LIMITS AND SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of May 27, 1870.]

MRS. WOODHULL’S LATEST EPISTLE TO THE AMERICANS—“THE LIMITS AND SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT” CONSIDERED FROM A FEMALE POINT OF VIEW.

[In the following communication Mrs. Woodhull, whose former essays on political matters have been published in the Herald, considers the question of government with special reference to the system under which we live in the United States:]

Having in “The Tendencies of Government” traced the rise and fall of nations, and found that from earliest historic time to the present, there has been a continual grasping for universal power, and a constant failure to maintain the extent of control actually reached; that the systems through which universal control was sought were too imperfect to admit of support for any great length of time over an extended area of country; that the general order of the world seems to indicate that universal government will become a fact, and that the United States shall be the seat of such governmental power, we may now come to consider what control a government must be invested with in order that it shall at all times meet the demands of the people and the times, and therefore be continuous while becoming universal.

It is predicated that government exists by the consent of the governed. While this is nominally true, it virtually contains but an undeveloped germ of truth. In no country as yet does the government exist by the consent of the governed. In this country least of all does it apply, though superficially it may not so appear.

89Government is universal. All things in all the various kingdoms of nature are the objects of governing laws which form the subjective order of the universe. In all natural government the relations between the governing power and the powers governed are always well defined, while the requirements of the governed are always met by requisite modes of administration. Each coming demand falls into some common method of being answered. Thus, in the greatest conceivable diversity of conditions, are found the fewest and simplest laws of control. Rising from purely material to the more refined powers of mind, represented only in the human, a new phase of development springs up. Being an individualized power within itself, the human family represents the divine power that controls the whole, and in this relation fashions its governments according to the limitations of its acquired standard of wisdom, which must always necessarily be imperfect in comparison with the common laws of the universe, in the same proportion as human wisdom is imperfect when compared with divine wisdom.

The world of mind has now arrived at an age and corresponding development, which begins to comprehend the general laws of the universe, and to understand their great simplicity and perfect adaptation to all things under them. Seeing that such a perfect system of government exists throughout the universe of matter, the inquiry is beginning to be earnestly made, why the universe of mind cannot be controlled by equally simple and general laws and systems of administration. Seeing that changes are never necessary in the common universal laws, the inquiry is also beginning to be made, why the laws that govern society cannot be so fashioned after the laws of nature as not to require the constant remodelling now necessary when changes come, in the circumstances required to be met.

The solution of the difficulty in which the mind becomes involved when considering these most serious questions, seems reduced to a single proposition—that all strifes, difficulties and controversies regarding government and its administration, arise from the fact, that the governing power is not general but specific in its operations, or that the powers governed are not subservient to a common law of control. This is still more clearly perceptible if the question of “reserved rights” on the part of any of the governed is considered. No individual can have a reservation that militates against the general welfare of others, or the whole, without specific laws to sustain him in it. If no individual can have such special reservation, no number of individuals less than 90than the whole, can have reservations without specific protection. Therefore no city, county, State, or number of them, less than all cities, counties and States forming a consolidated union, can hold in reserve any rights or privileges that do not contribute to the general welfare of the whole, without sooner or later coming into conflict regarding them. This theory of reserved rights was pretty forcibly, logically and effectually refuted by the late war; so must all such reservations be equally well refuted before permanent peace, harmony and prosperity can be expected to flow from government and it remain permanent.

Analytically and philosophically considered, government exists for the general good of all the governed, in which individual rights and privileges can find freedom and justice without conflict. All systems that exist upon a less comprehensive basis than this must eventually be swept away. All parts of systems that conflict with the general fundamental propositions in which they were based and reared must be expunged, so that administration can be in perfect harmony with profession, before it will be possible for general good to flow from administration. The fundamental propositions upon which this government professes to rest—that all men and women are born free and equal and entitled to the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—are in accordance with the general order of the universe below man, and are therefore of the highest possible authority.

That all are born free is a proposition that no one can question; but this freedom is general to all, and does not refer to the individual, nor entitle him or her to push his freedom so as to encroach upon the same freedom guaranteed to every other individual. Therefore, individual freedom is merged in, and is a part of, general freedom.

