網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

of all of her sisters derived from territory of the United States.

147. This discussion brings to light another important fact. The state governments were set up by the authority of the people of the respective states. The method by which the people have proceeded to do this has been in all cases essentially the same, and peculiarly American. We have already seen that the "Fundamental Orders" of Connecticut were framed and adopted by the people met in convention at Hartford. Conventions are American in origin and development, and this one in Connecticut was not the first. But they were not frequent during the colonial period. When, however, the Revolutionary struggle began, conventions were at once resorted to, and it was during this period that they became the instruments in the hands of the people that they have ever since remained. When the royal governments broke down, conventions everywhere succeeded them, and during the considerable interval before the establishment of permanent state governments, they were the ruling bodies in the various states. Delegates to these were elected by the people in substantially the same way as they had been accustomed to elect representatives to their respective colonial legislatures. When the state governments were formed the plans were invariably made and adopted in conventions, and in all cases but one the governments were established by these bodies. But in Massachusetts the convention plan of government was submitted to the people for adoption before being put in operation, a procedure that has since become the all but universal custom.1

1 The proceedings in Massachusetts are still of some interest. In 1777 a constitution was framed by a committee of the leg

148. One other feature of importance has characterized the procedure in the formation of American governments, and this again is peculiarly American. In 1629 King Charles of England granted a charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company to found settlements in New England. As granted and intended by the king, this was a commercial charter, intended to form a corporation for commercial purposes. But the members of the company themselves moved to America and so became a part of the settlement. They admitted to the company very many other settlers, and the colony and the corporation thus became to a certain extent identical. As the charter gave the company power to govern its colony, this arrangement made the colony self-governing, and so here we have a self-governing community with its government based on a written charter, and exercising the powers therein granted.

149. When then, in 1639, Connecticut proceeded to set up a government for itself, it followed after the analogy of the example set by Massachusetts. It drew up a document defining the form of government, and the powers it was to exercise, and the government established was based on this document. Here then was the first written constitution, the first in our history, the first anywhere. Always before governments had been established by force of arms, or by the slow unconscious processes of historic development. In the former case the rule was the rule of the strong, who exercised their authority by virtue of their might, by which alone the extent of their power was limited. In islative body, and submitted to the people in 1778. This was rejected by an overwhelming vote. The legislature then called a convention, which framed the constitution of 1780, and this was promptly adopted. See Jameson's Constitutional Conventions, p. 449.

the latter case authority was exercised by virtue of long established custom, and custom was its sanction, and determined the extent of power exercised. But here was the establishment of a government without appealing to force on the one hand, and without the sanction of custom on the other. A need was felt, and the means intelligently and efficiently applied to meet it. This is the conscious establishment of government as government. Looked at in the light of the past, this act of the humble Connecticut farmers must be regarded as one of the great achievements of history.

150. We have now seen the three essential things about the formation of American State Governments. The first is that the source of all authority for these governments is the people of the respective states. The second is that the method of procedure is through conventions which spring from the people, and now report their work back to the people for approval. The third is that these governments are invariably based upon written constitutions, which define the form of government, prescribe the extent of its powers, and the methods in which they are to be exercised. All this we see applies directly to Michigan. The convention of 1835 sprang directly from the people. It framed a constitution which was submitted to and adopted by the people. By its adoption the people ordained and established the government therein provided, and with this as its only sanction our government began to exercise its authority.

151. All this enables us to understand clearly the nature of a state constitution. All the authority a state has, its sovereignty so far as it has sovereignty, resides in the people of a state. But the people cannot directly exercise the powers of government, partly because a

state is so large and the people so many, partly because many of the duties of governing must be performed by individuals, and partly because many of the functions of governing have become so complicated and difficult that special training and special knowledge are required for their proper discharge. Hence the people delegate their powers, or such of them as they see fit, to a small portion of their number, who for the time being act for, and in the name of, the whole. The Constitution is this delegation of power. The persons who under it are designated to perform the various functions prescribed in the Constitution are, to use the apt words of Jefferson, the "servants of the people," whose duty it is to carry out the popular will.

CHAPTER VIII

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE

152. REFERENCES

Thomas Erskine Holland, The Elements of Jurisprudence, especially Part I.-Cooley's Michigan, chapter XI.-Fustel de Coulange, The Ancient City.-Theodore D. Woolsey, Political Science of the State, New York, 1877, Part I., chapters I. and II.; Part II., chapters I., II., IV., V., VI.; Part III., chapters I., XI.-Hinsdale, The American Government, Introduction.— Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law, chapter XIV.-Ashley, American Federal State, chapter XXIV.—Merriam, American Political Theories, chapter VII.

153. When we were dealing with the relations of state and nation, we saw that the powers of the national government were summed up under a few heads and are all of a general nature. That is, they are such as affect all the states, or as cannot well be exercised by any one state, because its authority cannot extend beyond its own limits. These great powers, such as the control of the army and navy, of ports and harbors, of navigation on rivers and the high seas, of interstate and foreign commerce, of foreign relations generally, are necessarily some of the most striking powers of government, but at the same time they are powers comparatively remote from the great mass of the citizens; however important to our welfare, they touch us only occasionally or only indirectly. Hence we do not feel, as we otherwise would, the all-pervading influence of the central government. But there are laws whose presence we constantly feel, whose restraints are

« 上一頁繼續 »