Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/166

 Philosophy of Laiv. ity. This was the first Constitution. It was another restriction upon the natural right of these men to do as they desired. But after many years we may imagine a race grew up on each of these three pieces of land. After a time the San Francisco race, thinking they were stronger than the Chicago race, made war upon Chicago to take their land, but the New York race stepped in and said, " No, we agreed to restrict ourselves and not go upon the lands of the others, so San Francisco shall not impose on Chicago's rights because San . Francisco is the stronger." New York and Chicago join and put down San Francisco, thus compelling him to keep the agreement and preserve peace. Order is thus restored. This is the majority enforcing the original agreement. Then the 'different races select representa tives who meet at Chicago, and agree to a great many restrictions, which the people of the different races thus impose upon them selves and agree to follow. Each restriction or as we call it, law, says, " You must not do so and so." Each law is a restriction upon natural liberty, and the reason for the restriction is that it is necessary in order to create harmony among all the people in the nation. Men say if we each claim a right to do everything and act as though we only lived in the world, we will always be quarrel ing, so in order that we may enjoy each other's company and the benefits of being together, we will all agree to restrict our selves and not do certain things, and we each further agree that if any of us break this agreement we will compel him to keep the agreement, for it is for the good of all, and we all agree to it, hence have no right to break it. Thus law in a republic, which is the only right law, must be a restriction upon natural liberty for the best good of all who belong to the society — a self-imposed restriction. These restrictions upon natural liberty have at different periods апЯ in different nations been variously made and enforced.

143

First, by a system in which one man made the restrictions for all the people, as in patriarchial and monarchical government. In such instances one man was made king, emperor, or was known by other title. He represented enough of the people to give him the balance of power, so he made any restrictions he desired, whether just or un just, and usually his restrictions were made for the benefit of the class who ruled. The restriction was an agreement between a few of the citizens rather than all who were affected by the restriction or law. These few passed such laws or restrictions as their interests dictated, and generally such restrictions were unjust and oppressive to those citizens who had no voice in making the restrictions. This was unjust law, because it deprived men of. control over their property and with out their consent. It was an imposition upon natural liberty. These restrictions were imposed upon the weaker by the stronger in physical power. At other times and places these restric tions have been imposed by appealing to the superstition of the people. Certain men claimed, as in theocratic government, to re ceive messages from a divine source direct ing what restrictions were best for the peo ple in order to preserve harmony. The people believing these men divinely-directed, accepted the restrictions they outlined. But too often the restrictions were made by un scrupulous men who formed them in their own interest rather than for the good of all the people who followed them. They were un just restrictions because not for the benefit of all classes and have therefore often caused discord. The object of all restriction is, as we saw, to create harmony among the people who associate together as a nation or so ciety. Under monarchical government the people were kept in peace by force, and by the superstition that the restrictions or laws made by a king could not be unjust. But these restrictions, although they created a