Our constitutions are founded upon individualism and they make prominent the theory that to the individual should be granted all the rights consistent with public safety; and our development is chiefly attributable to the firm establishment and maintenance of those rights by an authorized resort to the courts for their protection against all hostile legislation which is not required by considerations of the public health or safety.

Speaking of the opportunities which may be presented and offered for the expenditure of public money in cities governed by home rule charters, and the necessity for limiting and curbing extravagance, Shauck, J., said, page 95, State v. Lynch, supra: "Obviously there are far-reaching laws which cannot be annulled by statutes or constitutional amendments." This is a broad assertion, for it in fact means that the people, in their sovereign capacity, are above the constitution and above laws; and that there are certain well defined sociological principles which can not be ignored without involving the state in common ruin.

What are these laws of which Justice Shauck speaks? They are social and economical, the law of competitive forces, the law of individualism, of laissez faire, the law of supply and demand, and among others including the law of diminishing returns and the law of compensation. The laws of competition are as immutable as the laws of matter. Every individual has an indefeasible right to use his powers and faculties or forces as he may deem best, not inconsistent with the general welfare, the test being, to what extent can each citizen be permitted to have freedom of action without injury to all the rest? In the social order we find three clashing, warring instincts or forces, individual egoism, social affection (altruism) and state ambition. If man is to progress and social order survive, it is supremely essential that no one of these forces shall destroy the other. It is a lesson of history that at intervals there appear misguided, discontented spirits, often benign and socialistic, who dream "of a fixation of relative values by governmental regulation." Their activities are often justifiable, for competition is at times fierce and cruel; but they fail to recognize that it is a law of life which cannot be destroyed without a social debacle destructive of law and order. The desire of man to achieve is the motive power of the social world. Its suppression means social inactivity, stasis and death. Mind is the supreme law of human destiny, and to mind left entirely free to act along competitive lines may be traced the progressive development of humanity. That order is best, then, where there is harmonious co-operation between the instincts of egoism, social affection and state ambition. As the individual is the raw material from which society is created, the least restraint placed upon his activities the better for the general welfare. Whatever belongs exclusively to the domain of individual effort should be left free, and government should only occupy itself with those necessary things and activities beyond the power of the individual to achieve and which he can not obtain without its aid. Ignoring immutable laws, many legislative and social schemes have been tried for the alleviation of poverty by seeking to divert or override these laws. But we should not forget that the social highway is littered with the blasted hopes of these human aberrations. While charity is a moral duty and a sacred virtue to be sedulously encouraged and fostered, charity is certainly not a legal obligation.

If it is conceded that the people should be given free music and free lectures on art, because the tendency of these things is toward higher idealities, hence better civilization, where will the line of demarkation be drawn? Surely, to properly feed and house a people will promote health, peace and contentment. Shall food, raiment and shelter be provided free to all who demand them? This may seem an extreme view, but there is a growing tendency to demand state assistance observable everywhere. The tendency, unless checked, will inevitably lead to a demand for "that system which would have economic relations regulated as far as possible by the state, and which would substitute state help for self help." Obviously this means state socialism, which, if carried to its logical sequence, would seek to establish a world of utopian fancy for a world of reality, a dream world, in which the individual is to be absorbed and swallowed by a collective being and become a mere cipher, a mere cog or pulley in the social machinery.

The object of society should be to give value to the individual. If he is sacrificed to society, he becomes a mere cipher and dependent, without initiative or ambition, wholly useless unless as he may be used by a power superior to himself. We should not forget that the value of society is measured by the value of those who compose it. In a society left free to follow the laws of its nature, there is, as there is in the individual, an instinct of progress as well as an instinct of preservation. These instincts are generally at war with each other, but both are essentially necessary to human development, and the destruction of one involves a destruction of the other, which simply means that while the individual should not be sacrificed to society, neither should society be immolated to the individual. Order and progress we must encourage, foster and promote, but, on the other hand, we must avoid the world of magic fancy, the maze of altruistic speculation more confusing than the labyrinth of Amenemhat, the uselessness of which invited destruction by practical forces and the gnawing teeth of time.

This leads us to the question of government, its functions, powers and limitations. Is the erection of a public hall for auditorium and exposition purposes by the city of Cleveland a function of government? If so, it will be admitted by all who have given the subject attention that the government function has been pushed to the extreme limit beyond which there is peril and danger. Whatever may be said of government, this must be admitted: it has never possessed sovereign power completely. An inherent power remains in the people which imposes on government impassable limits. In its widest sense, a government is the ruling power in a state, or the political subdivision of a state. The legislative and judicial departments are fairly well defined. The administrative department is more difficult of definition, though it may be said to include all state activity not included in the other two departments; but the limits of this state action are difficult to define. Still more difficult of definition is the answer to the question, what should the state do for the citizen, and to what extent may the state interfere with the activities of the citizen?

It may be assumed that the consensus of opinion, based upon the experience of mankind, is a general presumption against state interference, except the necessity therefor be real and great. The powers of the state are already so dominant that individual freedom and personal liberty are constantly in danger. In the nature of things there must be some assignable limits to the power of the state. We have already intimated that this limit is passed when the state seeks to do for the individual that which he can voluntarily do himself. The laissez faire maxim--let alone, or do not govern too much--is a good one to follow and keep in mind. Hence the state should not engage in private enterprises or competitive activities. Wherever and whenever government has sought to direct the activities of the citizen, the result was disastrous. "It is an eternal experience that every man who has power is inclined to abuse it." (Montesquieu.) There are two schools of thought on this subject, those who seek to curtail and those who seek to enlarge governmental activity or power. Between the two there is a common middle course upon which all should agree. There are many careful and thoughtful jurists who incline to the belief that the primary duty of government is to protect, that is, to maintain the rights of its citizens to life, liberty and property. This is the basic idea of the Declaration of Independence.

It is significant that our Constitution thus commences by specifying those things which the State government must not do, before specifying certain things that it may do. These Declarations of Rights -- those omitted as well as those above quoted, have cost much, and breathe the spirit of that sturdy and self-reliant philosophy of individualism which underlies and supports our entire system of government. No race of hot-house plants could ever have produced and compelled the recognition of such stalwart set of basic principles, and no such race can preserve them. They say to arbitrary and autocratic power, from whatever official quarter it may advance to invade these vital rights of personal liberty and private property, "Thus far shalt thou come, but no further." They constitute a limitation upon the powers of each and all the departments of the State Government. Thus no department, not even the legislative, has unlimited power under our system of government. These declarations even limit to some extent, the exercise of the tremendous, but inherent and well established, powers of taxation and eminent domain.

Comrade Whoopie wrote:Welcome DT's B. It's good to have another person in the Collective who is as capable of assassinating the English language as our beloved Fraulein.