That all men and women are born equal is another strictly philosophic proposition that can never be refuted by the concurrent scientific truth that no two of the whole are born alike in every particular. Equality, in a philosophic sense, does not imply similarity or even likeness; one thing may be equal to another, or a number of others, and still be unlike them all. A pound of feathers is equal to a pound of lead in gravitating power, but the lead does not resemble the feathers in any respect; hence, equality does not presuppose likeness.

The pursuit of happiness is an additional common right, naturally resulting from freedom and equality, and which can be prosecuted in any direction that does not interfere with the general pursuit of it on the part of the whole. From this analysis of inherent rights it would 91seem that it should be the sphere of government to maintain such freedom and equality, and thus guarantee to all and every the pursuit of happiness, and to protect them therein; and, co-relatively, that the limits of government should be nothing less than the circle that will permit such fatherly—such motherly—control.

It will scarcely be questioned by those who accept the evolution of government as a common law, that the government of this country, as a system, comes nearer being an exponent of the philosophic limit and sphere than that of any other country, though it must be confessed that the practices under it belie its fundamental principles. So much is this true, that, while it is safe to assert of the system that it is the best of all, scarcely one can be named wherein so great distinctions obtain between the intentions of the system and the effects obtained by its administration. This follows because, having asserted fundamental principles of freedom and justice, the lines of policy pursued have not been shaped by them. The principles have been lost sight of in the pursuit of party and personal or sectional policies, so that the government is no longer an exponent of principles, but rather of the persons, parties or sections which have raised themselves above principles as authorities: hence the government has limitations put upon the operations of its principles, and becomes thereby inconsistent within itself.

All the corrupt practices that are prevalent in the various parts of the governing process are possible only because the professions and practices of government are not in harmony. The professions of government relate to principles; the practices to its limits and sphere. Therefore, in the present article, the practices will be dealt with. In dealing with them it will come within the intended limits to examine the machinery by which government is administered, and to determine what movements within the body of society should be under its general control, so that all its movements may be made in harmony. Were any other branch of government than that relating to society being examined, its limits and sphere would be found so plainly determined there would be no possibility of even apparent departure by the governing control from them; for in all these the divine power is that control, and consequently is perfect. In society, the divine power, though the controlling element, is maintained over human minds, which are finite and imperfect representatives of the divine power, and are thereby incompetent to so arrange and order subservient circumstances, that harmony shall be the only result of the combinations formed to secure consecutive order.

92The government of this country is selected for analysis because, as a system, it is the latest production of the social order of things, and, consequently, the highest in the scale of evolution. It represents a greater “coherent heterogeneity” in its construction than any other, and its “constituent units” are more “distinctly individuated,” which demonstrates that it is the highest order of government yet attained on the globe. The fault in its construction is, that the powers of the constituent units are not harmoniously related to the central power, nor to each other, discord being the natural consequence of such inequality. Though the constituent parts of society are in themselves imperfect, their relations to each other and to the governing power may be so well defined and regulated that their imperfections shall not have power to mar the harmony of action proceeding from the central power. And this is the point which is sought.

LIMITS AND SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of June 4, 1870.]

GRAVELY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION AND ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT, AS VIEWED AND REVIEWED BY ONE OF THE FIRM OF FEMALE BROKERS OF WALL STREET.

There are a variety of operations, natural and artificial, by which the proper limits and sphere of government may be illustrated. It is desirable that some of them be presented, so as to convey a correct idea of a perfect controlling power, which bears the same relations to the parts controlled as government should to the people under it.

The cotton mills of New England are good artificial representatives of government. In them all the various parts are compelled into unity 93of action by the controlling power evolved from coal or transformed from water. The crude cotton is first taken and freed from all foreign substances by “the picker;” the pure remainder is then formed into a homogeneous mass by “the cards;” this mass is then divided and subdivided into the different degrees of heterogeneity required, and these are more distinctly individuated into “the webbing and filling” by “the jacks and mules,” and are then reunited by “the webber and loom” into cotton cloth, the ultimate result. Every part of this process forms points of resistance more or less easily compelled into unity of purpose. Every bobbin, spindle, shuttle and card are so many different experiences which are required to be gone through with before the result can be reached, while all parts of the process are going on at the same time. The power is the government; the operatives its administrators; the various pieces and parts of the machinery are the people working in the several parts of the process; the cloth is the attained civilization, while the different degrees of fineness are its progressive steps.

