vastly less desirable than the frank attitude of our
continental neighbors toward such subjects?

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1785 concludes with the now
famous words: "To the end that this may be a government of
laws and not of men." That is the essence of the spirit of
American government. Our forefathers had arisen and thrown
off the yoke of England and her intolerable system of penal
government, in which an accused had no right to testify in his
own behalf and under which he could be hung for stealing a
sheep. "Liberty!" "Liberty or death!" That was the note
ringing in the minds and mouths of the signers of the
Declaration and framers of the Constitution. That is the
popular note to-day of the Fourth of July orator and of the
Memorial Day address. This liberty was to be guaranteed by
laws in such a way that it was never to be curtailed or
violated. No mere man was to be given an opportunity to
tamper with it. The individual was to be protected at all
costs. No king, or sheriff, or judge, or officer was to lay
his finger on a free man save at his peril. If he did, the
free man might immediately have his "law"--"have the law on
him," as the good old expression was--for no king or sheriff
was above the law. In fact, we were so energetic in providing
safeguards for the individual, even when a wrong-doer, that we
paid very little attention to the effectiveness of kings or
sheriffs or what we had substituted for them. And so it is
to-day. What candidate for office, what silver-tongued orator
or senator, what demagogue or preacher could hold his audience
or capture a vote if, when it came to a question of liberty,
he should lift up his voice in behalf of the rights of the