part20- 第9部分

and　legislative；　and　deciding　by　a　jury　of　themselves；　in　all

judiciary　cases　in　which　any　fact　is　involved；）　or　they　may　act　by

representatives；　freely　and　equally　chosen；　that　it　is　their　right

and　duty　to　be　at　all　times　armed；　that　they　are　entitled　to　freedom

of　person；　freedom　of　religion；　freedom　of　property；　and　freedom　of

the　press。　　In　the　structure　of　our　legislatures；　we　think　experience

has　proved　the　benefit　of　subjecting　questions　to　two　separate　bodies

of　deliberants；　but　in　constituting　these；　natural　right　has　been

mistaken；　some　making　one　of　these　bodies；　and　some　both；　the

representatives　of　property　instead　of　persons；　whereas　the　double

deliberation　might　be　as　well　obtained　without　any　violation　of　true

principle；　either　by　requiring　a　greater　age　in　one　of　the　bodies；　or

by　electing　a　proper　number　of　representatives　of　persons；　dividing

them　by　lots　into　two　chambers；　and　renewing　the　division　at　frequent

intervals；　in　order　to　break　up　all　cabals。　　Virginia；　of　which　I　am

myself　a　native　and　resident；　was　not　only　the　first　of　the　States；

but；　I　believe　I　may　say；　the　first　of　the　nations　of　the　earth；

which　assembled　its　wise　men　peaceably　together　to　form　a　fundamental

constitution；　to　commit　it　to　writing；　and　place　it　among　their

archives；　where　every　one　should　be　free　to　appeal　to　its　text。　　But

this　act　was　very　imperfect。　　The　other　States；　as　they　proceeded

successively　to　the　same　work；　made　successive　improvements；　and

several　of　them；　still　further　corrected　by　experience；　have；　by

conventions；　still　further　amended　their　first　forms。　　My　own　State

has　gone　on　so　far　with　its　_premiere　ebauche_；　but　it　is　now

proposing　to　call　a　convention　for　amendment。　　Among　other

improvements；　I　hope　they　will　adopt　the　subdivision　of　our　counties

into　wards。　　The　former　may　be　estimated　at　an　average　of　twenty…four

miles　square；　the　latter　should　be　about　six　miles　square　each；　and

would　answer　to　the　hundreds　of　your　Saxon　Alfred。　　In　each　of　these

might　be；　1。　An　elementary　school。　2。　A　company　of　militia；　with　its

officers。　3。　A　justice　of　the　peace　and　constable。　4。　Each　ward

should　take　care　of　their　own　poor。　5。　Their　own　roads。　6。　Their　own

police。　7。　Elect　within　themselves　one　or　more　jurors　to　attend　the

courts　of　justice。　And　8。　Give　in　at　their　Folk…house；　their　votes

for　all　functionaries　reserved　to　their　election。　　Each　ward　would

thus　be　a　small　republic　within　itself；　and　every　man　in　the　State

would　thus　become　an　acting　member　of　the　common　government；

transacting　in　person　a　great　portion　of　its　rights　and　duties；

subordinate　indeed；　yet　important；　and　entirely　within　his

competence。　　The　wit　of　man　cannot　devise　a　more　solid　basis　for　a

free；　durable　and　well　administered　republic。




　　　　　　　　With　respect　to　our　State　and　federal　governments；　I　do　not

think　their　relations　correctly　understood　by　foreigners。　　They

generally　suppose　the　former　subordinate　to　the　latter。　　But　this　is

not　the　case。　　They　are　co…ordinate　departments　of　one　simple　and

integral　whole。　　To　the　State　governments　are　reserved　all

legislation　and　administration；　in　affairs　which　concern　their　own

citizens　only；　and　to　the　federal　government　is　given　whatever

concerns　foreigners；　or　the　citizens　of　other　States；　these　functions