Thus it should be with human government. It is the power resident in the central part which should control all the processes by which the people are guided to produce the ultimate result. It should be of such character as to take the people in the homogeneous mass, and, by picking, carding, spinning and weaving, compel them into a unit of action for divine use. Every operation in nature, if analyzed, presents the same process and similar results. A central power competent for its purposes, through various means and avenues, controls the materials into perfected productions, each one of which is perfect of its kind. The sphere of this government is to produce the legitimate result; and its limits are only bounded by the necessities of the power that the result shall flow; but flow it must and does always.

It is then predicated, that a power, competent to produce harmony in that over which it reigns, must be sufficient to control all the different parts to one end; whatever individual or combined points of resistance may be raised to its edicts must yield to the general purpose, even to the extinction of their resistance. It is necessary, therefore, that the governing power must be invested by the governed with the necessary control, to compel them into harmonious action, so that no antagonism may arise, to divert the tendency to unity of purpose. It must not be supposed that a self-constituted, absolute power is argued for; but this power should be one fashioned and organized by and with the consent of the people, who, knowing their weakness and acknowledging it in 94their sober and wiser moments, shall recognize the necessity of it, to compel them, if need be, to act with the general whole for the general good, even if it seemingly militate against their individual good, and which shall be of sufficient strength and diffusiveness to regulate all the movements within the body of society.

We will now proceed to the analysis of the various operations of government, to find to what the inharmonious relations between the governing power and the resistance are attributable, and thereby be able to determine the required remedy. Wherever this may lead, whatever “infallible” political dogmas it may destroy, or cherished forms and privileges disprove, it will be pursued as relentlessly—unmercifully if you will—as the crucible and the flame proceed to disorganize material compounds and separate their constituent elements into the poisonous, the nutritious and the useful, that the former may be put away and the remainder appropriated to promote the general good.

Government has its centre and its circumference. From its centre its power is distributed to its entire circumference, measuring and shaping the various channels through which it flows, into such form as permits harmony in all its parts, and, having spent its positive force, is then returned to its centre. This centre and circumference must be the perfect body, every member of which must not only bear its proper relations to all the other members, but must be in such accord with them, as to permit the uninterrupted flow and action of the power by which the whole is bound together. No individual member of it can say to the body itself, “I have functions and rights peculiarly my own, which, if they are not such as your general power can recognize as contributing to the general good, you cannot interfere with.” The member, in becoming such, merges its function and power with the general functions and powers of the body. By consenting to become a part of the body it gives up special sovereignty over itself and becomes a part of the general sovereignty. By adding its life and power to the body, it increases the sum total of its life and power and receives its portion of the aggregated and assimilated mass. Its parts and functions must change—if change is required—so that the power distributed to it by the general power can perform its mission in harmony with all its other parts. Like the body human, the body corporate must be under one governing power, while each part is different in form from all other parts, and performs separate—perhaps distinct—functions. The eye may not say to the ear, nor the hand to the foot, “I have no need of you,” for each and all, are alike dependent upon a central part 95for existence, while the central part could not itself exist without the surrounding and distant parts. The very nature of the compact is, that each and every part is joined in a system of mutual and reciprocal interdependence, to which general system no member can set up for itself any system peculiarly its own, in contradistinction or opposition to, or to interfere with, the general system.

The government of any country, originally, is a compact among a certain number of previously separate or unorganized powers, by which they merge and consolidate into one power, or are compelled so to do. This power, so formed, is the governing power, which, while all parts have contributed to its formation, is in itself superior to any power that can be organized within its limits by any part of the originally consolidating powers. If at any time an opposition is organized to it, the result must either be, the reduction of the opposition or the destruction of the confederation. For a natural illustration the human body is again referred to.

If from any cause an opposition to the harmonious action of the general powers of the body be raised, a contest for supremacy is inevitable. If the bowels refuse to perform their allotted part in the general economy of the whole, a conflict ensues, and never ends until they are returned to duty or until they demonstrate that their opposition to the general administration is more powerful than its general power, and that the organization must be dissolved in conformity to this power. On the other hand, the general power cannot compel any of the constituent parts to conform to rules and forms not operative in the whole, nor to bear any inequality of any kind, nor to perform duty outside its special sphere. The governing power, though superior to all, must itself be subject to the common law of justice. Specialties of conferment or requirement are utterly inconsistent with a perfect form of government. The same rule of contributing to the general support, and in turn receiving appropriate sustaining power, must be uniform throughout the whole. Such a body, thus acting, be it human or corporate, is alone a healthy and harmoniously constituted power. All governments, to be able to contribute to the public welfare, must exist upon general similar principles and act by similar means.

