The Constitution of No Authority

8/13/2019 The Constitution of No Authority

1/59

NO TREASON .No vr.

BY LY SAND ER SPOONER

OSTON:PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR:

187


2/59

Entered according to Act of Congreu. In the year 1870.By LYSANDER SPOONER.

In the Clerk's 01llce of the District Court of the United States. for the DIstrictof Yauachueelta.

TUE :drst and second numbers ot this series were published In 1861.For reasons not necessary to be explained, the sixth is now publishedIn advance ot the third, tourth and Mh.


3/59

NO T.REASON.NOV

TH E OONSTITU TION OF NO AU TH ORITY .I.

THE Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. Ithas no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract be-tween man and man. And it does not so much as even purportto be a contract between persons now existing. It purports,at most, to be only a contract between persons living eightyyears ago. And it can be supposed to have been a' contractthen only between persona who had already come to years ofdiscretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obli-gatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that onlya small portion even of the people then exleting were consultedon the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either theirconsent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, ifanl, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.Most ofthem have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years.And the Constitution,80 far as it w their contract, died withthem. They had no natural power or right to make it obliga-tory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, inthe nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, butthey did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, theinstrument does not purport to be an agreement between anybody but the people then existing; nor does it, either ex-


4/59

4pressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, oron their part, to bind any body but themselves.Its language is :

We, the people of the United States [that i 'l,the peopletlten existing in the United States], in order to form a . more per-fect union, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the commondefence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessingsof liberty to ourselves and our pos te r it y, do ordain and establishthis Constitution for the United Statcs of America.

disposition,Let us see.

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz: a con-tract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, bind-ing, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the secondplace, the language neither expresses nor implies that they hadany intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had anyright or power, to bind their /I posterity to live under it. Itdoes not say that their /I posterity will, shall, or must live underit. Itonly says, in effect,that their hopes and motives in adopt.ing it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as wellas to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity,liberty, etc.

Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Gov-

ernor's Island: to protect ourselves and ou r po ste rity againstinvasion.

This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobodybut the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right,power, or disposition, on their part, to compel tbeir t posterityto maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the sup-posed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives thatinduced the original parties to enter into the agreement.

When a man says he is building a house tor himself and hilpo,terity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that hehas any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he


5/59

5is 80 foolish as to imagine that he has any right or -power tobind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he onlymeans to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives,in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may findit for their happiness to lire in it.

So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and /,iIposterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that hehas any thought of compel l ing them, n9r is it to be inferred thathe is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right orpower to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as .they are con-cerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, inplanting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution.Whatever may have been' their personal intentions, the legalmeaning of their language, so far as their posterity was -con.cerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in enteringinto the agreement, were that it might prove useful and aecepta-ble to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety,tranquillity, and welfare; and that it might tend to secure tothem the blessings of liberty. -The language does not assertnor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part ofthe original parties to the agreement, to compel their posterityto live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity tolive under it, they should have said that their object was, not to secure to them the blessings of liberty, but to make slavesof them; for if their posterity are bound to live under it,they are nothing less than the slaves of their Coolish,tyrannical,and dead grandfathers.

1t cannot be said that the Constitution formed the people ofthe United States, for all tim~, into a corporation. It does notspeak of the people as a corporation, but as individuals.A corporation does not describe itself as we, nor as IIpeople,nor as IIourselves. Nor does a corporation, in legal language,


6/59

6have any 1/ posterity. It supposes itself to have, and speaks ofitself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.Moreover, no body of men, existing at anyone time, have thepower to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation canbecome practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession ofnew members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntaryaccession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies withthe death of those who originally composed it.

Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, noth-ing that professes or a~tempts to bind the posterity of those

uzawho e8tablish~.If, then, thoso who established the Constitution, had DOpower

to bind, and did DO' attempt to bind, their posterity, the ques-tion arises, whether their posterity have bound thernselves? Ifthey ,have done so, thoy can have done so in only one or both ofthese two ways, viz. by voting, and paying taxes.

II.Let us consider these two matters, voting and tax paying, sep-

arately. And first of voting.All the voting that has ever taken place under the Constitu-

tion, has been of such a kind that it not only did Dot pledge thewhole people to support the Constitution, but it did not evenpledge anyone of them to do so, as the following considera-tions show.

1. In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bindnobody but the actual voters. But owing to the property quali-fications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty 9rthirty years under the Constitution, not more than one tenth,fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (blackand white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote.Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than onetenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have in-curred any obligation to support the Constitution.


7/59

7At the present time, it is probable that not more than one

sixth of the whole population are permi t ted to vote. Conse-quently, 80 far as voting is concerned, the other five-sixths canhave given no pledge that they will support the Constitution.

2. Of the one-sixth that are permi t ted to vote, probably notmore than two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population)have usual ly voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote onlyonce in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excite-ment.

No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for anylonger period than that for which he votes. If, for example, Ivote for an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, Icannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support thegovernment beyond' that term. Therefore, on the ground ofactual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth, or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually u~derany pledge to support the Constitution.

3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself tosupport the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectlyvoluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot prop-erly be called a voluntary One on the part of any very largenumber of those whodo vote. It is rather a measure of necessityimposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice.On this point I repeat what was said ill a former number, viz:

In truth, in the case of Individuals, their actual voting iinotto be taken as proof of consent, even far the l ime being. On thecontrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent havingeven been asked. a man finds himself enviroued by a governmentthat he cannot resist j a government that forces him to paymoney, render servlpe, and forego the exercise of manv of hisnatural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees,too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use ofthe ballot. lIe sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot See No Treason, No.2, pages 5 and 6.


8/59

8himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from thistyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, hefinds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use theballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he mustbecome a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.In self-defence, he attempts tho former. His case is analogous tothat of a man who has been forced into battle, where he musteither kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his ownlife in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents,it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing.Neither in contests wiLhthe ballot - which is a mere substitutefor a bullet - because, as his only chance of self-preservation, aman uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one intowhich he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all hisown natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lostor won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it isto be considered that, in an exigency into which he had beenforced by others, and in which no other means of self-defenceoffered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that wasleft to him.

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most op-pressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, woulduse it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating theircondition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate infer-ence that the government itself, that crushes them, was onewhich they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to. ..1 Therefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of theUnited States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freelyassented to the Constitution, e ve n fo r th e tim e b ein g. Conse-quently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of

the actual voters of the United States, ever really and volunta-rily consented to the Constitution, even fo r th e tim e be ing . Norcan we ever have 'such proof, until every man is left- perfectlyfree to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or hisproperty to be disturbed or injured by others..As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from

choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, wecan bave no legal knowledge, Uto a n y pa rtic u la r in d iv id u al, thatbe voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting, he con-sented, or pledged himself, to support the government. Legally


9/59

9speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge anyone to support the government. It utterly fails to prove thatthe government rests upon the voluntary support of any body.On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said thatthe government has any voluntary aupporters at all, until it canbe distinctly shown W M its voluntary supporters are.

