 
 acting in concert with England on a proposi- 
 tion coming from herself a proposition of the 
 utmost magnitude, and which we felt at the 
 time to be essentially connected with our peace 
 and safety; and of course it was due to pro- 
 priety a> \\ell as policy that this declaration 
 should be strictly in accordance with British 
 feeling." . . . "Xow I will venture to say 
 that if that declaration had come before that 
 cautious cabinet for Mr. Monroe was among 
 the wisest and most cautious men I have ever 
 known // n-mild have been modified, and ex- 
 pressed with a far greater degree of precision, and 
 with much more delicacy in reference to the 
 feelings of the British government." It must 
 not be forgotten that the man who uses this 
 language was a member of Mr. Monroe's cabi- 
 net in 1823. He declares that this part of the 
 message relating to non-colonization was never 
 even considered by the cabinet: that its author 
 was Mr. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary 
 of State; that the language lacks precision, is
 
 46 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 not in accordance with the then existing facts, 
 and is wanting in that diplomatic courtesy then 
 especially due to Great Britain. This is cer- 
 tainly strong language, and it becomes more 
 emphatic still when uttered by one who was a 
 cabinet minister in 1823, and who must have 
 spoken on the floors of the Senate fully feeling 
 the responsibility of his statements. I leave 
 this part of the subject with a quotation from 
 Justin McCarthy, 1 a writer of acknowledged 
 ability, much research, and judicial fairness. 
 Writing of the action of the United States 
 protesting against the intervention of Louis 
 Napoleon in the affairs of Mexico, he asserts 
 thut they " disclaimed any intention to prevent 
 the Mexican people from establishing an em- 
 pire if they thought fit, but they pointed out 
 that grave inconveniences must arise if a for- 
 eign power like France persisted in occupying 
 with her troops any part of the American con- 
 tinent. The Monroe Doctrine, which, by the 
 way, was the invention of George Canning and 
 not President Monroe, does not forbid the es- 
 tablishing of a monarchy on the American 
 continent, but only the intervention of a Euro- 
 pean power to set up such a system, or any 
 other system opposed to liberty there." This 
 view coincides with the statements I have 
 
 1 History of Our Own Times, vol. 2, p. 222.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 47 
 
 already made. And Mr. Sevvard, as we ha\v 
 een, officially supports the same view. This 
 naturally brings us to the consideration of the 
 second division of the subject of the message 
 no extension of the political system of tin- 
 allied powers to the American continent. Al- 
 though this part of our discussion is closely 
 idt-ntitied with the non-colonization clause, yet 
 there are features quite distinct. The " politi- 
 cal system " of the allied powers was based on 
 absolutism. The crowned heads composing 
 the Holy Alliance were the originators and 
 supporters of that system. Its basic principle 
 was, that reforms could only emanate from the 
 ruler, not from the people. And bound up in 
 that prinriple was an understanding or agree- 
 ment among the allied powers to interfere in 
 the affairs of every nation to repress any at- 
 tempt on the part of the people to modify or 
 change their system of government. That sys- 
 tem would justify the powers supporting it, to 
 aid Spain or any other country to crush the 
 aspirations of the people of any colonial de- 
 pendencies to become independent sovereign 
 states. And, as I have already pointed out, it 
 was tin- intention of the allied powers, as soon 
 as France, under their guidanee, had crushed 
 the popular movement in Spain, to take steps 
 to restore the latter's authority over tin- South
 
 48 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 American republics. This would be imposing 
 upon those countries by force a system they 
 did not want, arid which they could success- 
 fully resist against Spain single handed. Great 
 Britain protested against any such attempt on 
 the part of the allied powers, and President 
 Monroe, in his message, stood firmly by Eng- 
 land. The term "political system," as used 
 by President Monroe, was not intended by him 
 to mean any particular system or form of gov- 
 ernment. The message in this regard had no 
 reference to the substitution of republican fur 
 monarchical form of government. It was in- 
 tended to protest against the imposition of a 
 form of government upon a country forcibly, 
 by threat, by arms, against the wishes of the 
 people. Placing Maximilian upon the Mexi- 
 can throne, and keeping him there by French 
 bayonets, would be a case in point. If the 
 people of Mexico had voluntarily determined 
 their form of government, and had invited 
 Maximilian to be their emperor, there is noth- 
 ing in Mr. Monroe's message opposed to such 
 a course. The political system of the allied 
 powers, as understood and interpreted by them, 
 was a standing protest against the existence of 
 the United States as a nation. . That national 
 existence had been achieved by successful revo- 
 lution on the part of the people. They had
 
 T1IK .M"NK"K DOCTRINK. t'. 1 
 
 thrown off allegiance to their ruler, against his 
 will, and the system of the allied powers was 
 intended to prevent any each movement. That 
 
 -y-tem. under the direct sanction of the Kiiiaii 
 emperor, left the Greek, struggling for freedom 
 and independence, to the mercy of the ruthle-- 
 Turk. Well might all countries penetrated 
 with the love of freedom, and governed by 
 constitutional methods, oppose the introdue- 
 tion of such a " political system " into any part 
 it' the world. 
 
 The declarations of President Monroe's me 
 sage have never received the formal sanction 
 of the Congress of the United States. A decla- 
 ration in a Presidential message indicates the 
 policy of the executive branch for the time 
 being, but it has no binding force upon the 
 nation, or upon the future policy of the nation. 
 But it is possible to go further, and say that 
 the Congress of the United States has declined 
 to extend a formal sanction to these particular 
 portions of the me<>age. Mr. Clay, January 
 20, 1824, sought to obtain the sanction of Con- 
 ures>. He moved a resolution in the House of 
 Representatives, of which at the time hi- wa- 
 speaker, " That the people of these Mates would 
 not see, without serious iu|uictude. any forcible 
 interposition by the allied powers of Kurope. 
 in behalf of Spain, to reduce to their former 
 D
 
 50 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 subjection those parts of the continent of Ame- 
 rica which have proclaimed and established for 
 themselves, respectively, independent govern- 
 ments, and which have been solemnly recog- 
 nized by the United States." 1 This resolution 
 was not even called up for the vote of the 
 House of Representatives, and a somewhat 
 similar resolution of Mr. Poinsett, of South 
 Carolina, met the same fate. The prudent 
 caution of the House would not even commit 
 Congress to an expression of "serious inquie- 
 tude" against the forcible intervention of the 
 allies on behalf of Spain to reduce to subjec- 
 tion a South American republic whose inde- 
 pendence had been acknowledged by the United 
 States. "While, therefore, the 'Monroe Doc- 
 trine,' with regard to forcible intervention, was 
 still," as an American writer 2 has forcibly said, 
 " a living question, it failed to meet the sanction 
 of Congress, in whose judgment it seemed at 
 least prudent to delay the adoption of any 
 measures corroborative of the President's sug- 
 gestions until such intervention had actually 
 taken place. The declaration of the President 
 did not commit the policy of the country to 
 any specific action in the premises. It rested 
 with Congress to give it life and activity, and 
 
 1 Wharton's Int. Law Dig., vol. 1, p. 278. 
 
 2 82 North Am. Kev., 493.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. ~>\ 
 
 tlii> Congress declined to do. Upon the \si- 
 dom of this decision we do not undertake to 
 pronounce ; we merely state the facts for the 
 purpose of drawing the conclusion that this 
 branch of the 'Monroe Doctrine' is not a liv- 
 ing and substantive principle of our govern- 
 ment policy." The appointment of delegates 
 to the Panama Congress came up in 1826, and 
 a perusal of the history of that incident will 
 show that Congress was careful not to commit 
 itself to any formal sanction of the message of 
 In 184s, when Pre>ident Polk sought 
 to obtain such formal sanction in connection 
 with the ditliciilty in Yucatan, Mr. Calhoun, 
 speaking with all the authority of eertain know- 
 ledge as an ex-cabinet minister, declared that 
 Piv-ident Monroe's statements were but mere 
 declarations; that they did not represent the 
 settled policy of the country, and that in the 
 Panama case they were disavowed. Mr. 
 Tucker 1 admits that the doctrine has always 
 failed to secure legislative confirmation, and 
 that resolution after resolution upon the sub- 
 ject has been before h< th 1 (ranches of Congress, 
 only to be withdrawn or to be adversely re- 
 ported upon by the committee to whom intrust- 
 ed." And Mr. \Vilson, as late as ls.">i;, in a 
 
 1 The Monroe Doctrine, p. 123.
 
 52 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 speech 1 in the Senate, said: "Until the Senate 
 and House of Representatives adopt it, I think 
 the less our statesmen at home and diploma- 
 tists abroad say about it, in dealing with inter- 
 national questions, the better." Dr. Phillimore* 
 says : " I may observe, in passing, that the 
 doctrine contained in it, whatever that may 
 be, has not been corroborated by an act of the 
 legislature of the United States. But the doc- 
 trine does not, as has been sometimes supposed,, 
 deny the right of European countries to rule 
 their colonies in America, or their right of 
 further colonization in America. It protests 
 against war, being waged in America by Euro- 
 pean powers to preserve the equilibrium of 
 states in Europe." It may then, I think, be 
 considered that the Congress of the United 
 States has never given its formal sanction to 
 any of the declarations of the President's mes- 
 sage. Other authorities might be referred to, 
 to the same effect, were it necessary to do so. 
 Very early in the history of that country Wash- 
 ington advised against entering into any " en- 
 tangling alliances" with foreign countries, and 
 that policy has been quite faithfully followed 
 throughout the history of the great republic. 
 There was a departure in the case of the Clay- 
 
 1 Tucker's The Monroe Doctrine, p. 123. 
 
 2 Int. Law, 3 ed., vol. 1, p. 593.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. ">:5 
 
 ton-Bui we r treaty in 1850, arising out of the 
 proposed construction of the inter-oceanic canal 
 n< TOSS the isthmus; but that is an instance, it 
 is thought, standing alone. But even if Con- 
 gress had formally sanctioned the declarations 
 of the message, if it had enacted legislation con- 
 ti nning these declarations, that course would 
 not make them binding on any other nation as 
 a rule of international law. The statute law 
 of a country has force within its territorial 
 limits, but not beyond. 
 
 In this connection the question very natur- 
 ally arises, what is international law or the law 
 <>t' nations? For an answer to this question it 
 will be useful to ascertain how eminent writers 
 on this branch of knowledge have defined it. 
 Hooker 1 says: u Now, besides that la\v, which 
 Dimply concerneth men as men, and that which 
 belongeth unto them as they are men linked 
 with others in some form of political society, 
 there is a third kind of law which toucheth all 
 such several bodies politic, so far forth as one 
 <t them hath public commerce with another. 
 And this third is the law of nations" The 
 phrase "law of nations" is not a very happy 
 one, and is apt to be confused with the " law of 
 nature." Bentham, I believe, can claim the 
 Distinction of having first used the better phra-e 
 1 Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. 1, c. 10, 8. 12.
 
 54 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 "international law." 1 And yet that is not 
 scientifically correct, as the word law imports a. 
 lawgiver, having authority to enforce obedi- 
 ence, which is obviously inapplicable to rules 
 and regulations governing the relations be- 
 tween sovereign states. But for all practical 
 purposes we may use the terms as popularly 
 understood, and ask " what is international 
 law?" Grotius 2 defines it as "jus illud quod 
 inter populos plures aut populorum rectores 
 intercedit, sive ab ipsa natura profectum, aut 
 divinis constitutum legibus, sive moribus et 
 pacto tacito introductum." According to 
 Vattel, 4 "The law of nations is the science 
 which teaches the rights subsisting between 
 nations or states, and the obligations corres- 
 pondent to those rights." Manning defines it, 
 as used in his work,* " as comprising the rules 
 controlling the conduct of independent states 
 in their relations with each other." According 
 to Wheaton, 5 " International law, as under- 
 stood among civilized nations, may be defined 
 as consisting of those rules of conduct which 
 reason deduces, as consonant to justice, from 
 
 1 See Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon 
 Press, Oxford, 1879, p. 326. 
 
 2 De Jure Belli et Pacis, by Whewell, vol. 1, 1. 
 3 Chitty's ed. by Ingrahara, 1863, xlix. 
 
 * Law of Nations, p. 3. 
 
 5 Inter. Law, by Lawrence, p. 26.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRIM:. 55 
 
 tin- nature >t' the society existing among inde- 
 pendent nations, with such definitions and 
 modifications as may be established by general 
 consent." Prof. Holland, 1 after discussing law 
 as between citizen and citizen, and as between 
 the state and the citizen, says : " But there i- a 
 third kind of law which is, for many reasons, 
 convenient to co-ordinate with the two former 
 kinds, although it can he described as law only 
 by courtesy, since the rights with which it is 
 concerned cannot properly be described as legal. 
 It is that body of rules, usually described as 
 international law, which regulates the rights 
 which prevail between slate and state." Tin- 
 writer further refers to the term as being con- 
 venient to express those rules of conduct in a-- 
 cordanee with which, either in consequence of 
 their express consent or in pursuance of the 
 usage of the civilized world, nations are ex- 
 pected to act. President Woolsey* says it, "in 
 a wide and abstract sense, would embrace those 
 rules of intercourse between nations which arc 
 deduced from their rights and moral claim-: 
 or, in other words, it is the expression of the 
 j u nil and moral relations of state- to one an- 
 other." l'>ut he goes on to say*: "Coming 
 
 1 Elements of Jurisprudence, 6th ed., p. 116. 
 1 Inter. Law, 2nd ed., p. 18. 
 p. 19.
 
 56 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 within narrower limits, we define international 
 law to be the aggregate of the rules which 
 Christian states acknowledge as obligatory in 
 their relations to each other, and to each other's 
 subjects." Prof. "Woolsey 1 declares it to be 
 " a collection of rules by which nations, and 
 their members respectively, are supposed to be 
 governed in their relations with each other. In 
 its exact sense, law is a rule of property and of 
 conduct prescribed by sovereign power. Strict- 
 ly speaking, therefore, as nations have no com- 
 mon superior, they cannot be said to be subject 
 to human law. But there is, nevertheless, a 
 body of rules, more or less generally recog- 
 nized, by which nations profess to regulate their 
 own conduct towards each other, and the con- 
 duct of their citizens respectively. Being rules 
 of property and of conduct, though not pre- 
 scribed by a superior, they are somewhat loosely 
 designated laws; and, taken together, they 
 form what is called international law." In his 
 recent address before the American Bar Asso- 
 ciation, 2 Lord Russell of Killowen, the Lord 
 Chief Justice of England, said : " I know no 
 better definition of it than that it is the sum of 
 the rules or usages which civilized states have 
 agreed shall be binding upon them in their 
 
 1 Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia, vol. 4, p. 632. 
 1 At Saratoga, August 20, 1896.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. ~>7 
 
 dealings with one another." I have purposely 
 "juoted the various definitions given of the term 
 " law of nations," or its convertible term " in- 
 ternational law," by so many distinguished 
 writers and publicists, to ascertain if by any 
 possibility a declaration of a president, or king, 
 or even a statute of a legislature, could suo 
 -t'ully a-pire to rank as a rule of international 
 law. It is well understood that a Presidential 
 message 1 is to inform Congress of the state of 
 tin- nation, and to recommend such action 
 in domestic and foreign relations as may be 
 thought advisable. The responsibility of action 
 remains with ( 'ongress. The recommendations 
 of tin- message may represent executive /<"//,-//. 
 they certainly cannot have any legal force, 
 binding either upon the legislature or the peo- 
 ple at large. If a message only represents a 
 policy, ami maybe followed or repudiated by 
 the governim-nt for the time being, it is diffi- 
 cult to understand how any declarations upon 
 which that poliey is founded can have force a- 
 articles of international law. If all, or a ma- 
 jority of eivili/ed nations assented to any siu-h 
 declaration, and agreed to be bound by it, it 
 would bind those so assenting, but not other- 
 wise. Take any of the definitions given, and 
 ean it be successfully said that President Mon- 
 1 Cooler's Principles of Constitutional Law, p. 10").
 
 58 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 roe's message is binding upon any sovereign 
 state ? Mr. Wheaton speaks of rules or usages 
 of international law existing by consent, and 
 Lord Russell follows that view, but expresses it 
 in stronger language. In his definition the 
 rules or usages forming the system of inter- 
 national law must be such as civilized states 
 have agreed shall be binding upon them in their 
 dealings and relations with each other. The 
 leading writers and publicists in the United 
 States, in common with those elsewhere, take 
 this view, and deny that Mr. Monroe's decla- 
 rations have any standing as rules of interna- 
 tional law binding on the commonwealth of 
 nations. President Woolsey, 1 on tjiis branch 
 of the case, says : (1) The doctrine is not a 
 national one. The House of Representatives, 
 indeed, had no right to settle questions of policy 
 or of international law. But the cabinet has 
 as little. The opinion of one part of the gov- 
 ernment neutralized that of another. (2) The 
 principle first mentioned of resisting attempts 
 to overthrow the liberties of the Spanish re- 
 publics was one of most righteous self-defence 
 and of vital importance. And such it will 
 probably always be regarded if a similar junc- 
 ture should arise. But the other principle of 
 prohibiting European colonization was vague, 
 
 1 Inter. Law, 2nd ed., p. 67.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 59 
 
 and it' intended to prevent Russia from stretch- 
 ing her borders on the Pacific further to the 
 south, went tar beyond any limit of interfer- 
 ence that has hitherto been set up. What 
 right had the United States to control Russia 
 in gaining territory on tin.- Pacific, or planting 
 colonies there, when she had neither territory 
 nor colony to be endangered within thousands 
 of miles." And further 1 : "To lay down the 
 principle that the acquisition of territory on 
 this continent by any European power cannot 
 be allowed by the United States would go far 
 I.. \, .ml any measures dictated by the system of 
 tin- balance of power, for the rule of self-preser- 
 vation is not applicable in our case; we fear no 
 neighbors. To lay down the principle that 
 no political systems unlike our own, no change 
 from republican forms to those of monarchy, 
 can be endured in the Americas, would he a 
 step in advance of the congresses at Laybach 
 and Verona, for they apprehended destruction 
 to their political fabrics, and we do not. But 
 t<> resist attempts of European powers to alter 
 the constitutions of states on this side of the 
 water, is a wist- and just opposition to interfer- 
 ence. Anything beyond this justifies the sys- 
 tem which absolute governments have initiate. 1 
 tor the suppression of revolutions by main 
 
 1 p. 70.
 
 60 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 force." Prof. Woolsey, in a recent article, 1 
 ably reviewing adversely President Cleveland's 
 message, says, in speaking of Mr. Monroe's 
 message : " It is not a rule of international law, 
 because it has never been made such by the 
 common consent or agreement of nations." A 
 little consideration must commend these pro- 
 positions to every reasonable mind. Every 
 state has the undoubted right to protect itself 
 against injury, and against any act on the part 
 of any other state, which it may deem injuri- 
 ous. And the state itself must judge as to the 
 effect of any given course on the part of another 
 state upon its safety and prosperity. A decla- 
 ration of a sovereign state, protesting against 
 the conduct of another state, or insisting that 
 its conduct is injurious or hostile, may be pro- 
 per enough on the part of the nation objecting, 
 but it would be a novel doctrine to contend 
 such declaration or protest had the authority 
 of a rule of international law. The admission 
 of such a contention would enable one sove- 
 reign state to impose on other sovereign states, 
 against their consent, rules of conduct having 
 the authority of international law. It is only 
 necessary to state the proposition to show its 
 manifest absurdity. Mr. Dana 2 has very care- 
 
 1 The Forum, February, 1896, p. 706. 
 
 2 Dana's Wheaton's Intr. Law, sec. 67, note 36; Wharton's 
 Inter. Law Dig., vol. 1, p. 277.
 
 THE MoXKoK Im.TKINi:. lil 
 
 fully >iinimari/.cd tin- whole message and his 
 interpretation of it; and, for the sake of dear- 
 ness, I give his summary : 
 
 1. The declarations upon which Mr. Monroe 
 con-ulted Mr. Jefferson and his cabinet related 
 to the interposition of European powers in the 
 a flairs of American states. 
 
 2. The kind of interposition declared against 
 was that which maybe made for the i>urjio.- t - 
 of controlling their political affaire, or of ex- 
 tending to thi.- hemisphere the system in opera- 
 tion upon the continent of Europe, by which 
 the great power- exercise a control over the 
 atl'airs of other Kuroju-an states. 
 
 3. The declarations do not intimate any 
 
 ourse of conduct to be pursued in case of 
 such interpositions, but merely say that they 
 would be " considered as dangerous to our 
 peace and safety," and "as the manifestation 
 of an unfriendly disposition towards the United 
 States." which it would be imposgible for us to 
 " behold with indifference," thus leaving the 
 nation to act at all times as its opinion of its 
 policy or duty might require. 
 
 4. The declarations arc only the opinions of 
 the administration of 1823, and have acquired 
 no legal force or sanction. 
 
 5. Tin- I'nited States has never made any
 
 62 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 alliance with, or pledge to, any other American 
 state on the subject covered by the declarations. 
 
 6. The declarations respecting non-coloniza- 
 tion was on a subject distinct from European 
 intervention with American states, and related 
 to the acquisition of sovereign title by any 
 European power by new and original occupa- 
 tion or colonization thereafter. Whatever were 
 the political motives for resisting such coloni- 
 zation, the principle of public law upon which 
 it was placed was that the continent must be 
 considered as already within the occupation 
 and jurisdiction of independent civilized na- 
 tions. 
 
 It may be of interest at this stage to glance 
 at the boundary difficulty between Great Britain 
 and Venezuela ; the attitude of the United 
 States towards that controversy ; and the argu- 
 ments employed to bring the dispute within the 
 range of the so-called doctrine. In passing, it 
 is important to note that Mr. Olney, in his 
 letter of instructions of July 20, 1895, to Mr. 
 Bayard, admits that the pronouncement of the 
 doctrine by President Monroe " was unques- 
 tionably due to the inspiration of Great Britain, 
 who at once gave it an open and unqualified 
 adhesion which has never been withdrawn." l 
 
 1 Document 31, 54th Congress, 1st session, p. 14.
 
 THE MONROE D<>< THINK. '' ''. 
 
 He also admits that the doctrine "has never 
 hern formally affirmed by Congress." And in 
 face of these admissions he declares "that the 
 rule thus defined has been the accepted public 
 law of this country ever since its promulgation 
 cannot fairly he denied." Ft is somewhat diffi- 
 cult to understand how the promulgation of a 
 policy by mean- of a Presidential message, not 
 allirmed bv Congress, can claim to be the ac- 
 
 v O 
 
 cepted public law of the country. The state- 
 ment is not supported by fact. 
 
