p. 583 | INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS by H. F. Phelps

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jul 23, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 37.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

By H. F. Phelps

First Principles in Government.

Our fathers builded well, and much better than they knew, when they, in that immortal document, the Declaration of Independence, said:—

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed 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.

The object of this paper is to call attention to unalienable rights, those rights that are common to all men, of every class and every nation, without any distinction whatever. There was a time when these rights were acknowledged, and inasmuch as they were acknowledged, and men were willing to defend them, they were engrafted into the fundamental law of this land. Upon these rights this government builded. But, strange as it may seem, we have entered upon a time when these rights are forgotten, ignored, and even denied, notwithstanding they have been recognized, and, so far as was possible to be assured to posterity, they were assured and guaranteed to the present generation in our national Constitution.

Inasmuch as this is the situation at this very time, it becomes a necessity to urge attention to this question. There are many perplexing questions, of national importance, difficult of solution, as matters now appear, that could easily be adjusted by an understanding and application of the principle of individual rights. It is only by a recognition of these rights that a republican form of government becomes possible. This is simply self-government, and it is only by a recognition of those rights equally bestowed upon all men, that self-government is possible. It follows, therefore, that when the great mass of the citizens of a republic shall forget, ignore, and repudiate this principle, which is the foundation of the government, and override and subvert its constitution, which was set up as a safeguard of these rights, the end of that republic cannot be far removed, and that for the very reason that under these circumstances self-government becomes an impossibility. In this is seen the necessity of every person becoming thoroughly cognizant of these rights as vested in their neighbor, as well as in themselves, and so be willing to allow to others what they claim for themselves; and as vested in themselves also, as well as in their neighbor, in order that they, having clearly-defined views of their own rights, may be able, by argument, at least, to defend these, and not become a slave to unjust laws, or a tool in the hands of those who do not recognize these rights.

We said our fathers builded wisely and well. Let us see. All men are not equal in social position, or physical powers, or mental ability; but it is a self-evident truth that, so far as the work of creation is concerned, all men came into the world equally endowed with certain rights, one no more nor less than another. Whatever these rights may be, all are equally in possession of them at birth. They are gifts of nature's God. As truly stated, they are "inalienable rights." As, therefore, they are inalienable, no man can, of right, become dispossessed of them upon entering into the world or society, but he comes into society with these rights already in possession, and in just the same way that he enters society with his eyes, his hands, or any other organ of his body.

Every individual is, therefore, surrounded upon all sides with the equal rights of others. It would follow, therefore, that there can be but one limitation to the enjoyment of these rights, and that one limitation would affect all men alike. That one limitation can be no other than the equal rights of another. Within this one limitation every individual has the most perfect liberty in the exercise of his will, in the enjoyment of these rights. This thought is most happily expressed by Mr. Spencer, as follows:—

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.

This is, in reality, just what is called civility. It is when a man oversteps this one limitation that he becomes uncivil. Incivility is trespassing upon another's rights. All men should be civil—that is, respect the equal rights of all others. If all men would do this, there would be no need of civil government.

We may reasonably conclude that if man had not fallen, but had remained loyal to his Maker, all men would have respected these rights, would have been civil toward all others. But in the present fallen condition of the race all men will not be civil. All men are so supremely selfish that nothing but divine power, by the grace of God, can so change the heart of man as to enable him at all times to respect these equal rights in all others, by allowing to all others that which he claims for himself. As all men will not be civil, in this fallen condition, it becomes necessary to organize what is called civil government.

But this spirit of selfishness is so prevailing that governments become uncivil, not respecting these rights, but legislating in a manner to subvert these rights in the individual. And because this is so it becomes necessary to adopt constitutions prescribing the limitations of the authority of the government itself. Thus while constitutions are respected, and legislative bodies enact laws in harmony with these constitutions, and the courts interpret laws in harmony with the same, and citizens respect these rights of one another, then it is that the government is prosperous. But when the people forget and ignore these rights, when courts misinterpret, and legislative bodies override constitutions, what can come from such a course less than ruin itself?

Now this is exactly the situation in this nation, for the people have forgotten their own rights, and do ignore the demands of others who claim their rights. The courts, even the Supreme Court, has misinterpreted the supreme law of the land, making the Constitution mean what it does not say, and was never intended to mean, in that it is made to give its voice for a union of religion and the State, declaring that "this is a Christian nation," and that "this is a religious people." And, as a logical result, legislative bodies do ignore the Constitution in the councils of the nation, by engaging freely in theological discussions and religious legislation. And the end is not yet.

This principle of equal individual rights was once acknowledged, but it is quite the contrary now. Thomas Jefferson once said:—

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 our people united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not 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.

To those fully awake to the present situation, this would almost seem to have been uttered by inspiration. Even the less thoughtful must notice the universal mania for wealth, and the almost universal disregard for the rights of others. There were some "shackles" that were not thrown off at the conclusion of that war. These were in the form of laws favoring religious institutions, particularly Sunday laws, borrowed from the Old World, and just so much a union of Church and State. These, in turn, have been adopted by younger States, and in the minds of many they are regarded as more sacred than all the constitutions of the States which guarantee these rights. And now they are becoming as "shackles" upon the very principles of individual rights of conscience, growing "heavier and heavier." And shall "our rights revive," or will they "expire in a convulsion"?

But a bright ray of hope illumines the horizon. Jesus Christ, the Creator of man, and hence himself the Author of these rights, did, in his own life, and by his own teachings, leave to all succeeding generations a living vindication of individuality in all things, and of individuality in religion and religious observances above all things; and not only so, but he gave his own life that man might be forever set free from all bondage, and that he might enjoy the rights of conscience above all things. And so, when all the nations of earth who have enjoyed the light of the gospel of freedom, shall turn against these principles, and deny them to the people, then it is that they will have fully disconnected themselves from all righteousness, and then will the time come for him to take the kingdom to himself, and, once more vindicating the rights of conscience in behalf of his followers who have themselves suffered in vindication of these principles, and visiting with a rod of iron the perversity of their own ways upon his enemies, who have denied these principles, will save his people with an everlasting salvation. Who, then, will be true to these principles?