FIRST PRINCIPLES. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DEFINED.
By H. F. Phelps
Limited in Their Exercise.
BESIDES, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecution, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.—Thos. Jefferson. How true are these words: "The spirit of the times" have "altered." "Our rulers," the people, have become "careless" and "corrupt." They have forgotten that they have any rights worth guarding, "but in the sole faculty of making money." More than one "zealot" has already commenced persecution. The "shackles" (religious laws enacted by the State), which bind individual conscience, were not all "knocked off at the conclusion" of that war, and they are growing "heavier and heavier," till our rights are about to expire in a convulsion.647It is time, therefore, that all were better acquainted as to the nature, value, and limitation of the exercise of their rights. Therefore, we ask: What are these rights? What their origin? In whom are they vested? And what is the limitation of their exercise? A proper answer to these questions, a thorough understanding of the subject, with a correct application of the principles, in the intercourse of man with his fellow-man, would furnish a solution to all those vexed questions that arise in the social, political, and religious relations of mankind. We do well, therefore, that we consider the subject carefully and prayerfully. And if all would observe and apply these principles, there would be no need of organized society. But in the present state of things, in man's fallen condition, it becomes necessary to organize under some form of government. There are governments intolerant and despotic, where rights and powers are supposed to be vested in the ruler, where one man's brain serves to regulate the wheels of government in all private as well as public affairs, in all matters, religious as well as civil, where the subject is in the most complete bondage of both soul and body, the absolute slave to his superiors. Such was not the purpose of God in man's creation. Such was the intent of Satan in the subjugation of man to his hellish devices. Such was not the purpose of God in the promise of redemption; and with the words, "I will put enmity" toward the evil one and his works, is found more than an implication of a love implanted for the good and freedom of choice. Such ever has been the purpose of Satan in all his relations to all fallen beings—the absolute enslavement of the will—while the purpose of God, as shown in all his works, as unfolded in the plan of salvation, as revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, was freedom of the will, individuality in all things, and in religion above all things, hence the full and free enjoyment of all their rights, both civil and religious. There has been one government, the last, the noblest offspring of time, where individual rights have been acknowledged and respected. And a century of prosperity without a parallel has been the result. The general government even "dared to set the example," vindicating these rights in her Constitution, that most noble of all human documents. And this—the Constitution—was designed both as a guarantee and safeguard of these rights; and so we turn and read:— We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. All men are not equal in social position. All are not equal in physical powers or mental ability. But all are endowed equally by their Creator with "certain unalienable rights." Being "unalienable," they cannot be transferred to another. In the very nature of the case, they are therefore vested in the individual. It is, therefore, a fact that no man or set of men can of right dispossess another of these rights. Neither can men by any compact of law divest their posterity of these rights. Inasmuch as all are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights, they are, therefore, gifts of God. They are an endowment of nature. They are, therefore, divine in their nature. And any man or set of men who assumes, under any pretense whatever, to enter the domain of these rights, treads upon sacred ground. He enters the domain which God has set free, and which bears the imprint of the Divine. Let him, therefore, tread softly. Let no man attempt to coerce that which God has set at liberty. Again, as "all men are created equal," and as "our Father" has been impartial in the bestowal of these gifts, it becomes evident that all men are equally privileged in the enjoyment of these gifts. Has one the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? So has every other man the same right. It is equally evident that if there is any limitation in the exercise of these rights, this proscription must affect all alike. But what limitation can exist in the exercise of these gifts of God, bestowed upon all alike?