Chapter 18 Chapter 4 About the Constitution-2

Nothing reveals the degradation of the national nobility so much as the disorder which an individual encounter or action throws the nation into;If a government were so constituted that it could not go on working in the House of Lords unless a goose or gander was present, it would cause as much difficulty if the goose or gander flew away or fell ill as a goose being killed. As serious and realistic as being called a king.We tend to laugh at those who ask for it, but fail to see that the most ridiculous things are done by the government. All the constitutions of the United States are based on such a plan, which excludes all the troubles that arise in monarchies.No matter what happens, the government cannot suspend its functions for a moment.Representation is ready for everything, and it is the only institution which enables the state and the government to always express its character.

Just as no individual should be placed in his hands special powers, so no individual should be given public money beyond the value of his service to the nation.Whether a man is called President, King, Emperor, Senator, or any other proper or inappropriate or arrogant title, means nothing but some service that he can do at home; and In the ordinary duties--whether the office be called Sovereign, Presidential, Senate, or any other name or title--no one can contribute more than £10,000 a year in value.All the great services in the world are made automatically by unpaid men; but the daily duties are always adjusted to such a general standard of competence,1 the case of British representation is unreasonable.In almost all represented areas, populations are declining, while in unrepresented areas, populations are growing.Therefore, the need to call a national congress does not take into account the whole situation of the government. --author

②It means "stupid" or "fool". - translator ①It is said that in the canton of Bern in Switzerland, it has been the custom since ancient times to raise a bear at public expense, and to teach the common people to believe that if there is no bear, they will all suffer.A few years ago, this bear died suddenly of illness, and it was too late to be replaced immediately by another bear.During this interruption, the common people found that the crops were plentiful, the grapes were luxuriant, the sun and the moon rose and set as usual, and everything went on as before, and they took courage from this, and resolved not to keep bears; We had to cut off its claws in the past, so that it would not hurt people." When Louis XVI was in flight, some French newspapers mentioned the story of the bear, using it to insinuate the monarchy, which is very popular in France. It is not misleading; but the Berne lords seem to have taken the story to themselves, and the French newspapers have since been forbidden to be read. --author

There are enough people in each country who are competent enough that they cannot be overpaid.Government work is an easy job that many people can fill, Swift said. It is inhumane to take a million pounds a year out of the public tax of a country to feed one man, while millions are forced to pay homage and live withered and wretched for lack of food and clothing.Government does not exist in the contrast between prison and palace, poverty and wealth; government is not established to rob the poor of what they have, and to make the poor worse.But I will talk about this aspect of the problem later, and now I will only limit myself to political investigation.

Once special powers and special rewards are given to any one person in the government, he becomes the center around which various corruptions take place and form.Give a man a million pounds a year, and give him the power of establishing and allocating offices whose expenses are paid for by the state, and the liberty of that state is no longer secure.The so-called splendor of the throne of the emperor is nothing but the corruption of the country.This phenomenon is caused by a bunch of parasites who live a life of luxury and lust on the taxes paid by the public. Once such a criminal system is established, it will become the guardian and protector of all abuses and customs.The man who receives a million pounds a year is the last person to promote innovation, lest he end up being burned himself.It is always his interest to defend vices, as a castle is defended by many fortifications; and in such a political fortress all parts depend on one another.Never expect them to attack each other.Monarchy would not have existed for so many ages in the world if it had not protected various ills.It is the chief liar and shelters all other liars.It made many friends by allowing a share of the spoils; if it did not continue, it would cease to be an idol of courtiers.

As the principle on which the present Constitution is based repudiates all hereditary succession to government, it also repudiates all presumptions of common privilege. If there's any government that's apparently comfortable delegating privilege to any individual, it's the federal government of the United States.The term of office of the President of the United States of America is only four years.Not only does he have the responsibilities of a president in a general sense, but the Constitution provides for a specific way to test him.Anyone under the age of thirty-five cannot be elected president; and must be a native of the country.

