century culminated in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy; the American movement went far beyond this in a democratic direction. To these changes our attention will now be directed.

In the construction of state constitutions, the monarchic and many of the aristocratic elements found in the British constitution were omitted. The frame of government became more democratic in nature. Privileged aristocracy had never been able to obtain a foothold in the colonies, and 1776 was no time to gain one. Monarchy was identified with George III and the English system of administration, and consequently no place was made for such a governmental feature.

Many expressions of dislike for special privilege and hereditary rank are found in the first constitutions adopted in the states, and no stronger evidence as to the nature of the prevailing sentiment could be given than is offered by these early declarations. Massachusetts, for example, asserted that government is instituted for the common good and happiness of the whole people; - "not for the profit, honor or private interest of any one man, family or class of men." Virginia declared that “ no man or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary."

The democratic environment had rendered special privilege unwelcome, and the legislators were anxious to give the prevailing sentiment constitutional recognition. There still remained a controlling class of gentry, but they possessed no hereditary title, office, or privilege. There had never been anything more than a theory of nobility in America; with the Revolution, even this was swept away and the overwhelming sentiment declared against the institution.1

In the formation of state governments, the doctrine of delegated powers was everywhere prevalent. Assuming that the people were, originally, and continue to be the only source of political power, it follows that all governmental authority is only delegated by the people and is held in trust for them. Governmental authority has no inherent force in itself; it is not the creator, but the creature; it is not the master, nor even the partner of the people, but their agent or servant; it acts in the name of and in behalf of some one else and not for itself. Not only is government the servant of the people, but it is an untrustworthy and unreliable servant. It cannot be given a free hand in caring for the affairs of its master, on the contrary, it must be limited in many ways; it must be checked at every possible point; it must be at all times under suspicion. Otherwise it will cease to

1 Ga., N.C., S.C., Penn., declared against the entailment of estates.

be servant and take the place of the master. Too much emphasis cannot well be laid upon the fear which the "Fathers" had of government. Το them the great lesson of history was, that government always tends to become oppressive, and that it is the greatest foe of individual liberty.

To the end that government may be properly held in check, the "Fathers" developed an elaborate system which it was thought would adequately safeguard the rights of the people. In the first place, government should not be granted much power; in the next place, such powers as were given should be balanced and played against each other; and finally even these powers should be held for short terms only. By these means it was thought that political authority might be kept close to the people from whom it emanates, and by whose grace it stands.

More specifically, it was an opinion of Revolutionary times that government should not be too strongly organized, lest its strength be turned against the people. Hence a large military force was always under suspicion. A standing army was looked upon as a constant temptation to the ruler and a perpetual menace to the citizen. It was necessary for the government to have at its disposal a certain amount of military strength, but this should be kept within strict limits, and in subordination to the civil power. Again, every kind of centralized government was

steadily opposed.

It was believed that liberty was safer in the care of the local communities, where it could be kept under the eye of the people, and any attempt at usurpation be instantly detected and checked. The idea was that the farther the government is removed from the community, the more likely it is to tyrannize over that community. The classic illustration of this would be, of course, the conduct of England toward the colonies. There was, consequently, great jealousy of centralized government within the states, especially in New England, and everywhere there was opposition to a strong government over the states. A perfect expression of this latter feeling was the organization of the central government effected under the Articles of Confederation. Following out the principle of limiting the government as much as possible, there were many restrictions on its action in the state constitutions. In long and eloquent bills of rights notice was served on government not to trespass on certain fields of individual activity. Government must not interfere with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and petition, or freedom of person and property, except through the recognized and prescribed forms of law.

In these various ways, then, a strong effort was made to restrict the government to the minimum of strength: by the subordination of military to civil power, by the decentralization of political author

ity, and by the enumeration of specific guaranties against invasion of personal liberty and property.

In the same connection comes another theory widely entertained by the "Fathers," namely, that of the separation and balance of governmental powers. This doctrine had been formulated by Montesquieu in the Spirit of Laws (1748),1 basing his reasoning, however, on observation of English conditions; both the theory, therefore, and the facts were well known among the Americans. They valued highly the division and balance of powers among king, lords, and commons, and saw in this piece of mechanism the strongest support of English liberty. Consequently they readily accepted and acted upon Montesquieu's theory. They firmly believed that unless the three classes of governmental power-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial — were separated and a distinct organ of government provided for each class, there could be no certainty of political liberty.

In the state constitutions the idea of the separation of powers found the clearest expression. Massachusetts asserted that "in the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers or either of them—to 1 Book XI.