4. .As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they voteor not, a large propoetlon of those who vote, no doubt do so toprevent their own money being used against themselves; when, infact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they c-uldthereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nth.ing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyranniesof the government. To take a man's property without his con-sent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by vot-ing, to prevent that property from being used to his injury, is avery insufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution.It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no legalknowledge as to .WM the particular individuals ate, if there areany, who are willing to be taxed for the sake of voting, or whowonld prefer freedom from taxation to the privilege of voting,we can. have no legal knowledge that any particular individualconsents to be taxed for the sake of voting; or, consequently,consents to support the Constitution.

5. At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candi-dl\tcs for the same office. Those who vote for the unsuccessfulcandidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain theConstitution. They may, with more reason, be supposed tohave voted, not to support the Constitution, but specially to pre-vent the tyranny which they anticipate the successful candidateintends to practise upon them under color of the Constitution;and therefore may reasonably be supposed to have voted againstthe Constitution itself. This supposition is the more reasonable,inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them ofexpressing their dissent to the Constitution.


10/59

6. Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no

prospect of success. Those who give such votes may reasonablybe supposed to have voted as they did, with a special intention,not to support, but to obstruct the execution of, the Constitution iand, therefore, against the Constitution itself .

7. As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret bal-lot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes them-selves, W110 votes for, and who against, the onstitution. There-fore voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individ-ual supports the Constitution . And where there can be nolegal evidence that any particular individual supports the Con-stitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. Itis clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions oflarge numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of theintentions of any particular one of them.

8. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, invoting, we can only conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is pro-bable that a very large proportion of those who vote, do so onthis principle, viz., that if, by voting, they could but get the gov-ernment into their own hands (or that of their friends), and useits powers against their opponents, they would then willingly sup-port the Constitution; but if their Opponentsare to have thepower, and use it against them, then they would no t willinglysupport the Constitution.In short, men's voluntary support of the Constitution is doubt-less, in most cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether,by means of the Constitution, they can make themselves masters,or are to be made slaves.

Such contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no con-sent at all.

9. AA every body who supports the Constitution by voting(if there are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), andin a way to avoid all personal responsibility for the acts of hisagents or representatives, it cannot legally or reasonably be


11/59

said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by voting.No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing asto assent to, or support, the Constitution, un le ss h e does i open l y ,and in a w ay to m ake h im se lf p e rsona lly re spon sib le fo r th e ac ts o fh is ag en ts , so lo ng s th ey ac t w ith in th e lim its o f th e p ow er he de le -ga te s to th em .

10. As all voting is secret, (by secret ballot,) and as allsecret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers,tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government ispractically carried on by means of such voting, only proves thatthere is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants and murder-ers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessaryto accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people.The simple fact of the. existence of such a band does nothingtowards proving that '~the people of the United States, or anyone of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.

For all the reasons that have now been given, voting fumishes 'no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (ifthere are any), who voluntar i ly support the Constitution. Ittherefore furnishes no legal evidence that any body supportsit volun tar i l y .

So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the Constitution,legally speaking, has no supporters at all:

And, as matter of fact, there is not the slightest probabilitythat the Constitution has a single b on a fid e supporter in thecountry. That is to say, there is not the slightest probabilitythat there is a single man in the country, who both understandswhat the Constitution really is, an d sin ce re ly su pp or ts it fo r w hatit rea lly is .

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution,like the ostensi-ble supporters of most other governments, are made up of threeclasses, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who seein the government an instrument which they can use for their.own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes - a large class, no


12/59

2doubt- each of whom, because he is allowed one 'Voiceout ofmillions in deciding what he may do with his own person andhis own property, and because he is permitted to have tbe samevoice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that othershave in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupidenough to imagine that he is a ,j free man, a. sovereign ; thatthis is a free go\ ernJ~lent ; a. government of equal rights,

the best government on earth, and such like absurditiea,3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of govern-ment, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do notchoose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give them-selves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

m.The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishesno evidence that anyone voluntarily supports the Constitution.It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes

are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurancecompany, voluntarily entered into by the people with eachother; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary con-tract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, ~opayso much money for so much protection, the same as he doeswith any other insurance company; and that he is just as freenot to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay atax, and be protected.

But this theory of our government is wholly different from. the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a high-,

wlloyman,says to a man: Your money,or your life. And many,if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, wayl y a man in a lonelyplace, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol Suppose It be the best government on earth, does that prove itsown goodness, or 01111he badness of all other governments


13/59

3to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery isnone the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more das-tardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility,danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that hehas any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to useit for your own benefit . He does not pretend to be anything buta robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess tobe merely ~ IIprotector, and that he takes men's moneyagainst their will,merely to enable him to IIprotect those Infat-uated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, ordo not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He ie toosensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore,having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do.He does not persist in following you on the road, against yourwill; assuming to be your rightful sovereign, on account of thet protection he affords you. He does not keep t protectingyou, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by re-quiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that j by rob-bing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interestor pleasure to do so j and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor,and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down withoutmercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. Heis too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such Impostures, andinsulta.and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addi-tion to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or hisslave. .

The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who callthemselves CI the government, are directly the opposite of theseof the single highwayman.

In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves in.dividually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves per.sonally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, theysecretly (by secret ballot) designate some o~e of their number


14/59

4to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep them-selves practically concealed. They say to the person thus des-ignated:

Go toA- B--,and say to him that the government~'has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him andhis property. If he presumes to say that he has never con-tracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of ourprotection, say to him that that is our business, and not his;that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so ornot; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If hedares to inquire woo the individuals are, who have thus takenupon themselves the title of the government, and who assumeto protect him, and demand payment of him, without his havingever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, isour business, and not his; that we do not choose to make our-selves . individual ly known tq him; that we have secretly (bysecret ballot)' appointed you our agent to give him notice ofour demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in ourname, a receipt that will protect hirq against any similar demandfo r the presen t year . If he refuses to comply, seize and sellenough of his property to pay not only our demands, but allyour own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizureof his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtlesssome of them will prove to be members of our band). If, indefending his property, he should kill any of our baud ~ho areassisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one~of our courts) with murder~ convict him, and hang bim. If heshould call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him,may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should comein large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are allrebels and traitors j that our country is in danger; call uponthe commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell therebellion and 1/ save the country, cost what it may. Tell himto kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thou-


15/59

sands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed.See that the work of murder is thoroughly ,done, that we mayhave DO further trouble of this kind hereafter. When thesetraitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our de-termination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, andpay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.It is under such compulsion all this that taxes, so called, are

paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, thatthe people ~onsent to support the government, it needs nofurther argument to show.

2. Still another reason why the payme~t of taxes implies noconsent, or pledge, to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means of knowing, who the par.ticular individuals are who compose the government. To him the government is a myth, an abstraction, an incorporeality,with which he can make no contract, a~d to which he can giveno consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through itspretended agents. The government itself he never sees.He knows indeed, by common report, that certain person.s, of acertain age, are permitted to vote; and thus to make themselvesparts of, or ifthey choose) opponents of, the government, forthe time being. But who of them do thus vote, and especially u > w each one votes (whether so as to aid or oppose the govern-ment), he does not know; the voting being all done secretly (bysecret ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose the gov-ernment, for the time being, he has no means of knowing. Ofcourse he can make no contract with them, give them no consent,and make them no pledge. Of necessity, therefore, his payingtaxes to them implies, on his part, no contract, consent, or pledgeto support them - that is, to support the government, or thoConstitution.

3. Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who callthemselves the government, the tax payer does not know whomhe pays his taxes to. All he knows is that a man comes to


16/59

6him, representing himself to be the agent of the governmentthat is, the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers,who have taken to themselves the title of the government, andhave determined to kill every body who refuses to give themwhatever money they demand. To save his life, he gives up hismoney to tbis agent. But as this agent does not make his prin-cipals individually known to t~e tax payer, the latter, after hehas given up his money, knows no more who are the govern-ment - that is, who were tbe robbers - than he did before .To say, therefore, that by giving up his money to their agent,he entered into a voluntary contract with them, that he pledgeshimself to obey them, to support them, and to give them what-ever money tbey should demand of him in the future, is simplyridiculous.

4. All political power, as it is called, rests practically uponthis matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having moneyenough to start with, can establish themselves as a =goremmentjbecause, with money, tbey can hire soldiers, and with soldiersextort more ~oney; and also compel general obedience to tbeirwill. It hwith government, as Cresar said it was in war, that.money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that withmoney he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money.So these villains, who call themselves governments, well under-stand that their power rests primarily upon money. Withmoney they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money.And, when their authority is denied, the first use they alwaysmake of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who re-fuse them more money.

For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understandthese vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who put~ money intothe hands of a CI government (so called), puts into its hands asword which will be used against himself, to extort more moneyfrom him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrarywill. 2. That those who will take his money, without his COD-


17/59

sent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and en-slavement, if he presumes to resist their demands iA the future.3. That i~ is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of menwould ever take a man's money without his consent, for any suchobject as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him;for why should they wish to protect him, if he docs not wishthem to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just asabsurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his moneywithout his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothingfor him, when be did not want it. 4. If a man wants protec-tion, he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and no-body has any occasion to rob him, in order to 1/ protect himagainst his will. 5. That the only security men can have fortheir political liberty, consists in their keeping their money intheir own pockets, until they have assurancea, perfectly satisfac-tory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used,for their benefit, and not for t~eir injury. 6. That no govern-ment, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or rea-sonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longerthan it depends wholly upon voluntary support.

These facts are all so vital and so self-evident, thnt it cannotreasonably be supposed that an) one will voluntarily pay moneyto a 1/ government, for the purpose of securing its protection,unless he first makes an explicit and purely voluntary contractwith it for that purpose.It is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor

such payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody'sconsent, or obligation, to support the Oonstitution. Oonsequentlywe have no evidence at all that the Oonstitution is binding uponanybody, or that anybody is under any contract or obligationwhatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation tosupport it.

2


18/59

8

IVThe C onstitu tion no t .on l J bltuu nobod J flOW bu t it 1lever did bind

an Jbody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreedto hy any bod) in such a manner as to make it, on general prin-ciples of law and reason, binding upon him.

It is a general principlo of law and reason, that a writteninstrument binds no one uutil he has signed it. This principle isso inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write hisname, he must still make his ruark, before he is bound by awritten contract. This custom was established ages ago, whenfew men could write their names; when a c1erk- that is, aman who could write - was 8 rare and valuable a person, thatevenif be were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon,on the ground that the-public could not afford to lose his services.Even at that time, a written contract must be signed j and menwho could not write, either made their mark, or signed theircontracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parch.ment on which their contracts were written. Hence the cus-tom of affixing seals, that bas continued to this tj.me.

The law holds, and reason declares, that if a written instru-ment is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to bebound hy it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it.And law and reason both give him until the last moment, in whichto decide whether lie will sign it, or not. Neither law nor reasonrequires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it i,written; for until it is written, h13cannot know its precise legalmeaning. And wben it is written, and- he luis had the oppor-tunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is thenexpected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it ornot. Aud if be do not then sign it, his reason is supposed tobe, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract. Thefact that the instrument was wl'ittenfor him to sign, or with thehope that be would sign it, goes for nothing.


19/59

9Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party

could bring into court a written instrument, without any signa-tu re , and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it waswritten for another man to sign? that this other man had prom-ised to sign it? that he ought to. have signed it? that he hadhad the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had re-fused or neglected to do so? yet that is the most that couldever be said of the Constitution.* The very judges, who professto derive all their authority from the Constitution - from aninstrument that nobody ever signed - would spurn any otherinstrument, not signed, that should be brought before them foradjudication.

Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, notonly be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or tosome one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bindthe party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the in-strument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty torefuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it.He is as free to refuse to deliver it, as he is to refuse to sign it.The constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but itwas never delivered by anybody to anybody, or to anybody sagent or attorney. Itcan therefore be of no more validity as acontract, than can any other instrument, that was never signedor delivered.

vAs further evidence of the general sense of mankind, as to tho

practical necessity there is that all men's important contracts,especially those of a permanent nature, should be both writtenand signed, the following facts are pertinent.

The very men who drafted It, never signed it in any way to bind them-selves by it, as a contrac t . And not one or them probably ever would haveSigned it in any way to bind hlmsel by it, as a contrac t .


20/59

20For nearly two hundred years-that is, since IGi7- there has

been on the statute book of England, and the same, in substance,if not precisely in letter, has been re-enacted, and is now in force,in nearly or quite all the States of this Union, a statute, thegeneral object of which is to declaro that no action shall bebrought to enforce contracts of the more important class, unlestltey are IJu t in w liting , and signed y the p artie , to be lte ld c harge-able 'I Ipo n th em .* '

The principle of the statute, be it observed, is, not merelythat written contracts shall be signed, but also that all con-.

I have personally examined the statute books of the followIng States,viz.: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia,North Caronna, South Caronna, Georgia, FlorIda, .Alabama, Mississippi,Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illlnols, Wisconsin, Texas,.Arkansal , Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, CaUfor-nia, and Oregon, and find that in all these States the English statute hasbeen re-enacted, sometimes with modifications, but generally enlarging itsoperations, and Is now in force.

The following are some of the provisions of the Massachnsetts statute:.. No action shall be brought In any of the following cases, that is to say:.. To charge a person upon a speclal promise to answer for the debt, de-

fault, or misdoings of another: .. Upon 0. contract for the sale of lands, tenements, hereditaments, or ot

any interest In, or concerning them iorUpon an agreement that Is not to.be perfcrmed wlthln one year from thewriting thereof:

.. Unless the promise, contract, or agreement, upon which such action isbrought, or some memorandum or note thereof, Is In wrltJng, a~d signedby the po.rty to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto by himawfully authorized: .. No contract for the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise, for the price

of lln.y dollars or more, shall be good or valid, unless 'the purchaser ac-cepts and receives part of the goods so sold, or gives something Inearnestto bind the bargain, or in part payment ior unless some note or memoran;dum Inwriting of the bargain Is made and slgned by the party to bcharged thereby, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully author-ized.


21/59

2tracts, except those specially cx~mpted - generally those tbatare for small amounts, and are to remain in force but for a shorttime - sha ll be bo th w ritten and s ig n ed .

The reason of the statute, on this point, is, that it is now soeasy a thing for men to put their contracts in writing, and signthem, and their failure to do so opens the door to so much doubt,fraud, and litigation, tbat men who neglect to have their con-tracts - of any considerable importance - written and slgned,ought not to have thebenefit of courts ofjustice to enforce th-em.And this reason is a wise one j and that experience has confirmedits wisdom and necessity, is demonstrated by the fact that it hasbeen acted upon in England for nearly two hundred years, andhas been so nearly universally adopted in this country, and thatnobody thinks of repealing it.