Comparing these circumstances with the British Government, the latter appears utterly absurd.In England the man who exercises the privilege is often a foreigner; always a half-foreigner, and always married to a foreigner.He has never had sufficient natural or political ties to this country, is responsible for nothing, and is a man of eighteen; treaties of alliance, and can declare war and make peace without the consent of the people. But the problem doesn't stop there.Though such a person cannot dispose of government as a testator can, he can appoint marriage relations, which in fact accomplish much of the same purpose.He could not gift half the government directly to Prussia, but he could broker a marriage partnership that would have nearly the same effect.In this case, it is fortunate that Britain is not located on the Continent, otherwise it might be like the Netherlands. No matter which problem it comes into contact with, it is almost inevitable that some kind of corruption in the government will be exposed. The simile "fortress" unfortunately involves a situation which is directly related to the matter mentioned above.Of the many vices practiced or protected by government, the greatest, ancient or modern, is that of having the public install a man and his heirs, and maintain them from the public money.Favor demands a ration for the poor; but what moral or political right has the Government to dare say that the Duke of Richmond is to be supported by the public?Yet, if the public reports are true, no beggar in London can buy a pitiful morsel of coal without paying the duke of Richmond's annuity.Even if this tax amounted to one shilling a year, it would still be an unjust principle; and when the total figure was not less than twenty thousand pounds a year, the crime was too serious to be allowed to continue.This is one of the evil effects of monarchy and aristocracy. In stating this, I am not influenced by my personal likes and dislikes.

Though I think it contemptible for anyone to live off the public, the root of the disease lies in the government; and this evil has become so common that it makes no difference whether the parties are in government or not: they are certainly in favor of each other. --author Become the object of the dictatorship of Prussia.Holland was completely ruled by Prussia by marriage, as if by coercion by testament to the government. In the United States, the office of the President (or, as it is sometimes called, the Administrator) is the only public office open to foreigners, and in Great Britain it is the only public office open to foreigners.A foreigner cannot be a member of Congress, but he can be a so-called king.If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it should be from those offices where they are most apt to do wrong, and where the performance of their duties is most assured by a combination of interests and affections.But when the nation undertakes the great business of making a constitution, they scrutinize more carefully the nature and tasks of that branch called the executive.Everyone knows what the legislative and judicial branches are; but, in Europe, what is called the executive, as distinct from the legislative and judicial, is either a political superfluity, or an unnamed mess.

The only thing necessary is to establish a branch for public affairs, which receives reports from all parts of the country and abroad, and submits them to the representatives of the people; but it is unreasonable to call this branch executive; lower level departments.The highest power in any country is the power to formulate laws, and the others are public departments. Having arranged the principles and organization of the several parts of the constitution, the next issue is the treatment of those who are entrusted by the nation to exercise constitutional powers. The state may employ or appoint any man in any branch, but has no right to his time and services free of charge; nor is there any reason to support a man in one branch of government and not another.

Even if appointment to a government office could be considered a sufficient reward in itself, it should be done equally to everyone.If the members of the legislature of a country serve at their own expense, so should the executive, whether called a monarchy, or by any other name.It is unreasonable to give money to one department and let another department make them work for nothing. In America, every branch of government is treated fairly well; but no one is overpaid.Each member of Congress and state legislatures earns enough to cover their expenses.In the UK, however, one department of the government is treated very well, while the other receives nothing. As a result, one department is corrupt and has the means of offering bribes, while the other department is in the position of accepting bribes.Receiving less than a quarter of this expenditure, as is practiced in the United States, would eliminate much of the corruption and bribery.

