[The following is the concluding chapter of the essay on government, its aims, sphere and tendencies, by Mrs. Woodhull, the female candidate for the Presidency:]

There are no circumstances existing within the range of government which are deleterious to the conditions among which they are found that do not come within the sphere of its control. If it were attempted to enumerate all such conditions, a very large proportion existing would come in for mention. Special reference will be made to such only as are represented by crime, indigence, helplessness and perverseness. While government has its duty to perform regarding all these, in their relations to society in general and the public welfare, it must not be lost sight of that they form a part of the general public, and, as such part, it has a duty to render even to them and to the relations they sustain as individuals to other individuals.

The criminal is not only the son and brother, but often the husband and father. Though he may have, by some act, forfeited the guarantee of liberty government extends to the people, he has not thereby sundered family relations, responsibilities and duties. It is the duty of government to foster these, while protecting public welfare by preventing the criminal from pursuing his course of individual freedom at the expense of the freedom or happiness of other individuals or the public. In this view penitentiaries should not be what they are, but should be changed into vast workshops, where the convicted may labor at some not altogether distasteful employment, to the same end that he should labor when free. The theory of punishing crime is not all that should be taken into consideration regarding the criminal. As now practiced it is exceedingly doubtful whether the State does not do the individual greater injustice than he has done the public. The State should pursue such a course as is perfectly clear from injustice, such as can conscientiously be held as committing no crime against the criminal. To render to him what and only what he has rendered another is maintaining the old Mosaic rule of “an eye for an eye,” which in these latter times should be obsolete. The world has risen from the condition of Mosaic times by the experience of thousands of years. Fear was the only controlling power then. Should it be so now? Prevention is better than remedy; besides, there is no such thing as remedy for crime already committed. The criminal can by no possible means—nor can the State—undo the wrong. Reparation in most cases is impossible, but should be rendered, wherever possible. It becomes, then, the chief duty of the State to prevent the recurrence of wrong by putting such restraint upon those who are inclined to it as will effectually prevent their inclinations finding expression.

Supposing that all living persons who have ever committed any infringement upon the rights, liberties or privileges of others of sufficient moment to warrant preventative means being applied were restrained from mingling with the public, what would be the ratio of decrease in crime? These persons have trespassed upon the public welfare and it must be protected from further trespass. It is the duty of the State to see this done. At the same time the means of prevention must be such as shall not encroach upon the culpable one’s rights further than such prevention actually requires. As a member of society he has forfeited to society, to a certain extent, the freedom of expressing his privileges and rights as an individual, by the infringement upon the privileges and rights of another individual, also a member of the same society; and for this, society is in duty bound to restrain him. It only requires that the present universally adopted theory, that crime is against the people and not the individual suffering, be carried to its legitimate sequences to teach the proper limitation to this restraint. Having arrived at that, it remains for the State to concede every other individual privilege to him.

It should be his right and privilege to labor and receive its full recompense, to which the State should have no right, further than the cost of his maintenance. The profits should be given those dependent upon him, or should go toward reparation for the damages done by him. He should have the privilege of amusement, should have access to a public library and the daily news. His whole restraint should be made as nearly as possible analagous to the every-day life of a useful citizen. He should no longer be the condemned criminal, but the member of society whom the public welfare requires shall be restrained from following the freedom his proclivities indicate.

There is another class of individuals who, either from circumstances beyond their control, from indolence, from incapacity, from settled habits or from perverseness, do not perform sufficient labor to maintain themselves and families in a condition that renders them useful members of society. Society suffers more or less from all the different representatives of this class. They must live, and society must, in some manner, furnish the means to them of living. If it is not earned, it is begged or stolen. There are those also who, being too honest to steal and too proud to beg, suffer untold privations. All who would cannot obtain remunerative occupation, or that which they are suited to perform. To all of these as members of society, as a part of the people, government owes a duty. Society, of which they are a part, owes them the necessities of life, even if it be compelled to force them to earn them. It cannot be made the duty of individual members of society to look after the amelioration of these conditions. It is a general condition growing out of the relations of all its members, and hence becomes a governmental function, not only so far as they, as a class, are concerned, but also to protect individuals of other classes from being made to bear the burdens of them, either by voluntary contributions or from the impositions of beggary and theft. Every one who has attained proper age, and is possessed of moderate health, is capable of performing sufficient service to support him or herself, and by so doing is a useful member of society, because contributing to the sum total of its productions. If he cannot obtain employment, society should supply it to him. If he will not labor, society should compel him. If he cannot labor, society should maintain him. Were this practice once instituted, the dens of infamy and vice, the sink-holes of crime and disgrace, the pest-houses of disease, and the crammed-to-suffocation attics and cellars of our large cities, would be emptied of their occupants, and they be made useful, instead of, as now, iniquitous members of society. They are a dead weight society has to carry. It is a duty society owes them and itself to compel them to assist in maintaining its general progress. The same principle that applies to the criminal should also include them. The general influence they exert upon society is even worse than that of the downright criminal—for where the criminal is one they number thousands. If it is necessary for the interests of the people that he who steals a hundred dollars should be restrained of his liberty—and it is the sphere of government to do it—how much more would it be for its interests to transpose these leeches upon the vitality of society into producing members of it? As a subject wherein the public welfare suffers, it is strictly within the sphere of government. Other citations of unprofitable members of society could be made, but sufficient has been alluded to to indicate the general limits and sphere of government when considered philosophically. The evidences of a perfect government must not be sought among the most powerful and useful members of society, but among the very lowest classes. A good government can have no classes so low in the scale of development or use as to be detrimental to its interests. And here is the test of governmental perfectability. If the United States, as a nation, occupies any superior or conspicuous position in prophecy which is to make it representative—if it is the point around which consolidation into universal government is to begin, and from which control shall revolve until the world is its object—it becomes the imperative duty of our statesmen and legislators to extend the sphere of government until its limits are bounded by nothing that is detrimental to the general welfare of the people. Such government, and such only, can be enduring while becoming universal.

VICTORIA C. WOODHULL, 44 Broad Street.

THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT.

NO. I.

Government being an organization of power, and power always presupposing action, motion, it becomes a matter of the gravest importance to a people who are formulating a government that they should lay hold of the highest sources from which action can spring—that is to say, as all action is the result of some prime motor power, to have action which will proceed in perfect channels, producing harmonious motion, it is primarily essential that the motor, or moving or controlling force, shall be of that character which in expression will move majestically yet sympathetically against all opposition, always having in view the fact that the presence of low forms of any development is detrimental to all higher forms with which they come in contact, either directly or through exerted influence.