The subject of government and the solution of all its difficulties seem
to hinge upon the question, Where does God’s government drop its sway
(if it does so at all), and where does man take it up, on his own
account, by inherent natural right, guaranteed to him by the law that
gave him being? The only modification of this question required to be
considered is, How far man is or can be the authorized, competent agent
of the Almighty in working out His purposes? To solve all these
questions it becomes necessary to determine what the fundamental
principles of government must be, to be in harmony with the laws of God,
and to adopt them and to follow them out to all their legitimate
conclusions and results, discarding everything else. In such government
and legislation the eternal principles of right, which are God’s laws,
are in full force and effect, and _man_, thus far, an authorized
competent agent in the administration of His decrees in the material
world.
Whether a government founded or administered upon any other basis than
the eternal principles of right and justice can or cannot be enduring,
is a proposition the simplest mind may solve. Progress is from the lower
to the higher; in its certain and irresistible march all systems and
things that have risen out of the circumstances of the times to which
they belong will be swept away to make room for the new and the better;
but principles and self-evident truths that were contained in such
systems will endure to be incorporated into all future systems.
There can be no higher form of expression than that life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness are “_inalienable_” rights to _all_; and, being
such, it is safe to assume that it will always remain as a fundamental
proposition in the organic law of this country; and legislation will be
required to guide itself by it, instead of being its exponent.
Change upon change will come in the future, as it has in the past, until
government will become so simplified as to have for its foundation
nothing but an annunciation of general principles of justice and equity,
as self-evident truths upon which all legislation must be based.
Passing, for a time, the consideration of the principles of government,
it may be well to inquire into the injustice of some of its present
details. All men, and women, too, are _born_ free and equal, entitled to
certain natural rights, which no government has the right to take from
them. While every man and woman is a result of the general law of
procreation, there are distinguishing points peculiar to each, which
renders every _one_ different from every _other_; thus no two persons
can be so precisely alike as to make their individuality the same;
consequently no two persons are governed by the same internal and
external mainsprings of action and influence. Let the same power and
influence be exerted upon different individuals, no matter how nearly
they may _resemble_ each other, different results will flow from each,
the character of which will be absolutely determined by the status of
the development of, and the relations between the material, and
spiritual elements represented in the individuals acted upon. No
argument is needed to prove this proposition; and the legitimate
deduction to be drawn from it is, that no judgment of the action of the
individual, by others, is just that does not take into consideration all
the various points in character and influence under which action is
produced.
It must not be forgotten that all thought and action on the part of an
individual is the legitimate result of some competent producing cause,
operating by natural law. The cause being competent, the law of
operation natural, and the result consequently legitimate, can another’s
idea of right step in to sit in judgment over the action, and render a
verdict of justice to the actor? Or, can any number of individuals
determine what the demands of justice are which God himself has declared
by the mouth of all His holy prophets, material and spiritual. “Judgment
is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
No one can hope to escape the judgments of the eternal law, or to hide
himself from God’s officers of justice; but must by them be brought
before its stern, undeviating bar, to receive its unpardonable sentence.
But, says the objector, this does not satisfy me, who have suffered from
the offence. What if it does not satisfy you? God is satisfied; and are
you greater than He, that you may question His justice? If you are not
yet satisfied, God will most surely satisfy you in His own good time.
Look into your statutes, and within them, find their own stultification.
They assert that no criminal shall be subjected to two trials and
penalties for the same offence; but, in the face of this righteous rule,
and with the positive knowledge that God has already tried, convicted
and sentenced the murderer, the courts of the country take possession
and control of the criminal, proceed to try, convict, condemn and hang
him by the neck until he is dead. Rest assured God will not overlook
this attempt of yours to forestall his judgments.
We stop here to make a broad assertion: For man to affix certain
definite penalties as punishment for so-called crime is to arrogate to
himself what alone belongs to God!