Another reform of the U.S. Constitution eliminated all oaths of personal allegiance.In the United States the oath of allegiance is only to the country.It is inappropriate to enshrine the individual as the image of the country.The happiness of the nation is the highest aim, and therefore the purpose of the oath must not be taken away by the image or name of any individual.The oath which France calls the civic oath, to "the nation, the law, and the king," is inappropriate.If you want to take an oath, you should only take the oath to the people like the United States.The law may be good or it may be bad; but here it is meant only to promote the welfare of the nation, and so may be included.The rest of the oath is inappropriate, because all personal oaths should be abolished.They are remnants of tyranny on the one hand and slavery on the other; the name of the Creator should not be taken as a witness of the fall of his creatures; , which is redundant here.No matter how you argue about the oath when the government was first established, you will never be allowed to make any oaths in the future.If a government requires the support of an oath, it shows that it does not deserve to be supported, and therefore should not be supported.As long as the government does what it is supposed to do, it can support itself. A final word on this part of the question:—One of the greatest improvements which have been made for the permanent security and advancement of constitutional liberties has been the constant amendment, modification, and addition of new constitutional provisions. The principles upon which Mr. Burke formed his political creed, "Forever restrain and control posterity, and forever deny and renounce the rights of posterity," are now so abhorrent that they are no longer worthy of debate; Therefore, I will not mention it except to expose it a little bit. People are only now beginning to understand government.In the past, it only exercised power, and was not allowed to ask whether it had power, but monopolized power.When the enemy of liberty acts as referee, its advances in principle must be small. The Constitution of the United States, as well as of France, either attaches a time limit for amendment, or lays down a model by which to improve.It may be impossible to have a constitution which combines principles with various opinions and practices, and which will remain unchanged through years of changing circumstances without contradiction; If they hinder reform or cause revolution, it is better to provide some means of controlling these factors when they occur.Human rights are rights enjoyed by generations of people and cannot be monopolized by anyone.Everything worth following is followed because it has value in itself, and it is for this reason that it is secured, and not for any condition that would hinder it.When a man bequeaths property to his heirs, he does not make it conditional on them to accept it. Why, then, do we do the opposite when it comes to the Constitution? The best constitution which can now be contrived to suit present conditions may, in a few years' time, lose much of its superiority.In matters of government, people are generating new ideas like never before.After the barbarism of the existing old government has passed away, the moral standards between nations will change.Man would not be bred to think of his own kind as an enemy to the savage thought, because chance of birth makes men live in countries under different names; Any constitution should seek to benefit from changes in domestic and foreign circumstances. We have seen a change in the mutual national sentiment between Britain and France, which is a revolution in itself if we look back to a few years ago.Who could have foreseen or believed that the French National Assembly should be universally congratulated in England, or that a friendly alliance of these two countries should be a common desire?This shows that if there is no interference from the government, people are naturally friends with each other, and human nature itself is not evil. The jealousy and cruelty provoked by the governments of the two countries for the purpose of taxation are now turning to obey reason , interests and humanity.The dealings of the court were beginning to be seen through, and the masquerades of the occult, with all the sorcery they imposed upon men, were waning.It has been mortally wounded; though it may linger on for a while, it must be destroyed. Government, like everything in the world, ought to be improved from time to time, and yet it has been monopolized through the ages by the most ignorant and wickedest of men.Is there any other evidence to be given of their misgovernment than the heavy borrowings and taxes which the nations cannot bear, and the quarrels which these men throw the world into? The government has just emerged from such a state of barbarism, and it is too early to tell how far it may improve.All we can foresee is that the whole of Europe may form into one great republic, and all men will be free. Chapter 5: