of the political state, remains no longer possible for the people without recourse to political revolution. Hence the declaration to be found in many of our state constitutions, that The doctrine of non-resistance of arbitrary power is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." In short, the plea of national self-preservation is necessary only when treason to the constitution, and to the sovereigns who made it, is secretly intended. For, if what is proposed to be done may be done pursuant to the sovereign will, as expressed in the constitution, then this alone is the all sufficient warrant, and nothing is heard of necessity; but whatever is done is done by authority of the constitution, for the preservation of the political state, the maintenance of the regular administration of justice, and the protection of the liberties of the people.2

1 Const. N. H. Part I, Art. 10; Md. Declaration of Rights, Art. 4; Tenn. Art. 1, 2; Ky. Art. 13, 2.

"'Wise politicians know that every breach of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country, and forms a precedent for other breaches, where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent and palpable.' Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 25, p. 115. 'Necessity, especially in politics, often occasions false hopes, false reasonings, and a system of measures correspondently erroneous.' Id. No. 35, p. 152. It is transparently clear to every reflecting mind, that the plea of necessity cannot be admitted, under a written constitution, without arming the rulers with an arbitrary power, superior to the sovereign will, a power to wholly subvert the organic law, and to rule by no rule but that of caprice. A more dangerous attack upon the constitution cannot be devised; and a people who permit it deserve to be enslaved.

To attack the CONSTITUTION of a state, says Vattel, and to violate its rules, is a capital crime against the nation; and if those guilty of it are intrusted with authority, they add to their crime a perfidious abuse of their trust. The nation ought constantly to repress all violations of the constitution, with the utmost vigor and vigilance. (Vattel, L. of N. b. 1, ¿¿ 29, 30.)

¿ 22. Rapid

onies.

(2 e) OF THE POLITICAL STATE OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN COLONIES BEFORE THE REVOLUTION.

From the meeting of the first legislative assembly in rise of the col- America (consisting of the governor, council and burgesses of Virginia), to the Declaration of Independence by the colonial congress of 1776, a period of but little more than a century and a half had elapsed. Within that period, the thirteen separate political communities known in England as 'our plantations in America,' had risen from the feeblest beginnings to so great a degree of prosperity as to humber three millions of people, and sustain a commerce with the world amounting to more than a third of the whole trade of Great Britain. Their history is familiar. Their political state, however, before the Revolution of 1776, we propose to briefly review.

23. Their Political states are either sovereign and independent, or political de- subordinate and dependent. Of the latter sort were the pendence. American colonies under the British government. Settled at different periods of time, under widely different charters, grants or commissions, which rendered them wholly independent of each other, they were, nevertheless, bound by a common allegiance to the British crown.

24. Differ

ernments.

According to the theory of the British constitution, the ent kinds of title to this country which the English acquired by right of colonial gov- discovery was vested in the crown as the representative of the nation; and the exclusive power to grant the same was a branch of the royal prerogative. The king could grant the title to the soil alone, reserving the power of government; or could grant them both, as it seemed expedient to him. The powers of government he could vest as he pleased; either in officers of his own appointment, in the proprietor or proprietors of the soil, or else in the people themselves. Hence three kinds of colonial governments, denominated royal, proprietary and chartered.

In governments denominated royal, the appointment of 25. Royal the governor and council was reserved to the crown, and governments. only the members of the general assembly, the immediate representatives of the people, could be chosen or elected by them. Of this character were the governments of the colonies in New England, with the exceptions of Connecticut and Rhode Island; also the governments of New York, Virginia, Georgia, New Jersey after 1702, and the Carolinas after 1729. They were copied in a measure from that of the parent state. The legislative power was lodged in the governor, council and assembly; in England it was vested in the king, lords and commons. In both England and America the judicial power was vested in judges appointed by the crown. The assemblymen in the colonies, as the commons in England, were elected by the people. Acts of the legislature, in both countries alike, required the approval and sanction of the king.