alone　being　made　federal。　　The　one　is　the　domestic；　the　other　the

foreign　branch　of　the　same　government；　neither　having　control　over

the　other；　but　within　its　own　department。　　There　are　one　or　two

exceptions　only　to　this　partition　of　power。　　But；　you　may　ask；　if　the

two　departments　should　claim　each　the　same　subject　of　power；　where　is

the　common　umpire　to　decide　ultimately　between　them？　　In　cases　of

little　importance　or　urgency；　the　prudence　of　both　parties　will　keep

them　aloof　from　the　questionable　ground：　but　if　it　can　neither　be

avoided　nor　compromised；　a　convention　of　the　States　must　be　called；

to　ascribe　the　doubtful　power　to　that　department　which　they　may　think

best。　　You　will　perceive　by　these　details；　that　we　have　not　yet　so

far　perfected　our　constitutions　as　to　venture　to　make　them

unchangeable。　　But　still；　in　their　present　state；　we　consider　them

not　otherwise　changeable　than　by　the　authority　of　the　people；　on　a

special　election　of　representatives　for　that　purpose　expressly：　they

are　until　then　the　_lex　legum_。




　　　　　　　　But　can　they　be　made　unchangeable？　　Can　one　generation　bind

another；　and　all　others；　in　succession　forever？　　I　think　not。　　The

Creator　has　made　the　earth　for　the　living；　not　the　dead。　　Rights　and

powers　can　only　belong　to　persons；　not　to　things；　not　to　mere　matter；

unendowed　with　will。　　The　dead　are　not　even　things。　　The　particles　of

matter　which　composed　their　bodies；　make　part　now　of　the　bodies　of

other　animals；　vegetables；　or　minerals；　of　a　thousand　forms。　　To　what

then　are　attached　the　rights　and　powers　they　held　while　in　the　form

of　men？　　A　generation　may　bind　itself　as　long　as　its　majority

continues　in　life；　when　that　has　disappeared；　another　majority　is　in

place；　holds　all　the　rights　and　powers　their　predecessors　once　held；

and　may　change　their　laws　and　institutions　to　suit　themselves。

Nothing　then　is　unchangeable　but　the　inherent　and　unalienable　rights

of　man。




　　　　　　　　I　was　glad　to　find　in　your　bo　ok　a　formal　contradition；　at

length；　of　the　judiciary　usurpation　of　legislative　powers；　for　such

the　judges　have　usurped　in　their　repeated　decisions；　that

Christianity　is　a　part　of　the　common　law。　　The　proof　of　the　contrary；

which　you　have　adduced；　is　incontrovertible；　to　wit；　that　the　common

law　existed　while　the　Anglo…Saxons　were　yet　Pagans；　at　a　time　when

they　had　never　yet　heard　the　name　of　Christ　pronounced；　or　knew　that

such　a　character　had　ever　existed。　　But　it　may　amuse　you；　to　shew

when；　and　by　what　means；　they　stole　this　law　in　upon　us。　　In　a　case

of　_quare　impedit_　in　the　Year…book　34。　H。　6。　folio　38。　（anno　1458；）

a　question　was　made；　how　far　the　ecclesiastical　law　was　to　be

respected　in　a　common　law　court？　　And　Prisot；　Chief　Justice；　gives

his　opinion　in　these　words；　‘A　tiel　leis　qu'　ils　de　seint　eglise　ont

en　_ancien　scripture_；　covient　a　nous　a　donner　credence；　car　ceo

common　ley　sur　quels　touts　manners　leis　sont　fondes。　　Et　auxy；　Sir；

nous　sumus　obleges　de　conustre　lour　ley　de　saint　eglise：　et

semblablement　ils　sont　obliges　de　conustre　nostre　ley。　　Et；　Sir；　si

poit　apperer　or　a　nous　que　l'evesque　ad　fait　come　un　ordinary　fera　en

tiel　cas；　adong　nous　devons　ceo　adjuger　bon；　ou　auterment　nemy；'　&c。

See　S。　C。　Fitzh。　Abr。　Qu。　imp。　89。　Bro。　Abr。　Qu。　imp。　12。　　Finch　in