Ways to improve the status quo in Europe, and various opinions. When thinking about a subject of such a huge scope that includes the entire field of human beings, it is impossible to limit the thinking to only one aspect.It is based on the various characteristics and conditions that people have, and integrates the individual, the country and the world. The small fire ignited in the United States has ignited a huge flame that cannot be extinguished.It will never be extinguished like the flames of war, burning country after country, conquering silently.One feels that one has changed, but hardly perceives how.He learns his rights by rightly looking after his own interests, and comes to understand that despotism owes its strength and power solely to not daring to resist it, and to "be liberated insofar as it demands it." After having endeavored in the preceding parts of this book to set forth the set of principles upon which government should be built, I shall in this chapter touch upon the manner in which these principles may be put into practice.But in order to make this part of the subject more adequate and more effective, it is necessary to give some preliminary observations which may be deduced from these principles or which are related to them. Whatever the form or organization of government, it should have in common only the general happiness.If government, instead of this, creates and encourages evil in any part of society, it must be founded on a wrong system, and must be reformed. Generally speaking, people's situation is divided into two categories: civilized life and uncivilized life.It describes one as happiness and abundance; the other as misery and poverty.But, whatever prettifications and comparisons may our imagination be subjected to, the truth of the matter is that in so-called civilized countries a large proportion of the population lives in poverty and misery, far worse than that of the Indians.I'm not talking about just one country, but all countries.As it is in England, so it is in the whole of Europe.Let us explore the reasons for this. Not because of any natural defect in the principles of civilization, but because they are not allowed to be universally applied; the result is a continual war and expenditure, which cripples nations and destroys the universality which civilization can bring. happiness. All European governments (with the present exception of France) are founded not on the principles of general civilization, but on the contrary.These governments, so far as they relate to each other, are in that uncivilized and savage state of life which we conceive, free from the laws of God and man, and in principle and mutual conduct as many men are in their primitive state. behaves the same below. The people of every country are easily civilized by the education of the laws, but the government remains uncivilized, and is almost incessantly engaged in wars, which destroy the rich fruits of civilized life, and increase the extent of the uncivilized. expand.The government imposes a barbarism upon the internal civilization of the country, and extracts from it, especially from the poor, the greater part of the income which should be used to maintain their subsistence and comfort.All moral and philosophical points aside, the sad truth is that more than a quarter of the fruits of human labor are wasted annually by this barbaric system. The continuation of this crime is due to the pecuniary advantage of all European governments to maintain this barbarity.It affords governments pretexts for seizing power and taxation which, if civilization spreads everywhere, cannot be exploited or justified. A civil government alone, or a government of law, cannot create many excuses for taxation; for it works under the eyes of the public at home, and there is not much possibility of deceit.This ruled out the possibility of imposing large taxes. But if, in the case of savage strife between governments, the range of pretexts is extended, and the people are no longer able to judge, this opens the door for governments to collect all kinds of taxes at will. The taxes levied in England are not a thirtieth, hardly a fortieth, of those collected for or spent in civil government.It is not difficult to see that all the government actually does in this area is make the laws, and the citizens have to pay more than taxes to enforce and implement them through magistrates, juries, courts, circuit trials. enforce these laws. There are, therefore, two different kinds of government; the one civil government or legislature exercising its powers at home, and the other court or cabinet government exercising its powers abroad according to the brutal manner of uncivilized life; and the other is extravagant; and the difference between the two is so great that, if the latter disappears without a trace due to a sudden landslide, the former remains intact.It will continue to work, because this is in the common interest of the people, and all methods are feasible. The object of a revolution, therefore, is to change