State, nor impair its powers. The State still exists, and exists of right; and a revolution is only an effort to vindicate the State against the misuse of her powers by bad men and bad rulers. A revolution, therefore, may have two objects, or only one of them: to get rid of wicked rulers, and to obtain a change of the form of the State, or simply to get rid of the rulers without changing the form. In a free State, this change of men may be effected at the ballot box; in a monarchy, it cannot be so done; it can only be done by an appeal to force, since bad rulers never voluntarily abandon power. The object of every revolution ought, therefore, to be clearly forecast from the first; its extent, if possible, ought to be known so that there may be less chance for the disturbing influence of wicked and bad elements, which are always present, wherever confusion and disorder reign. If a mere explusion of bad men is sought, as soon as the expulsion takes effect, their places should at once be supplied with good men, so that there may be no period of interregnum, during which the State is unorganized. If a change of form is also sought, then more care and deliberation are required; still prompt action in all such emergencies is the only safety. Hesitation gives occasion for conflicts of opinion, and hence for weakness, and vacillation. Men on great emergencies must never hesitate; organization is the necessity, and any form is better than none; since order is practicable with the one and not with the other.

25

CHAPTER XXXIII.

THE CITIZEN-HIS DUTIES.

HAVING closed our discussion upon the foundation of the State, its powers and its organization, we will now turn to the duty of the citizen, and of the official, since government is made for the benefit of the one, and to be worked by the other. It is clear that either class have important duties to perform towards the State; duties which cannot safely be neglected or overlooked. In this chapter we will examine the duty of the citizen.

The first duty of the citizen is undoubtedly obedience. By this word, we do not mean simply that he should avoid breaking the law; but that he should cultivate in himself a habit of obedience, a feeling of moral obligation in reference to the State, which leads him not only to obedience to positive law, but calls up in him those feelings of reverence for the State as for the authority of God. In this view politics become a duty, a moral duty, no mere expediency to be adopted or laid aside at will, or to be struggled for as a prize and reward. The citizen with such views will feel he has responsibilities resting upon him, which he cannot ignore, or omit to discharge. The happiness of all depend upon the intelligent action of each; and hence each should feel that he is bound to exert what of influence he has in directing rightly the action of the State; or otherwise he himself will be responsible before God for any misap

plication of its power. Intelligence, when rightly applied, exerts a vast influence upon the action of the State; it can bring out true views of policy, and correct false ones, since every government, in honest hands, tends to pursue the right; it is only bad men who will knowingly follow the wrong. Every effort, therefore, should be made to enlighten and inform the minds of the ruler and ruled, so that both may discover the right, so that while the rulers seek it, the ruled may not only acquiesce, but actively aid in carrying it

out.

Under a monarchy, the action of the citizen is much less than in a democracy. Still even here the citizen has great power. A monarchy must make its action conform to the general intelligence of the people; it cannot stand up unless this is the case. The power is in the mass, and this power must not be suffered to become arrayed against the State; as in that case the administration would be weak and powerless. Hence the citizen can act upon the State by acting upon public intelligence, as well as by acting directly upon the minds of rulers. In this way, all progress under a monarchy must be effected. In doing this, the citizen should avoid all appeals to ignorance, to force; his mission is to enlighten the mind both of the ruler and subject, so that reforms may follow from the spontaneous action of one or both.

Citizens in a free State have much more important duties to discharge; they are indirectly the rulers, since all appointments are in their hands, and the policy also; since through this power of appointment the citizen can carry his own views and opinions into acts of legislation and government. They too, having the selection of the main officers of the State, are responsible for their characters. If bad men are in power, the people have put them there, and can put them out again if they wish.

The duty of an election is an important one. We have seen that the object of all organization is to select the ablest and best men for public trusts; and that such a selection can alone insure the

success of a democracy. The duty, then, of the elector is plain. God has placed power in his hands, to be used for the benefit of humanity and the honor of God. This can be done only by entrusting the powers of the State to honest and capable hands. The citizens make this selection, they name the man for the office, and hence are responsible, if a wicked man is elected. In all elections, therefore, the citizen is bound to look to the qualifications of the person for whom he votes.

In the first place, he can only vote for honest men, if he would discharge truly his duty to God and his country. No man is fit for an office of public trust, unless he is an honest man. By this term honest is meant something more than a mere negative quality. A man is not necessarily honest because he does not steal, and commit perjury; he may avoid all this, and still be a knave at heart. By honesty, then, we mean that character in a man which will lead him to seek for the true and the right, and then carry them out with a purpose that knows no hesitation. Such a man may be trusted any and everywhere. Party will never blind his intellect or warp his judgment, or mislead him in his action. He never seeks to promote self at the expense of truth, nor will he be found shaping his course and his policy with reference to popularity, unless honesty and fidelity will secure that so much coveted object. A politician, who hints a lie to obtain a vote, is a liar; nay, if he ever allows men to vote for him under the impression that he is what he is not, he is also guilty of falsehood; and a man who will lie directly or indirectly to carry an election, is as destitute of real honesty as the thief and the robber. No confidence can be placed in such men, because they are governed by views of self, not by laws of right; their creed is expediency, not right; and expediency leads directly to corruption in public men and despotism in the State. No citizen, then, can conscientiously vote for a man of whose honesty he is not fully assured; for, if this qualification is wanting, no others, however eminent, can compensate for it. When

men, therefore, allow themselves to be governed by mere party in their votes, they cease to be freemen, and become slaves to mere party leaders. Party founded on a similarity of views is indispensable. Those who think alike must act together; but this will never justify an elector in placing in power a dishonest man. In so doing, he violates the law of God, which looks to the overthrow of all dishonesty and the establishment of honesty.

In the second place, the elector must look to the capacity of the candidate. This includes both his mental ability to understand the right, and his cultivation and acquisitions. He must be fitted for the place; he must have that preparation and instruction which the discharge of the official duties require. This is an all-important consideration, if the State is to be well served. Vast trusts are to be placed in the hands of the officer, trusts on the faithful and efficient discharge of which the life and property of individuals, the peace and happiness of the community, depend. Are such powers safe in the hands of the weak and ignorant? If the elector votes for incompetency, he again violates his duty, since he has no right to injure others by voting unfit men into office to the public injury. No personal consideration can justify it, since, in voting, he is discharging a public trust, in which others as well as himself are interested.

The same qualifications are not necessary for all offices, still capacity is; that amount of mental ability which is necessary to understand the duties of the position sought. Special qualifications are needed for particular positions, and the citizen should see that the man he votes for is possessed of these special qualifications. And yet how often do we see men voted for and elected to office without one qualification, or the least preparation for the discharge of its duties. The elector, who thus votes, is doing all he can to defeat the success of popular government; and the man who offers himself as a candidate for an office, of the duties of which he knows nothing, is guilty of a violation of duty.