his　first　book；　c。　3。　is　the　first　afterwards　who　quotes　this　case；

and　mistakes　it　thus。　　‘To　such　laws　of　the　church　as　have　warrant　in

_holy　scripture_；　our　law　giveth　credence。'　And　cites　Prisot；

mistranslating　_‘ancien　scripture；'_　into　_‘holy　scripture。'_　Whereas

Prisot　palpably　says；　‘to　such　laws　as　those　of　holy　church　have　in

_antient　writing_；　it　is　proper　for　us　to　give　credence；'　to　wit；　to

their　_antient　written_　laws。　　This　was　in　1613；　a　century　and　a　half

after　the　dictum　of　Prisot。　Wingate；　in　1658；　erects　this　false

translation　into　a　maxim　of　the　common　law；　copying　the　words　of

Finch；　but　citing　Prisot。　Wing。　Max。　3。　　And　Sheppard；　title；

‘Religion；'　in　1675；　copies　the　same　mistranslation；　quoting　the　Y。

B。　Finch　and　Wingate。　　Hale　expresses　it　in　these　words；

‘Christianity　is　parcel　of　the　laws　of　England。'　1　Ventr。　293。　3　Keb。

607。　　But　he　quotes　no　authority。　　By　these　echoings　and　re…echoings

from　one　to　another；　it　had　become　so　established　in　1728；　that　in

the　case　of　the　King　_vs。_　Woolston；　2　Stra。　834；　the　court　would　not

suffer　it　to　be　debated；　whether　to　write　against　Christianity　was

punishable　in　the　temporal　court　at　common　law？　　Wood；　therefore；

409；　ventures　still　to　vary　the　phrase；　and　say；　that　all　blasphemy

and　profaneness　are　offences　by　the　common　law；　and　cites　2　Stra。

Then　Blackstone；　in　1763；　IV。　59；　repeats　the　words　of　Hale；　that

‘Christianity　is　part　of　the　laws　of　England；'　citing　Ventris　and

Strange。　　And　finally；　Lord　Mansfield；　with　a　little　qualification；

in　Evans'　case；　in　1767；　says；　that　‘the　essential　principles　of

revealed　religion　are　part　of　the　common　law。'　Thus　ingulphing　Bible；

Testament　and　all　into　the　common　law；　without　citing　any　authority。

And　thus　we　find　this　chain　of　authorities　hanging　link　by　link；　one

upon　another；　and　all　ultimately　on　one　and　the　same　hook；　and　that　a

mistranslation　of　the　words　_‘ancien　scripture；'_　used　by　Prisot。

Finch　quotes　Prisot；　Wingate　does　the　same。　　Sheppard　quotes　Prisot；

Finch　and　Wingate。　　Hale　cites　nobody。　　The　court　in　Woolston's　case；

cite　Hale。　　Wood　cites　Woolston's　case。　　Blackstone　quotes　Woolston's

case　and　Hale。　　And　Lord　Mansfield；　like　Hale；　ventures　it　on　his　own

authority。　　Here　I　might　defy　the　best　read　lawyer　to　produce　another

scrip　of　authority　for　this　judiciary　forgery；　and　I　might　go　on

further　to　shew；　how　some　of　the　Anglo…Saxon　priests　interpolated

into　the　text　of　Alfred's　laws；　the　20th；　21st；　22nd　and　23rd

chapters　of　Exodus；　and　the　15th　of　the　Acts　of　the　Apostles；　from

the　23rd　to　the　29th　verses。　　But　this　would　lead　my　pen　and　your

patience　too　far。　　What　a　conspiracy　this；　between　Church　and　State！

Sing　Tantarara；　rogues　all；　rogues　all；　Sing　Tantarara；　rogues　all！




　　　　　　　　I　must　still　add　to　this　long　and　rambling　letter；　my

acknowledgments　for　your　good　wishes　to　the　University　we　are　now

establishing　in　this　State。　　There　are　some　novelties　in　it。　　Of　that

of　a　professorship　of　the　principles　of　government；　you　express　your

approbation。　　They　will　be　founded　in　the　rights　of　man。　　That　of

agriculture；　I　am　sure；　you　will　approve：　and　that　also　of

Anglo…Saxon。　　As　the　histories　and　laws　left　us　in　that　type　and

dialect；　must　be　the　text　books　of　the　reading　of　the　learners；　they

will　imbibe　with