We all know, too, how careful most men are to have theircontracts written and signed; even when this statute does notrequire it. For example, most men, if they have money due them,of no larger amount than five or ten dollars, are careful to takea note for it. If they lIuy even a small bill of goods, paying forit at the time of delivery, they take a receipted bill for it. Ifthey pay a small balance of a book account, ~r any other smalldebt previously contracted, they take a written receipt for it.

Furthermore, the law everywhere (probably) in our country,as well as in England, requires that a large class of contracts,such as wills, deeds, etc., shall not only be written and signed,but also sealed, witnessed, and acknowledged. And in the caseof married women conveying their rights in real estate, the law,in many States, requires that the women shall be examined sepa-rate and apart from their husbands, and declare that they signtheir contracts free of any fear or compulsion of their husbands.

Such are some of the precautions which the laws require, andwhich individuals - fl'om motives of common prudence, even incases not required by law - take, to put their' contracts in writ-ing, and have them signed, 0 ., to guard aga:nst all uncertainties


22/59

22and controversies in regard to their meaning and validity. .Andyet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to he a.contract - the Constitution - made eighty years ago, by menwho are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind I S but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three gene-rations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it iiiclaimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come;but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, oracknowledged; and which few persons, compared with thowhole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read,or even seen, or ever will read, or see. .Andof those who everhave read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps notwo, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means.

Moreover, this supposed contract, which would not be receivedin any court of justice sitting under its authority, if offered toprove a debt of five dollars.owing by one man to another, is one bywhich- as it is g en era ll J in te rp re t d by th os e w lw p re te nd to ad m in -is ter it - al] men, women and children throughout the country,and through all time, surrender ~ot only all their property, butalso their liberties, and even lives: into the hands of men- whoby this supposed contract, are expressly made wholly irrespon-sible for their disposal of them. .And we are so insane, or sowicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fight-ing to compel men to fulfil a supposed contract, which, inasmuchas it has never been signed by anybody, i~,on general princi-ples of law and reason - such principles as we arc all governedby in regard to other contracts - the merest waste paper, Lind.ing upon nobody, fit only to be thrown into the fire; or, if pre-served, preserved only to serve as a witness and a warning ofthe folly and wickedness of mankind.

VI.It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the

Constitution - no t Q.3 I in terp re t it, bu t as it is in te preled y those


23/59

23who pretend to administer it - the properties, liberties, and livesof the entire people of the United States are surrendered unre-servedly into the hands of men who, it is provided tty the Con.stitution itself, shall never be t questioned as to any disposalthey make of them.

Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Scc. G) provides that, for anyspeech or debate [or vote,] in either house, they [the senatorsand representatlres] shall not be questioned in any otherplace.The whole law-making power is given to these senatorsand representatives, [when acting tly a two-thirds vote] ;andthis provision protects them from all responsibility Ior the lawsthey make.

Tho Constitution also enables them to secure tho executionof all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salariesof, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers,who refuse to execute them.Thus the whole power of tho gorernmcnt is in their hands,and they arc made utterly irresponsible for the use they make ofit. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?It is no answer to this dew of the case to say that these men

nrc under oath to usc their power only within ccrtain Iimits ; forwhat care they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits,when it is expressly provided, by the Constitution itself, thatthey shall never be /Iquestioned, or held to any responsibilitywhatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits?

Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say thatthe particular individuals holding this power can be changedonce in two or six years] for the power of each eet of men isabsolute during the term for which they hold it; and when theycan hold it no longer, they are succeeded only by menwhose powerwill be equally absolute and irresponsible.

And this two-thirds vote may-be but two-thirds of 1 1 . quorum - that Istwo-thirds of a majority - instead or two-thirds of the whole.


24/59

24Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say

that the men holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be.men chosertby the people (or portions of them) to hold it. Aman is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose anew master once in a term of years. Neither are a people anythe less slaves because permitted periodically to choose newmasters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are,and are ahyo.ys hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose powerover them is, and always is to be, absolute and Irresponsible,The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the rightof property, and the right of property is the right of absolute,irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one neces-sarily implying the other. Neither can exist withou~ the other.If, therefore, Congress have that absolute B:ndirresponsible law-making power, which the Constitution - according to their in-terpretation of it - gives them, it can only be because they ownus as property. If they own us as property, they are our mas-ters, and their will is our law. If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of noauthority oyer us.

But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irre-sponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claimeither to be our masters, or to own us as property. 'l'hey saythey are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives.But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. Noman call be my servant, agent, attorney, .or representative, andbe, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsi-ble to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointedhim, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrol-lable by m~,and irresponsible to me,he is no longer my servant,agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irre-* or what appreciable value is it to any man, as an Individual, that he Isallowed a voice In choosing these publllCmasters? nis voice is only one

or several millIons.


25/59

25sponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. IfI gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I madehim my master, 'and gave myself to him as a slave. ,:\nd it is ofno importance whether I called him master or servant, agent orowner. The only question is, what power did I put into his,hands? Was it. an absolute and irresponsible one? or a lim-ited and responsible one?

For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents,attorneys, nor representatives. And that reason is, that we do notmake ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is m'y ser-vant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsiblefor all his acts done within the limits of the power I have in-trusted to him. If I have intrusted him, as my agent, witheither absolute power, or any power at all, over the persons orproperties of other men than myself, I thereby necessarily makemyself responsible to those other persons for any injuries be maydo them, so long as he acts within the liI:Ditsof the power I havegranted him. But no individual who may be injured in his per-son or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individualelectors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pre-tended agents of the people, of everybody, are really tbe agentsof nobody.

If, then, nobody iii individually responsible o r the acts of Con-gress, the members of Congress are nobody's agents. And ifthey are nobody's agents, they are themselves individually re-sponsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom theyemploy. And the authoritJ they are exercising is simply theirown individua~ authority; and, by the law of nature - the high-est of all laws - anybody injured by their acts, anybody whois deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the sameright to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold anyother trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right


26/59

26to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any othertrespassers.

VII.It is 'plain, then, that on general principles of law and reason

- such principles as we a.11act upon in courts of justice and incommon life - the Constitution is no contract; that it bindsnobody, and never did bind anybody; and' that all those whopretend to act by its authority, are really acting without anylegitimate authority at all; that, on 'general principles of lawand reason, they are mere usurpers, and that everybody notonly has the right, hut is morally bound, to treat them as such.If the people of this country wish to maintain such a govern-

ment as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in theworld why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thusmake known their wishes in an open, authentic manner ; insuch manner as the common sense and experience of mankindhave shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; andin such manner as to make themseltes (al t/tc1jought to do) indiiid-ualb] responsible for the acts o f the got'ernmcnt. But the peoplehave neve~ been asked to sign it: And the ouly reason whythey have never been asked to sign it, has been that it has beenknown that they never would sign it; that they were neithersuch fools nor knaves as they must needs have been to be will-ing to sign it; that (at least as it has been practically inter.preted) it is not what any sensible and honest man wants forbimself; nor such as he has any right to impose upon others.It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligationas the compacts which robbers and thieves and pirates enterinto with each other, but never sign.