It must again be observed that when several parts or powers are organized into one, no power less than the whole has authority therein; for, in consenting to the union at first, all absolute individuality is forever waived; the individual is no longer simply an individual power, but forms a part of the common power. Nor can absolute individuality 96ever again be maintained, except a superior antagonistic strength is developed, which demonstrates that the powers originally attempted to be consolidated were impossible of harmonious action—a natural and sufficient reason for dissolution. Tested by these propositions, what conditions and relations does the government of the United States, as a whole composed of parts, present? Does it form one homogeneous whole, the paramount interests of the parts of which is the best welfare of the whole? Does each and every part act in unity and harmony with every other part, and in turn yield to the preponderant authority of the whole, with that grace and dignity which bespeak unison of purpose and interest? If not, where does the difficulty find its starting point? Is it in the system by which the power was organized—in the interpretation of it, or in its administration? For this the Constitution must be referred to to find wherein, if at all, its organization is defective. If the conferment of power by the organization is complete, then it must be concluded that those who administer its organic force either fail to comprehend the extent of its application or to perform their duty in applying it.

LIMITS AND SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of June 19, 1870.]

ANOTHER LETTER FROM VICTORIA C. WOODHULL ON POLITICAL HISTORY.

Article IX. of Amendments to the Constitution declares that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Art. X.—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

97Section 1 of Article IV. of the Constitution says, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, &c., shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

Sec. 2.—“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.”

Sec. 8.—“That Congress shall have power to provide for the general welfare of the United States,” which last is tantamount to saying, the general welfare of the people as a whole.

It seems from these quotations, made in inverse order, that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution, to make such provisions as would permit and compel harmonious action throughout the States, but that subsequently it became a part of party policy to maintain that the States had rights reserved, and while not defining what these rights were, to declare that such as were not distinctly and positively delegated constituted this reservation.

Under this interpretation it is possible for serious difficulties to arise between the general government and the States, as they have. It seems from the general tenor of the original Constitution that these amendments are nugatory, because the inference to be drawn from them is inconsistent therewith. One of the most prominent, as well as the first declaration, is to the effect that nothing shall exist in any State injurious to the general welfare of the whole. While it is within the scope of Congress to determine what is for or against the general welfare of the whole, no State can set up its rights against such judgment. When it is further made the duty of the United States to guarantee a republican form of government to every State, and to protect each State in such against all others, there can be no limit set upon the general powers of Congress.

The only fault, if fault it may be called, in the original Constitution, lies in this—that while the power to do is vested in the United States, it is not made an imperative duty to perform, though the duty is to be inferred by the vesture of the power. In failing to exercise this power in its fullest sense and to perform this inferred duty, lies the cause of all the disturbances within the limits of the country.

We can now proceed to the consideration of what duties Congress is invested with the power to perform, which have not been exercised, and which, being exercised, would contribute to the general welfare of the people, and thereby promote the public good. It will also 98be considered whether there are any additional powers Congress should possess which can be conferred, and which the Constitution neither directly nor inferentially vests. This consideration will proceed without regard being given to separating what comes within the limits already possessed from that which should be conferred.

First in importance, because of general application, stand the common laws of the country. Of these it is asserted, with the utmost directness and force, that when a general condition is to be provided for in the country, it should be the sphere of the government to make the same law applicable everywhere, so that the citizens of the United States shall, at all times and places within its limits, be subject to the same controlling and guiding rule. There should be no such possibility as an Indiana divorce under Indiana law, differing so much from those of other States as not to be recognizable by them. There should be only United States divorces, under a general law that could not be questioned anywhere, and by which the parties to it, should stand in the same relations to each other, in whatever part of it they might chance to be, also in such relations to every one, that they may remarry without becoming liable to the charge of bigamy.

Within the last few years, many States have found it necessary to so reconstruct their general systems of law as to cut off all special legislation. This course is eminently judicious in every respect it can be viewed, and has proved excellent in practice, by relieving legislation and procuring uniformity. If this is a desirable result, so far as a State is concerned, why should not the application be made general for the United States, with prospect of proportional benefit? All people would then be subject to the same rule of action and responsibility. To illustrate: A State has a general law under which joint stock and other companies can become incorporate. Before this, each proposed company was obliged to make direct application to the State government for an act of incorporation. After it, any proposed organization could become incorporated by conforming to the regulations prescribed, and thereby obtain all the power that could be conferred by the Legislature direct.

