inseparable from citizenship. Our own Supreme Court has decided more than once that a man may be a citizen, clothed with all the rights and immunities of citizenship, without being a qualified elector. Besides, the individual citizen who might be temporarily excluded from the privileges of the ballot, would have all the more powerful incentive to qualify himself to become a voter; and where education is practically free, and the avenues of honorable industry are open to all, he could hardly fail to attain to the requisite standard. But if he be without ambition, and be idle and shiftless beyond redemption, then no mere political or partisan contrivance, nor any amount of mere class legislation, can ever fit him for participation in the affairs of government.

Are these thought to be visionary and impracticable views, plausible in the abstract, but impossible in practice? That they will be so characterized by demagogues is to be expected; for demagogues cannot be expected to favor any measure of reform the declared purpose of which is to lessen their power and influence. Therefore the wishes of demagogues will have to be disregarded if we would make an honest effort at reform; and a little reflection ought to convince honest but timid men of the popular error that universal suffrage has been firmly incorporated as a principle in our Federal Constitution. Each of the states in the Union is still competent, and exclusively competent, to fix its own standard of suffrage. The only restriction imposed by Articles XIV. and XV. is that suffrage shall be impartial. There must be no discrimination "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Persons unfit to participate in the affairs of government may be legally excluded from the privilege of the ballot; but so long as Article XV. remains unrepealed, the line of exclu

sion must be drawn without reference to race or color distinctions.

It is true that by Article XIV. of the Constitution "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States "; and there is a clause which prohibits any state from making or enforcing "any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." But what is meant by the terms" privileges or immunities"? They are not new in the Constitution. They were there eighty years before Article XIV. was adopted, or even thought of; and, according to our Supreme Court decisions, the terms do not relate to the question of suffrage at all, but only to civil and social rights. Thus, women have all the "privileges and immunities" incident to citizenship, but women are not and never have been voters. Moreover, the qualifications of electors is still as much a matter for the particular state to determine as it ever was. Any state may disfranchise its citizens—that is, citizens of the United State residing within its borders - for any cause it may see fit, except only for "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The state would thereby lose a corresponding portion of its numerical representation in the lower House of Congress and in the presidential electoral college. But in compensation for this, it would gain in the character and ability of its representation; and experience has shown that a few able and experienced men of affairs count for more in practical legislation than any number of fools. Besides, the state's quota in the Senate would not be changed; there would still be two Senators for each state. Since, therefore, the reform indicated would involve no violation of the Constitution, would impair no rights that are incident to citizenship, and would give us bet

ter government by constitutional methods, there would be nothing revolutionary about it. It would be merely the exercise of an undisputed prerogative of the state, guaranteed by the great fundamental law of the Union itself.

But even if, in order to save whole communities from anarchy, it should be found expedient to abrogate (by means provided in the Constitution) the amended Article XV. of the fundamental law, what then? All government is more or less experimental; and that form of government is best which is best adapted to the wants and conditions of those who live under it. Constitutions must grow, must be evolved by experience. Revisions, abrogations, and amendments become necessary as conditions and circumstances change. And if, after a fair trial of more than a quarter of a century, an article or a provision of our written Constitution has been found to be a blunder, it is the province of true statesmanship to recognize the error and seek the legal and orderly means of correcting it.

A

CHAPTER X

DEMOCRACY IN SOUTH AMERICA

S early as 1790 a sentiment of discontent with monarchic rule began to manifest itself in Cara

cas and Carthagena, and soon extended to the interior cities of Bogotá and Pamplona. The project of independence and autonomous government was even then freely discussed, and had attracted some attention in the United States and in Europe. It was, however, confined to a small circle of educated men who were hopelessly in advance of local public sentiment, and was easily stifled by the blood of a few victims.

Some years later, when the scheme was again revived, several of the more prominent leaders were banished from the country, and found refuge in Italy. At Rome they met the British ambassador, who offered them asylum in London. England and Spain were then at enmity; and the government at London probably cared less for the fate of the refugees than for the overthrow of a régime which had excluded British trade from South America. At any rate, hating Spain rather than loving an abstraction, the British ministry did not hesitate to encourage sedition and rebellion in the Spanish-American colonies.

Very soon, however, there was a treaty of "peace and amity" between Spain and England which was well calculated to discourage the South American patriots; although, despite this treaty, it was alleged

that they continued to receive secret assurances of sympathy from Great Britain. But the malcontents of Colombia and Venezuela had already begun to look elsewhere for substantial aid, and were soon encouraged from another quarter. The quixotic schemes of the French democrats had just been proclaimed, whereby it was proposed to reform the politics of the world in general, and, in particular, to republicanize old Spain and emancipate all her American colonies. But the hopes thus inspired were suddenly doomed by the tragic end of the French Republic; and, amid the shifting scenes of European politics, England was again in a position to be appealed to by the Spanish-Americans. They proposed to declare the colonies independent of Spain on condition of a loan of a large sum of money, to be returned in easy instalments after independence should be acknowledged. By the terms of this proposal, England was to have absolute freedom of the isthmian ports and transit; and there was to be established, besides, such a connection between the Bank of England and the colonial commercial houses as would give British merchants and carriers a monopoly of the trade of the country.

But the negotiations failed, or rather were suspended by the sudden renewal of hostilities in Europe; and the patriots were again disappointed. The masses of their people at home were generally indifferent, and the cause of independence now seemed hopeless. Even as late as 1808, when it was again revived, and more generally agitated than before, the extreme apathy and indifference of the masses gave little hope of immediate results. Centuries of political and ecclesiastical vassalage had accustomed them to habits of obedience, and if they had ever realized the depths of their humiliation, they seemed hopeless of any change for the