If any considerable number of the people believe the Oonsti-tution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and makelaws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all


27/59

27other pc~sons (who do not interfere with them) in peace ? Un-til they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can theyhave tho face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recom-mend it t01others? Plainly the reason for such absurd and in-consistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solelyfor any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves orothers, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it givesthem over the persons and properties of others. Dut for thislatter reason, all their eulcglums on the Constitution, all theirexhortations, and all their expenditures of money and blood tosustain it, would be wanting.

VIII.The Constituti~n itself, then, being of no authority, on what

authority docs our government practically rest? On whatground can those who pretend to administer it, claim the rightto, seize men's property, to restrain them of their natural libertyof action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who dp.nytheir au-thority to dispose of men's properties, liberties, and lives at theirpleasure or discretion?

The most they can say, in answer to this question, is, that somehalf, two-thirds, or three-fourths of the male adults of the countryhave a tacit understanding that they will maintain a 'governmentunder the Constitution; that they will select, by ballot, the per-sons to administer it; and that those persons who may receive amajoritj, or a plurality, of their ballots, shall act as their repre-sentatives, and administer the Constitution in their name, andby their authority.

But this tacit understanding (admitting it to exist) cannot at11.11ustify the conclusion drawn from it. A tacit understandingbetween A, B, and C, that they will, by ballot, depute D astheir agent, to deprive me of my property, liberty, or life, can-not at a 11authorize D to do so. He is none the less a robber,tyrant, and murderer, because he claims to act as their agent,


28/59

28. than he would be if he avowedly acted on his own responsibillty

alone. .Neither am I bound to recognize him as their agent, nor can

he legitimately claim to be their agent, when he brings no wri t -te n authority from them accrediting him as such. I am under noobligation to take his word as to who his principals may be, orwhether he has any. Bringing no credentials, I have a right to sayhe has no such authority even as he claims to have : and that heis therefore intending to rob, enslave, or murder me on his ownaccount.

This tacit understanding, therefore, among the voters of thecountry, amounts to nothing as an authority to their agents,Neither do the ballots by which they select their agents, avail anymore than does their tacit understanding; 'for their ballotsare given in secret, and therefore in a way to avoid any personalresponsibility for the acts of their agents.

Nobody of men can be said to authorize a man to act as theiragent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in soopen and authentic a manner as to make themselves personallyresponsible for his acts None of the voters in this country.appoint their political agents in any open authentic manner, orin any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts.Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to bereally agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts ofthese pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open andauthentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in lawor reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applieshere, that what does not ap pear, does not exist. If they canshow no principals, they have Done.

But even these pretended agents do not themselves knowwho their pretended principals are. These latter act in secret;for acting by secret ballot is acting in secret as much as if theywere to meet in secret conclave in the darkness of the night. Andthey are personally as much unknown to the agents they select,


29/59

29as they are to others. No pretended agent therefore can everknow by whose ballots he is selected, or consequently who hisreal principals. are. Not knowing who his principals are, hehas no right to eay that he has any. He can, at most, say onlythat he is the ~ge~t of a secret band of robbers and murderers,who are bound by that faith which prevails among confederatesin crime, to stand by him, if his acte, done in their name, shall beresisted.

Men honestly engaged in attempting to establish justice in theworld, have no occasion thus to act in secret; or to appoint agentsto do acts for which they (the principals) are not willing to beresponsible.

The secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secretgovernment is a secret band of robbers and murderers. Opendespotism is better than this. The single despot stands out inthe face of 0.11men, and says: I am the State: My will is law:I am your master: I take the responsibility of my acts: The onlyarbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If anyone denies my right,let him try conclusions with me.

But a secret government is little less than a government ofassassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, untilthey have struck, and perhaps not then. fle may guess , before-hand, as to some of his immediate neighbors. But he reallyknows nothing. The man to whom he would most naturally flyfor protection, may prove an enemy, when the time of trial comes.

This is the kind of government we have; and it is the onlyone we are likely to have, until men arc ready to say: We willconsent to no Constitution, except such an one as we arc neitherashamed nor afraid to sign; aud we will authorize no govern-ment to do any thing in our name which we are not willing tobe 'personally responsible for.


30/59

30

IX.What is the motive to the secret ballot? This, and only this:Like other confederates in crime, those who use itare not friends,but enemies j and they are afraid to be known, and to have theirindividual doings known, even to each other. They can con-trite to bring about a sufficient understanding to enable them toact in concert against other persons; but beyond this they hareno confidence, and no friendship, among themselves. In fact,they are engaged quite as much in schemes for plundering eachother, as in plundering those who are. noi of them. And it isperfectly well understood among them that the strongest partyamong them will, in certain contingencies, murder each other bythe hundreds of thousands (as they lately did do) to accomplishtheir purposes against each other. Hence they 'dare not beknown, and have their individual doings known, even to eachother. And this is avowedly the only reason for the ballot: fora secret government; a government hy secret bands of robbersand murderers. And we are insane enough to call this liberty ITo be a member of this secret band of ro bbers and murderersis esteemed a privilege and an honor IWithout this privilege,a . man is considered. a slave; but with it a free manIWith ithe is considered a free man, because he has the same power tosecretly (by secret ballot) procure the robbery, enslavement,and murder of another man, that that other man has to procurehis robbery, enslavement, and murder. And this they call equalrights IIf any number of men, many or few, claim the right to govern

the people of this country, let them make and sign an opencompact with each other to do so. Let them thus make them-Iselves individually known to those whom they propose to govern,And let them thus openly take the legitimate responsibility oftheir acts , How many of those who now support the Constitu-tion, will ever do this? How many will ever dare openly pro-


31/59

3claim their Tight to govern? or take the legitimate responsibilityof their acts? Not oneI

x.It is obvious that, on general principles of law and reason,

there exists no such thing as a government created by, or restingupon, any consent, compact, or agreement of the people of theUnited States with each other; that the only visible, tangible,responsible government that exists, is that of a few individualsonly, who act in concert, and call themselves by the severalnames of senators, representatives, presidents, judges, marshals,treasurers, collectors, generals, colonels, captains, &c'1 &c.On general principles of law and reason, it is of no importancewhatever that these few individuals profess to be the agents andrepresentatives of the people of the United States ; since theycan show no credentials from the people themselves; they werenever appointed as agents or representatives in any open authen-tic manner; they do not themselves know, and have no meansof knowing, and cannot-prove, who their principals (as they callthem) are individually; and consequently cannot, in law orreason, be said to have any principals at all.

It is obvious, too, that if these alleged principals ever did ap-point these pretended agents, or representatives, they appointedthem seer etly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all per-sonal responsibility for their acts; that, at most, these. allegedprincipals put these pretended agents forward for the most crim-inal purposes, viz.: to plunder the people of their property, andrestrain them of their liberty; and that the only authority thatthese alleged principals have for so doing, is simply a tacit un-derstanding among themselves that they will imprison, shoot, 1hang every man who resists the exactions and restraints whichtheir agents or representatives may impose upon them.

Thus it is obvious that the only visible, tangible government we


32/59

32have is made up of these professed agents or representatives of asecret band of robbers and murderers, who, to cover up, or glossover, their robberies and murders, have taken to themselves thetitle of u the people of the United States j and who, on the pre-tence of being u the people of the United States, assert theirright to subject to their dominion, and to control and dispose ofat their pleasure, all property and persons found in the UnitedStates.

