part of the state is independent of it or superior to it.

No statute of state has ever set its limits, even the constitution or fundamental law of a state does not define it. Different nations have their different ideas of sovereignty, but such different ideas, so far as they vary from the phrases of the analytical jurists, of which those written by John Austin are most read, relate to why it is needed instead of to any attempt to set its limits.

Sovereignty within the state would best be understood if you should consider it in its relation to certain innate tendencies existing in all living things, that something that makes the leaves of the plant turn toward the light, that causes the roots of the tree to reach out toward the underground water courses, that will cause the worm to turn, that makes one pause and knock at the door of his most intimate friend before entering, again will lead him to break into the house of a stranger to put out a fire, that which is called police power within the state, and that something of a similar origin that is called the right of eminent domain, that which makes us resent any criticism as to what we may be pleased to do in a war in which we are in co-operation with other nations, but when necessity demands it which leads us willingly to send our troops to fight under the leadership of a foreign general.

When all of these things and many others, by which an over-ruling Providence marshals the forces of nature for their own preservation, are understood, we shall have an adequate idea of sovereignty, but for the present it is sufficient to say that the people of this country do not accept the idea of John Austin, but find it in the possession of all of the people, to be exercised for all of the people, by all of the people. The one thing which gives color to the idea of absolute power is that there is no appeal from the decision of those who are for the moment exercising the functions of the state, but even Austin recognizes the fact that the supposed absolute authority of a sovereign which the minds of the analytical jurists have created will hestitate to be tyrannical for fear of the people whom they are attempting to govern, so that after all these analytical jurists have seen, though they have not acknowledged the fact, that if there is such a sovereignty existing in the state as claimed by them, it is the sovereignty which the fathers of our Government discovered residing in all of the people.

It is mere sophistry to say that the sovereign has absolute uncontrollable power, for the reason that if any one or group could prevent him from exercising such power such one or group would be the sovereign, for the so-called sovereignty may be exercised by the most powerful element within the state, which could be de

throned immediately upon its assumption of absolute power, but which could immediately thereafter reconquer its supremacy and regain its power upon renouncing its claim of unlimited authority.

Any system of laws within a state or between states that takes no account of men as they are, and considers only men as some one believes they should be, will fail. Men are the stuff from which states and systems are builded, and the nature of the building must be determined largely by the material out of which it is constructed.

The world had been many times deluged in blood before even the most enlightened part of it came to the full realization that there were certain questions that the state, those exercising what is termed as sovereignty of the state, majorities, or even all of the inhabitants, excepting a single individual, should leave to be settled between the individual and his God. Many have not learned that lesson yet. Certain entire states have not gone through the experience that brings such a les

son.

It is the pride of Americans that while they enter into a political contest with great zeal, sometimes even with a certain degree of animosity, when the contest is over the minority in the fight, or even the majority-if a part

of such majority, through indifference, allow the fight to go against them-submits quietly with a sportsman's good grace to the decision against it; but if the contest should ever turn upon questions with reference to which history has taught men are willing to die, rather than to yield, martyrs would not be lacking in this country. We have learned to discriminate between questions that relate only to the free individual and questions in which the state may rightfully take an interest.

As has been often said, man is a social animal; he has a desire for independence, but also a desire for society, and he wishes to be secure in such rights as he possesses. He early developed the sense of ownership and a sense of acquisitiveness, that might prompt him to desire what another claimed. These and other attributes played against one another in his nature, and were exemplified in his actions. Doubtless long before men began to philosophize as to why they acted as they did, or as to what were their rights and obligations toward one another, and long before there was a conscious bargaining as to giving up certain liberties in order to acquire security, or as to the granting of protection on the part of one for service and obedience by others, through the interplay of men's passions, desires and tendencies, certain forms of society arose. Even now in this most enlightened

nation in the world, where the greatest freedom of the individual is enjoyed and protected, where every citizen is at once the ruler and the ruled, how many would you find in a day's travel that have undertaken to solve these questions as to the relations between men and men, or who are conscious of themselves or their ancestors having been parties to any social contract, or that would be willing to pause to consider any questions in relation thereto?

The three most important things in the government are liberty, progress and stability. In an ideal state there would be perfect liberty, and the citizen would be completely self-governing. He would join with others in making the laws and would be sufficiently self-restrained to comply with the laws which he had helped to create without any coercion from others. In a large state there would be local self-government, so that all matters that might be regulated in the neighborhood and the various subdivisions of the state would be attended to by the particular locality without any greater supervision by the general government than would be necessary to preserve reasonable unity and uniformity in the whole state. Progress in such state would be found in the continual improvement in the condition of individuals after it had brought them to the state of ideal perfection. Stability would preserve these conditions of liberty and progress. We