of individuals possessing a definite organization in the nature of a governing authority which is recognized as having the authority to issue commands which are legally binding upon individuals, and, presumably, enforceable when necessary by the collective strength of the group. What special characteristics, whether of sovereignty or of less autonomous and inherent powers, must be possessed in order that, in the strictest sense of the word, a political body may be termed a State, will receive later consideration. But, for the purpose of this chapter, we shall deal with the legally supreme, or sovereign, state. An organized group of individuals, thus viewed as a political unit, may be regarded from several standpoints, and, as viewed from each of them, be termed a State. Thus, considered collectively, the individuals who constitute the group may be said to form or to be the State. In this sense the civitas, or citizen body, or body-politic, is said to constitute the State, concretely or substantially viewed. Or, still regarded as a concrete or substantive being, the State is said to be the people and their government, together with the territory over which their primary and paramount political jurisdiction extends. Or, finally, the State may be regarded from an abstract point of view as an entity or concept of juristic thought. As thus viewed the State is spoken of as a Person. This envisagement of the State as a legal person is perhaps the central concept of juristic political thinking and it will therefore be necessary to examine with some degree of care the exact sense in which this idea is employed. And, in order to do this, we shall have first to consider the meaning attached by the jurist, in general, to the term Person.

Legal Personality. It is unfortunate that the word Person as a technical term, should have found lodgement in jurisprudence, for the idea connoted by it is quite

distinct from the meaning attached to it by the moralist or psychologist, and, this difference not being steadily kept in mind, much confusion of thought has resulted.

To the moralist or psychologist a person is a living being, with reflective powers, capable of self-consciousness, that is, of conceiving of itself as an entity with interests and desires of its own, and with a continuous individuality distinct from that of other similar beings, of being able to exercise a will, and, therefore, to determine its conduct according to deliberate judgments, to appreciate distinctions between good and evil, and, as a result, to feel, or have imputed to it, a moral responsibility for all such acts as are within its own control.

This psychological and moralistic conception of a person as a being capable of reflection, judgment and volition, and to whom moral responsibility may be imputed, is of course of significance to the jurist in so far as he attempts to measure legal by moral rights and duties. This, however, relates to the substance of the law and not to its essential juristic character. To the jurist a law states a rule of conduct which, as made compulsory upon individuals, imposes upon them legal obligations, and, as guaranteeing to them conduct upon the part of other individuals or of the State itself, which the State, through its political power, will enforce, endows them with legal rights. Those beings or entities which the law recognizes as capable of possessing rights and obligations of this kind are termed Persons, and, when they make use of their legal powers, they are spoken of as exercising their legal will.

Things. Thus the jurist makes a fundamental distinction between a Person and a Thing. "A Thing is, in law, some possible matter of rights and duties conceived of as a whole and apart from all others, just as, in the world of common experience, whatever can be separately

perceived is a thing."2 It may be corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, but it is always, in the eyes of the law, something which can be brought into relation with Persons, that is, of interest to them in some way, and these interests, as defined and protected by the law, provide the substantial basis for the rights and duties which these persons possess or have laid upon them. Thus, the human individual who is a person in the psychological or ethical sense, and who, in other respects, may also be treated by the law as a legal person, may, at the same time, be treated as a thing when brought into relation to other legal persons. For example, a slave so far as he is treated as the property of his master, or a serf, so far as he is bound to serve his superior, is viewed as a thing. So also in a legal action to recover damages for injuries to a wife or child or apprentice, or to obtain possession of them if they are detained by someone else, the wife or child or apprentice is, quoad hoc, viewed as a thing. That is, the suit is instituted not in pursuance of a right of the wife or child or apprentice, but of the right of the husband, father, parent, or master.3

Persons. It is thus seen how technical is the use in jurisprudence of the term Thing. Similarly technical and formalistic is the legal conception of Person. Beings who in all other realms of thought, are spoken of as Persons may not be such in the eyes of the law, as, for example, in the case of a slave over whom his owner has full proprietary rights, and who has no rights which the law recognizes and which, at his instance, the State will enforce; and also, as we have just seen, beings who for many purposes are treated by the law as persons, may, in other

"Pollock, First Book of Jurisprudence, chap. VI.

Sheldon Amos, The Science of Law, chap. VI. Holland (Jurisprudence, p. 83) defines a Thing as "the object of a right, that is, whatever is treated by the law as the object over which one person exercises a right, and with reference to which another person lies under a duty."

respects, be regarded as things. But, more than this (and here we approach the sense in which the State is spoken of as a person), what is ordinarily spoken of as a thing, is often viewed by the law as a person, and rights and duties attributed to it. Furthermore, this is done not only with regard solely to tangible but also to intangible things, and to groups of individuals and things regarded, for the purpose in view, as unities. Thus, all the pieces of property of an estate may, as a matter of legal convenience, be treated as a person, that is, be regarded as possessing legal rights and as resting under legal obligations which can be determined and enforced by actions in law brought by or against it as such. The same may be done in the case of a particular fund of money.

sup

When a legal personality is ascribed to a human being he is spoken of as a natural person, which, it may be posed, is a recognition of the fact that the individual is also a person in a moral, or psychological sense. When legal personality is attributed to what, in other than legal respects is known as a thing, or when this personality is held to attach to a group regarded as a unity or entity distinct from its constituent members, and with legal rights and duties distinct from those of these members, the resulting legal person is spoken of as an artificial person. In truth, however, the legal personality of the so-called natural person is as artificial as is that of the thing or group which is personified. In both cases the character or attribute of personality is but a creation of the jurist's mind, a mere conception which he finds it useful to employ in order to give logical coherence to his thought.*

One of the best discussions of the juristic conception of component personality is that of Michoud. The word "person" as he properly says, in juristic literature indicates an entity capable of possessing or having imputed to it legal rights and obligations-"Le mot signifie simplement

Corporate Persons. The most important of the legal persons which are not also natural persons are what are known as Corporations. These, as is well known, are regarded by law as deriving their existence and legal rights and duties from the State which charters or incorporates them. Regarded as such entities, they may sue or be sued, hold property and enter into contractual relations in their own names, and maintain a continued existence independently of who may happen to own their shares or stock. Furthermore, for the most part, though not always, the law does not hold these shareholders individually responsible for its acts, nor upon the other hand, are their acts, as individuals, though joined in by them all, ordinarily held to be acts of the corporation. In these and other ways the personality of the corporation, as distinct from that of the individuals constituting it, is asserted and maintained. Thus we find the term Corporation defined by Black in his Law Dictionary, as follows:

"An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a particular office [the "corporation sole"], but ordinarily consisting of an association of numerous individuals who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded un sujet de droit, un être capable d'avoir des droits subjectifs lui appartenant en propre,-rien de plus, rien de moins. Pour savoir si certains êtres répondent à cette définition, il ne faut donc pas examiner si ces êtres constituent des personnes au sens philosophique du mot. Il faut se demander seulement s'ils sont de telle nature que des droits subjectifs doivent leur être attribués. Indirectement sans doute, la notion de personnalité philosophique pourra influer sur celle de personnalité juridique. Nous montrerons plus loin que le législateur peut y trouver un motif pour donner à tout être humain la qualité de sujet de droit. Mais rien ne prouve a priori que les deux notions cöincident, et que cette qualité de sujet de droit ne puisse être appliquée à d'autres qu'à des hommes." (La theorie de la personnalité morale, vol. I, p. 7.)