XI.On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which

these. pretended agents of the people take /I to support the Con-stitution, are of no validity or obligation. And why? Forthis, if for no other reason, viz. tl .a t they are g iven to nobody.There is no privity, (as the lawyers say), - that is, no mutualrecognition, consent and agreement - between those who takethese oaths, and any other persons.

If I go upon Boston Common, and in the presence of a hun-dred thousand people, men, women and children, with whom Ihave no contract on the subject, take an oath that I will enforceupon them the laws of ~Ioses, of Lycurgus, of Solon, o Justi-nian, or of Alfred, that oath is, on general principles of law andreason, of no obligaticn, It is of no obligation, not merely be-cause it is intrinsically a criminal one, bu t a lso bec au se it is g ivento nobo~y, and consequently pledges my faith to nobody. It Ismerely given to the winds.

It would not alter the case at all to say that, among thesehundred thousand persons, in whose presence the oath was'taken, there were two, three, or five thousand male adults, whohad s ec re tly - by secret ballot, and in a way to avoid makingthemselves individually known to me, or to the remainder of thehundred thousand - designated me as their agent to rule, con-trol, plunder, and, if need be, murder, these hundred thousand


33/59


34/59

34formal nianner, either openly or secretly, their choice or wish onthe subject. The mo~t that these members of Congress cansay, in favor of their appointment, is simply this: Each onecan say Ior himself:. I have evidence satisfactory to myself, that there exists, scat-

tered throughout the country, a Land of men, having a tacit uu-derstanding with each other/and calling themselves the peo-ple of the United States, whose general purposes are tocontrol and plunder each other, and all other persons in thecountry, and, so far as they can, even in neighboring countries;and to kill every man who shall attempt to defend his personand property against their schemes of plunder and dominion.Who these men are, individual ly , I have no certain means ofknowing, for they sign no papers. and give no open, authenticevidence of their individual membership. They are not knownindividually even to each other. They are apparently as muchafraid of being individually known to each other, as of beingknown to other persons. Hence they ordinar i ly have no modeeither of exercising, or of making known, their individual mem-borship, otherwise than by giving their votes secret l } for certainagents to do their will. Dut although these men are individu-ally unknown, both to each other and to other persons.jt isgenerally understood in the country that none Lut male persons,of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, can be members.It is also generally understood that all malo per:sons, born in thecountry, having certain complexions.und (in some localities) cer-tain amounts of property, and (in certain cases) even personsof foreign birth, are permi t ted to be members. But it appearsthat usually not more than one-half, two-thirds, or, in somecases, three-fourths, of all who are thus permlued to becomemembers of the band, ever exercise, or consequently prove, theiractual membership, in. the only mode in which they ordinarilycan exercise or prove it, viz., by giving their votes secret ly forthe officers or agents of the band. The'number of these secret


35/59

35votes, so far as we hare any account of them, varies greatlyfrom year to year, thus tending to prove that the band, insteadof being a permanent organization, is a merely pro tem po-re affairwith those who choose to act with it for the time being. Thegross number of these secret vote~, or what purports to betheir gl'OSSnumber, in different localities, is occasionally pub.hshed. -WhethCl' these reports are accurate or not, we have nomeans of knowing. It is generally supposed that great fraudsare often committed in depositing them. They are understoodto be received and counted by certain men, who are themselvesappointed for that purpose by the same secret process by whichall other officers and agents of the band are selected. Accord-ing to the reports of these receivers of votes (for whose accu-racy or honesty, however, I cannot vouch), and according to mybest knowledge of the whole number of male' persons in mydistrict, who (it Is supposed) were permitted to vote, it wouldappcar that one-half two,thirds or three-fourths actually didvote. Who the men were, indidduall /. who cast these votes, Ihave no knowledge, for the whole thing was done secretly. Butof the secret votes thus given for what they call a member ofCongress, the receivers reported that I had majority, or atleast a larger number than any other one person. And it is onlyby virtue of such a designation that I am now here to act in con-cert with other persons similarly selected in other parts of thecountry. It is understood among those who sent me here, thatall the persons so selected, will, on earning together at the Cityof Washington, take an oath in each other's presence ,; to sup-port the Constitution of the United States. By this is meanta certain p3per that was drawn up eighty years ago. It wasnever signed by anybody, and apparently has no obligation, andnever had any obligation, as a contract. In fact, few personseyer read it, and doubtless much tho largest number of thosewho voted for me and the others, never even saw it, or nowpretend to know what it means. Nevertheless/it is often spoken


36/59

36of in the country as the Constitution of the United States jand for some reason or another, the men who sent me here,seem to expect that I, and all with whom I act, will swear tocarry this Constitution into effect. I am therefore ready to takethis oath, and to co-operate with all others, similarly selected,who are ready to take the same oath.

This is the most that any member of Congress can say inproof that he has any constituency; that he represents any-body; that his oath t to support the Constitution, i8 given toanybody , or pledges his faith to anybo dy . He has no open,written, 01 other authentic evidence, such as is required in allother cases, that he was ever appointed the agent or representa-tive of anybody. He has no written power of attorney fromany single individual. He has no such legal knowledge as isrequired in all other cases, by which be can identify a singleone of those who pretend to have appointed him to representthem.Of course his oath, professedly given to them, t to support theConstitution, is, on general principles of law and reason, anoath given to nobody. It pledges his faith to nobody. If hefails to fulfil his oath, not a single person can como forward,and say to him, you have betrayed me, or broken faith with me.

No one can come forward and say to him: 1 appointed youm y attorney to act for me. I required you to swear that, as m yattornej; you would support the Constitution. You promisedm e that you would do 8 ; and now' you have forfeited the oathyou gave to m e. No single individual can say this.

No open, avowed, or respoaslble assoclation, or body of men,can como forward and say to him ~ W e appointed you our attor-ney, to act for us. ire required you to swear that, as our attor-ney, you would support the Constitution. You promised Uthat you would ,do so; and now you have forfeited the oath yougave to us.

No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men,


37/59

37can say this to him; because there is no such association orbody of Olenin existence. If anyone should assert that thereis such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it.Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authenticcontract, signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselvesinto an association; making themselves known as such to theworld; appointing him as their agent; and making themselvesindividually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, doneby their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can saythat, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; orthat he is their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them ;or ever pledged his faith to them.

