inclusion in the constitutions of the new States, presented to the Congress for approval, compelled a consideration of the meaning of the words ' republican form of government," as used in the Constitution of the United States. The following essays, which originally were prepared for delivery as addresses on special occasions, reflect the conflict of ideas involved in the discussion of these questions-problems which go to the very roots of civilized government. It is because of the vital nature of the problems discussed, rather than of any especial merit, literary or otherwise, in the essays, that I venture to hope that what I have written may be of more than ephemeral interest. Constant requests for copies of some of these papers have encouraged me to publish this collection. For while the old order indeed changeth, yet I verily believe there are some fundamental truths concerning government which have stood the test of time, and which cannot be ignored without unhappy consequence. What some of those principles are, I have endeavored to show in the following pages. G. W. W. NEW YORK, April, 1914. The Changing Order Τ I THE PROGRESS OF LAW1 IT is related by Herodotus that after the deposi tion of the usurper who seized the throne of Cambyses, King of Persia, the three leaders of the successful movement debated as to the form of a permanent government for that country. Otanes, who contended for a democracy, finding himself in the minority, proposed to yield his preferences to the other two, on condition that neither Megabyzus nor Darius should reign over him or any of his posterity; which being assented to, he made no further opposition to the establishment of a monarchy, and the historian adds: At the present period this is the only family in Persia which retains its liberty, for all that is required of them is not to transgress the laws of the country." Address before the George Washington University, Washington, D. C., February 22, 1910. 2 Herodotus, Beloe's translation, Book 3, p. 165. This conception of liberty under law, usually regarded as the product of northern independence of character, and by many, as peculiarly an AngloSaxon inheritance, thus appears to be of much greater antiquity, and although often obscured, sometimes for prolonged periods, it has ever recurred as the highest ideal of civilized human society. Herodotus does not explain to us in what respect the liberty guaranteed to Otanes and his descendants differed from that of the other inhabitants of Persia, for, it will be observed, he considers that the family of Otanes enjoyed liberty because all that was required of them was that they should not transgress the laws of the country; but as he does state that the first act of Darius, after he was proclaimed King, was to divide Persia into twenty provinces, and to fix an amount of annual tribute which each was to pay to him, it would seem that the historian meant to indicate a distinction between government and law, and to imply that, while subject to the law, the favored family was relieved from the burdens of government. Mr. James C. Carter, in his work on Law and its Origin, maintains that while Legislation is a command of the Sovereign, the unwritten Law is not a command at all; that it is not a dictate of Force but an emanation from Order; that it is that form of conduct which social action necessarily exhibits, something which men can neither enact nor repeal, and which advances and becomes |