 For sonic ymr- a dispute has been pending 
 between (iivat Britain and Vene/nela as to tin- 
 proper location of the boundary line between 
 the latter country and British Guiana. That 
 controversy has become so acute that diplo- 
 matic relations have been -n-pcmled between 
 the two countrie.- ,-incr 1887. President Cleve- 
 land, in his message to the Congress of the 
 I'nited States of December 17, 1895, contends 
 that this dispute in some way affects the well 
 being of his country. He therefore insists that 
 it is covered by the Monroe doctrine, as ex- 
 pounded by him. and that (Jreat Britain must 
 submit the whole subject of controversy to 
 arbitration or run the risk of having a war 
 with the 1'nited States. ( Jreat Britain main- 
 tain.- that on all points about which there can 
 be any reasonable doubt she i>, and alway- ha-
 
 64 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 been, willing to arbitrate. Some of the claims 
 of Venezuela, she contends, have no founda- 
 tion whatever, and these Great Britain declines 
 to submit to arbitration. A pretty fall history 
 of the dispute may be found in Lord Salisbury's 
 letter of November 26, 1895, to Sir Julian 
 Pauncefote, the British Ambassador at "Wash- 
 ington. According to Lord Salisbury the dis- 
 pute does not ante-date the year 1840. In the 
 latter year Sir Robert Schomburgk was ap- 
 pointed by Great Britain a special commis- 
 sioner for "provisionally surveying and de- 
 limiting the boundaries of British Guiana." 
 Xotice of his appointment was given to Vene- 
 zuela. He made his report, and proposed 
 that Great Britain should consent to surrender 
 her claim to a more " extended frontier inland 
 in return for the formal recognition of her right 
 to Point Barima." And Lord Salisbury states 
 that on this basis Schomburgk drew his line. 
 He further states that " As the progress of set- 
 tlement by British subjects made a decision of 
 some kind absolutely necessary, and as the 
 Venezuelan government refused to come to 
 any reasonable arrangement, Her Majesty's 
 government decided not to repeat the ofter of 
 concessions which had not been reciprocated, 
 but to assert their undoubted right to the terri- 
 tory within the Schomburgk line, while still
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 'I.'. 
 
 consenting to hold open for further negotiation, 
 and even for arbitration, the unsettled lands 
 between that lino and what they considered to 
 be tlie rightful boundary, as stated in the note 
 to Seflor Rojaz of the 10th .January, 1880.'' 
 And in October, 1886, failing to get any ar- 
 rangement, " the Schomburgk lino was pro- 
 claimed as the irredueible boundary of the 
 colony." Subjects of Great Britain have occu- 
 pied the territory within the Schomburgk line, 
 and the settlements were made on the well 
 grounded assurance that the territory wa> liri- 
 ti-h. To admit the claim of Yeiie/uela to the 
 lands within that territory would be handing 
 British subjects and their property to the 
 CMC of a Spanish South American republic, 
 whose past history gives no guarantee that 
 either safety of life or property will be assured. 
 1 'resident Cleveland attempts to bring the con- 
 troversy within the non-colonization clause of 
 the message by claiming that the rectification 
 of a boundary line, if decided favorably to 
 (Jreat Britain, is to that extent extending the 
 hitter's system of government to these conti- 
 nents. He says 1 : " If a European power, by 
 an extension of its boundaries, takes possession 
 of the territory of one of our neighboring re- 
 publics against its will and in derogation of it> 
 
 1 Document 31, 54 Congress, 1st Sens., p. 2.
 
 66 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 rights, it is difficult to see why to that extent 
 such European power does not thereby attempt 
 to extend its system of government to that, 
 portion of this continent which is thus taken. 
 This is the precise action which President 
 Monroe declared to be 'dangerous to our peace 
 and safety,' and it can make no difference 
 whether the European system is extended by 
 an advance of frontier or otherwise." Prof. 
 "VVoolsey has forcibly pointed out in a recent 
 article 1 that under such an interpretation the 
 renunciation of the claims of the United States 
 to territory in the St. John valley, under the 
 Ashburton treaty, was a violation of the Mon- 
 roe Doctrine. The theory upon which Presi- 
 dent Cleveland bases his message is, that the 
 extension of Great Britain's system of govern- 
 ment over the territory in dispute, in place of 
 that of Venezuela, would in some way menace 
 free republican government, and to that extent 
 endanger the " peace and safety '* of the United 
 States. History teaches us that Venezuela has 
 been the theatre of periodic revolutions. Her 
 government is a military dictatorship. Free- 
 dom, as understood by us, has no. lodgment 
 within her borders. Life and property are 
 certainly not as safe under the government of 
 Venezuela as under British rule. It might 
 1 The Forum, February 1896, p. 708.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 67 
 
 also bo fair to assume that the peace and safety 
 of tin.- I'nitcd States would IK- as >eciire with 
 (Ireat Britain in possession of tin- disputed 
 territory, as if Venezuela governed it. The 
 boundary line between Canada and the United 
 States extends from ocean to ocean, and in 
 many places the two countries are settled on 
 either side, and the people are living in peace 
 and harmony. British rule and institutions 
 north of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude 
 have not. apparently, proved dangerous to the 
 peace and safety of the republic. No hostile 
 incursion has been made into the territory of 
 that country from Canada. Xo attempt on the 
 part of Great Britain has been made to menace 
 or ,-uhvert its republican form of government. 
 \\V heartily rejoice in the development and 
 prosperity of our neighbors. Experience is 
 airain.-t the assumption that the settlement of a 
 boundary dispute hundreds of miles distant 
 will in any way endanger the United States. 
 The latter nation has no territory on the South 
 American continent, and, if true to Washing- 
 ton's tan-well advice, never will have any. It 
 i.- very ditliciilt, under such circumstances, to 
 understand how the supposed doctrine can be 
 invoked to justify interference in such a con- 
 troversy. In thi> connection how true the 
 opinion of I'rof. I'.rvce': "riven no\\." >ays 
 1 162 North Am. Rev. (February, 1896), p. 146.
 
 68 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 the distinguished author of the ' American 
 Commonwealth,' " after reading what has been 
 said by Mr. Olney and others in America, the 
 Monroe Doctrine, as enunciated by Monroe and 
 expounded by American historians and pub- 
 licists up till the last few months, seems to have 
 no more application to this particular case than 
 a dogma of theology or a proposition in mathe- 
 matics." Mr. Olney, in the letter of instruc- 
 tions already referred to, gives a wider inter- 
 pretation to President Monroe's message than 
 even does President Cleveland. He has even 
 gone beyond any public man in the United 
 States clothed with the responsibility of office. 
 He says, among other things : " To-day the 
 United States is practically sovereign on this 
 continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects 
 to which it confines its interposition. Why ? 
 It is not because of the pure friendship or good 
 will felt for it. It is not simply by reason of its 
 high character as a civilized state, nor because 
 wisdom and justice and equity are the invari- 
 able characteristics of the dealings of the 
 United States. It is because, in addition to all 
 other grounds, its infinite resources, combined 
 with its isolated position, render it master of 
 the situation and practically invulnerable as 
 against any or all other powers." The lan- 
 guage quoted is from a public dispatch, penned
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 69 
 
 by a secretary of state, as instructions to an 
 American minister for communication, res- 
 pecting a controversy pending between two 
 other sovereign nations. If such were not the 
 case, one might be tempted to consider it as 
 chiefly rhetoric, highly colored with patriotic 
 laudation. Are we to understand that because 
 the United States is " master of the situation 
 and practically invulnerable," its fiat in this 
 case is law, and must be so accepted by "all 
 other powers?" If such be the case, why the 
 necessity of any arbitration at all ? The whole 
 question can at once be disposed of by the 
 41 fiat" of Mr. Olncy as the representative of 
 lii- country, and his Hat once issued supersedes 
 all rules of international law. Such language 
 would come more appropriately from the chan- 
 cellor of a German or Russian emperor than 
 from the representative of a free republic. 
 Lord Salisbury's position, in his dispatch to 
 the British Minister at Washington, replying 
 to Mr. Gluey 's letter of instructions, is so ap- 
 propriate upon this phase of the question that 
 I quote his language. His Lordship says: 
 " In the remarks which I have made, I have 
 argued on the theory that the Monroe .Doctrine 
 in itself is sound. I must not, however, be 
 understood as expressing any acceptance of it 
 on the part of Her Majesty's government. It
 
 70 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 must always be mentioned with respect, on ac- 
 count of the distinguished statesman to whom 
 it is due, and the great nation who have gen- 
 erally adopted it. But international law is 
 founded on the general consent of nations; 
 and no statesman, however eminent, and no 
 nation, however powerful, are competent to 
 insert into the code of international law a novel 
 principle which was never recognized before, 
 and which has not since been accepted by the 
 government of any other nation. 1 " He freely 
 admits the right of the United States, in com- 
 mon with other nations, to interpose in any 
 controversy which it may think affects its in- 
 terests, but that right is in no way strengthened 
 or extended because the controversy affects 
 American territory. 
 
 President Cleveland, in one part of his mes- 
 sage, makes an important admission which 
 largely cuts the ground from under his feet. 
 He says : " Great Britain's present proposition 
 has never thus far been regarded as admissi- 
 ble by Venezuela, though any adjustment of the 
 boundary which that country may claim for her 
 advantage, and may enter into of her own free will, 
 cannot, of course, be objected to by the United 
 States" This clearly abandons the contention 
 put forth as to non-colonization, and the non- 
 
 1 Doc. 31, 54th Congress, 1st session, p. 25.
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. 71 
 
 usion of a European political system to the 
 A UK -rican continents. Is it true that the acqui- 
 sition of territory on these continents, on t lie- 
 part of a Kuropean power, "by an advance of 
 frontier or otherwise," is dangerous to the peace 
 and safety of the Tinted States? The only 
 logical ground upon which the latter country 
 ran maintain her position, either as to non- 
 colonization or the non-extension of a Euro- 
 pean political system to America, is danger to 
 her peace and safety. The lodgment of a 
 British colony, or its extension by enlargement 
 nt' boundaries and the consequent establish- 
 ment of a British political sj'stem in South 
 America by the free consent of Venezuela, 
 would be quite- as dangerous to the peace and 
 safety of the United States as if Great Britain 
 insisted upon holding the territory she now 
 occupies against the wishes of Venezuela. 
 I 'resident Cleveland, however, admits if the 
 territory is acquired by the consent of Vene- 
 xuela, no objection can be made by the United 
 States. And yet such acquisition, in his opin- 
 ion, is colonization and extension of a European 
 political system to the extent of the territory 
 thus gained. Such colonization, however, is 
 harmless, according to President Cleveland, if 
 the acquisition is made with the consent of the 
 American nation claiming the disputed terri-
 
 72 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 tory. It will be noticed that the " political 
 system" obtains a status, whether established 
 within the territory by consent or otherwise. 
 It is very difficult to understand how the so- 
 called doctrine affects the dispute between Great 
 Britain and Venezuela. But, after all, is the 
 establishment of British rule on any part of 
 the American continents the extension of a 
 purely European political system to those con- 
 tinents? Great Britain cannot be said to be 
 exclusively a European power. One-half of 
 the North American continent and large por- 
 tions of the South American continent, and 
 many of the islands between, govern them- 
 selves under the protection of the British flag. 
 And to the extent indicated Great Britain is 
 an American power, and is deeply interested 
 in the peace and prosperity of the western 
 hemisphere. London is nearer to Canada than 
 is Washington to Alaska and portions of the 
 United States. Inventions and improvements 
 during the last half century have brought the 
 different parts of a nation, and, in fact, the 
 nations themselves, into closer community than 
 ever before. A writer in a leading American 
 law publication 1 very tersely states the position 
 of his country on this question. He says : 
 " The dispute between Great Britain and Vene- 
 J 29 Am. Law Rev., p. 419 (1895).
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINK. <> 
 
 zuela with regard to tin- international boundary 
 line between the territories of the two coun- 
 tries, and the recent action of Groat Britain in 
 demanding and enforcing the payment of an 
 indemnity by Nicaragua for arresting and ban- 
 ishing the British vice-consul and certain other 
 British subjects at Bluefields, have led to a 
 great deal of inconsiderate talk and bluster in 
 tin- newspapers of this country concerning 
 what is called the l Monroe Doctrine.' Very 
 few, even of the editors who have written upon 
 this subject, seem to know what the Monroe 
 Doctrine really is; but most of them seem to 
 think that it is some sort of declaration of our 
 national policy, made by President Monroe, 
 which obliges us to stand at the back of any 
 <>f the republics of this continent in any dis- 
 pute with an old world power, no matter what 
 the merits of the dispute may be. Nothing 
 an be further from the facts. The extent of 
 the Monroe Doctrine is that it is the policy of 
 the United States (1) not to interfere in the 
 internal affairs of the governments of the old 
 world; and (*2) not to allow these government - 
 to interfere with republics which have been 
 established upon this continent, so far as to 
 suppress their republican institutions, or to at- 
 taek the integrity of their territory. There 
 was nothing whatever in the Monroe Doctrine
 
 74 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 which required President Cleveland to interfere 
 when the British made their demands upon 
 Nicaragua for the payment of an indemnity of 
 fifteen thousand pounds for the imprisonment, 
 maltreatment and banishment of their consular 
 agent and other subjects. Our own citizens 
 have been maltreated by those petty half-civil- 
 ized governments in a similar way, and we 
 would have acted under similar circumstances 
 as Great Britain did, though possibly without 
 the same commendable vigor and decision." 
 The statements I have made, and the authori- 
 ties I have quoted, fully support the position 
 claimed in the early part of this paper, 1 viz. : 
 (1) That the doctrine itself, as enunciated and 
 understood by President Monroe, owes its origin 
 to the statesmanship of George Canning; (2) 
 That it has never been formally sanctioned by 
 the Congress of the United States ; (3) That it 
 is not a part of international law binding upon 
 nations. In the preparation of this paper I 
 have gleaned from many fields, and have quoted 
 freely and at length from writers and publicists 
 of eminence, rather than give, in many cases, 
 my own interpretation of what they have said 
 or written. Resort has been had especially to 
 the speeches and writings of American states- 
 men and publicists. The aim has been to allow 
 1 Ante, p. 8.
 
 TIIK MONROE DOCTRIM:. 75 
 
 them, in their own language, to say what the 
 doctrine really is. The subject has been much 
 in is understood on both sides of the line. It' 
 any success attend my humble effort to explain 
 this subject, and remove misunderstanding, I 
 shall feel amply repaid for the time and labor 
 bestowed. It is in the nature of things that 
 international difficulties should at times arise, 
 but those difficulties are always capable of satis- 
 t'a<'t<>ry solution in accordance with the prin- 
 ciples of international law, interpreted in a 
 broad, liberal, and Christian spirit. Great 
 Britain and the United States excel all other 
 nations in popular government, freedom, and 
 Christian -i\ ilixatioii. It would be a stigma 
 upon their advanced civilization if they allowed 
 the peace of the world to be disturbed over a 
 boundary dispute with a South American 
 republic as to the ownership of a few square 
 miles of territory.
 
 II. 
 
 FIFTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 AN ADDRESS DELIVERED IN THE EXHIBITION BUILDING, 
 ST. JOHN, N. B., JUNE 20, 1887, HIS WORSHIP MAYOR H. J. 
 THORNE IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 An auspicious event calls us together. We 
 are assembled to mingle our congratulations 
 upon the fact that Her Majesty the Queen has 
 completed the fiftieth year of her prosperous 
 reign. This splendid representative assem- 
 blage, all alive with patriotic enthusiasm, at- 
 tests the affection and devotion of our people 
 for the person and throne of Her Most Gracious 
 Majesty. We celebrate on this occasion no 
 ordinary event. From the time of William 
 the Conqueror to the present, only three British 
 sovereigns besides Queen Victoria have attained 
 the jubilee years of their reign. Henry the 
 Third reigned 56 years; Edward the Third, 
 50 years; and George the Third, the grand- 
 father of the present Queen, 59 years. More 
 than ordinary interest should naturally attach 
 to such an event in the case of any ruler of the 
 empire, and that interest should be specially 
 emphasized in the case of a monarch so dis- 
 tinguished for personal qualities and so unsur- 
 passed in strict adherence to constitutional 
 methods as Queen Victoria. 
 (76)
 
 GROWTH OF THE EMPIRE. 77 
 
 This is naturally a time for retrospect and 
 < omparison. What were we as a nation or as 
 a dependency in 1837? What are we in 1887? 
 In methods of government, in knowledge of 
 arts and science, in material growth, in tin- 
 conditions of our political and commercial re- 
 lations with the rest of the world, have we 
 retrograded, have we been stationar}*, or have 
 \\ made satisfactory and substantial advamv ': 
 These are pertinent inquiries they belong to 
 an occasion such as tins, and with your per- 
 mission I shall attempt to answer some of 
 them. It has truly been said that ours is 
 
 A land of old and fair renown, 
 Where freedom broadens slowly down 
 From precedent to precedent. 
 
 The broadening down process in our history 
 of tin- last half century has been by no means 
 slow or unsatisfactory. During that period 
 there have been intense activity, keen competi- 
 tion, and abundant success. 'Material increase, 
 intellectual culture, scientific discovery, the 
 harnessing of nature's forces to mechanical in- 
 vention for man's convenience and comfort, 
 have had greater development during the 
 Queen's reign than during any one hundred 
 years previously. Amid the exuberant cir- 
 eiimstance's attendant upon such a celebra- 
 tion as this the stirring music, the expectant
 
 78 FIFTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 throng, the sympathetic listener one is very 
 apt to be tempted into exaggerated laudation. 
 I hope to escape that criticism, and yet I am 
 certain a sober statement of what our nation 
 has done, and its relative position to-day among 
 the nations of the world, must cause satisfac- 
 tion, admiration and gladness to fill every 
 patriotic heart. 
 
 When the Queen ascended the throne her 
 Colonial subjects of European descent were 
 under two millions, now they are nine millions; 
 of Asiatic descent in her Indian empire, 96,- 
 000,000, now 254,000,000 ; and her subjects of 
 other origins in the colonies and dependencies 
 were 2,000,000, now they number 7,000,000. 
 In other words, her Colonial and Indian sub- 
 jects in 1837 were 100,000,000, now they have 
 increased to the immense proportions of 270,- 
 000,000. The material growth of the empire 
 has more than kept pace with the increase of 
 population. Her Majesty's reign has been 
 especially rich in mechanical invention and 
 applied science, in sanitary and economic im- 
 provements. The application of steam as a 
 motive power in traversing continents and 
 oceans belongs to the past fifty years, while 
 the practical use of electricity is yet in its in- 
 fancy. Morse first publicly exhibited his tele- 
 graph in 1837; he fyled his caveat for a patent
 
 GROWTH OF TIIK K.MIMKK. 79 
 
 in that year, but it was not patented till 184". 
 Tin- telegraph \va> fir.-t brought into practical 
 ii-c ill 1*44, that being the year tin- cities of' 
 Washington and Baltimore were connected by 
 the ele.-tnc wire. There was no electric tele- 
 graph in use when Victoria began her reign. 
 Twenty years ago there were only about 2,000 
 miles of submarine cable laid throughout the 
 world: to-day there are 107,000 miles, costing 
 $185,000,000, and all this vast system of sub- 
 marine cables, with the exception of 7,000 
 miles, is entirely under British control, and is 
 the result of private enterprise. There are 
 also 1,750,000 miles of land cables in existence 
 to-day, and these have been laid at an estimated - 
 t of $260,000,000. The first telegraphic 
 message sent over the wire in this province wa- 
 in April, 1851, from Mr. John Wilson, at St. 
 Andrews, to Dr. William Uayard, in St. John. 
 These electric nerve centres have practically 
 annihilated space and brought all parts of the 
 world into dose contact. A debate in the im- 
 perial parliament any night is the next morn- 
 ing read and discussed at the breakfast table 
 throughout the empire. While the opening of 
 the .-team railway, in lx:',0. between Liverpool 
 and Manchester may be claimed, and rightly 
 so, to have inaugurated the system as a com- 
 mercial enterprise, yet the development of steam
 
 80 FIFTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 power by land and sea, for locomotion and for 
 mechanical and industrial pursuits, has taken 
 place during Her Majesty's reign. The first 
 railway company incorporated in this province 
 was the St. Andrews and Quebec Railway, on 
 the 8th March, 1836. It was the only one in- 
 corporated in this province prior to the Queen's 
 accession. Since then, especially after 1851, 
 railway incorporation acts strew the pages of 
 our statute book almost as profusely as forest 
 leaves the ground in the late days of autumn. 
 In looking over the names of the incorporators 
 in the early acts, one is struck with the changes 
 time has made. Xot one of the incorporators 
 of 1836 is alive now ; and in the act of 1851, in- 
 corporating the European and Xorth American 
 Railway, but few now survive our respected 
 Lieutenant Governor, Sir Leonard Tilley , J whom 
 we are glad to have with us at this time, is one 
 of the few survivors. As late as 1852, in our 
 own House of Assembly, in a debate on rail- 
 way resolutions, a prominent representative 
 from Kings County frankly admitted he had 
 never seen a railway. Thirty years ago we 
 had no line of railway into St. John. To-day 
 we have in this province nearly 1,400 miles of 
 railway in operation or under actual construc- 
 tion, intersecting it in all directions. In pro- 
 1 Died June 25, 1896.
 
 GROWTH OF THE EMPIRE. 81 
 
 portion to population, I believe we have a 
 greater railway mileage than any other country 
 in the world. The new lines proposed, many 
 of which are already incorporate 1. and which 
 their projectors, relying on local and federal 
 subsidies, fully expect to build, will, when com- 
 pleted, about double the mileage we already 
 have. 
 