No one having knowledge of the tedious processes of legislation will question the advantage of this general law, both as regards legislation and the people. This admitted, it must be further admitted, that the advantage would be still greater, were this a general law of the United States, applying in every State, instead of a mere State law, with the probabilities that each State having it would provide 99different steps and regulations, so that a person familiar with that of one State, finds he knows nothing of it in the State he removes to.

The same line of reasoning applies with more or less force to every branch of legislation. Especially is it pointed regarding the Criminal Code, for here very great distinction exists in the several States. The penalty for a specified crime is scarcely the same in any two States; while some have abolished the taking of life for life, others still imprison for debt, which shows a degree of divergence entirely incompatible in a country that professes unity of purpose and practice. In civil practice it is utterly impossible for the most studious and profound jurist to acquire and retain accurate knowledge of it, in even a small proportion of the States. Every lawyer can testify to the difficulties he encounters at every turn when the laws of another State have any bearing in the case he is engaged upon.

Some States require that deeds executed in another State for property within itself, shall be acknowledged before a notary, while another requires a commissioner of deeds; and still another the certificate of some Court of Record that the notary is duly appointed, &c. The difficulties that arise from this condition of things are of such magnitude as scarcely to be conceived of by those who have never experienced them; nor can they be adequately presented in the limited space of this article. It is, however, held to be apparent, that if a general bankrupt and election law is to be preferred to thirty-seven different ones, general laws upon all other subjects are also preferable. It is a logical conclusion that the “public welfare” would be promoted if Congress should pass general laws for the whole country, to cover all cases and causes that are general to the whole country, leaving for the States such legislation only as can have no application outside of their individual limits.

It is not surprising that well instructed jurists of foreign countries have no faith in our existence as a consolidated nation. They argue, that it is impossible of a country containing so many internal sources of discord and differences. “A house divided against itself cannot stand” they hold to equally apply to nations. If this has stood thus long and prospered, it by no means follows that it will always stand and prosper; but the inference is, that sectional interests will be the source of continual disturbances and revolutions, until some great sectional interest shall become powerful enough to separate itself from the rest of the country and to defy its power successfully. In view of that consideration, should not the attention of Congress be called to the 100fact that it is its inferred duty, at least, to enact all laws that will promote the public welfare? And to this end it should inquire how the public welfare is suffering from the neglect thus far practised, that the remedy may be applied.

If it is found that its power under the Constitution to remedy such evils is doubtful, amendments granting it should be at once proposed and submitted. Whatever opposition there might be on the part of present State Legislatures and officials the people will welcome any measure looking to the eradication of the cause of internal agitation. It cannot be that patriotism is to pass away entirely, though it appears to be nearly submerged by the rising tide of individual selfishness. Let it arouse itself and consider whether there be not room for exercise in the direction indicated, and whether it is not better to prevent disaster than to repair damages. The example of Louis Napoleon is an excellent one to follow. Nor should patriotism be blinded by the mere name of freedom and justice, sounded so loudly to cover the deformities practised under their shelter.

In many directions, this is eminently an analytic age. Let the fruits of government be submitted to the crucible. Many of them would be found not only hollow, but basely deceptive. It is well enough to cry peace when war rages, but the crying will not bring it. It is well enough to laud the freedom of the land, but why not make the direct inquiry to find how much of it is real, and how much is fancied freedom, not to say genuine slavery? It is well to assert that justice holds sway everywhere, but those who have had most occasion to find it, must hold their peace lest the fair delusion be dispelled. Let the peace that is cried, the freedom that is lauded and the justice that is asserted, be subjected to the test of analysis, that it may be really known what principles enter into their composition. It is much to be feared that when all the dross and foreign substances are separated, and the pure residuum only left, its proportion to the mass submitted would be lamentably small. Still let us have the analysis.

101

LIMITS AND SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of July 4, 1870.]

THE FIFTH PART OF MRS. WOODHULL’S DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT—INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT AS AFFECTED BY GOVERNMENT.

