"Commencing with individual liberty and the inalienable rights of the man"

OUR DUAL GOVERNMENT

   Jefferson, on the contrary, was a believer in man; he affirmed not only the right of man to self-government, but the capacity of man for self-government. Commencing with individual liberty and the inalienable rights of the man, he proceeded to the defense of the rights of the community. Following out this doctrine he insisted that matters which concerned the state only should be decided by the state and that only national affairs should be entrusted to the national government. In his first inaugural address he set forth what he deemed "the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration." In this statement of principles he presented his views respecting the spheres of the general government and the state government as follows:

   "The support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad."

   Jefferson placed his defense of the state government upon two grounds: first, that it is more competent to administer domestic concerns, and second, that it is a bulwark against centralization. So tenacious was he about the preservation of the state's influence that he insisted an amendment should be added at once specifically asserting that "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."

   Jefferson's part In the adoption of the ten amendments is referred to In a letter which he wrote in 1802, while he was president, to Joseph Priestly. He says: "One passage in the paper you enclose me must be corrected. It is the following: 'And all say it was yourself more than any other individual that planned and established the constitution.' I was in Europe when the constitution was planned, and never saw it until after it was established. On receiving it, I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, and substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the state of all rights not specifically granted to the union. He accordingly moved in the first session of congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the states as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the constitution."

   The ten amendments cover many subjects, but they all relate to two things, viz.: the protection of the individual and the assertion of the doctrine of local self-government. The individual was safe-guarded in his right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, in his right to speak his mind and to put his thoughts on paper, In his right to assemble and to petition; in his right to bear arms, in his right to trial by jury, and in his right to hold property. So careful were those who insisted upon these amendments that after enumerating all the rights they could think of, added amendment nine as a precaution: "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The tenth amendment carries the same doctrine a little farther, and gives the state the benefit of the presumption as against the general government where a poweris neither granted nor denied.

   The reservation of power to the state is all the stronger because it is specifically net forth in the amendment. Had the language of the amendment been inserted in the constitution itself, it would not have shone out so boldly. The constitution was ratified with the understanding that the amendments would be added at once, and they were, in fact, submitted by the first congress, and in a short time were ratified by the necessary number of states. There can be no doubt that those who lived at the time of the adoption of the constitution favored the dual form of government, and believed In the wisdom of and the necessity wr this division of power. Those who held to the strict construction of the constitution on this subject obtained control of the government eleven years after the constitution was framed, and retained control for a quarter of a century.

   But admitting that the framers of the constitution and those who lived in the early days were champions of the dual idea, an important question presents itself, viz.: Have time and events so altered conditions as to make it wise or necessary to disturb this equilibrium between the state and the nation? The framers of the constitution recognized the possibility of error in themselves and the possibility of change in conditions, and therefore provided a way of amending the constitution. If the time has come for obliterating state lines and consolidating all authority, legislative, judicial and executive, at Washington, it can be done by constitutional amendment, whenever three-fourths of the states arc willing to ratify such an amendment.

   But Is there any demand for a surrender by the states of the powers reserved to them? On the contrary, every reason which existed one hundred and eighteen years ago exists now, and those reasons are even stronger than they formerly were, because of the increase In the area and population of the nation. Then, there were a few million people scattered along the eastern coast. The thirteen states have grown to forty-six, and eighty millions of people are now governing themselves through the machinery set in motion by the constitutional convention of 1789.

   The states are even more needed than they formerly were for the administration of domestic affairs. As n matter of theory, that government is best which is nearest to the people, if there is any soundness at all in the doctrine of self-government, the people can act most intelligently upon matters with which they are most familiar. There are a multitude of things which can be done better by the county than by state authority, and there are a multitude of things which can be done better by the state than by the federal government. An attempt to transfer to the national capital the business now conducted at the state capitals would be open to two objections, either of which would be fatal. First, congress could
not transact the business. The Work now devolving on the national legislature makes It difficult to secure consideration for any except the most important measures. The number of bills actually discussed in a deliberate way is small; most of the bills that pass are rushed through by unanimous consent, and a still larger number die on the calendar or in committee.