 Fifty years ago a steamship had not cro ! 
 the Atlantic. The year Is: 5s is memorable in 
 history. On the 4th of April of that year the 
 "Sirius" sailed from Cork, and on the 8th of 
 the same month the " Great Western " sailed 
 from Bristol bound for New York. Both ves- 
 sels reached their port of destination on the 
 23rd of April the "Sirius" twelve or fifteen 
 hniirs in advance of the "Great Western." 
 These were the pioneer steamships to cross the 
 Atlantic ocean. The change since then has 
 been truly marvellous. Magnificent floating 
 palaces, capable of steaming twenty miles an 
 hour richly freighted with the products of all 
 climes and all lands carrying tens of thous- 
 ands of passengers in pursuit of pleasure or 
 gain, are now thickly studding every sea, and 
 are almost hourly arriving at or departing from 
 the great seaports of both continents. This 
 facility of transit and communication has drawn 
 the nations of the world closer together mul- 
 F
 
 82 FIFTY" YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 tiplied their exchanges of products, and created 
 an inter-dependence and intimate acquaintance 
 far beyond that of any former time. Cowper's 
 lament 
 
 Lands intersected by a narrow frith 
 Abhor each other. Mountains interposed 
 Make enemies of nations who had else 
 Like kindred drops been mingled into one, 
 
 may have been true a century ago, but not so 
 to-day. Enlarged knowledge and easy and 
 frequent intercourse have fostered and stimu- 
 lated the mercantile spirit of the age, and in 
 that progress no nation has reaped more abund- 
 antly than the British empire. A few com- 
 parisons will establish my statement. The 
 figures are taken from statistics of the year 
 1837 and 1885, no later statistics than 1885 
 being convenientlv available. 
 
 o / 
 
 In the American dependencies the imports 
 have risen from $26,000,000 to $128,500,000; 
 the exports from 25,000,000 to 107,500,000. 
 In the Australasian colonies the imports have 
 risen from $7,500,000 to 317,500,000; exports 
 from $6,500,000 to $260,000,000. In Africa 
 the imports have risen from 10,000,000 to $50,- 
 000,000 ; exports from $7,500,000 to 60,000,- 
 000. A large proportion of this colonial trade 
 has been done with the United Kingdom. The 
 total imports and exports are eleven times
 
 GROWTH OF T1IK K.MI'IRE. 83 
 
 greater now than in 1837. British imports to 
 the colonies in ls:J7 were $56,500,000; in 1885, 
 $272,500,000. British shipping trade with the 
 colonies in 1835 was 3,700,000 tons; in 1885, 
 ..';.000,000 tons. In 1885-6 the sea-going 
 registered tonnage of the world was 6 million 
 tons ; and 4J millions, or more than two-thirds 
 of the whole amount, belonged to the British 
 empire. In view of these expressive figures, 
 we may well exclaim with pardonable pride: 
 
 " Britannia needs no bulwarks, 
 No towers along the steep, 
 Her inarch is o'er the mountain waves, 
 Her home is on the deep." 
 
 I would like to speak of our great progress 
 in the production of books and newspapers 
 and consequent dissemination of knowledge, 
 but time will not permit. I can only glance 
 hastily, and consequently imperfectly, at some 
 of the political problems of the reign. Dark 
 and threatening clouds hung in the politieal 
 sky when Her Majesty became Queen. Canada 
 was in rebellion, and the Chartist movement in 
 Kni;land was not only causing grave apprehen- 
 sion, but had actually broken out into deeds of 
 violence and bloodshed. Lord Durham was 
 sent to Canada to get information and report. 
 It is no exaggeration to >ay hi- report is one of 
 the ablest state papers ever written. It grai-
 
 84 FIFTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 pled with the difficulties in Canada, and it 
 propounded political principles which, since 
 acted upon, have blossomed into representative 
 institutions and responsible government for all 
 the considerable colonies of the empire. Res- 
 ponsible local self-government for the colonies is 
 one of the great facts of Queen Victoria's reign. 
 The Chartist movement died out. The prin- 
 ciples it espoused, viewed from the standpoint 
 of the present, need not have caused any 
 alarm. The charter contained six principal 
 planks universal suffrage, vote by ballot, an- 
 nual parliaments, the payment of the members 
 of the House of Commons, the abolition of 
 their property qualification, and equal electoral 
 districts. These are not propositions to frighten 
 people of the present generation. In fact, two 
 of them have already become law in England ; 
 three of them fully, and four partially, in 
 Canada. Payment of members of the imperial 
 parliament would not, I think, shake the tim- 
 ber of the old constitution very much. It ha.s 
 worked so well in Canada there is a feeling 
 among some of the recipients that it would add 
 strength and dignity to the constitution to in- 
 crease the indemnity. The tendency of the 
 past fifty years has been to centre political power 
 in the people. The successive reform bills 
 have given the franchise to hundreds of thous-
 
 (SROWT1I OF THE EMPIRE. 85 
 
 :unl> \\lui \\t-re formerly denied it. Formerly 
 tin- ruling pouvr \\ as found in the House of 
 Lords; to-day that power is decidedly with the 
 ('ominous. In the first cabinet of George m, 
 thirteen members were in the Lords and only 
 one in the Commons. A cabinet so construct- 
 ! at the present day could not live a week. 
 
 The reform bills of 18B7 and 1885 made very 
 large additions to the electoral lists over two 
 millions and by that much added to the power 
 of the people. Going back for a little over 
 tifrv v.-urs. and the list of reforms is a splendid 
 on.-. Catholic emancipation in 1829; the re- 
 form bill of 1832 ; the repeal of the corn laws, 
 and tin- navigation acts; the factory laws for 
 tin- protection of women and children ; the 
 reform bills of 1807 and 1885 : the disestab- 
 li>lnnent of the Irish Church; the great ad- 
 vance in a system of national education ; the 
 opc-niiiir of the universities to all classes and 
 creeds; and the reform in the administration 
 of loth civil and criminal law, have all, with 
 but two exceptions, taken place since the Queen 
 began IHT reign. 
 
 CM fortunately, there is discontent in Ireland. 
 All attempts thus far have- failed to bring con- 
 tent and happiness to that portion of the em- 
 pire. This is not the place to discuss the Iri-h 
 question. VS r e all regret the present position
 
 86 FIFTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 of affairs, knowing well that the English meth- 
 ods of government in the past have not given 
 peace to that unhappy land. Let us earnestly 
 pray that British statesmanship may ere long 
 successfully solve this hitherto apparently in- 
 soluble problem in such a manner as to remove, 
 all causes of discontent without impairing the 
 integrity of the empire. 
 
 England has had but two wars of any mag- 
 nitude during the Queen's reign that with 
 Russia in 1854, and the terrible Indian mutiny 
 in 1857. No great practical advantages came 
 of the Crimean war. It, however, taught our 
 great rival in the east that the men who fought 
 at Inkerman and Balaclava were w r orthy des- 
 cendants of the sires who fought on the plains 
 of Abraham and on the field of Waterloo. The 
 lesson may also have indefinitely postponed the 
 appearance of the Russian eagle at the Khyber 
 Pass, and the advent of the Russian iron-clad 
 into the Persian Gulf. 
 
 The Indian mutiny will alwaj's stand out in 
 ghastly relief. It brought into prominence a 
 splendid array of military chiefs of whom any 
 age or country might well be proud. The 
 political effect was to transfer to the crown the 
 complete government of the country. The 
 East India Company ceased to rule in India. 
 But thirty years have produced a splendid
 
 GROWTH OF Tin: KM i-iK i-:. 87 
 
 change for the future peace and prosperity of 
 that extensive portion of the empire. In 1857 
 the people of India, led by their hereditary 
 princes, were waging a cruel and relentless war 
 to throw oft' British supremacy ; in 1887 only 
 the memory of that terrible crisis remains, 
 while many of the great feudatory princes are 
 now in London pledging fealty to their Em- 
 press-Queen and heartily joining in the Jubilee 
 celebrations. 
 
 A recent English writer has pointed out 
 >onicwhat fancifully, but with constitutional 
 accuracy, that the sovereign of the British em- 
 pire is immortal, infallible and omnipresent! 
 Do not allow yourselves to be startled at these 
 propositions. The sovereign is immortal, as 
 it is a constitutional maxim "the king never 
 dies," the succession is never interrupted; in- 
 fallible, as under our system of government 
 " the king can do no wrong," there must 
 always be advisers responsible for the acts of 
 the crown ; omnipresent, as the Queen in per- 
 son, or by deputy, is always present in her 
 courts administering justice. 
 
 The life of the Queen is not by any means 
 an idle one. It is said she reads all the, des- 
 patches, particularly those relating to foreign 
 attairs, and to the army and navy. Lord 
 I'almerston once lost his post of foreign seere-
 
 88 FIFTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 tary for neglecting to submit a despatch to the 
 Queen before sending it. 
 
 It is also a mistake to suppose the Queen has 
 . no great powers in the administration of affairs. 
 Those powers are great, although rarely exer- 
 cised. By virtue of her prerogative, a few 
 years ago she abolished purchase in the army 
 after the Lords had refused to pass a bill for 
 that purpose. She is the fountain of honor, 
 and could, if so disposed, create all her subjects 
 peers of the realm. While she cannot increase 
 her army and navy beyond the limit allowed 
 by parliament, yet she could disband the army 
 and navy altogether. She can declare war and 
 conclude peace without the intervention of par- 
 liament. She can veto any bill passed by both 
 houses of parliament. It would be a danger- 
 ous exercise of power, and has not been exer- 
 cised by any British sovereign since the days 
 of Queen Anne. The house of commons can 
 also refuse supplies to the crown, but the right 
 has not been exercised since 1688. 
 
 One of the chief glories of Queen Victoria's 
 reign has been her great regard for constitu- 
 tional government. A slight mistake natural 
 under the circumstances was made in the 
 early days of her reign in the case of appoint- 
 ments of officers of her household; but it is 
 now universally admitted the contention of Sir 
 Robert Peel was right.
 
 GROWTH OF THE KM I'll:!-:. 89 
 
 Mueh of our political liberty and material 
 prosperity is due to the wise and conscientious 
 discharge of duty on the part of the Queen. 
 Our country has made rapid strides in all that 
 makes a nation great and powerful. Our posi- 
 tion is a commanding one among the common- 
 wealth of nations. The achievements of the 
 past are ours. We are " heirs of all the ages " 
 in art-, -< -ieiiee and literature. In the _ 
 social, intellectual, and material development 
 of the world we have abundantly shared. \\V 
 can therefore look to the future of our country 
 with hope and confidence. We possess a 
 great advantage over those of 1837. The 
 Victorian age will, in the future, be looked 
 l>aek to as one \\orthy of emulation. The 
 \vrdiet of history will he that our noble Queen, 
 1>\ her purity of life, by her sympathy with her 
 people, by her active co-operation in all givat 
 popular reforms, has added dignity and lustre 
 to the British crown. The flag that floats from 
 yonder tlai^tatf, in one sense, is nothing but a 
 piece of colored bunting; but in another, and 
 a higher and nobler sense, it is that and very 
 much more. It is the Hag of our country. It 
 repiv-eiit.- tli' wealth, the culture, the energy, 
 the power, the Christian eivili/.ation of the 
 mightiest empire the world has overseen. May 
 <,|iieeii Victoria long he -pare. I in health and in 
 strength to rule over this extended empire.
 
 III. 
 
 SIXTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 AN ADDRESS DELIVERED IX THE ST. ANDREWS RINK. -T. 
 JOHN, N. B., JUKE 19, 1897, HIS WORSHIP MAYOR GEORGE 
 ROBERTSON IN THE CHAIR, THE MEETING CLOSING AT 12 
 O'CLOCK P. M. 
 
 The time at my disposal is very short, and 
 forbids introductory or preliminary remark. 1 
 When the fifteen or twenty minutes allowed 
 me have elapsed, His Worship the Mayor will 
 be good enough to call me down, and what I 
 may have left unsaid, and it will be much, can 
 in part be said at some other time. When we 
 celebrated in this city, ten years ago, the Jubilee 
 year of Her Majesty's reign, I had the great 
 honor of being one of the speakers. At that 
 time even, it was possible to assert, that through 
 the many centuries of English history, from 
 the earliest periods, only three English sove- 
 reigns beside Her Majesty could have cele- 
 brated the jubilee years of their reign. If the 
 circumstances ten years ago were important 
 and exceptional, and worthy of patriotic com- 
 memoration, the present occasion is still more 
 striking and unique. The Queen completes to- 
 day sixty years of a prosperous and progressive 
 
 1 The other speakers were His Worship the Mayor, Lieu- 
 tenant Governor McClelan, J. D. Hazen, Q. C., and J. V. 
 Ellis, M. P. 
 
 (90)
 
 COLONIAL DKVKI.ul'.Mi !1 
 
 rule the longest in the history of our nation ; 
 and, so far a> 1 now remember, the longest in 
 the history of any civilized nation, saving the 
 seventy-two years of Louis the Fourteenth. 
 The French king, however, came to the throne 
 when but five years old, and for a considerable 
 period there was a regency. It cannot, there- 
 fore, be successfully claimed that he really 
 reigned longer than Queen Victoria. It would 
 be quite impossible at this time to glance even 
 at the many prominent features of the reign. 
 I have accordingly thought it beet to direct 
 your attention to a single phase the great 
 colonial development of the empire during the 
 period under review. This sexagenary is being 
 celebrated throughout the wide bounds of the 
 empire, and it is safe to say that in no portion 
 of that empire is the enthusiasm more genu- 
 ine, or the loyalty more devoted, than in the 
 colonies. 
 
 England, for three centuries past, has been 
 the world's great colonizer. Spain, Portugal, 
 and Holland even, had entered upon sun-,- 
 ful careers of colonization years before Kng- 
 land had a single colony. Through force of 
 circumstances, through the enterprise and dar- 
 ing of their navigators, these nations had 
 acquired the ownership, and had entered into 
 the occupancy of all known territories available
 
 92 SIXTY YEARS A QI'EEN. 
 
 for colonization. The sceptre of colonial pre- 
 eminence has, however, long since been wrested 
 from these nations, and that sceptre is now 
 held by Great Britain. When Sir Francis 
 Drake, in 1588, defeated and scattered the 
 great Armada, he struck the first decisive 
 blow giving England an ascendancy beyond 
 her island home, and at the same time sounded 
 the knell of Spanish decadence. The victory 
 of La Hogue, a century later, decided Eng- 
 land's naval supremacy over France a supre- 
 macy which has continued from that time to 
 the present. Only the great Magellan before 
 Drake " put a girdle round the earth," but he 
 died on the voyage. Drake was the first navi- 
 gator to accomplish the task of penetrating the 
 " mare tenebrosum," of lifting the veil from 
 the " sea of darkness," and sailing round the 
 globe. Prof. Sir John Seeley, in his excellent 
 work " The Growth of British Policy," more 
 than suggests that the victories I have named 
 laid the foundations of our colonial empire 
 and of our naval supremacy. How fitting, 
 then, that the country which produced such 
 men as Drake, Blake, Hawke, Rodney and 
 Xelson, should become the fruitful mother of 
 nations and the proud mistress of the seas. It 
 is no boastful exaggeration to assert that Great 
 Britain, as a naval power, has no equal among
 
 COLONIAL HK\ KI.OI'.MENT. 93 
 
 the nations of tin- world. Her naval supre- 
 macy is tin basis of her colonial pre-eminence, 
 and her colonial pre-eminence is the pledge and 
 guarantee of her continued naval supremacy. 
 
 Three hundred years span the period from 
 Kli/.abcth to Victoria. Mighty changes have 
 been wrought during the intervening time. It 
 is more than a coincidence that the first snh- 
 Mantial beginning towards laying the founda- 
 tions of our colonial empire was made during 
 the reign of a ljueen, the last of the Tudor 
 line; and that the greatest expansion and high- 
 est development of that colonial empire ha\e 
 also been attained during the reign of a Queen 
 the present representative of the House of 
 lirunswick. These are noteworthy facts in con- 
 nection with the movement to give to women 
 a larger space than heretofore in the political 
 affairs of the country. 
 
 The length of the reign we celebrate is im- 
 portant and exceptional, but the vastness and 
 imperial grandeur of the empire are more re- 
 markable than the length of the reign. Scan, 
 if you will, the pages of history, ancient or 
 modern ; peer, if you can, through the twilight 
 and beyond, into the regions of pre-historic 
 times, and you get no knowledge of empire BO 
 v.i-t. so imperial, so pui>>ant. in arts, in science. 
 in commerce, in government, in all that en-
 
 94 SIXTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 nobles mankind, and makes a nation great, as 
 we see to-day in connection with the British 
 empire. The forces and resources of nature 
 were never at any former period so fully under 
 man's control as at present; civilization, with 
 all implied in the term, has never before touched 
 so high a level as we see to-day. 
 
 When the Queen began her reign her em- 
 pire contained not more than 125,000,000 of 
 people; now that empire, including protector- 
 ates, covers 11,500,000 square miles of the 
 earth's surface, and commands the allegiance 
 of 385,000,000 of people. This marvellous 
 growth may be seen in her tonnage, for that 
 represents the commerce of the nation, and its 
 trade and industrial relations with the rest of 
 the world. In 1837 the empire had something 
 under 2,800,000 tons of shipping; now it has 
 over 10,620,000 tons, or nearly four times as 
 much as sixty years ago. Then the imports 
 into the United Kingdom were 57,230,968 
 stg. ; now 480,604,788 stg. Then the exports 
 from the United Kingdom were 97,621,549 
 stg. ; last year they had risen to 285,094,268 
 stg. The total trade of the empire in 1896 
 was: imports, 690,539,806; exports, 499,- 
 126,601. In naming these sums it must not 
 be forgotten that the price level of the world 
 is much lower now than in 1837. But our
 
 COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT. 95 
 
 attention miiM 1'c more directly concerned \vitli 
 India and tlu- colonies. Those who were BO 
 fortunate as to listen to Joseph Cook in this 
 city some years ago, must have been struck 
 with a remark he made as to India. Discuss- 
 ing with Thunder Sen the possibility of that 
 country again attempting to throw oft' allegiance 
 todreat Britain, the distinguished Kast Indian 
 declared to Mr. Cook that "India could not 
 now, if she would, throw off* that allegiance, 
 and, twenty-five years henee, she would not if 
 she could." The reason assigned was that, 
 under British rule, the government was mild 
 and free, and security of life and property was 
 amply guaranteed. The peasant who tills the 
 soil feels secure in the possession of his har- 
 vest ; the merchant who exposes his goods for 
 sale knows that the strong arm of the law will 
 protect him from plunder, ami aid him in reap- 
 ing the legitimate gains of his exchanges. It 
 was not always thus in that portion of the 
 empire. When native princes held sway no 
 class felt safe from their inordinate exactions. 
 The colonies and India, in 1837, had a popula- 
 tion of 100,000,000; now fully 308,000,000, or 
 more than three times as many as when the 
 (Juecn began her reign. Our colonial popula- 
 tion, exclusive of India, is 1*0,000,000 of people. 
 
 For the purpose of estimating approximately
 
 96 SIXTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 the growth and development of our colonial 
 empire, it will be sufficient to take note of the 
 three principal groups : (1) The North Ameri- 
 can possessions ; (2) The Australasian : (3) The 
 South African colonies. The populations of 
 these groups in 1837 were under 2,000,000; 
 now they contain fully 15,000,000 of people. 
 At the beginning of the reign Canada had 
 about 1,400,000; Australia about 340,000; and 
 South Africa 140,000. Each of these groups 
 has to-day over 5,000,000 of people, a very 
 satisfactory increase indeed. The British flag 
 was first raised in Australia as a colony in 
 1788 less than fifty years before the Queen 
 came to the throne. South Africa has risen 
 into importance during the last twenty-five 
 years. I ask you to look at yonder map. 1 It 
 is well dotted with red, but those red spots are 
 not large enough on the continent of Africa. 
 In the interests of that country, as well as in 
 the interests of civilization, it would be far 
 better if Great Britain ruled that continent. 
 
 I do not wish to weary you with figures, but 
 colonial expansion cannot adequately be told 
 without resort to statistics. The present rail- 
 way mileage of the empire is 75,000 miles. 
 India has 20,000 miles of this, and the colonies 
 
 1 A map of the world, showing the British possessions in 
 red colors, hung at the rear of the platform.
 
 COLONIAL DEVKI.ol'.Mi !7 
 
 :;i.iini) iniK-s. of the latter amount Canada 
 has something over 16,000 miles, 1 nearly one- 
 half of the entire railway mileage of the colo- 
 nies. The same growth may be seen in con- 
 nection with steamship lines, and telegraph and 
 telephone systems. The telephone was, I be- 
 lieve, first used in Canada. The iirst telegraphic 
 message was sent over the wire in this province 
 in 1851 to our highly esteemed townsman, Dr. 
 William Bayard, the active and energetic, and, 
 I had almost said, youthful president of our 
 Loyalists' Society.* We are all glad to have him 
 on the platform upon this interesting occasion. 
 In 1837 railways, ocean steamships, cables by 
 land and sea, and telephones, were unknown 
 as instruments of transit and ready communi- 
 <-ation. 
 
 An English author of repute, as late as 1846, 
 seriously advised the Imperial government to 
 abandon New South AVales as a penal settle- 
 ment, and to send transported convicts to 
 
 1 These figures are taken from the Statesman's Year Book 
 of 1897, and they correxpond with the figures given in the 
 Statistical Year Book of Canada for 1896, p. 230, since pub- 
 lished. 
 
 2 Dr. Bayard is in the eighty-fourth year of his age, and 
 still maintains his foremost position in the active practice of 
 his profession. At the close of the meeting, in a stirring 
 speech, he moved a vote of thanks to the speakers, which 
 was seconded by Judge Forbes. 
 
 a
 
 38 SIXTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 Canada. The reasons assigned by him for the 
 proposed change were that in Xew South Wales 
 the penal colony \^as near the coast, and the 
 chances of escape were therefore easy ; but if 
 the convicts were sent several hundreds of 
 miles into the interior of Canada, it would be 
 extremely difficult for them to tind their way 
 out, in case of escape. "Well, what has been 
 the growth of these confederated colonies which 
 Mr. Porter 1 thought good camping ground for 
 transported convicts? In 1837 their imports 
 were $15,500,000 ; in 1896, $1 18,000,000. Their 
 exports then, $9,914,155; now, 121,000,000. 
 Stating the case in another form, the total trade 
 of the provinces now forming the Dominion, 
 in 1837, was under $25,000,000 ; in 1896, over 
 $239,000,000. Great railway lines now traverse 
 our country, opening up vast tracts of territory 
 to settlement, which, sixty years ago, knew 
 only the Indian and the buffalo. But time 
 forbids further reference to this phase of our 
 subject. The theme is grand and inspiring, 
 and yet we have only touched the fringe of the 
 topics which so naturally, and so eagerly, spring 
 to the lips seeking utterance. 
 