Individual enterprise, especially among Americans, has produced the most wonderful results. Very much of the advancement of the country is directly attributable to it. Great minds have been obliged to operate singly and alone to develop their inspirations, ideas and conclusions. Thousands possessed of comprehensive principles in a semi state of application have sunk with them into obscurity for lack of appreciation and support. In the infancy of the republic, before it was possible for any to catch the idea of its grand destiny, it was not to be expected that any great or general system of interdependence between the government and the people should be adopted. There was a general fear of everything that did not seem to promote that individual freedom which seeks no harmony with the greatest freedom of the whole, while no regard was paid to any philosophic relations of the individual to the whole number of individuals represented by the government. This was intellectual individuality, lacking the harmony of wisdom.

It came after a while that the great enterprises demanded by the rapidly increasing growth of the country could not be conducted by single individuals, and numbers of them combined to carry them out. Rapid means of transit began to be developed, which in many instances redounded to the pecuniary benefit of the company prosecuting them, but always to the general interest of the whole, both as a people and as a government. On the contrary, many enterprises which have proved equally beneficial to the country have ruined those who projected them. Thus the general welfare has been promoted by the sacrifice of individual interests. Especially has this been true of the great system of 102railroads that binds the nation together with bonds of iron, too powerful, it seems, for any sectional interest ever to sever.

Internal improvements are eminently a legitimate branch of the general government. They are not for the benefit of individuals or sections, but for the benefit of the whole. So true is this that a seemingly purely local government cannot confine its benefits and uses to the section it is located in. Its influence permeates the very extremes of the country. A railroad connecting two cities in the same State may be built. At first glance this would be declared simply and only of benefit to the localities it passes through. But upon close scrutiny a variety of ways develop themselves that must be advantageous to thousands, residing in all parts of the country, and to the government itself. It therefore conduces to the public welfare and convenience in a much more general sense than to sectional or local good. It is therefore entitled to the protection of the government, whose duty it is to look after and promote the interests of the public. Is it entitled to anything more, or does the full duty of the government begin and cease with simple protection?

Continuous railroad connections exist between Maine and California, between Minnesota and Louisiana, which have been built by private enterprise, and are still maintained and conducted by combinations of private enterprise. These, with their connections, form a net work that penetrates every section of the whole country, all parts of which system are conducted as nearly as possible, considering the variety of management, with regard to the harmonious working of the whole as a general railroad system of the country. The representatives of the several roads meet and arrange terms of transfer and connection, first, to accommodate themselves; second, the public which patronizes them (be it especially remembered that the public welfare is always secondary); and thus it comes that that which is made the duty of the government to guard with jealous care is subserved to the interests of a company of incorporated individuals, whose profits, drained from the productive interests of the country, amount in many instances to an enormous per cent per annum upon the original costs of the enterprises This is not the greatest good to the greatest number. It is the greatest good to the smallest number at the expense of the greater number. The public is hoodwinked into the toleration of their extortions by fictitious arrays of figures, and by the increase of the “watering” of their capital stock whenever an eight per cent. dividend will not consume their unexpended balances.

103Again, there are railroads of great importance to the general public whose earnings are not sufficient to make any returns to stockholders, scarcely sufficient to meet current expenses, and yet the public welfare would not permit of their discontinuance.

The same line of policy that controls the postal service should be pursued by government in regard to railroads. None now think of intrusting that very important department of the government to private enterprise. Is the transportation of the public itself of less vital and general importance than its thoughts and wishes are, that it should be obliged to rely upon private enterprise to accomplish its welfare, and to obtain it be subject to its extortions? The custody of transportation of all kinds by government would insure regularity, harmonious operation, safety and dispatch, at minimum cost, to all whose pursuits, interests or comfort, incline or compel them to its use. If the sphere of government is to be determined upon principle, and it is the true principle for the government to conduct the postal service, to the end that the public welfare be subserved, then the same principle determines that railroads and telegraphs should also be conducted by government to the same end.

The time was, when it was necessary to the general good for the government to guarantee protection and even assistance to enterprises that should introduce these improvements into the country. The country needed them. Government, not understanding its true relations to the people, failed to provide them. Private enterprise, more sagacious and more perceptive of the actual demands of the age, stepped forward, and, taking advantage of governmental supineness, developed the true greatness of the country. The time has now come, and the government is in position and understanding, to not only guarantee all needed internal improvements to the public, but also to take charge of those already existing, and to conduct them in the interests of the people.