the moral face of government, by which the public burden of taxation will be lightened, and civilization will enable the people to enjoy that opulence from which they are now deprived. In order to get the full picture of this problem, I am going to extend my views to the business sector.In all my writings, whenever possible, I have advocated commerce, because I have a fondness for its effects. It is a peaceful system that makes human beings love each other through mutual assistance and mutual benefit between countries and individuals.As for purely theoretical reforms, I have never been in favor of them.What works best is man's interest in improving his situation; and this is the position I take. If commerce were allowed to reach as far as the globe it could, it could uproot the institution of war and cause revolution in the uncivilized state of government.Commerce has been invented since the beginning of those governments, and commerce is the one which, of all means not directly arising from moral principles, has been the most helpful to the attainment of global civilization. Anything that tends to promote people-to-people exchanges between countries through mutual benefit is a topic worthy of discussion like philosophy and politics.Commerce is an increased transaction between two persons; and the laws which nature prescribes for the intercourse of two, prescribe for all as well.To this end she distributed manufactures and commerce in one country, and in remote parts of the world; and as these manufactures could not be obtained so cheaply or easily by war as by commerce, she made commerce the means of abolishing war. As the two are nearly opposites, the uncivility of the governments of Europe is injurious to commerce.Every kind of disruption or obstruction reduces the flow of commerce, and it does not matter from what part of the commercial world the reduction begins.Like blood, when it is withdrawn from any part of the human body, it must be withdrawn from the entire circulatory system, resulting in loss to the whole.When the purchasing power of any country is destroyed, so do the sellers.If the British government can ruin the commerce of all other countries, she most effectively ruins her own. A country may send goods to the world, but cannot be a trader.She cannot be both seller and buyer of her own commodities.Purchasing power must exist outside of herself; therefore the prosperity of any merchant nation is dependent upon the prosperity of the rest.This country cannot become rich if the rest of the countries are poor, and her condition, however it may be, is an indicator of the state of commerce in other countries. That the principle of commerce and its general application can be understood without knowledge of its practice is a position which cannot be denied by common sense; and this is the only position which I take on the subject.Principles are one thing in the counting office and quite another in the world market.As for the application of principle, it must be considered as a thing that comes and goes; its power is only half at home, and the half that destroys abroad actually destroys the whole as if it were directed at home. That half goes; for each side works only through the other. In the last war, as in many wars before it, England's trade fell, because the amount of it fell everywhere; now it rose again, because every country's trade rose.If England imports and exports more at present than ever before, so must the countries with which she trades; her imports are their exports, and vice versa. There is no such thing as a single country in the world being prosperous in trade; she can only participate in the trade among nations; and the disruption of trade in any part must affect the whole.Therefore, in the event of war between nations, it is the common stock of goods that bears the brunt, and the result is as if each nation had launched an attack on its own stock. The present increase of trade cannot be attributed to ministers, or to any political stratagem, but to its own natural function for the sake of peace.The normal market had been disrupted, the channels of trade cut off, the sea routes overrun by brigands of all nations, and the attention of the world turned to other objects.Now these anomalies have ceased, and peace has brought order to what was disturbed. ① It is worth noting that ① in the United States, the proportion of trade growth is greater than that of Britain, and it is at least one and a half times higher than at any time before the Revolution.Before the war began, the number of ships leaving the port of Philadelphia after customs clearance was between eight and nine hundred at most. In 1788, the number rose to more than 1,200 ships.Since Pennsylvania is, each country thinks that the balance of trade is in its favor; this shows that there are differences in the general opinion on the matter. On the balance point of view, however, the argument is sound; and it is for this reason that commerce is generally supported.Every nation feels that commerce is