 Thus far we have noted national progress 
 and expansion. It is now in order for us to 
 look for a moment at the improved methods 
 
 1 Progress of the Nation, 2nd ed., p. 131.
 
 COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT. 99 
 
 of government adopted in the colonies during 
 the present reign. This examination involves 
 a survey of the colonial policy of the mother 
 country, and the corresponding political and 
 MM-ial development of the colonies. The old 
 colonial policy, especially that of continental 
 Europe, looked upon the colonies as close pre- 
 serves, to he held for what they were worth to 
 the parent state. The development of the 
 colony, for the benefit of the colony itself, 
 rarely entered into the calculation. Those who 
 left the parent state and migrated to the colony 
 were supposed to have gone to better their 
 fortunes, and they, in many cases, had the in- 
 tention of returning when fortunes were made. 
 After the American revolution any such policy 
 on the part of Great Britain was wholly aban- 
 doned. Sir Robert 1 Yel, as long ago as 1842, 
 said that colonies should, as far as possible, be 
 treated as though they were integral parts of 
 the kingdom. This was before the grant of 
 self-government to the colonies. The effort, 
 especially during the last fifty years, has been 
 to make the colony in methods of government, 
 in social life, and in business and industrial 
 activity, a counterpart of the parent state. 
 This policy has given free scope to the inde- 
 pendent activity of the colonies, and has pro- 
 duced the satisfactory results we see to-day.
 
 100 SIXTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 When the Queen came to the throne there 
 were Chartist riots in England and rebellion in 
 Canada. All questions occasioning those diffi- 
 culties have been happily settled. The points 
 of the Charter have been substantially granted 
 by the Imperial parliament, except payment of 
 members of the House of Commons ; and re- 
 bellion in Canada has given place to loyal 
 devotion to the Crown. Wise and prudent 
 statesmanship has accomplished these happy 
 results. How apt the language of the late 
 poet laureate : 
 
 "And statesmen at her councils met 
 Who knew the seasons when to take 
 Occasion by the hand and make 
 The bounds of freedom wider yet." 
 
 The reign, considered from the standpoint 
 of constitutional development, may naturally 
 be divided into two parts. The first part ends 
 about the year 1856, and the second extend* 
 from that period to the present. In 1837 the 
 territorial and casual revenues of this province 
 were first handed over by the Imperial gov- 
 ernment to be managed by ourselves, under a 
 legislative agreement that the province should 
 provide a civil list for payment of administra- 
 tive expenses. The colonies were governed 
 from Downing street through the agency of a 
 Royal governor. That official selected his own
 
 COLONIAL 1>K\ KI.Ol'MKNT. 101 
 
 .\.-riitive council, and that council was not in 
 any way responsible to the people's represen- 
 tatives. The executive council usually was 
 composed of the same members as the legisla- 
 tive council, and in this way the governor and 
 council wielded large administrative and legis- 
 lative powers, irrespective of the wishes of the 
 -elected representatives. This state of affairs 
 wa- largely responsible for the rebellion in 
 Canada in 1837. Lord Durham was sent to 
 Canada that year to investigate and report. 
 In consequence of misunderstanding with the 
 home government, he returned to England in 
 1838. His report on the subject of his mission 
 _i\ -n to the public in 1839, and in 1840 he 
 died. His almost pathetic statement that pos- 
 terity would do' justice to his memory has been 
 amply vindicated. In his now celebrated report 
 he grappled with the colonial discontents and 
 difficulties. His report was not confined to the 
 solution of the Canadian problem, but to the 
 colonies in general. He laid bare the evils of 
 the system which then prevailed, and sketched 
 with a masterly hand the remedy to be ap- 
 plied. He strongly advocated the introduction 
 of a system of government similar to that then 
 prevailing in England the responsibility of 
 the ministers of the Crown to the representa- 
 tives of the people. His recommendation, in
 
 102 SIXTY YBARS A QUEEN. 
 
 the face of vigorous opposition, final ly pre- 
 vailed, so that by 1856 all the great colonies of 
 the empire were in the enjoyment of respon- 
 sible government. Since then all these colo- 
 nies have governed themselves, in accordance 
 with the well understood wishes of the people, 
 subject, of course, to the paramount supremacy 
 of the Crown The evils predicted to follow 
 the introduction of this system of government 
 into the colonies have not come to pass. On 
 the contrary, the benefits have surpassed even- 
 the expectations of its most sanguine advocates. 
 The colonies, under this system, have been 
 working out the great problem of self-govern- 
 ment in harmony with a central and imperial 
 power. The result thus far has been eminently 
 satisfactory. The attempt at 'self-government 
 has gone beyond the experimental stage. In 
 no part of the world have the people greater 
 political freedom and personal security than in 
 the self-governing colonies of the British em- 
 pire. Our political methods are more demo- 
 cratic, more responsive to the popular will, 
 than are those of our neighbors to the south, 
 of us. With us a cabinet for continuance in 
 power must depend on the uninterrupted sup- 
 port and favor of the House of Commons; 
 with our neighbors the cabinet depends on the 
 will of the President, quite regardless of the
 
 COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT. 103 
 
 attitude of the House of Representatives. And 
 it is because of tin- I claim our system of gov- 
 ernment, in practical working, is more demo- 
 cratic than that of the United States. 
 
 Thirty or forty years ago leading Briti.-h 
 men seriously discussed the propriety of 
 allowing the colonies to sever the tie of allegi- 
 ance to the Crown. The theory was put forth 
 that colonial dependencies were a source of 
 wcakn.-.-s to the mother country, and not a 
 bond of strength. These statements, which 
 were avowed with more or less ability and per- 
 sistency, \veiv not calculated to Matter colonial 
 pride, nor stimulate colonial patriotism. But 
 that condition of affairs has happily ceased to 
 exist. We hear no such expression of opinion 
 now. The old time Manchester and Birming- 
 ham school of political thought has closed 
 it- doi.rs and gone out of business. Joseph 
 Chamberlain, the radical of former years, has 
 become the powerful exponent and champion 
 of the Imperial idea. Tin- public men of the 
 "little island " range- of political vision in tin- 
 old land have moved off the stage of public- 
 life. (Ireat Britain and her colonies stand 
 loser together, and have more in common, 
 than at any past period in their history. And 
 it is right that such should be tin- case. Inheri- 
 tors of her institutions, her history, her litera-
 
 104 SIXTY YEARS A QUEEN. 
 
 ture, her glorious past, we, as colonists, feel 
 an ever-increasing glow of affection for the 
 motherland beyond the sea. The imperial idea 
 is in the air ; it has taken hold of the thought 
 of the empire. It acquires strength by lapse 
 of time. Singular would it be if it were other- 
 wise. 
 
 " Shall we not through good and ill 
 
 Cleave to one another still ? 
 
 Britain's myriad voices call 
 ' Sons be welded each and all 
 
 Into one imperial whole, 
 
 One with Britain heart and soul, 
 
 One life, one flag, one fleet, one throne.' " 
 
 What a splendid spectacle can be witnessed 
 at this very time in London ^ The capital of 
 the empire is extending hospitality to the great 
 and titled of all lands. Its historic monuments 
 have looked upon many an epoch-making page- 
 ant, but upon none more important than the 
 present. The premiers of the colonies, from 
 all climes and from all quarters of the globe, 
 are there, not at the command of military or 
 arbitrary power, but voluntarily, and from a 
 sense of loyal duty, to pay homage and fealty 
 to Her who has so worthily worn the crown, 
 and so wisely ruled our vast empire for full 
 sixty years. Canadians have especial reason 
 to be proud. The "maple leaf" has been 
 assigned the place of honor. Amid the coro-
 
 MI. (.MAI. i'i:\ I:I.O|'.\II:M. In.") 
 
 of the titlf<l and the glittering emblem- 
 <>t' print-fly lineage, no one among the throng 
 receives greater honor, or attracts more atten- 
 tion, than WILFRID LAURIER, the prime minis- 
 ter of Canada. 1 We all, irrespective of party 
 politics, send our thanks across the sea for the 
 honor thus conferred upon Canada in the per- 
 son of her premier ; and we all join in tin- 
 prayer for the continued health of Her Majesty, 
 and the ever-increasing prosperity of the em- 
 pire. 
 
 1 Now, by reason of honors conferred at the time, the 
 Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., etc.
 
 IV. 
 
 AIM OF LEGISLATION; MATERIAL 
 
 DEVELOPMENT OR MORAL 
 
 IMPROVEMENT? 
 
 AX ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE FACULTY AND 
 STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK, 
 AT FREDERICTON, N. B., MARCH 12, 1895. 
 
 Some months ago Professor Davidson ex- 
 tracted a promise from me to be one of the 
 lecturers in this year's course. I am here this 
 evening in fulfilment of that promise. I 
 desire in the first place to assure my young 
 friends of the University that it gives me very 
 great pleasure, at all times, to be instrumental 
 in advancing, even in an humble way, the 
 educational and intellectual life of our Pro- 
 vince. I still cherish vivid and pleasant recol- 
 lections of my own student life at Mount 
 Allison University, and I sincerely trust I may 
 never forget how to appreciate and enter into 
 the feelings and aspirations of those pursuing 
 undergraduate courses of study. The subject 
 for consideration this evening is " The Aim of 
 Legislation Material Development or Moral 
 Improvement ? " The theme for discussion was 
 selected for the speaker; it was not his own 
 choosing. And yet if I had selected a topic 
 (106)
 
 MATERIAL DEVKUH'MENT. 107 
 
 for dUciission, it would have been difficult to 
 have chosen one more appropriate or more 
 practical. After engaging for several weeks 
 in the active work ot legislation 1 , what more 
 profitable or interesting than to turn aside for 
 an hour or so, amid the quiet of these Acade- 
 mic halls, to discuss the theory of legislation 
 the aims-ouirht and the objects to be attained ? 
 Many of you, no doubt, have listened from the 
 galleries of the Parliament building to earne-t 
 and warm discussion upon the various subjects 
 which, during the session just closed, have 
 engaged the attention of the collected legis- 
 lative wisdom of our Province. In many 
 instances you ma}* have felt that the sean-h 
 was not singly after truth as revealed by un- 
 clouded reason. You may have thought that 
 the quest for reaching correct conclusion was 
 occasionally hindered by desire for party ad- 
 vantage. \Vithin the halls of such an insti- 
 tution as this we meet to discus- questions 
 without bias, without party predilections; and 
 with, let us hope, a sincere desire to know the 
 truth. The range of the University curriculum 
 is now broader and more compivhen.-ive than it 
 was a halt', or even a quarter of a century a-n. 
 The necessities of the age require that such 
 should l>e the case. We study the present as 
 
 'The Legislative Assembly was prorogued, March 5, 18'J~>.
 
 108 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 well as the past. It is as important, that every 
 liberally educated person should understand 
 the scope and limitations of his country's insti- 
 tutions, as that he should possess a critical 
 knowledge of the political functions of the 
 Amphictyonic League or the Achaian Assem- 
 bly. In saying this, no reflection is intended 
 to be cast upon classical culture; on the con- 
 trary, I desire to emphasize the desirability of 
 its attainment. 
 
 Civilization is a development, a growth; it 
 is not a manufacture. The progress of de- 
 velopment is well marked, from hunter and 
 herdsman to husbandman and artificer. By 
 no process of rapid evolution can the nomad 
 of yesterday be transformed into the bull or bear 
 of the stock market of to-day. In the hunter 
 state men are scattered ; they subsist by the 
 chase, and require but few rules and laws to 
 govern their intercourse with each other. The 
 patriarchs of old were the law givers to those 
 under their control. The legislative, judicial 
 and executive functions were all centred in 
 them. In those days the family was the unit 
 in the state. When property accumulated, 
 when men became tillers of the soil and ceased 
 "nomadic life, when the individual became the 
 unit in the state or community, the need of 
 protection to life and property became appar-
 
 M\li:i;l.\L DEVELuI'MKM. 109 
 
 t-iit. I am not railed upon at this time t< di 
 ,!id define the terms "society" and "state." 
 and tin- many and various theories as to their 
 origin; u whether spontaneous or miraculous, 
 whether by divine agency or by a social com- 
 pact." Speaking generally, there are t\\<> 
 views a- to the origin of society. Aristotle 
 and those who think with him contend it 
 arose by nature, while Hobbes and his school 
 hold it arose from compact. It is not neces- 
 sary to detain you to consider either theory. 
 It is quite sufficient to know that society 
 exists, that people are living together in com- 
 munities, and that laws or regulations are 
 imperatively required to control and govern. 
 At this stage the question naturally arises: 
 What is law ? By this I mean the rule or 
 regulation society sets for itself in the govern- 
 ment of the varied relations of its members. 
 Professor Sidgwick, in a recent work ' follow- 
 ing Austin, says : "A law, in the more general 
 sense, may be defined as a command to do or 
 abstain from doing a certain class of acts issued 
 by a determinate person or body of persons 
 acting as a body, and involving the announce- 
 ment, express or tacit, of a penalty to U- in- 
 flicted on any persons who may disolu-y tin- 
 commands, it being assumed that the individual 
 
 1 KlemenU of Politics, p. 16.
 
 110 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 or body announcing the penalty has the power 
 and purpose of inflicting it. Such commands, 
 when issued directly or indirectly by the sove- 
 reign of the community to which the command 
 is addressed, are positive laws in the strictest 
 sense." Blackstone defines municipal law as 
 " a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the 
 supreme power in the state, commanding what 
 is right and prohibiting what is wrong." Chan- 
 cellor Kent declares it to be a " rule of civil 
 conduct prescribed by the supreme power of a 
 state." 
 
 It is not necessary to remind you that un- 
 written preceded written laws. The former, 
 however, were none the less binding because 
 unwritten. Laws in a country may exist and 
 possess authority from usage, religious observ- 
 ances, decisions of courts, writings of those 
 skilled in the science, and from legislation. 
 " Statute law," says Kent, " is the express writ- 
 teji will of the legislature, rendered authentic 
 by certain prescribed forms and solemnities." 
 The great body of laws in every civilized 
 country to-day is the statute law, that law 
 ordained by the sovereign legislative authority 
 of a country. The different legislative bodies 
 throughout the world are annually busily en- 
 gaged putting upon the statute book laws hav- 
 ing for their objects the attainment of all sorts
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPS! i 111 
 
 and conditions of things. The opening up of 
 a .-I MI lit ry to settlement, the bridging of rivers 
 and .-tivams, tin.- const ruction of railroads, the 
 incorporation of companies for educational, 
 religious, and commercial purposes, sanitary 
 laws, compelling the observance of rules relat- 
 ing to health and preventing the spread of 
 disease, and numerous other objects are con- 
 tinually claiming legislative intervention. My 
 subject requires that I give some idea of the 
 aim of all this legislation, or rather what ought 
 to be its aim. \V r hat principle, what motive, 
 should underlie legislative enactment ? The 
 principles of morals and legislation were dis- 
 cussed with great force and acuteness by 
 Jeremy Bentham more than a century ago; 
 and since his day many eminent writers have 
 traversed the same domain of investigation 
 with greater or less ezhauetiveness. Bentham 
 grounds his views upon the principle of utility. 
 1I<- defines the principle of utility to be "that 
 principle which approves or disapproves of 
 -ry action whatsoever, according to the ten- 
 dency which it appears to have to augment or 
 diminish the happiness of the party whose 
 interest is in question ; or what is the same 
 thing in other words, to promote or oppose 
 that happiness." 1 He applies this principle to 
 
 1 Principles of Morals and Legislation, Clarendon Press, 
 Oxford, 1879, p. 2.
 
 112 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 every action whatsoever, not alone every action 
 of a private individual, but likewise every mea- 
 sure of government. By utility he means 
 " that property in any object whereby it tends 
 to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, 
 or happiness ; " or its converse, " to prevent 
 the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or un- 
 happiness to the party whose interest is con- 
 cerned; if that party be the community in 
 general, then the happiness of the community ; 
 if a particular individual, then the happiness 
 of that individual." It may therefore be de- 
 duced from Bentham's theory of legislation that 
 the great primary object of thelegislature should 
 be to enact laws tending to promote happiness, 
 or to avert its opposite. Mr. Justice Markby, 2 
 in a recent work, is by no means optimistic 
 as to the power of legislation to secure happi- 
 ness. He says : " If instead of saying that we 
 ought not to take utility as our guide in legis- 
 lation, it were said that legislation, even with 
 utility for its guide, is, after all, but a feeble 
 instrument of happiness, I should be much 
 more inclined to agree. I take it, however, 
 that this is not because we have chosen the 
 wrong principle to guide us in legislation, but 
 because legislation can never, under any cir- 
 
 'id,p.2. 
 
 2 Elements of Law, Clarendon Press, 4 ed., p. 33.
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOI'M KM . 113 
 
 ciniistances, be a potent instrument for happi- 
 ness. Nearly all the lawgiver can do is to 
 remove impediments to people procuring hap- 
 piness for themselves, and to secure thorn from 
 being disturbed in the enjoyment of it." All law 
 is coercive, restraining, or organizing. Hobbes 
 declares that " law was brought into the world 
 tor nothing else but to limit the natural liberty 
 of particular men, in such manner as they 
 might not hurt, but assist one another, and 
 join together against a common enemy." Kant 
 defines the object of law as " The totality of 
 the conditions under which the free will of one 
 man can be united with the free will of another 
 in accordance with a general law of freedom." 
 Locke states that " the end of the law is not to 
 abolish or restrain, but to preserve or enlarge 
 freedom." No doubt the ultimate object of 
 every law should be the highest well-being of 
 society. I cite the statements of these great 
 thinkers in these departments of human study 
 and activity, hoping that you may thereby be 
 induced to peruse their pages at first hand and 
 for yourselves. 
 
 Instead of dwelling upon the abstract requi- 
 sites of legislation, I prefer, tor obvious and 
 practical purposes, to point out what has Keen 
 aooompfiahed by legislation, and from these 
 instances draw conclusions as to the aim and 
 n
 
 114 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 scope of legislation in general. The ultimate 
 aim of legislation should not only,be the high- 
 est well being of society as it at present exists, 
 but it should also project beyond the present, 
 so as to conserve the well being of posterity. 
 " What need I care for posterity ; it has done 
 nothing for me ? " is the idle or jocular remark 
 we often hear. If the affairs of the world were 
 really conducted on that principle, the results 
 would indeed be disastrous. Under such cir- 
 cumstances we would have no interest in the 
 prosecution of enterprises extending beyond 
 the limited horizon of our own little lives. 
 The great projects for the settlement and civil- 
 ization of continents, the expansion of com- 
 merce, and the establishment of noble charities, 
 would remain as idle dreams. Sordid selfish- 
 ness would naturally rule the race. We are 
 reaping to-day largely from the sowing of past 
 years. Take our own province as an illustra- 
 tion. The great majority of those who, fifty 
 years ago, planned for the progress and well- 
 being of this province, have passed from the 
 stage of life. Their works, however, remain. 
 And it was intended by those who made our 
 laws, felled our forests, and rendered the con- 
 ditions of life enjoyable, that their works should 
 follow them, as a benefit to those succeeding. 
 In this age of the world wealth has so largely
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT. 115 
 
 increased, resources of all kinds under new 
 conditions have been so greatly developed, in- 
 tercommunication has been rendered so easy, 
 ;u il the social, political and commercial rela- 
 tions men sustain to each other are so compli- 
 cated, that there must be laws, regulations, in 
 short, legislation, to direct and protect those 
 complicated conditions and relations. If it 
 had not been for the fostering and protecting 
 influence of law, wealth would not have so 
 accumulated, and our resources would not have 
 been so developed. The first great object to 
 engage the state's attention is to secure abso- 
 lute security for person and property. People 
 dwelling within our borders must have the 
 a-- u ranee that their lives and their property 
 are safe under the law. If the state is unable 
 to give such assurance, the thrifty will go where 
 such security can be had. Thrift, accumula- 
 tion, capital, labor, shrink from every appear- 
 ance of lawlessness, or weakness in adminis- 
 tration of law. The laws of a country must 
 not only impose sanctions tor tin- <. urity of 
 life and property, but to be efficacious there 
 must be power behind thqm to enforce, if 
 necessary, their proper observance. The abso- 
 lute necessity for these conditions can be seen 
 to-day in some despotic eastern countries. Take 
 Egypt as an example. The natural resources
 
 116 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 of that country properly developed and pro- 
 tected would efficiently maintain the public- 
 services and keep the people in comparative 
 comfort. The population, if free, would be- 
 come industrious and thrifty. But such has 
 not been the result in Egypt. The people are 
 down-trodden, they are not very secure in their 
 personal liberty, and they are robbed by the 
 tax gatherer for so-called state purposes. In 
 consequence of this unfavorable condition, the 
 people refuse in large measure to cultivate the 
 land and to engage in other productive pur- 
 suits, as they have no guarantee that they will 
 be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labors. 
 The evils endured by the people of that 
 country have been greatly mitigated of late 
 years through the agency of British influence. 
 This sense of insecurity paralyzes the arm of 
 industry, and destroys the spirit of enterprise. 
 But while freedom of person and security of 
 property are absolutely indispensable to the 
 greatest individual and public prosperity, there 
 are some modifying limitations to this state- 
 men!. Let us look at this phase of the subject 
 from the standpoint of material development 
 in the light of modern legislation. Circum- 
 stances may, and in fact do, frequently arise, 
 where the interests of the individual and the 
 state the public at large become antago-
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPS! KM . 117 
 
 ni.-tir. The- individual is now the unit, and 
 tin- aggregate of units composes the com- 
 munity or state. While tin- individual is 
 deeply interested in the prosperity of the state, 
 that interest is reciprocal, as the state is also 
 interested in the welfare of the individual. 
 The state the aggregate of units must seek 
 to promote the general welfare, but in doing 
 so the rights of the individual may have to 
 give way for the general good. The pro- 
 position in more popular phrase is that private 
 rights must give way to the public good. In 
 this sense then, under existing theories and 
 ]>ra< -tice of legislation, we hold our property 
 a- trustees for the public welfare. While the 
 >tate guarantees us personal liberty, and free- 
 dom of speech and action, there is the implied 
 Condition that we must not in the exercise of 
 that liberty interfere with the liberty and 
 riirhts of others. 
 
