Page:The Granite Monthly Volume 5.djvu/17

Rh Only when the children of its original members had intermarried, could the society become in public feeling one large family. Yet before the ties of blood had consolidated the primitive tribes, there sprang into prominence another force that imparted deeper stability to the family groups. It came to pass that group had to contend for existence with group. This period of inter-tribal conflict is what has been called the "fighting era."

The troubles of this time lifted the crude primitive societies into the dignity of political organizations. At first the will of the group controlled the will of its members, but in times of conflict the consensus of opinion was not strong enough, or rather wise enough, to lead the tribes to victory.

A leader was needed, and a leader was found. The various tribes became dominated by their strongest, bravest, and most cunning and intelligent member. The acts and character of the leader in the course of nature became a type to his followers, and thus, under the sway of a chief, unity and vigor, and a higher order of savagery, was projected into the tribe. Each tribe, in preparation for its battles, subjected itself to a course of training, improved its organization, and sought to better its instruments of warfare.

Though a terrible, it was, nevertheless, a disciplining age for primitive man. It was in this period of human history that the principle of natural selection or the survival of the fittest found prominent application. Herbert Spencer teaches that "the struggle for existence between societies has been instrumental to their evolution." The reason of this is plain. During the early centuries of conflict the least intelligent tribes perished. The stronger political organizations, those best fitted to become links in the chain of the social evolution of the race, survived. Class distinctions arose out of the war of the tribes. The warrior-chiefs and the common warriors became, as the tribes expanded into nations, the nobles and the plebeians, the wealthy land-owners, and the poor tenants. I have said that the weaker tribes were destroyed by the stronger. This was not always done. Frequently, conditioned upon the payment of a heavy tribute in produce, the vanquished tribes were allowed to retain tillage possession of their lands. This was the origin of the serf-class. Again, conquering tribes often made slaves of those whom they had overcome, incorporating in this way large classes of bondmen into their own organizations. It was found less profitable to kill than to requite life in return for service.

By a brief epitome of the facts I have shown in a general way, that government is the inevitable outcome of man's nature, when placed in contact with peculiar external conditions. Both man's nature, and the theatre in which that nature was placed, originated in the creative thought and predetermining will of God. Government was evolved from the interplay of natural causes. But we are shallow, indeed, if this answer contents us. Such an institution as government is not evolved from an accident or from an interplay of accidents. Whence the harmonious activity of natural causes? Whence the natural causes themselves? The final form and structure in all evolution is determined by the nature of the original germ. But what determines the nature of the original germ? Who hesitates to meet this question with the reply, "God's will."

Political institutions, then, constitute an organism developed in accordance with natural law. Government is not a compact between the governed and the governing. It is not an institution created by the intelligence of man. It is rather coeval in its origin with the creation of man. It grew with man's growth. What then, it may be asked, is the duty of the citizen to the government? All men concede that it is wrong for an individual to commit suicide. Why? Because by the act of self-destruction the individual takes not his own ifelife [sic], but a life held in trust from God. All men must concede then that it is the