Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/424

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
412
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY.

Other privileges opposed to the ancient liberties of Englishmen, and void.[1] The abuses were again revived by Charles I., and almost every article consumed by the common people was placed under control of irresponsible monopolies.

Thus the struggle went on until the people finally succeeded in setting aside the royal prerogative by the Revolution of 1688. The bill of rights contained no express declaration against monopolies; but it was made impossible for the king to grant them, and the act passed in the latter part of the reign of James I. was thus again made operative.

The English bill of rights was the model for the sections of American constitutions bearing the same title. The gist of these declarations was that the people had a right to security in their persons, property, and privileges. All else was but elaboration of this. In some form or other declarations of rights were made by all the colonies long before the Revolution, some even preceding the English declaration.[2] In 1765 delegates from nine colonies met in New York and published a declaration of the rights of the people to inherent privileges of Englishmen.[3] Again, in 1774, delegates from all the colonies, except Georgia met in the first Continental Congress and issued a declaration based upon the English model and explicitly claiming the benefits of the common law of England, and of such English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization and which had been found applicable to local circumstances. The Declaration of Independence soon followed this with similar claims; and most of the states then and thereafter organized incorporated bills of rights in their constitutions, though several of the earliest constitutions omit such formal declarations altogether.

Formal declarations of fundamental principles of government have doubtless served an important purpose and are still far from valueless. But there is much truth in the statement made by Mr. Kent in his "Commentaries," that "we weaken greatly

  1. 21 Jac. I. c. 3—"Act concerning Monopolies, and Dispensations with Penal Laws and the Forfeitures thereof."
  2. As that made by Virginia in 1624, and that by Maryland in 1638.
  3. Marshall's Life of Washington, II., 90.