 A great many notions formerly held as to 
 the sacredness of private property have been 
 rudely shocked by modern legislation. A 
 man's house is said to be his castle; and in a 
 sense that is quite correct. The (Jin-en has 
 no right to enter without his permission and 
 airainst his will. But the exigencies of modern 
 improvement and enterprise have in many 
 cases induced the legislature to grant corporate
 
 118 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 powers under the authority of which a man's 
 dwelling may be completely obliterated. The 
 exercise of such authority under legislative 
 sanction became especially prominent forty or 
 iifty years ago in England when the railway 
 companies were constructing their lines of rail- 
 way. We are also quite familiar with the 
 exercise of such power in this country since 
 the beginning of the construction of railways. 
 The doctrine of eminent domain 1 is one with 
 which the legal profession is familiar. It is 
 the right or power of a sovereign state to ap- 
 propriate private property to particular uses 
 for the purpose of promoting the general 
 welfare. It embraces all cases where, b} T 
 authority of the state and for the public good, 
 the property of the individual is taken without 
 his consent for the purpose of being devoted to 
 some particular use, either by the state itself 
 or by a corporation, public or private, or by a 
 private citizen. Judge Cooley 2 says: "It is 
 the rightful authority which exists in every 
 sovereignty to control and regulate these rights 
 of a public nature which pertain to its citizens 
 in common, and to appropriate and control 
 individual property for the public benefit as 
 the public safety, necessity, convenience, or 
 
 x See Lewis cm Eminent Domain, p. 1. 
 
 * Constitutional Limitations, 5th ed., p. 649.
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT. 119 
 
 welfare may demand." "We hold our lam Is 
 subject to this implied right of expropriation. 
 And this power to expropriate is now fully 
 granted by the legislature on the theory that it 
 is in the public interests. This right at first 
 was sparingly given, but the principle has be- 
 come so firmly established in our legislation 
 that expropriation acts are of frequent occur- 
 rence. It may with great apparent strength of 
 reason be asked, what right has a priva in- 
 corporation to run a line of railway through 
 my garden, or it may be over the site of my 
 house? The power to exercise this right is 
 given to every railway company receiving cor- 
 porate power fromHhe legislature. Upon what 
 basis of reason does it rest? The theory is 
 that the exercise of the power increases the 
 material development of the country, adds to 
 its rer-omvr-, and is so important in the public 
 interests that rights of private property must 
 give way to the paramount interests of the 
 general public. Of late years we have seen 
 the application of this principle of legislation 
 ( ai li. (1 tar beyond the power of expropriation 
 contained in railway charters. The grant of 
 -iidi [.own- in ronm-.-tion with railway legis- 
 lation was supported on the ground that rail- 
 way construction, although promoted by a 
 private company, was m'Verthele.-s a </"</.</ pub-
 
 120 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 lie undertaking and for the public good. It 
 will be noted that by such process of reasoning 
 the expropriation of private property is justified 
 and defended on the result, on the object to be 
 attained, on the general purposes of the under- 
 taking. But in theory and in fact the right to 
 take rests upon the broad ground that private 
 rights must not stand in the way of general 
 progress. One of the great striking facts of 
 modern times is the joint stock company. Indi- 
 vidual efforts generally cannot accomplish great 
 public enterprises for lack of sufficient capital. 
 But this inability on the part of the individual 
 is surmounted by the capital of the many 
 brought into a common treasury by means of 
 the joint stock company. The company with 
 its massed capital ca-n easily enter upon the 
 prosecution and completion of enterprises be- 
 yond the reach or means of the individual. 
 The enterprises have mainly had for their 
 accomplishment great undertakings for the 
 public benefit, and have been considered as 
 quasi public in their scope and purpose, although 
 in the hands of private corporations. They 
 have been fostered and subsidized by legis- 
 lation, and have no doubt, in many cases, con- 
 tributed in large measure to the material 
 progress of the locality in which the corpor- 
 ations do business or carry on their works. 
 
 \
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 Let us consider some instances found in our 
 own provincial statute book outside of railway 
 legislation. All the cases! shall mention had 
 tor their object the matt-rial and sanitary im- 
 provement of the community. Take water 
 and gas companies as examples. In these cases 
 the companies, for purposes of making divi- 
 dends for the shareholders, have prosecuted 
 their works and have supplied the public with 
 gas and water, and in return for their proposed 
 services, have received legislative authority to 
 dig up streets and highways, cross private pro- 
 perty; and upon payment of compensation 
 have been authori/.ed to take the property of 
 others rompnlsorily in order the better to carry 
 on their works. All this is justified on the 
 ground of public eojiveniencc and necessity. 
 During the last session 1 of the legislature we 
 incorporated a company with authority to open 
 coal mines, construct a railway, erect smelting 
 works with power to acquire compnlsorily 
 private property even for the site of the smelt- 
 ing buildings. The grant of such large and 
 exceptional power to a private company en- 
 gaged in mercantile and manufacturing pur- 
 suits in the ordinary way of trade, is. it mu-t 
 be admitted, a very distinct enlargement of the 
 principle we are considering. The same prin- 
 
 1 Arts of Asscml.ly. . 79.
 
 122 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 ciple was involved in another law authorizing- 
 a private company to acquire private lands for 
 a public park. The latter case on its face pre- 
 sented stronger reasons for the grant of the 
 right than in the case of the coal company. 
 In the session of 1894 the legislature author- 
 ized a cemetery company 1 to expropriate a 
 portion of the farm of an adjoining owner for 
 cemetery purposes. It is scarcely necessary to 
 add that the power to take compulsorily is 
 only exercised after failure to agree for private 
 purchase, and compensation is given for the 
 value of the property taken. 
 
 Now, if you consider for a moment, the 
 instances given, you will notice the principle 
 of utility, suggested by Bentham, is not absent. 
 The prosecution of these undertakings would 
 promote the happiness or convenience of at 
 least a part of the public. The material re- 
 sources of the country in some of the casea 
 would be increased ; in others, the sanitary 
 and health-promoting conditions of the people 
 would be conserved. Such considerations, no 
 doubt, move the legislature in granting such 
 wide powers. All laws relating to the settle- 
 ment of our public lands, the construction and 
 repair of our roads and bridges, the improve- 
 ment of the navigation of our rivers and 
 1 57 Vic., c. 80.
 
 MATERIAL DKVI-I.opMKNT. 
 
 streams, the aid \ve give to agriculture, and 
 the encouragement extended to mining and 
 lumbering industries, have for their aims 
 and purpose the increase of wealth and the 
 improvement of the condition of the people. 
 
 All legislation .should seek to have a free 
 111:111 in a free state. The necessity for indi- 
 vidual freedom of action has already been 
 pointed out. This right to individual freedom 
 of action is, however, limited by the wise re- 
 striction that the exercise of the freedom must 
 not interfere with the rights of others. Tins 
 is substantially the position taken l>y Hobbes, 
 and is supposed to run through all intelligent 
 legislation. In fact there would be no freedom 
 at all if every person did as he pleased regard- 
 less of the rights of others. Society, under 
 such conditions would sink into barbarism. 
 and might, not right, would prevail. General 
 anarchy would be the result. But legislation 
 goes even beyond protecting man against the 
 aggressions ,.(' hi- fellow.-, it seeks to j.rot.-.-t 
 him against himself. It does this upon well 
 founded principles of public policy. Man finds 
 himself a member of society, lie is one of 
 the units which make nj> the aggregate. The 
 highest and best possible development of the 
 separate units must necessarily lienefit the 
 aggregate. This shows us how the state has
 
 124 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 a deep interest in the individual, in his power 
 as a wealth producer, as a contributor to the 
 public treasury, as a force against ignorance 
 and crime. This theory justifies the enact- 
 ment of laws to repress the liquor traffic. If 
 you admit that the use of intoxicants lessens 
 the producing power of the wage-earner, that 
 it has a tendency to produce pauperism and 
 crime the logical conclusion must follow, that 
 society the state has an undoubted right 
 to protect itself against the evil. ^ Legislation 
 upon this subject is in reality an attempt to 
 protect the individual and society against in- 
 jury. In more euphemistic phrase, and to be 
 strictly within constitutional limits, we say it 
 is raising a revenue for civic or municipal pur- 
 poses. We justify the maintenance of our 
 public school system on the same theory. In- 
 telligence, sobriety, capacity to discharge the 
 duties of citizenship properly, ability to add to 
 the general wealth, are important factors in 
 building up a free and progressive state. We, 
 therefore, by legislative enactment declare that 
 the property of the whole community must 
 contribute to place within the reach of every 
 child the means of acquiring an education. 
 As the state benefits by the intelligence and 
 character of its citizens, the property within it 
 must, in part at least, bear the burden of
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT. 125 
 
 securing these <iualities of citizenship. Tax- 
 ation for puhlic schools is better than for 
 prisons and reformatories. The legislature of 
 e\vry enlightened country acts on this prin- 
 ciple. But, we know, the objection is made 
 that those having property and no children to 
 educate should not be compelled to part with a 
 portion of their property annually to educate 
 other people's children. The state by its legis- 
 lation declares that " no man liveth unto him- 
 self alone," all citizens should be intelligent, 
 and as that condition benefits the entire com- 
 munity, so the property of the community 
 must contribute to that end. The logical 
 conclusion from this argument is, that as faci- 
 lities for educating all are provided by general 
 taxation, the state should go a step further and 
 insist that every child receive more or less 
 instruction. This question will no doubt at no 
 distant date require the best consideration of 
 the legislature. The individual, by law, as we 
 have seen is protected against himself. He is 
 also prevented from committing acts or pur- 
 suing courses of conduct injurious to the state. 
 Legislation demanding pure foods, limited 
 hours of labor for women and children, tin- 
 protection of workmen against dangerous ma- 
 chinery may be classed in the first division. 
 This species of legislation not only interi'eiv-
 
 126 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 with freedom of action, but it also interferes 
 with freedom of contract. A man may be will- 
 ing to take all risks against which these laws 
 provide, but the legislature decides and judges 
 for him. Look at the recent Factory Acts 
 in England relating to women and children. 
 They limit the hours of labor and the con- 
 ditions upon which the labor is to be per- 
 formed. The beneficent provisions of these 
 acts have since been extended to the children 
 of the agricultural districts. In these laws a 
 limit is placed upon the greed of the manu- 
 facturer and landlord. Those employed can- 
 not by voluntary contract escape the terms of 
 the law. For many years we have had strict 
 laws for the protection of our sailors. These 
 classes are looked upon as wards of the pub- 
 lic. The legislature assumes that they need 
 protection, and unless protected by stringent 
 laws that they will be injured in their lives. 
 The necessities of poverty stricken women and 
 children have frequently goaded them to work 
 beyond their strength. This is not only in- 
 jurious to the present generation, but also to 
 the future generations, and the legislature 
 wisely declares that these classes must be pro- 
 tected, and that the race must be saved from 
 deterioration. Another branch of the subject 
 is the protection of the public against the indi-
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT. 127 
 
 vidual. Laws relating to public health, th- 
 prevention of contagious diseases and kindred 
 subjects come under this head. We restrain 
 all acts of the individual calculated to imperil 
 the public health. A home containing a case 
 of contagious disease, under the authority of 
 laws relating to the public health, is at once 
 placarded and put under control of the proper 
 officers. The health officer, with impunity, 
 under such circumstances, invades the owner's 
 castle, and the owner is compelled to take all 
 needed precautions to protect his neighbor 
 and the public. Even in the construction of 
 dwellings in large centres of population the 
 legislature prescribes the requisites for sewer- 
 age and plumbing. A very important case, 
 bearing on this branch of our subject, was 
 quite recently decided by the New York Court 
 of Appeals. A law was enacted requiring the 
 owners of tenement houses to provide for a 
 supply of water on every floor. A church 
 corporation, owning tenement houses in New 
 York city, refused to comply with the pro- 
 visions of the law as they were required to do 
 by the Board of Health. The refusal rendered 
 the corporation liable to a fine, and the liti- 
 gation in question arose over its collection. 
 Tlu' defendants, nmong other defences, denied 
 tin- constitutionality of the law, and lengthy
 
 128 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 arguments were had upon this view of the 
 case. The Court of Appeals in delivering 
 judgment, said : " "We think that in this case 
 it is not a mere matter of convenience of the 
 tenants as to where they shall obtain their 
 supply of water. Simple convenience, \ve 
 admit, would not authorize the passage of this 
 kind of legislation. But where it is obvious 
 that without the convenience of an appliance 
 for the supply of water on the various floors of 
 their tenement houses, there will be scarcely 
 any but the most limited and scanty use of the 
 water itself, which must be carried from the 
 yards below, and where we must admit that 
 the free use of water tends directly and im- 
 mediately towards the sustaining of the health 
 of the individual and the prevention of disease 
 arising from tilth, either of the person, or in 
 the surrounding habitation, then we must con- 
 clude that it is more than a mere matter of 
 convenience in the use of water which is in- 
 volved in the decision in this case. The absence 
 of the water tends directly towards the breed- 
 ing of disease, and its presence is healthful 
 and humanizing." You will notice the court 
 in this case bases its judgment not upon con- 
 venience, but upon the broader ground of 
 individual cleanliness as a protection against 
 disease and in favor of decency and humanity.
 
 MATERIAL DK\ KI.uI'M KNT. 129 
 
 Thus far I have said nothing in respect of the 
 criminal laws of a country. A very distin- 
 guished writer 1 has said that tin- main object 
 of legislation is to protect the innocent against 
 the guilty. This is a very sweeping genera li/- 
 ation, but in a sense it contains a large measure 
 of truth. Criminal laws are for the protection 
 of lawlessness and the repression of crime. 
 Their sanctions are intended to deter from the 
 commission of offences rather than to punish 
 offences. Another field of fruitful inquiry is 
 how far legislation should seek to educate 
 people in morality, or to suppress teachings 
 and opinions likely to corrupt good morals and 
 injure the state. A man may sincerely hold 
 opinions as to the proper forms of government, 
 social duties, and religious life and duties con- 
 nected therewith at variance with the generally 
 accepted views. It is no part of the duty of a 
 state to teach dogmatic theology; that work 
 properly belongs to the different chuivhc-. 
 And yet the tendency of legislation should he 
 in favor of morality and orderly conduct. It 
 may be urged that the e.\piv->ion of particular 
 views is injurious or dangerous to society or 
 the state, and therefore should be suppressed. 
 It was upon such reasoning that freedom of 
 
 1 Buckle's History of Civilization, Vol. 1, p. 23. Roee-Bed- 
 ford Pub. Co., 1878. 
 
 l
 
 130 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 religious opinion was formerly repressed, and 
 freedom of public discussion in the press or on 
 the platform denied. Our country has happily 
 outgrown these views. While opinions may 
 be deemed heterodox in both church and state 
 we have learned that the repression of opinion 
 or discussion will lead to graver evils than those 
 sought to be avoided by means of restriction. 
 While we admit all this, legislation at all 
 hazards must .protect the public against crime, 
 immorality and those practices injurious to the 
 community, or to the individual. Legislation 
 should not be in advance, or much in advance 
 of public opinion. It is supposed to embody 
 the collected sense of the community at the 
 time of its enactment. There are occasions, 
 however, when the leaders of men must act 
 in the interest of the state, although public 
 opinion may be adverse. They must trust to the 
 possibility of subsequently educating public 
 opinion up to the required standard. Laws 
 are placed on the statute book for a purpose. 
 They should be obeyed. One of the most 
 unfortunate and demoralizing things which 
 can happen a community is to have a law 
 violated with impunity. Disregard of a par- 
 ticular law in time begets disregard and want 
 of respect for all law. To clearly understand 
 the history of a country, its intellectual life and
 
 ' MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT. 131 
 
 social growth, we must consult its statute book. 
 The historian who neglects this will fail to 
 grasp intelligently the many and varied phases 
 through which a country has passed in build- 
 ing up its material prosperity, and in develop- 
 ing its intellectual and social conditions. "While 
 wealth cannot be created by Act of Parliament, 
 yet wise legislation may guide and intensify 
 the efforts of a community in the pursuit of 
 material growth, commercial expansion, and 
 social progress. Our systems of public edu- 
 cation, our encouragement to agriculture, our 
 aid to the construction of public works so as 
 to render transit easy, all testify in favor of 
 this view. It is the duty of the legislator to 
 study well the conditions of the country for 
 which he legislates, and to do that which at the 
 time appears to be in the best interests of the 
 public. Changing conditions may require 
 change of method. Political science is by no 
 means an exact science. Mr. Buckle ', a bril- 
 liant writer and a most industrious collector of 
 facts, in one of his gcnerali/.ations, >ays: "Poli- 
 tics so far from being a science is one of the 
 mo-t backward of all the arts; and the only 
 >at'c course for the legislator is to look upon 
 his craft as consisting in the adaptation of 
 temporary contrivances to temporary einerg- 
 
 1 Hi>t.,ry of Civilization, Vol. 1, p. 504.
 
 132 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 encies. His business is to follow the age, and 
 not at all to attempt to lead it. He should be 
 satisfied with studying what is passing around 
 him ; and should modify his schemes, not 
 according to the notions he has inherited from 
 his fathers, but according to the actual exig- 
 encies of his own time. For he may rely upon 
 it that the movements of society have now 
 become so rapid that the wants of one gener- 
 ation are no measure of the wants of another." 
 These are words worthy of attentive study. 
 Intelligently following them, in the actual work 
 of legislation, would enure to the benefit of 
 the state. But you must not infer from the 
 language of Mr. Buckle that he favors political 
 opportunism. He does nothing of the kind. 
 Political opportunists care but little for the 
 public weal. They fasten themselves upon a 
 political party almost always the party in 
 power not through any patriotic purpose, but 
 to advance their personal interests. 
 
 From what has thus far been stated, it must 
 be evident that a legislator should possess a 
 large and varied fund of knowledge. As stated 
 by Aristotle, 1 in addition to this practical wis- 
 dom, " he ought to perceive what laws are 
 best, and what are most suitable to each par- 
 ticular government; for all laws ought to be 
 1 Politics, Bk. 4, c. 1, Bohn's ed.
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 trained, and are framed by all men, with refer- 
 ence to the state, and not the state with reference 
 to the laws. For government is a certain order- 
 in sr in a state, which respects the magistrates 
 as to the manner in which they are regulated, 
 where the supreme power shall be placed, and 
 what is the final object which each community 
 shall have in view. . . . And hence it is 
 evident that the founders of laws should attend 
 to the different kinds and to the number of 
 governments ; for it is impossible that the same 
 la\vs should be fitted to all sorts of oligarchies 
 and democracies; for of both these govern- 
 im-nts there are many species, and not one 
 only." Plato l placed a high ideal before those 
 preparing to become legislators. He would 
 keep them till they were fifty years of age in 
 active and earnest preparation for this highest 
 of work. "Then, as soon as they are fifty 
 y-ars old, those who have passed safely through 
 all temptations, and who have won every dis- 
 tinction in every branch, whether of action or 
 of science, must be forthwith introduced to 
 their final task, and must be constrained to lift 
 up the eye of the soul and fix it upon that 
 which gives light to all things; and having 
 surveyed the essence of good, they must take 
 
 1 Republic, Bk. 7, translation by Davies and Vaughan, 
 1874, p. 268.
 
 134 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 it as a pattern to be copied in that work of 
 regulating their country and their fellow-citi- 
 zens and themselves, which is to occupy each 
 in turn during the rest of life ; and though 
 they are to pass most of their time in philoso- 
 phical pursuits, yet each, when his turn comes, 
 is to devote himself to the hard duties of public 
 life, and hold office for their country's sake, 
 not as a desirable, but as an unavoidable occu- 
 pation, and thus having trained up a constant 
 supply of others like themselves to fill their 
 places as guardians of the state, they will de- 
 part and take up their abode in the islands of 
 the blessed. And the state will put up monu- 
 ments to their memory at the public expense." 
 These are high standards of attainment, and if 
 all, ambitious of becoming law-makers, were 
 compelled to meet these requirements, the 
 numbers seeking such distinction might possi- 
 bly be considerably smaller than at present. 
 Professor Lorimer 1 contends that we can only 
 legislate correctly when we do so in accordance 
 with the law of nature. In his view the legis- 
 lator ought to have knowledge of the laws of 
 nature, and that such knowledge is as neces- 
 sary to him as knowledge of the laws of the 
 land to one placed on the bench to administer 
 law. " That the errors of our legislation do 
 
 1 Institutes of Law, p. 193.
 
 MATERIAL DEVELOPS! K NT. I-!-", 
 
 in practice arise from mistaken or imp* 
 conceptions of the objects which legislation 
 ought to seek, quite as frequently us of the 
 means by which its objects are to be attaint <!, 
 is a fact which will become apparent more and 
 more as we compare the objects of positive laws 
 with the objects of natural laws; and there is. 
 moreover, this very important difference be- 
 tween these two sources of error, that whereas 
 a law which employs inadequate means calls 
 only tor amendment, a law which aims at a 
 false object demands immediate repeal. When 
 the legislative engine is set on the right rails 
 and turned in the right direction, all that is 
 requisite is that the greatest amount of speed 
 should be attained that is consistent with safety. 
 But if it is on the wrong line, or has run off the 
 rails, the journey will never be accomplished, 
 and damage to lite and property increases every 
 instant that the engine continues in motion." 
 We must not, however, forget that Herbert 
 spencer 1 i< not so highly impressed with the 
 
 ligi>lator a- a factor in the development of a 
 state as some of the writers I have already 
 named. Il- thinks we are too apt to forget 
 tlu- social forces at work in producing the 
 beneficent results already attained. Ife de- 
 
 1 Justice: The Limits of State-duties, Appleton A Co., 
 1891, p. 247.
 
 136 AIM OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 clares that when the legislator " asks how the 
 surface of the earth has been cleared and made 
 fertile, how towns have grown up, how manu- 
 factures of all kinds have arisen, how the arts 
 have been developed, how knowledge has been 
 accumulated, how literature has been produced, 
 he is forced to recognize the fact that none of 
 these are of governmental origin, but how 
 many of them suffered from governmental ob- 
 struction ; yet, ignoring all this, he assumes 
 that if a good is to be achieved or an evil pre- 
 vented, parliament must be invoked. He has 
 unlimited faith in the agency which has 
 achieved multitudinous failures, and has no 
 faith in the agency which has achieved multi- 
 tudinous successes." 
 