Stumbling-blocks are constantly found in the path of progress, against
which the earnest traveler finds himself precipitated; these consist of
the ideas of the past, clothed with form and expression, and which were
set up by their conceivers as “guides and lights” of their times, for
those who groped their way by such assistance. The earnest seeker after
light finds these set up all along his path, declaring “thus far shalt
thou go, and no farther;” but he, catching a glimpse of the light so
bright beyond, clears the obstruction by a single bound, and goes on his
way rejoicing, seldom deeming it his duty to turn upon and cast what to
him was but a hindrance from the path of progress, so that others coming
that way should not encounter it, who perhaps might lack the power to
surmount it. “Let your light shine” so that those who come after you may
be aided thereby.
A single argument upon the question of the relations between debtor and
creditor, which is maintained by the present laws, will be sufficient to
illustrate the whole subject of customs, authorities and laws, which are
obstructions in the path of progress. The time was when imprisonment for
debt was authorized by law in all the States of this land of freedom
(?); but the spirit of progressive justice has been at work until but
few of the States now retain this libel upon Christian civilization to
disgrace their statutes. Imprisonment for debt! What good ever resulted
from it? The malignity of the creditor may have satisfied itself by
still further humiliating the broken spirits of the debtor; but the
creditor, by such action, places it still further beyond the power of
the unfortunate debtor to satisfy the demand. It is asserted, without
fear of successful contradiction, that the same deleterious effects
generally flow from all similar laws. All kinds of crime are but species
of debt, and the same rule applies with about the same force to its laws
and penalties. Imprisonment for debt has been pretty generally
abolished, but still our statute books are laden with laws to enforce
collection.
A philosopher and economist, not long ago, fully investigated the
relations between debtor and creditor, and the practical results of the
laws now in force, and arrived at the “deliberate conclusion” that the
costs attending the attempts to collect debts by legal process were
three times the amount collected; not a very flattering commentary upon
the policy of the law, and certainly not a paying investment to the
crediting part of our community. This conclusion may at first thought
appear fallacious; but when the expensiveness of courts, and the immense
incomes of lawyers who practice at their bars, are considered, the
afterthought will fully sustain the conclusion. It is believed by many
that if there were no laws at all to enforce collection, there would be
many less _bad debts_; even now a debt of honor is held by public
opinion to have precedence of those which the _law_ claims the right to
enforce.
The thinker of ordinary capacity will see at a glance that an immense
amount of labor would be withdrawn from the courts, which now bears
heavily upon the people, not only in the form of taxes to pay for
court-houses, jury-rooms and judges’ salaries, but in the waste of time
employed in jury-boxes by men dragged from their inevitable toil, and
held as prisoners, while their wives and children are often suffering,
and even dying, from the want of their care and attention at home.
Contracts should be so well defined as to admit of no misunderstanding;
and if there was no method of collection and enforcement, there would be
very many less disagreements; hence, in no light in which it can be
viewed, does our present system commend itself to the wisdom and justice
of the reflecting; on the contrary, it throws open the door for cunning
and knavery to enter to test their strength through technical evasions
and blind inferences, practiced, on the unwary and ignorant by the
“_Quirks_, the _Gammons_ and the _Snaps_,” who, as _vampires_ of the
time-honored profession they disgrace, feed and fatten upon the
misfortunes of the deluded, long-forbearing, long-suffering _children of
toil_.
It may be safely asserted that a very large part of _all law_ contained
within the statutes of the world, when analyzed, will present about the
same deleterious results in practice and in the opportunities presented
for infringement and subsequent evasion of their penalties that
inevitably flow from all laws for the collection of debts.
The time has probably not yet come for the abolishment of all such laws,
but the time has come when the relations of individual debtors and
creditors should be left to the control of general principles of
justice, which declare that a contract once fairly made, an obligation
once fairly incurred, can never be discharged until satisfaction shall
have been entered upon the record by divine justice.