—In the very nature of the case, there can be but one limitation, and that is the equal rights of another. Mr. Spencer has very aptly expressed the idea in these words:— Every man has the right to do whatsoever he wills, provided that in the doing thereof he infringes not the equal right of any other man. Now, to the mind of the writer, an application of this principle would solve every perplexing question arising in all our relations, whether in civil or religious matters. It is simply an application of the Golden Rule, or this rule expressed in another form. Thus, in brief, the answer to our questions is that our natural rights are few, and they come from God, and are vested in each individual alike; and infringement of another's equal rights is the only limitation that can possibly arise. In other words, the only question that can properly come before the tribunal of society is that a man should be civil. To infringe upon the equal rights of another is uncivil. All men should be civil. But this all men will not be. And here is the domain of civil law and civil courts. It is not the province of courts or law to deprive anyone of his just rights. Thos. Jefferson once said:— Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power, that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. These words are just as true to-day as when they were first uttered. Our government was founded upon these rights; and our fathers said:— The only proper objects of civil government are the happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence, the security of the life, liberty, and the property of the citizen. Our States were organized with respect to these rights; hence all, or nearly all, define these rights in their constitutions, under the titles "Bill of Rights," or "Declaration of Rights," or "Rights and Privileges," or "A Declaration of Rights of the State of —," and similar expressions. The Virginia "Declaration of Rights," in 1776, declared "that all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them." Our fathers were most emphatic in declaring for religious rights. They said "that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." They also said they were "well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion." (Will our National Reform friends make a note of this?) Again they said: "The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an inalienable right." And Mr. Madison once declared that "there is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most fragrant usurpation." Hon. R. M. Johnson said:— It should, however, be kept in mind that the proper object of government is to protect all persons in enjoyment of their religious as well as civil rights. . . . What other nations call religious toleration, we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as an act of which government cannot deprive any portion of citizenship, however small. Despotic power may invade these rights, but justice still confirms them. Judge Cooley also declares that the American constitutions "have not established religious toleration merely, but religious equality." Let it ever be remembered that "there is a very great difference between toleration and liberty." Lord Stanhope once said:— The time was when toleration was craved by dissenters as a boon; it is now demanded as a right; but the time will come when it will be spurned as an insult. The very thought of being tolerated is distasteful to the person who has been educated according to the facts in the case, that all men have equal rights. All men enter into society on exactly the same terms; and no man or set of men can with consistency talk of granting toleration to some other person or persons. Not only is it a fact that natural rights are few, and all enter into society equally endowed with those rights by their Creator, but, each individual being vested with these rights, they are in no way, or for any cause, to be alienated from the man. He comes into society already possessed of them. He does not owe them to society, nor does he surrender them on entering society. They belong to the individual as the sole possessor, just the same as he possesses any member of his body. My neighbor has eyes and ears, hands and feet; so have I, just the same. My neighbor comes into society—the world—possessed of rights, in the same way as he is possessed of the several members of his body. So do I. We come into the world to use these members of our bodies, so also to exercise these unalienable rights. Talk about toleration! As well might one man be tolerated by another in the use of his eyes or ears. If it were offered me, I would spurn it with contempt. So will I spurn with contempt the idea of toleration in the exercise of any of God's gifts to man. I will exercise them because it is my God-given right. Thos. Jefferson said:— The idea is quite unfounded that, on entering into society, we give up any of our natural rights. And Madison's Memorial says:— All men are to be considered as entering into society on equal conditions, as relinquishing no more, and, therefore, retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. If any surrender of rights could be required, it would be from the weak to the strong, from the minority to the majority. Upon this point Mr. A. H. Stephens says:— Upon entering into society, however, for the purpose of having their natural rights secured and protected, or properly redressed, the weak do not give up or surrender any portion of their priceless heritage in any government constituted and organized as it should be.648The Government of the United States, organized with respect to these rights, and founded upon them, has, in the past, protected all men in the exercise of those God-given rights. But now that our Constitution has been interpreted to mean what it does not say, we may be asked to surrender our rights. Shall we be so base as to do it? We may be asked to accept of toleration. We will spurn it with contempt, and demand protection, as citizens, in the exercise of all our rights. In closing this article, we would credit the quotations to "American State Papers," and commend its study to all who are interested in these questions.