 In conclusion, I think we can all agree that 
 the legislator should have an intelligent know- 
 ledge of his own country at the very least. A 
 wider knowledge, enabling him to compare 
 different political systems with his own, would 
 add to his legislative usefulness. The aim of 
 legislation should be to promote both material 
 development and moral improvement. The 
 legislator should have extensive knowledge of 
 the material resources of his country. He 
 should seek to know the best means of devel- 
 oping those resources. He also should have 
 faith in the possibilities of his country, and his
 
 MATERIAL DKVKL>l>MKNT. 137 
 
 effort should be to give to that country an in- 
 telligent and law-abiding citizenship. Legis- 
 lation promoted on such conditions would 
 elevate all the concerns of state, and from it 
 would flow the happiest results.
 
 V. 
 
 THE OBJECT OF LAW, AS RELATED 
 
 TO THE STATE AKD THE 
 
 INDIVIDUAL. 
 
 AN ADDRESS DELIVERED IN THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 
 COURSE, ST. JOHN, N. B., FEBRUARY 14, 1892. 
 
 From the very interesting and instructive 
 lectures of my predecessor, the Recorder, 1 you 
 have heard something of the origin of law, the 
 sources whence derived, and the development 
 of the various systems in different ages to meet 
 the requirements of social conditions and ad- 
 vancing civilization. It now becomes my duty 
 to speak to you on the object of law, its rela- 
 tion to society and the individual ; its enforce- 
 ment; the security of life and property as 
 dependent upon its proper and expeditious 
 administration ; and such other topics as natur- 
 ally grow out of the discussion of these sub- 
 jects. Emerson, in one of his essays, gives a 
 good definition of law, taken from the Hindoo 
 scriptures : " Law it is which is without name 
 or color or hands or feet; which is smallest of 
 the least, and largest of the large ; all and 
 knowing all things ; which hears without ears, 
 
 1 1. Allen Jack, D. C. L., Q. C. 
 
 (138)
 
 THE STATE AND TIIK INIUVIOUAL. 139 
 
 sees without eyes, moves without feet, and 
 seizes without hands." This is a very good 
 definition, especially as seen in a well governed 
 state. Its all pervasive intiuenec is exerted 
 throughout the community without notice, and 
 without so much as giving any indication of 
 its presence until some violation of its provi- 
 sions takes place. Then its existence is soon 
 apparent, and the offender learns that he can- 
 not ignore its rules with impunity. The 
 dictum of Herhert Spencer that " law embodies 
 the dictates of the dead to the living" is just 
 and forcibly put. My remarks in this discourse 
 must be understood as limited to human laws 
 laws made by men fur their own guidance 
 and government. In the early times tin -re 
 were no distinctions between human and divine 
 laws. In tact all laws originally were supposed 
 to have come down to mankind from a divine 
 source, and their observance was based on a 
 duty to the gods ; their non-observance entailed 
 not only punishment from man, but merited 
 the anger of the gods. Grote points out that 
 among the Greeks there was no Greek word 
 for human laws. The Romans supposed that 
 their laws had been received by Numa from 
 the g.nl. : :ia. I'.ut as trade and com- 
 
 merce increased, as intercourse between peoples 
 of different cities and distant lands became
 
 140 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 more frequent, as the necessities of a growing 
 civilization in the different communities of the 
 same nation even indicated the impossibility 
 of social existence without defined rules to 
 regulate the conduct of persons and property, 
 a distinction gradually arose between the divine 
 and human laws; those regulating the con- 
 science, and those regulating the status of 
 citizen and the acquisition and transfer of pro- 
 perty. It is quite easy to understand that laws 
 suitable for one stage of social development 
 might be inadequate for a totally different stage 
 or condition. The object of human law is to 
 govern the relations between individuals as 
 members of society, to preserve to each the 
 right of person and property, and in this way 
 to stimulate individuals to exertion in the ac- 
 quisition of property and the improvement of 
 their social condition. I do not claim for a 
 country possessing a wise system of jurisprud- 
 ence pre-eminent superiority over one not so 
 fortunately situated. A modern writer 1 has 
 w r ell said: "In various departments of intel- 
 lectual exertion in philosophy, poetry, oratory 
 and the fine arts the Greeks have never been 
 surpassed. But they contributed almost noth- 
 ing to the science of jurisprudence. In specu- 
 lative philosophy they greatly excelled the 
 
 1 Mackenzie, Roman Law, p. 1.
 
 THE STATE AND TlIK INDIVIDUAL. 141 
 
 Romans; but in the cultivation of law, the 
 Umans carried off the palm from all the 
 nations of antiquity." The country. however. 
 possessing a good system of law, and ample 
 i Machinery to put it in force, with ability and 
 inclination to preserve to every person the law- 
 ful acquisitions arising from brain or hand, will 
 excel in every development worthy of social 
 and national life a community or state not so 
 happily situated. How could there be national 
 progress in a state where the husbandman, the 
 artisan, or the worker in any department of 
 production was in momentary dread of being 
 despoiled of his just acquisitions by some 
 roving bandit? We have abundant evidence 
 of this disastrous effect upon thrift in countries 
 incapable or unwilling to protect life and pro- 
 perty. The soil may be fertile, the climate all 
 that is desirable, the results of well directed 
 labor abundant, and yet the people are far from 
 prosperous in consequence of the lawless, dis- 
 tracted state of the country. The husbandman, 
 tin- merchant, tin- waire earner, will not devote 
 brain and eneriry to their respective pursuits if 
 there is no assurance of ivaping the legitimate 
 reward. The true object of law should pri- 
 marily be to protect all in the enjoyim-nt of 
 security of personal freedom and the unli- 
 turbed possession of lawful gain. < >nly under
 
 142 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 such social conditions will there be substan- 
 tial advancement in intellectual and material 
 growth. 
 
 It is the proud boast of all countries governed 
 by English law that much of their rapid growth 
 in intelligence, political freedom, and expand- 
 ing wealth, is largely due to the laws under 
 which they live. This statement applies to 
 Great Britain, her English speaking colonies, 
 and the United States. The common law of 
 England, which has grown with the centuries, 
 is much different from the laws of continental 
 Europe. We have grown to our present stature 
 under the common law; the rest of the world, 
 outside of the English speaking portions of it, 
 under what is known as the civil law. Our 
 nation from early times clung to the principles 
 and procedure of the common law, and sturdily 
 resisted the introduction of the study of the 
 civil law. A recent writer 1 declares that " our 
 language, and the main outlines of our political 
 and judicial institutions, are all inherited from 
 our Teutonic ancestors." This view is also 
 strongly held by Mr. Justice Holmes 2 even 
 with reference to the law of bailments. . In 
 discussing the analogies between the English 
 and early German laws as to bailment, he says: 
 
 1 Taswell-Langmead, Eng. Con. Hist., 4 ed., p. 4. 
 
 2 The Common Law, p. 196.
 
 THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL. 143 
 
 " Lord Holt's famous opinion in the latter case 1 
 quotes largely from the Roman law as it filtered 
 to him through Bracton; but, whatever influ- 
 ence that may have had upon his general virus, 
 tin- point decided and the distinctions touching 
 common carriers were of English growth." 
 King Alfred conquered all his competitors for 
 power in England, and subsequently codified 
 the laws of the whole country, and in conse- 
 quence has been called the great founder of the 
 English law. This does not mean that " those 
 laws were first made in his time, for there were 
 Saxon laws then in being, which had been 
 made for above three hundred years before his 
 n-ign ; hut the meaning was this only, that he, 
 being the first Bole monarch after the Hep- 
 taivhy, collected the substance of the laws of 
 all former Saxon kings, from ./Ethelbert to his 
 time, who were kings only of parts of the land. 
 into one body, and so formed one entire codex 
 or book of laws." Sir John Fortescue was 
 Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor in the time 
 of Henry VI. In addition to his book "De 
 Laudilms Legum Angli:e," he left in manu- 
 script, now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 
 a dissertation upon the Kngli>h constitution. 
 That dissertation was published, with re- 
 marks," in 1714, by John Fortescue-Ahmd, 
 
 1 Coggs vs. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym., 909.
 
 144 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 and in his preface, from which I have quoted, 
 he traces the origin and development of the 
 system of our common law. 1 Writing further 
 of King Alfred's laws, he says 2 : "Now this 
 codex, being made up of such a variety of dif- 
 ferent laws, enacted by the several Saxon kings, 
 reigning over distinct parts of the kingdom ; 
 and these several laws, which then affected 
 only parts of the English nation, being now 
 reduced into one body, and made to extend 
 equally to the whole nation, it was very proper 
 to call it the Common Law of England, be- 
 cause those laws were now first of all made 
 common to the whole English nation." And 
 from this it follows, as rightly claimed by 
 writers of authority, that the English Consti- 
 tution is part of the common law. The late 
 Dr. Hearn, Chancellor of the University of 
 Melbourne, in his excellent work, 3 expresses in 
 felicitous language the fond preference of our 
 Saxon forefathers for their system of laws. 
 " It is not easy," he says, " for us, so altered 
 are our circumstances, to enter into the feelings 
 with which our ancestors regarded the Com- 
 mon Law. To them those ' ancient judgments 
 
 1 Fortescne's Monarchy and English Constitution, by 
 Fortescue-Aland, London, 1714, p. xviii. 
 
 2 p. xix. 
 
 3 The Government of England, 2 ed., p. 35.
 
 THE STATE AND Till: IMMVIIH \l.. 145 
 
 of the just' 1 represented the immemorial - -u- 
 toms of their ra.-c. tin- old familiar principle.- 
 under which they and their fathers had lived, 
 ami ly which their property and tlieir security 
 were assured, this traditionary law was ren- 
 dered still dearer to them by the suhtle inno- 
 vation- Itoth of the Xorman lawyers in favor 
 of the crown, and of the canonists in favor of 
 tin- church. On the one side the forest laws, 
 or the laws of the court of chivalry or other 
 peculiar eourts, infringed upon the free customs 
 of the land: on the other side tin- church un- 
 cea-inrly strove to extend its own system, and 
 to introduce into general practice the doctrines 
 of the civil law. But however willing the 
 elder jurists of our country' were to derive 
 reflected light from Roman jurisprudence, they 
 knew too well the political tendencies of the 
 lawyers of the Antonines and of the codes of 
 Theodosius and Justinian to admit for an in- 
 stant the hindinr authority of that leri.-lation. 
 The unlearned hut free born tenants of the 
 crown had no idea of submitting to a heavier 
 yoke than their fathers were accustomed to 
 bear: and in tlieir general contentment with 
 the (.re-cut, and tlieir ignorance of the caii>e 
 of their comparative prosperity, resolutely re- 
 sisted every change. Thus we find the Ki 
 
 1 Bracton. 
 K
 
 146 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 when oppressed by Norman exactions, clamor- 
 ing for the restoration of the good laws of King 
 Edward. Thus we find the sturdy refusal of 
 the barons at Merton to permit, on a question 
 of status, the laws of England to be changed. 
 Thus we know that in the times of the Third 
 Edward and of his grandson the addition of a 
 new law was regarded as a matter of the 
 gravest nature, not to be lightly asked or heed- 
 lessly granted. At a still later period, the 
 language of our lawyers towards their loved 
 jurisprudence breathes a spirit of the deepest 
 reverence and of the tenderest affection.'' At 
 a later stage of this paper I will consider the 
 hostility of our ancestors to the doctrines of 
 the civil law. We divide our laws primarily 
 into two divisions, the lex non scripta and the 
 lex scripta. The unwritten laws are those 
 which compose what we call the rom///o// laic. 
 The written laws are the statutes passed by the 
 appropriate legislative authority. The theory 
 is, however, that all laws, both the written and 
 the unwritten, have originally emanated from 
 the same source the legislature. But, by 
 lapse of time, many of the records relating to 
 these old laws have been lost, and 'by the statute 
 of Westminster the limitation of a writ of right 
 was settled and fixed at the beginning of the 
 reign of Richard the First, i. e., A. D. 1189.
 
 i in: -TATI: A.M. mi: INHIVIIM AI.. 147 
 
 The common law. then, i- tin- hody <f t In- 
 stitute law of the kingdom, pa-.-ed I. .-to re the 
 time of memory ; the .-tatutc law. that p 
 within r since tin- time of memory, or >incc 
 1 !>'.'. Hence we have the statement of Half 1 
 "that these statutes or acts of parliament that 
 were made hefore tin- he^-innin^ of the reign 
 of Hit-hard tin- Fir.-t. and have not sinee been 
 repealed ..r altered, either hy contrary u<age or 
 l.y sul'>e<|Ufiit. acts of parliament, arc now ac- 
 counted part of the //./ in.n xrrlfifn, bfinr, &8 it 
 wei-e. incorporated therewith, and hecomc a 
 part of the common law: ami in truth >udi 
 statutes are not now pleadahle as acts .(' par- 
 liament, liecau-e what is li,ft t r> time of memory 
 i- -upposed without a h.-^iniiin*;, or at least 
 such a liciriiminir a< the law take- notic.- .if. 
 lint they ohtain their -tren^th liy mere imme- 
 morial usasre <>r cii<tom." The common law. 
 th.'1-cfore. may he >aid to have heen the com- 
 mon -eii>e ot' the country in adjustinir ilisputt-s, 
 interpretinir contracts, and laying down rules 
 to meet new and unprovided casei ari-inir under 
 lian^in.ir circumstances of time and condition. 
 It -ettled the- rule- of tin- de-cent of property, 
 the different method.- of a<-|iiirinir and trans- 
 ferring property, and of validatinir and enforc- 
 
 1 Tlie C'ornmon Law, 4 etl., lv Ktiiiniii^ton, ItnMin, 17 '._', 
 1'.
 
 148 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 ing contracts. In these respects it differed 
 in many important particulars from the civil 
 la\v. By the former, lands descended to the 
 eldest son, except in the circumscribed cases 
 of gavel kind and borough English ; by the 
 latter all the children shared equally. The 
 descent of landed property under the common 
 law was the outgrowth of the feudal system. 
 The common law, we may therefore state, is 
 that law not set down in writing, and which 
 receives its binding power, as a law, from long 
 continued and immemorial use, and general 
 reception throughout the realm. Those usages, 
 customs and rules are declared by the judges 
 of the land in interpreting the law, of which 
 more hereafter. It is more easy to speak of 
 the written or statute law of any country. Mr. 
 Bishop 1 has forcibly said that " the world has 
 yet discovered but two forms of law, doubtless 
 the only forms possible the one being reason, 
 the other command. In England and the 
 United States the former is called the common 
 law ; on the continent of Europe it is called the 
 civil law, having been derived from the Roman 
 jurists." He should also have included in this 
 statement England's great English speaking 
 colonies, as they are governed by the common 
 law. Mr. Bishop fears that " the great and 
 
 1 Non-Contract Law, p. 618, sec. 1302.
 
 THK STATE ANI> TI1K I M'l V 1 1>1 A I.. 1 t '.' 
 
 overwhelming danger to our law is tin- m-ed- 
 lc-s multiplication of statutes." We must all 
 admit there is force in this criticism. Almost 
 every incipient legislator t'cels it to he his 
 boumlcn duty to emphasi/c hi- entry into pub- 
 lic life, and to illustrate- his genius for states- 
 manship by placing some law upon the statute 
 book. 
 
 Now the written or statute law is only sup- 
 
 i to exist for the purpose of declaring or 
 
 modifying the unwritten or common law. 
 
 Hence it follow- that legislation should in all 
 
 pasee -eck to improve upon existing condition* 
 
 1 am not arguing against change in our law-. 
 but change should be reasonably called for in 
 the public interest-, and well considered before 
 being adopted, change must necessarily take 
 
 place. The growth of a country in population, 
 wealth, industrial activity, methods of transit, 
 iind other mode.- of development, renders in- 
 di-pensahle changes in existing laws. What 
 suited a country of sparse population, small 
 means, and simple habits or pursuits, would 
 
 very inadequately meet the requirements of the 
 
 .-ame country having a dense population con- 
 gregated in busy cities, devoted to great manu- 
 facturing enterpri-cs. and bidding for a share 
 of the world's commerce. Let me illustrate. 
 When the government of a country required
 
 150 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 pri\ 7 ate property for public uses, under the 
 doctrine of Eminent Domain it appropriated 
 what it required, giving to the owner a reason- 
 able or just compensation therefor. The pro- 
 perty, however, was taken, whether the owner 
 was willing or not. That was allowed and 
 justified on the ground that the individual held 
 his property from the Crown, and that the 
 Crown had a right, as trustee for the public, to- 
 resume possession of that property, or any por- 
 tion of it, whenever the necessities of the public 
 services so required. But that doctrine did not 
 apply as between subject and subject, or as 
 between subject and corporations. What a 
 man owned was his own, and no one else, ex- 
 cept the Crown, could lawfully disturb him in 
 its enjoyment against his will. The experience 
 of the last half century shows how that prin- 
 ciple has been expanded. The term p/f>!ir 
 use, as interpreted by the courts, does not mean 
 that the property sought to be expropriated 
 must be for the government, or a body stand- 
 ing for the public. The exercise of the power 
 is permitted even to private corporations upon 
 its appearing that the object sought is for the 
 advancement of the general welfare or the 
 public good. And in every instance the judg- 
 ment of the legislature must be satisfied as to- 
 the utility of the proposed object before grant-
 
 TIII: BTA1 1: AMI Tin: m>i\ im AL. l.'.l 
 
 ri^hf to expropriate. A ri^i'l adherence 
 to tin- doctrine, as first propounded, would have 
 proved a threat hindrance to tin- expansion nt' 
 public improvements. The growth of trade 
 ami commerce demanded certain and rapid 
 transit. Scientific discovery, quickened, no 
 doiilit, liy material needs, de\i>ed the methods 
 of overcoming time and distance in the transit 
 of passengers, freight, and thought. It became 
 manifest to the supreme authority of the coun- 
 try the legislature that it would he quite 
 
 impossible to derive adequate results from sci- 
 entific discovery and private enterprise without 
 modifications of the law. That was especially 
 the case with reference to the application of 
 steam as a motive power for transit by land. 
 Without such modifications private corpora- 
 tion- could not have carried forward BOC 
 fully the ii'i-eat undertakings which have been 
 accomplished. These remarks are especially 
 applicable to such works as railways ami canals. 
 It i- not necosiry to i;o into particulars; the 
 in-tan. -s will readily occur to the mimls ot'all. 
 The legislature has in all such eases provided 
 that indemnity shall be Driven for the property 
 thu- compulsorily i-xpropriated. The point I 
 le-ire to emphasi/e i-. that the statute law i- a 
 change upon tin- common law. and is called 
 for. from time to time, to meet exigencies not
 
 152 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 thought of or provided for under the common 
 law. The same statements made respecting 
 railways and canals can also be made, mutatis 
 mutandis, respecting many other departments 
 of industrial activity. The changed relations 
 brought about by material development and 
 other causes necessitated the intervention of 
 the legislature. And yet the student of the 
 common law must be struck at the great adapt- 
 ability of that system as a system to meet 
 the requirements of the great social and com- 
 mercial changes which have taken place, and 
 are taking place, in the world As Mr. Bishop 
 has pertinently put it, the common law is 
 founded on reason, not command ; and herein 
 lies its superiority over every other system. 
 Founded on reason, and governed by principles 
 of elastic application, the common law system 
 has been largely able to meet the changed con- 
 ditions of society, arising from the diffusion of 
 knowledge, the spread of wider principles 
 of human freedom, and the enormous accu- 
 mulation of wealth. Close beside the common 
 and statute law has grown up a body of law 
 known as case or judge-made law. It is quite 
 separate from, and yet closely dependent upon, 
 them both. Human language is only an im- 
 perfect instrument to convey thought, ideas, 
 intention. It is the medium or instrument we
 
 Tin: n \n: \M> TIM: IM>I\ IIM \i.. I.".:; 
 
 employ to convey to tin- state, to the individual, 
 tlu- intent or purport of the law its com- 
 mands or >anetins. It therefore necessarily 
 follows that the correct meaning of the law- 
 giver's intent must depend largely upon the 
 efficiency of tin- instrument employed. It has 
 always been found nece->ary fur tin- state t<> 
 cuinniis-i.i!! oilirials known among ua as 
 judges to explain and interpret the meaning 
 of the law. a> well as to enforce its sanctions, 
 hiffcrences do not gem-rally arise among law- 
 yers as to what an- the correct principles of 
 law which should prevail and govern the deter- 
 mination of a particular case. The difficulty 
 arises when the prim-iples of the law are sought 
 to be applied to the facts of the case in con- 
 tro\vr>y. The exercise of that faculty requires 
 sound judgment, a critical discrimination as to 
 what is relevant, and what, in short, is the 
 actual point to he decided. The language em- 
 ployed in stating the law may hi- obscure, 
 ambiguous, capable of two or three meanings, 
 or may even >eem contradictory. I'nder such 
 eireumstanco. when a controversy ari.-e-. each 
 party to the di.-pute will naturally contend for 
 that construction, that meaning. nnt favorable 
 to his interests. The judge- are then called 
 upon to put a construction upon the law, and 
 to state its meaning. The judicial opinions in
 
 154 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 all English speaking countries, in the higher 
 courts, are published by authority for future 
 reference and guidance. From this practice 
 we have the law reports. The reports in the 
 mother land extend back to the time of Edward 
 the Second. In Great Britain, the colonies, 
 and the United States, there must now 1 be over 
 6,000 volumes of these reports. Proba bly the 
 following estimate will be found approximately 
 correct: England, 1,700 volumes ; Ireland, 225 
 volumes; Scotland, 325 volumes; Canada, 300 
 volumes; Australia and the other colonies, 
 250 volumes; and the United States 3,500 vol- 
 umes; or a total of 6,300 volumes of reports. 
 Much of the law found in these reports is what 
 is known as "judge-made" law. The intent 
 by having these reports is to make the law cer- 
 tain, to explain difficulties and contradictions, 
 and to have authoritative decisions. Xotwith- 
 standing these precautions, difficulties continue, 
 the decisions do not at all times harmonize, in 
 fact in some instances they are irreconcilable. 
 But as a general rule the system fairly meets 
 the ends sought, and the decided cases are pre- 
 served in the reports, and in the same court 
 are followed as authoritative until reversed or 
 modified by a higher or appeal court. In this 
 respect our system differs from that of conti- 
 1 1892.
 