On general principles of law and reason, it would be a suffi-cient answer for him to say, to all individuals, and all pretendedassociations of individuals, who should accuse him of a breach offaith to them:

I never knew you. Where is your evidence that you, eitherIndlvidually or collectively, ever appointed me you r attorney?that you ever required me to swear to you, that, as you r attorney,I would support the Constitution? or that I have lIOW brokenany faith I ever pledged to you ? You may, or you may not, bemembers of that secret band of robbers and murderers, who actin secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot; who keepthemselves individuall l unknown even to the agents they thusappoint; and who, therefore, cannot claim that they have anyagents; or that any of their pretended agents ever gave hisoath, or pledged his faith, to them . I repudiate you altogether.~Iy oath was given to others, with whom you have nothing todo; or it was idle wind, given only to the idle winds. Begone I

XII.For the same reasons, the oaths of all the other pretended

azents of this secret band of robbers and murderers are. ono


38/59

38general princlples of law and reason, equally destitute of obli-gation. They are given to nobody; but onl1 to the winds.The oaths of the tax-gatherers and treasurers of the band, arc,on general principles of law and reason, of no validity. If anytax gatherer, for example, should put the money be receives intohis own pocket, and refuse to part with it, tho members of tbisband could not say to him : You collected that money as ouragent, and for ou r uses; and you swore to pay it over to u s, orto those we should appoint to receive it. You have betrayedus, and broken faith with U

H would be a sufficient answer for him to say to them:I never knew you. You never made yourselves individual ly

known to me. I never gave my oath to you, as individuals.You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band, whoappoint agents to rob and murder other people; but who arecautious not to make themselves individually known, either tosuch agents, or to those whom their agents are commissioned torob. If you are members of that band. you have giv~n me noproof of it, and you have no proof that you ever commissionedme to rob others for your benefit. I never knew you, as indi-viduals, and of course never promised' you that I would payover to you the proceeds of my robberies. I committed my rob-beries on my own account, and for my own profit. If yonthought I was fool enough to allow you to keep yourselves con-cealed, and use me as your tool for robbing other persons; orthat I would take all the personal risk of the robberies, and payover the proceeds to you, ) OU were particularly simple. As Itook all the risk of my robberies, I propose to take all the pro-fits. Begone 1 You are fools, as well as villains. If I gavemy oath to anybody, I gave it to other persons than you. ButI really gave it to nobody. I only gave it to the winds. Itanswered my purposes at the time. It enabled me to get themoney I was after, and now I propose to keep it. If you ex-pected me to pay it over to you, you relied only upon that honor


39/59

39that is said to prevail among thieves. You now undcrstan.lthat that is a very poor reliunce, I trust you may become wiseenough to never rely upon it again. If I have any dut ) in t h o )matter, it is to give back the money to those from whom I tookit; not to pay it over to such villains aa JOu.

XIII.On general principles of law and reason, 1 1 1 e oaths which for.

elgners take, 011 coming here, anti being naturalized (as it iscalled), arc of no validity. They are necessarily given to nobody;because there is no open, authentic association, to which theycan join themselves] or to whom, as individuals, they can pledgetheir faith. No suc,h association, or organizatlon, as the peo-pIe of the United States, having ever been formed by any open.written, authentic, or voluntary contract, there is, on generalprinciples of law and reason, no such association, or organiza-tion, in existence. .And all oaths that purport to be given tosuch an associatlon are necessarily given only to the wlnds,They cannot he said to be given to any man, or body of men, asindivlduals, because no mau, or body of men, can come forwardwit l t any proof that the oaths were given to them, as individuals,or to any association or which they are members. To say thatthere is a tacit understanding among a . portion of the maleadults of the country, that, they will call themselves the peopleof the United States,' and that thcy will act in concert in sub-jecting the remainder of the people of the United States to theirdominion j but that they will keep themselves personally co~-cealed by doing all their acts secretly, is wholly insufficient, ongeneral principles of law andreason, to prove the existence ofany such association, or organization, as the people of thoUnited States; or consequently to prove that the oaths of for.cigners were given to any such association.


40/59

40

XIV.On general principles of law and reason, all the oaths which,since the war, have been given by Southern men, that they willobey the laws of Congress, support the Union, and the like, areof no validity. Such oaths are invalid, not only because theywere extorted by military power, and threats of confiscatlon,and because they are in contravention of men's natural right todo as they please about supporting the government, but also be-cause they were given to nob,dy. They were nominally given tothe United States. But being nominally given to the UnitedStates, they were necessarily given to nobody, because, on gen-eral principles of law and reason, there were no United States,to whom the oaths could be given. Tha.t js to say, there wasno open, authentic, avowed, legitimate association, corporation,or body of men, known as the United States, or as the peo-ple of the United States, to whom the oaths could have beengiven. If anybody says there was such a corporation, let himstate who were the individuals that composed it, and how andwhen they became a corporation. Were Mr A, Mr. B, andMr. C members of it? If so, where are their signatnres?Where the evidence of their membership? Where the record?Where the open, authentic proof? There is none. Therefore,in law and reason, thoro was no such corporation.

On general prlnciples of law and rea~on, every corporation,asaociation, or organized body of men, having a legitimate corpo-rate existence, and legitimate corporate rights, must consist ofcertain known individuals, uho can prote, by legitimate and rea-so na ble e vid en ce, th eir membersh ip , But nothing of this kind canbe proved in regard to the corporation, or body of me~, whocall themselves the United States. Not man of them, inall the Northern States, can prove by any legitimate evidence,such as is required to prove membership ill other legal corpora-tions, that he himself, or any other man whom ho can name, is


41/59

a member of any corporation or association called t the UnitedStates, or IIthe people of the United Siates, or, consequently,that there is any such corporation. And since no such corpo-ration can be proved to exist, it cannot of course be proved thatthe oaths of Southern men were given to any such corporationThe most that can be claimed is that tho oaths were given to asecret band of robbers and murderers, who called themselvesthe United States, and extorted those oaths. But that cer-tainly is not enough to prove that tho oaths are of any obliga-tion.

xv.On general principles of law and reason, the oaths of soldiers,

that they will serve a given number of years, that they willobey the orders of their superior officers, that they will beartrue allegiance to the government, and so forth, are of no obli-gation. Independently of the criminality of an oath, that, for ngiven number of years, he will kill all whom he may be com-manded to kill, without exercising his Own judgment or con-science as to the justice or necessity of such killing, there isthis further reason why a soldier's oath is of no obligatlou, viz.that, like all the other oaths that have now been mentioned, it ilg ixen to nobody . There being, in no legitimate sense, any suchcorporation, or nation, as the United States, nor, consequently,in any legitimate sens~, any such government as the govern-mont of the United States, a soldier's oath given to, or contractmade with, such nation or government, is necessarily an oathgiven to, or a contract made with, nobody. Consequently suchoath or contract can be of no obligation.

XVI.On general principles of Jaw and reason, the treaties, so

called, which purport to be entered into with other nations, by


42/59

42certain persons calling themselves ambassadors, secretaries,presidents, and senators of the United States, in the name, andon behalf, of the people of the United States, are of no valid-ity. These so-called ambassadors, secretaries, presidents, an~senators, wlio claim to be the agents of. the people of theUnited States, for making these treaties, can show no open,written, or other authentic evidence that either the whole t peo-ple of the United States, or any other open, avowed, responsi-ble bolly of men, calling themselves by that name, ever author-ized these pretended ambassadors and others to make treatiesin the name of, or binding upon anyone of, t the people of theUuited States. Neither can they show uny open, wrltten, orother authentic evidence that either the whole t people of theUnited States, or any other open, avowed, responsible body ofmen, calling themselves by that name, ever authorized thesepretended ambassadors, secretaries, and others, in their nameand behalf, to recognize certain other persons, calling themselvesemperors, kings, queens, and the like, as the rightful rulers,sovereigns, masters, or representatives of the different peopleswhom they assume to govern, to represent, and to bind.