   Second, the members of congress could not inform themselves about local needs. The interests and industries of the nation are so diversified and the various sections so different In their needs that the members of congress from one part of the country would be entirely ignorant of the conditions in other parts of the country. Whenever congress attempts legislation now for a particular section, the matter is usually left to the members from that section, but more often the matter is crowded out entirely by larger interests.

   The farther the legislative body is from the community affected by the law, the easier it is for special interests to control. This has been illustrated in state legislatures when long-time charters have been granted to franchise corporations by the votes of members whose constituents, not being interested, do not hold them to strict account, and it would be worse if congress acted on the same subjects.

[The Commoner, Lincoln, Nebraska, March 22, 1907. Vol. 7, No. 10. Whole Number 322. Pg. 1&2]

"Slaves and paupers do not fit in well with a populace armed and ready for defense."

...In the earlier days of this nation the border states were by no means secure from invasion. It was considered necessary to the public safety that all men should be prepared to protect themselves and their homes, and their right to bear arms was secured to them in the constitution. But all the ablebodied citizens of a state comprised its militia. Every man drilled. There were regular training days, which were also holidays for all the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed, and they were all on an equal footing. The militiamen were at the same time producers, tradesmen, citizens. There was never a thought that some would turn against the others or that any occasion could arise which should make foemen and defenders out of the same body.

   But as business grew and the system of privilege and monopoly thrived artificial inequalities, such as enormous aggregations of wealth, powerful corporations and consequent poverty, became factors in society. The rich found it would no longer do to trust to all the people for security. A nation of equally armed and drilled people is dangerous material out of which to make drudges and victims. Slaves and paupers do not fit in well with a populace armed and ready for defense. Enormous fortunes cannot be made without making slaves and paupers. So the argument was advanced that all the people could not give their time and attention to purposes of defense, and it was urged that a class be set apart and trained with that object, leaving the others free to pursue their callings undisturbed. The argument prevailed. The people's right to keep and bear arms was infringed. They have been disarmed and an armed class set over them....

[Little Falls Weekly Transcript, Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn., May 25, 1894. Pg. 2 - "The Modern Militia"]

"the right "to bear arms" unmolested"

 

   The Louisville Democrat says the right "to bear arms" is not derived from the constitution of the United States but the constitution of the Union forbids the Federal Government from any infringement of this right.

   No Legislature can legislate on this subject except as the State constitution give it the liberty and then it is the act of the sovereign himself. The laws that forbid the carrying of deadly weapons concealed in no manner interferes with the right "to bear arms" unmolested. Every citizen can do that as much and as often as he pleases, so long as he pleases "to keep the peace" and respect the "dignity of the commonwealth." But to bear arms does not mean to carry deadly weapon concealed. He who "bears arms" may be observed of all men that he is armed.

[Daily Evening Bulletin, Maysville, [KY.] Tuesday Evening, December 13, 1881. Vol. 1. No. 19. Pg. 2]

"Tame submission to tyranny never has nor never will gain liberty for any people"

...We are told and it is commonly believed that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the law guarantees to the working class certain liberties or prevents certain tyrannies being practiced upon them. No declaration, law, charter, proclamation or constitution ever has or ever will guarantee the rights and liberties of the working class of any country. History proves that no people have ever been able to maintain even a semblance of liberty were they not awake and vigilant and armed ready to maintain their rights. The constitution and the law "guarantees" to every American citizen free speech, trial by jury, the right to keep and bear arms, to be secure against unwarranted searches of their homes and arbitrary arrests without due process of law. Yet we have seen all these "guaranteed" rights denied and laughed at by the capitalist class. And why?  Because the Colorado miners were unarmed and therefore unable to defend and assert their rights. Had the Colorado miners been armed and received the armed support of the working class of Colorado, the infamies and outrages perpetrated upon them would never have occurred. Tame submission to tyranny never has nor never will gain liberty for any people. When the members of the American working class are around with a rifle, and determined to
protect themselves and families from the outrages that are heaped upon us. our "guaranteed" rights will be respected and liberty will awaken to bless mankind.

