period of time for completion, that it will be difficult or impossible to obtain private capital for the purpose.

Thirdly, there is the danger of political corruption. Where politics are as corrupt as they are in many places in the United States, especially in the larger cities, there is a constant danger that any extension of the duties of the state will result only in providing more offices for distribution as political spoil to incapable, if not dishonest, officials.

Fourthly, and finally, there is to be pointed out the fundamental objection to any species of legislation on the part of the state which results in a violation of individual rights of property or the freedom of contracts, or their sanctity when made. These rights constitute the very basis of our ideas of justice, as well as the foundation upon which all industrial and commercial prosperity and development have been erected. They are rights, therefore, not lightly to be disturbed.

In our day, and in this country, there are constantly being proposed measures which, for the sake of bettering the conditions of some, would deprive others of their property or interfere with their freedom to make and enforce fulfillment of such contracts as they see fit to make. In a democratic state, that is, in one in which the suffrage and the right to hold office are widely extended, there is a constant demand on the part of the masses for any state action that seems to offer the slightest promise of relieving the condition of the poor. In many cases these demands are perfectly justifiable; but when they are based on the principle of taking property from one class to give it to another, only the

most urgent need can justify them either morally or economically. By rendering property rights less secure, thrift and saving are discouraged, and, ultimately, society as a whole is rendered so much poorer. No state, and a democratic state least of all, can be successfully conducted without a general reverence for law, and this reverence cannot be preserved if law be made the instrument of injustice, and caused to violate the very rights which it should aim to create and maintain. As President John Quincy Adams once said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny begin."

Socialism and Communism. The term socialism is used to describe that form of political society in which the duties of the state are so enormously extended as to include the ownership and operation of all land, machinery, and other instruments of production. The Standard Dictionary defines the term as follows: “A theory of civil polity that aims to secure the reconstruction of society, increase of wealth, and a more equal distribution of the products of labor through the public collective ownership of land and capital (as distinguished from property), and the public collective management of all industries." Under such a régime, private personal property would still exist, but no individual ownership of land, or manufacturing plants. The objections to such a scheme are many and decisive, but cannot be stated here at length. In general they are the same, moral as well as economic, as those we have just alleged

WIL. AM. CIT. — 5

against any governmental action, though, when applied to such an extreme extent, their force is so enhanced that to the minds of most persons they are absolutely overwhelming.

Communism is the name for the still more radical scheme, according to which all property, land, machinery, other instruments of production and private goods as well, are owned in common; and in which all individuals are rewarded alike for their work, irrespective of capacity; it is, in fact, a scheme for the abolition of all private property. In general, communistic schemes call for the destruction of the family and of the church as well.

CHAPTER VI

FORMS OF GOVERNMENTS

Introductory. To the student nothing is more interesting and instructive than to trace how, as tribes and nations have progressed in civilization, government has advanced in its development; how, as men have progressed, first from the condition of savage hunters to that of roving feeders of flocks, then to tillers of the soil with fixed places of abode, and, finally, to builders of cities teeming with trade, commerce, and manufactures

their mutual duties and common interests have become more and more important and numerous, and government, as controlling these interests and duties, has developed in form and improved in structure until it has become an all-powerful, complex machine, controlling in many ways the actions and lives of its citizens. For thousands of years, governments have been developing and changing in form and functions, and a very large part of the history of the nations of the globe is identified with the history of the development and changes of their governments. As new conditions and needs have arisen, governments have adapted themselves to them. In some cases this has been done peacefully, as in England, and in others, violently, by revolutionary means, as in France. In some cases,

functions previously exercised have been relinquished, in others, new powers have been assumed; but in the majority of cases, the change has been merely in the manner of exercising this or that power.

All peoples have not the same characteristics, nor have they developed under the same conditions of climate, soil, or situation. Different nations have, therefore, developed for themselves different forms of government. Yet these governments, however different in their structures and administration, are in all cases distinctly referable to four well-defined types, known by the following names: monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, and republic.

Monarchy. A monarchy is a nation at whose head is a personal ruler, called king, emperor, czar, etc., who has control of the government, appoints the principal officers of state, and to whom, in theory at least, these appointees are responsible for their actions. Thus England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and others are monarchies. The sovereign holds his position for life, and usually acquires his throne by inheritance. The amount of power actually exercised, and the responsibility borne by the sovereign, vary widely in different countries, and upon the basis of these differences monarchical forms of government are classified under the two heads, absolute and limited.

Absolute Monarchy. An absolute monarchy is one in which the sovereign or ruler is possessed of supreme power and authority, and controls absolutely, without limitation or interference, all the powers of the government.

His word is law, and does not require the sanc