Some States require that deeds executed in another State for property within itself, shall be acknowledged before a notary, while another requires a commissioner of deeds; and still another the certificate of some Court of Record that the notary is duly appointed, &c. The difficulties that arise from this condition of things are of such magnitude as scarcely to be conceived of by those who have never experienced them; nor can they be adequately presented in the limited space of this article. It is, however, held to be apparent, that if a general bankrupt and election law is to be preferred to thirty-seven different ones, general laws upon all other subjects are also preferable. It is a logical conclusion that the “public welfare” would be promoted if Congress should pass general laws for the whole country, to cover all cases and causes that are general to the whole country, leaving for the States such legislation only as can have no application outside of their individual limits.
It is not surprising that well instructed jurists of foreign countries have no faith in our existence as a consolidated nation. They argue, that it is impossible of a country containing so many internal sources of discord and differences. “A house divided against itself cannot stand” they hold to equally apply to nations. If this has stood thus long and prospered, it by no means follows that it will always stand and prosper; but the inference is, that sectional interests will be the source of continual disturbances and revolutions, until some great sectional interest shall become powerful enough to separate itself from the rest of the country and to defy its power successfully. In view of that consideration, should not the attention of Congress be called to the fact that it is its inferred duty, at least, to enact all laws that will promote the public welfare? And to this end it should inquire how the public welfare is suffering from the neglect thus far practised, that the remedy may be applied.
If it is found that its power under the Constitution to remedy such evils is doubtful, amendments granting it should be at once proposed and submitted. Whatever opposition there might be on the part of present State Legislatures and officials the people will welcome any measure looking to the eradication of the cause of internal agitation. It cannot be that patriotism is to pass away entirely, though it appears to be nearly submerged by the rising tide of individual selfishness. Let it arouse itself and consider whether there be not room for exercise in the direction indicated, and whether it is not better to prevent disaster than to repair damages. The example of Louis Napoleon is an excellent one to follow. Nor should patriotism be blinded by the mere name of freedom and justice, sounded so loudly to cover the deformities practised under their shelter.
In many directions, this is eminently an analytic age. Let the fruits of government be submitted to the crucible. Many of them would be found not only hollow, but basely deceptive. It is well enough to cry peace when war rages, but the crying will not bring it. It is well enough to laud the freedom of the land, but why not make the direct inquiry to find how much of it is real, and how much is fancied freedom, not to say genuine slavery? It is well to assert that justice holds sway everywhere, but those who have had most occasion to find it, must hold their peace lest the fair delusion be dispelled. Let the peace that is cried, the freedom that is lauded and the justice that is asserted, be subjected to the test of analysis, that it may be really known what principles enter into their composition. It is much to be feared that when all the dross and foreign substances are separated, and the pure residuum only left, its proportion to the mass submitted would be lamentably small. Still let us have the analysis.
LIMITS AND SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT.
[Revised from the New York Herald of July 4, 1870.]
THE FIFTH PART OF MRS. WOODHULL’S DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT—INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT AS AFFECTED BY GOVERNMENT.
Individual enterprise, especially among Americans, has produced the most wonderful results. Very much of the advancement of the country is directly attributable to it. Great minds have been obliged to operate singly and alone to develop their inspirations, ideas and conclusions. Thousands possessed of comprehensive principles in a semi state of application have sunk with them into obscurity for lack of appreciation and support. In the infancy of the republic, before it was possible for any to catch the idea of its grand destiny, it was not to be expected that any great or general system of interdependence between the government and the people should be adopted. There was a general fear of everything that did not seem to promote that individual freedom which seeks no harmony with the greatest freedom of the whole, while no regard was paid to any philosophic relations of the individual to the whole number of individuals represented by the government. This was intellectual individuality, lacking the harmony of wisdom.
It came after a while that the great enterprises demanded by the rapidly increasing growth of the country could not be conducted by single individuals, and numbers of them combined to carry them out. Rapid means of transit began to be developed, which in many instances redounded to the pecuniary benefit of the company prosecuting them, but always to the general interest of the whole, both as a people and as a government. On the contrary, many enterprises which have proved equally beneficial to the country have ruined those who projected them. Thus the general welfare has been promoted by the sacrifice of individual interests. Especially has this been true of the great system of railroads that binds the nation together with bonds of iron, too powerful, it seems, for any sectional interest ever to sever.
Internal improvements are eminently a legitimate branch of the general government. They are not for the benefit of individuals or sections, but for the benefit of the whole. So true is this that a seemingly purely local government cannot confine its benefits and uses to the section it is located in. Its influence permeates the very extremes of the country. A railroad connecting two cities in the same State may be built. At first glance this would be declared simply and only of benefit to the localities it passes through. But upon close scrutiny a variety of ways develop themselves that must be advantageous to thousands, residing in all parts of the country, and to the government itself. It therefore conduces to the public welfare and convenience in a much more general sense than to sectional or local good. It is therefore entitled to the protection of the government, whose duty it is to look after and promote the interests of the public. Is it entitled to anything more, or does the full duty of the government begin and cease with simple protection?