   And instead of celebrating our slavery let the working class set aside the Fourth of July as a day of solemn reflection upon our conditions, and let us resolve that we will study the social and economic evils that afflict us. The working class must either emancipate itself and by its emancipation uplift the human race, form a new social system and usher in a new civilization or human society will descend into a chaos or despotism. Throughout all history the working class has been the only true defender of human liberty....

[Montana News, Helena, Montana, Wednesday, June 28, 1905. Vol. III. No. 41]

"The right to keep and bear arms, thus secured to the people, has in this country always been regarded as one not to be slightly interfered with or infringed upon"

THE SUPREME COURT

On Carrying Concealed Weapons.

   State of Missouri, defendant in error, vs. Frank Reando(?), plaintif in error.

   The defendant was indicted at the February term, 1876, of the Washington county circuit Court, for carrying concealed weapons.

   Defendant was tried, convicted and fined ten dollars, and judgment was entered accordingly.

   We are asked to reverse the judgement. because of the insufficiency of the indictment and the unconstitutionality of the act of the legislature, on which the indictment was founded. The act in question, Sess. Acts, 1874, 43, is as follows:

   Whoever shall in this State go into any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship or into any schoolroom or into any place where people may be assembled for educational, literary or social purposes, or to any election precinct on any election day, or into any court room, during the sitting of court, or into any other public assemblage of persons met for other than militia drill or meetings called under the militia laws of this State, having concealed about his person any kind of fire arms, bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot or other deadly weapon, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, &c. The indictment alleges that defendant did unlawfully enter and go into the house or residence of one Baptiste Boyer, where a number of people were assembled for social purposes, and had then and there unlawfully concealed on his person a pistol loaded with gun powder and leaden balls, which said pistol was then and there a kind of fire arm, &c. The indictment pursues the language of the statute creating the offence except in the use of the word "number" before people, which we think cannot in any respect vitiate it. It may be treated as mere surplusage.

   It is.however, insisted, that the act under which the indictment is framed, is in derogation ot the right of the citizen to bear arms, and is in conflict with and violative of the provision in the constitution of 1865, which declares "that their (the people's) right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State cannot be questioned."

   The question here presented is one not free from difficulty and has given rise to some diversity of opinion. The right to keep and bear arms, thus secured to the people, has in this country always been regarded as one not to be slightly interfered with or infringed upon; and there can be no question but that any legislative enactment which deprived them of this right, would be obnoxious to the provision of the constitution which guarantees it, and would be absolutely null and void.

   In 2, Story on the Con., ss 1897, the author in speaking of a kindred provision in the constitution of the United States, which declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed upon, observes that "the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since, it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will in general, if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph in the end."

   If the statute in question had the effect of denying this right, and absolutely prohibiting the citizen from keeping and bearing arms, we would not hesitate to pronounce it void, as being violative of a constitutional right secured to every man by the constitution of the State. It, however, has no such scope. It simply denies to the citizen the right to enter certain places therein designated, having concealed about his person any kind of fire arms, bowie knife, &c. The places designated, into which it is made unlawful for any person to enter secretly armed with concealed weapons, are churches or places where people are assembled for public worship, school houses or other places where people have assembled for educational, literary or social purposes. Under this statute the right to enter, even such places, by any person bearing arms openly and exposed to public view is not prohibited; and if any citizen has so high a regard for the constitutional right guaranteed to him, to keep and bear arms, that he cannot forego the privilege of exercising it when entering a church where his neighbors have congregated for religious worship, or other places where they have met for educational, literary or social purposes, he can exercise it, but in doing so he must expose to view his arms and and deadly weapons, so that all may see and know that he is in the full enjoyment and exercise of his constitutional right. We do not say nor do we wish to be understood as saying that the legislature might not prohibit a person from bearing arms, even openly, in such places as are mentioned in the statute, without such prohibition to constitutional objections. No such enactment as this is before us and, we apprehend, never will be, for the moral sense of every well-regulated community would be so shocked by any one who would so far disregard it, as to invade such places with fire arms and deadly weapons exposed to public view on is person that it would very rarely, if ever, occur.