These improvements are not patents that should forever remain hereditary charges upon the industry of the country. They are granted privileges, made by the government to promote the public welfare, and not for the continuous private gain of wealth and power. Let a limitation be put upon these patented privileges, so that the public good may be still further promoted. Let government purchase what are already in operation and construct others, as demanded, and conduct them all under one grand system, to subserve the interests, necessities and comforts of the people, which it is its duty to provide for, even if in exceptional 104instances it be at the expense of the public, as in some instances it is in sparsely populated districts regarding the postal service. Let the same rule of action that governs this service be applied to telegraphs, railroads and all improvements that are public in their character. Let the present owners and conductors of them become the servants of the government and the people, instead of remaining, as now, their masters, thus forcing them, by the only possible way, to comply with the interests and demands of the general welfare.

Besides, these gradually consolidating interests are becoming too powerful and selfish to longer allow of the government or the people regarding them with indifference. Even now they control a deal of legislation by the power they possess. Unless soon dispossessed of the means of increasing their power and influence, they will become greater than the government, and even dangerous to liberty. The national banks are powerful enough to feel they can dictate to Congress. What might not a grand consolidation of railroads, representing thousands of millions of dollars, be able to do, if left to present tendencies? This is a matter of most serious import, which is tending to a despotism more intolerable than that exercised by any of the monarchies of the Old World—the despotism of capital over labor.

This despotism is making the productive interests of the country utterly subservient to the power they have created, fostered and protected, which should forever remain their servant instead. These improvements are demanded by all the growing interests of the country that express themselves through commerce between the several States, and it is the duty of Congress to “regulate” them. It has the power. The remedy is required. Let it be applied, and at once, so that the greatest and most beneficial of all the many systems of internal improvements any country possesses, both for the country as a whole, and to the comforts of the people as individuals, may be conducted and extended in accordance with the interests and demands of the public welfare. Nor should there be any outcry raised against the purchase and control of railroads by government, as an unwarrantable interference with private rights. There are no such things as private rights when the public good stands in question. If the public good demands a new street through the most densely populated part of the city, the property of private citizens is condemned to its use, and damages assessed, from which the individual has no appeal. The same rule must apply to all property that the public demands for the promotion of its interests, telegraphs and railroads not excepted.

105

LIMITS AND SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT.

[Revised from the New York Herald of July 11, 1870.]

MRS. VICTORIA C. WOODHULL’S CONCLUDING CHAPTER ON THE SCIENCE OF GOVERNMENT

[The following is the concluding chapter of the essay on government, its aims, sphere and tendencies, by Mrs. Woodhull, the female candidate for the Presidency:]

There are no circumstances existing within the range of government which are deleterious to the conditions among which they are found that do not come within the sphere of its control. If it were attempted to enumerate all such conditions, a very large proportion existing would come in for mention. Special reference will be made to such only as are represented by crime, indigence, helplessness and perverseness. While government has its duty to perform regarding all these, in their relations to society in general and the public welfare, it must not be lost sight of that they form a part of the general public, and, as such part, it has a duty to render even to them and to the relations they sustain as individuals to other individuals.

The criminal is not only the son and brother, but often the husband and father. Though he may have, by some act, forfeited the guarantee of liberty government extends to the people, he has not thereby sundered family relations, responsibilities and duties. It is the duty of government to foster these, while protecting public welfare by preventing the criminal from pursuing his course of individual freedom at the expense of the freedom or happiness of other individuals or the public. In this view penitentiaries should not be what they are, but should be changed into vast workshops, where the convicted may labor at some not altogether distasteful employment, to the same end that he should labor when free. The theory of punishing crime is not all that should be taken into consideration regarding the criminal. As 106now practiced it is exceedingly doubtful whether the State does not do the individual greater injustice than he has done the public. The State should pursue such a course as is perfectly clear from injustice, such as can conscientiously be held as committing no crime against the criminal. To render to him what and only what he has rendered another is maintaining the old Mosaic rule of “an eye for an eye,” which in these latter times should be obsolete. The world has risen from the condition of Mosaic times by the experience of thousands of years. Fear was the only controlling power then. Should it be so now? Prevention is better than remedy; besides, there is no such thing as remedy for crime already committed. The criminal can by no possible means—nor can the State—undo the wrong. Reparation in most cases is impossible, but should be rendered, wherever possible. It becomes, then, the chief duty of the State to prevent the recurrence of wrong by putting such restraint upon those who are inclined to it as will effectually prevent their inclinations finding expression.