advantageous, or it would abandon it; but the trouble lies in the way of accounting, and in attributing profits to wrong causes. Mr. Pitt often consoled himself by showing what he called the balance of trade from the customs books.Instead of providing a correct law, this method of calculation provides the wrong law. In the first place, every piece of goods that leaves the customs is accounted for as exports; and according to the customs balance, losses at sea and slow sales abroad are all charged to profit, because these goods are accounted for as exports. Second, because goods imported through smuggling are not entered in the customs accounts to be offset against exports. From these papers, therefore, no balance to the highest interest can be drawn; and, if we look at the natural workings of trade, we can see that this idea is false, and if so, would soon be harmful.The greatest support for trade lies in the ability to maintain a balance of interests among all countries. Two merchants from different countries trade together, and both make a fortune, and both make a fortune; neither of them therefore becomes rich from the other;The fact must be that each nation must grow rich from itself, and increase its wealth by exchange of something from another nation. If an English merchant would export abroad a commodity bought at home for a shilling, and import some kind of commodity which would be sold for two shillings, he would earn a shilling; but this profit would not come from foreign or The foreign businessman got it, because the foreign businessman also brewed the goods he received according to the law, so no one took advantage of the other party.The two goods, which were originally worth only two shillings in their respective countries, acquired a new value at twice their original value, and this increased value was shared between the parties. The balance of domestic trade is no different from that of foreign trade.The merchants of London and Newcastle trade on the same principle, as if they belonged to different countries, and profit in the same manner; yet London does not get rich from Newcastle, nor does Newcastle get rich from London; Newcastle's commodities— Coal added value in London, and London commodities increased in value at Newcastle. Though the principles of all trade are the same, from the point of view of a country, the domestic trade is the most profitable; for, for both the buyer and the seller, the whole interest remains at home; foreign trade is only half. The most unprofitable of all commerce is that connected with foreign dominions.It may be a gain to a few, simply because it is trade; but a loss to the nation.The cost of maintaining the territory greatly exceeds the profits gained from trade.It does not increase the total amount of world trade, it only decreases it, and since giving up a territory allows a greater quantity of goods to circulate, it is more valuable to participate in foreign trade without a cost than a larger trade with a cost. It is impossible to monopolize trade through territories, so doing so is all the more wrong.Trade cannot exist in narrow channels, which must be broken through by normal or abnormal means to thwart your attempt; it will be worse if it continues.Since the Revolution France has become more indifferent to her foreign colonies, and would have done the same if any other country had investigated the subject of trade. The navy is also added to the expenditure of the territory. If these two expenditures are deducted from the profits obtained from trade, then the so-called trade balance, even if there is a difference, will not be shared by the people. One-eighth of the total population of the United States, the total number of ships currently owned by the United States must be around 10,000. --author And they were taken over by the government. The idea of ​​using a navy to protect trade is dubious.It is a means of destruction as a means of protection.Trade needs protection only in the mutual interest which every country feels to support, it is a common stock, it exists by a balance favorable to all; the only obstacle it encounters is the incivility of the present government It is a common interest to reform this situation.Now I will leave this question aside and move on to other questions.Given the need to include Britain in envisioning general reforms, it is appropriate to examine the shortcomings of the British government.The world as a whole can be improved only by each nation reforming its own government, so as to enjoy the full benefits of reform.Partial reforms yield only partial benefits. France and Great Britain are the only two countries in Europe that can successfully embark on reforming their governments.The one is shielded by the sea, the other by domestic strength against the evils of foreign despotism.But when both revolution and trade become common, the gains increase and are twice as good as would be gained by either alone. As a new system was unfolding in the world, the courts of Europe were plotting against it.Alliances