society, they surrender up some of their Natural Rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void." IV. "Among the Natural Rights some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the rights of conscience." 1

The North Carolina Declaration of 1776 states "that perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State and ought not to be allowed."

The Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 contains the statement "that all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one State to another that will receive them, or to form a new State in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness." Another article says "that the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance." 2

The importance attached by Americans to these Bills of Rights is shown by the fact that all the States have incorporated some such a Declaration of Rights into their constitutions, the newer States having in most cases copied from the older.

Comparing these Bills of Rights with the famous English documents, such as Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights of 1689, and others, we notice that the English declarations contain no allusions to Natural Justice nor any abstract principles whatever, but name certain concrete rights to which individuals are entitled, not as men, but as. English subjects. In the American Bills 1 Poore, II. p. 1280, 2 Ibid., p. 1542.

of Rights, on the other hand, we find statements of abstract principles; such as the natural freedom and equality of men, the purpose of government, the doctrines of the sovereignty of the people, of the separation of powers, and the like, associated with statements of concrete rights; such as the right of trial by jury, freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of elections, security against excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishments, general warrants, and others. While the first" class of statements are based upon the doctrines of Locke, Blackstone, Vattel, Pufendorf, and in a few instances of Montesquieu and Rousseau, the concrete rights are taken in most cases, and often copied verbatim, from Magna Charta or the English Bill of Rights.

In severing the ties which bound them to the motherland, the colonists could no longer regard rights which were granted by king and Parliament as applying to them. They must find another support for their rights. The political philosophy of their age came to their relief. They proclaimed the Rights of Man and founded them in Nature. But it was only natural that the well-known clauses of the English documents should still possess attraction for them. Indeed, it was for definite rights they cared most. Sober Englishmen as they were, there was but little likelihood of their attempting to carry abstract statements of equality and liberty to their logical conclusions, as did the French people during their Revolution. In France these selfsame ideas became a mass of dynamite which shattered the entire social and political order of things and gave rise to the worst excesses of the Reign of Terror. In America no disturbances of any sort arose as a result of the proclamation of these principles. The difference of consequences is attributable to a differ

ence of circumstances, of past history, and above all, a difference in the character of the American and the French people. What has been called the "Revolutionary spirit" was totally lacking in America. Again, while the American Revolution had few further results than that of recognizing the independence of the colonies, the French Revolution was a social, political, and administrative upheaval, which meant the arrival of a new era, not only for France, but for the world.

It must not be supposed, however, that these doctrines have had no influence in America. On the contrary, it is impossible to overestimate their influence in promoting that love of individual liberty which, it is true, is characteristic of the entire Anglo-Saxon race, but which is nowhere so strong as in this country. American enterprise and independence of character cannot be matched the world over. It is this trait of character which, more than any other, has made our country what it is to-day. This American spirit is the spirit of the Bills of Rights. The American States have proclaimed and guaranteed the rights of the individual. Indeed, the Bill of Rights is everywhere, perhaps, regarded as the most important part of the State constitution. Judges have frequently declared laws unconstitutional because they were contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

But what necessity is there for such declarations of rights in a republic?

Magna Charta and the other English papers were intended primarily as a protection of the individual against the arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the king. They were to serve as a check upon the king. Since to-day the king has become a mere figurehead, however, and Parliament has become omnipotent, these

documents no longer have a purpose. They do not protect the individual against Parliament, for the power of Parliament is unlimited. Parliament possessing full sovereignty can grant or take away individual rights as it chooses. There is therefore, in the British constitution, no means of protecting the individual against the government.

The American Bills of Rights are intended to serve as a check upon the government, restraining it from interference with the rights the individual is to enjoy. But is such a safeguard necessary in a government where the power is in the hands of the people? To answer this question it is necessary to bear in mind that democracy and liberty are by no means synonymous. The fact that the people rule is no guarantee that personal liberty must prevail. Public liberty does not imply civil liberty. The inhabitants of the Greek and Roman republics possessed extensive public rights, but no individual rights in the modern sense. It is true that in the last few centuries the struggle for liberty has been at the same time the struggle for democracy. But unlimited sovereignty, whether exercised by one, a few, or the many, is always liable to lead to tyranny. It is doubtful whether any tyranny can be worse than that exercised in the name of the sovereignty of the people. France experienced the truth of this during the Reign of Terror. The Bills of Rights are intended as a limitation of the sovereignty of the people in favor of the liberty of the individual.