Supposing that all living persons who have ever committed any infringement upon the rights, liberties or privileges of others of sufficient moment to warrant preventative means being applied were restrained from mingling with the public, what would be the ratio of decrease in crime? These persons have trespassed upon the public welfare and it must be protected from further trespass. It is the duty of the State to see this done. At the same time the means of prevention must be such as shall not encroach upon the culpable one’s rights further than such prevention actually requires. As a member of society he has forfeited to society, to a certain extent, the freedom of expressing his privileges and rights as an individual, by the infringement upon the privileges and rights of another individual, also a member of the same society; and for this, society is in duty bound to restrain him. It only requires that the present universally adopted theory, that crime is against the people and not the individual suffering, be carried to its legitimate sequences to teach the proper limitation to this restraint. Having arrived at that, it remains for the State to concede every other individual privilege to him.

It should be his right and privilege to labor and receive its full recompense, to which the State should have no right, further than the cost of his maintenance. The profits should be given those dependent upon him, or should go toward reparation for the damages done by him. He should have the privilege of amusement, should have access to a public library and the daily news. His whole restraint should be 107made as nearly as possible analagous to the every-day life of a useful citizen. He should no longer be the condemned criminal, but the member of society whom the public welfare requires shall be restrained from following the freedom his proclivities indicate.

There is another class of individuals who, either from circumstances beyond their control, from indolence, from incapacity, from settled habits or from perverseness, do not perform sufficient labor to maintain themselves and families in a condition that renders them useful members of society. Society suffers more or less from all the different representatives of this class. They must live, and society must, in some manner, furnish the means to them of living. If it is not earned, it is begged or stolen. There are those also who, being too honest to steal and too proud to beg, suffer untold privations. All who would cannot obtain remunerative occupation, or that which they are suited to perform. To all of these as members of society, as a part of the people, government owes a duty. Society, of which they are a part, owes them the necessities of life, even if it be compelled to force them to earn them. It cannot be made the duty of individual members of society to look after the amelioration of these conditions. It is a general condition growing out of the relations of all its members, and hence becomes a governmental function, not only so far as they, as a class, are concerned, but also to protect individuals of other classes from being made to bear the burdens of them, either by voluntary contributions or from the impositions of beggary and theft. Every one who has attained proper age, and is possessed of moderate health, is capable of performing sufficient service to support him or herself, and by so doing is a useful member of society, because contributing to the sum total of its productions. If he cannot obtain employment, society should supply it to him. If he will not labor, society should compel him. If he cannot labor, society should maintain him. Were this practice once instituted, the dens of infamy and vice, the sink-holes of crime and disgrace, the pest-houses of disease, and the crammed-to-suffocation attics and cellars of our large cities, would be emptied of their occupants, and they be made useful, instead of, as now, iniquitous members of society. They are a dead weight society has to carry. It is a duty society owes them and itself to compel them to assist in maintaining its general progress. The same principle that applies to the criminal should also include them. The general influence they exert upon society is even worse than that of the downright criminal—for where the criminal is one they number thousands. If it is necessary 108for the interests of the people that he who steals a hundred dollars should be restrained of his liberty—and it is the sphere of government to do it—how much more would it be for its interests to transpose these leeches upon the vitality of society into producing members of it? As a subject wherein the public welfare suffers, it is strictly within the sphere of government. Other citations of unprofitable members of society could be made, but sufficient has been alluded to to indicate the general limits and sphere of government when considered philosophically. The evidences of a perfect government must not be sought among the most powerful and useful members of society, but among the very lowest classes. A good government can have no classes so low in the scale of development or use as to be detrimental to its interests. And here is the test of governmental perfectability. If the United States, as a nation, occupies any superior or conspicuous position in prophecy which is to make it representative—if it is the point around which consolidation into universal government is to begin, and from which control shall revolve until the world is its object—it becomes the imperative duty of our statesmen and legislators to extend the sphere of government until its limits are bounded by nothing that is detrimental to the general welfare of the people. Such government, and such only, can be enduring while becoming universal.

VICTORIA C. WOODHULL, 44 Broad Street.

109