 THK STATi: AM) TIN-: IMMV1IM Al.. 1 .".") 
 
 noutal Furope. I'mler the latter system judi- 
 ial decisions have iT'-m-rally no hindinir force. 
 and an- not looked to as precedent-. We .-:in 
 well believe tliat nii(k-r such condition- there 
 cannot he the -aim- certainty in the administra- 
 tion of the law. Cnder that system then- is 
 also a marked divergence from our- in some 
 important directions. With us all persons 
 stand equally he fore the law. But under the 
 doctrine of the '//-/'/ uiliiiiiii.--lrntif, especially as 
 interpn-ti'd in France, the trovenimeiit. and all 
 per-oiis acting for or on he-half of the state, are 
 held to have rights and privileges ditK-reiit from 
 tho^,. which olitain lietweeii citi/.eiis as such. 1 
 With us all persons stand equally hi- fore the 
 law, and the decisions of our courts an- tor the 
 purpose of rendering- the law more certain. 
 In-tead, however, of a decrease in the numher 
 of the n-ports \early. they are on the incn-a-e 
 every year, much to tin- perplexity of the le^al 
 pn>fc.->ioii. The n-ports contain the "Case" 
 law. so called. This laNv i< not in the strict 
 the common or statute law, hut the vieNvs 
 of the jud-v- ;i- to the correct mcamiiiT of the 
 coiniiMtn or statuti- law as applied to disputed 
 '|iicstions hetweeii litigants. Spem-er'> detini- 
 tion, " laNV emhodies the dictates ot' the dead 
 to the living," is especially apposite as n-irards 
 1 See Dicey, Law of the Con., 4 ed., p. 310.
 
 156 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 case law. We all know that after an act of the 
 legislature has been passed affecting in main* 
 ways private interests or rights, the courts are 
 called upon frequently to determine and declare 
 its operation and limitations. And it may re- 
 quire some years before the meaning of the 
 particular act has been fully settled. This 
 experience points strongly to the necessity of 
 well considered action before entering upon a 
 change. Reform or alteration should not be 
 at a stand-still because of over-caution, but no 
 legislative change in our laws should be pro- 
 moted merely on speculative grounds. 
 
 Having said this much with reference to our 
 laws, the question very naturally arises, what 
 has all this vast system, and the machinery for 
 putting it in force, to do with the state and the 
 individual ? It is an object of prime import- 
 ance to me, as a member of a community, to 
 feel and know that ample means of redress are 
 available to punish those who may attempt to 
 injure me in person or estate. It is likewise a 
 guarantee of tranquility for the community to 
 feel there is a power, dormant it may be, but 
 ready to spring into action to protect all from 
 unlawful interference at the hands of others. 
 There have been times in the history of the 
 mother country when private disputes were set- 
 tled in ways far different from present methods.
 
 TIIK STATi: AM. TMK I MI V I DI A I.. 1.".? 
 
 Take, tor instance, wager of battle, ordeal, the 
 infliction of punishment by tin- one injured 
 or seeking ivdr B6, the law of retaliation, and 
 othrr method> t -(juallv primitive, barbarous and 
 dangerous. No man can safely be permitted 
 to art as judge, juror and sheriff's olKeerin his 
 own case. Our law wisely forhids that. We 
 are in the statr. \\ v an- members of it, and it 
 owes us protection, and we in turn owe it the 
 re of certain duties. The law. a> 
 to a member of sorirty. is only irk- 
 some when thriv is a disposition not to obey it. 
 Law exists to guarantee security to the rom- 
 munity, to deter the wrong-doer from i>ursuinr 
 bis evil course, and to inflict punishment upon 
 those violating its commands. How dreadful 
 it would appear to us of the present time: if 
 guilt or innocence were tested by the ordeal 
 by the hot iron by wager of battle, or by thr 
 "accursed bread." How >illy it would seem 
 if the settlement of a disputed line fem-e wn v 
 attempted by methods adopted by our fore- 
 fathers long centuries ago. What an unde.-ir- 
 able country to live in where a person assaulted 
 could vindicate the offended majesty of law, 
 and >eek reparation for the injury, by assaulting 
 hi> as.-ailant in turn. How startling it would 
 in to us now if the relatives or friend- of 
 one murdered demanded the right to inflict the
 
 158 THE OBJECT OF LA\\. 
 
 death penalty upon the murderer. Happily 
 for us we are governed by wiser and better 
 laws than those indicated, and yet our fore- 
 fathers in the mother land in early times were 
 so governed. It is a maxim of our jurispru- 
 dence that a law does not become obsolete by 
 non-user. If once upon the statute book, and 
 unrepealed, it can be invoked on any fitting 
 occasion. The Court of King's Bench in Eng- 
 land, as late as 1818, 1 decided that the accused 
 had a right to be tried by wager of battle. The 
 incident caused the repeal of the old law by the 
 legislature. As early as 1372, in the time of 
 Edward the Third, a law was passed excluding 
 practising lawyers from parliament, and it was 
 not formally repealed till 1871. 2 
 
 Laws enacted by legislative authority, con- 
 stitutionally speaking, are an expression of the 
 will of the people. In a country possessing 
 representative institutions such as ours, the 
 people elect the law-makers, and these law- 
 makers, as delegates of the people, can fairly 
 be said in their proceedings to express the 
 popular will. In theory this is correct, but in 
 practice there are exceptions. The legislature, 
 on occasions, may not properly voice public 
 opinion in the work of legislation, but the 
 
 1 Ashford vs. Thornton, 1 B. & Aid. 405. 
 
 z See Taswell-Langmead, Con. Hist., 4 ed. 297.
 
 Till: STATK AM' Till-; IM>I\ ll'l \1.. 
 
 remedy can only he applied hy inducing tin- 
 1 -islatiirt- t<> repeal tin- law, and, in case of 
 ivfu-al, to -elect a legislature which will. All 
 law should he supported hy puhlic opinion, 
 otherwise it may he administered inefficiently, 
 lle-pect tor law, and it> proper and speedy en- 
 forcement, is one of tin- irivat hulwai 1 
 social and political security. Let it he once 
 understood that the law is inefficient, or that 
 tho-e entrusted with its enforcement are care- 
 r iieirli^fiit. and you a<lmit into the social 
 condition- a spirit directly tending to demoral- 
 ization. Fortunately for us lynch law does 
 not prevail in our mid>t. rnfortunately. from 
 statement- we read, thai -y-tem of law doe- 
 occasionally ohtain in some portions of tin- 
 world. And so far as now advised, these 
 countries are not deficient in the p..--eion of 
 -\-tcm- of jurisprudence amply sufficient to 
 
 protect hotli life and property. What. then, is 
 the difficulty'.' Wherein lie.- the trouhle'r It 
 
 i- found in the fact that the people have lo.-t 
 
 confidence in the prompt and vigorous adminis- 
 tration of the law to protect tin-in from a;_ 
 sion. Take an instance for illustration. A 
 irreat criminal i.- arraigned for the conimi ion 
 of a cruel and cohl-hlooded crime. l',\ -onie 
 
 
 
 mean.- he .-.-ape- puni-hnicnt for hi- wron_ir- 
 loinu- ;,nd irain- hi- lihert. Other
 
 160 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 miscarriage of justice occur. Public confidence 
 in the established methods of administration 
 is destroyed ; the people, for the time being, 
 lose faith in the power of the laws to shield 
 them from wrong; they realize the necessity 
 of keeping the evil-disposed in wholesome 
 dread of some power, and they at length rise 
 in their might, take the law into their own 
 hands, and inflict summary punishment upon 
 offenders. I am not speaking in this connec- 
 tion as to lynchings w r hich take- place in defi- 
 ance of all law when prejudice of caste or. 
 color overrides all respect for law or its proper 
 administration. In some of the states of the 
 United States the negro charged with the com- 
 mission of crime has but small opportunity for 
 a fair trial. We must deplore the introduction 
 .of irregular methods of administering law, and 
 yet, when the public authority is lax or ineffi- 
 cient, there must be some restraint, some assur- 
 ance of security to person and property. It 
 may, however, be admitted that this position, 
 as a general rule of conduct, is quite correct, 
 but that it is not applicable to some laws, 
 especially those against public policy or the 
 general welfare. But the question in all such 
 cases must arise, who is to judge as to what is 
 the public utility or the general welfare? Is it 
 the authority which formulated and enacted
 
 THE STATE AND THK INDIVII.IAL. 1C1 
 
 the particular law, or, it may be, tin- individual 
 whose interest it is to disobey? There nm.-t 
 be ultimate authority somewhere in the -tat.-. 
 and that authority should he uniform and 
 equally binding upon all. If each individual 
 had the right to judge, and from that to act or 
 to refuse to act, there could be no uniformity, 
 no equality, but great confusion. Under .-u.-h 
 conditions there would be no obedience to law, 
 and it is not necessary to repeat that open 
 violation of any law on the statute book will 
 soon beget contempt of all law. It is upon 
 this ground we deem it highly important to 
 inculcate a respect for law and its due enforce- 
 ment. As a general rule, I believe, that feeling 
 has a strong hold upon the people of this coun- 
 try. We notice this especially when officers 
 of the law, armed with legal process, seek to 
 execute such process, either in the arrest of tin- 
 person or the attachment of property. Men. 
 having no regard for right, will neverthelex 
 allow themselves to be arrested, or their prop- 
 erty attached, feeling that the art is done, not 
 by the officer who executes the process, but by 
 that mysterious impalpable something we call 
 law, which, as already pointed out. "hears 
 without ears, sees without eyes, move- without 
 teet, and seizes without hands." This mu>t 
 have been the feeling of a man of large stature 
 L
 
 162 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 arrested by a constable of small size in the 
 State of Massachusetts. The diminutive officer 
 of the law stood on tip-toe, and, tapping the 
 defendant on the shoulder, informed him that 
 he was his prisoner. The party arrested looked 
 down contemptuously upon the constable, and 
 threatened to pick him up with one hand and 
 shake him. This was quite too much. The 
 constable felt, no doubt, the majesty of the law 
 was being offended by such disregard of his 
 official dignity. He stood oft' a few paces, 
 looked up at his prisoner, and triumphantly 
 said : " I wish you to understand, sir, if you 
 shake me, you will shake the whole common- 
 wealth of Massachusetts." According to the 
 story, that was quite sufficient. The mysteri- 
 ous power of law supposed to be wrapped up 
 in the person of the officer, and wielded by 
 him, settled the question, and the threatened 
 shaking did not take place. This incident 
 quite accurately expresses the feeling prevail- 
 ing in every well governed state as to the 
 efficacy and potency of law. In the interest, 
 therefore, of the individual and the state, there 
 should be no doubt as to the certainty of en- 
 forcing legal rights and punishing wrongs. We 
 need not, in this connection, trouble ourselves 
 as to any theories about the nature of society 
 and the supposed terms of the social compact.
 
 THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL. 163 
 
 Some writers, notably Sir William Blackstone, 
 maintain that society is formed, on the tacit 
 agreement at least, that each mcmher has 
 voluntarily given up some of his personal 
 rights to the general body for the public good. 
 Putting the theory in different language, it is 
 contended that the members of the state have 
 agreed among themselves that each shall de- 
 nude himself of certain rights and liberties he 
 may possess in a state of nature for the public 
 good. And it is upon this supposed contrac- 
 tual relation, we are told, that the state has tlu- 
 right to legislate as it does. It is quite unne- 
 rr-siry tor me to say that the contract has m-\vr 
 yet been produced; and no less an authority 
 than Sir Henry Maine repudiates any such 
 theory. Men are born into society. They 
 have no option in the premises, and whether 
 they are willing or unwilling, they must obey 
 the laws of the society into which they are 
 born, so long as they remain members of it. 
 History has preserved no record of the time or 
 circumstances when people roaming in a state 
 of nature met together and entered into any 
 such compact. Guizot 1 fully and clearly <li- 
 cusses this theory. The first social law he 
 declares to be justice and reason. Man's sub- 
 
 1 Representative Government in Europe, Let-tun- VI, 
 translation by Scoble, p. 57.
 
 164 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 mission to a superior force is not really submis- 
 sion to law. Without submission to law there 
 is no society and no government. " This neces- 
 sary co-existence," he says, " of society and gov- 
 ernment shows the absurdity of the hypothesis 
 of the social contract. Rousseau presents us 
 with the picture of men already united together 
 into a society, but without rule, and exerting 
 themselves to create one ; as if society did not 
 itself presuppose the existence of a rule to 
 which it was indebted for its existence. If 
 there is no rule there is no society ; there are 
 only individuals united and kept together by 
 force. This hypothesis, then, of a primitive 
 contract, as the only legitimate source of social 
 law, rests upon an assumption that is necessarily 
 false and impossible." The supreme authority 
 of every country frames laws and ordinances for 
 the government of the people, and these laws are 
 changed from time to time to suit the varying 
 circumstances and development of the people. 
 As a recent writer has well observed, " it is 
 impossible to imagine a body of positive law 
 equally fitted for all times and circumstances ; 
 and experience shows that the symmetry of a 
 sound philosophical system of jurisprudence 
 can only be maintained by adapting it from 
 time to time to the progress and common feel- 
 ings of the people." I have already called
 
 THE STATE AND TIIK I MI VIIMAI.. K..~> 
 
 attention to the vast body of case or judge- 
 made law in the English language, spread over 
 more than 6,000 volumes of reports. 1 As 
 already >tated, these reports are published by 
 authority. Such publication is for the purpose 
 of rendering them easily accessible, and to 
 ensure uniformity of opinion or decision in the 
 particular court. Courts in our country have 
 adopted for their guidance the maxim stare 
 detisis. It is a wholesome rule, and should 
 have universal application. It would be highly 
 inconvenient and impolitic if judges of the 
 .-ante court did not hold themselves bound by 
 the decisions of their predecessors. Not to do 
 so would introduce uncertainty and eonfii-ion 
 into our jurisprudence. When a court has, 
 after mature consideration, decided a principle 
 of law, it should not thereafter, except upon 
 rare occasion, depart from that decision. All 
 courts should hold themselves bound by their 
 decisions until corrected by a court of appeal. 
 We base our personal relations, and the acquisi- 
 tion and tenure of property, largely upon the 
 judgments of our courts. What security would 
 there \>v cither fur person or property if it were 
 allowable or customary for those courts to l.e 
 guided by no principle, to respect no former 
 decision, but to decide according to the then 
 
 Now (1898) fully 7,000.
 
 166 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 view of the tribunal? People may have ac- 
 quired property upon the reasonable expecta- 
 tion that a court of law will be consistent with 
 itself, will respect its own decisions, and will 
 not, by a vacillating, contradictory course, in- 
 troduce doubt and confusion into the adminis- 
 tration of justice. A moment's reflection will 
 indicate what would be the result of such a 
 course. I purchase property, knowing at the 
 time the rule of law governing my right to 
 acquire and retain. I purchase upon the faith 
 that the law is and will continue to be as ex- 
 pounded by the court. Would it not be unjust 
 for the court, after my purchase, to lay down a 
 contrary doctrine, and thus, it may be, divest 
 me of what I have purchased in good faith 
 relying on the consistency of judicial decision ? 
 How unfortunate would be such a condition of 
 affairs. But in continental Europe judicial 
 decisions in general have no binding effect as 
 precedents. It is submitted, the common law 
 system, in this respect, surpasses its rival, the 
 civil law system. There cannot be much real 
 or substantial progress in a country where the 
 administration of law is uncertain. The prime 
 necessity for true progress is faith in the stability 
 of the institutions of the state, and an assur- 
 ance that the citizen, within proper limitations, 
 will be free in person and undisturbed in the
 
 THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL. 1'7 
 
 possession of his property. These arc objects 
 which should never l>e lost sight of by law- 
 makers or the administrators of the law. The 
 great object, then, of our legal s\>u -m is to 
 protect the individual in the pursuit of happi- 
 ness, in social and intellectual development, 
 and in the acquisition of wealth. Writers of 
 eminence have maintained with great force the 
 superiority of our common law over its great 
 rival system, the civil law, to accomplish these 
 objects. Judge Cooley, in a clear and masterly 
 analysis, says: "But on the whole the system 
 was the best foundation on which to erect an 
 enduring structure of civil liberty which the 
 world has ever known. It was the peculiar 
 excellence of the common law of England that 
 it recogni/ed the worth, and sought especially 
 to protect the rights and privileges of the indi- 
 vidual man. Its maxims were those of a sturdy 
 and independent race, accustomed to an unusual 
 degree of freedom of thought and action, and 
 to share in the administration of public affairs; 
 ami arbitrary power and uncontrolled authority 
 were not recognized in its principles. Awe 
 surrounded and majesty clothed the king, but 
 tin- humblest subject might shut the door of his 
 -ottage against him, and defend from intrusion 
 that privacy which was as sacred as the kingly 
 prerogatives. The system was the opposite of
 
 168 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 servile; its features implied boldness and inde- 
 pendent self-reliance on the part of the people ; 
 and if the criminal code was harsh, it at least 
 escaped the inquisitorial features which were 
 apparent in criminal procedure of other civil- 
 ized countries, and which have ever been fruit- 
 ful of injustice, oppression and terror." 1 Sir 
 Frederick Pollock 2 discusses this question in 
 his usual clear cut manner. He admits that 
 the civil law failed of obedience in onl}* one 
 corner of Europe, and that was in England. 
 He expresses the opinion that the world and 
 civilization have gained in consequence. If 
 such had not been the case there would have 
 been no rival to the civil law system. He 
 further declares that " It is hardly too much 
 to say that the possibility of comparative juris- 
 prudence would have been in extreme danger ; 
 for broadly speaking, whatever is not of Eng- 
 land in the form of modern jurisprudence is 
 of Rome, or of Roman mould. In law, as in 
 politics, the severance of Britain by a world's 
 breadth from the world of Rome has fostered 
 a new birth which mankind could ill have 
 spared. And the growth of English politics is 
 more closely connected with the independent 
 growth and strength of English law than has 
 
 1 Con. Limitations, p. 30. 
 
 * Oxford Lectures, London, 1890, p. 46.
 
 TIIK STATE AND THE IMI\ I I'l A I.. 111'.' 
 
 commonly perceived or cm In- gathered 
 from the common accounts of English history." 
 Continental Europe has been governed ly the 
 civil law a system \vhirli, as already stated, 
 did not find much favor with tin- Knglish peo- 
 ple, as it was thought to favor absolutism in 
 government. As early as 1149, Vacarius, a 
 distinguished continental jurist, delivered lec- 
 tures on the civil law at Oxford, and wrote 
 some works on that system for the use of the 
 students. But the prevailing prejudice against 
 the system was so strong that King Stephen 
 prohibited his lecturing and ordered the <!- 
 truction of his books. Our Saxon forefathers 
 were ever imbued with a strong sense of per- 
 sonal freedom, and in all cases resolutely re- 
 si-ted every effort to impair that freedom. 1 
 
 The acquisition of property is governed by 
 law, and property is held, enjoyed ami tran- 
 ferred under well known principles of legal 
 rights. Property is usually divided by legal 
 writers into three classes real, personal, and 
 mixed, but lor all practical purposes we may 
 say, generally, there an- two kinds of property, 
 real and personal. In former lectures atten- 
 
 1 The reader will be well repaid by a perusal of Dillon's 
 Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America; Scrutton's 
 Inllnrnce of Roman Law upon English Law; and Pollock .v 
 Maitland'a History of English Law.
 
 170 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 tion has been called to the forms and other 
 requisites observed in creating contractual re- 
 lations. It is not necessary at this time to 
 dwell upon those phases of acquiring and trans- 
 ferring property. Man in his primitive state 
 acquired a right of property by occupancy. In 
 fact the principle of acquisition by occupancy 
 is more comprehensive than is generally sup- 
 posed. The roving hunter at night pitched his 
 tent on the mountain side, or in the valley be- 
 side the stream, and so far as the rest of the 
 world was concerned he was the owner of the 
 land he occupied, but only so long as his occu- 
 pation lasted. The moment he struck his tent 
 and left the spot his ownership ceased, and it 
 was equally competent for the next comer to 
 take possession and occupy under a similar 
 tenure. The birds of the air, the fish -of the 
 waters, the fruits of the earth, belonged to those 
 who first secured them, which was title by occu- 
 pancy. In that early primeval time the boun- 
 ties of nature were capable of being owned by 
 all, and enjoyed as fully and freely as the air 
 we breathe. But in process of time the noma- 
 dic habit ceased. Society took form, and the 
 idea of proprietorship grew and developed, so 
 that now it is difficult to find anything, outside 
 of the air of heaven, without an owner. And 
 it is quite certain that there would be no great
 
 THE STATK AND TIIK I NI>I VI DUAL. 171 
 
 difficulty in organizing a trust or combine to 
 bottle and sell by the mouthful the- air \ve 
 breathe, if there were but slight chances of 
 success in the attempt. Speaking chiefly of 
 personal property, we acquire title by original 
 acquisition, by transfer, through act of the law ; 
 and by transfer, through act of the parties. In 
 this division I follow the commentaries of Chan- 
 cellor Kent. It is sufficiently comprehensive 
 to include all possible cases. By original ac- 
 quisition is understood acquisition (1) by occu- 
 pancy, (2) accession. This latter division in- 
 cludes natural increase of flocks and herds, 
 accretion of the soil. And (3) we have acqui- 
 sition by intellectual labor. Under the latter 
 division wi- have patents of invention and 
 copyright of authors. A person under our law 
 -an have as substantial a right in, and as full 
 enjoyment of the works of his ingenuity and 
 genius, as in the labor of the hand. This 
 description of property bears a very close rela- 
 tionship to property acquired by occupancy. 
 In tact the right of proprietorship arises from 
 a species of occupancy. The inventor of the 
 steam-engine, the spinning-jenny, the incan- 
 descent lamp, is as much entitled to property 
 therein on account of lirst occupancy as the 
 pioneer on the open prairie is entitled to own- 
 ership of the land he reclaims and
 
 172 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 The principle in both cases is the same. The 
 law which guarantees to an inventor or author 
 the fruits of his labor has a direct tendency 
 to stimulate and encourage in such pursuits. 
 From the labors of the inventor, the man of 
 science, the man of letters, have arisen forces 
 and influences which have in large measure 
 affected the world for good. It is therefore 
 the part of wisdom to protect all these classes 
 in the acquisitions of their respective pursuits. 
 We acquire property under the second division 
 by forfeiture, judgment of a court, insolvency, 
 intestacy, and it may be by some other methods. 
 Under the third head, i. e., by the act of the 
 parties, we acquire by gift, which may be (1) 
 inter vivos., i. e., one can make a valid gift of 
 property to another without reference to any 
 future event, and to take effect absolutely and 
 at once ; or (2) the gift may be one causa mortis, 
 i. e., one in contemplation and expectation of 
 death can make a gift of personal property to 
 take effect in case of death, but which will be- 
 come void in the event of the donor recovering 
 from his illness. There is much curious dis- 
 cussion, and there are many adjudications of 
 courts upon this subject. It is, however, not 
 necessary to pursue the subject further, except 
 to say in the case of a gift causa mortis there 
 must be a delivery of the intended gift, either
 
 TllK STATE AND Till-: IM'IVIIH A I.. \~'.\ 
 
 actual or constructive, and this mu>t be done 
 at a time when the donor is in contemplation 
 of death. 
 
