It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the
Constitution--_not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those
who pretend to administer it_--the properties, liberties, and lives of
the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into
the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall
never be "questioned" as to any disposal they make of them.
Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, "for any speech or
debate (or vote), in either house, they (the senators and
representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place."
The whole law-making power is given to these senators and
representatives (when acting by a two-thirds vote)[e]; and this
provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make.
The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their
laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach
and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute
them.
Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are
made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but
absolute, irresponsible power?
It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under
oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they,
or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly
provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be
"questioned," or held to any responsibility whatever, for violating
their oaths, or transgressing those limits?
Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the
particular individuals holding this power can be changed once in two or
six years; for the power of each set of men is absolute during the term
for which they hold it; and when they can hold it no longer, they are
succeeded only by men whose power will be equally absolute and
irresponsible.
Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men
holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be men chosen by the
people (or portions of them) to hold it. A man is none the less a slave
because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically
to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now
are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power
over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.[f]
The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of
property, and the right of property is the right of absolute,
irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily
implying the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore,
Congress have that absolute and irresponsible law-making power, which
the Constitution--according to their interpretation of it--gives them,
it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as
property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do
not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as
such, is of no authority over us.
But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible
dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our
masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants,
agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an
absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney,
or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and
irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I
appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him
uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my
servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute,
irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave
him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and
gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I
called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what
power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible
one? or a limited and responsible one?
For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents,
attorneys, nor representatives. And that reason is, that we do not make
ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or
attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done
within the limits of the power I have intrusted to him. If I have
intrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any power at
all, over the persons or properties of other men than myself, I thereby
necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for any
injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the
power I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his
person or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual
electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called
agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents
of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody.
If, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress,
the members of Congress are nobody's agents. And if they are nobody's
agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts,
and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are
exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of
nature--the highest of all laws--anybody injured by their acts, anybody
who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same
right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any
other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to
resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other
trespassers.