The t nations, as they are called, with whom our pretendedambassadors, secretaries, presidents and senators profess tomake treaties, are as mucb myths as our own. On generalprincipTes of law and reason, there are no such Unations.That is to say, neither the whole people of England, for exam-ple, nor any open. avowed, responsible body of men, callingthemselves by that name, ever, by any open, written, or otherauthentic contract with each other, formed themselves into anybona fi de, legitimate association or organization, or authorizedany king, queen, or other representative to make treaties in theirname, or to bind them, either individually, or as an association,by such treaties.

Our pretended treaties, then, being made with no legitimateor b on a fid e nations, or representatives of nations, and being


43/59

made, on our part, by persons who have no legitimate authorityto act for us, have intrinsically no more validity than a pre-tended treaty made by the Man in the Moon with the king ofthe Pleiades.

XVII.On general principles of law and reason, debts contracted ill

the name of tho United States, or of tho people 0 1 theUnited States, are of no validity. It is utterly absurd to pre-tend that debts to the amount of twenty-five hundred millions ofdollars are binding upon thirty-five or forty millions of people,when there is not a particle of legitimate evidence - such aswould be required to prove a private debt __ th1.t can be pro-duced against any one of them, that either he, or his properlyauthorized attorney, ever contracted to pay one cent.

Certainly, neither the whole people o f the United States, norany number of them, ever separately or individually contractedto pay a cent of these debts.

Certainly, also, neither the whole people ot the United States,nor any number of them, ever, by any open, written, or other au-thentic and voluntary contract, united themselves as a firm. cor-poration, or association, by the name of the United States, or the people of the United States, and authorized their agents tocontract debts in their name.

Certainly, too, there is in existence no such firm, corporation,or association as the United States, or the people of the UnitedStates, formed by nny open, written, or other authentic and vol-untary contract, and having corporate property with which topay these debts.

How, then, iii it possible, on any general principle of law orreason, that debts that are binding upon nobody individually,can be binding upon forty millions of people collectively, when,on general and legitimate principles of law and reason, these


44/59

44forty millions of people neither have, nor erer had, nny corpo-rate property 7 never made any corporate or individual contract 7and neither have, nor ever had, any corporate existence 7

Who, then, created these debts, in the name of the UnitedStates? n Why, at most, only a few persons, calling themselves members of Congress, &c. who pretended to represent thepeople of the United States, but who really represented only 0.secret band of robbers and murderers, who wanted money tocarryon the robberies and murders in which they were thenengaged; and who intended to extort from the future people ofthe United Stales, by robbery and threats or murder (and realmurder, if that should prove necessary), the means to pay thesedebts.

This band of robbers and murderers, who were the real prin-cipals in contracting these debts, is a secret one, because itsmembers have never entered into any open, written, avowed, orauthentic contract, by which they may be individually known tothe world, or even to each other. - Their real or pretended rep-resentatives, who contracted these debts in their name, were se-lected (if selected at all) for that purpose secretly (by secretballot), and in a way to furnish evidence against none of theprincipals ind io idua l ly ; and these principals were really knownindividual ly neither to their pretended representatives who con--tractcd these debts in their behalf, nor to those who lent themoney. The money, therefore, was all borrowed and lent inthe dark j that is, by men who did not sec each other's faces, orknow each other's names j who could not then, aud cannot now,identify each other as principals in the transactions; and whoconsequently can prove no contract with each other.

Furthermore, the money was all lent and borrowed for crim-inal purposes; that is, for purposes or robber and murder; andfor this reason the contracts were all intrinsically void; andwould have been so, even though the real parties, borrowers and


45/59

45lenders, had come face to face, and made their contracts openly,in their own proper names . Furthermore, this secret band of robbers and murderers, whowere the real borrowers of this money, having D O legitimatecorporate existence, have no corporate property with which topay these debts. They do indeed pretend to own large tractsof wild lands, lying between the .Atlantic and Pacific Oceans,and between the Gulf of Mexico and the North Pole. But, ongeneral principles of law and reason, they might as well pre-tend to own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans themselves; or theatmosphere and the sunlight; and to hold them, and dispose ofthem, for the payment of these debts.

Having no corporate property with which to pay what pur-ports to be their corporate debts, this secret band of robbersand murderers are really bankrupt. They have nothing to paywith. ~n fact, they do not propose to pay their debts other-wise than from the px:oceedsof their future robberies and mur-ders. These are confessedly their sole reliance; and wereknown to be such by the lenders of the money, at the time themoney was lent. .And it was, therefore, virtually a part of thecontract, that the money should be repaid only from the pro-ceeds of these future robberies and murders, For this reason,if for no other, the contracts were void from the beginning.

In fact, these apparently two classes, borrowers and lenders,'Werereally one and the same class. They borrowed and lentmoney from and to themselves. They themselves were not onlypart and parcel, but the very life and soul, of this secret bandof robbers and murderers, who borrowed and spent the money.Individually they furnished money for a common enterprise;taking, in return, what purported to be corporate promises forindividual loans. The only excuse they had for taking theseso-called corporate promises of, for individual loans by, thesame parties, was that they might have some apparent excusefor tho future robberies of the band {that is, to pay the debts of


46/59

46the corporation), and that they might also know what sharesthey were to be respectively entitled to out of the proceeds oftheir; future robberies.

Finally, if these debts had been created for the most inno-cent and honest. purposes, and in the most open and bonestmanner, by the real parties to the contracts, these parties couldthereby have bound nobody but themselves, and no propertybut their own. They could have bound nobody that shouldhave come after them, and no property subsequently created by,01 belonging to, other persons.

XVIII.The Constitution having never been signed by anybody; and

there being no other open, written, or authentic contract be-tween any parties whatever, by virtue of which the UnitedStates government, so called, is maintained; and it being wellknown that none but male persons, of twenty-one years of ageand upwards, arc allowed any voice in the government; and itbeing also well known that a large number of these adult per.sons seldom or nevcr vote at all; and that all those who doTote, do so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to preventtheir individual votes being known, either to the world, or evento each other; and consequently in a way to make no one openlyresponsible for the acts of their agents, or representatives, - allthese things being known, the questions arise: Who composethe real governing power in the country? Who are the men,th e r es lJo nsib le m en , who rob us of our property? Restrain us ofour liberty? Subject us to their arbitrary dominion? Anddevastate our homes, and shoot us down by the hundreds of thou.sands, if we resist? How shall we find these mell? How shallwe know them from others? How shall we defend ourselves-and our property against them? Wbo, of our neighbors, aremembers of this secret band of robbers and murderers? How


47/59

47can we know which are their houses, that wo may burn or do-molish them? Which the ir property, that we may destroy it?Which the ir persons, that we may kill them, and rid the worldand ourselves of such tyrants and monsters?

These are questions that must be answered, before men canbe free ibefore they can protect themselves against this secretband of robbers and murderers, who now plunder, enslave, anddestroy them.

The answer to these questions is, that only those who havethe will and the power to shoot down their fellow men, are thereal rulers in this, as in all other (so called) civillzed countries ifor by no others will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved.

Among savages, mere physical strength, on the part of oneman, may enable him to rob, enslave, or kill another man.Among barbarians, mere physical strength, on the part of a bodyof men, disciplined, and acting in concert, though with very littlemoney or other wealth, may, under some circumstances, enablethem to rob, enslave, or kill another body of men, as numerous,or perhaps even more numerous, than themsel

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	neqyyvfk
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

The Constitution of No Authority

Documents