   The statute in question is nothing more than a police regulation, made in the interest of peace and good order, perfectly within the power of the legislature to make. Such, or similar statutes have been upheld in all the Spates, so lar as we have been able to ascertain, except in Kentucky. Nunn vs. the State, 1 Kelly, Ga., 243. State vs. Jumel, 13 La. Ann., 899. Owen vs. State, 81 Ala., 887. State vs. Burgess, 4 Ark., 18 State vs. Andrews, 3 Heiskel, 165. State vs. Mitchell, 3 Blackford, 229. Cochrum vs. State, 24 Tex., 394.

   The right to keep and bear arms necessarily implies the right to use them, and yet acts passed by the legislature regulating their use, or rather making it an offence to use them in certain ways and places, have never been questioned. An instance is to be found in such acts as declare that every person who shall shoot at a mark along or across a public highway shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. This is certainly a police regulation, within the power of the legislature to prescribe, without infringing on the right of a person to keep, bear and use arms.

   The constitution protects a person in his right of property, and instances are numerous where the legislature has assumed to regulate and control it. A person has a right to own a mischievous or dangerous animal; yet under our statute, if the owner thereof, knowing its propensities, unlawfully suffer it to go at large or shall keep it without ordinary care, and such animal, while so at large and notconfined, kill any human being, such owner is liable to be punished as for manslaughter in the third degree. It is provided In the constitution of the United States that the freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged by any law of Congress, and yet this provision has never been so construed as to deny to Congress the power to make it an offence for libelous matter to be published, rendering the offender liable to prosecution and punishment for the libel so published. Such a construction, in the language of Story, "would be too wild to be indulged in bv any man." Story on the Con., ss 1880.

Judgment affirmed, in which the other judges concur, except Judge Sherwood, who dissents.

E. H. Norton, J.
Attorney-General, for defendant in error.
Reynolds & Relie, for plaintiff in error.

[The State Journal, Jefferson City, MO. Friday, April 12, 1878. Vol. 6, No. 14. Pg. 2]

"that every man is a sovereign citizen having the right to bear arms"

   "In the United States our people have acted on a higher and better principle, that every man is a sovereign citizen having the right to bear arms, and that only a small percentage of the physical force is required in practical military service."--Lieutentant General Nelson A. Miles, [The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., Sunday Morning, February 17, 1907. No. 100.--No. 16,947. Pg. 31]

"And it would take us all back to our constitutional right to bear arms."

   PREPAREDNESS If we are going to have military preparedness and compulsory service in some sort of a continental army I'm for the Swiss plan, with at least one proviso. I won't object seriously to all boys getting thorough physical training and building up their bodies. I won't object to them learning how to handle a gun--provided

   I can see how a certain amount of training which would treat all boys and young men alike, with no special exemption for sons of the rich, might make for democracy.

   I can see how democracy might be much safer in this country with every able-bodied man well drilled and all that--provided.

   Now we come to the provided thing. I mean, provided that a rifle then becomes a part of the house-hold furniture of every working-man in the country.

   For I imagine such military preparedness as that might be democratic preparedness as well, by making It easily possible for the bone and sinew of our citizenship to protect our democratic institutions against attacks from within as well as against attacks from without.

   And it would take us all back to our constitutional right to bear arms.

   I have a hunch that democracy would stand for that kind of preparedness. N.D.C.

[The Day Book, Chicago, Thursday, December 30, 1915, LAST EDITION, Vol. 5, No. 79 Pg. 21]