In some of the grants, the title to the territory and the 8 26. Propowers of government were granted to a proprietor, who prietary govwas thus invested with the office of governor. Here the ernments. council, judiciary and subordinate executive officers were appointed by the governor, and the assembly only, as in the former case, was chosen by the people. Of this species were the governments of Maryland and Pennsylvania; also of New Jersey till 1702, and the Carolinas till 1721.1

827. Chart

Another species of colonial government was founded in a royal charter, in virtue of which, all the officers, legislative, ered governjudicial and executive, were chosen by and from among the ments. people. Of this kind were the governments of Connecticut and Rhode Island. The charter of Connecticut, granted by Charles II in 1662, was remarkably favorable to the liberties of the people. It vested all the powers of government, legislative, judicial and executive, in the freemen of the corporation; and continued to form the basis of the government of the state until 1818, when the people established the present constitution. The charter of Rhode 1 See 5 Pet. Cond. Rep. 531, 532.

? 28. Inter

of the colo

nies.

Island, also granted by Charles II, in 1663, and leaving the people of that province in like manner free to govern them selves, reserved no more than allegiance to the king; and this charter of their liberties remained in force, as the supreme organic law of the state, till even so late as 1842, when a new constitution of that state was framed and adopted by them.

The several colonies were internally divided into towns, nal divisions townships or parishes, cities and counties. Their towns were small republics; their township meetings, assemblies of the people; where municipal affairs were debated and considered, township officers chosen, and legislative representatives elected. These meetings or assemblies were so many schools in which the people were early and constantly trained to the discussion and decision of political affairs.

29. Rela

other and to the parent

In relation to the parent state, the colonies were always tions to each considered, not as a single community, but as several and distinct political bodies, having their separate affairs, relastate. tions and issues, with the British crown. In relation to each other, all were equally sovereign, free and independent. Each of them had its own legislature, its own judiciary, its own executive, and its own peculiar laws. They had indeed their several disputes, verging upon wars, concerning their respective jurisdictions; the territorial limits of one or another being sometimes loosely defined. Connecticut laid claim to lands in Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania to lands in Maryland. Vermont was claimed by New York on the one hand and by New Hampshire on the other. Various were the disputes as to bounds. But the bounds of a colony or province being once ascertained, no one denied that the permanent inhabitants within those bounds were subject to one and the same political body. The people were governed by the laws of the colony to which they belonged, and exercised the right of suffrage as prescribed by those laws.

30. Their

The subjects of each colony, however, were British subjects; all were bound by a common allegiance to the Brit- common allegiance. ish crown; the nature of which obligation, or tie of the feudal subject to his feudal sovereign, is thus explained by Blackstone:

"Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors. Under the feudal system, every owner of lands held them in subjection to some superior or lord, from whom or whose ancestors the tenant or vassal had received them; and there was a mutual trust or confidence subsisting between the lord and vassal, that the lord should protect the vassal in the enjoyment of the territory he had granted him, and, on the other hand, that the vassal should be faithful to the lord, and defend him againt all his enemies. This obligation on the part of the vassal was called fidelitas, or fealty; and an oath of fealty was required by the feudal law, to be taken by all tenants to their landlord.' (1 Bl. Com. 366.)

From the settlement of the colonies, the characteristic 831. A comof the people was their jealously of their rights and mon charactliberties. Nor were they deficient in the knowledge of eristic of the these. The study of government, politics and law, was people. not neglected by the Americans of the eighteenth century ; and quick to perceive the tendency of political affairs, they were rather disposed to question the ordinary measures of government than to passively submit to the exercise of unknown or doubtful powers.

The parent state was equally jealous of the increasing prosperity and power of her colonies. Their growing wealth had provoked her cupidity, and the monopoly of their trade had replenished her revenue. The bare possibility that at ever so distant a time they should become independent was not to be thought of but with feelings of deep concern. Hence the various measures of the Brit