 I now desire to discuss briefly the <|iicstion 
 of contracts, as the second method of ac.|uiring 
 property is by contract by act of the parties. 
 A contract is "an agreement between compe- 
 tent parties, upon a legal consideration, to do 
 or to abstain from doing some act." It is not 
 necessary to discuss the three divisions of eon- 
 tract. It will be quite sutlieieiit in this connec- 
 tion to confine our attention to simple contracts. 
 or contracts by parol, i. e., contracts either 
 verbal or in writing not under seal. A con- 
 tract to be valid must be between competent 
 parties, that is, between parties capable of con- 
 tracting. Sir Frederick Pollock, in his well 
 known work on contracts, says : " Kvery agree- 
 ment and promise enforceable by law is a con- 
 tract." There can be no contract between 
 parties incapable of contracting, or against 
 whom you cannot enforce the agreement. An 
 idiot or lunatic cannot enter into a valid con- 
 tract. An infant and a married woman 1 stand 
 
 1 This has since been changed in this province by 58 Viet., 
 c. 24. A married woman now can sue and be sued in respect 
 of her own property as if she were unmarried. The legisla- 
 ture has in great measure adopted the Knglish Married 
 Woman's Property Act of 1882.
 
 174 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 in much the same position. It is of the essence 
 of a contract that there must be an assent a 
 mutual agreement between the parties. But 
 no assent can be given by an idiot or lunatic. 
 Not being capable of assenting or agreeing, 
 they cannot enter into a binding contract. The 
 law also, in order to protect infants, persons 
 under the age of twenty-one years, has declared 
 that they cannot bind themselves by contract, 
 and the same is the case with married women 1 
 without the consent of their husbands. In- 
 stances have arisen where the estates of all 
 these classes have been held liable for neces- 
 saries supplied, but, speaking generally, the 
 law is as I have stated. Pothier, the great 
 French jurist, in his work on Obligations, 2 
 says a contract is a " particular kind of an 
 agreement"; that "an agreement is the con- 
 sent of two or more persons to form some en- 
 gagement, or to rescind or modify an engage- 
 ment already made " ; and that " that kind of 
 agreement, the object of which is the formation 
 of an engagement, is called a contract." He 
 further most properly states that " a contract 
 includes a concurrence of intention in two 
 parties, one of whom promises something to 
 the other, who on his part accepts such prom- 
 
 lr This is now changed, as already stated. 
 
 2 Vol. 1, p. 3, translation by Sir William Evans.
 
 THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL. 17 
 
 ise." In this sense it is held, both by the com- 
 mon and civil law, that a person so intoxicated 
 as to be wholly incapable of understanding tin- 
 nature of his act, will not be bound. But in 
 all these cases there are limitations which must 
 not be overlooked. If a drunken man or a 
 lunatic confirm his undertaking or agreement 
 after his debauch has worn off, or his mind has 
 become lucid, such confirmation will be bind- 
 ing upon him. And in the same manner an 
 infant, after arriving at full age, may ratify and 
 confirm a contract made when under age. This 
 goes to show that all such contracts are void- 
 able, but not void. There must not only be 
 competent parties, but a valuable consideration 
 to support the contract. It does not follow 
 that the consideration must be ample, must be 
 the full market value for the services rendered 
 or the article sold, but yet it must be what is 
 known in the law as a valuable consideration, 
 An ainvmient between debtor and creditor, by 
 which the former agrees to pay one-half of his 
 indebtedness, for which the creditor consents 
 to release or give up the rest of the debt, is not 
 binding on the ground there is not a valuable 
 consideration to support the promise to give 
 a discharge. The creditor's promise under >in-h 
 circumstances, although the half has hem paid 
 l'\ reason of the promise, will not relieve the
 
 176 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 debtor from payment of the full am'ount of his 
 indebtedness. In law the promise is a mere 
 nudum pactum. The principle is this : an agree- 
 ment by one to obtain a concession or rebate 
 for doing that which by law he is already com- 
 pelled to do, is not a sufficient consideration 
 upon which to ground a valid contract. If I 
 owe the sum of $100, the law implies a duty 
 on my part to pay the full amount. A pay- 
 ment of $50, although met by the promise that 
 its payment will discharge the full claim, is not 
 sufficient to accomplish that object. The law 
 holds me liable to pay the full amount of the 
 claim. If, however, the debt were not yet due, 
 but existing, and the creditor agreed to accept 
 a part in consideration of immediate payment, 
 that would be a good consideration for the ex- 
 tinguishment of the whole indebtedness. 
 
 I refer to these phases of legal growth to 
 indicate the social and commercial develop- 
 ment which has taken place since Anglo-Saxon 
 times. This has been well considered by two 
 of our most prominent living writers on legal 
 questions. In a late work 1 they say: "Pro- 
 ceeding to the usual subject matters of Anglo- 
 
 1 Pollock & Maitland, History of English Law, vol. 1, p. 
 21. This work was published after the delivery of this ad- 
 dress, but the quotation has been incorporated in the article 
 as very applicable.
 
 THE STATK ANH T1IH I NI'IV I IT AI,. 177 
 
 Saxon jurisdiction, we find what may IK- called 
 tin- u.-ual archaic features. The only substantive 
 rules that art- at all fully set forth have to do 
 with offences and wrongs, mostly those which 
 are of a violent kind, and with theft, mostly 
 cattle-lifting. Except so far as it is involved in 
 tin- law of theft, the law of property is almost 
 entirely left in the region of unwritten custom 
 and local usage. The law of contract is rudi- 
 mentary, so rudimentary as to he barely dis- 
 tinguishable from the law of property. In fact 
 people who have no system of credit and very 
 little foreign trade, and who do nearly all their 
 business in person and by word of mouth with 
 neighbors whom they know, have not much 
 occasion for a law of contract." The devel- 
 opment of commercial intercourse, and the 
 requirements of a higher civilization, have 
 rendered necessary precise rules as to the law 
 of contract. If -the consideration of a con- 
 tract is to do an immoral or illegal act, or 
 contrary to public policy, the contract is not 
 enforceable. If a person rent a house for 
 the purpose of allowing the same to be used 
 as a bawdy house or house of ill-fame, the 
 purpose would be immoral, and the owner 
 or landlord could not collect any rent. Kntcr- 
 ing into a contract, the direct effect of which 
 will be to cause a violation of law, will avail 
 M
 
 178 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 nothing; such contract cannot be enforced. 
 Take a very pertinent illustration. The Canada 
 Temperance Act is in force in some of the 
 counties of this province. If a person residing 
 and carrying on business in a county where the 
 act is in force went to the city of Saint John, 
 where the act is not in force, and purchased 
 intoxicating liquors from a dealer to take to his 
 place of business for sale, the seller cannot re- 
 cover the price if he knew, or had reasonable 
 grounds for believing, the liquors were to be 
 taken to such county for sale. There are two 
 kinds of simple contracts, express and implied. 
 If I purchase from any one of you a cargo of 
 flour, and agree to pay $5 a barrel for it, which 
 is accepted, that is an express contract as to 
 price. Nothing in that case is left to inference; 
 all the terms as to price are stated ; or, in other 
 words, the contract is express. If, on the 
 other hand, I send to a flour merchant and 
 request him to forward me a cargo of flour, 
 saying nothing as to price, the law raises the 
 inference of a promise on my part, upon re- 
 ceipt of the cargo, to pay such price as is 
 reasonable and customary. Again, if I permit 
 a workman to labor in my field, or on my build- 
 ing, under such circumstances that it could 
 not be inferred the work was gratuitous, the 
 law raises a presumption that a tacit agreement
 
 THE STATE AND THE IM'I VIM AI.. 17'. 
 
 t-xists by which I am legally hound to pay for 
 the labor what it is rear-onahly worth. These 
 an- all instances of implied contracts, and when 
 tin- implication of an agreement once arises, 
 the contract is as binding and as capable- of 
 enforcement as if it were express. These are 
 instances of contracts made- directly betv 
 the parties, or under such circumstances as are 
 tantamount to direct agreement. The changed 
 conditions of conducting business by reason of 
 postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communica- 
 tion, have caused the courts to lay down rules 
 as to w lie n the contract is complete. We all 
 know, as a matter of fact, that the business of 
 the world now could not well be carried on 
 except by correspondence. From this cause 
 curious questions have arisen for the decision 
 of the courts. I have already stated that a 
 contract includes a concurrence of intention in 
 two compel. -nt parties at a given time to enter 
 into an agreement. When the proposal is 
 made and accepted, it becomes a contract, but 
 not until then. Suppose, then, I write to a 
 merchant in Montreal offering to pur 
 from him a cargo of sugars at a stated price; 
 the Correspondent receives the letter in due 
 coiir.-c of po>t. makes up his mind to accept 
 the offer, and writes me to that effect. The 
 next day, however, before the Montreal mer-
 
 180 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 chant has written his acceptance, I change my 
 mind, and at once write him to that effect. 
 Our letters, it may be, cross each other, mine 
 of revocation, his of acceptance. "What, under 
 such circumstances, are the relative rights of 
 the parties ? Pothier, in his work on Sales, 1 
 says : " The consent of the parties, which is of 
 the essence of the contract of sale, consists in 
 a concurrence of the will of the seller to sell a 
 particular thing to the buyer for a particular 
 price, and of the buyer to buy of him the same 
 thing for the same price. How ought this 
 consent to intervene, and in relation to what ? " 
 This writer, following the rule of the civil law, 
 declares that the proposer can revoke an oft'er 
 sent by letter, and that such revocation is valid, 
 although the merchant to whom the proposal 
 has been made accepts and despatches his letter 
 of acceptance before he receives the letter of 
 revocation. Pothier evidently sees the illogi- 
 cal position this statement of the law involves, 
 for immediately after he admits that, if the 
 merchant forwarding an acceptance is put to 
 any expense, or is occasioned any loss in con- 
 sequence of the proposer's revocation, he must 
 be indemnified by the proposer. The right to 
 indemnity must logically rest upon a breach of 
 contract, but if there has been no contract, 
 
 1 Cnshing's ed., Boston, 1839.
 
 THE STATE AND THK I M>I \ IIM AI.. 181 
 
 then there can have heen no hrvarh, ;ui<l eon- 
 ,iicntly no right to indemnity. The Knglish 
 rule is different. If the merchant t< whom the 
 proposal is made, before notice- ot' ivvocation, 
 by post or telegraph in the usual course ot 
 business, accepts the proposal, a valid contract 
 i- made at the time of posting the letter or 
 sending the telegram, although the proposer, 
 before his receipt of the letter or telegram, has 
 sent a revocation. And this is the case, although 
 the acceptance may have miscarried, and may 
 have never reached its destination. 1 If the re- 
 vocation reaches the acceptor before he send- 
 his acceptance, then, of course, there can be no 
 binding contract. But not having received any 
 such intimation of change of od'cr. a contract 
 is completed the moment the acceptor mails or 
 despatches in the usual course his acceptance 
 of the terms of the proposal. It is necessary 
 to say that the acceptance must IK- uncon- 
 ditional and in the terms of the offer. It I 
 otter to sell an article of merchandise of a cer- 
 tain quality and at a certain price, and accord- 
 ing to certain specified modes of payment, there 
 will arise no. contract if the one to whom the 
 offer is made consent-. l>nt upon conditions at 
 variance with the terms proposed. The ac- 
 ceptance must l>c in the identical terms of the 
 
 1 Pollock on Contracts, 5th ed., p. 36.
 
 182 THE OBJECT OF LAW. 
 
 offer, otherwise there will be no binding con- 
 tract. For instance, if I offer to sell a cargo of 
 sugars at a stated price, to be paid for in three 
 months from delivery or sale, and you reply, 
 " Yes, I will take the sugars at the price you 
 name, but I must have six months for pay- 
 ment," no contract arises ; the parties are not 
 agreed as to terms. It will thus be seen that 
 law adapts itself to the changing conditions of 
 society or national growth. Law has for its 
 object the permanence of society and the pro- 
 motion of the interests of the individuals com- 
 posing that society. The state and the indi- 
 vidual have reciprocal interests. What really 
 benefits one must also benefit the other. 
 
 I cannot conclude better than by quoting 
 from Guthrie's introduction to his translation 
 of Savigny. 1 His words are judicious; they 
 express what I believe to be proper views. He 
 says: "Law is thus in a state of perpetual 
 growth; and the main and most influential 
 condition of this growth is its generation within 
 a community held together by a common spirit 
 and common traditions. The character and 
 whole outward circumstances of the nation in 
 which it springs up determine in a very great 
 degree the nature and peculiarities of each 
 system of law; and the rapidity of its growth,. 
 
 1 Private International Law, p. 36.
 
 THE STATE AND THE INMVIDUAL. 183 
 
 and the promptitude with which it is adapted 
 to the necessities and opinions of those who 
 live under it, are in some proportion to the 
 perfection of the national organization. The 
 state is the organ of the growth of law within 
 the nation. As a family expands into a nation, 
 the rudiments] forms of law and of the state 
 (which is itself the highest production of the 
 spirit of law) are developed simultaneously, 
 and go on to more perfection as the nation 
 advances. In short, the hirth of society and 
 <>f law is one. Ubi societas ibi jus est."
 
 INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY, 37-40. 
 
 Mr^ageof 1825, 40. 
 
 AlX-LA-CHAPELLE. 
 
 See Congress. 
 ARISTOTLE. 
 
 Politics, 132. 
 AUSTIN. 
 
 Definition of law, 109. 
 
 B. 
 
 BAYARD, DR. WM., 79, 97. 
 BKXTHAM, JEREMY. 
 
 Views on legislation, 54, 111. 
 BISHOP, MR. 
 
 Non-contract law, 148. 
 BLACKSTONK. 
 
 Definition of law, 110. 
 BRACTON, 14">. 
 BRYCE, PROK. 
 
 Views of, 67. 
 
 I'.l i KLK. 
 
 ( 'ivilization, 129, 131. 
 
 I 
 
 ( 'A 1. 1IOUS. 
 
 K.-vii-w of Monroe Doctrine, 2* 
 
 18 el ttq. 
 
 Pronmtcr <.i principle of Monroe Doctrine, 89 et te 
 CASE OR JriKJE-MAin l.\\\. 152. 
 
 (185)
 
 186 INDEX. 
 
 CHARTISTS, 84. 
 CHITTY, JOSEPH, 54. 
 CIVIL LAW. 
 
 Regarded with distrust by English, 145. 
 CIVILIZATION. 
 
 A development, 108. 
 CLAY, HENRY. 
 
 Resolution of, 49. 
 CLEVELAND, PRESIDENT. 
 
 Message 1895-6, 65-70. 
 COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT, 94 et seq. 
 
 Constitutionally, 100. 
 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, 101 et seq. 
 COMMON LAW, 142 et seq. 
 
 Derived from Teutons, 142. 
 
 Codified by Alfred the Great, 143. 
 
 Compared with Continental, 154. 
 CONGRESS. 
 
 Aix-la-Chapelle of, 7. 
 
 Lay bach, 9. 
 
 Troppau, 9. 
 
 Verona, 9, 15. 
 
 Vienna, 9. 
 
 Never confirmed Monroe Doctrine, 49. 
 COOLEY, JUDGE, 57, 118. 
 CRIMEAN WAR, 86. 
 GUSHING. 
 See Pothier. 
 
 D. 
 DANA. 
 
 Summary of message of President Monroe, 61. 
 DICEY, A. V. 
 
 Law of Con., 155. 
 DILLON, JUDGE. 
 
 Lectures of, 169. 
 DURHAM, LD., 101.
 
 INKHX. 187 
 
 IT. E. 
 
 State of, 116. 
 EMERSON, R. \V. 
 
 Hindoo law, 138. 
 KMINENT DOMAIN, 118, 150. 
 EXPORTS. 82, 94, 98. 
 EXPROPRIATION, 119, 150. 
 
 F. 
 FERDINAND. 
 
 King of Spain, 15. 
 FORVM, THE, 60, 66. 
 FORTESCUE, SIR JOHN, 144. 
 
 G. 
 GROTE, GEO. 
 
 No (ireek word for law, 139. 
 GROTIUS. 
 
 Law of nations, 54. 
 GUJZOT. 
 
 Representative government, 163. 
 
 lit 1HRIE. 
 
 See Savigny. 
 
 H. 
 HALK, Sm M. 
 
 Coin, law, 147. 
 HEARN, DR. 
 
 Government of England, 144. 
 HOBBES, 
 
 Theory of law, 109. 
 H. 'i. i. AND, PROF. 
 
 Jurisprudence, 55. 
 HOLY A I.LI AN 
 
 Principles of, 15,22,31. 
 HOOKKK. 
 
 Polity, 53. 
 HOLMES, O. \\ 
 
 Common law, 142.
 
 188 INDEX. 
 
 I. 
 
 IMPORTS, 82, 94, 98. 
 INDIAN MUTINY, 86. 
 INTERNATIONAL LAW, 53 et seq. 
 
 Monroe Doctrine not, 57. 
 INVENTIONS, 78. 
 IRELAND, 85. 
 
 J. 
 
 JEFFERSON, 25. 
 JENKINS' LIFE OF POLK, 42. 
 JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, 120. 
 JUBILEE, 76. 
 
 K. 
 KENT. 
 
 Definition of law, 110. 
 
 L. 
 
 LAURIER, SIR WILFRED. 105. 
 LAW. 
 
 Case. See C. 
 
 Civil. See C. 
 
 Common. See C. 
 
 International. See I. 
 
 Definition, 109. 
 
 Definition Hindoo, 138. 
 
 Object, 113, 115, 129, 138. 
 
 Primary object, 141. 
 
 Reports, 154. 
 LAWRENCE. 
 
 His views, 39. 
 LAYBACH. 
 
 See Congress. 
 LEGISLATION. 
 
 Aim of, 106, 111. 
 LEGISLATOR. 
 
 Duty of, 131 et seq. 
 LEWIS. 
 
 Eminent domain, 118.
 
 IXI.KX. 189 
 
 PROF. 
 
 LYNI n LAW, 159. 
 
 M. 
 
 MAt KKN/.IE. 
 
 Roman law, 140. 
 MALI-UN, -jr, _';. 
 MARKHY, MR. Jrsn 
 
 Theory of legislation, 112. 
 MAXIMILIAN. 
 
 In Mexico, 48. 
 
 M' < ARTHY, JUSTIN, 46. 
 
 M UN ROE DOCTRINE, 1 el seg. 
 
 British origin, 8. 
 
 Not continued by Congress, 8, 49. 
 
 Not international law, 8, 57. 
 
 History of doctrine, 8. 
 MONROE, PRKSIDKNT. 
 
 Message 1823, 1. 
 
 Message 1824, 5. 
 
 N. 
 NON-COLONIZATION, 24, 36, 70. 
 
 Doctrine invented by Adams, 37. 
 
 Repudiated by Great Britain, 40. 
 
 Not considered by American Cabinet, 45. 
 
 NON-INTKRVKSTION, 24. 
 
 Noi.ru AM. REV., 37, 67. 
 
 O. 
 <M.M v. Q.fl SaOBl TARY, 62. 
 
 p. 
 
 PHILLIMORE, SIR K., 31. 
 
 PLAT' '. 
 
 Republic, 133. 
 
 Pol I'.NAT. 
 
 Protest, 
 POLITIC i 
 
 See Arittotlt.
 
 190 INDEX. 
 
 POLK, PRESIDENT. 
 
 Message 1845-48, 42. 
 
 Difficulty in Yucatan, 51. 
 POLLOCK, SIB F. 
 
 Contracts, 168, 181. 
 POLLOCK AND MAITLAND. 
 
 History of law, 169, 176. 
 POPULATION. 
 
 Increase in. 78, 94. 
 PORTER. 
 
 Progress of Nation, 98. 
 
 POTHIER. 
 
 Obligations, 174. 
 
 On sale, 180. 
 
 R. 
 RAILWAY. 
 
 Mileage, 96. 
 REFORM BILLS, 85. 
 REPORTS LAW, 154. 
 RUSH. 
 
 U. S. Minister at St. James, 18. 
 
 His account of Monroe Doctrine, 18 et seq., 39. 
 RUSSELL, LD. C. J., 56. 
 
 S. 
 SALISBURY, LD., 64. 
 
 Despatch to Washington, 69. 
 SAVIONY. 
 
 Private International Law, 182. 
 SCRUTTON. 
 
 Roman law, 169. 
 SEWARD, W. H., 34. 
 SEXAGENARY, 90. 
 SHIPPING. 
 
 Increase in, 94. 
 SIDGWICK, PROF., 109. 
 SPENCER, HERBERT, 135.
 
 I'.'l 
 
 STAPLETON. 
 
 Life of Canning, 32-33. 
 Sr.MNKii, ('HAS. 
 
 His views, 30. 
 SYSTEM OF LAW. 
 
 Possession of good system compared with unnosseseion, 
 141. 
 
 T. 
 TASWELI,, LANOMEAD. 
 
 Con. Hist., 142, 158. 
 
 Tl-:i.i:<iKAPH, 79. 
 
 TILLEY, SIR S. L., 80. 
 TROPPAT. 
 
 See Congress. 
 TUCKER, :59, 41. 
 
 V. 
 
 VATTEL, 54. 
 
 VENE/UKLA QUESTION, 7, 62. 
 VERONA. 
 
 See Omgress. 
 VICTORIA, QI-KKN. 
 
 Jubilee, 76. 
 
 Saxagenary, 90. 
 
 YlKNXA. 
 
 See Congress. 
 VON HOLST, 31. 
 
 \V. 
 WAI. POLE. 
 
 History of England, 12. 
 
 \\ IIFWTEB, 10, 14. 
 WlIKVTON, '.), If,, :,}. 
 
 \VIIM: i ox, -J.-), 33 et utj. } U. 
 \VOOLSEY, PRESIDENT, 31, 66. 
 WOOLSBY, PBOF., 31. 6>. 
 
 Y. 
 
 IAN PlKIK I l.TY, 28, 51.