are being initiated against all previous institutions, and a common interest of courts is being formed against the common interest of mankind.This union draws a line through the whole of Europe, and offers a new enterprise which cannot be surmised from the past.When absolutism fights absolutism, the struggle is not interested; but absolutism at courts, however dangerous it may feel, is not willing to avenge itself in the cause of uniting soldier with citizen, and nation with nation. Dare to do it. Nowhere in the historical record has a question as pressing as the present one been asked.The question is not whether this party or that party will be in power, Whig or Tory, high court or low courtier or not; but whether man will inherit his rights, will general civilization emerge?Is the fruit of man's labor enjoyed by himself, or is it squandered by the government?Shall thieves be purged from courts, and poverty from nations? When we see, in countries that call themselves civilized, the old go to workhouses, and the young hang, something must be wrong with the system of government.From the outside, all these countries seem to be happy; but hidden from the ordinary eye, there is a lot of misery that has no way out but to die in poverty or humiliation.A life is foreordained the moment it is born; and unless the situation is corrected, punishment will do no good. It is not the business of civil government to impose the death penalty, but to educate the young and provide for the old, so that as little as possible the one kind will be left wanton and the other pessimistic.But now, on the contrary, the means of the state are squandered on kings, courts, hirelings, swindlers, and whores; Why are almost all poor people sentenced to death?This fact, among many others, demonstrates how miserable the situation of the poor is.They have been brought up in uncultivated surroundings, and come into this hopeless world, they are easy victims of crime and savage laws.The millions wasted on the part of the government are more than ample to be devoted to eradicating these evils, and improving the condition of everyone outside the realm of the court.I will mention this as I write this book. Associating with disaster is a hallmark of compassion.In addressing this subject I do not ask for reward, nor am I afraid. When I read Mr. Pitt's estimate of the balance of trade in one of his parliamentary speeches, I thought he knew nothing about the nature and benefits of trade; and no one More wanton misrepresentation than he did about it.Trade is as severely disrupted in peacetime as the scourge of war.Three times it was at a standstill, and in less than four years of peace the merchant fleet was reduced to men. --author as a result of.I advocate for human rights with pride and ambition, against all odds.I've been disciplined in life, and it's been good for me.I understand the value of moral education, and I see the danger of the opposite. In my early years, when I was just sixteen years old, immature and reckless, I was stimulated by the false heroism of a schoolmaster who had served on a warship, and I made my own way aboard Captain Death's privateer, the Terror.Happily I was prevented from taking part in this adventure by being kindly and kindly dissuaded by a good priest, who, from the habits of life acquired by his Quaker ordination, must have thought that I was going astray.这种印象尽管当时对我影响很深，慢慢就消失了，我后来又上了孟德兹船长的私掠船“普鲁士国王号”，随船出海。然而，从这样一个开端，以及早期生活对我的一切不便，我可以自豪地说，我以不畏困难吓倒的坚毅精神和令人起敬的公正态度，不仅对在世界上建立起一个以新的政府制度为基础的新帝国作出了贡献，而且在所有专业中最难获得成功和优胜的政论界取得了贵族阶级凭其一切助力都未能达到或堪与匹敌的卓越的成就。 既然现在我知道自己的思想感情已超越党派的一切小冲突以及心怀偏私或观点错误的论敌的顽固立场，我就不必对谬论或谩骂作出回答，而径自来指出英国政府的缺点①。我想从特许状和公司谈起。 说特许状赋予权利，这是曲解词义。它的效果适得其反——把权利剥夺了。权利本来是全体人民固有的，可是特许状用排挤手段取消了大多数人的权利，而把权利交给了少数人。如果特许状的用意可以这样直截了当地来表达，“非公司成员不得行使投票权”，这样的特许状就显然不是权利的特许状，而是剥夺权利的特许状。在现有形式下，其效果是一样的；这些特许状只对那些受它们排挤的人起作用。那些其权利没有被剥夺而受到保障的人所行使的权利，也只不过是他们作为该社团成员所应有的权利，与特许状无涉；因此，所有的特许状只起一种间接的消极作用。它们并不于在政论界获得了一种超过也许是任何国家任何人所曾经获有的活动范围，而且，特别了不起的是，到战争结束我照样保持这个地位，直至今天依然如此。由于我的目的不是为了自己，所以我着手工作时决意（也幸而有这种气质）不为褒或贬、友好情谊或造谣中伤所左右，也不让任何私人争论转移我的意向，而凡是不能做到这一点的人是不配做社会活动家的。 独立战争结束时，我从费城前往特拉华州东岸的波尔登镇，我在那里有①威廉·诺尔斯牧师，诺福克郡撒特福德中学校长。 --author ①政治和私利是这样始终如一地连结在一起，世人由于经常受骗而有权对社会活动家持怀疑态度，但是就我自己来说，我在这方面是完全心安理得的。将近十七年前，当我初参加公共生活时，我并不曾从利己的动机出发来考虑政府问题，我从那时迄今的行为可以证明这一事实。我遇到我认为可以做些好事的机会，就按照我心里所想的去做。我既没有读过书，也没有研究过别人的见解。我光是独立思考。情形是这样的： 当战争爆发前后美洲旧政府中止活动期间，我为一切事情进行得井然有序和得体所打动，并且深深感到政府所必须做的一切工作不过是稍稍多于社会所自然而然地完成了的事情，而君主制与贵族制则是强加于人类的骗局。根据这些原则，我出版了一书。这本小册子获得的成功，是印刷术发明以来绝无仅有的。我把版权赠予了联邦的每一个州，销数竟不下十万册。我以同样方式在题为的小册子中，继续探讨这个课题，直至革命完全胜利。在《独立宣言》公布后，在我事先毫无所知的情况下，代表大会一致同意任命我为外交秘书。我对这一任命是乐于接受的，因为它给我机会去了解外国宫廷的才能以及他们办事的方式。但是由于代表大会和我之间对他们当时派驻欧洲的一位特派员赛拉斯·迪恩先生发生了误会，我就辞去了这项职务，同时还谢绝了法国和西班牙两位大臣吉拉德和坦·朱安·米拉勒所给予的金钱上的资助。此时，我已经彻底博得了美国人民的好感和信任，我的独立自主也如此明显，以至一所小住宅。代表大会当时在十五英里外的普林斯镇，华盛顿将军则把他的总部设在邻近代表大会的洛基希尔，以便辞去他的职务（因为他接受这一职务的目的业已达到），并退居平民生活。他在进行这项事宜时，曾写给我一封信，现附录如下： “自抵此后，获悉阁下在波尔登镇。我不知阁下迁居该地是为了退隐还是为了节省开支。不论出于哪种原因，还是两种原因都有，或者还有其他原因，如果阁下愿来此间和我共处，我将不胜高兴之至。 “阁下的光临可使代表大会想起您以往对这个国家所作的贡献，并且如果我能影响代表大会的话，还可以随意差遣我，我是非常乐意为您效劳的，因为我深刻理解您的着作的重要性，并且非常高兴地暑名为您的真挚的朋友， 乔治·华盛顿 1783年9月10日于洛基希尔”